For several years, Zoom has spent much more than it has earned ($300M more in fact), on expenses like staff, rent, services and supplies from other companies - which will have generated large amounts of income taxes, payroll taxes, sales taxes, franchise taxes, municipal taxes, etc.
This past year they have grown dramatically, and will have generated even more income taxes, franchise taxes, municipal taxes, etc than ever before, and also some present or future capital gains taxes due to the huge increase in the company's valuation.
They just don't have to pay federal income tax yet, until the net income they make exceeds the net losses they recorded over previous years.
Okay can I as individual get tax credits by going into debt? If I can't "tax credits" then Zoom shouldn't get them. It's just common sense.
Seriously the current tax structure in the United States seems to be anti-human being. Humans have to pay up front in cash 100% each year, corporations can just claim they are writing off debt, apparently even in years they have no debt. Where does it stop? Why would someone defend this who pays taxes themselves?
If you don't allow a company to carry forward loses you get a capricious result:
Company A makes $20M in 2019 and $20M in 2020 which is $4.2M dollars tax each year or $8.40M total tax on $40M total earnings.
Company B makes -$30M in 2019 and $70M in 2020 which is 0 year and $14.7M or $14.7M total tax on $40M total earnings.
The economy is more complex than "look, money, let's take it for government."
"The biggest reason for Zoom's de minimis tax bill is outsized executive compensation. Zoom paid $580 million in stock compensation alone in 2020, much of it likely to a handful of top executives, according to a calculation by CBS MoneyWatch based on the company's latest financial filings."
At some point, somebody will have to pay taxes on selling that stock. Or if they never sell it, at least they will prop up the stock market, so the Fed has to do less of that with everyone else's money.
But as long as they put “likely” in front of that statement they felt it was appropriate?
I mean, they could look at 10-Ks. To see how the executive are compensated.
And isn't it possible to reduce tax even more from capital losses from stocks?
The first depends on the type of compensation and whether a prior 83(b) election was made (and taxes paid at that time).
But in general, the money’s going to get taxed and if the taxpayer is a US citizen, the US will get its cut.
We have an epic event based around automobile safety that turbo charged government regulation and created a new bureaucracy that found that there was no safety concern regarding the very car that was used for establishing that very bureaucracy.
By all means, keep complaining about taxes and regulation. They sure could use another round of debate.
Land and gas are economically efficient to tax. They don't have a big deadweight loss of taxation and create positive incentives.
The Federal government creates tax laws that corporations need to follow. The government added the concept of net operating loss carryforwards to the tax law. Not looks like government officials are complaining about the rules they added to the tax code.
I used to work with the Section 482 tax laws for pricing among multinational enterprises. I found the laws to be complicated and ridiculously impractical, particularly the residual profit split method for valuing intellectual property. Many companies used these laws to shift IP offshore. Politicians are made about the tax structures that were created following their laws.
This isn't a democrats / republicans thing. Both political parties are adding tons of rules to an already bloated US tax code. And congress is constantly upset about the rules they have created.
Isn't the former already expressed in the form of property tax? And if so, I wouldn't say it's economically efficient. Calculating the value of land/real estate is a blackbox (at least at the local level) only to be known and determined by the taxing entity (i.e government).
Land isn't a perfect tax, still needs to be levied as you mentioned, but it cannot be hidden and incentivizes land owners to use the land for its "highest and best use". There are no complicated depreciation schedules, credits, deductions, etc. for land. It's also highly progressive.
So basically tax credit for prior year losses.
Not sure this is an issue?
There is no way around. The only people paying disproportionately more in taxes are middle class people. Incidentally that also helps rich people by having less competition at the top.
If you want fairness, no-one should be forced to pay taxes, everyone should pay for the services they use and there should be no corruptible centralised entity who can decide for everyone.
Agree
> everyone should pay for the services they use
Usage taxes and VATs are always voted down because they hit poor and middle class the hardest, at least in the US.
> and there should be no corruptible centralised entity who can decide for everyone.
But muh roadz!