NYT got tax refund in 2014 with 29 mil profit

[Anonymous]

NYT is such a hypocrite. It had 29.4 million pre-tax profit but did not pay any tax.

Many large companies pay very little tax. Mark Zuckerbug doesn't draw any salary so he pays very little tax. The Post owner ran Amazon in the red for 20 years. GE pays very little tax.

It's hypocritical for all the Clinton backers to pay as little tax as possible then come out and hit Trump for doing the same thing.

[Anonymous]

No ones buying what you're selling. Give it up.

[Anonymous]

OK, in that case, never mind. Paying $0 in personal income tax is totally normal. Got it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No ones buying what you're selling. Give it up.

Unless your someone who appreciates the truth and whose head and job is up HRC s ass. Thanks Op.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OK, in that case, never mind. Paying $0 in personal income tax is totally normal. Got it.

You're income is dependent on the dem party, right? There could not be any other answe fir such a stupid comeback.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK, in that case, never mind. Paying $0 in personal income tax is totally normal. Got it.

You're income is dependent on the dem party, right? There could not be any other answe fir such a stupid comeback.

Maybe take an English class or two while you're at it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK, in that case, never mind. Paying $0 in personal income tax is totally normal. Got it.

You're income is dependent on the dem party, right? There could not be any other answe fir such a stupid comeback.

Are you a longtime poster or a new one? I've posted off and on to the Political forum, and it tends to be slightly more aggressive and combative than other forums, but not exceptionally so.

What I'm trying to say is, dial it down. This forum is for discussion, not for attacks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK, in that case, never mind. Paying $0 in personal income tax is totally normal. Got it.

You're income is dependent on the dem party, right? There could not be any other answe fir such a stupid comeback.

Are you a longtime poster or a new one? I've posted off and on to the Political forum, and it tends to be slightly more aggressive and combative than other forums, but not exceptionally so.

What I'm trying to say is, dial it down. This forum is for discussion, not for attacks.

That's not how it reads. And don't tell me what to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No ones buying what you're selling. Give it up.

No one is buying what NYT is selling. It's a failing newspaper. The Mexican billionaire owned 17% of its shares. Its bias against Trump is too obvious to take it seriously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No ones buying what you're selling. Give it up.

No one is buying what NYT is selling. It's a failing newspaper. The Mexican billionaire owned 17% of its shares. Its bias against Trump is too obvious to take it seriously.

As opposed to all those newspapers with growing sales...

[Anonymous]

The NYT is just slipping more into irrelevancy. No one really trusts it anymore and it's reasons like this.

[Anonymous]

Wait, is the NYT running for President on the platform that it's a savvy businessman who is worth billions of dollars and has excellent financial judgment? And is the NYT planning as President to make the tax code more fair for everyone? And does its tax reform plans include increasing taxes on the middle class and cutting them for rich people?

[Anonymous]

This is the dumbest post of the day. And that's saying something

[Anonymous]

Hmmm...

However, I do not need to lecture The New York Times on that topic because it knows that lesson well. After all, the newspaper of record has its headquarters in a building built on landseized by the government under the power of eminent domain from ten different owners, some of whom did not want to sell, implying that the government exercise of power saved the developer money. In addition to that benefit, The New York Times also received $26 million in tax breaks in exchange for keeping jobs in New York City.

More recently, for tax year 2014, The New York Times paid no taxes and got an income tax refund of $3.5 million even though they had a pre-tax profit of $29.9 million in 2014. In other words, their post-tax profit was higher than their pre-tax profit. The explanation in their 2014 annual report is, “The effective tax rate for 2014 was favorably affected by approximately $21.1 million for the reversal of reserves for uncertain tax positions due to the lapse of applicable statutes of limitations.” If you don’t think it took fancy accountants and tax lawyers to make that happen, read the statement again.
-
-
-
If it is unpatriotic to minimize your corporate taxes by moving your headquarters out of the country, then it should be just as wrong to collect a tax break in exchange for not moving your headquarters out of a city (or state). Before the editorial board of The New York Times criticizes corporate inversions, they should probably check whether their employer has also benefited from tax-minimizing strategies.

Personally, I belong to the Warren Buffett school of taxpaying: If the tax code lets you do it, then it’s fine; you have no obligation to pay more taxes than legally required. However, newspapers in glass houses should probably not throw stones.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2016/01/31/new-york-times-hypocrisy-on-corporate-taxes-reaches-record-high/#10448e706577

Other links with this story:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/10/02/new-york-times-paid-no-taxes-2014/
http://twitchy.com/jacobb-38/2016/10/02/how-much-do-you-think-the-new-york-times-paid-in-taxes-in-2014/
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/nyt-didnt-pay-taxes-2014/2016/10/02/id/751276/

My view of all of this is that it says a hell of a lot more about our broken tax system than it does about those who choose to take advantage of every law available to them to minimize their tax burden.

[Anonymous]

Limousine liberals are hypocrites? No way!

Almost as funny as when their rich columnists hype up diversity and inclusion and deride elite colleges... when they all live in places like 99% white Scarsdale, NY and send their kids to Yale and Harvard.