A Quiet Windfall For US Banks- Paulson’s authority is questioned
Washington Post: A Quiet Windfall For US Banks
Thursday, November 13, 2008 1:57 PM
Ever get that pit in your stomach when you see something so very wrong? I wanted to give Paulson and co. some little benefit of the doubt, which is difficult for me but after what sort of fleecing is being down, and outright lies (we want transparency! we love transparency!) – it’s just a ridiculous banana republic we are creating. The Washington Post has a damning article on a little known tax provision that was thrown into the TARP plan in the midst of the crisis. What a crock; this shows you who was being looked after while we were treated to the dog and pony show on TV. The fact that many of these banks were the bad actors that either originated or enabled most of the chicanery infiltrating the entire US system, makes it that much more offensive.
Again, you cannot create fiction like this – no one would believe you it is so over the top. This picture actually shows the reality of the situation; who is really the boss? Foxes run the henhouse – again.
The financial world was fixated on Capitol Hill as Congress battled over the Bush administration’s request for a $700 billion bailout of the banking industry. In the midst of this late-September drama, the Treasury Department issued a five-sentence notice that attracted almost no public attention. But corporate tax lawyers quickly realized the enormous implications of the document: Administration officials had just given American banks a windfall of as much as $140 billion.
The sweeping change to two decades of tax policy escaped the notice of lawmakers for several days, as they remained consumed with the controversial bailout bill. When they found out, some legislators were furious. Some congressional staff members have privately concluded that the notice was illegal. But they have worried that saying so publicly could unravel several recent bank mergers made possible by the change and send the economy into an even deeper tailspin.
"Did the Treasury Department have the authority to do this? I think almost every tax expert would agree that the answer is no," said George K. Yin, the former chief of staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the nonpartisan congressional authority on taxes. "They basically repealed a 22-year-old law that Congress passed as a backdoor way of providing aid to banks."
The change to Section 382 of the tax code — a provision that limited a kind of tax shelter arising in corporate mergers — came after a two-decade effort by conservative economists and Republican administration officials to eliminate or overhaul the law, which is so little-known that even influential tax experts sometimes draw a blank at its mention.
Until the financial meltdown, its opponents thought it would be nearly impossible to revamp the section because this would look like a corporate giveaway, according to lobbyists.
The guidance issued from the IRS caught even some of the closest followers of tax law off guard because it seemed to come out of the blue when Treasury’s work seemed focused almost exclusively on the bailout. "It was a shock to most of the tax law community. It was one of those things where it pops up on your screen and your jaw drops," said Candace A. Ridgway, a partner at Jones Day, a law firm that represents banks that could benefit from the notice. "I’ve been in tax law for 20 years, and I’ve never seen anything like this."
More than a dozen tax lawyers interviewed for this story — including several representing banks that stand to reap billions from the change — said the Treasury had no authority to issue the notice. (that doesn’t stop this administration from anything)
Section 382 of the tax code was created by Congress in 1986 to end what it considered an abuse of the tax system: companies sheltering their profits from taxation by acquiring shell companies whose only real value was the losses on their books. The firms would then use the acquired company’s losses to offset their gains and avoid paying taxes. Lawmakers decried the tax shelters as a scam and created a formula to strictly limit the use of those purchased losses for tax purposes.
The opposition to Section 382 is part of a broader ideological battle over how the tax code deals with a company’s losses. Some conservative economists argue that not only should a firm be able to use losses to offset gains, but that in a year when a company only loses money, it should be entitled to a cash refund from the government. (and this my friends is yet another reason why the "US corporations pay a 35% tax rate – the highest in the industrialized world" is another scam)
During the current Bush administration, senior officials considered ways to implement some version of the policy. Yet lobbyists trying to modify the obscure section found that they could get no traction in Congress or with the Treasury. "It’s really been the third rail of tax policy to touch 382,"
The Treasury notice suddenly made it much more attractive to acquire distressed banks, and Wells Fargo, which had been an earlier suitor for Wachovia, made a new and ultimately successful play to take it over. The Jones Day law firm said the tax change, which some analysts soon dubbed "the Wells Fargo Ruling," could be worth about $25 billion for Wells Fargo. Over the next month, two more bank mergers took place with the benefit of the new tax guidance. PNC, which took over National City, saved about $5.1 billion from the modification, about the total amount that it spent to acquire the bank, Willens said.
Banco Santander, which took over Sovereign Bancorp, netted an extra $2 billion because of the change, he said.
For gosh sakes; there is no shame…
Attorneys representing banks celebrated the notice. The week after it was issued, former Treasury officials now in private practice met with Solomon, the department’s top tax policy official. They asked him to relax the limitations on banks even further, so that foreign banks could benefit from the tax break, too.
No one in the Treasury informed the tax-writing committees of Congress about this move, which could reduce revenue by tens of billions of dollars. Legislators learned about the notice only days later. In an off-the-record conference call on Oct. 7, nearly a dozen Capitol Hill staffers demanded answers from Solomon for about an hour. Several of the participants left the call even more convinced that the administration had overstepped its authority, according to people familiar with the conversation.
But lawmakers worried about discussing their concerns publicly. The staff of Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), chairman of the Finance Committee, had asked that the entire conference call be kept secret, according to a person with knowledge of the call. "We’re all nervous about saying that this was illegal because of our fears about the marketplace," said one congressional aide, who like others spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter. "To the extent we want to try to publicly stop this, we’re going to be gumming up some important deals."
Lawmakers are considering legislation to undo the change. According to tax attorneys, no one would have legal standing to file a lawsuit challenging the Treasury notice, so only Congress or Treasury could reverse it. Such action could undo the notice going forward or make it clear that it was never legal, a move that experts say would be unlikely. But several aides said they were still torn between their belief that the change is illegal and fear of further destabilizing the economy. "None of us wants to be blamed for ruining these mergers and creating a new Great Depression," one said.
And this sums it up
Some legal experts said these under-the-radar objections mirror the objections to the congressional resolution authorizing the war in Iraq.
"It’s just like after September 11. Back then no one wanted to be seen as not patriotic, and now no one wants to be seen as not doing all they can to save the financial system," said Lee A. Sheppard, a tax attorney who is a contributing editor at the trade publication Tax Analysts. "We’re left now with congressional Democrats that have spines like overcooked spaghetti. So who is going to stop the Treasury secretary from doing whatever he wants?"
hey zo it is patriotic to give money to banks.
of course in the old days they used to give it back .
you must be some kinda pinko terrorist or something.
stop reading orwell and start takin your soma.
it is all good.
Joe, I am running out of meds, HELP!
i am surrounded by nothing but new age progressives so i took up your plight with them.
they said meditate, do yoga, chant, become a vegetarian, take lots of supplements,
visualize things like whirled peas and pray.
otherwise i would ration my meds very carefully. take only as REALLY
stash them in a safe place (dont even let the little lady know where they are
i made that mistake once) check the black market (quality may be a problem
but usually supply is good)
oh and as meher baba said "dont worry be happy"
and also hold your baby as often as possible.
Here is another interesting twist to that strange treasury notice.
Thanks to Treasury’s new "interpretation" of Section 382, an interpretation which contradicts the plain language of the law passed by Congress, Wells Fargo Bank will save about $25 billion in federal income taxes this year. Wells Fargo Bank is headquartered in California. California, like most states, bases its corporate income tax on federal taxable income. So Wells Fargo will also reduce its state income tax bill by about $2 billion. 2 billion dollars of lost revenue to a state which is itself in a financial crisis. 2 billion dollars that Californa will now have to raise from other corporations and individuals.
There is just no limit to what this administration will do to reward its friends with other peoples’ money.