Great job, Merck...

Quote








Anonymous said:
Did you have to pay taxes? Merck didn't... http://americasmarkets.usatoday.com/2014/08/12/20-big-profitable-u-s-companies-paid-0-taxes/
Click to expand...

Why are so many people so myopic when it comes to corporate taxes? The US has the highest corporate tax rate in the world (35%), but just like individuals stuck in a high tax bracket resourceful companies use their army of tax lawyers to whittle down this bill, often to zero. Bottom line, companies should not pay taxes, period, because even if they get boxed into paying something, that something is just passed on to consumers as a cost of doing business. In addition, the ridiculous expense companies incur just trying to navigate our ridiculous tax system is also passed on. Unfortunately, when these costs can no longer be passed on, due to competitive issues, the company either lays off people, goes out of business or packs up and moves out of the country. Why do you think (smart)cities and municipalities offer tax free enterprise zones? Because they attract businesses which in turn hire people, who then become tax payers (payroll taxes). Sounds pretty simple to me. I know ignorant people would like to punish the evil corporations with a massive tax penalty but in the end all they are doing is punishing themselves
 












Anonymous said:
Why are so many people so myopic when it comes to corporate taxes? The US has the highest corporate tax rate in the world (35%), but just like individuals stuck in a high tax bracket resourceful companies use their army of tax lawyers to whittle down this bill, often to zero. Bottom line, companies should not pay taxes, period, because even if they get boxed into paying something, that something is just passed on to consumers as a cost of doing business. In addition, the ridiculous expense companies incur just trying to navigate our ridiculous tax system is also passed on. Unfortunately, when these costs can no longer be passed on, due to competitive issues, the company either lays off people, goes out of business or packs up and moves out of the country. Why do you think (smart)cities and municipalities offer tax free enterprise zones? Because they attract businesses which in turn hire people, who then become tax payers (payroll taxes). Sounds pretty simple to me. I know ignorant people would like to punish the evil corporations with a massive tax penalty but in the end all they are doing is punishing themselves
Click to expand...

A corporate tax rate of 35%? It could be 70% for all that really matters. It is the effective rate a corporation pays. It would seem that twenty of the most profitable US companies, including Merck, paid zero taxes. Difficult to reconcile the actuality of the situation with the perceived view by members of pharma industry.
 




So OP's point is that Merck while dutifully preparing their annual tax return made sure to follow all applicable tax laws, paid a highly trained accounting company to prepare their return (they didn't use TurboTax DYI software for $49.99), then had additional review by highly paid legal tax attorneys in order to abide by all local, state, national and international laws where the company operates. Tax returns then signed off by company officers (note: signing false returns can personally make officers liable for boo boos)..

Gee, after all that work, time and money..guess what? don't owe a dime. Nice.
 




Anonymous said:
A corporate tax rate of 35%? It could be 70% for all that really matters. It is the effective rate a corporation pays. It would seem that twenty of the most profitable US companies, including Merck, paid zero taxes. Difficult to reconcile the actuality of the situation with the perceived view by members of pharma industry.
Click to expand...

The kicker with Merck, and I'm sure some others, is they are tax consumers. All that Medicare and Medicaid money rolling in so they can pay zilch, or get a refund. I think any person of reasonable intelligence would agree that 35% is too high but 0 is certainly too low.
 




0% does seem low..but you miss the point (I'm sure you forego any deductions like mtge. interest, dependents, child care..etc.) Merck or anybody or corporation is just following the letter of the law (like the speed limit..sure you can drive 50 mph on the Interstate if you like, but most of us will have the cruise set right at that posted speed limit- the highest speed the law allows-maybe even a few mph over for good measure). Don't forget all those dividends on your company stock...your part owner, and paying taxes on that income...Still feel bad..then write your congressman and ask him to change the current tax laws..that will be a very slow messy process but that's how its done.
 




Anonymous said:
0% does seem low..but you miss the point (I'm sure you forego any deductions like mtge. interest, dependents, child care..etc.) Merck or anybody or corporation is just following the letter of the law (like the speed limit..sure you can drive 50 mph on the Interstate if you like, but most of us will have the cruise set right at that posted speed limit- the highest speed the law allows-maybe even a few mph over for good measure). Don't forget all those dividends on your company stock...your part owner, and paying taxes on that income...Still feel bad..then write your congressman and ask him to change the current tax laws..that will be a very slow messy process but that's how its done.
Click to expand...

In the Medicare/Medicaid example Merck is like those societal slugs who have never paid a dime in taxes but collect social security disability for 'lettter of the law' conditions. I'm sure the lawyer in the cowboy hat - Binder - is considered the slug's fancy legal team.

I worked in Merck's treasury department for a long time. While shifting API all over the world so it can magically double in value for a tarmac cargo stop in a tax haven like, oh, Bahamas, is the letter of the law it should certainly not be considered 'right' by any stretch of the imagination. Just like never working but being too depressed to work so you can get SDI for life isn't right, either.
 








Anyone remember Judy Lewent, former CFO? She concocted an accounting scheme whereby Merck did not have to pay taxes. She was considered brilliant and a possible heir to Vagelos as CEO. That is, until the Feds dropped a $7 billion tax bill on Merck. F**king brilliant!
 




Anonymous said:
Anyone remember Judy Lewent, former CFO? She concocted an accounting scheme whereby Merck did not have to pay taxes. She was considered brilliant and a possible heir to Vagelos as CEO. That is, until the Feds dropped a $7 billion tax bill on Merck. F**king brilliant!
Click to expand...

Actually....
"Merck’s Judy Lewent is leaving this summer after 17 years as the company’s CFO. That’s a long time to hold down the job. An unnamed insider told the WSJ that Lewent’s decision to leave had nothing to do with the company’s recent $2.3 billion settlement of a tax dispute, and that Merck’s board considers her an “excellent” CFO."
 




Anonymous said:
Actually....
"Merck’s Judy Lewent is leaving this summer after 17 years as the company’s CFO. That’s a long time to hold down the job. An unnamed insider told the WSJ that Lewent’s decision to leave had nothing to do with the company’s recent $2.3 billion settlement of a tax dispute, and that Merck’s board considers her an “excellent” CFO."
Click to expand...

My error. The original tax bill from the IRS was $3.8 billion. They settled for $2.3 billion. There was also a $1.76 billion tax bill from Canada. If my accountant left me with these kind of errors (even at a million times smaller), I'd fire her too!
 




Anonymous said:
My error. The original tax bill from the IRS was $3.8 billion. They settled for $2.3 billion. There was also a $1.76 billion tax bill from Canada. If my accountant left me with these kind of errors (even at a million times smaller), I'd fire her too!
Click to expand...

Merck seems to have the worst luck when it comes to CFOs. Judy's replacement was also shown the door maybe 2-3 months ago after a much, much shorter tenure.
 




Anonymous said:
Actually....
"Merck’s Judy Lewent is leaving this summer after 17 years as the company’s CFO. That’s a long time to hold down the job. An unnamed insider told the WSJ that Lewent’s decision to leave had nothing to do with the company’s recent $2.3 billion settlement of a tax dispute, and that Merck’s board considers her an “excellent” CFO."
Click to expand...

Yeah, right. And MRL is an "excellent" R&D department. Our sales force is "excellent". Our management team? Excellent.

This company is among the worst.
 




Top Bottom
Back
Quote