Dodgers baseball team owners paid NO federal income tax on $108 mil in 4 yrs

[msongs]

from today's LA TIMES:

Frank and Jamie McCourt, who are seeking divorce and may co-own the Dodgers, claimed $108 million income from 2004 through 2009 and paid NO federal income taxes, court filings show. Court papers indicate deliberate structuring of the business to help them live tax-free. Both are disputing who actually owns the Dodgers baseball team.

_____________________

so who says the wealthy are over taxed and paying more than their fair share?

Batter up!

Msongs

[gratuitous]

1. Have a heart; haven't the McCourts suffered enough?

Survey says, "NO!"

[closeupready]

6. LOL

$108 million doesn't go as far as it used to. :sarcasm:

[merh]

2. how do you structure things to live tax free?

I mean, I know one way would be to make no money - but how the fuck do you go tax free if you make $108 million?

[Thothmes]

4. Have a whole bevy of tax lawyers that actually

read the tax code and know what it really in it.

[merh]

10. Reading the tax code does not allow for someone making

108 million to get away with paying no taxes.

that's a load of hogwash

[tinrobot]

Here's how they did it:

From the article:

According to Jamie, the McCourts employed two mechanisms to live tax-free. One was to claim enormous tax losses from their business, which was mostly commercial real estate before they bought the Dodgers. These could be carried forward, offsetting income year after year until they were finally netted out. Jamie's documents say that in 2008 the net loss carry-forward from previous years was $109 million -- in other words, the McCourts could have earned that much without paying a penny of income tax.

A year later, the loss carry-forward had increased to $135 million, which makes it sound as if 2008 was one horrible year. Yet according to another document Jamie filed in court, one of Frank's partnerships paid him $23 million that year.

Did the McCourts really lose $135 million in the years before 2009? Probably not in the sense that you or I suffer a loss when a dollar bill slips through a hole in our jeans, or even when we sell that stock our brother-in-law described as "a slam dunk" for less than we paid for it.

"They're tax losses. I don't mean real losses," Jamie's lawyer, Bert Fields, told me.

[gmoney]

14. Read "Free Lunch" or "Perfectly Legal" by David Cay Johnston

$108 Million tax free is pretty unremarkable in the world of wealth and privilege.

[KamaAina]

3. Simple solution: Root for the Giants.

[Gemini Cat]

5. LOL!

[Captain Hilts]

7. Sweet deal!

[jody]

8. But the Dogers can fund political candidates. "Representation without Taxation". n/t

[flvegan]

9. Yeah, but they're stuck with Manny.

At least for the year.

[Initech]

11. No wonder our state's fucking broke!

[Gold Metal Flake]

12. Link to story here

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hiltzik24-2010feb24,0,5865964.column

Details on how they became such huge welfare queens in the story. This is how the rich live. Show this to the republickers in your life.

[msongs]

15. thanks 4 the link - better than my summary lol nt

[Gold Metal Flake]

17. Really tears a hole in the anti-tax talking points.

Truth is, rich people don't pay taxes. Rich corps don't pay taxes.

[lonestarnot]

13. And how much do they charge to get into that shit? I wouldn't wipe my ass with a baseball game

ticket.

[City Lights]

18. Nor would I!

:fistbump:

[Historic NY]

16. They're part of the GOP supported corporate welfare state.....

[Gold Metal Flake]

19. Oh, look. Rich people also don't pay parking tickets.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7792233

[kudzu22]

20. Gives new meaning to the term "Tax Dodger"

[Johonny]

21. remember if we raise taxes MORE on the rich in California they'll leave

because clearly the tax laws in California are so so harsh on them. LOL to that chestnut argument.