bailing out robert toll

[davelj]

[quote=XBoxBoy]I’m wondering if before we all get up in arms about this, if someone could explain to me, how exactly this bailout worked. Ya know… the logistics.

If I understand things correctly, this is what has happened:

1) Home builders had profits in past years, and they paid income tax on those profits.

2) Because of market changes the homebuilders are now taking losses.

3) Prior to the change in the law if this happened you could revise your previous taxes going back up to two years and move some of your current losses back to the profitable years, thus reducing your previous taxes. The difference in taxes will then be refunded to you.

4) The law was changed to allow home builders (maybe others as well?) to move their losses back up to five years which allows them to recoup more previously paid taxes.

Is this more or less correct? I’m no accountant, so all this could be completely wrong. If so, can someone straighten me out? (My wife would really appreciate it, she’s been trying for years and can’t quite seem to get me straightened out. Though she swears I’m getting better!)

Thanks,

XBoxBoy[/quote]

As I understand it, you’ve got it approximately right.

So, there are two ways to look at this. One is that Toll is getting a freebie that they should never have gotten (Rich’s view – which is legitimate). The second way to look at it is that there’s nothing wrong with Toll’s receiving this benefit SO LONG AS EVERY OTHER COMPANY AND INDIVIDUAL GETS THE SAME BENEFIT. My problem with this crap is not so much that Toll gets this benefit, but rather that everyone else doesn’t get the same benefit. Mine is a level-playing-field argument.

[socrattt]

We taken a few words off the end of America’s motto:

“Home of the FREE”

[socrattt]

We taken a few words off the end of America’s motto:

“Home of the FREE”

[socrattt]

We taken a few words off the end of America’s motto:

“Home of the FREE”

[socrattt]

We taken a few words off the end of America’s motto:

“Home of the FREE”

[socrattt]

We taken a few words off the end of America’s motto:

“Home of the FREE”

[waiting hawk]

The crash was heading right as we saw it back a few years ago. I never thought government action would have ANY effect but I was wrong. Can they keep it up is a whole nother issue.

[waiting hawk]

The crash was heading right as we saw it back a few years ago. I never thought government action would have ANY effect but I was wrong. Can they keep it up is a whole nother issue.

[waiting hawk]

The crash was heading right as we saw it back a few years ago. I never thought government action would have ANY effect but I was wrong. Can they keep it up is a whole nother issue.

[waiting hawk]

The crash was heading right as we saw it back a few years ago. I never thought government action would have ANY effect but I was wrong. Can they keep it up is a whole nother issue.

[waiting hawk]

The crash was heading right as we saw it back a few years ago. I never thought government action would have ANY effect but I was wrong. Can they keep it up is a whole nother issue.

[XBoxBoy]

Not sure what to think of this issue. Yes, it definitely needs to be fair, ie all companies have the same chance. And I’m not convinced that recouping already paid money is fair at all. (More supportive of the idea that you can carry your losses forward, but not claw back previous payments)

I’m definitely sympathetic though to the idea that a company that has ups and downs should be able to spread it’s costs and losses over multiple years. I work in an industry where you have expenses and costs for years then 90% of your revenue in a couple of months. Taxes on this kind of business model are really lousy and I don’t see any reason that such a business model should be discouraged by the taxman.

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

Not sure what to think of this issue. Yes, it definitely needs to be fair, ie all companies have the same chance. And I’m not convinced that recouping already paid money is fair at all. (More supportive of the idea that you can carry your losses forward, but not claw back previous payments)

I’m definitely sympathetic though to the idea that a company that has ups and downs should be able to spread it’s costs and losses over multiple years. I work in an industry where you have expenses and costs for years then 90% of your revenue in a couple of months. Taxes on this kind of business model are really lousy and I don’t see any reason that such a business model should be discouraged by the taxman.

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

Not sure what to think of this issue. Yes, it definitely needs to be fair, ie all companies have the same chance. And I’m not convinced that recouping already paid money is fair at all. (More supportive of the idea that you can carry your losses forward, but not claw back previous payments)

I’m definitely sympathetic though to the idea that a company that has ups and downs should be able to spread it’s costs and losses over multiple years. I work in an industry where you have expenses and costs for years then 90% of your revenue in a couple of months. Taxes on this kind of business model are really lousy and I don’t see any reason that such a business model should be discouraged by the taxman.

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

Not sure what to think of this issue. Yes, it definitely needs to be fair, ie all companies have the same chance. And I’m not convinced that recouping already paid money is fair at all. (More supportive of the idea that you can carry your losses forward, but not claw back previous payments)

I’m definitely sympathetic though to the idea that a company that has ups and downs should be able to spread it’s costs and losses over multiple years. I work in an industry where you have expenses and costs for years then 90% of your revenue in a couple of months. Taxes on this kind of business model are really lousy and I don’t see any reason that such a business model should be discouraged by the taxman.

XBoxBoy

[Author]

Posts