Early in Dumbya's occupation, he changed a law ...

... that allowed corporations to move out of the country to avoid paying U.S. taxes.

I have two questions:


(EDITED TO ADD) Here is a link discussing Dems in Congress trying to reverse it http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/12/bloomberg/bxtax.php?page=1

why would we want it overturned? I would like it enforced & strengthened:shrug:

I would like to see ALL companies that "claim" to be American companies have to pay TWO rates..

1 for the stuff they produce here...with american workers
another higher one for the stuff they make here with cheap foreign components and/or make abroad and "import" back here to sell..(bypassing the american worker)

If products are good enough to be bought by us, they are good enough to be made here..

Let me change it before it's too late.

Halliburton moved to the Grand Cayman's to avoid paying back all the taxes they stole from us for the occupation.

would have been passed in the CLINTON administration. That's three YEARS before * took office. Is this the law you are talking about?

To the first page of the article, instead of the second page.

:banghead: :banghead:

It might even have been as early as 2001.

Just sayin...

I could have sworn Dumbya was behind it.

Maybe he signed a law? Made an Executive Order?

The president gets to sign the law or veto it.

He can draft signing statements (which explain how he interprets laws passed by Congress - which have virtually no formal legal impact (although in reality, if he says he intends to interpret the law in a particular way it is pretty likely the justice department will follow his lead). Dumbya did that a lot.

He can also make executive orders, which are binding on Federal Administrative Agencies. Theoretically, executive orders can't contradict law - but they can gap fill where the law is silent - or where the law permits discretion can focus the activities of the agencies. If Congress doesn't like an executive order, it can pass a law telling the president to take a hike (which will get vetoed by the president and the veto sustained if the president has enough votes in congress) Executive orders which go beyond the authority of the executive branch can also be challenged in court.

Do you remember the issue I'm referring to?

There was a rule (law?) that said companies couldn't run to the Bahamas (or elsewhere) to avoid paying taxes. But, Dumbya did something (signed a law, wrote an EO) that changed that ruling (law?).

Right after that happened, there were several companies that took advantage of it.

Here's another link to another story discussing it, but no where does it say what the name of the law is, or give an EO number for this rule/law http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9803E4DC153FF933A25756C0A9659C8B63

http://www.globalpolicy.org/nations/launder/regions/2002/1203ages.htm

Senate Bill 5005 included a prohibition on awarding contracts to off-shore coorporations (Title IV, Subtitle D, Section 835). That passed (both senate and an equivalent bill in the house) in late November, and was later signed into law by Bush. The December 3 article looks like there was some congressional action later to remove that provision out - but I haven't found it yet.

It could be, but I thought it was a stand-along kind of thing.

(Early in the Bush administration.) I browsed through tax discussions for the Bahamas, and this was the only thing that was close around then (and was referenced in connections with calls for Congress to fix the loophole in its next session).

Here's where I started looking - maybe you can find what you are remembering:

http://www.tax-news.com/archive/bahamas_tax_offshore_legal_news_headlines.asp