By Kevin D. Williamson
Tuesday, September 29, 2020
In 2009, British actor David Prowse — the guy in the
Darth Vader suit in the original Star Wars trilogy — briefly focused the
reading world’s attention on the practice of “Hollywood accounting” when he
revealed that he had never received a residual payment for Return of the
Jedi because the film had never, on paper, turned a profit. The film cost
$32 million to make, and it grossed $475 million, but — thanks to the magic of
Hollywood accounting — it had never shown a net profit.
It’s a common story: The novelist Winston Groom never
received a profit distribution from the very successful film of his novel Forrest
Gump because it never officially made a dime, some of the Harry Potter
movies were on paper money-losing propositions, etc.
The go-to Hollywood-accounting move is tacking heavy
expenses onto a film’s account in order to keep money in the pockets of
studios, executives, and investors rather than paying them out to actors and
others who accept a percentage of net profits in lieu of greater cash
compensation. For instance, Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 — brought to
you by Harvey Weinstein and brother Bob — ended up putting some $20 million
into the pocket of working-class hero Moore (the favorite son of Flint, Mich.,
who never actually lived in Flint, Mich.), but Moore sued, claiming he had been
underpaid by millions. During the litigation, certain expenses came under
scrutiny, among them the “costs of hiring a private jet to carry a single
passenger to Europe,” according to the Hollywood Reporter. These are the
people who like to lecture the rest of us about “inequality.”
Private jet service — for one — to Europe: nice, nice,
nice.
Because we have a very, very stupid tax code and social
norms that accept relatively high levels of petty personal corruption, owning a
business can be a good way to finance a pretty high mode of living while
simultaneously reducing your tax liabilities. There are a great many
businesses, especially privately held ones, whose owners and executives use
them as a kind of slush fund. It isn’t hard to do. If you decide you want to
take a vacation in Gstaad, you can schedule a board meeting or corporate
retreat there and then treat your travel costs as a business expense. This is
much more attractive to smaller private businesses than to large public ones,
because publicly traded corporations are subject to oversight not only from the
SEC etc. but also from their shareholders, who might not like to see their
money wasted on champagne and Gulfstream hires. But if you are a business that
has, say, $100 million a year in revenue, with family members on the board and no
publicly traded stock, then you are not spending anybody else’s money on your —
I hate this word — lifestyle. You are spending your own money, but spending it
pre-tax. What that means is that a $1,000-a-night hotel effectively costs you
about $600. The kind of people who pay the top tax rate are also the kind of
people who travel a lot, who spend a lot of money on restaurants and wine, who
stay in nice hotels, etc. Being able to treat some considerable share of those
outlays as business expenses can really add up.
This isn’t illegal. It isn’t even necessarily
unethical.
Modern work, especially among the highly paid and highly
skilled, isn’t very much like 20th-century industrial work. There aren’t
whistles announcing the end of the shift; most of the workers in the upper half
of incomes — i.e., the ones who pay federal income tax — don’t punch timecards
or sit at a desk from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. There are many people working in
technology, finance, media, and other high-paying fields who really cannot draw
a sharp distinction between working time and private time or say with any
degree of specificity when their workday begins and when it ends. In such
situations, it is natural and nearly inevitable that some blending of
professional life and private life will occur.
If Joe Businessman from Muleshoe, Texas, has to go to
Bozeman, Mont., on Monday for a series of meetings that ends on Thursday but
decides to fly back on the following Monday instead and spend the weekend fly
fishing, then the cost of the flights is going to be the same — it might even
be less. The business expense of the airfare might be the same, but in the
latter case the businessman will some additional personal benefit from
it. Has he somehow cheated someone? Not really. Or think of the case in which
an American business owner has to travel to Europe for a half-dozen meetings
scheduled over the course of a month. Say she does some sightseeing and
personal entertainment on the days when she doesn’t have a meeting scheduled.
Even with the business paying for meals and lodging on non-meeting days, it
probably makes more sense from a legitimate business point of view to keep her
there for the whole month rather than fly her back and forth. Maybe she’s a new
mother and the business pays to send her child and husband with her. If she
normally flies private, then including the family doesn’t add much to the
expense. From one point of view, this is a family taking an extended European
vacation and getting a tax advantage from it; from another point of view, this
is how work gets done in 2020.
Incidentally, this is not exclusively a rich-and-famous
gambit, or a new one. My mother was a secretary and her husband was a janitor
at a high school, and together they did not make very much money, but, in the
merciless ravenous wicked capitalist economy of the 1980s, they managed to come
into possession of a rental property. It put enough money into their pockets to
make the payment on the house we lived in, but — for tax purposes — that rental
property always, always, always lost money. There are many like it
around the country.
As long as we tax businesses on their profit —
meaning, roughly, revenue minus expenses — then we will have to use some
discretion about what counts as a legitimate business expense, and that is
going to be, given the realities of modern work, a matter of judgment and
personal sensibility. That creates some real benefits for business owners and
executives, but it also exposes them to risks: If the IRS decides to go after
you on your expenses, the lack of hard-and-fast rules operates to the
taxpayer’s disadvantage, not his advantage. Being a politically unpopular
person with some questionable expenses is a good way to go to prison.
From time to time, politicians try to stop businesses
from making business decisions the politicians do not like by threatening to
eliminate the deductibility of any associated expenses. You may remember a few
years ago a big fight about businesses’ allegedly exploiting a tax loophole to
get a subsidy for offshoring. That was, mostly, nonsense. It wasn’t a loophole
or a technicality, although another term for “loopholes” and “technicalities”
is “the law.” If a business decides to set up shop abroad, then there are going
to be expenses related to that — acquiring property, building a facility,
paying lawyers to figure out the tax and labor rules in the new jurisdiction,
etc. — and these are ordinary business expenses that can be deducted. The
politicians generally run up against reality on these things: It is pretty difficult
to have a tax code that allows money paid for legal advice to be treated as a
regular business expense unless the lawyer facilitates a course of action that
Elizabeth Warren wishes he wouldn’t.
There are alternatives, but they have problems, too. We
could avoid the question of deducting expenses entirely by taxing gross
revenue, but that might seem unfair to the grocer who has $100 million in
revenue but $1 million in profit, who would pay the same tax as the law firm
that has $100 million in revenue and $98 million in profit. My own preferred
approach would be to eliminate corporate taxes entirely, taxing the money as
individual income when it hits somebody’s pocket, but that wouldn’t solve the problem
of how we treat expenses — we would still have to decide which are legitimate
and which are improper or fraudulent.
This leads us, inevitably, to the case of Potemkin
billionaire Donald J. Trump, who refused to release his personal income-tax
information but couldn’t keep the New York Times from getting into it
and merrily writing it up. The story the Times tells comports with my
longstanding impression of Trump, who, as I have been arguing since he first
got into the 2016 presidential race, was much more successful as a
reality-television grotesque than as a real-estate developer. As one critic
acidly put it: “He thinks he’s Conrad Hilton, but he’s Paris Hilton.” But it is
worth keeping in mind that the tax provision under which Trump was able to carry
back (as opposed to carry forward) some extraordinary losses and
thus claim a huge tax refund was not some arcane tax scheme — it was part of
the Obama administration’s stimulus package.
Does anybody remember who was in charge of that? Take
your time — I’ll wait.
From NPR: “Joe Biden was instrumental in getting the 2009
recovery act through Congress, then supervised the stimulus for the Obama
administration.” Call it a handout to the rich if you like — because it surely
was that — but maybe take a little note of whose hand was doing the handing
out.
One of the truly irritating aspects of our politics is
politicians’ writing certain benefits and incentives into the tax code and then
b****ing and moaning when those tax provisions . . . work. Trump’s using
the carryback provisions to get a big tax refund isn’t a perversion of the
Obama policy — it is what the policy was created to do. You can’t write
a tax law that says, “We’re going to give a big refund to people who lost a lot
of money — unless we happen to think they’re jerks.”
Starbucks got into this a few years ago: In addition to
being a fast-food chain, Starbucks also is a manufacturer of packaged goods,
and, as such, it benefitted from tax credits for manufacturers. The shrieking
and wailing were obscene — and they came from the very people who wrote the
damned law in the first place. As though the law said, “Manufacturing credits —
but not for you, Starbucks, you hateful and ubiquitous icon of yuppie
consumerism!” If you don’t want people to use tax credits to avoid taxes, then
don’t create tax credits that enable people to avoid taxes.
The other takeaway from the Times’ deep dive into
Trump’s finances is — yikes! Given what he actually has, what he actually owes,
and the money he’s been losing, he looks set to end up in bankruptcy court
again. Call the movie: Trump Bankruptcy V: This Time, It’s Personal.
No comments:
Post a Comment