Can Goldman-Sachs Tax deduct $650.000 Paid Hillary Clinton for her "speeches"?

[Arizona Roadrunner]

Can Goldman-Sachs Tax deduct the $650.000 Paid Hillary Clinton for her "speeches"? If so, then it means we are subsidizing said "speeches" by having to pay more taxes to offset the taxes lost by said deduction. We could also lose services because they don't have the revenues due to said loss of revenue. Therefore, we have standing in asking for her to release the speeches so we can see what was generated for said tax deduction.

[6chars]

1. I am sure their accountants are up to the task

they are probably the best in the world at avoiding taxes anyway. and if the company spends money on something, it is a business expense. interesting question though.

[UglyGreed]

2. Good question

[ladjf]

3. Very good point, worth following up upon. nt

[Ichingcarpenter]

4. So The Taxpayers end up paying for her speech?

Good question

[panader0]

6. ^^This^^

[BernieforPres2016]

7. If deductible, taxpayers help companies pay for Hillary's "speeches"

If Goldman Sachs pays a 20% marginal corporate tax rate and they are able to deduct the $675K they paid for 3 "speeches", then the taxpayers would be picking up 20% of the tab, or $125,000. That would reduce Goldman's net investment to $550,000.

I would guess those payments are tax deductible, but couldn't find any confirmation online. It is possible that there are some limits on how much of it is deductible, but somehow I doubt it.

I put "speeches" in quotation marks because Goldman Sachs and other companies aren't paying Hillary for her talks, they're paying for access and influence.

[Arizona Roadrunner]

11. "speeches"

Thanks for the input. That is why I did the same thing to "speeches".

[taught_me_patience]

14. The corporate tax rate is 35% fyi

It's not marginal.

[BernieforPres2016]

16. Goldman's effective tax rate was 31.4% in 2014

I just looked at their annual report. I referenced their marginal tax rate because that's the rate they pay on their top dollar of income and is the relevant number to look at when determining what a tax deduction on something specific was worth. Since they paid 31.4% overall, their marginal rate on the top dollar of income probably was the top corporate rate of 35%. If that's the case and the fee for the "speeches" were fully tax deductible, the U.S. taxpayers kicked in $236,250 for the 3 "speeches" to Goldman in 2013. I believe the current annual salary of a U.S. Senator is $181,500, and they can make a maximum of $27,225 more in "permissible outside income" for a total of $208,725.

[Sanity Claws]

5. Sure, it's a business expense.

[tk2kewl]

8. of course they can

hell, many times companies even get to deduct the fines levied against them for violations and criminal behavior

[libtodeath]

9. I would not be surprised and her "donating" fees to her foundation has tax implications for her too.

[Eric J in MN]

10. Yes, but the total for the three speeches she gave them is $675,000. NT

NT

[global1]

12. That's How Hillary Justifies These Speeches To Goldman....

She says - They didn't pay me - you taxpayers did. So see - I didn't take money from them.

[Katashi_itto]

13. Yes. It's a Business Expense.

I suppose they could file it under graft.

[Orsino]

15. Great question.

I would hope that the answer is no, and that the cost of Clinton's lavish fees has not been and can't be passed on to us.

[Arazi]

17. Great point and welcome to DU!

[Jim Lane]

18. It would be a deductible expense for Goldman but reportable as ordinary income by Clinton

The transaction would reduce Goldman's tax bill but increase Clinton's. Which effect would be greater depends on the marginal rate each is paying. Also, don't forget that more than one governmental entity levies income taxes; the net effect could be more tax revenue to the United States but less to New York State, or vice versa.

Regardless of how the tax calculation comes out, I don't accept the fundamental premise that taxpayers are subsidizing every transaction that causes a net decrease in tax revenues. The only "standing" that the public has in demanding to see the transcripts is the threat of not voting for her if she continues to keep them secret.

[nationalize the fed]

19. k&r excellent

Maybe if people like Chris Matthews were doing their jobs we would know. This question should be spread as far and wide as possible. If the Matthews of the world won't ask, the people will.

*(Chris Matthews wife is running for congress and has officially endorsed Rodham-Clinton. If that isn't a conflict of interest what the hell is?)