Page 1 of 1

A.I.G. is suing the government to recover over $300 million

Posted: March 23, 2009 9:13 am
by Capt.Flock
A.I.G. is suing the government to recover over $300 million in tax breaks that the insurance company says were improperly denied
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/20/business/20aig.html

While the American International Group comes under fire from Congress over executive bonuses, it is quietly fighting the federal government for the return of $306 million in tax payments, some related to deals that were conducted through offshore tax havens.


A.I.G. sued the government last month in a bid to force it to return the payments, which stemmed in large part from its use of aggressive tax deals, some involving entities controlled by the company’s financial products unit in the Cayman Islands, Ireland, the Dutch Antilles and other offshore havens.

A.I.G. is effectively suing its majority owner, the government, which has an 80 percent stake and has poured nearly $200 billion into the insurer in a bid to avert its collapse and avoid troubling the global financial markets. The company is in effect asking for even more money, in the form of tax refunds. The suit also suggests that A.I.G. is spending taxpayer money to pursue its case, something it is legally entitled to do. Its initial claim was denied by the Internal Revenue Service last year.

The lawsuit, filed on Feb. 27 in Federal District Court in Manhattan, details, among other things, certain tax-related dealings of the financial products unit, the once high-flying division that has been singled out for its role in A.I.G.’s financial crisis last fall. Other deals involved A.I.G. offshore entities whose function centers on executive compensation and include C. V. Starr & Company, a closely held concern controlled by Maurice R. Greenberg, A.I.G.’s former chairman, and the Starr International Company, a privately held enterprise incorporated in Panama, and commonly known as SICO.

The lawsuit contends in part that the federal government owes A.I.G. nearly $62 million in foreign tax credits related to eight foreign entities, with names like Lumagrove, Laperouse and Foppingadreef, that were set up or controlled by financial products, often through a unit known as Pinestead Holdings.

United States tax law allows American companies to claim a credit for any taxes paid to a foreign government. But the I.R.S. denied A.I.G.’s refund claims in 2008, saying that it had improperly calculated the credits. The I.R.S. has identified so-called foreign tax-credit generators as an area of abuse that it is increasingly monitoring.

The remainder of A.I.G.’s claim, for $244 million, concerns net operating loss carry-backs, capital loss carry-backs, a general refund claim and claims for refunds of other tax-related payments that A.I.G. says it made to the I.R.S. but are now owed back. The claim also covers $119 million in penalties and interest that A.I.G. says it is due back from the government.

In part, A.I.G. says it overpaid its federal income taxes after a 2004 accounting scandal that caused it to restate its financial records. A.I.G. says in part that it is entitled to a refund of $33 million that SICO paid in 1997 as compensation to employees, which it now says should be characterized as a deductible expense.

A.I.G.’s lawyers in the case, at Sutherland Asbill & Brennan, referred calls to the company. Asked about the lawsuit, Mark Herr, an A.I.G. spokesman, said Thursday that “A.I.G. is taking this action to ensure that it is not required to pay more than its fair share of taxes.”


come on you already been denied by the IRS and now they are suing the the majority owner :evil:
sorry this just makes me mad

Re: A.I.G. is suing the government to recover over $300 million

Posted: March 23, 2009 9:20 am
by LIBuffettFan
This is the first I have heard of this but you really can't make this sh#* up. Obviously AIG is going to find all the legal loopholes and channels that it can to handle their, ummm, our money. First they sighted legal agreements when they dished out the bonues, now they are using the legal system against the government. I bet the next thing they do, provided the government does there 90% bonus tax is file a law suit against the government that the tax was not legal. Although is sounds like Obama may not be on board with regards to the bonus tax.

Re: A.I.G. is suing the government to recover over $300 million

Posted: March 23, 2009 9:56 am
by blackjack
They've got bigger balls than my local bowling alley.

Re: A.I.G. is suing the government to recover over $300 million

Posted: March 23, 2009 10:09 am
by phjrsaunt
Atlas is shrugging.

Re: A.I.G. is suing the government to recover over $300 million

Posted: March 23, 2009 10:10 am
by LIPH
If AIG wins this case maybe Congress can pass another unconstitutional law to try and get the money back.

Re: A.I.G. is suing the government to recover over $300 million

Posted: March 23, 2009 10:18 am
by surfpirate
Seriously, our reactions should not be gut level anger over sound bites. If the I.R.S. (remember when they were the "enemy"?) incorrectly applies the tax laws, it should be corrected, and that means through the courts. Fighting the I.R.S. is nasty business. Individuals and companies must prove their innocence .... the complete opposite of every other law we all must follow, where the burden of proof is on the government. If you've ever been wronged by the I.R.S. (I have), you know what a battle it becomes to right that wrong.

Re: A.I.G. is suing the government to recover over $300 million

Posted: March 23, 2009 10:21 am
by surfpirate
LIPH wrote:If AIG wins this case maybe Congress can pass another unconstitutional law to try and get the money back.
Thank you. It scares me that Congress is applying punitive after-the-fact 90% taxes. I earn a bonus every year as part of my pay structure. I count on it. If executives in my company need to be punished (hopefully not), go after 'em with existing laws. But don't apply a punitive 90% tax that reaches all the way down to my level of the company.

Re: A.I.G. is suing the government to recover over $300 million

Posted: March 23, 2009 10:31 am
by RinglingRingling
surfpirate wrote:
LIPH wrote:If AIG wins this case maybe Congress can pass another unconstitutional law to try and get the money back.
Thank you. It scares me that Congress is applying punitive after-the-fact 90% taxes. I earn a bonus every year as part of my pay structure. I count on it. If executives in my company need to be punished (hopefully not), go after 'em with existing laws. But don't apply a punitive 90% tax that reaches all the way down to my level of the company.
why? a bonus is "found money", otherwise it would be just salary.

Re: A.I.G. is suing the government to recover over $300 million

Posted: March 23, 2009 10:34 am
by Tequila Revenge
What a country......

What's more American the biting the hand that feeds you? WAMU has filed suit too. I'm guessing they'll be a few more before this is over.

Re: A.I.G. is suing the government to recover over $300 million

Posted: March 23, 2009 10:38 am
by surfpirate
RinglingRingling wrote:
surfpirate wrote:
LIPH wrote:If AIG wins this case maybe Congress can pass another unconstitutional law to try and get the money back.
Thank you. It scares me that Congress is applying punitive after-the-fact 90% taxes. I earn a bonus every year as part of my pay structure. I count on it. If executives in my company need to be punished (hopefully not), go after 'em with existing laws. But don't apply a punitive 90% tax that reaches all the way down to my level of the company.
why? a bonus is "found money", otherwise it would be just salary.
I've "found" it every year for 26 years, so it tends to become a part of my salary thinking, but I understand your point of view.

But my main concern was the 90% punitive tax issue being written by Congress today to address corporate legal issues from yesterday. What's next, they decide to write a new law today increasing the penalty for my speeding ticket I earned last year? You can't (or shouldn't be able to) increase penalties after the fact. You should only be able to write laws and penalties for future discretions. They are skirting around this fundamental principle by writing a punitive tax law.

Re: A.I.G. is suing the government to recover over $300 million

Posted: March 23, 2009 10:41 am
by Tequila Revenge
surfpirate wrote:
LIPH wrote:If AIG wins this case maybe Congress can pass another unconstitutional law to try and get the money back.
Thank you. It scares me that Congress is applying punitive after-the-fact 90% taxes. I earn a bonus every year as part of my pay structure. I count on it. If executives in my company need to be punished (hopefully not), go after 'em with existing laws. But don't apply a punitive 90% tax that reaches all the way down to my level of the company.
Agree. What extra punitive taxes are next?

Gas targeted for those evil people that drive SUV's and large trucks?
Milage tax- the more you drive, the more you pay. Don't laugh, this was in serious consideration here in California
Guns and ammo
Bottled water

Taxes will be a bigger hammer with the current leadership. Wait until people understand what "Cap and Trade" means to their wallet.

Re: A.I.G. is suing the government to recover over $300 million

Posted: March 23, 2009 10:45 am
by phjrsaunt
It's just all so depressing. I'm just a soon to be unemployed squirrel out there tyrin' to get by bein' quiet shy. I don't need $170 million dollars. I just want enough money to keep the roof over my head (I already have someone to love me and a four poster bed) and go to a Buffett show every now and then. Everything's so out of control. Nobody "in charge" of the money seems to have a clue.

Re: A.I.G. is suing the government to recover over $300 million

Posted: March 23, 2009 10:46 am
by RinglingRingling
surfpirate wrote:
RinglingRingling wrote:
surfpirate wrote:
LIPH wrote:If AIG wins this case maybe Congress can pass another unconstitutional law to try and get the money back.
Thank you. It scares me that Congress is applying punitive after-the-fact 90% taxes. I earn a bonus every year as part of my pay structure. I count on it. If executives in my company need to be punished (hopefully not), go after 'em with existing laws. But don't apply a punitive 90% tax that reaches all the way down to my level of the company.
why? a bonus is "found money", otherwise it would be just salary.
I've "found" it every year for 26 years, so it tends to become a part of my salary thinking, but I understand your point of view.

But my main concern was the 90% punitive tax issue being written by Congress today to address corporate legal issues from yesterday. What's next, they decide to write a new law today increasing the penalty for my speeding ticket I earned last year? You can't (or shouldn't be able to) increase penalties after the fact. You should only be able to write laws and penalties for future discretions. They are skirting around this fundamental principle by writing a punitive tax law.
I have a problem with ex post facto laws too. Tho, it galls me that a) a company that still exists despite their failure to follow their own principles (hedge/offset every gamble to reduce the exposure, and always question the data to see as many of the angles as they possibly can) can b) not only take money from the government when I'd probably gamble safely that they decried gov't interference in the markets when they were making money but c) can turn around and sue the IRS for incorrect taxation in light of a) and d) use federal money to pay for their challenge.

Re: A.I.G. is suing the government to recover over $300 million

Posted: March 23, 2009 10:54 am
by LIPH
RinglingRingling wrote:I have a problem with ex post facto laws too.
So does the United States Constitution - Article 1, section 9:
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

Obama used to be a constitutional law professor, maybe he should hold a class for the clowns in Congress.

Re: A.I.G. is suing the government to recover over $300 million

Posted: March 23, 2009 11:32 am
by RinglingRingling
LIPH wrote:
RinglingRingling wrote:I have a problem with ex post facto laws too.
So does the United States Constitution - Article 1, section 9:
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

Obama used to be a constitutional law professor, maybe he should hold a class for the clowns in Congress.
would it do any good? a lot of those guys are there because they have a fund-raising advantage due to incumbancy, and good head of hair.

Re: A.I.G. is suing the government to recover over $300 million

Posted: March 23, 2009 11:47 am
by LIBuffettFan
The way things are going, the Constitution isn't going to be worth the paper its written on. They are trampling all over it and twisting it to serve what ever purpose they need. The bottom line is the bonuses were wrong, they never should have been issued and congress screwed up on purpose by adding the wording that allowed them to be paid. Now they are running off thinking two wrongs make a right by taxing the money, illegally by the letter of the constitution. They are out of control, it seems they have determined that they can do whatever they want without reprocussions. So far they have gotten away with it. At this point heads should really be rolling up on capital hill, in most aspects of the private sector they would already be gone, with of course the exception of the banking and insurance industry who seem to share the sense of entitlement.

Re: A.I.G. is suing the government to recover over $300 million

Posted: March 23, 2009 12:35 pm
by Wino you know
The A.I.G. story has touched my heart.

If fact, I'm SO touched, I sent them a check for $50.00 this morning. I hope it helps.

Re: A.I.G. is suing the government to recover over $300 million

Posted: March 23, 2009 12:40 pm
by SharkOnLand
Well, they obviously need the money... :roll: :roll:

Re: A.I.G. is suing the government to recover over $300 million

Posted: March 23, 2009 7:13 pm
by ScarletB
surfpirate wrote:
RinglingRingling wrote:
surfpirate wrote:
LIPH wrote:If AIG wins this case maybe Congress can pass another unconstitutional law to try and get the money back.
Thank you. It scares me that Congress is applying punitive after-the-fact 90% taxes. I earn a bonus every year as part of my pay structure. I count on it. If executives in my company need to be punished (hopefully not), go after 'em with existing laws. But don't apply a punitive 90% tax that reaches all the way down to my level of the company.
why? a bonus is "found money", otherwise it would be just salary.
I've "found" it every year for 26 years, so it tends to become a part of my salary thinking, but I understand your point of view.

But my main concern was the 90% punitive tax issue being written by Congress today to address corporate legal issues from yesterday. What's next, they decide to write a new law today increasing the penalty for my speeding ticket I earned last year? You can't (or shouldn't be able to) increase penalties after the fact. You should only be able to write laws and penalties for future discretions. They are skirting around this fundamental principle by writing a punitive tax law.
The way I heard it you will only have to worry about the 90% tax if your company took TARP money. And these lawsuits, I believe, are part of the reason that current contracts were excluded from the original bill. Everyone pretty much assumed there would be challenges.

Re: A.I.G. is suing the government to recover over $300 million

Posted: March 23, 2009 7:24 pm
by Glorfindel7
Sorry, I'm suprised that AIG doesn't get "audited" by the IRS for improper use of tax shelters in years previous to this one (it's obvious that the ones stated above are bogus and NOT real foreign government entities).

In addition, isn't there a statue of limitations for which a credit on a return can be claimed (I believe it's 3 years), therefore the 1997 tax credit doesn't wash.....

They'd probably have a case on the tax capital loss, if they wouldn't have misrepresented the numbers in the first place, causing the entire market to go askew....The manipulation of the numbers is a serious violation of trade laws.....

I HOPE none of the above is true, if it is, it would seem that the lawyers at AIG are trying to misrepresent the facts to win their case :roll: :roll: :roll: