Well, no but really, isn't this about 14 months late? President Obama today issued a presidential memorandum directing the Office of Management and Budget, the Treasury Department, and other federal agencies to block contractors who are delinquent on their taxes from receiving new government contracts. The memorandum also directs the IRS to review the accuracy of companies' tax delinquency claims and asks Congress to enact enforecement tools. via skippy <object width="640" height="505"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_0M__0Z1pjg&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_0M__0Z1pjg&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="505"></embed></object> a basso joint, based on an insty concept.
Are you saying that companies that continue to be delinquent in their taxes should continue to get government contracts?
If they're delinquent in paying their taxes, they shouldn't get any more government contracts until it is settled.
Of course they won't have the money to pay those back taxes when the government withholds contracts from them. Double edged sword if you ask me.
Thats not true at all. All businesses are evil and greedy. They should pull from their million dollar bonuses and pay those taxes. I personally believe that if anyone is delinquent on the taxes, they should be barred from using any public services.
Many of these businesses are profitable and are simply choosing not to pay. There was a report on this somewhere sometime this week - they just go buy things abroad and things like that instead of paying taxes.
If a company is delinquent because they and the IRS disagree on the interpretation of tax laws and they are working it out in negotiation or in the courts -- are those delinquents denied government contracts? That'd be dumb.
Yes. If we are serious about reducing the defict we shouldn't reward contractors that are behind on their taxes.
I don't know the details of this proposal but I'm guessing the companies could try to get an injunction on being banned from government contracts until their cases are resolved.
Nevermind the comment about reducing the deficit. Clearly thats not a priority. As JV stated, what if they are in court? The construction industry has been hit hard, so we should continue to reward the wealthy contractors and stick it to those who are struggling? I think this is more about strong arming the struggling contractors to pay their taxes vs those who are out-right refusing to pay.
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. If your company doesn't pay their taxes, they're breaking the law. If your company is breaking the law, you shouldn't be rewarded by the U.S. govt with contracts that could go to companies that haven't broken the law. Not really that hard to comprehend. It's time to tighten the belt, and that includes corporate largesse. And again, basso the liar with another intentionally misleading headline. There are no depths to which you will not stoop, are there?
Per the memorandum....he's asking for compliance with 2008 regulations and verification of the accuracy of certifications filed by the companies. There's nothing new here. Looks like the government -- in its wisdom -- passed those requirements in 2008. We could argue whether the requirements are good or bad -- but it's helpful to know the timeline, so we know whether its a GOP or DEM initiative -- otherwise, how can we pick sides? The vid was awesome though. Not necessarily accurate -- but well done. Thanks.
FWIW -- I disagree with this. The IRS has enough enforcement powers - or should have -- to prevent companies from casually 'choosing' not to pay their tax at their discretion. I don't see why gov contracts -- which should be awarded based on value and expertise -- should be refused a company which is behind in filing, or in the midst of a dispute, or otherwise fighting the IRS unless it's part of an overall assurance of a companies liquidity and stability. I don't like the government having the power to shut off a company's revenue (and possibly lifeline) because the company is in dispute with another, unrelated department. But that was yesterdays debate. If yesterday was 2008. Hey basso -- since we're on a Beatles roll -- could you up an Obama Vid done to 'yesterday.'
