APRIL 18, 2006 [U][COLOR=#0000ff](IDG NEWS SERVICE)[/COLOR][/U] - The U.S. Internal Revenue Service has hit Symantec Corp. with a $1 billion tax bill for allegedly underreporting the value of intellectual property that the software vendor transferred to two Irish subsidiaries.
Symantec was notified of the issue by the IRS in late March, the company said in a regulatory filing dated yesterday.
The IRS claims that both Symantec and Veritas Software Corp. underpriced intellectual property that the two companies licensed to their Irish subsidiaries, said Symantec spokeswoman Genevieve Haldeman. Both Symantec and Veritas, which was purchased by Symantec in 2005, set up the Irish subsidiaries for the purpose of doing business outside of the U.S., she said.
The IRS believes that Symantec owes about $900 million, excluding penalties and interest, in connection with the Veritas claim, which covers the 2000 and 2001 Veritas tax returns. Another $100 million is due in connection with Symantec’s fiscal 2003 and 2004 reports.
Symantec does not agree with the IRS’s position and plans to appeal the tax assessment, Haldeman said.
Symantec’s stock (SYMC) dropped more than 4% following the news and was trading at $15.73 in after-hours trading on the Nasdaq Stock Market’s INET exchange.
On a serious note, what could the US Government do with $1b? How about:
[LIST]
[]Pay off 1/760th of the US budget deficit
[]Pay off 1/46,000th of the US unfunded liabilities
[]Give each American a $4.25 tax refund
[]Keep US troops in Iraq for 8 days
[*]Buy me 10 blackjack or fruitsalad chews per day for the next 154,549,002 years :!:[/LIST][SIZE=4][/SIZE]
what are you talking about? you make it sound like it’s some conspiracy. the IRS establishes tax laws, so it’s not above the law, it is the law. symantec’s walking the line, so it’s reasonable for the IRS to go after it. and it’s not going to “shut down” symantec; they have enough cash on hand to pay off the $1 billion.
They COULD shut it down if they wanted to, thats all I’m saying :), and no, its not a conspiracy. If president bush and the fbi and cia indentified a “US” company supporting terrorism I gauruntee the IRS would seize all their assests via falsified quotas and such. The IRS CAN take almost anything they want, even though they don’t. The IRS is responsible for the seizing of assets from drug laundering companies, as well as the penalties resulted from such. Of course Symantec isn’t a drug laundering company, but I just don’t like how much power the IRS actually has.
the reason the IRS takes down illegal operations is b/c those illegal operations don’t pay taxes and it’s easier to nail them for tax evasion than drug trafficking, money laundering, etc. that’s why al capone was taken down for tax evasion, not murder.
symantec is nothing like those operations. symantec pays taxes, it just has a disagreement over the interpretation of tax laws. i’m completely confused as to why you brought up some theorhetical terrorism example (especially if you’re claiming it’s not a conspiracy). it just makes no sense in the scope of this discussion.
I agree with bwh2, I don’t believe the IRS is targeting Symantec, but big companies like that have the attention of the IRS a wee bit more than an average company (which is both expected and accepted by me). When they mess up or when there is a disagreement it is caught quickly, because alot of money is involved, and our government tries to regulate…
I’m sure they have our best intentions in mind… (sarcasm)
Yeah, the government is definitely not out to take down big companies. If anything they want to keep them around to maintain economic activity. A good example of this is the Airline Relief Act(forgot the actual name) after 9/11. Without the billions of dollars of relief for the airline idustry we may have seen even more of the big legacy airlines go under, which means thousands and thousands of lost jobs. Just trying to make a point that the government wants to keep companies around.
I said what I said becuase I brought up the power of the IRS, even though bwh2 said I’m a conspiracy theorist Which I might add, I’m not. All I’m doing is stating the facts and a highly unlikley situation. It goes without saying that Symantec is perferctly legal, and I did not mean to imply it as otherwise. We all know Symantic is legal, but can’t I joke once and awhile?
After all, I’m not a big fan of antivirus software. It generally sucks.
(sarcasm)
Which I might add, I’m not. All I’m doing is stating the facts and a highly unlikley situation. It goes without saying that Symantec is perferctly legal, and I did not mean to imply it as otherwise. We all know Symantic is legal, but can’t I joke once and awhile?