Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!oliveb!sun!pepper!cmcmanis
From: cmcmanis%pepper@Sun.COM (Chuck McManis)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: CBM vs. IRS
Message-ID: <87117@sun.uucp>
Date: 26 Jan 89 19:08:57 GMT
References: <12500004@tippy>
Sender: news@sun.uucp
Reply-To: cmcmanis@sun.UUCP (Chuck McManis)
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View
Lines: 34

In article <12500004@tippy> bah@tippy.uucp writes:
>"Commodore has been hit by the IRS for $74.1 million in back taxes for
>overseas earnings in 1981-83. The computer maker says it will challenge
>the claim, and notes that its tax credits more than cover the claim."-----
>End of Quote.
>Hate to think what this will do to CBM if the IRS wins this one (and they
>rarely come out empty-handed).
>Any comments from someone with inside knowledge of this situation?

Well if anyone with inside knowledge of this situation did comment then
the Securities and Exchange Commission would throw them in jail. See if
CBM wins, their stock goes up, and if they lose it goes down a bit. If
you _know_ how it will go (inside information) then you are bound by
law to a) Not tell anyone, b) Neither purchase nor sell any CBM stock.

That aside, as a person who follows Commodore fairly closely as both
a stockholder and Amiga enthusiast. It is clearly apparent from their
corporate structure that CBM is a _giant_ tax shelter. CBM takes every
advantage of the tax laws that they can. Because of this the IRS is 
probably constantly feeling cheated out of revenue (personal supposition)
and thus looking for a way to get some. My guess is that the IRS
figured some interpretation CBM's laywers were using for a particular
statute or paragraph in the tax code was faulty (or there may have been
a recent tax court decision to support their view) and they could claim
the other view and thus make them liable for back taxes. [You did notice
that they picked the "C64 years" rather than the "Amiga years" in the
CBM history didn't you?]  So now both CBM and the IRS go to tax court
and argue about their interpretations and a ruling is made and then 
we all find out about it. I doubt even if they "lost" they would have
to pay 74 million. But only time will tell.

--Chuck McManis
uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis   BIX: cmcmanis  ARPAnet: cmcmanis@sun.com
These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you.