Did Amazon pay $0 in taxes last year?
Background
I saw this article saying that Amazon paid $0 in corporate income tax last year. Is this true or just phrased to sound like they are getting away with paying nothing?
Here's the article: https://www.vox.com/2019/2/20/18231742/amazon-federal-taxes-zero-corporate-income
Claims from article
Chart:
Confused on why they say "Federal Tax" in the graph, but corporate income tax throughout the article
Quote:
Yet during this surge into profitability — the company’s earnings doubled between 2017 and 2018 — Amazon’s tax bill has actually gone down. The company paid $0 in corporate income tax last year, according to an analysis from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, an astonishing figure that generated dozens of news stories last week.
united-states economics law taxes business
asked 5 hours ago
Noah CristinoNoah Cristino
1312
New contributor
Noah Cristino is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
Background
I saw this article saying that Amazon paid $0 in corporate income tax last year. Is this true or just phrased to sound like they are getting away with paying nothing?
Here's the article: https://www.vox.com/2019/2/20/18231742/amazon-federal-taxes-zero-corporate-income
Claims from article
Chart:Confused on why they say "Federal Tax" in the graph, but corporate income tax throughout the article
Quote:
Yet during this surge into profitability — the company’s earnings doubled between 2017 and 2018 — Amazon’s tax bill has actually gone down. The company paid $0 in corporate income tax last year, according to an analysis from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, an astonishing figure that generated dozens of news stories last week.
united-states economics law taxes business
asked 5 hours ago
Noah CristinoNoah Cristino
1312
New contributor
Noah Cristino is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Is the graph saying that the company paid negative tax in 2017 and 2018?
– Andrew Grimm
4 hours ago
@AndrewGrimm yeah I saw in another article "To top it off, Amazon actually reported a $129 million 2018 federal income tax rebate—making its tax rate -1%."(fortune.com/2019/02/14/amazon-doesnt-pay-federal-taxes-2019)
– Noah Cristino
4 hours ago
add a comment |
Background
I saw this article saying that Amazon paid $0 in corporate income tax last year. Is this true or just phrased to sound like they are getting away with paying nothing?
Here's the article: https://www.vox.com/2019/2/20/18231742/amazon-federal-taxes-zero-corporate-income
Claims from article
Chart:Confused on why they say "Federal Tax" in the graph, but corporate income tax throughout the article
Quote:
Yet during this surge into profitability — the company’s earnings doubled between 2017 and 2018 — Amazon’s tax bill has actually gone down. The company paid $0 in corporate income tax last year, according to an analysis from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, an astonishing figure that generated dozens of news stories last week.
united-states economics law taxes business
asked 5 hours ago
Noah CristinoNoah Cristino
1312
New contributor
Noah Cristino is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Background
I saw this article saying that Amazon paid $0 in corporate income tax last year. Is this true or just phrased to sound like they are getting away with paying nothing?
Here's the article: https://www.vox.com/2019/2/20/18231742/amazon-federal-taxes-zero-corporate-income
Claims from article
Chart:Confused on why they say "Federal Tax" in the graph, but corporate income tax throughout the article
Quote:
Yet during this surge into profitability — the company’s earnings doubled between 2017 and 2018 — Amazon’s tax bill has actually gone down. The company paid $0 in corporate income tax last year, according to an analysis from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, an astonishing figure that generated dozens of news stories last week.
united-states economics law taxes business
united-states economics law taxes business
asked 5 hours ago
Noah CristinoNoah Cristino
1312
New contributor
Noah Cristino is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 5 hours ago
Noah CristinoNoah Cristino
1312
New contributor
Noah Cristino is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 5 hours ago
Noah CristinoNoah Cristino
1312
New contributor
Noah Cristino is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 5 hours ago
Noah CristinoNoah Cristino
1312
asked 5 hours ago
Noah CristinoNoah Cristino
1312
1312
New contributor
Noah Cristino is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Noah Cristino is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Noah Cristino is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Is the graph saying that the company paid negative tax in 2017 and 2018?
– Andrew Grimm
4 hours ago
@AndrewGrimm yeah I saw in another article "To top it off, Amazon actually reported a $129 million 2018 federal income tax rebate—making its tax rate -1%."(fortune.com/2019/02/14/amazon-doesnt-pay-federal-taxes-2019)
– Noah Cristino
4 hours ago
add a comment |
Is the graph saying that the company paid negative tax in 2017 and 2018?
– Andrew Grimm
4 hours ago
@AndrewGrimm yeah I saw in another article "To top it off, Amazon actually reported a $129 million 2018 federal income tax rebate—making its tax rate -1%."(fortune.com/2019/02/14/amazon-doesnt-pay-federal-taxes-2019)
– Noah Cristino
4 hours ago
Is the graph saying that the company paid negative tax in 2017 and 2018?
– Andrew Grimm
4 hours ago
Is the graph saying that the company paid negative tax in 2017 and 2018?
– Andrew Grimm
4 hours ago
@AndrewGrimm yeah I saw in another article "To top it off, Amazon actually reported a $129 million 2018 federal income tax rebate—making its tax rate -1%."(fortune.com/2019/02/14/amazon-doesnt-pay-federal-taxes-2019)
– Noah Cristino
4 hours ago
@AndrewGrimm yeah I saw in another article "To top it off, Amazon actually reported a $129 million 2018 federal income tax rebate—making its tax rate -1%."(fortune.com/2019/02/14/amazon-doesnt-pay-federal-taxes-2019)
– Noah Cristino
4 hours ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
When Bernie Sanders claimed Amazon didn't pay federal income taxes in 2017, Snopes wrote a helpful article:
In regards to U.S. federal income taxes, the claim that Amazon paid none in 2017 is almost certainly factual. While Amazon’s tax filings are not public, their SEC filing for the year 2017 illustrates that the company used the tax code expertly (and legally) to their advantage, so well that the company anticipated a $137 million tax refund from the federal government (numbers are in millions of dollars):
Amazon did pay taxes to individual U.S. states ($211 million) and to international jurisdictions ($724 million), but their federal income tax burden was (less than) zero. The filings indicate that two factors provided the lion share of Amazon’s reduced federal tax liability: $220 million worth of tax credits, and $917 million in tax-deductible executive pay derived from the sale of stocks
(Politifact also wrote about this, coming to the same conclusion: it's likely true.)
The form they're referring to is the 10-K. Looking at the 2018 filing, it has the same sections, so the same explanation applies. Under "Current Taxes: U.S. Federal" for 2018 it says "$(129)" (parenthesis indicate a negative number and this number is still in millions). In other words, much like last year, they expected to get a federal net tax refund, which is why the line in the graph is negative for those years.
Again, this is referring to federal income taxes. There's no evidence that they didn't pay other types of taxes; as you can see in the charts, the columns for "U.S. State" and "International" taxes all show positive numbers.
answered 3 hours ago
LaurelLaurel
11.3k54958
Great answer. However, since "There's no evidence that they didn't pay other types of taxes" and that common people seemingly don't segment taxes like business do in their minds, a brief list of any of the taxes Amazon did or might have pay to the federal government might be in order. Their undoubted contribution to social security is certainly one I can think of.
– fredsbend
2 hours ago
It's acceptable for me to focus on "federal", but the Q goes for a more general "taxes". Don't want to echo the previous comment, but at least cite how you arrive at "no evidence" for 'other taxes'?
– LangLangC
2 hours ago
1
Minor quibble: Getting a tax refund and paying negative taxes are not the same thing. You can get a tax refund while paying extremely positive taxes, for example. A tax refund just means that your withholding (or quarterly estimated payments, as the case may be) exceeded your actual tax liability for the year. That could happen even if your tax liability is quite large.
– reirab
1 hour ago
1
@LangLangC The evidence for having paid other taxes is the same as the evidence that "their federal income tax burden was (less than) zero." The screenshot of SEC filing shows a negative number on the line labeled "U.S. Federal" ((137) [million dollars]) under section labeled "Current taxes" and a positive number on each of the two lines labeled "U.S. State" (211 [million dollars]) and "International" (724 [million dollars]).
– Jaquez
57 mins ago
@reirab: I think the context makes it clear it is a net refund.
– Mehrdad
57 mins ago
|
show 1 more comment
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
When Bernie Sanders claimed Amazon didn't pay federal income taxes in 2017, Snopes wrote a helpful article:
In regards to U.S. federal income taxes, the claim that Amazon paid none in 2017 is almost certainly factual. While Amazon’s tax filings are not public, their SEC filing for the year 2017 illustrates that the company used the tax code expertly (and legally) to their advantage, so well that the company anticipated a $137 million tax refund from the federal government (numbers are in millions of dollars):
Amazon did pay taxes to individual U.S. states ($211 million) and to international jurisdictions ($724 million), but their federal income tax burden was (less than) zero. The filings indicate that two factors provided the lion share of Amazon’s reduced federal tax liability: $220 million worth of tax credits, and $917 million in tax-deductible executive pay derived from the sale of stocks
(Politifact also wrote about this, coming to the same conclusion: it's likely true.)
The form they're referring to is the 10-K. Looking at the 2018 filing, it has the same sections, so the same explanation applies. Under "Current Taxes: U.S. Federal" for 2018 it says "$(129)" (parenthesis indicate a negative number and this number is still in millions). In other words, much like last year, they expected to get a federal net tax refund, which is why the line in the graph is negative for those years.
Again, this is referring to federal income taxes. There's no evidence that they didn't pay other types of taxes; as you can see in the charts, the columns for "U.S. State" and "International" taxes all show positive numbers.
answered 3 hours ago
LaurelLaurel
11.3k54958
Great answer. However, since "There's no evidence that they didn't pay other types of taxes" and that common people seemingly don't segment taxes like business do in their minds, a brief list of any of the taxes Amazon did or might have pay to the federal government might be in order. Their undoubted contribution to social security is certainly one I can think of.
– fredsbend
2 hours ago
It's acceptable for me to focus on "federal", but the Q goes for a more general "taxes". Don't want to echo the previous comment, but at least cite how you arrive at "no evidence" for 'other taxes'?
– LangLangC
2 hours ago
1
Minor quibble: Getting a tax refund and paying negative taxes are not the same thing. You can get a tax refund while paying extremely positive taxes, for example. A tax refund just means that your withholding (or quarterly estimated payments, as the case may be) exceeded your actual tax liability for the year. That could happen even if your tax liability is quite large.
– reirab
1 hour ago
1
@LangLangC The evidence for having paid other taxes is the same as the evidence that "their federal income tax burden was (less than) zero." The screenshot of SEC filing shows a negative number on the line labeled "U.S. Federal" ((137) [million dollars]) under section labeled "Current taxes" and a positive number on each of the two lines labeled "U.S. State" (211 [million dollars]) and "International" (724 [million dollars]).
– Jaquez
57 mins ago
@reirab: I think the context makes it clear it is a net refund.
– Mehrdad
57 mins ago
|
show 1 more comment
When Bernie Sanders claimed Amazon didn't pay federal income taxes in 2017, Snopes wrote a helpful article:
In regards to U.S. federal income taxes, the claim that Amazon paid none in 2017 is almost certainly factual. While Amazon’s tax filings are not public, their SEC filing for the year 2017 illustrates that the company used the tax code expertly (and legally) to their advantage, so well that the company anticipated a $137 million tax refund from the federal government (numbers are in millions of dollars):
Amazon did pay taxes to individual U.S. states ($211 million) and to international jurisdictions ($724 million), but their federal income tax burden was (less than) zero. The filings indicate that two factors provided the lion share of Amazon’s reduced federal tax liability: $220 million worth of tax credits, and $917 million in tax-deductible executive pay derived from the sale of stocks
(Politifact also wrote about this, coming to the same conclusion: it's likely true.)
The form they're referring to is the 10-K. Looking at the 2018 filing, it has the same sections, so the same explanation applies. Under "Current Taxes: U.S. Federal" for 2018 it says "$(129)" (parenthesis indicate a negative number and this number is still in millions). In other words, much like last year, they expected to get a federal net tax refund, which is why the line in the graph is negative for those years.
Again, this is referring to federal income taxes. There's no evidence that they didn't pay other types of taxes; as you can see in the charts, the columns for "U.S. State" and "International" taxes all show positive numbers.
answered 3 hours ago
LaurelLaurel
11.3k54958
Great answer. However, since "There's no evidence that they didn't pay other types of taxes" and that common people seemingly don't segment taxes like business do in their minds, a brief list of any of the taxes Amazon did or might have pay to the federal government might be in order. Their undoubted contribution to social security is certainly one I can think of.
– fredsbend
2 hours ago
It's acceptable for me to focus on "federal", but the Q goes for a more general "taxes". Don't want to echo the previous comment, but at least cite how you arrive at "no evidence" for 'other taxes'?
– LangLangC
2 hours ago
1
Minor quibble: Getting a tax refund and paying negative taxes are not the same thing. You can get a tax refund while paying extremely positive taxes, for example. A tax refund just means that your withholding (or quarterly estimated payments, as the case may be) exceeded your actual tax liability for the year. That could happen even if your tax liability is quite large.
– reirab
1 hour ago
1
@LangLangC The evidence for having paid other taxes is the same as the evidence that "their federal income tax burden was (less than) zero." The screenshot of SEC filing shows a negative number on the line labeled "U.S. Federal" ((137) [million dollars]) under section labeled "Current taxes" and a positive number on each of the two lines labeled "U.S. State" (211 [million dollars]) and "International" (724 [million dollars]).
– Jaquez
57 mins ago
@reirab: I think the context makes it clear it is a net refund.
– Mehrdad
57 mins ago
|
show 1 more comment
When Bernie Sanders claimed Amazon didn't pay federal income taxes in 2017, Snopes wrote a helpful article:
In regards to U.S. federal income taxes, the claim that Amazon paid none in 2017 is almost certainly factual. While Amazon’s tax filings are not public, their SEC filing for the year 2017 illustrates that the company used the tax code expertly (and legally) to their advantage, so well that the company anticipated a $137 million tax refund from the federal government (numbers are in millions of dollars):
Amazon did pay taxes to individual U.S. states ($211 million) and to international jurisdictions ($724 million), but their federal income tax burden was (less than) zero. The filings indicate that two factors provided the lion share of Amazon’s reduced federal tax liability: $220 million worth of tax credits, and $917 million in tax-deductible executive pay derived from the sale of stocks
(Politifact also wrote about this, coming to the same conclusion: it's likely true.)
The form they're referring to is the 10-K. Looking at the 2018 filing, it has the same sections, so the same explanation applies. Under "Current Taxes: U.S. Federal" for 2018 it says "$(129)" (parenthesis indicate a negative number and this number is still in millions). In other words, much like last year, they expected to get a federal net tax refund, which is why the line in the graph is negative for those years.
Again, this is referring to federal income taxes. There's no evidence that they didn't pay other types of taxes; as you can see in the charts, the columns for "U.S. State" and "International" taxes all show positive numbers.
answered 3 hours ago
LaurelLaurel
11.3k54958
When Bernie Sanders claimed Amazon didn't pay federal income taxes in 2017, Snopes wrote a helpful article:
In regards to U.S. federal income taxes, the claim that Amazon paid none in 2017 is almost certainly factual. While Amazon’s tax filings are not public, their SEC filing for the year 2017 illustrates that the company used the tax code expertly (and legally) to their advantage, so well that the company anticipated a $137 million tax refund from the federal government (numbers are in millions of dollars):
Amazon did pay taxes to individual U.S. states ($211 million) and to international jurisdictions ($724 million), but their federal income tax burden was (less than) zero. The filings indicate that two factors provided the lion share of Amazon’s reduced federal tax liability: $220 million worth of tax credits, and $917 million in tax-deductible executive pay derived from the sale of stocks
(Politifact also wrote about this, coming to the same conclusion: it's likely true.)
The form they're referring to is the 10-K. Looking at the 2018 filing, it has the same sections, so the same explanation applies. Under "Current Taxes: U.S. Federal" for 2018 it says "$(129)" (parenthesis indicate a negative number and this number is still in millions). In other words, much like last year, they expected to get a federal net tax refund, which is why the line in the graph is negative for those years.
Again, this is referring to federal income taxes. There's no evidence that they didn't pay other types of taxes; as you can see in the charts, the columns for "U.S. State" and "International" taxes all show positive numbers.
answered 3 hours ago
LaurelLaurel
11.3k54958
edited 1 hour ago
answered 3 hours ago
LaurelLaurel
11.3k54958
answered 3 hours ago
LaurelLaurel
11.3k54958
answered 3 hours ago
LaurelLaurel
11.3k54958
11.3k54958
Great answer. However, since "There's no evidence that they didn't pay other types of taxes" and that common people seemingly don't segment taxes like business do in their minds, a brief list of any of the taxes Amazon did or might have pay to the federal government might be in order. Their undoubted contribution to social security is certainly one I can think of.
– fredsbend
2 hours ago
It's acceptable for me to focus on "federal", but the Q goes for a more general "taxes". Don't want to echo the previous comment, but at least cite how you arrive at "no evidence" for 'other taxes'?
– LangLangC
2 hours ago
1
Minor quibble: Getting a tax refund and paying negative taxes are not the same thing. You can get a tax refund while paying extremely positive taxes, for example. A tax refund just means that your withholding (or quarterly estimated payments, as the case may be) exceeded your actual tax liability for the year. That could happen even if your tax liability is quite large.
– reirab
1 hour ago
1
@LangLangC The evidence for having paid other taxes is the same as the evidence that "their federal income tax burden was (less than) zero." The screenshot of SEC filing shows a negative number on the line labeled "U.S. Federal" ((137) [million dollars]) under section labeled "Current taxes" and a positive number on each of the two lines labeled "U.S. State" (211 [million dollars]) and "International" (724 [million dollars]).
– Jaquez
57 mins ago
@reirab: I think the context makes it clear it is a net refund.
– Mehrdad
57 mins ago
|
show 1 more comment
Great answer. However, since "There's no evidence that they didn't pay other types of taxes" and that common people seemingly don't segment taxes like business do in their minds, a brief list of any of the taxes Amazon did or might have pay to the federal government might be in order. Their undoubted contribution to social security is certainly one I can think of.
– fredsbend
2 hours ago
It's acceptable for me to focus on "federal", but the Q goes for a more general "taxes". Don't want to echo the previous comment, but at least cite how you arrive at "no evidence" for 'other taxes'?
– LangLangC
2 hours ago
1
Minor quibble: Getting a tax refund and paying negative taxes are not the same thing. You can get a tax refund while paying extremely positive taxes, for example. A tax refund just means that your withholding (or quarterly estimated payments, as the case may be) exceeded your actual tax liability for the year. That could happen even if your tax liability is quite large.
– reirab
1 hour ago
1
@LangLangC The evidence for having paid other taxes is the same as the evidence that "their federal income tax burden was (less than) zero." The screenshot of SEC filing shows a negative number on the line labeled "U.S. Federal" ((137) [million dollars]) under section labeled "Current taxes" and a positive number on each of the two lines labeled "U.S. State" (211 [million dollars]) and "International" (724 [million dollars]).
– Jaquez
57 mins ago
@reirab: I think the context makes it clear it is a net refund.
– Mehrdad
57 mins ago
Great answer. However, since "There's no evidence that they didn't pay other types of taxes" and that common people seemingly don't segment taxes like business do in their minds, a brief list of any of the taxes Amazon did or might have pay to the federal government might be in order. Their undoubted contribution to social security is certainly one I can think of.
– fredsbend
2 hours ago
Great answer. However, since "There's no evidence that they didn't pay other types of taxes" and that common people seemingly don't segment taxes like business do in their minds, a brief list of any of the taxes Amazon did or might have pay to the federal government might be in order. Their undoubted contribution to social security is certainly one I can think of.
– fredsbend
2 hours ago
It's acceptable for me to focus on "federal", but the Q goes for a more general "taxes". Don't want to echo the previous comment, but at least cite how you arrive at "no evidence" for 'other taxes'?
– LangLangC
2 hours ago
It's acceptable for me to focus on "federal", but the Q goes for a more general "taxes". Don't want to echo the previous comment, but at least cite how you arrive at "no evidence" for 'other taxes'?
– LangLangC
2 hours ago
1
1
Minor quibble: Getting a tax refund and paying negative taxes are not the same thing. You can get a tax refund while paying extremely positive taxes, for example. A tax refund just means that your withholding (or quarterly estimated payments, as the case may be) exceeded your actual tax liability for the year. That could happen even if your tax liability is quite large.
– reirab
1 hour ago
Minor quibble: Getting a tax refund and paying negative taxes are not the same thing. You can get a tax refund while paying extremely positive taxes, for example. A tax refund just means that your withholding (or quarterly estimated payments, as the case may be) exceeded your actual tax liability for the year. That could happen even if your tax liability is quite large.
– reirab
1 hour ago
1
1
@LangLangC The evidence for having paid other taxes is the same as the evidence that "their federal income tax burden was (less than) zero." The screenshot of SEC filing shows a negative number on the line labeled "U.S. Federal" ((137) [million dollars]) under section labeled "Current taxes" and a positive number on each of the two lines labeled "U.S. State" (211 [million dollars]) and "International" (724 [million dollars]).
– Jaquez
57 mins ago
@LangLangC The evidence for having paid other taxes is the same as the evidence that "their federal income tax burden was (less than) zero." The screenshot of SEC filing shows a negative number on the line labeled "U.S. Federal" ((137) [million dollars]) under section labeled "Current taxes" and a positive number on each of the two lines labeled "U.S. State" (211 [million dollars]) and "International" (724 [million dollars]).
– Jaquez
57 mins ago
@reirab: I think the context makes it clear it is a net refund.
– Mehrdad
57 mins ago
@reirab: I think the context makes it clear it is a net refund.
– Mehrdad
57 mins ago
|
show 1 more comment
Is the graph saying that the company paid negative tax in 2017 and 2018?
– Andrew Grimm
4 hours ago
@AndrewGrimm yeah I saw in another article "To top it off, Amazon actually reported a $129 million 2018 federal income tax rebate—making its tax rate -1%."(fortune.com/2019/02/14/amazon-doesnt-pay-federal-taxes-2019)
– Noah Cristino
4 hours ago