The ‘tax dodgers’ of the defense industry

The ‘tax dodgers’ of the defense industry

The biggest companies in the defense game paid an average of less than half the U.S. corporate tax rate over the past three years, according to a muckraking new report by populist D.C. tax watchdogs.

In fact, in their study, the Citizens for Tax Justice and the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy wrote that a few brand-name defense giants paid no taxes at all. Their statistics detail the incredible closeness of the federal government and its big vendors, which benefit not only from big-ticket defense programs but a galaxy of special provisions in the tax code.

In 2010, for example, General Electric, Honeywell, Navistar and Boeing paid no tax or even made money from federal protections or subsidies, according to the report. Boeing’s “effective tax rate,” as calculated by the report authors, was –1.8 percent from 2008 to 2010. Honeywell’s was –0.7 percent.


Most of the big defense contractors did pay some taxes, although at rates below the standard corporate 35 percent, the report said. From 2008 to 2010, the top 10 companies’ rate averaged about 15.3 percent; the defense industry overall paid at about a 17 percent rate.

A few well-known names: In that three-year period, Lockheed Martin paid a 20.2 percent rate; Northrop Gruman paid 23.8 percent; General Dynamics paid 27 percent; United Technologies paid 10 percent; and SAIC paid the most — 28.7 percent.

So how do they do it? Special protections, subsidies and other benefits. One example is “accelerated depreciation,” which the report describes this way: “The tax laws generally allow companies to write off their capital investments considerably faster than the assets actually wear out. This ‘accelerated depreciation’ is technically a tax deferral, but so long as a company continues to invest, the tax deferral tends to be indefinite.”

Another example is stock options: “Most big corporations give their executives (and sometimes other employees) options to buy the company’s stock at a favorable price in the future. When those options are exercised, companies can take a tax deduction for the difference between what the employees pay for the stock and what it’s worth (while employees report this difference as taxable wages).”

The report goes into great detail in a company-by-company breakdown, and here are just a few examples:

Boeing: The research and experimentation tax credit saved the company $158 million, $175 million and $172 million in 2010,2009 and 2008. Excess tax benefits from stock options reduced federal and state taxes by $19 million, $5 million and $100 millionin the same years.

Lockheed Martin: Because the company does not disclose U.S.and foreign pretax income, the study estimated foreign pretaxincome based on reported current foreign income taxes. Morethan 80% of the company’s worldwide sales in 2010, 2009, and2009 were to the U.S. government. The Domestic Production Activities Deduction saved the company $110 million, $39 million,and $67 million in 2010 and 2009. The research and experimentation tax credit saved the company $43 million, $43 million and $36 million in the same years. Excess tax benefits from stock options reduced federal and state taxes by $21 million and $92 million in 2009 and 2008. Accelerated depreciation saved the company substantial amounts in all three years.

General Dynamics: Deferred taxes explain most of the tax breaks the company received in 2010, 2009 and 2008. In addition, the Domestic Production Activities Deduction reduced taxes by $61 million, $28 million and $36 million in 2010, 2009 and 2008. Excess tax benefits from stock options reduced federal and statetaxes by $18 million, $5 million and $31 million in 2010, 2009 and 2008.

Northrop Grumman: Reported pretax profits in 2008 were adjusted upward for a non-cash good will impairment charge. The Domestic Production Activities Deduction reduced taxes by $34 million, $24 million and $19 million in 2010, 2009 and 2008. The research and experimentation tax credit saved the company $15, $17 and $13 million in the same years. Excess tax benefits from stock options reduced federal and state taxes by $22 million, $2 million and $48 million in the same years.

And so forth and so on. These benefits are in addition to other ways the government helps or protects defense companies. Remember how we learned from Wikileaks that the federal government has lobbied hard on behalf of Boeing and Lockheed, trying to drum up foreign aerospace and defense sales?

All right — it is what it is, industry advocates would argue. Here’s what John Bennett wrote in The Hill:

In an email, Lexington Institute COO and industry consultant Loren Thompson called the report’s branding of companies as tax dodgers that merely “take advantage of legitimate provisions” in federal tax codes “misleading.” “It’s like calling families tax dodgers for claiming a deduction on mortgage interest,” Thompson wrote. “When Boeing claims an R&D tax credit or writes off investment in a canceled weapons program, that’s quite reasonable.”

The business of America is business, after all, and as we keep being reminded, the defense industry is made up of for-profit companies. The companies would certainly argue that navigating the tax game as skillfully as possible is just another way to fortify the bottom line.

Join the Conversation

A couple of questions. First, what makes this ‘news’ instead of a ‘hit piece’?
Given any business will make say ‘x percent’ net profit above and beyond all costs that are deducted from the gross profit, and those costs include all taxes, how much of a factor in ‘Defense’ corporations paying taxes at a lower rate than corporations in general is the fact that the majority of revenues come from government contracts which are structured to reduce the government in effect taxing itself? I would be interested in the numbers offered if they were also put in perspective with the associated ‘aerospace and defense’ industry numbers for Defense Industry returns on operating income and assets among other metrics compared to other industries.

I’d have to agree with Thompson. When a jet fighter program requires that the contractor buy hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of machines to build the airplanes, and then cuts the number to 1/10th of the original order, then is the contractor just supposed to eat the cost of those machines?

Navistar is a gorilla that constantly rapes the American taxpayer. When will our legistlators start kicking them in the b*lls?

Harry Truman was told once that a defense contractor overcharged the government on some item.

His response: “Find me the guy that wrote the check.”

In no other business do you blame the guy who follows the (arcane, and convoluted) laws, for mistakes made by the government (if they are mistakes).

If we did to this to journalists it would look like this: Blame the guy who brought us the story about the bank robbery, but give a criminal a pass.

From the real Taxpayer…I once did a report on the profits of defense companies versus commercial companies. The defense companies were complaining that they weren’t making the same money on a return-on-sales basis as their they did from their commercial operations or those of purely commercial businesses. That was true. What they didn’t say was that on a return-on-assets basis (they use government facilities and government equipment), they received over 50% more than their commercial counterparts. So, the real question is: What’s fair?

After seeing these companies at work for nearly 30 years, I feel we should just nationalize them. At least we could save the moeny we give them for profits and taxes.

Why should these companies pay taxes when they will just pass that cost on to America.…..since the USA is the one buying the product. The argument that these companies should pay higher taxes is ridiculous. It would be a zero sum gain. Now foreign sales? That depends on how it affects domestic sales. Definitely a chance to tax.

Tax incentives versus taxes on net profits for government equipment, vehicles, ships, material & aircraft by government contractors ? Want to drive OMB/GAO/DoD & IRS bean counters completely insane ?

I think as much of you tax dollars as possible should go to the $25 million a year salary of Bob Stevens and Jim McNerney. After all, you people are clearly too stupid to use the money, or to even be allowed to keep it for any period of time.

So the government offers these companies all of these tax credits and loopholes, then gets upset when companies actually use them? Am I the only one seeing the disconnect here?

If you create a tax code that allows for this sort of thing, don’t be upset when companies take advantage of it. This is hardly unique to the defense industry either. It’s a problem everywhere.

Get rid of all of these credits and loopholes and instead offer a performance based tax cut/credit to these contractors when their products on-time and on-budget.

Of course the federal government should be willing to accept more realistic (and thus costly) estimates rather than essentially forcing these contractors to put forth extremely optimistic schedules and estimates.

Aren’t you the guy that famously said that fraud against the American taxpayer was a legitimate way for contractors to obtain funding. I remember reading that.

We wouldn’t get investment advice from Bernie Maddoff — why would we listen to you on paying taxes ?

I have been a technical monitor-systems engineer on very large weapons systems acquisition for both Army and Navy. Yes, the aerospace contractors take advantage of the tax loopholes but in order to survive and more important for the country to maintain an adequate weapons tech-base the government MUST give incentives to the industry to remain in their industry. When an audit shows that the government was charged $800.00 for a hammer it ignores the fact that the company had to eat a million dollars in costs due to change directives that they are not compensated for. And, oh yes, when a production contract is signed for 10,000 systems and then the contractor in full faith invests in the manufacturing facility to produce the 10,000 and then gets screwed by the government because it cannot live up to its funding obligations the defense industry must compensate by charging $800.00 for a hammer. Finally, lets look at the salaries and the stock options that defense industry executives make and then compare it with other industries such as the financial. The bottom line here is that the defense industry is crucial to our national survival and if we must subsidize them in order to have them remain in existence then so be it!

Have been in much the same position as you and feel a lot of the same frustrations but.… do you REALLY think that the $800 hammer was an attempt to “make up” for losses on other programs? Or perhaps was $790 of that $800 just the “minimum overhead” of buying one of anything through the bureaucracy that is in place? If you count the in-baskets that the purchase had to go through, and then allocated 30 minutes of pondering the regulations at each of those stops, and then multiplied by … $30/hr… then add on the actual overhead rate… then the shipping .….

But then there are all sorts of regulations and restrictions to absolutely prohibit the common sense approach of just going down to Sears.… …

The criminal mentality of the contractors is on show for all to see here. Having got a cushy cost plus contract the contractor feels that it is perfectly OK to simply defraud the government as well.

They don’t submit a bill saying it’s a $10 hammer and by the way we are breaking the contract by making $790 profit no they say it cost $730 to source the hammer and they are marking it up the the contracts 10% guaranteed profit.

That is simply fraud.

The level of criminality that exists in the industry cannot be fixed we need to start letting companies die to kill off the Augean stable of corruption they have become. Companies that are so corrupt and incompetent that they cant even make money on contracts with guaranteed profit margins with the customer paying for all the risks are not the sort of companies we want in America.

Hm… since the accountants on both sides of the table have to be paid, more or less based on the “cash flow”, what if we cut back on the cash flow with a straight up tax holiday on all DoD (and goverment?) R&D and procurements. Does it really make sense for the government to pay the price (i.e. cost + profit + tax) and then pull the tax back with all of the associated “administrative expenses” added in? We could just imagine that the tax is “paid” up front and eliminate those “shipping and handling” fees.… .

Yes, I know, bureaucrats, bean counters and accountants need to eat too! But NOT on my tax or defense appropriations dollar! LOL!

Since the “legislators” write the tax code and the companies merely follow the tax codes I would suggest you change your target the the real “evil” doers…Congress.

Except it the big contractors LOBBYIST that got our tail wagging headless politician to wright the arcane and convoluted laws.

You communist you, WE ARE CAPITALIST, even our politicians are paid by the highest bidder.

Flat tax man, flat tax. And on that same thought, why was I paying taxes on my measly pay when I was in the AF? I always felt like they were giving with one hand, and taking with the other. Nothing like buying a $450,000 Bradley and paying $80,000 luxury tax. Ya I know I am rambling, the coffee is starting to kick in.

I love the people who push for a flat tax and and in the same breath say they are scraping by.
It takes all the guilt away from increasing their tax burden while reducing mine.

I find your logic and comment are internally inconsistent. If defense companies have the appearance of ‘benefitting’ from the use of government property and equipment that is not on the companies’ books and they make the defense industry look better than it REALLY is in the ROA category (vis a vis other industries) as you note (and I agree), this has the effect of artificially and NOT materially inflating the Defense industry’s ROA– which means a normalized Defense ROA would be much lower if we compared ‘apples and apples’ and Defense had to provide all their own infrastructure and equipment. So by your own observation and contrary to your deductions, ROS and real ROA for Defense are both on the same side of the ledger versus balancing. As a reminder, and as any good financial advisor or financial management professor will tell you, you cannot cherrypick your metrics in isolation, even when employing strawmen ‘ROS complaints’, but must look at all of the indicators in evaluating an industry or company.
The ‘feel we should just nationalize them’ closer is hilarious BTW. I won’t repeat my opinion of Marxism and/or Socialistas here.

For reference As structured, the defense industry’s ROA is usually in the 2nd quartile in rankings at about the middle third range of values for industries with positive ROAs, and usually about half of the top 3–4 performers. In toto, it could be called ‘fair to middling’, which is what one should expect within a monopsony. The taxpayers benefit from government ownership of property (some not all defense industry properties BTW) and equipment in many ways and is done for reasons completely independent of industry financial returns.

OK, before we get too far down the road with the Hammer and Toilet Seat Cost myths let’s get the myths right first.
1. It was a $435 hammer (that wasn’t) and it wasn’t anything other than a manufactured vehicle to ‘relevance’ by a pompous (insert synonym for donkey) named Berkley Bedel. see: http://​findarticles​.com/​p​/​a​r​t​i​c​l​e​s​/​m​i​_​m​1​3​1​6​/​i​s​_v1
2. It was a $600 toilet sets (that wasn’t) and it wasn’t anything other than a manufactured vehicle to ‘relevance’ by a pompous (insert synonym for donkey) named Willam Cohen. see: http://​www​.time​.com/​t​i​m​e​/​m​a​g​a​z​i​n​e​/​a​r​t​i​c​l​e​/​0​,​9​171,… (subscription req’d last I checked)
But hey! Let’s not get reality get in the way of a good Rantfest.

You want to nationalize the aerospace industry? OK but don’t expect costs to go down. The Navy uses the Naval Shipyards for repairs and NOT to build new ships because when they did build ships in the government shipyards, the privately owned shipyards consistently came in at lower cost. In fact the government shipyards are more expensive for repairs as well but are kept on mostly because of government patronage.

Good Morning Folks,

Well lets see if Editor Ewing pulls this post.

I’m surprised that those companies paid that much in taxes. Of course as usual the editor missed the largest offender of all defense contractors and that is General Electric who in 2009 not only paid zero in income taxes but got a rebate of several millions of dollars while is made a nice profit.

As usual the editor is pulling his punches.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Dude, the false claims act will pay you HUGE sums of money when you bring the evidence forward. Triple the amount of the fraud could be a lot of cash for the offenses that you are alledging. With all the big accusations that you’re throwing around, I’m guessing that you have a very bright financial future if you can PROVE IT.

Talk is cheap.

As the article points out corporations don’t pay the stated tax rate because of tax deductions and credits.

If Congress were to get rid of these tax expenditures they could lower the rate in a revenue-neutral manner. These changes will create a more transparent and simpler tax code that encourages companies to develop and create jobs in the U.S. instead of another, less consumer-driven country. http://​eng​.am/​m​T​C​nZw

Think about it this way. A business goes to the hardware store (U.S. Government) to buy a hammer but with $35 price tag thought it was too costly, decided not to buy it, and started looking for a cheaper option. What the business doesn’t know is that when at the checkout the hardware store would have given them a credit reducing the price to $25 which the business would have been willing to pay. If the store had just put the $25 tag on the item in the first place the company wouldn’t have hesitated to buy it.

Unfortunately our corporate tax code is designed exactly like the hardware store’s pricing system instead of being straightforward. If we don’t reform the corporate system then businesses will continue to overlook investing in America because they are scared of our uncompetitive tax rates like the $35 hammer.

More baseless claims from Oblat, color me surprised. When you’ve stated your desire to see the defense industry brought to ruin, and a large part of America’s technological and industrial base with it, I don’t think your in any position to comment.

Forget the false claim act, if talk is cheap, ITFUNK is a billionaire in the making! ROTGLMAO!

Truman also had that original “the buck stops here” desk toy, and I think that he believed it. And he is essentially right; no amount of contractor connivance, short of ourtright fraud, can result in excessive payments unless someone behind the checkbook approves it, and outright fraud is already on the books as a felony! :-) That $800 hammer or $1200 dollar toilet seat were bought in accordance with the rules and regulations of the FAR or… somebody really should have been sent to jail! But then the FAR were not written by Lockheed, Boeing or L-3!! :-)

Let me bring your insuinuation that the government lets these businesses use the equipment free of charge up to date… I know from first hand experience very recently that we go through a “right of use” process where we define the company use of Uncle Sam ‘s equipment and basically charges our company a rental fee for every single time we use these tools. And not only that but we have gone through in the past a drill of how much we used these tools over the past 10 years.… and Uncle Sam charged a back rent on the use of these tools… so while it might have been that way at one time… it is not that way now…

Are these the same corporations that make the campaign contributions to the Congressmen that approve the spending budgets for various Defense procurement contracts? What does it cost to pay a lobbyist to slip in a change to the tax code?

Indeed, I’m pretty sure that LM et al would be quite happy to dispense with the FAR, and buy things cheap.

But then we’d hear horror stories about “totally unsupervised contractors” and “playing favorites instead of allowing honest competition” and “misuse of taxpayer dollars” and so on.

Just reminds me how the contractors and the trailer park as so closely related.

The prisons are full of people who thought they “weren’t doing anything wrong” because they hadn’t been caught yet. The same thinking is almost universal in the contractor community.

Ah itfunk/oblat, you’re comebacks get worse and worse.

The issue with “Loopholes” is that most of them were put in for a reason. Face it — our tax code is not just to obtain money, but it is now a means of social manipulation. We have a system where the Government wants people or companies to do (or not do) certain things, and use the tax system to encourage or discourage that behavior.
– We want people to save for retirement so we tax that money differently
– We want people to buy homes so we tax mortgages differently
– We want money to be invested in stocks that create jobs so we tax capital gains different then other investments (the Warren Buffet issue).

In the past it has always been the Left that wanted “social engineering” and the Right kept saying we should minimize the Government’s manipulation of our daily lives. The present administration (clearly Left-leaning), by championing elimination of those “loopholes”, is going the exact opposite direction.

No matter what the “rules” there will be some that circumvent them for better or worse reasons. The real underlying problem is that integrity, on the part of the providers and the buyers, can not be implemented by regulation or law. If so, we could just make it illegal and close all of the prisons.

Accountability is the problem, both personal on the part of the people involved, and public in the sense of punishing the miscreants be they individuals or corporations.

You mean the loopholes and writeoffs that the Defense industry lobbied for and backed up with “contributions” for those congressmen that support them.

Claiming that they’re “just following the rules” is a bit disingenuous since these companies and the industry as a whole played no small role in creating the “rules” to their best advantage.

>The real underlying problem is that integrity, on the part of the providers and the buyers, can not be implemented by regulation or law. If so, we could just make it illegal and close all of the prisons.

Yea because when things are illegal you don’t need prisons anymore. LOL
More bizarre thinking from the contractor world where fraud is perfectly normal.

Maybe his fingers are getting cold, sitting there in a tent, ‘occupying’ someplace, tapping away on a borrowed laptop while stealing wifi from the nearby outlet of the greedy Starbucks Corporation?

Isn’t integrity implemented in regulation & law through contracts — legally enforceable constructs that can be adjuticated in court with payment of damages to wronged parties?

Once again, itfunk, present the PROOF of your accusations.

You’re making the same argument that Boeing is making about the A-12.

And how is this this different from banks, automobile manufactures, tech companies, and just about every other sector of the economy? They all play the game and lobby congress. You can’t blame them for trying to get ahead. You want to fix it, get congress to stop being a bunch of corrupt scumbags.

You are right that the current administration is not going the typical democratic route in regard to the tax code.

However, one thing that has become obvious is that while the tax code has been used to create social change it has also become a source for government spending.

Politicians no longer ask for spending appropriations for certain projects. Instead they use the tax code and write in the equivalent tax incentive. Using the tax code for spending makes it harder to reduce spending and has greatly bloated the number of tax expenditures which now add up to over $1 trillion annually. (http://​eng​.am/​p​C​L​gmm)

It has also been shown that social programs through the tax code don’t always have their intended impact. For example, the Mortgage Interest Deduction (MID) was created to help incentivize home-ownership among the middle and lower class. However, studies have found that the more you earn the more you benefit from the MID so the upper class benefits more from it than everyone else. http://​eng​.am/​n​U​x​jIS

Getting rid of tax expenditures and lowering tax rates in a revenue neutral manner will help in the long run because it will take the power of the tax code away from politicians on both sides of the aisle.

It’s news because it shows that American corporations are more interested in making money off the US obsession with war and policing the world than they are with actually supporting the nation. Deadbeats.

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

AdChoices | Become a fan on and follow us on
© 2013 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.