Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

So...... now that it looks like they might be actually getting a bill together that includes a 15% minimum tax on large corporations - there has been some discussion that this would be a 15% minimum tax on "book" income, or GAAP reported net income.  As in, when Berkshire reports a GAAP net income that includes $30 or $40 Billion in unrealized stock market gains that weren't previously taxed under the previous regime but have to be reported through the income statement under GAAP, who here thinks Berkshire will be on the hook for the cash tax payments under this new plan?  I assume they will need to carve out a bunch of exemptions and maybe insurance companies will be one of those - but it is being put together in a hurry and it seems like there will be a lot of hasty decisions that they will have to 'fix in post' so to speak.

 

On the other hand, I'm sure Berkshire will benefit from some of the extensions of utility tax credits.

 

 

Posted

I don't even really know who this 15% corporate AMT is meant to target. When many of the headlines about such and such big corporation paid no income taxes this year it usually seems to be related to R&D expenses or bonus depreciation.

 

R&D expenses are deducted for both GAAP and tax, so this wouldn't really hit any of them unless the AMT will require adding back those amounts.

 

Bonus depreciation is the one I see most often when there is GAAP net income but no taxable income, because for tax purposes millions or billions of fixed asset purchases are written off immediately whereas for book purposes they are depreciated over their useful life. But bonus depreciation has come and gone many times, and if you don't want that book to tax discrepancy then I don't know why you would keep the accelerated depreciation in the first place.

 

As you say, Berkshire is probably hit harder than anyone because of the newish GAAP rules about taking unrealized gains into book income, but they would be an odd target for such a law because they actually pay their taxes. Unlike many large companies they don't do all these strategies to avoid taxes by shifting income to offshore entities in low tax countries. But I guess if a wealth tax for individuals is the goal, then maybe they want for corporations as well. I doubt either will end up happening as written right now, so I'm not too worried about it.

  • 2 weeks later...
Posted
6 hours ago, gfp said:

Warren did finally comment on the two new board member appointments in his local (no longer owned) newspaper -

https://omaha.com/business/local/warren-buffett-says-adding-daughter-to-board-will-help-preserve-berkshires-culture/article_380cbffa-3d85-11ec-9ae5-7bba9b76c4a8.html

 

I've always felt that Susan should have been the first Buffett child sitting on the board...ahead of Howard.  She's definitely her father's daughter, and has been fully involved with Berkshire, its meetings, engaging its shareholders, etc for quite some time.  She has her mother's keen understanding for giving, and her father's instincts on responsibility.  Cheers!

Posted
On 11/10/2021 at 7:51 PM, Parsad said:

 

I've always felt that Susan should have been the first Buffett child sitting on the board...ahead of Howard.  She's definitely her father's daughter, and has been fully involved with Berkshire, its meetings, engaging its shareholders, etc for quite some time.  She has her mother's keen understanding for giving, and her father's instincts on responsibility.  Cheers!

In Fall 2011, I took Bob Miles' course "The Genius of Warren Buffett" at the University of Nebraska-Omaha. One of the highlights (apart from a class lunch with WEB) was having Susan Buffett speak to our class about her father. It was clear she was very knowledgeable about BRK, her father's approach, and the culture of the company. Seeing Susan and her father interact during lunch was also a treat.

Posted
11 hours ago, Parsad said:

 

He fired Sokol after almost a similar matter of semantics...is he going to remove Howard from the board?  Cheers!

I would hope so,  but unfortunately that’s unlikely.

 

What was a bit differently is that Sokol’s offense was directly related to his position at Berkshire while Howard’s is unrelated. Howard’s matter is more in line with Monish Pabrai’s Harvard MBA disaster.

 

Posted
7 hours ago, Spekulatius said:

I would hope so,  but unfortunately that’s unlikely.

 

What was a bit differently is that Sokol’s offense was directly related to his position at Berkshire while Howard’s is unrelated. Howard’s matter is more in line with Monish Pabrai’s Harvard MBA disaster.

 

LOL The MBA fiasco! I totally forgot about that! Everyone fussing over whether its real or not....meanwhile in my head I'm like "wait, it says more to me in terms of his approach, that this guy thinks having an MBA is even worth bragging about in the first place!" Oh man. 

Posted
On 11/18/2021 at 6:59 PM, JGBRK said:

 

Thank you for sharing, @JGBRK,

 

@Spekulatius& @Parsad have commented on this case in this topic. Honestly, it's really bugging me, after reading the primary source [, linked to in the article linked to by @JGBRK].

 

Any other commments by my fellow CoBF members? - Thanks in advance,

Posted (edited)

Howard seems to me like a bit of a weirdo to be frank

 

And actually on 2nd thought I would prefer he never has any link to Berkshire. 

Edited by LC
Posted

Am I misremembering or was Howard speculated to be part of some horseback riding border patrol group a few years back? Vaguely remember reading something about a wealthy guy and his buddies roaming around with night vision goggles and guns in Arizona or something like that. 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...