what was indicated by the H&R guy is "elementary, Dear Watson"---------- and I'm not attempting to be an arrogant butt, just trying to show you how you can "....bring GE home without bringing Obama along with it".

And, I'm not putting the H&R guy down, since he was right on with his comments, and obviously knows more about tax than I.

The problem with what was indicated-------- go back to reading it very carefully---------- it takes cash to get those deductions.   Have to take that out of cash flow.   (Even on the accrual basis, only those expenses can be accrued which liquidate by cash movement within a reasonable amount of time.)

In order to offset 150K with those items specified, pretty much have to use borrowed money..........cause have to have something to live on.

Beginning point----------- get incorporated so that there is another "holding tank" for the cash needed to remain in the business, and thereby get that internal financing cash  taxed as little as possible.  That opens the door for allowing keeping income down within the rates where the tax bite is not so much------on a long term basis.

Take advantage of what EMPLOYEES are allowed under the Code---------119 and related sections.   Those fringe benefits are not restricted to a given person---------like Immelt--------but they can be restricted to a CLASS of taxpayers---------------get into that class.

I think the GE "stuff" is waaaayyyy overblown..............sounds good to say that GE made all this money, but if they made that much, IRS would have taken their fair share-----------IRS maintains permanent offices in those large taxpayers, and subjects them to constant auditing.

A few items not being brought out in the media's hype................don't hold me to absolute facts on this, since I don't follow GE's activities...........but I have been involved enough with foreign financial activities that I have a smidgeon of knowledge on that front..........

GE was financing a ton of  paper through its subsidiaries......
GE's subs were losing their shirt----------hence the need for bailout money...........
Since GE files consolidated tax returns with its subs.........all entities' income are added together into a big pot, with the gains of one entity offsetting the losses of another.............which is available to all taxpayers.
GE had tons of losses to carryforward to offset current year's income..........Immelt mentioned that..........but of course no one heard him.

GE......and anyone having foreign operations..........can pidgeon hole cash within those foreign operations........AND pay foreign taxes............and US does not tax those earnings until the cash is brought home.   So, if the money is kept overseas and used to finance those operations overseas, I fail to see how that is a big no-no..............if GE is not supposed to function overseas, then pass a law--------until that time, what "........happens in Vegas stays in Vegas."

ONe comment re transfer pricing------------- many would say that the amount of income/expense caused by doing business with one's foreign subsidiary/brother-sister corp can be manipulated  by adjusting the price that is charged by one to the other..................that is a big bone that IRS chews on--------called "transfer pricing", and there are big penalties for failing to prove that one is NOT using prices to manipulate...........so, even that side is monitored.

(I have a client who is a US citizen who resides overseas, makes about 2 million a year.............and because he is a US citizen, he is taxed on his world-wide income.    However, US gives credit for taxes paid to a foreign country, to the extent of the tax the US would charge on that same taxed income, ie that which is "double taxed".  The foreign country's tax rates are so much higher than the US rates that he, in total, pays substantially more total taxes than the US rates hit him with.)

 GE is using the same tax laws as anyone...............there are some periodic situations that occur that can be traced specifically to a given lollipop for some one---------the last one that I was directly aware of was when Chuck Grassley gave Ruan a big chunk of investment credit that the rest of the country was denied------but I am sure that there are many others..................which is why I am so against the "earmarks" and the "special exceptions" within the tax law..........you just know some contributor is getting a payoff...........may not be obvious as to whom, but someone's palm is being greased.

In this case.........GE is getting a bad rap.

And, this concept that "the little guy" does not have access to competent tax help is hogwash.........most guys just don't want to recognize that taxes are an expense just like everything else, and need to be managed.

That said...........there are a lot of squirrely CPAs out there................and I still have yet to supercede H&R where the return should not have been amended.   (Lots of difference between my technical knowledge and that of my office girls---------the same as the H&R guy being quoted above, and the actual preparers doing the work.)

(What's Dave Morgan call those guys that ought not to be running heavy equipment------squirrel operators????   Squirrel operators exist in every business and industry)

I am not a fan of GE, nor especially of Immelt..........Immelt is lower than.........than.........well, plenty low..........I just don't care for him..............but, in this case, he's getting a bad rap.

And.........I watched O'Reilly and that joker Stuart Varney (sp?) gang up on Gary Smith last night---------Gary Smith has forgotten more about economics, financing, and Wall Street activities than.........especially........Varney will ever know...............I about yakked while listening to Varney hold forth with his broad generalizations.

End of diatribe...........