Hot on HuffPost:

See More Stories

Obama Administration Denies Goldman Sachs $3 Billion Tax Break

2 years ago
  0 Comments Say Something  »
Text Size
The Treasury Department told Goldman Sachs last week that it could not use Fannie Mae's tax credits to reduce its own tax liability. An official with the Obama administration explained that the proposal "would result in a loss of aggregate tax revenues that would be greater than the savings."

This is the right decision. Had the Treasury Department allowed Goldman to reduce its tax liability by using Fannie Mae's tax breaks, it would have potentially opened the door to a severe loss of tax revenue, as other profitable companies would likely have sought to follow suit.

As reported earlier, Goldman Sachs had offered to purchase up to $1 billion of low-income housing tax credits that Fannie Mae had itself purchased during the housing bubble but can no longer use. More recently, the Wall Street Journal reported that Warren Buffett had joined Goldman Sachs in a bid to purchase $3 billion in credits. The credits, designed to encourage additional investment in low-income housing, are useful only if the company claiming them is profitable. And with Fannie Mae currently a very unprofitable company, it does not have much use for the credits. It has lost $59 billion so far this year, and the U.S. government has already given Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, its related government-sponsored entity, almost $100 billion since September 2008.

Goldman Sachs had portrayed its offer to purchase Fannie Mae's tax credits as a "win-win" proposition. It argued that Fannie Mae would benefit because it could take these credits, which are losing value by the day, off of its books, while Goldman would benefit by reducing its tax liability by the amount of the credits.

Unfortunately, Goldman failed to include the interests of the taxpayer in its calculations. For every dollar that Goldman saves, the government -- and, by extension, the U.S. taxpayer -- loses a dollar. This is hardly a win-win situation.

The Treasury Department might have been sympathetic to Goldman Sachs had it planned to use these credits for their original purpose --- to provide loans for low-income housing. But Goldman never intended to pursue such a plan. Its sole purpose seemed to be reducing its tax liability.

Fortunately, the Treasury Department realized this. Goldman Sachs is on track to pay more than $22 billion to its employees this year. And the federal government spent $1.6 trillion dollars more than it received in tax revenue last year, so giving away a $3 billion tax break just did not make sense. This arrangement was clearly not in the taxpayers' best interests.

And the deal would have struck a discordant note for another reason. Although Goldman earned $2.3 billion in 2008, it paid just $14 million in taxes that year. With an effective tax rate of about 1 percent, it hardly seems entitled to an additional break.

Our New Approach to Comments

In an effort to encourage the same level of civil dialogue among Politics Daily’s readers that we expect of our writers – a “civilogue,” to use the term coined by PD’s Jeffrey Weiss – we are requiring commenters to use their AOL or AIM screen names to submit a comment, and we are reading all comments before publishing them. Personal attacks (on writers, other readers, Nancy Pelosi, George W. Bush, or anyone at all) and comments that are not productive additions to the conversation will not be published, period, to make room for a discussion among those with ideas to kick around. Please read our Help and Feedback section for more info.

Add a Comment

*0 / 3000 Character Maximum Comment Moderation Enabled. Your comment will appear after it is cleared by an editor.

Follow Politics Daily

  • Comics
robert-and-donna-trussell
CHAOS THEORY
Featuring political comics by Robert and Donna TrussellMore>>
  • Woman UP Video
politics daily videos
Weekly Videos
Woman Up, Politics Daily's Online Sunday ShowMore»
politics daily videos
TV Appearances
Showcasing appearances by Politics Daily staff and contributors.More>>