Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

KeepItReal

(7,769 posts)
Wed Nov 18, 2015, 08:53 PM Nov 2015

BP spill payments are 'tax-deductible' for oil giant, Congress angry

Source: WWL TV New Orleans

Members of Congress sent a letter to Attorney General Loretta Lynch on Wednesday complaining that most of the government's $20.8 billion oil spill settlement with BP is tax-deductible as a "business expense."

Only $5.5 billion of the settlement announced in July and confirmed in October is considered a "fine," making it exempt from tax breaks. The remaining $15.3 billion can be written off as a business expense under the tax code, potentially saving the oil giant more than $5 billion.

U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Arizona, wrote the letter to Lynch urging the Justice Department to include language in the final agreement prohibiting BP from claiming any part of the settlement payments as tax-deductible business expenses. Grijalva said American taxpayers are having to essentially foot the bill to make up for tax revenue BP won’t have to pay if it’s allowed the deduction.

...

Beyond the fines for violations of the Clean Water Act, the rest of BP's settlement payments were for damages, including $7.1 billion under the Natural Resources Damage Assessment. Grijalva contends those damages were caused by BP’s "gross negligence," as ruled by U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier, and the oil giant should not be allowed to "game the tax code” to get a tax break for those costs.

Read more: http://www.wwltv.com/story/news/local/investigations/david-hammer/2015/11/18/bp-spill-payments-tax-deductible-oil-giant-congress-angry/76016718/



6 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

LiberalArkie

(15,719 posts)
1. And a lot of the money was for Corexit. So that BP gets a deduction from taxes for using a product
Wed Nov 18, 2015, 08:59 PM
Nov 2015

That a division of it produces.

It is produced by Nalco Company, associated with BP and Exxon and an indirect subsidiary of Ecolab.

Midnight Writer

(21,769 posts)
3. Doesn't Rep, Grijalva realize less taxes are Good For America?
Thu Nov 19, 2015, 02:06 AM
Nov 2015

He should be thankful that this Corporate Citizen will spend less money to "Feed The Beast" and have more money to hire more people and pay them higher wages.

Geez, I guess some people will never understand supply side economics.

I for one am eagerly awaiting the expanded wealth of BP to trickle down upon me.

mrdmk

(2,943 posts)
4. Off topic, yet relevant due to other fines and run-ins with legal settlements were just warm-ups
Thu Nov 19, 2015, 02:38 AM
Nov 2015

This was the start of the legal settlements with BP-ARCO and others.


(Pasted in full, from a government Website)

Attorney General Lockyer Announces ARCO to Pay Largest Penalty in Nation to Settle Alleged Underground Tank Violations in California

Wednesday, June 19, 2002
Contact: (415) 703-5837, agpressoffice@doj.ca.gov

(SAN FRANCISCO) – Attorney General Bill Lockyer today filed with the court a $45.8 million settlement with BP-ARCO that includes the largest penalty in the nation for alleged widespread underground tank violations at ARCO gasoline stations in California.

"Gasoline stations were given 10 years to make required safety upgrades to underground fuel storage tanks to better safeguard our water supplies and protect the environment from unseen leaks," Lockyer said. "The landmark settlement ends our two-year investigation which found that ARCO failed to make required safety improvements at 59 service stations spread across the state from San Diego in the south to Sacramento and Marysville in the north and failed to disclose the truth to government officials."

Filed in San Francisco Superior Court, the settlement of the state complaint was reached by ARCO, the Attorney General and San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera, who also found alleged violations of local certification requirements and deliveries of gasoline to retail stations with non-upgraded underground tank systems. The case was based on investigations of underground tanks by the California Environmental Protection Agency, State Water Resources Control Board and the San Francisco Department of Health.

"This is an example of state and local officials working together to protect our environment," Herrera said. "By combining our resources, we have been able to avert a long court battle and get a settlement that is good for the health and safety of the entire state."

The settlement provides for $25 million in direct penalties and costs to be paid by ARCO and $20.8 million in improvements that the oil company must demonstrate have been made to underground tanks at its gasoline stations. The payment includes civil penalties, reimbursement of investigation and enforcement costs and funding for the prosecution of other environmental protection cases. The company also agreed to specified court-enforceable monitoring, inspection and enforcement conditions that apply to the more than 900 ARCO stations in California. ARCO merged with BP Amoco in April 2000.

"We believe that ARCO, which cooperated in this enforcement case, is now in full compliance with the upgrade standards at all its gasoline stations," Lockyer said. "As further assurance, the oil company under the settlement must provide state inspectors with access to ARCO stations and close immediately any gasoline stations discovered with upgrade violations until required improvements are made."

In 1987, California gave gasoline stations a 10-year deadline by which to meet strengthened underground fuel tank standards for corrosion protection, leak detection, spill prevention and environmental protection. Upgrades such as the use of double-walled or non-corrosive fiberglass linings were required to be installed by a highly publicized December 22, 1998 deadline. Responding to industry concerns that delays in government inspections could result in service stations closures, oil companies were allowed to self-certify completion of upgrade work. Violations could result in civil penalties of up to $5,000 per day.

The state investigation focused on ARCO's compliance with the underground tank safety requirements statewide. Operational problems such as leaking gasoline at individual retail stations are subject to separate enforcement action by local regulatory agencies. The state settlement does not affect local enforcement actions pending in Orange County or other jurisdictions.

Settlement documents filed with the court noted that ARCO's actions provided the company with an unfair business advantage in alleged violation of California's Unfair Competition Act, also known as Government Code section 17200, which provides civil penalties of up to $2,500 per violation. While other companies were temporarily shutting down service stations to meet the deadline for underground tank improvements, ARCO by allegedly ignoring or misrepresenting work done was able to continue selling gasoline at the 59 stations, postpone upgrade costs and hire contractors to do the work after the big rush by other companies seeking to meet the state deadline.

The 59 ARCO stations cited in the complaint are in the cities of Bellflower, Berkeley, Buena Park, Carson, Castro Valley, Cotati, Culver City, Cupertino, Downey, Dublin, El Cajon, El Monte, Elk Grove, Fair Oaks, Fresno, Garden Grove, Glendora, Harbor City, Hawthorne, Hayward, Hemet, Los Angeles, Malibu, Marysville, National City, North Highlands, Oakland, Palmdale, Paramount, Pinole, Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco, San Jose, Simi Valley, South Gate, Sunnyvale, Ventura, West Covina and Whittier.

link: http://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-lockyer-announces-arco-pay-largest-penalty-nation-settle


MTBE Presence in Groundwater
Current Legal and Policy Implications for Prevention and Cleanup
December 5, 2006

<snip from page 13>
The plaintiffs sued MTBE manufacturers, refiners, gasoline stations, and distributors of gasoline containing MTBE (Atlantic Richfield Company, ARCO Chemical Company (a subsidiary of Lyondell), Shell Oil Company, Shell Oil Products Company, Chevron U.S.A., Inc., Exxon Corporation, B.P. America, Inc., Tosco Corporation, Ultramar, Inc., Beacon Oil Co., USA Gasoline Corp., Terrible Herbst, Inc. Rotten Robbie, J.E. Tveten, Corp., Tahoe Tom's Gas Station, the Southland Corporation, Paradise Chevron, Unocal and Tesoro). The plaintiff alleged that defendants both produced a defective product and caused extensive contamination of the public drinking water supplies and hence were liable for trespass and nuisance as a result.

All but two defendants settled prior to trial for a total settlement of $37 million. The remaining two defendants, Shell Oil and ARCO Chemical Company went to trial. The jury found MTBE to be a defective product in design because “of the risk of harm inherent in its design which outweighed the benefits of that design” and because of “failure to warn” the public about the risks associated with it.

Furthermore, the jury found that the defendants acted in malice when they sold MTBE or gasoline containing it because of this “failure to warn” the public. Shell Oil settled for $28 million and ARCO Chemical Company settled for $4 million.

In the City of Santa Monica v. Shell Oil Company, et al. Case No. 01CC04331 (Superior Court, Orange County) (complaint filed June 19, 2000), the plaintiffs discovered MTBE in its public water supply during routine sampling of the Charnock well field in 1995. This contaminated well field accounts for half of the city’s water supply. Again, the plaintiff sued MTBE manufacturers, suppliers, and refiners claiming MTBE to be a defective product and that the defendants were liable for the well field pollution under strict liability, negligence, trespass, and nuisance theories.

The defendants in this case included Shell Oil Company, Shell Oil Products Company, Shell Pipeline Corporation, Mobil Oil Corporation, Chevron Corporation, Chevron U.S.A. Inc., Chevron Products Company, Lyondell Chemical Company, Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO), Exxon Mobil Corporation, Tosco Corporation, Ultramar, Inc., Texaco Refining and Marketing, Inc., Equilon Enterprises LLC, ARCO Chemical Company, Exxon Corporation, Unocal Corporation, and Equilon Pipeline Company LLC.

link: http://rockefeller.dartmouth.edu/library/MTBE.pdf


\

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»BP spill payments are 'ta...