Taxing those who profited from Solyndra.

[notoc]

• Tweet

Solyndra: Pay Some Investors Before Taxpayers In Solar Flame Out

Silicon Valley solar startup Solyndra filed for bankruptcy on Tuesday, proposing to pay some of its venture capital investors ahead of the taxpayers who financed most of a $733 million photovoltaic panel factory that was abruptly shuttered last week when the company ceased operations and laid off 1,100 workers.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/toddwoody/2011/09/06/solyndra-pay-some-investors-before-taxpayers-in-solar-flame-out/

If I run a business that receives government subsidy how should my direct income from that business be taxed? How about any profits from stocks, shares or private money otherwise invested in that business? How about the wages of my employees?

What about the profits of the suppliers and contractors to the business, should they be taxed any differently than if they were profiting from supplying or contracting to an unsubsidized company?

[Pepsi]

Was it a subsidy or a loan from the gov't?    You would think, it would be nice if the terms of that loan stipulated "tax payers get paid first".   

[notoc]

Was it a subsidy or a loan from the gov't?    You would think, it would be nice if the terms of that loan stipulated "tax payers get paid first".

My understanding was that it is a loan guarantee, where the government underwrites private debt repayment if the borrower defaults ... but it appears that a $535 million credit line was actually offered by the Federal Financing Bank http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Financing_Bank

The White House scheduled a press event for September 4 and federal reviewers gave final approval on September 2.[20] After securing the loan guarantee, the Federal Financing Bank, a part of the Department of the Treasury, loaned Solyndra the money on September 4, 2009.[21] Solyndra used the loaned funds to build a new manufacturing facility, Fab 2, in Fremont, California. Construction began in September 2009 and was completed in June 2010.[22]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solyndra_loan_controversy

but ...

In February, 2011, Solyndra restructured its loans with government approval, in an attempt to keep the company afloat. Two funds (Argonaut Ventures LLP and Madrone Partners LP) invested an additional $69 million as part of the restructuring, and Solyndra's debt to the government was subordinated to this new investment. Assistant Treasury Secretary Mary Miller wrote emails at the time stating that this subordination might be illegal, and should be cleared with the Justice Department first, but Energy Department officials proceeded based on an internal legal opinion by the loan program's lawyers. [18] On October 14, 2011 two senior Treasury officials said that they had never seen a loan restructuring like Solyndra.[25]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solyndra_loan_controversy

This company, like most if not all subsidised companies, could not exist in a truly free market ... so what of the remunerations made to, and profits made by, private individuals off of the back of the taxpayer subsidies? How should they be considered for tax purposes?

It has be said that capital gains tax is based on investment risk; that the tax is lower on investment profits to encourage investment that might otherwise not be risked ... but what if government loan guarantees effectively negate any risk attached?

So what of the salaries, benefits and bonuses an otherwise less profitable/unprofitable/non-existent company pays to its directors, managers and employees ... how should they be considered for tax purposes?