The Solyndra scandal: Pre-empting plunder
Published: Friday, Oct. 12, 2012, 8:59 p.m.
For once, the Internal Revenue Service is taxpayers' best friend, urging that the owners of Solyndra — the Obama administration's signature crony-capitalist boondoggle — not be allowed to plunder their pockets in bankruptcy beyond the half-billion-dollars-plus the defunct solar-panel maker's federal loan guarantee already has cost them.
Solyndra's proposed reorganization plan sets aside just $7 million to $8 million for unsecured creditors and includes a shell corporation that would be able to use net operating losses estimated at $150 million to offset future tax liabilities, The Washington Times reports.
“The only reason for the shell corporation to exist ... is to enable its owners to exploit these tax attributes, which would be lost in liquidation,” IRS lawyers said in a filing in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Delaware. They also said the reorganization plan's “principal purpose is tax avoidance.”
The stench intensifies when considering one of two big Solyndra investors that would own nearly all of the shell corporation is Argonaut Ventures — the investment vehicle of Oklahoma businessman and 2008 Obama fundraiser George Kaiser. And the IRS contends that Solyndra owners had “planned meticulously” as long ago as 2010 to use this tax-avoidance scheme.
The bankruptcy judge must heed the IRS and disallow the Solyndra owners' attempt to add the insult of further losses to the injury they and the Obama administration have already inflicted on taxpayers' bottom line.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Nelson Mandela: The real legacy
- Sunday pops
- The Box
- ‘Racism’? No
- Anti-fracking scandal: More junk ‘science’
- PSERS time bomb: Tick, tick, tick, tick ...
- Greensburg Laurels & Lances