2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

Our small family S Corp was not put out of business by the $10.00 minimum tax assessed even in years that we lost money, but we might not have kept trying to make it profitable  for as many years as we did had we faced $150.00 a year minimum tax in those years.  When stated as a "tax" it doesn't make any sense at all to me to assess any "income tax" on businesses with negative net income.  Just call it a fee for granting a business license, or some other term.

I think there should be no "income tax" assessed if there is no reportable income.

posted 3 years, 4 months ago
view in context