Posted on 08/02/2002 1:37:29 PM PDT by Action-America
Bush co. went offshore
Harken Energy set up Caymans subsidiary in '89
By TIMOTHY J. BURGER
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU
WASHINGTON - Harken Energy Corp. set up an offshore subsidiary in the Cayman Islands tax haven while President Bush sat on Harken's board of directors in 1989, the Daily News has learned.
The revelation comes as Republican lawmakers are roundly criticizing the practice of U.S. companies setting up offshore subsidiaries, usually to skirt American disclosure laws or corporate income taxes on foreign income.
Even White House spokesman Ari Fleischer condemned the tactic yesterday, saying, "The President is concerned about corporations in America who take advantage, set up operations outside of America, in an effort to lower their taxes."
A spokesman for Bush said the offshore company did not save any taxes because it failed to find oil or make a profit.
Harken registered Harken Bahrain Oil Co. on Sept. 1, 1989, according to Cayman Islands government documents.
It was formed as the Texas-based Harken sought a $25 million contract with the Bahrain government to drill in the waters off the Arab islands.
Harken filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission say the Bahrain contract was run "through its newly-formed, wholly-owned subsidiary, Harken Bahrain Oil Co."
Records show that Harken Bahrain was paid at least $2 million by 1993 for its Bahrain operation, which never did strike oil.
Bush was on Harken's board of directors and a paid consultant from 1986 to 1993.
It is unclear whether Bush had a role in approving the formation of the Caymans subsidiary.
'General practice'
White House communications director Dan Bartlett said, "As a general practice at that time ... international contracts like this one were done through a subsidiary to contain liability. ... In order to save money [on taxes], you would have to make money, and they didn't make any. They found no oil."
Critics said the transaction - which is legal - raises new questions about Harken's governance while Bush was part of its management.
Bush's sale of Harken stock shortly before the price dropped in 1990 was investigated by the SEC. Bush also filed papers on the sale several months later than what was legally required. The SEC concluded there was no evidence of insider trading.
"It is reminiscent of Enron," said Chuck Lewis of the Center for Public Integrity, a Washington-based government watchdog. "Here is a controversial, on-the-edge company investigated by the feds, sham transactions where they have to restate their earnings and - oh, yeah - they have a Caymans account. What's wrong with this picture? ... What else don't we know?"
GOP members of Congress also hammered the tactic of creating subsidiaries in tax havens.
"It's not illegal, but it is immoral," Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, said yesterday. "I think it's also a case of patriotism."
Asked what he thought of Bush's involvement in an offshore subsidiary, Grassley said, "I'm not aware of it so I can't comment on it."
Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill blasted the practice this year.
"When we have a tax code that allows companies to cut their taxes on their U.S. business by nominally moving their headquarters offshore, then we need to do something to fix the tax code," O'Neill said in May.
...or the porpoise...
O...K... By this post I am wondering if you are mocking bad spelling and grammar or are using them.
Not that facts matter to people like you, but Republican lawmakers have been criticizing companies who move their own headquarters offshore "officially", not merely setting up offshore subsidiaries.
The difference is that a subsidiary can never generate more gross revenues than its parent company, but the parent company will usually dwarf the revenues of the subsidiary.
In other words, the subsidiary is usually a very small piece of the business rather than the whole company, so incorporating a subsidiary offshore is not nearly the big deal that moving the parent corp's headquarters offshore would be.
But don't let facts get in your way...
Wrong. It's "for all in tents and porpoises" and refers back to each March 15th when ancient Greeks would wait by the sea shore in tents hoping that the spirits of departed loved ones would return to them in the form of porpoises. If the Greeks didn't see any porpoises, they were idle; hence the Romans later called the day the "Ides of March."
That's my story and I'm sticking with it.
As opposed to on the street? How do you make your money then, playa?
You won't catch me typing "Klintoon" or "Hitlery". Regardless what my opinion of the impeached, disgraced, ex-president is I at least spell his name correctly.
This isn't DU, by the way.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.