Corporate Tax Dodgers States Report

Corporate Tax Dodging In the Fifty States,
20082010
December 2011
About ITEP
Founded in 1980, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) is a non-profit, non-partisan research organization, based in Washington,
DC, that focuses on federal and state tax policy. ITEPs mission is to inform policymakers and the public of the effects of current and proposed tax
policies on tax fairness, government budgets, and sound economic policy. Among its many publications on state and local tax policy are Who Pays?
A Distributional Analysis of the Tax Systems in All 50 States and The ITEP Guide to Fair State and Local Taxes. ITEPs full body of research is available
at www.itepnet.org.
About CTJ
Founded in 1979, Citizens for Tax Justice (CTJ) is a 501 (c)(4) public interest research and advocacy organization, based in Washington DC,
focusing on federal, state and local tax policies and their impact upon our nation. CTJ staff hold briefings with lawmakers, testify before legislative
committees, and explain their work and the implications of tax policy issues directly to policymakers and policy advocates across the nation. CTJs
full body of work can be found here: www.ctj.org.
www.itepnet.org t www.ctj.org
1616 P Street, NW Suite 200 s Washington, DC 20036 s Tel: 202-299-1066 s Fax: 202-299-1065
Introduction
In October, South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley suggested
that gradually repealing the states corporate income tax should
be a priority for lawmakers in 2012. Haleys idea was alarming,
but hardly surprising: in the past year, governors in Arizona and
Florida have proposed similar plans, and lawmakers in a number
of other states have moved to enact expensive new corporate
tax breaks or reduce the corporate tax rate. Noticeably absent
from the policy debates in these states, however, has been any
discussion of whether businesses in each of these states are
currently paying the corporate income tax to begin with.
68 of the 265 companies managed to pay no state income tax at

all in at least one year from 2008 through 2010, despite telling
their shareholders they made almost$117 billion in pretax U.S.
profits in those no-tax years. 16 of these companies enjoyed
multiple no-tax years.
This report uses data from the annual financial reports filed by
some of the biggest and most profitable Fortune 500 corporations
to shed light on this questionand to identify strategies for
ensuring that state corporate income taxes will continue to play
an important role in state tax systems going forward.
In 2009 alone, 32 companies paid no state income tax. Another

105 of the companies paid less than half the weighted-average
statutory state corporate tax rate that year, meaning that fully
one half of the companies in our sample paid less than half the
average state tax rate.
A November 2011 study by Citizens for Tax Justice and the

Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, Corporate Taxpayers
and Corporate Tax Dodgers, showed that at the federal level, many
profitable Fortune 500 corporations have been able to sharply
reduce their corporate income tax bills, often reducing them
to zeroor lessin years when they were quite profitable.
Since then, weve taken a hard look at what many of these same
corporations paid in state income taxes nationwide over those
three years, which we report here.
Perhaps most striking, if these 265 corporations had paid the

6.2 percent average state corporate tax rate on the$1.33 trillion
in U.S. profits that they reported to their shareholders, they
would have paid $82.6 billion in state corporate income taxes
over the 2008-10 period. Instead, they paid only $39.9 billion.
Thus, these 265 companies avoided a total of $42.7 billion in
state corporate income taxes over the three years.
Of the 280 profitable Fortune 500 corporations included in our

November federal study, 265 fully disclosed their state and local
income tax payments.1 Here are some of the key facts that these
companies annual reports reveal:
Between 2008 and 2010, these 265 companies paid state
income taxes equal to only 3.0 percent of their U.S. profits.
Since the average statutory state corporate tax rate is about 6.2
percent (weighted by gross state product), that means that over
this period, fully half of their profits escaped state taxes entirely.
1
Some companies, such as DuPont, Goodrich, International

Paper and Intel, paid no net state income tax over the full threeyear period.
The companies in our survey operate all over the country. But
they dont disclose their profits and taxes on a state-by-state
basisso the findings of this report dont tell us conclusively
whether specific companies paid any income tax in specific
states. Tables at the end of this report sort the tax data for all 265
companies not only alphabetically and by tax rates, but also by the
location of each companys headquarters. On the next page, we
give details about the 68 firms that paid no state income tax in at
least one year from 2008 through 2010.
A full methodology is provided at the end of the report.
Page 1
68 Corporations Paying No State Income Tax in at Least One Year, 20082010 ($-million)
In No-State-Income-Tax Years
Company
Pepco Holdings
American Electric Power
DuPont
Computer Sciences
Rockwell Automation
Paccar
Baxter International
Tenet Healthcare
International Paper
Integrys Energy Group
Peabody Energy
Air Products & Chemicals
Intel
Rockwell Collins
EOG Resources
Corning
NYSE Euronext
Eli Lilly
McKesson
Chesapeake Energy
Marathon Oil
Merck
Goodrich
Entergy
Eastman Chemical
FMC Technologies
Ingram Micro
Holly
Interpublic Group
NiSource
Boeing
Comcast
Core-Mark Holding
CenturyLink
Profit
$ 779
5,802
2,112
939
210
175
707
212
551
511
721
944
9,346
1,627
1,628
1,003
52
157
623
1,712
494
956
592
1,883
193
63
13
44
142
396
4,310
5,106
69
561
Tax
Rate
$ 103
97
12
167
20
12
38
9
21
14
8
8
40
6
6
15
45
111
275
77
82
42
109
11
3
1
2
6
16
140
156
2
15
13.2%
1.7%
0.6%
17.8%
9.6%
7.0%
5.4%
4.2%
3.8%
2.7%
1.1%
0.8%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
28.8%
28.4%
17.8%
16.1%
15.5%
8.6%
7.1%
5.8%
5.7%
5.3%
5.0%
4.7%
4.3%
4.0%
3.3%
3.1%
2.8%
2.7%
No-Tax Years
2008 2009 2010 #

3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
In No-State-Income-Tax Years
Company
Profit
PG&E Corp.
$ 1,694
El Paso
$ 1,631
Yum Brands
$ 430
Southern
$ 3,066
Insight Enterprises
$ 15
Wells Fargo
$ 21,460
ConAgra Foods
$ 632
Scana
$ 522
Ashland
$ 165
Yahoo
$ 448
Northeast Utilities
$ 605
Progress Energy
$ 1,406
Consolidated Edison
$ 1,319
American Express
$ 3,322
J.C. Penney
$ 581
Monsanto
$ 1,203
Sempra Energy
$ 447
Cameron International
$ 334
Southwest Airlines
$ 164
Mattel
$ 233
R.R. Donnelley & Sons
$ 232
Apache
$ 437
Kimberly-Clark
$ 1,643
Verizon Communications
$ 11,921
Goldman Sachs Group
$ 4,894
Hewlett-Packard
$ 2,232
Health Management Associat
$ 244
H.J. Heinz
$ 499
Travelers Cos.
$ 4,411
MDU Resources
$ 572
Health Net
$ 147
Flowserve
$ 202
Campbell Soup
$ 912
General Electric
$ 4,247
Totals
$ 116,902
Tax
$ 41
$ 38
$ 9
$ 54
$ 0
$ 337
$ 8
$ 6
$ 2
$ 5
$ 7
$ 13
$ 12
$ 28
$ 4
$ 8
$ 3
$ 2
$ 1
$ 1
$ 1
$ 2
$ 7
$ 42
$ 15
$ 7
$ 1
$ 1
$ 8
$ 1
$ 0
$ 0
$ 0
$ 1
$ 2,335
Rate
2.4%
2.3%
2.0%
1.8%
1.6%
1.6%
1.3%
1.1%
1.1%
1.1%
1.1%
0.9%
0.9%
0.8%
0.7%
0.7%
0.7%
0.7%
0.6%
0.6%
0.6%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
2.0%
No-Tax Years
2008 2009 2010 #

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
87
The Long-Term Decline of State Corporate

Income Taxes
a state contemplating some kind of new corporate tax break, either as

an across-the-board entitlement for all corporations or to attract a high
priority target.
As recently as 1986, state corporate income taxes equaled 0.5 percent

of nationwide Gross State Product (a measure of nationwide economic
activity). But in fiscal year 2010, state and local corporate income taxes
were just 0.28 percent of nationwide GSP, equaling the low-water mark
set in 2002. For the three years between fiscal 2009 and 2011, in fact,
state corporate income taxes were at their lowest sustained level, as a
share of the U.S. economy, since World War Two.
In the past two decades, business lobbyists have prioritized one particular
tax break, the single sales factor, in their state tax lobbying efforts. The
single sales factor is an arcane, but vital change in the formula that states
use to divide the profits of multistate corporations among themselves
for tax purposes.2 Historically, many states taxed multistate businesses
using a three factor formula that took into account the proportion of
a companys property, payroll and sales that were made in each state.
This long-term decline in the state corporate income tax has three broad
causes: the trickle-down impact of federal corporate tax cuts, ill-advised
tax incentives intentionally enacted by state lawmakers, and unintended
tax shelters created by companies armed with creative accounting staffs.
earned income such as salaries and wages.
Linkage to federal tax laws means a steady stream of

federally-imposed tax cuts
States levying a corporate income tax generally use federal income
But in the name of economic development, these corporations are

now pressuring states to tax them only in proportion to the sales they
make in a state. Among the problems with this approach, however, is
the fact that federal law says that merely making sales into a state doesnt
necessarily make a corporation taxable. So if a state adopts the sales-only
formula, then a resident corporation whose sales are entirely out of state
wont pay anything to its home state, and it may not be taxable in any of
its customers states, either. This could lead to no corporate income tax
liability to any statewhat is often called 100 percent nowhere income.
definitions as a starting point in calculating their own corporate tax base,

so that the first line on state corporate tax forms is typically taxable
income as previously calculated on federal tax forms. This makes state
tax compliance and enforcement easierbut also means that in many
states, every new corporate loophole that gets tucked into the federal code
will also erode the state tax base. Even if these federal tax breaks, many
of which are ostensibly designed to encourage business investment, are
having an effect nationally, it makes little sense for any state to piggyback
on a tax cut that could encourage investment anywhere in the United
States.
The single sales factor is a classic example of the race to the bottom in
state corporate tax policy. When only a few states offered this giveaway, it
may have helped to convince some companies to relocate or expand. But
when a majority of states have abandoned the traditional three-factor
formula in favor of heavily weighting sales, its likely that companies will
be rewarded with tax cuts no matter where they investwhich means
that this incentive has no incentive effect at all in any particular state. As
Appendix A shows, all but eight of the states with corporate income taxes
have increased the weight of their sales factor. Under these circumstances,
the only winners from the single sales factor are the companies that are
Fortunately, every state has the option of decoupling from specific
able to pay less in taxes.3
federal corporate giveawaysand many have chosen to disallow some

of the costly tax deductions enacted by Congress in the last decade.
But dozens of states have seen their tax bases shrink due to federal base
narrowing measures, often simply because they cannot marshal the
legislative votes to decouple in a timely way.
State tax incentives

State elected officials often find it difficult to resist entreaties from
corporations for tax breaks justified on the dubious grounds that they
will stimulate economic development. Hardly a week goes by without
More than half the states continue to offer investment tax credits against
their corporate tax more than thirty years after the federal government
abandoned its investment credit because Congress and President
Reagan concluded that it was ineffective in stimulating investment.
2
See Michael Mazerov, The Single Sales Factor Formula for State Corporate Taxes: A Boon to Economic Development or a Costly Giveaway?, Center
on Budget and Policy Priorities, revised Sept. 2005.
3
This trend did not stop lawmakers in Alabama, California and South
Carolina from increasing their sales factors in recent legislative sessions,
however.
Page 3
According to a study by University of Iowa economist Peter Fisher,
pay royalties to this subsidiary for the right to display the trademarks.
the effective corporate tax rate on manufacturing companies in the
These royalties are tax-deductible (as a cost of doing business) and hence
20 states he studied fell by 30 percent between 1990 and 1998 alone.
can be used to largely or entirely eliminate corporate income tax liability
Tax incentives, most of them corporate tax credits, offset 30 percent of
in the states in which the corporation is actually operating stores and
corporate tax liability in these states in 1998up from 10 percent in
earning its profits. Meanwhile, the royalty payments are not taxed by the
1990.4 State corporate tax credits for everything from providing child
tax-haven state.5
care to employees, to conducting product research and development, to

cleaning up polluted brownfields continue to proliferate.
Asset-Transfer Shelters:
A second tax-avoidance strategy exploiting state corporate income taxes
In the short run, it may be too much to ask for states to stop offering
that treat parents and subsidiaries as separate taxpaying entities involves
company-specific tax breaks. But as the work of the nonprofit watchdog
spinning off income generating assets into subsidiaries in tax haven states.
group Good Jobs First has documented, states can at least adopt
This technique has recently received a lot of attention in Wisconsin.6
straightforward job-creation requirements and clawback rules designed
There, state auditors discovered that the vast majority of banks in the state
to ensure that states get their moneys worth when they offer companies
had set up subsidiaries in corporate-income-tax-free Nevada, to which
tax breaks to expand, relocate or simply stay where they are.
they had transferred the ownership of loans, mortgage-backed securities,

and other intangible assets in a tax-free transaction involving taking back
Corporate tax sheltering through profit-shifting among

states
an equal amount of stock. Even though the intangible assets had been
Besides extorting new tax incentives from state officials, big corporations
and even though the interest paid to those depositors was presumably
have become increasingly adept at taking advantage of loopholes in state
being deducted by the banks (not to mention the depreciation on the
corporate tax systems loopholes over and above the ones that plague
bank branches and the wages paid to the bank employees), the interest
the federal corporate income tax and flow down to the state level. Most
and capital gains generated by the Nevada-based intangibles had been
of these loopholes allow corporations to artificially shift their profits (on
placed beyond the tax reach of Wisconsin. If small-town banks in
paper) from the states in which they are actually earned into states that
Wisconsin had discovered how to use Nevada subsidiaries to cut their
tax them at lower rates or not at all.
taxes, its a safe bet that big multistate banks have figured it out too.
Profit shifting among states is enabled by a provision of most states
Transfer-Pricing Shelters:
corporate tax laws that treats every individual corporation in a multi-
Finally, most state corporate income taxes are vulnerable to serious
corporate group (that is, the parent and potentially dozens or even
erosion through what is called transfer pricing. If a widget manufacturer
hundreds of subsidiaries) as a separate corporation for tax purposes. This
in Georgia (with a top corporate income tax rate of 6 percent) has
practice known as separate-entity taxationenables a number of
a warehouse in South Carolina (top rate of 5 percent), it can reduce
tax avoidance techniques.
its total taxes due to the two states by incorporating the warehouse as
purchased with deposits from Wisconsin households and businesses,
a wholesaling subsidiary. The plant then charges the subsidiary an
The Toys R Us Shelter:
artificially-low price for the widgets, which reduces its taxable income in
The most notorious tax shelter that separate-entity taxation facilitates is
Georgia and shifts it into South Carolina, where it will be taxed at a lower
the Delaware Holding Company, used most famously by Toys R Us.
rate. This same transfer-pricing game, played internationally, is widely
In the most common scenario, a corporation that operates retail stores
understood to be a major source of the recent erosion of the federal
transfers its logos and other trademarks to a subsidiary corporation it has
created in a tax-haven state such as Delaware or Nevada. The stores then

4
Peter Fisher, Tax Incentives and the Disappearing State Corporate Income
Tax, State Tax Notes, Mar. 4, 2002, pp. 767-774.
See Michael Mazerov, Closing Three Common Corporate Income Tax

Loopholes Could Raise Additional Revenue for Many States, Center on
Budget and Policy Priorities, Revised May 21, 2003, pp. 6-9.
6
See Paul Gores, State Reaches 87 Deals with Banks on Tax Shelters,
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Dec. 1, 2004.
Page 4
corporate income tax. The IRS, with all of its tax lawyers and economists,
deduction was enacted in October of 2004 to compensate manufacturers
has had a poor track record in proving that multinational corporations
for the loss of an unjustified and illegal (under World Trade Organization
international transfer prices are resulting in an abusive shifting of income
law) export subsidy. It is bad enough that Congress decided to hold
beyond U.S. borders. State revenue officials are well aware of this, and
manufacturers harmless for the loss of a tax break they didnt need or
some make no more than a token effort to police interstate transfer
deserve to begin with. But more than half of the states with corporate
pricesopening the door to significant revenue losses.
income taxes have compounded this error by conforming to a tax

break that in no way is tied to the creation of manufacturing jobs in any
Potential Paths to State Corporate Tax

Reform
Some people have looked at the wide variety of corporate state-taxavoidance strategies and concluded that the state corporate income
tax is beyond repair. But the truth is that states have lots of tools in their
arsenals to revitalize this still-importantand progressivesource of
revenue. Appendix A provides a state-by-state matrix showing which of
these options are currently available to each state. Here are some of the
most promising possibilities:
Decoupling from federal tax giveaways

The focal point of state decoupling efforts has been the so-called
bonus depreciation measures enacted by Congress in 2002, 2003,
2004, 2008, 2009 and 2010. These measures generally allow companies
to deduct the cost of investments in machinery and equipment faster
than they would otherwise be able to. When President George W. Bush
pushed through a 2002 plan to allow companies to immediately write
off 30 percent of the cost of eligible investments in the first year, more
than 30 states decoupled from this measure by requiring companies to
particular state. 22 states are now losing substantial amounts of corporate

tax revenue due to this misguided federal tax break.7
The QPAI deduction is one major factor reducing state corporate tax
rates over the past three yearsbut its effect on state revenues in the
future will likely be worse. This is because the deduction only took full
effect at the beginning of 2010: from 2004 to 2006, the deduction was
equal to 3 percent of qualifying income, increasing to 6 percent in 2007
and its permanent 9 percent rate at the beginning of 2010. This means
that the full effect of this tax break on states was only felt for one of the
three years studied in this report.
A third type of federal tax break that has a pass-through effect on states
is the net operating loss carryback provision, which allows companies
to use current-year income losses to offset income from earlier years.
While virtually every state allows companies to carry losses forward,
also following federal rules, many states have decoupled from the federal
provision that allows companies to rewrite history by carrying their
losses back two years. Seventeen states, however, have not done so, and
face continued revenue losses from their inaction on this tax break.8
add back the bonus depreciation deduction to their taxable income.

Similar numbers of states have decoupled from the more generous 50
percent bonus depreciation measures pushed through by President Bush
in 2008 and extended by President Barack Obama in 2009 and 2010, but
fifteen states are currently losing corporate income tax revenue due to the
currently-effective bonus depreciation law. In 2011, the impact of bonus
depreciation will likely be even larger than in 2010 for affected states, since
President Obamas most recent extension of bonus depreciation allowed
companies to write off 100 percent of eligible investments during 2011.
The Presidents proposed jobs bill would extend this lucrative tax break
through the end of 2012.
States have been less successful in decoupling from the so-called
deduction for qualified production activities income (QPAI). This
Of course, if recent rumblings about federal corporate tax reform develop

into viable legislation, decoupling from at least some of these federal
tax breaks may become a moot point: if federal law no longer allows
these tax breaks, then neither will the states. Unfortunately, all current
indicators are that Congress plans to continue on its path of offering
more and more corporate tax breaks, and the Obama administration
has shown little interest in reversing this trend. If this worrisome trend
continues, states should consider much broader decoupling from the
federal corporate tax. California is an example of a state that has rejected
7
See Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, The QPAI Corporate

Tax Break: How it Works and How States can Respond, 2011.
8
See Michael Mazerov, Minority of States Still Granting Net Operating Loss Carryback Deductions Should Eliminate Them Now, Center on
Budget and Policy Priorities, May 11, 2009.
Page 5
a wide array of federal loopholes, and instead insists on rules that more
Nowhere Income
fairly measure corporations actual profits.
Another key reform is a rule implemented by about half the corporate

income tax states that eliminates nowhere income arising from the
Apart from decoupling their corporate income taxes from unwise federal
mismatch between the laws that establish when a corporation has
corporate tax provisions, there are many other useful steps states can take
crossed the taxability or nexus threshold in a state and the rules that
on their own to revitalize their corporate income taxes.
divide a corporations profit for tax purposes among the states. As noted
above, federal law prevents a state from automatically being allowed to
Combined Reporting
tax any corporation that makes sales to its residents. At the same time,
The single most important corporate tax reform available to states is to
the income-division rules always take sales into account to some extent
adopt a practice used by 23 states called combined reporting, which
in assigning income for tax purposesmeaning that income can be
effectively treats a parent and its subsidiaries as one corporation for state
assigned to states that dont have the authority to tax it. Nowhere
tax purposes. Combined reporting eliminates most of the tax benefits
income can be eliminated by a so-called throw-back rule that effectively
of shifting profits into Delaware or Nevada by adding them back to the
assigns any corporate profit that cannot be taxed in the states where a
profits of the corporation that is taxable in the state and then taxing a
corporations customers are located back to the state(s) where the goods
share of the combined profit. As the visibility of corporate income
are produced. About half the states lack this rule at present.10
shifting scams has increased in recent years, support for this reform
has grown nationwide: since 2004 alone, seven states have enacted
Alternative Corporate Taxes
combined reporting. And the pace of legislative activity is not slowing:
States can consider adopting some form of alternative minimum tax to
in 2011, bills were introduced in Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut,
ensure that corporations pay some tax no matter how many loopholes
Maryland, Missouri, New Mexico, Rhode Island and Tennessee to
they are able to take advantage of. A number of states piggyback on the
require mandatory combined reporting in these states.
federal corporate AMT, but this has become much less useful because the
federal AMT has been seriously watered-down over time by Congress.
It is likely that the spread of combined reporting has helped to keep the
States could consider rejuvenating the older federal AMT rules as an
state income tax from experiencing a much more serious decline, and
alternative, less loophole-prone tax regime. If this seems too complicated,
it is a tremendous accomplishment that more than half of the states
states could also consider using the pretax profits that companies report
with broad-based corporate income taxes now require combined
to their shareholders as the basis for an alternative tax. Since companies
reporting. Yet every one of the combined-reporting states could make
are usually reluctant to tell their shareholders they arent making healthy
their reporting regime even more leakproof by adopting worldwide
profits, this approach provides a built-in check against corporate tax
combined reporting. Combined reporting is usually limited to the
avoidance. Corporations are required to show their profits reported to
waters edgethat is, to U.S. based parents and subsidiaries. About a
shareholders on their federal tax returns, and this could prove helpful to
half-dozen states, most notably California, have adopted worldwide
states in obtaining the necessary data.
combined reporting, but each of these states allow companies to elect to

use waters edge ruleswhich any company engaged in international tax
A second-best approach to alternative corporate taxes is a flat-dollar
avoidance would presumably choose to do. Several states, most recently
minimum tax, which half a dozen states currently require. These taxes
Montana, have taken a valuable half-step toward worldwide combined
can act as a vital backstop to ensure that large corporations have some
reporting by including in the combined report subsidiaries set up in a
skin in the game although these flat-dollar taxes are often set
number of foreign tax havenseliminating the state corporate income
perilously close to zero. For example, a 2009 report from the Oregon
tax benefits of artificially shifting income into those countries. Most of
Center for Public Policy found that more than 5,000 profitable
the other states with combined reporting could productively enact a
corporations operating in Oregon had paid no income taxes in 2006
similar change.
9
See Michael Mazerov, A Majority of States have Now Adopted A Key

Corporate Tax ReformCombined Reporting, Center on Budget and
Policy Priorities, April 3, 2009.
10
See Michael Mazerov, Closing Three Common Corporate Income Tax

Loopholes Could Raise Additional Revenue for Many States, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Revised May 21, 2003.
Page 6
beyond the states $10 minimum tax.11 (While Oregon lawmakers have
digging. States need to stop giving away corporate taxes in the name of
not responded to this finding by eliminating corporate tax loopholes,
economic development. Chasing after businesses by fighting over who
they did subsequently increase the minimum tax for large corporations
can give the largest tax concessions is a zero-sum game. States should
substantially.) Flat-dollar minimum taxes are typically between $100
get together and agree to stop this futile, destructive competition. They
(as is the case in Utah) and $250 (Vermont). Appendix A shows the
should sunset ineffective tax credits and enter into pacts with each other
states that have not yet adopted a meaningful corporate minimum tax.
not to use tax giveaways to compete for jobs. A good place to start would
A majority of states now offer something resembling a circuit breaker
be to renounce the single-sales factor interstate income division formula
to older adults, but relatively few have allowed the credit to non-elderly
that threatens to eviscerate what is left of the state corporate tax and
homeownersdespite the fact that low-income non-elderly families
renegotiate a balanced formula that all states can follow.
can feel the pinch from high property taxes just as much as older adults.
Enacting an Income Tax

Six states currently do not levy a broad-based corporate income tax at all.
Three of these (Ohio, Texas and Washington) have chosen to levy a tax
that falls primarily on a companys gross receipts in lieu of a corporate
income tax, usually on the theory that such a tax will be less volatile
than a tax on profits. The other three states (Nevada, South Dakota
and Wyoming) have neither a broad profits tax nor a meaningful gross
receipts tax, although South Dakota does tax the income of certain
financial corporations.
Corporate Tax Disclosure: A Vital First Step

Toward Corporate Tax Fairness
While closing the corporate tax loopholes described above should be
the immediate goal of any state policymakers who seek a sustainable
corporate income tax, wishing cannot make it so. An important first
step toward achieving these reforms is to build awareness among
policymakers of the need for loophole-closing measures. Unfortunately,
the deck is stacked against those who would create a more level playing
field for business taxation at the state level, because typically no one
from lawmakers to the media to the general publicknows how their
Michigan Joins the Income Tax Club
corporate tax system actually works. The vast majority of states now
require tax expenditure reports, which provide a complete list of the
Earlier this year, Michigan lawmakers enacted a new

corporate income tax, ending several tumultuous
decades of reliance on a series of taxes based primarily
on gross receipts. The enduring unpopularity of the
states various receipts-based taxes is an important
reminder of why a corporate income tax is used in so
many states: when properly designed, it falls only on
those corporations that can afford to pay it.
corporate tax breaks allowed under state law along with an annual cost
Meanwhile, at least one other state that has recently

repealed its income taxes in favor of a broad-based tax
on gross receipts, Texas, has found that neither the
revenue yield nor the popularity of their new tax have
lived up to expectations.
nationwide does not tell us whether they paidor did not paythe tax
estimate for each tax provision. (Amazingly, more than half a dozen
states dont provide even this basic information; these states are listed in
Appendix A.) But virtually none of the states provide company-specific
information on corporate tax breaks.
This harsh reality affects the implications of this report as well: our
finding that many companies are paying zero or less in state income taxes
in any specific state. This is because the annual financial reports that all
publicly traded companies must file with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) each year include information on the total amount
of state corporate income taxes paid by each company in a given year, but
do not provide similar numbers for each state in which the companies
Stop Providing Foolish State Corporate Tax Subsidies
do business.
When you find yourself in a hole, the first thing you need to do is stop
11
New Data Show Thousands of Profitable Corporations Pay No Oregon

Income Taxes Except the $10 Minimum, Oregon Center for Public Policy,
February 23, 2009.
For this reason, a vital starting point for state corporate tax reform is a
procedural move: states need to require corporations to disclose publicly,
on a state-by-state basis, the amount of corporate income tax they pay
Page 7
like the present one can show that theres a serious problem with the state
corporate tax on a national basis. However, without some clearer sense of
the specific states in which tax payments are lowor nonexistentand
whether the low payments are due to nexus thresholds, income-division
rules, the definition of taxable profits, and/or tax credits, policymakers
cannot readily identify what they can do to rectify the situation, or even
how serious the problems of their particular states corporate tax are.
Sensible goals for corporate tax disclosure efforts include:
Identifying all the substantial tax deductions, exemptions and credits
claimed by each large corporation in a state.
Evaluating the net impact of these tax breaks on the bottom-line
income tax payments of each corporation.
Assessing the effectiveness of these tax breaks in creating jobs and
growing the states economy.
While the measures listed above can help identify prominent zero-tax
corporations, they are insufficient to whether corporations are paying
their fair share of corporate taxes. Only disclosure of a companys
in-state profits can allow an accurate analysis of whether specific
companies are paying anywhere close to the statutory tax rate in their
state.
Efforts to publicly name names of corporate tax avoiders, or even to
publish statistics showing the aggregate number of profitable companies
avoiding tax liability, have played a key role in encouraging meaningful
loophole-closing reforms. A series of reports from CTJ and ITEP in
the mid-1980s are widely understood to have lit a fire underneath
Congressional efforts to eliminate corporate tax giveaways, and efforts
by tax administrators in Maryland and New Jersey have helped to build
support for sensible reforms in those states in recent years.
The policy path to a more sustainable state corporate income tax is
clear. But absent detailed information about the extent of corporate
tax avoidance and the effectiveness of the tax breaks lawmakers have
chosen to allow, policymakers will likely never see corporate tax reform
as a goal worth pursuing. Disclosure of company-specific tax breaks can
Economic Nexus: A Sensible Standard

for Defining Corporate Taxability
Even as some corporate lobbyists are encouraging
Congress to adopt a physical presence standard that
would sharply curtail the ability of states to tax at least
some of the income of multi-state corporations, a number
of states are taking aggressivebut sensiblesteps to
tax some of the income of companies that clearly benefit
from using their infrastructure to sell into a state, yet
dont satisfy the physical presence standard because
they dont have have property or employees based in the
state. The common-sense observation behind this
alternative economic presence standard is that in the
Internet age, multi-state companies can routinely do
millions of dollars in business in a given state without
ever setting foot there and that there needs to be a way
to define the threshold level of business activity above
which these companies should be taxed by each state.
Economic nexus has been upheld by a number of courts.
Most recently, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to
consider overturning a decision by the Iowa Supreme
Court that allowed the state of Iowa to tax fast-food giant
KFC, which avoids having a traditional physical
presence in Iowa by leasing its secret recipe (and logo)
to independent franchisees based in the state. This series
of court decisions clearly indicates that many states could
(and should) do more to prevent companies like KFC
from using the physical presence standard to avoid
paying their fair share of state corporate income taxes.
While almost every state asserts nexus over at least some
corporations based on economic activities (with
California, Colorado, Connecticut, New Hampshire,
Oregon and Wisconsin each adopting an economic
nexus standard in the last five years), virtually none of the
states have fully exercised this ability.
help lawmakers to see the light.
Page 8
Congressional Actions Threaten to Further

Weaken the Corporate Tax
Tax breaks enacted by the federal government are at least partly to blame
for the long, slow decline of the state corporate income tax and
Congress has shown remarkably little interest in minimizing the damage
its enacted tax breaks do to state finances.
Under H.R. 1439, the state would also be able to tax a business if the
employee was only sent into the state for 14 days each year, or if the
company created several subsidiaries that each hired the employee and
sent him or her into the state for 14 days each year. Even warehousing
items in a state before shipping them to customers could easily be done
in a way that avoided the physical presence standard, if a company hired
a second company to warehouse the goods before shipping them to instate customers.
From this perspective, the good news is that in 2011 Congress has
engaged in a serious debate over how federal laws should affect state
corporate taxes. The bad news is that leading tax writers in the U.S. House
of Representatives appear to believe its their duty to further hamstring
the state corporate tax. Earlier this year, the House Judiciary Committee
Put another way, the BATSA legislation currently before Congress would
greatly increase the complexity of tax administration while providing
clear incentives for companies to game the system in an effort to avoid
paying any state corporate taxes on their income.
approved H.R. 1439, the so-called Business Activity Tax Simplification

Act (BATSA), which would make it substantially more difficult for
states to effectively tax the income earned by corporations from activities
within their borders.
Conclusion
The data in this report show in stark terms just how successful large,
multistate corporations have become at shirking their tax responsibilities
The bills sponsorsand the corporate lobbyists pushing this plan

say that the goal of the bill is to limit state and local governments to
taxing only those businesses with a physical presence in a state. But this
to state and local governments. They have been abetted in this effort by
Americas major accounting firms, used heavy lobbying and even threats,
and often persuaded state elected officials to become their facilitators,
argument is misleading in two important ways.

But the report is as notable for what it does not tell usand for what state
First, the physical presence standard may have made sense in an earlier
era, but doesnt make any sense in the internet age. We all buy many
policymakers are simply not equipped to knowabout how businesses

in each state are paying taxes.
goods and services from companies that do not have physical facilities
in our state, and these companies clearly benefit from the state and local
services that make these purchases possible.
State taxpayers can continue to tolerate this situation, or they can call
on their elected representatives to take steps to address it. This report
outlines some pathways to state corporate tax reform. If adopted, they
Second, even if physical presence were a sensible standard, the current

BATSA legislations definition of physical presence is so loophole-
would help restore state corporate income taxes as the progressive

and popular way to pay for needed state programs that they used to be.
ridden as to be meaningless. The bill has a variety of loopholes that allow

large corporations with lobbying clout to avoid state and local taxes
even though they have what any rational person would call a physical
presence in the jurisdiction. For example, under BATSA, a company that
sends a full-time worker into another state each day to install equipment
could be subject to that states taxes. But if the company simply created
two subsidiaries which each provided half of the equipment and which
each hired the worker to perform the installations, the state would not be
able to tax the business under BATSA.
Page 9
AppendixA:CorporateIncomeTaxReformOptionsAvailabletoStatesin2012
StateCanDecouplefromFederalTaxBreaks:
Qualified
Production
Bonus
Activities(QPAI) Depreciation
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Dist.ofCol.
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
NewHampshire
NewJersey
NewMexico
NewYork
NorthCarolina
NorthDakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
RhodeIsland
SouthCarolina
SouthDakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
WestVirginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
StateLoopholeclosingStrategiesAvailable:
NOL
Carryback
Combined
Reporting
Throwback Threefactor Economic

Rule
formula
Nexus
Total#ofstates
22
15
17
22
20
37
45
Sources:CenteronBudgetandPolicyPriorities(QPAI,combinedreporting,throwbackrule),CommerceClearinghouseStateTaxGuide(bonus
depreciation,NOLcarrybacks),RIAAllStatesTaxHandbook2011(threefactorformula,minimumtax),VirginiaJointLegislativeAuditand
ReviewCommission(economicnexus),ITEPtabulation(taxexpenditurereporting)
AppendixA:CorporateIncomeTaxReformOptionsAvailabletoStatesin2012
OtherAvailableReforms:
Substantial
MinimumTax
Corporate
Disclosure
TaxExpenditure
Estimates
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Dist.ofCol.
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
NewHampshire
NewJersey
NewMexico
NewYork
NorthCarolina
NorthDakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
RhodeIsland
SouthCarolina
SouthDakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
WestVirginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Total#ofstates
31
EnactCorporate
IncomeTax
43
12
State Income Taxes for 265 Major Corporations, 20082010, by 3-Year Tax Rate ($-millions)
2010
Company
Pepco Holdings
Computer Sciences
Rockwell Automation
Chesapeake Energy
McKesson
Paccar
Core-Mark Holding
Goodrich
International Paper
FMC Technologies
Peabody Energy
DuPont
Yum Brands
El Paso
Rockwell Collins
EOG Resources
Intel
Corning
Scana
Boeing
Apache
Travelers Cos.
General Dynamics
NiSource
EMC
Texas Instruments
Merck
Monsanto
Tenet Healthcare
Eli Lilly
Devon Energy
Cliffs Natural Resources
Wells Fargo
American Financial Group
H.J. Heinz
Ameren
Tech Data
Loews
Insight Enterprises
Mattel
General Electric
Praxair
Ashland
American Express
Entergy
Williams
Progress Energy
Profit
179
582
191
145
2,884
1,849
1,161
186
32
592
198
65
536
949
345
1,236
729
753
13,926
342
975
534
4,310
1,328
3,994
3,150
436
1,408
3,769
956
1,203
158
3,136
2,943
597
366
17,017
701
566
896
135
2,236
71
437
4,247
643
165
6,112
1,887
562
1,406
Tax
Rate
50 27.9%
22 3.8%
10 5.2%
3 2.0%
78 2.7%
20 1.1%
40 3.4%
8 4.4%
0 0.5%
42 7.1%
19 9.6%
0 0.1%
8 1.5%
3 0.9%
5 0.4%
5 0.7%
1 0.2%
40 0.3%
11 3.2%
1 0.1%
1 0.2%
140 3.3%
4 0.3%
10 0.3%
4 0.1%
3 0.7%
1 0.1%
16 0.4%
82 8.6%
8 0.7%
23 0.7%
13 0.4%
2 0.3%
6 1.6%
531 3.1%
4 0.6%
13 2.3%
10 1.1%
1 0.5%
21 0.9%
1 1.5%
7 1.7%
1 0.0%
9 1.4%
2 1.1%
110 1.8%
19 1.0%
2 0.4%
13 0.9%
2009
Profit
327
447
445
65
1,712
1,938
1,340
79
69
552
905
70
281
171
295
1,229
799
874
3,229
307
202
522
1,638
437
4,411
2,940
396
475
1,375
5,773
2,340
205
1,801
1,447
131
224
21,460
883
499
956
93
2,025
15
359
1,667
577
49
3,131
1,883
999
1,237
Tax
Rate
32 9.8%
33 7.3%
21 4.6%
17 26.6%
275 16.1%
76 3.9%
25
1.9%
4 4.7%
2 2.8%
6
1.1%
7
0.8%
2
2.2%
2
0.6%
9 5.3%
1
0.3%
24
2.0%
4
0.5%
4 0.5%
2 0.1%
14
4.6%
6 1.1%
144
8.8%
2 0.4%
8 0.2%
13
0.4%
16 4.0%
5
1.1%
4
0.3%
7
0.1%
7
0.3%
11
5.4%
49
2.7%
17
1.1%
3
2.1%
2
1.0%
337 1.6%
6
0.7%
1 0.2%
3
0.3%
1
0.8%
7
0.3%
0 1.6%
4
1.0%
93
5.6%
5
0.9%
3
5.7%
40
1.3%
109 5.8%
12
1.2%
41
3.3%
2008
Profit
273
492
262
460
3,791
2,015
623
96
29
738
353
63
185
992
430
1,631
898
3,196
6,117
169
801
534
3,794
1,835
3,444
3,080
557
500
1,749
5,485
1,419
54
157
4,348
567
334
11,236
290
534
971
88
1,202
40
233
4,646
532
179
3,322
1,843
2,148
1,173
Tax
21
134
17
3
24
1
111
9
0
17
2
3
3
9
38
1
5
38
3
6
3
1
10
6
17
1
5
123
23
9
45
21
3
2
150
4
1
10
1
21
0
1
8
3
3
28
146
24
12
All 3 Years
Rate
7.7%
27.3%
6.6%
0.7%
0.6%
0.0%
17.8%
8.9%
1.7%
2.4%
0.6%
5.3%
0.3%
2.0%
2.3%
0.2%
0.1%
0.6%
1.8%
1.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.3%
0.2%
3.0%
0.3%
0.3%
2.2%
1.6%
16.7%
28.4%
0.5%
0.5%
0.7%
1.3%
1.4%
0.2%
1.0%
1.4%
1.8%
0.8%
0.6%
0.2%
0.5%
1.6%
0.8%
7.9%
1.1%
1.0%
Profit
779
1,521
898
670
8,387
5,802
3,124
361
131
1,883
1,456
198
1,002
2,112
1,070
4,096
2,426
4,824
23,272
819
1,978
1,590
9,742
3,600
11,849
9,170
1,389
2,383
6,893
12,215
4,962
417
5,094
8,738
1,295
924
49,714
1,874
1,599
2,823
316
5,463
126
1,029
10,560
1,752
393
12,565
5,613
3,709
3,816
Tax
Rate
103 13.2%
145 9.5%
28 3.1%
17 2.5%
173 2.1%
97 1.7%
46 1.5%
4 1.1%
1 1.0%
19 1.0%
14 1.0%
2 0.9%
6 0.6%
12 0.6%
5 0.4%
9 0.2%
3 0.1%
1 0.0%
0 0.0%
0
0.0%
1
0.1%
1
0.1%
7
0.1%
3
0.1%
12
0.1%
23
0.2%
4
0.3%
7
0.3%
24
0.4%
48
0.4%
21
0.4%
2
0.5%
28
0.5%
50
0.6%
8
0.6%
6
0.6%
344
0.7%
14
0.7%
13
0.8%
23
0.8%
3
0.9%
49
0.9%
1
0.9%
10
0.9%
100
0.9%
17
1.0%
4
1.0%
122
1.0%
57
1.0%
38
1.0%
40
1.0%
13
2010
Company
Duke Energy
Alliant Techsystems
Becton Dickinson
Oneok
3M
Archer Daniels Midland
Macy's
Eastman Chemical
Holly
MDU Resources
Kellogg
ITT
ConAgra Foods
Southern
Navistar International
Express Scripts
PNC Financial Services Group
Airgas
Consolidated Edison
Spectra Energy
Xcel Energy
Omnicom Group
Aetna
CenturyLink
Campbell Soup
BB&T Corp.
NextEra Energy
Marathon Oil
Honeywell International
Ingram Micro
Flowserve
Coca-Cola
Union Pacific
Harley-Davidson
Community Health Systems
AT&T
J.M. Smucker
Ryder System
UnitedHealth Group
Norfolk Southern
Deere
Con-way
Arrow Electronics
GameStop
NRG Energy
Occidental Petroleum
CSX
Halliburton
Kimberly-Clark
International Business Machines
Profit
2,189
436
889
755
2,759
2,035
1,320
507
192
336
1,271
737
1,040
3,066
166
1,918
3,627
400
1,551
899
1,189
573
2,644
1,532
1,051
1,071
2,489
982
1,249
86
202
465
7,224
4,433
357
508
17,496
730
156
7,555
2,367
2,063
46
313
554
691
3,295
2,546
1,918
1,609
9,140
Tax
39
6
19
13
64
10
12
18
5
10
9
17
28
54
4
30
43
6
23
22
13
4
23
65
44
18
11
32
6
3
0
1
85
110
6
9
137
20
4
175
61
42
0
13
10
35
75
51
42
94
279
2009
Rate
1.8%
1.4%
2.2%
1.7%
2.3%
0.5%
0.9%
3.6%
2.4%
3.1%
0.7%
2.3%
2.7%
1.8%
2.4%
1.6%
1.2%
1.4%
1.5%
2.4%
1.1%
0.7%
0.9%
4.2%
4.2%
1.7%
0.4%
3.3%
0.5%
3.7%
0.1%
0.3%
1.2%
2.5%
1.8%
1.8%
0.8%
2.8%
2.8%
2.3%
2.6%
2.1%
0.2%
4.2%
1.8%
5.1%
2.3%
2.0%
2.2%
5.8%
3.1%
Profit
1,771
433
891
699
2,297
1,453
507
193
44
393
1,207
670
872
2,604
441
1,312
4,444
307
1,319
807
1,057
599
1,901
815
976
2,066
1,942
494
1,744
13
143
374
2,691
2,974
252
446
18,293
712
132
5,808
1,622
918
33
108
509
1,508
2,091
1,746
589
1,643
9,524
Tax
Rate
3
0.2%
7
1.6%
7
0.8%
2
0.3%
11
0.5%
18
1.2%
9
1.8%
11 5.7%
2 4.7%
8
2.1%
38
3.2%
7
1.1%
16
1.8%
100
3.8%
6
1.4%
23
1.8%
46
1.0%
3
1.0%
12 0.9%
1
0.1%
9
0.8%
12
2.0%
61
3.2%
2
0.2%
9
0.9%
15
0.7%
77
4.0%
77 15.5%
21
1.2%
1 5.0%
6
4.5%
33
8.8%
79
2.9%
48
1.6%
5
2.1%
14
3.2%
950
5.2%
12
1.7%
6
4.5%
71
1.2%
8
0.5%
11
1.2%
1
1.8%
1
0.9%
12
2.4%
20
1.3%
23
1.1%
35
2.0%
24
4.1%
7 0.4%
120
1.3%
2008
Profit
1,575
407
802
795
2,312
1,332
444
387
188
572
1,030
665
632
2,722
302
1,216
2,072
419
1,457
1,128
984
752
2,174
561
912
3,673
2,089
3,989
2,003
92
129
480
2,119
3,651
994
359
19,090
378
352
4,624
2,750
1,730
214
473
533
1,681
5,923
2,332
2,674
1,261
8,424
Tax
17
1
2
10
10
28
8
7
3
1
1
4
8
72
3
10
59
8
53
19
27
14
26
15
0
89
29
143
66
1
3
6
70
64
21
3
37
5
3
134
74
47
6
5
13
31
153
61
50
15
216
All 3 Years
Rate
1.1%
0.2%
0.2%
1.3%
0.4%
2.1%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%
0.2%
0.1%
0.6%
1.3%
2.6%
1.0%
0.8%
2.8%
1.8%
3.6%
1.7%
2.7%
1.8%
1.2%
2.7%
0.0%
2.4%
1.4%
3.6%
3.3%
1.2%
2.3%
1.3%
3.3%
1.7%
2.1%
0.9%
0.2%
1.4%
0.9%
2.9%
2.7%
2.7%
2.6%
1.2%
2.4%
1.8%
2.6%
2.6%
1.9%
1.2%
2.6%
Profit
5,534
1,276
2,582
2,248
7,368
4,820
2,271
1,087
424
1,301
3,508
2,072
2,544
8,392
909
4,446
10,143
1,126
4,327
2,834
3,230
1,924
6,720
2,908
2,939
6,810
6,520
5,465
4,996
192
474
1,318
12,034
11,058
1,603
1,314
54,879
1,820
641
17,987
6,739
4,711
293
895
1,596
3,880
11,309
6,624
5,181
4,513
27,088
Tax
59
14
28
25
85
56
29
14
6
18
48
28
35
118
13
64
147
17
64
42
48
30
110
51
53
122
117
98
93
4
9
25
234
222
33
27
1,124
38
14
381
144
101
6
20
35
86
251
147
116
102
615
Rate
1.1%
1.1%
1.1%
1.1%
1.2%
1.2%
1.3%
1.3%
1.3%
1.4%
1.4%
1.4%
1.4%
1.4%
1.4%
1.4%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.6%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.1%
2.1%
2.1%
2.1%
2.1%
2.2%
2.2%
2.2%
2.2%
2.2%
2.2%
2.2%
2.3%
2.3%
14
2010
Company
CenterPoint Energy
Domtar
Raytheon
Wesco International
Automatic Data Processing
Capital One Financial
J.C. Penney
DTE Energy
Southwest Airlines
Atmos Energy
Time Warner
DirecTV
Sempra Energy
PG&E Corp.
Health Net
Precision Castparts
United Technologies
United Parcel Service
Casey's General Stores
AutoZone
FedEx
Emerson Electric
Levi Strauss
Yahoo
PepsiCo
Ross Stores
PPL
Dollar General
Dover
Limited Brands
Nash-Finch
Harris
Advance Auto Parts
FirstEnergy
St. Jude Medical
Anixter International
Principal Financial
Procter & Gamble
Hewlett-Packard
AmerisourceBergen
Sherwin-Williams
Walgreen
Phillips-Van Heusen
Supervalu
Target
Amgen
Kroger
Dean Foods
Comcast
Humana
Profit
705
177
2,749
166
1,638
1,290
581
950
745
335
3,518
2,809
447
1,660
337
1,335
2,655
4,780
151
1,161
1,793
1,303
165
11,921
872
4,008
897
978
980
470
1,209
72
845
557
1,242
553
115
841
8,983
4,027
1,023
678
3,373
22
347
4,495
2,217
1,752
128
6,104
1,750
Tax
24
15
50
1
54
31
4
26
19
6
119
18
3
130
12
33
112
118
2
34
44
33
3
42
17
118
28
43
26
7
51
1
17
18
35
12
3
34
266
136
31
17
90
1
0
44
52
95
2
384
63
2009
Rate
3.4%
8.5%
1.8%
0.9%
3.3%
2.4%
0.7%
2.7%
2.6%
1.8%
3.4%
0.6%
0.7%
7.8%
3.7%
2.4%
4.2%
2.5%
1.2%
2.9%
2.5%
2.5%
1.7%
0.4%
1.9%
3.0%
3.1%
4.4%
2.6%
1.5%
4.2%
1.1%
2.1%
3.2%
2.8%
2.1%
2.7%
4.1%
3.0%
3.4%
3.0%
2.5%
2.7%
5.3%
0.1%
1.0%
2.3%
5.4%
1.3%
6.3%
3.6%
Profit
548
560
2,826
172
1,909
911
403
782
164
291
3,231
1,446
1,007
1,694
112
1,239
2,584
3,027
182
1,034
1,339
1,169
46
12,625
387
4,209
719
248
546
258
566
75
697
432
1,235
560
96
744
8,368
2,569
818
623
3,164
210
632
3,872
2,104
1,702
371
5,106
1,602
Tax
10
4
20
2
35
35
24
17
1
8
51
62
40
41
2
31
45
30
5
26
50
25
5
364
33
117
16
14
20
5
1
3
20
7
44
19
0
19
295
145
25
18
91
7
9
143
85
40
15
156
55
2008
Rate
1.8%
0.7%
0.7%
1.2%
1.8%
3.8%
6.0%
2.2%
0.6%
2.7%
1.6%
4.3%
4.0%
2.4%
2.2%
2.5%
1.8%
1.0%
2.6%
2.6%
3.7%
2.1%
11.7%
2.9%
8.5%
2.8%
2.3%
5.6%
3.7%
2.0%
0.2%
4.4%
2.9%
1.6%
3.6%
3.3%
0.3%
2.5%
3.5%
5.6%
3.0%
2.9%
2.9%
3.5%
1.5%
3.7%
4.0%
2.4%
4.1%
3.1%
3.4%
Profit
723
268
2,476
323
1,619
2,871
910
819
278
293
2,073
1,981
1,199
1,623
147
1,347
2,899
4,957
139
1,007
1,226
1,756
198
8,838
448
3,274
495
943
190
528
539
54
638
381
2,116
531
196
503
8,409
2,232
747
714
3,430
149
745
3,536
2,415
1,967
293
4,058
993
Tax
11
4
116
12
31
53
25
17
10
8
42
71
28
33
0
33
45
172
5
21
17
50
2
544
5
68
12
2
1
23
13
2
24
15
56
18
9
10
229
7
25
28
133
4
46
197
82
43
10
284
29
All 3 Years
Rate
1.5%
1.5%
4.7%
3.6%
1.9%
1.9%
2.7%
2.1%
3.6%
2.6%
2.0%
3.6%
2.3%
2.0%
0.2%
2.5%
1.6%
3.5%
3.9%
2.0%
1.4%
2.8%
1.2%
6.2%
1.1%
2.1%
2.5%
0.2%
0.6%
4.3%
2.3%
2.9%
3.7%
3.9%
2.6%
3.5%
4.5%
2.0%
2.7%
0.3%
3.3%
3.9%
3.9%
2.5%
6.2%
5.6%
3.4%
2.2%
3.3%
7.0%
2.9%
Profit
1,976
1,005
8,051
661
5,165
5,072
1,894
2,551
1,187
919
8,822
6,236
2,653
4,977
596
3,921
8,138
12,764
472
3,202
4,358
4,228
409
33,384
1,707
11,491
2,111
2,169
1,716
1,256
2,314
201
2,180
1,369
4,593
1,644
407
2,088
25,760
8,828
2,588
2,015
9,967
381
1,724
11,903
6,736
5,421
792
15,268
4,344
Tax
45
23
186
15
120
119
44
60
28
22
212
151
65
122
15
97
203
320
12
81
111
108
11
866
44
304
56
59
47
35
64
6
61
39
135
49
12
63
790
274
81
63
314
12
55
384
219
179
26
513
147
Rate
2.3%
2.3%
2.3%
2.3%
2.3%
2.3%
2.3%
2.4%
2.4%
2.4%
2.4%
2.4%
2.5%
2.5%
2.5%
2.5%
2.5%
2.5%
2.5%
2.5%
2.5%
2.6%
2.6%
2.6%
2.6%
2.6%
2.7%
2.7%
2.7%
2.8%
2.8%
2.8%
2.8%
2.9%
2.9%
3.0%
3.0%
3.0%
3.1%
3.1%
3.1%
3.1%
3.2%
3.2%
3.2%
3.2%
3.3%
3.3%
3.3%
3.4%
3.4%
15
2010
Company
General Mills
O'Reilly Automotive
Wal-Mart Stores
VF
Health Management Associates
Mosaic
DISH Network
Goldman Sachs Group
Kindred Healthcare
Celanese
Consol Energy
Kohl's
RadioShack
Family Dollar Stores
News Corp.
Murphy Oil
CA
Exelon
Big Lots
DaVita
Exxon Mobil
Clorox
CMS Energy
United Stationers
Darden Restaurants
Reliance Steel & Aluminum
Lockheed Martin
Publix Super Markets
Fluor
Cardinal Health
Hormel Foods
Viacom
Hershey
PPG Industries
Graybar Electric
AECOM Technology
L-3 Communications
Northeast Utilities
C.H. Robinson Worldwide
Kraft Foods
Bemis
Walt Disney
Centene
Ball
Gap
Pantry
Thermo Fisher Scientific
Gilead Sciences
Medco Health Solutions
PetSmart
Profit
2,145
689
18,398
613
232
287
1,478
1,712
7,353
90
214
427
1,782
334
564
3,259
214
751
4,221
355
744
7,711
650
587
192
535
283
3,962
2,039
454
1,300
616
1,579
839
502
69
164
1,258
605
591
1,085
222
6,074
154
319
1,686
30
789
2,544
2,323
361
Tax
77
21
637
26
1
26
50
69
264
2
11
11
70
14
23
77
15
48
170
15
30
292
17
26
6
29
12
168
79
27
20
21
67
28
15
2
4
52
7
23
47
9
223
7
10
73
1
35
126
93
16
2009
Rate
3.6%
3.1%
3.5%
4.2%
0.6%
9.1%
3.4%
4.0%
3.6%
2.6%
4.9%
2.6%
3.9%
4.1%
4.1%
2.4%
6.9%
6.4%
4.0%
4.2%
4.1%
3.8%
2.7%
4.4%
3.2%
5.4%
4.1%
4.2%
3.9%
6.0%
1.5%
3.4%
4.2%
3.4%
3.0%
3.2%
2.6%
4.1%
1.1%
3.9%
4.3%
4.2%
3.7%
4.3%
3.2%
4.3%
3.5%
4.4%
4.9%
4.0%
4.6%
Profit
2,060
497
17,705
504
218
244
598
1,337
10,915
102
294
704
1,588
326
451
2,889
308
699
4,419
323
758
2,576
664
324
160
508
200
4,390
1,775
734
980
523
1,982
671
275
63
168
1,210
516
546
1,936
148
5,472
138
309
1,511
87
579
2,172
2,093
302
Tax
87
15
599
15
21
1
15
44
571
4
2
41
60
7
18
114
9
15
153
12
33
86
21
17
7
11
3
140
68
21
63
22
38
41
15
3
3
57
53
24
82
5
194
6
15
77
5
24
140
117
19
2008
Rate
4.2%
3.1%
3.4%
2.9%
9.7%
0.3%
2.5%
3.3%
5.2%
4.3%
0.6%
5.8%
3.7%
2.2%
3.9%
3.9%
2.9%
2.1%
3.5%
3.6%
4.4%
3.3%
3.2%
5.2%
4.6%
2.1%
1.3%
3.2%
3.8%
2.9%
6.5%
4.2%
1.9%
6.2%
5.5%
4.0%
1.6%
4.7%
10.2%
4.3%
4.2%
3.2%
3.6%
4.0%
5.0%
5.1%
5.2%
4.2%
6.4%
5.6%
6.2%
Profit
1,718
303
16,212
593
577
329
1,193
1,789
4,894
99
135
621
1,425
290
362
2,502
477
633
4,034
250
657
10,152
573
433
157
510
740
4,743
1,651
519
959
451
1,490
568
689
140
91
1,272
372
527
1,295
181
6,692
137
227
1,209
49
705
1,773
1,782
309
Tax
37
14
564
18
16
5
50
57
15
4
11
11
45
14
10
127
13
14
159
9
19
407
34
9
6
21
34
205
67
19
46
20
96
14
29
6
10
45
16
22
52
9
358
6
11
42
2
32
23
68
8
All 3 Years
Rate
2.2%
4.7%
3.5%
3.1%
2.8%
1.4%
4.2%
3.2%
0.3%
3.6%
7.8%
1.7%
3.2%
4.8%
2.8%
5.1%
2.8%
2.2%
3.9%
3.6%
2.9%
4.0%
5.9%
2.1%
4.0%
4.1%
4.5%
4.3%
4.1%
3.7%
4.8%
4.5%
6.4%
2.4%
4.2%
4.5%
11.2%
3.6%
4.3%
4.2%
4.0%
5.0%
5.3%
4.5%
5.0%
3.5%
3.4%
4.6%
1.3%
3.8%
2.7%
Profit
5,923
1,489
52,315
1,710
1,027
860
3,268
4,839
23,162
290
643
1,752
4,795
950
1,377
8,650
999
2,083
12,674
928
2,159
20,439
1,887
1,344
509
1,552
1,223
13,095
5,466
1,707
3,238
1,591
5,051
2,078
1,466
272
424
3,740
1,492
1,664
4,316
551
18,238
428
855
4,406
167
2,073
6,488
6,197
972
Tax
202
51
1,800
59
36
30
115
170
820
10
23
63
174
35
51
318
37
77
482
36
83
784
73
52
20
60
48
513
215
68
129
63
201
83
59
11
17
154
62
69
181
23
775
18
37
192
7
92
288
278
44
Rate
3.4%
3.4%
3.4%
3.4%
3.5%
3.5%
3.5%
3.5%
3.5%
3.6%
3.6%
3.6%
3.6%
3.7%
3.7%
3.7%
3.7%
3.7%
3.8%
3.8%
3.8%
3.8%
3.9%
3.9%
3.9%
3.9%
3.9%
3.9%
3.9%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
4.1%
4.1%
4.1%
4.2%
4.2%
4.2%
4.2%
4.3%
4.3%
4.4%
4.4%
4.4%
4.4%
4.5%
4.5%
16
2010
Company
Owens & Minor
Genuine Parts
Ruddick
Tutor Perini
CarMax
Staples
Altria Group
H&R Block
ConocoPhillips
McDonald's
Interpublic Group
U.S. Bancorp
Parker Hannifin
Waste Management
Safeway
Nike
Pitney Bowes
Home Depot
Universal Health Services
Fiserv
SAIC
Best Buy
Coventry Health Care
Lowe's
Costco Wholesale
Cognizant Technology Solutions
Henry Schein
TJX
W.W. Grainger
URS
Laboratory Corp. of America
Charles Schwab
UGI
Polo Ralph Lauren
Dollar Tree
Nordstrom
Dick's Sporting Goods
Dominion Resources
Jacobs Engineering Group
Sealed Air
NYSE Euronext
Washington Post
Illinois Tool Works
Oracle
Franklin Resources
Chevron
Synnex
McGraw-Hill
Visa
CVS Caremark
Reynolds American
Profit
182
764
170
159
613
878
5,709
639
6,291
2,763
216
4,375
355
1,517
550
1,084
419
4,854
428
761
874
1,622
965
3,228
1,426
220
344
1,810
802
437
876
1,099
449
578
630
991
298
5,287
295
79
166
529
1,242
6,378
1,168
6,528
143
1,064
3,973
5,629
2,175
Tax
10
36
6
9
27
50
258
45
320
139
17
200
23
97
44
46
27
181
18
32
46
65
28
188
77
9
20
109
44
22
50
49
20
37
31
49
14
306
23
6
17
28
51
226
70
364
8
54
258
340
136
2009
Rate
5.4%
4.7%
3.3%
6.0%
4.4%
5.7%
4.5%
7.0%
5.1%
5.0%
7.8%
4.6%
6.4%
6.4%
7.9%
4.2%
6.3%
3.7%
4.2%
4.2%
5.3%
4.0%
2.9%
5.8%
5.4%
3.9%
5.9%
6.0%
5.5%
5.1%
5.7%
4.5%
4.4%
6.4%
5.0%
5.0%
4.6%
5.8%
7.8%
7.1%
10.2%
5.2%
4.1%
3.5%
6.0%
5.6%
5.7%
5.1%
6.5%
6.0%
6.2%
Profit
188
516
148
196
452
729
4,868
755
2,524
2,700
142
4,321
391
1,396
659
699
530
3,586
475
718
781
1,822
505
2,825
1,426
152
308
1,609
680
339
848
1,276
432
448
508
696
223
2,329
449
108
52
229
545
4,282
694
1,310
96
879
3,807
5,913
2,041
Tax
Rate
9
4.5%
29
5.6%
7
4.6%
10
5.0%
17
3.8%
41
5.6%
111
2.3%
23
3.1%
82
3.2%
139
5.2%
6 4.3%
175
4.0%
18
4.6%
73
5.3%
34
5.2%
40
5.7%
31
5.8%
184
5.1%
21
4.5%
29
4.0%
42
5.3%
112
6.1%
42
8.3%
123
4.4%
66
4.6%
8
5.2%
16
5.1%
102
6.3%
33
4.8%
18
5.4%
41
4.8%
72
5.6%
21
4.9%
12
2.7%
28
5.4%
37
5.3%
10
4.7%
128
5.5%
30
6.6%
7
6.6%
15 28.8%
16
7.1%
41
7.6%
280
6.5%
42
6.1%
212 16.2%
5
5.6%
46
5.2%
225
5.9%
394
6.7%
134
6.5%
2008
Profit
165
1,123
153
213
97
923
4,789
853
11,209
2,769
241
5,376
510
1,693
1,241
846
587
3,136
357
628
696
1,660
572
3,506
1,542
136
300
1,158
731
374
748
2,028
381
351
359
648
178
2,613
394
96
181
287
1,198
3,745
1,050
10,765
91
981
1,245
5,537
2,129
Tax
6
45
9
7
10
27
351
37
543
113
18
300
20
51
40
42
17
198
22
43
28
77
32
166
77
9
12
24
37
19
37
108
26
24
21
38
13
114
9
3
20
14
78
327
57
510
6
78
82
356
142
All 3 Years
Rate
3.5%
4.0%
6.1%
3.3%
10.3%
2.9%
7.3%
4.3%
4.8%
4.1%
7.4%
5.6%
3.9%
3.0%
3.2%
4.9%
2.9%
6.3%
6.2%
6.8%
4.1%
4.6%
5.6%
4.7%
5.0%
6.6%
4.1%
2.1%
5.1%
5.0%
4.9%
5.3%
6.7%
6.7%
5.8%
5.9%
7.4%
4.4%
2.3%
2.7%
11.0%
5.0%
6.5%
8.7%
5.4%
4.7%
6.6%
8.0%
6.6%
6.4%
6.7%
Profit
535
2,404
472
569
1,163
2,530
15,366
2,246
20,024
8,233
599
14,072
1,255
4,606
2,449
2,629
1,535
11,576
1,260
2,107
2,351
5,104
2,041
9,559
4,394
508
952
4,577
2,213
1,150
2,472
4,403
1,261
1,378
1,497
2,335
699
10,229
1,138
282
399
1,044
2,985
14,405
2,912
18,603
330
2,923
9,025
17,079
6,345
Tax
24
110
22
26
54
118
720
105
945
391
29
675
60
222
118
128
75
563
62
104
116
254
102
477
220
25
49
234
114
59
127
229
66
72
80
124
37
548
62
15
22
58
170
833
169
1,086
20
178
564
1,090
411
Rate
4.5%
4.6%
4.6%
4.6%
4.6%
4.7%
4.7%
4.7%
4.7%
4.8%
4.8%
4.8%
4.8%
4.8%
4.8%
4.9%
4.9%
4.9%
4.9%
4.9%
4.9%
5.0%
5.0%
5.0%
5.0%
5.0%
5.1%
5.1%
5.1%
5.2%
5.2%
5.2%
5.3%
5.3%
5.3%
5.3%
5.3%
5.4%
5.4%
5.4%
5.5%
5.6%
5.7%
5.8%
5.8%
5.8%
5.9%
6.1%
6.3%
6.4%
6.5%
17
2010
Company
Bed Bath & Beyond
Quest Diagnostics
Emcor Group
Wisconsin Energy
BJ's Wholesale Club
Apple
Apollo Group
State Street Corp.
J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.
Whole Foods Market
All 265 Companies
Profit
1,293
1,182
200
704
207
5,540
1,399
746
10,226
400
Tax
90
93
14
51
17
527
130
15
1,740
40
479,077 15,051
2009
Rate
7.0%
7.9%
6.9%
7.3%
8.1%
9.5%
9.3%
2.0%
17.0%
10.1%
Profit
985
1,226
249
591
227
5,466
1,086
1,724
14,526
247
Tax
60
80
17
48
22
481
90
39
968
24
3.1% 412,762 11,862
2008
Rate
6.1%
6.6%
6.9%
8.1%
9.7%
8.8%
8.3%
2.3%
6.7%
9.7%
Profit
683
1,052
271
574
226
4,347
808
1,732
7,924
187
Tax
47
57
22
46
14
226
50
299
281
22
2.9% 438,140 12,971
All 3 Years
Rate
6.8%
5.5%
8.1%
8.0%
6.2%
5.2%
6.2%
17.3%
3.6%
11.7%
Profit
2,962
3,460
720
1,870
660
15,353
3,293
4,202
32,676
834
Tax
197
231
53
145
53
1,234
270
353
2,989
86
Rate
6.6%
6.7%
7.3%
7.7%
8.0%
8.0%
8.2%
8.4%
9.1%
10.3%
3.0% 1,329,979 39,885
3.0%
18
State Income Taxes for 265 Major Corporations, 20082010, Alphabetical ($-millions)
2010
Company
3M
Advance Auto Parts
AECOM Technology
Aetna
Airgas
Alliant Techsystems
Altria Group
Ameren
American Express
AmerisourceBergen
Amgen
Apache
Apollo Group
Apple
Arrow Electronics
Ashland
AT&T
Atmos Energy
AutoZone
Ball
BB&T Corp.
Becton Dickinson
Bed Bath & Beyond
Bemis
Best Buy
Big Lots
BJ's Wholesale Club
Boeing
CA
Campbell Soup
Cardinal Health
CarMax
Celanese
Centene
CenterPoint Energy
CenturyLink
Charles Schwab
Chesapeake Energy
Chevron
Profit
2,759
557
164
2,644
465
400
436
5,709
896
1,849
6,112
701
1,023
2,217
115
1,328
1,399
5,540
2,035
313
165
17,496
335
1,638
1,161
319
191
1,071
889
1,293
222
1,622
355
207
4,310
591
751
366
1,051
1,290
1,300
613
151
214
154
705
1,532
1,099
2,884
6,528
597
Tax
64
18
4
23
1
6
6
258
10
20
110
4
31
52
3
4
130
527
10
13
2
137
6
54
34
10
10
18
19
90
9
65
15
17
140
23
48
6
44
31
20
27
2
11
7
24
65
49
78
364
2
2009
Rate
2.3%
3.2%
2.6%
0.9%
0.3%
1.4%
1.4%
4.5%
1.1%
1.1%
1.8%
0.6%
3.0%
2.3%
2.7%
0.3%
9.3%
9.5%
0.5%
4.2%
1.1%
0.8%
1.8%
3.3%
2.9%
3.2%
5.2%
1.7%
2.2%
7.0%
4.2%
4.0%
4.2%
8.1%
3.3%
3.9%
6.4%
1.6%
4.2%
2.4%
1.5%
4.4%
1.2%
4.9%
4.3%
3.4%
4.2%
4.5%
2.7%
5.6%
0.3%
Profit
2,297
432
168
1,901
374
307
433
4,868
956
1,938
3,131
883
818
2,104
96
437
1,086
5,466
1,453
108
49
18,293
291
1,909
1,034
309
445
2,066
891
985
148
1,822
323
227
1,638
546
699
224
976
911
980
452
182
294
138
548
815
1,276
1,712
1,310
131
Tax
Rate
11
0.5%
7
1.6%
3
1.6%
61
3.2%
33
8.8%
3
1.0%
7
1.6%
111
2.3%
3
0.3%
76 3.9%
40
1.3%
6
0.7%
25
3.0%
85
4.0%
0
0.3%
2 0.4%
90
8.3%
481
8.8%
18
1.2%
1
0.9%
3
5.7%
950
5.2%
8
2.7%
35
1.8%
26
2.6%
15
5.0%
21 4.6%
15
0.7%
7
0.8%
60
6.1%
5
3.2%
112
6.1%
12
3.6%
22
9.7%
144
8.8%
24
4.3%
15
2.1%
2
1.0%
9
0.9%
35
3.8%
63
6.5%
17
3.8%
5
2.6%
2
0.6%
6
4.0%
10
1.8%
2
0.2%
72
5.6%
275 16.1%
212 16.2%
3
2.1%
2008
Profit
2,312
381
91
2,174
480
419
407
4,789
971
2,015
3,322
290
747
2,415
196
1,835
808
4,347
1,332
473
179
19,090
293
1,619
1,007
227
262
3,673
802
683
181
1,660
250
226
3,794
527
633
334
912
2,871
959
97
139
135
137
723
561
2,028
3,791
10,765
567
Tax
10
15
10
26
6
8
1
351
10
1
28
4
25
82
9
1
50
226
28
5
3
37
8
31
21
11
17
89
2
47
9
77
9
14
3
22
14
2
0
53
46
10
5
11
6
11
15
108
24
510
3
All 3 Years
Rate
0.4%
3.9%
11.2%
1.2%
1.3%
1.8%
0.2%
7.3%
1.0%
0.0%
0.8%
1.4%
3.3%
3.4%
4.5%
0.1%
6.2%
5.2%
2.1%
1.2%
1.6%
0.2%
2.6%
1.9%
2.0%
5.0%
6.6%
2.4%
0.2%
6.8%
5.0%
4.6%
3.6%
6.2%
0.1%
4.2%
2.2%
0.7%
0.0%
1.9%
4.8%
10.3%
3.9%
7.8%
4.5%
1.5%
2.7%
5.3%
0.6%
4.7%
0.5%
Profit
7,368
1,369
424
6,720
1,318
1,126
1,276
15,366
2,823
5,802
12,565
1,874
2,588
6,736
407
3,600
3,293
15,353
4,820
895
393
54,879
919
5,165
3,202
855
898
6,810
2,582
2,962
551
5,104
928
660
9,742
1,664
2,083
924
2,939
5,072
3,238
1,163
472
643
428
1,976
2,908
4,403
8,387
18,603
1,295
Tax
85
39
17
110
25
17
14
720
23
97
122
14
81
219
12
3
270
1,234
56
20
4
1,124
22
120
81
37
28
122
28
197
23
254
36
53
7
69
77
6
53
119
129
54
12
23
18
45
51
229
173
1,086
8
Rate
1.2%
2.9%
4.1%
1.6%
1.9%
1.5%
1.1%
4.7%
0.8%
1.7%
1.0%
0.7%
3.1%
3.3%
3.0%
0.1%
8.2%
8.0%
1.2%
2.2%
1.0%
2.0%
2.4%
2.3%
2.5%
4.3%
3.1%
1.8%
1.1%
6.6%
4.2%
5.0%
3.8%
8.0%
0.1%
4.2%
3.7%
0.6%
1.8%
2.3%
4.0%
4.6%
2.5%
3.6%
4.3%
2.3%
1.8%
5.2%
2.1%
5.8%
0.6%
19
2010
Company
Clorox
CMS Energy
Coca-Cola
Comcast
Computer Sciences
ConAgra Foods
ConocoPhillips
Consol Energy
Consolidated Edison
Con-way
Core-Mark Holding
Corning
Costco Wholesale
CSX
CVS Caremark
Darden Restaurants
DaVita
Dean Foods
Deere
Devon Energy
DirecTV
DISH Network
Dollar General
Dollar Tree
Dominion Resources
Domtar
Dover
DTE Energy
Duke Energy
DuPont
Eastman Chemical
El Paso
Eli Lilly
EMC
Emcor Group
Emerson Electric
Entergy
EOG Resources
Exelon
Express Scripts
Exxon Mobil
FedEx
FirstEnergy
Fiserv
Flowserve
Fluor
Profit
650
587
7,224
220
6,104
508
582
1,040
6,291
427
1,551
46
32
975
1,426
965
2,546
5,629
535
744
128
2,063
2,943
298
2,809
1,712
980
630
5,287
177
470
950
2,189
949
507
1,236
3,136
1,408
200
1,303
1,887
753
4,221
1,918
7,711
564
1,793
1,242
761
202
454
Tax
17
26
85
9
384
9
22
28
320
11
23
0
0
1
77
28
51
340
29
30
2
42
13
14
18
69
26
31
306
15
7
26
39
18
5
23
1
14
33
19
1
170
30
292
23
44
35
32
0
27
2009
Rate
2.7%
4.4%
1.2%
3.9%
6.3%
1.8%
3.8%
2.7%
5.1%
2.6%
1.5%
0.3%
0.5%
0.1%
5.4%
2.9%
2.0%
6.0%
5.4%
4.1%
1.3%
2.1%
0.4%
4.6%
0.6%
4.0%
2.6%
5.0%
5.8%
8.5%
1.5%
2.7%
1.8%
3.6%
0.4%
0.7%
0.1%
6.9%
2.5%
1.0%
0.2%
4.0%
1.6%
3.8%
4.1%
2.5%
2.8%
4.2%
0.1%
6.0%
Profit
664
324
2,691
152
5,106
446
447
872
2,524
704
1,319
33
69
202
1,426
505
1,746
5,913
508
758
371
918
1,447
223
1,446
1,337
546
508
2,329
560
258
782
1,771
171
193
1,229
1,801
475
249
1,169
1,883
874
4,419
1,312
2,576
451
1,339
1,235
718
143
734
Tax
21
17
79
8
156
14
33
16
82
41
12
1
2
66
42
35
394
11
33
15
11
17
10
62
44
20
28
128
4
5
17
3
9
11
24
49
5
17
25
109
4
153
23
86
18
50
44
29
6
21
2008
Rate
3.2%
5.2%
2.9%
5.2%
3.1%
3.2%
7.3%
1.8%
3.2%
5.8%
0.9%
0.6%
2.8%
4.6%
8.3%
2.0%
6.7%
2.1%
4.4%
4.1%
1.2%
1.1%
4.7%
4.3%
3.3%
3.7%
5.4%
5.5%
0.7%
2.0%
2.2%
0.2%
5.3%
5.7%
2.0%
2.7%
1.1%
6.9%
2.1%
5.8%
0.5%
3.5%
1.8%
3.3%
3.9%
3.7%
3.6%
4.0%
4.5%
2.9%
Profit
573
433
2,119
136
4,058
359
492
632
11,209
621
1,457
214
29
801
1,542
572
2,332
5,537
510
657
293
1,730
4,348
178
1,981
1,789
190
359
2,613
268
528
819
1,575
992
387
1,631
157
500
271
1,756
1,843
3,196
4,034
1,216
10,152
362
1,226
2,116
628
129
519
Tax
Rate
34 5.9%
9 2.1%
70 3.3%
9 6.6%
284 7.0%
3 0.9%
134 27.3%
8 1.3%
543 4.8%
11 1.7%
53 3.6%
6 3.1%
0 1.7%
77 5.0%
32 5.6%
61 2.6%
356 6.4%
21 4.1%
19 2.9%
10 3.3%
47 2.7%
21 0.5%
13 7.4%
71 3.6%
57 3.2%
1 0.6%
21 5.8%
114 4.4%
4 1.5%
23 4.3%
17 2.1%
17 1.1%
3 0.3%
7 1.8%
38 2.3%
45 28.4%
1 0.3%
22 8.1%
50 2.8%
146 7.9%
5 0.1%
159 3.9%
10 0.8%
407 4.0%
10 2.8%
17 1.4%
56 2.6%
43 6.8%
3 2.3%
19 3.7%
All 3 Years
Profit
1,887
1,344
12,034
508
15,268
1,314
1,521
2,544
20,024
1,752
4,327
293
131
1,978
4,394
2,041
6,624
17,079
1,552
2,159
792
4,711
8,738
699
6,236
4,839
1,716
1,497
10,229
1,005
1,256
2,551
5,534
2,112
1,087
4,096
5,094
2,383
720
4,228
5,613
4,824
12,674
4,446
20,439
1,377
4,358
4,593
2,107
474
1,707
Tax
73
52
234
25
513
27
145
35
945
63
64
6
1
1
220
102
147
1,090
60
83
26
101
50
37
151
170
47
80
548
23
35
60
59
12
14
9
28
7
53
108
57
1
482
64
784
51
111
135
104
9
68
Rate
3.9%
3.9%
1.9%
5.0%
3.4%
2.0%
9.5%
1.4%
4.7%
3.6%
1.5%
5.3%
1.0%
0.1%
5.0%
5.0%
2.2%
6.4%
3.9%
3.8%
3.3%
2.1%
0.6%
5.3%
2.4%
3.5%
2.7%
5.3%
5.4%
2.3%
2.8%
2.4%
1.1%
0.6%
1.3%
0.2%
0.5%
0.3%
7.3%
2.6%
1.0%
0.0%
3.8%
1.4%
3.8%
3.7%
2.5%
2.9%
4.9%
1.9%
4.0%
20
2010
Company
FMC Technologies
Franklin Resources
GameStop
Gap
General Dynamics
General Electric
General Mills
Genuine Parts
Gilead Sciences
Goldman Sachs Group
Goodrich
Graybar Electric
H&R Block
H.J. Heinz
Halliburton
Harley-Davidson
Harris
Health Net
Henry Schein
Hershey
Hewlett-Packard
Holly
Home Depot
Hormel Foods
Humana
Illinois Tool Works
Ingram Micro
Insight Enterprises
Intel
International Business Machines
International Paper
Interpublic Group
ITT
J.C. Penney
J.M. Smucker
Kellogg
Kimberly-Clark
Kindred Healthcare
Kohl's
Kraft Foods
Kroger
L-3 Communications
Levi Strauss
Limited Brands
Lockheed Martin
Profit
65
1,168
554
1,686
3,150
4,247
2,145
764
2,544
7,353
592
69
639
566
1,918
357
845
287
337
344
839
4,027
192
4,854
1,249
616
1,750
1,242
86
71
342
13,926
9,140
198
216
737
581
730
10,226
295
1,271
1,609
90
1,782
1,085
1,752
1,258
876
165
1,209
3,962
Tax
0
70
10
73
4
1
77
36
126
264
42
2
45
13
42
6
17
26
12
20
28
136
5
181
6
21
63
51
3
1
11
40
279
19
17
17
4
20
1,740
23
9
94
2
70
47
95
52
50
3
51
168
2009
Rate
0.1%
6.0%
1.8%
4.3%
0.1%
0.0%
3.6%
4.7%
4.9%
3.6%
7.1%
3.2%
7.0%
2.3%
2.2%
1.8%
2.1%
9.1%
3.7%
5.9%
3.4%
3.4%
2.4%
3.7%
0.5%
3.4%
3.6%
4.1%
3.7%
1.5%
3.2%
0.3%
3.1%
9.6%
7.8%
2.3%
0.7%
2.8%
17.0%
7.8%
0.7%
5.8%
2.6%
3.9%
4.3%
5.4%
4.1%
5.7%
1.7%
4.2%
4.2%
Profit
70
694
509
1,511
2,940
1,667
2,060
516
2,172
10,915
552
63
755
499
589
252
697
244
112
308
671
2,569
44
3,586
1,744
523
1,602
545
13
15
307
3,229
9,524
905
142
670
403
712
14,526
449
1,207
1,643
102
1,588
1,936
1,702
1,210
848
46
566
4,390
Tax
2
42
12
77
13
93
87
29
140
571
6
3
23
1
24
5
20
1
2
16
41
145
2
184
21
22
55
41
1
0
14
2
120
7
6
7
24
12
968
30
38
7
4
60
82
40
57
41
5
1
140
2008
Rate
2.2%
6.1%
2.4%
5.1%
0.4%
5.6%
4.2%
5.6%
6.4%
5.2%
1.1%
4.0%
3.1%
0.2%
4.1%
2.1%
2.9%
0.3%
2.2%
5.1%
6.2%
5.6%
4.7%
5.1%
1.2%
4.2%
3.4%
7.6%
5.0%
1.6%
4.6%
0.1%
1.3%
0.8%
4.3%
1.1%
6.0%
1.7%
6.7%
6.6%
3.2%
0.4%
4.3%
3.7%
4.2%
2.4%
4.7%
4.8%
11.7%
0.2%
3.2%
Profit
63
1,050
533
1,209
3,080
4,646
1,718
1,123
1,773
4,894
738
140
853
534
2,674
994
638
329
147
300
568
2,232
188
3,136
2,003
451
993
1,198
92
40
169
6,117
8,424
353
241
665
910
378
7,924
394
1,030
1,261
99
1,425
1,295
1,967
1,272
748
198
539
4,743
Tax
3
57
13
42
6
8
37
45
23
15
17
6
37
1
50
21
24
5
0
12
14
7
3
198
66
20
29
78
1
0
3
38
216
2
18
4
25
5
281
9
1
15
4
45
52
43
45
37
2
13
205
All 3 Years
Rate
5.3%
5.4%
2.4%
3.5%
0.2%
0.2%
2.2%
4.0%
1.3%
0.3%
2.4%
4.5%
4.3%
0.2%
1.9%
2.1%
3.7%
1.4%
0.2%
4.1%
2.4%
0.3%
1.7%
6.3%
3.3%
4.5%
2.9%
6.5%
1.2%
0.8%
1.8%
0.6%
2.6%
0.6%
7.4%
0.6%
2.7%
1.4%
3.6%
2.3%
0.1%
1.2%
3.6%
3.2%
4.0%
2.2%
3.6%
4.9%
1.2%
2.3%
4.3%
Profit
198
2,912
1,596
4,406
9,170
10,560
5,923
2,404
6,488
23,162
1,883
272
2,246
1,599
5,181
1,603
2,180
860
596
952
2,078
8,828
424
11,576
4,996
1,591
4,344
2,985
192
126
819
23,272
27,088
1,456
599
2,072
1,894
1,820
32,676
1,138
3,508
4,513
290
4,795
4,316
5,421
3,740
2,472
409
2,314
13,095
Tax
2
169
35
192
23
100
202
110
288
820
19
11
105
13
116
33
61
30
15
49
83
274
6
563
93
63
147
170
4
1
0
0
615
14
29
28
44
38
2,989
62
48
102
10
174
181
179
154
127
11
64
513
Rate
0.9%
5.8%
2.2%
4.4%
0.2%
0.9%
3.4%
4.6%
4.4%
3.5%
1.0%
4.0%
4.7%
0.8%
2.2%
2.0%
2.8%
3.5%
2.5%
5.1%
4.0%
3.1%
1.3%
4.9%
1.9%
4.0%
3.4%
5.7%
1.9%
0.9%
0.0%
0.0%
2.3%
1.0%
4.8%
1.4%
2.3%
2.1%
9.1%
5.4%
1.4%
2.3%
3.6%
3.6%
4.2%
3.3%
4.1%
5.2%
2.6%
2.8%
3.9%
21
2010
Company
Loews
Lowe's
Macy's
Marathon Oil
Mattel
McDonald's
McGraw-Hill
McKesson
MDU Resources
Merck
Monsanto
Mosaic
Murphy Oil
Nash-Finch
News Corp.
NextEra Energy
Nike
NiSource
Nordstrom
Norfolk Southern
Northeast Utilities
NRG Energy
NYSE Euronext
Omnicom Group
Oneok
Oracle
O'Reilly Automotive
Owens & Minor
Paccar
Pantry
Parker Hannifin
Peabody Energy
Pepco Holdings
PepsiCo
PetSmart
PG&E Corp.
Phillips-Van Heusen
Pitney Bowes
Polo Ralph Lauren
PPG Industries
PPL
Praxair
Precision Castparts
Principal Financial
Procter & Gamble
Progress Energy
Profit
2,236
3,228
1,320
982
437
2,763
1,064
1,161
336
2,323
956
1,203
1,478
214
72
166
3,259
2,489
1,084
436
991
2,367
605
691
166
3,295
573
755
6,378
689
182
186
30
355
536
179
4,008
361
1,660
22
419
3,627
578
502
978
643
1,335
841
8,983
1,406
2,039
Tax
Rate
21 0.9%
188 5.8%
12 0.9%
32 3.3%
7 5.9%
139 5.0%
54 5.1%
40 3.4%
10 3.1%
93 4.0%
82 7.1%
8 0.7%
50 3.4%
15 6.9%
1 1.1%
4 2.4%
77 2.4%
11 0.4%
46 4.2%
3 0.7%
49 5.0%
61 2.6%
7 1.1%
35 5.1%
17 10.2%
75 2.3%
4 0.7%
13
226 3.5%
21 3.1%
10 5.4%
8 4.4%
1 3.5%
23 6.4%
8 1.5%
50 33.3%
118 3.0%
16 4.6%
130 7.8%
1 5.3%
27 6.3%
43 1.2%
37 6.4%
15 3.0%
43 4.4%
9 1.4%
33 2.4%
34 4.1%
266 3.0%
13 0.9%
79 3.9%
2009
Profit
2,025
2,825
507
494
359
2,700
879
1,340
393
2,093
5,773
2,340
598
308
75
441
2,889
1,942
699
396
696
1,622
516
1,508
52
2,091
599
699
4,282
497
188
79
87
391
281
327
4,209
302
1,694
210
530
4,444
448
275
248
577
1,239
744
8,368
1,237
1,775
Tax
7
123
9
77
4
139
46
25
8
117
7
7
15
9
3
6
114
77
40
16
37
8
53
20
15
23
12
2
280
15
9
4
5
18
2
32
117
19
41
7
31
46
12
15
14
5
31
19
295
41
68
2008
Rate
0.7%
4.4%
1.8%
15.5%
3.4%
5.2%
5.2%
1.9%
2.1%
5.6%
0.1%
0.3%
2.5%
2.9%
4.4%
1.4%
3.9%
4.0%
5.7%
4.0%
5.3%
0.5%
10.2%
1.3%
28.8%
1.1%
2.0%
0.3%
6.5%
3.1%
4.5%
4.7%
5.2%
4.6%
0.6%
9.8%
2.8%
6.2%
2.4%
3.5%
5.8%
1.0%
2.7%
5.5%
5.6%
0.9%
2.5%
2.5%
3.5%
3.3%
3.8%
Profit
1,202
3,506
444
3,989
233
2,769
981
623
572
1,782
5,485
1,419
1,193
477
54
302
2,502
2,089
846
557
648
2,750
372
1,681
181
5,923
752
795
3,745
303
165
96
49
510
185
273
3,274
309
1,623
149
587
2,072
351
689
943
532
1,347
503
8,409
1,173
1,651
Tax
Rate
21 74.1%
166 4.7%
8 1.8%
143 3.6%
1 3.7%
113 4.1%
78 8.0%
111 17.8%
1 0.2%
68 3.8%
123 2.4%
23 1.6%
50 4.2%
13 2.8%
2 2.9%
3 1.0%
127 5.1%
29 1.4%
42 4.9%
17 3.0%
38 5.9%
74 2.7%
16 4.3%
31 1.8%
20 11.0%
153 2.6%
14 1.8%
10 1.3%
327 8.7%
14 4.7%
6 3.5%
9 8.9%
2 3.4%
20 3.9%
21 7.7%
68 2.1%
8 2.7%
33 2.0%
4 2.5%
17 2.9%
59 2.8%
24 6.7%
29 4.2%
2 0.2%
3 0.5%
33 2.5%
10 2.0%
229 2.7%
12 1.0%
67 4.1%
All 3 Years
Profit
5,463
9,559
2,271
5,465
1,029
8,233
2,923
3,124
1,301
6,197
12,215
4,962
3,268
999
201
909
8,650
6,520
2,629
1,389
2,335
6,739
1,492
3,880
399
11,309
1,924
2,248
14,405
1,489
535
361
167
1,255
1,002
779
11,491
972
4,977
381
1,535
10,143
1,378
1,466
2,169
1,752
3,921
2,088
25,760
3,816
5,466
Tax
Rate
49
1.5%
477
5.0%
29
1.3%
98
1.8%
10
5.0%
391
4.8%
178
6.1%
46 1.5%
18
1.4%
278
4.5%
48
0.4%
21
0.4%
115
3.5%
37
3.7%
6
2.8%
13
1.4%
318
3.7%
117
1.8%
128
4.9%
4
0.3%
124
5.3%
144
2.1%
62
4.1%
86
2.2%
22
5.5%
251
2.2%
30
1.5%
25
1.1%
833
5.8%
51
3.4%
24
4.5%
4 1.1%
7
4.4%
60
4.8%
6 0.6%
103 13.7%
304
2.6%
44
4.5%
122
2.5%
12
3.2%
75
4.9%
147
1.5%
72
5.3%
59
4.0%
59
2.7%
17
1.0%
97
2.5%
63
3.0%
790
3.1%
40
1.0%
215
3.9%
22
2010
Company
Quest Diagnostics
RadioShack
Raytheon
Reynolds American
Rockwell Automation
Rockwell Collins
Ross Stores
Ruddick
Ryder System
Safeway
SAIC
Scana
Sealed Air
Sempra Energy
Sherwin-Williams
Southern
Southwest Airlines
Spectra Energy
St. Jude Medical
Staples
State Street Corp.
Supervalu
Synnex
Target
Tech Data
Tenet Healthcare
Texas Instruments
Time Warner
TJX
Travelers Cos.
Tutor Perini
U.S. Bancorp
UGI
Union Pacific
United Stationers
United Technologies
UnitedHealth Group
URS
VF
Viacom
Visa
W.W. Grainger
Walgreen
Wal-Mart Stores
Walt Disney
Profit
1,182
232
334
2,749
283
2,175
145
729
897
170
156
550
874
534
79
447
678
3,066
745
899
553
878
746
347
143
4,495
135
158
3,769
789
3,518
1,810
3,994
159
4,375
449
4,433
4,780
192
2,655
7,555
428
437
11,921
613
1,579
3,973
802
3,373
18,398
6,074
Tax
93
1
14
50
12
136
3
5
28
6
4
44
46
1
6
3
17
54
19
22
12
50
15
0
8
44
1
16
35
119
109
10
9
200
20
110
118
6
112
175
18
22
42
26
67
258
44
90
637
223
2009
Rate
7.9%
0.6%
4.1%
1.8%
4.1%
6.2%
2.0%
0.7%
3.1%
3.3%
2.8%
7.9%
5.3%
0.2%
7.1%
0.7%
2.5%
1.8%
2.6%
2.4%
2.1%
5.7%
2.0%
0.1%
5.7%
1.0%
0.5%
0.4%
4.4%
3.4%
6.0%
0.3%
6.0%
4.6%
4.4%
2.5%
2.5%
3.2%
4.2%
2.3%
4.2%
5.1%
0.4%
4.2%
4.2%
6.5%
5.5%
2.7%
3.5%
3.7%
Profit
1,226
218
326
2,826
200
2,041
65
799
719
148
132
659
781
522
108
1,007
623
2,604
164
807
560
729
1,724
632
96
3,872
93
205
1,375
579
3,231
1,609
4,411
196
4,321
432
2,974
3,027
160
2,584
5,808
475
339
12,625
504
1,982
3,807
680
3,164
17,705
5,472
Tax
Rate
80
6.6%
21
9.7%
7
2.2%
20
0.7%
3
1.3%
134
6.5%
17 26.6%
4
0.5%
16
2.3%
7
4.6%
6
4.5%
34
5.2%
42
5.3%
6 1.1%
7
6.6%
40
4.0%
18
2.9%
100
3.8%
1 0.6%
1
0.1%
19
3.3%
41
5.6%
39
2.3%
9
1.5%
5
5.6%
143
3.7%
1
0.8%
11
5.4%
4
0.3%
24
4.2%
51
1.6%
102
6.3%
8 0.2%
10
5.0%
175
4.0%
21
4.9%
48
1.6%
30
1.0%
7
4.6%
45
1.8%
71
1.2%
21
4.5%
18
5.4%
364
2.9%
15
2.9%
38
1.9%
225
5.9%
33
4.8%
91
2.9%
599
3.4%
194
3.6%
2008
Profit
1,052
577
290
2,476
740
2,129
460
898
495
153
352
1,241
696
534
96
1,199
714
2,722
278
1,128
531
923
1,732
745
91
3,536
88
54
1,749
705
2,073
1,158
3,444
213
5,376
381
3,651
4,957
157
2,899
4,624
357
374
8,838
593
1,490
1,245
731
3,430
16,212
6,692
Tax
Rate
57 5.5%
16 2.8%
14 4.8%
116 4.7%
34 4.5%
142 6.7%
3 0.7%
1 0.2%
12 2.5%
9 6.1%
3 0.9%
40 3.2%
28 4.1%
6 1.1%
3 2.7%
28 2.3%
28 3.9%
72 2.6%
10 3.6%
19 1.7%
18 3.5%
27 2.9%
299 17.3%
46 6.2%
6 6.6%
197 5.6%
1 1.4%
9 16.7%
5 0.3%
32 4.6%
42 2.0%
24 2.1%
10 0.3%
7 3.3%
300 5.6%
26 6.7%
64 1.7%
172 3.5%
6 4.0%
45 1.6%
134 2.9%
22 6.2%
19 5.0%
544 6.2%
18 3.1%
96 6.4%
82 6.6%
37 5.1%
133 3.9%
564 3.5%
358 5.3%
All 3 Years
Profit
3,460
1,027
950
8,051
1,223
6,345
670
2,426
2,111
472
641
2,449
2,351
1,590
282
2,653
2,015
8,392
1,187
2,834
1,644
2,530
4,202
1,724
330
11,903
316
417
6,893
2,073
8,822
4,577
11,849
569
14,072
1,261
11,058
12,764
509
8,138
17,987
1,260
1,150
33,384
1,710
5,051
9,025
2,213
9,967
52,315
18,238
Tax
231
36
35
186
48
411
17
3
56
22
14
118
116
1
15
65
63
118
28
42
49
118
353
55
20
384
3
2
24
92
212
234
12
26
675
66
222
320
20
203
381
62
59
866
59
201
564
114
314
1,800
775
Rate
6.7%
3.5%
3.7%
2.3%
3.9%
6.5%
2.5%
0.1%
2.7%
4.6%
2.1%
4.8%
4.9%
0.1%
5.4%
2.5%
3.1%
1.4%
2.4%
1.5%
3.0%
4.7%
8.4%
3.2%
5.9%
3.2%
0.9%
0.5%
0.4%
4.4%
2.4%
5.1%
0.1%
4.6%
4.8%
5.3%
2.0%
2.5%
3.9%
2.5%
2.1%
4.9%
5.2%
2.6%
3.4%
4.0%
6.3%
5.1%
3.2%
3.4%
4.2%
23
2010
Company
Washington Post
Waste Management
Wells Fargo
Wesco International
Whole Foods Market
Williams
Wisconsin Energy
Xcel Energy
Yahoo
Yum Brands
All 265 Companies
Profit
529
1,517
17,017
166
400
562
704
1,189
872
345
Tax
28
97
531
1
40
2
51
13
17
3
479,077 15,051
2009
Rate
5.2%
6.4%
3.1%
0.9%
10.1%
0.2%
7.3%
1.1%
1.9%
0.9%
Profit
229
1,396
21,460
172
247
999
591
1,057
387
295
Tax
16
73
337
2
24
12
48
9
33
1
3.1% 412,762 11,862
2008
Rate
7.1%
5.3%
1.6%
1.2%
9.7%
1.2%
8.1%
0.8%
8.5%
0.3%
Profit
287
1,693
11,236
323
187
2,148
574
984
448
430
Tax
14
51
150
12
22
24
46
27
5
9
2.9% 438,140 12,971
All 3 Years
Rate
5.0%
3.0%
1.3%
3.6%
11.7%
1.2%
8.0%
2.7%
1.1%
2.0%
Profit
1,044
4,606
49,714
661
834
3,709
1,870
3,230
1,707
1,070
Tax
58
222
344
15
86
38
145
48
44
5
Rate
5.6%
4.8%
0.7%
2.3%
10.3%
2.0%
7.7%
1.5%
2.6%
0.4%
3.0% 1,329,979 39,885
3.0%
24
State Income Taxes for 265 Major Corporations, 20082010, by Location of Headquarters ($-millions)
Companies by headquarters
Arizona
Insight Enterprises
PetSmart
Apollo Group
Arkansas
Wal-Mart Stores
Murphy Oil
California
McKesson
Core-Mark Holding
Intel
Wells Fargo
Mattel
Ingram Micro
DirecTV
Sempra Energy
PG&E Corp.
Health Net
Levi Strauss
Yahoo
Ross Stores
Hewlett-Packard
Amgen
Clorox
AECOM Technology
Walt Disney
Gap
Gilead Sciences
Tutor Perini
Safeway
URS
Charles Schwab
Oracle
Franklin Resources
Chevron
Synnex
Visa
Apple
Colorado
DISH Network
DaVita
Ball
Connecticut
General Electric
Praxair
Aetna
United Technologies
Northeast Utilities
Pitney Bowes
Emcor Group
Delaware
DuPont
District of Columbia
Pepco Holdings
Washington Post
10Profit 10Tax 10Rate 09Profit 09Tax 09Rate 08Profit 08Tax 08Rate 3yr Profit 3yr Tax 3yr Rate
71
361
1,399
1
16
130
1.5%
4.6%
9.3%
15
302
1,086
0
19
90
1.6%
6.2%
8.3%
40
309
808
0
8
50
0.8%
2.7%
6.2%
126
972
3,293
1
44
270
0.9%
4.5%
8.2%
18,398
214
637
15
3.5% 17,705
6.9%
308
599
9
3.4% 16,212
2.9%
477
564
13
3.5%
2.8%
52,315
999
1,800
37
3.4%
3.7%
1,161
32
13,926
17,017
437
86
3,295
2,809
447
1,660
337
165
872
897
4,027
2,217
650
283
164
6,074
1,686
2,544
159
550
437
1,099
295
6,378
1,168
6,528
143
3,973
5,540
40
0
40
531
7
3
75
18
3
130
12
3
17
28
136
52
17
12
4
223
73
126
9
44
22
49
23
226
70
364
8
258
527
3.4% 1,340
0.5%
69
0.3% 3,229
3.1% 21,460
1.7%
359
3.7%
13
2.3% 2,091
0.6% 1,446
0.7% 1,007
7.8% 1,694
3.7%
112
1.7%
46
1.9%
387
3.1%
719
3.4% 2,569
2.3% 2,104
2.7%
664
4.1%
200
2.6%
168
3.7% 5,472
4.3% 1,511
4.9% 2,172
6.0%
196
7.9%
659
5.1%
339
4.5% 1,276
7.8%
449
3.5% 4,282
6.0%
694
5.6% 1,310
5.7%
96
6.5% 3,807
9.5% 5,466
25
2
2
337
4
1
23
62
40
41
2
5
33
16
145
85
21
3
3
194
77
140
10
34
18
72
30
280
42
212
5
225
481
1.9%
623
2.8%
29
0.1% 6,117
1.6% 11,236
1.0%
233
5.0%
92
1.1% 5,923
4.3% 1,981
4.0% 1,199
2.4% 1,623
2.2%
147
11.7%
198
8.5%
448
2.3%
495
5.6% 2,232
4.0% 2,415
3.2%
573
1.3%
740
1.6%
91
3.6% 6,692
5.1% 1,209
6.4% 1,773
5.0%
213
5.2% 1,241
5.4%
374
5.6% 2,028
6.6%
394
6.5% 3,745
6.1% 1,050
16.2% 10,765
5.6%
91
5.9% 1,245
8.8% 4,347
111 17.8%
0
1.7%
38 0.6%
150
1.3%
1 0.6%
1
1.2%
153
2.6%
71
3.6%
28
2.3%
33
2.0%
0 0.2%
2
1.2%
5 1.1%
12
2.5%
7 0.3%
82
3.4%
34
5.9%
34
4.5%
10 11.2%
358
5.3%
42
3.5%
23
1.3%
7
3.3%
40
3.2%
19
5.0%
108
5.3%
9
2.3%
327
8.7%
57
5.4%
510
4.7%
6
6.6%
82
6.6%
226
5.2%
3,124
131
23,272
49,714
1,029
192
11,309
6,236
2,653
4,977
596
409
1,707
2,111
8,828
6,736
1,887
1,223
424
18,238
4,406
6,488
569
2,449
1,150
4,403
1,138
14,405
2,912
18,603
330
9,025
15,353
46
1
0
344
10
4
251
151
65
122
15
11
44
56
274
219
73
48
17
775
192
288
26
118
59
229
62
833
169
1,086
20
564
1,234
1.5%
1.0%
0.0%
0.7%
0.9%
1.9%
2.2%
2.4%
2.5%
2.5%
2.5%
2.6%
2.6%
2.7%
3.1%
3.3%
3.9%
3.9%
4.1%
4.2%
4.4%
4.4%
4.6%
4.8%
5.2%
5.2%
5.4%
5.8%
5.8%
5.8%
5.9%
6.3%
8.0%
1,712
744
319
69
30
10
4.0%
4.1%
3.2%
1,337
758
309
44
33
15
3.3%
4.4%
5.0%
1,789
657
227
57
19
11
3.2%
2.9%
5.0%
4,839
2,159
855
170
83
37
3.5%
3.8%
4.3%
4,247
643
2,644
2,655
605
419
200
1
9
23
112
7
27
14
0.0%
1.4%
0.9%
4.2%
1.1%
6.3%
6.9%
1,667
577
1,901
2,584
516
530
249
93
5
61
45
53
31
17
5.6%
0.9%
3.2%
1.8%
10.2%
5.8%
6.9%
4,646
532
2,174
2,899
372
587
271
8
3
26
45
16
17
22
0.2%
0.5%
1.2%
1.6%
4.3%
2.9%
8.1%
10,560
1,752
6,720
8,138
1,492
1,535
720
100
17
110
203
62
75
53
0.9%
1.0%
1.6%
2.5%
4.1%
4.9%
7.3%
949
171
5.3%
992
0.3%
2,112
12
0.6%
179
529
50 27.9%
28
5.2%
327
229
32
16
9.8%
7.1%
273
287
21
14
7.7%
5.0%
779
1,044
103
58
13.2%
5.6%
25
Companies by headquarters 10Profit 10Tax 10Rate 09Profit 09Tax 09Rate 08Profit 08Tax 08Rate 3yr Profit 3yr Tax 3yr Rate
Florida
Tech Data
135
1
0.5%
93
1
0.8%
88
1
1.4%
316
3
0.9%
NextEra Energy
2,489
11
0.4% 1,942
77
4.0% 2,089
29
1.4%
6,520
117
1.8%
Ryder System
156
4
2.8%
132
6
4.5%
352
3
0.9%
641
14
2.1%
CSX
2,546
51
2.0% 1,746
35
2.0% 2,332
61
2.6%
6,624
147
2.2%
Harris
845
17
2.1%
697
20
2.9%
638
24
3.7%
2,180
61
2.8%
287
26
9.1%
244
1 0.3%
329
5
1.4%
860
30
3.5%
Darden Restaurants
535
29
5.4%
508
11
2.1%
510
21
4.1%
1,552
60
3.9%
2,039
79
3.9% 1,775
68
3.8% 1,651
67
4.1%
5,466
215
3.9%
Georgia
Southern
3,066
54 1.8% 2,604
100
3.8% 2,722
72
2.6%
8,392
118
1.4%
Coca-Cola
7,224
85
1.2% 2,691
79
2.9% 2,119
70
3.3%
12,034
234
1.9%
4,780
118
2.5% 3,027
30
1.0% 4,957
172
3.5%
12,764
320
2.5%
Genuine Parts
764
36
4.7%
516
29
5.6% 1,123
45
4.0%
2,404
110
4.6%
Home Depot
4,854
181
3.7% 3,586
184
5.1% 3,136
198
6.3%
11,576
563
4.9%
Illinois
191
10
5.2%
445
21 4.6%
262
17 6.6%
898
28 3.1%
342
11 3.2%
307
14
4.6%
169
3 1.8%
819
0
0.0%
Boeing
4,310
140 3.3% 1,638
144
8.8% 3,794
3
0.1%
9,742
7
0.1%
2,035
10
0.5% 1,453
18
1.2% 1,332
28
2.1%
4,820
56
1.2%
166
4
2.4%
441
6
1.4%
302
3
1.0%
909
13
1.4%
Deere
2,063
42
2.1%
918
11
1.2% 1,730
47
2.7%
4,711
101
2.1%
Dover
470
7
1.5%
258
5
2.0%
528
23
4.3%
1,256
35
2.8%
115
3
2.7%
96
0
0.3%
196
9
4.5%
407
12
3.0%
Walgreen
3,373
90
2.7% 3,164
91
2.9% 3,430
133
3.9%
9,967
314
3.2%
232
1 0.6%
218
21
9.7%
577
16
2.8%
1,027
36
3.5%
Exelon
4,221
170
4.0% 4,419
153
3.5% 4,034
159
3.9%
12,674
482
3.8%
United Stationers
192
6
3.2%
160
7
4.6%
157
6
4.0%
509
20
3.9%
Kraft Foods
1,085
47
4.3% 1,936
82
4.2% 1,295
52
4.0%
4,316
181
4.2%
McDonald's
2,763
139
5.0% 2,700
139
5.2% 2,769
113
4.1%
8,233
391
4.8%
W.W. Grainger
802
44
5.5%
680
33
4.8%
731
37
5.1%
2,213
114
5.1%
Illinois Tool Works
1,242
51
4.1%
545
41
7.6% 1,198
78
6.5%
2,985
170
5.7%
Indiana
NiSource
436
3
0.7%
396
16 4.0%
557
17
3.0%
1,389
4
0.3%
Eli Lilly
3,136
23
0.7% 1,801
49
2.7%
157
45 28.4%
5,094
28
0.5%
Iowa
Rockwell Collins
729
5 0.7%
799
4
0.5%
898
1 0.2%
2,426
3 0.1%
151
2
1.2%
182
5
2.6%
139
5
3.9%
472
12
2.5%
Principal Financial
841
34
4.1%
744
19
2.5%
503
10
2.0%
2,088
63
3.0%
Kentucky
Yum Brands
345
3
0.9%
295
1
0.3%
430
9 2.0%
1,070
5 0.4%
Ashland
165
2 1.1%
49
3
5.7%
179
3
1.6%
393
4
1.0%
Humana
1,750
63
3.6% 1,602
55
3.4%
993
29
2.9%
4,344
147
3.4%
Kindred Healthcare
90
2
2.6%
102
4
4.3%
99
4
3.6%
290
10
3.6%
Louisiana
Entergy
1,887
19
1.0% 1,883
109 5.8% 1,843
146
7.9%
5,613
57
1.0%
CenturyLink
1,532
65
4.2%
815
2
0.2%
561
15 2.7%
2,908
51
1.8%
Maryland
Lockheed Martin
3,962
168
4.2% 4,390
140
3.2% 4,743
205
4.3%
13,095
513
3.9%
965
28
2.9%
505
42
8.3%
572
32
5.6%
2,041
102
5.0%
Massachusetts
EMC
1,408
1
0.1%
475
5
1.1%
500
1
0.3%
2,383
7
0.3%
Raytheon
2,749
50
1.8% 2,826
20
0.7% 2,476
116
4.7%
8,051
186
2.3%
789
35
4.4%
579
24
4.2%
705
32
4.6%
2,073
92
4.4%
Staples
878
50
5.7%
729
41
5.6%
923
27
2.9%
2,530
118
4.7%
TJX
1,810
109
6.0% 1,609
102
6.3% 1,158
24
2.1%
4,577
234
5.1%
BJ's Wholesale Club
207
17
8.1%
227
22
9.7%
226
14
6.2%
660
53
8.0%
State Street Corp.
746
15
2.0% 1,724
39
2.3% 1,732
299 17.3%
4,202
353
8.4%
26
Companies by headquarters 10Profit 10Tax 10Rate 09Profit 09Tax 09Rate 08Profit 08Tax 08Rate 3yr Profit 3yr Tax 3yr Rate
Michigan
Kellogg
1,271
9
0.7% 1,207
38
3.2% 1,030
1
0.1%
3,508
48
1.4%
Con-way
46
0
0.2%
33
1
1.8%
214
6
2.6%
293
6
2.2%
DTE Energy
950
26
2.7%
782
17
2.2%
819
17
2.1%
2,551
60
2.4%
CMS Energy
587
26
4.4%
324
17
5.2%
433
9
2.1%
1,344
52
3.9%
Minnesota
Alliant Techsystems
436
6
1.4%
433
7
1.6%
407
1
0.2%
1,276
14
1.1%
3M
2,759
64
2.3% 2,297
11
0.5% 2,312
10
0.4%
7,368
85
1.2%
Xcel Energy
1,189
13
1.1% 1,057
9
0.8%
984
27
2.7%
3,230
48
1.5%
UnitedHealth Group
7,555
175
2.3% 5,808
71
1.2% 4,624
134
2.9%
17,987
381
2.1%
Nash-Finch
72
1
1.1%
75
3
4.4%
54
2
2.9%
201
6
2.8%
St. Jude Medical
553
12
2.1%
560
19
3.3%
531
18
3.5%
1,644
49
3.0%
Supervalu
347
0
0.1%
632
9
1.5%
745
46
6.2%
1,724
55
3.2%
Target
4,495
44
1.0% 3,872
143
3.7% 3,536
197
5.6%
11,903
384
3.2%
General Mills
2,145
77
3.6% 2,060
87
4.2% 1,718
37
2.2%
5,923
202
3.4%
Mosaic
1,478
50
3.4%
598
15
2.5% 1,193
50
4.2%
3,268
115
3.5%
Hormel Foods
616
21
3.4%
523
22
4.2%
451
20
4.5%
1,591
63
4.0%
591
23
3.9%
546
24
4.3%
527
22
4.2%
1,664
69
4.2%
U.S. Bancorp
4,375
200
4.6% 4,321
175
4.0% 5,376
300
5.6%
14,072
675
4.8%
Best Buy
1,622
65
4.0% 1,822
112
6.1% 1,660
77
4.6%
5,104
254
5.0%
Missouri
Peabody Energy
536
8 1.5%
281
2
0.6%
185
1,002
6 0.6%
Monsanto
1,203
8 0.7% 2,340
7
0.3% 1,419
23
1.6%
4,962
21
0.4%
Ameren
896
10
1.1%
956
3
0.3%
971
10
1.0%
2,823
23
0.8%
Express Scripts
1,918
30
1.6% 1,312
23
1.8% 1,216
10
0.8%
4,446
64
1.4%
Emerson Electric
1,303
33
2.5% 1,169
25
2.1% 1,756
50
2.8%
4,228
108
2.6%
O'Reilly Automotive
689
21
3.1%
497
15
3.1%
303
14
4.7%
1,489
51
3.4%
Graybar Electric
69
2
3.2%
63
3
4.0%
140
6
4.5%
272
11
4.0%
Centene
154
7
4.3%
138
6
4.0%
137
6
4.5%
428
18
4.3%
H&R Block
639
45
7.0%
755
23
3.1%
853
37
4.3%
2,246
105
4.7%
Nebraska
ConAgra Foods
1,040
28
2.7%
872
16
1.8%
632
8 1.3%
2,544
35
1.4%
Union Pacific
4,433
110
2.5% 2,974
48
1.6% 3,651
64
1.7%
11,058
222
2.0%
New Jersey
Merck
956
82 8.6% 5,773
7
0.1% 5,485
123
2.2%
12,215
48
0.4%
Becton Dickinson
889
19
2.2%
891
7
0.8%
802
2
0.2%
2,582
28
1.1%
Campbell Soup
1,051
44
4.2%
976
9
0.9%
912
0 0.0%
2,939
53
1.8%
1,249
6
0.5% 1,744
21
1.2% 2,003
66
3.3%
4,996
93
1.9%
NRG Energy
691
35
5.1% 1,508
20
1.3% 1,681
31
1.8%
3,880
86
2.2%
1,638
54
3.3% 1,909
35
1.8% 1,619
31
1.9%
5,165
120
2.3%
2,323
93
4.0% 2,093
117
5.6% 1,782
68
3.8%
6,197
278
4.5%
220
9
3.9%
152
8
5.2%
136
9
6.6%
508
25
5.0%
Sealed Air
79
6
7.1%
108
7
6.6%
96
3
2.7%
282
15
5.4%
Bed Bath & Beyond
1,293
90
7.0%
985
60
6.1%
683
47
6.8%
2,962
197
6.6%
Quest Diagnostics
1,182
93
7.9% 1,226
80
6.6% 1,052
57
5.5%
3,460
231
6.7%
New York
Corning
975
1
0.1%
202
801
1,978
1
0.1%
Travelers Cos.
3,994
10
0.3% 4,411
8 0.2% 3,444
10
0.3%
11,849
12
0.1%
Loews
2,236
21
0.9% 2,025
7
0.3% 1,202
21
1.8%
5,463
49
0.9%
American Express
6,112
110
1.8% 3,131
40
1.3% 3,322
28 0.8%
12,565
122
1.0%
ITT
737
17
2.3%
670
7
1.1%
665
4
0.6%
2,072
28
1.4%
Consolidated Edison
1,551
23
1.5% 1,319
12 0.9% 1,457
53
3.6%
4,327
64
1.5%
Omnicom Group
573
4
0.7%
599
12
2.0%
752
14
1.8%
1,924
30
1.5%
Arrow Electronics
313
13
4.2%
108
1
0.9%
473
5
1.2%
895
20
2.2%
International Business Machines 9,140
279
3.1% 9,524
120
1.3% 8,424
216
2.6%
27,088
615
2.3%
Time Warner
3,518
119
3.4% 3,231
51
1.6% 2,073
42
2.0%
8,822
212
2.4%
11,921
42 0.4% 12,625
364
2.9% 8,838
544
6.2%
33,384
866
2.6%
PepsiCo
4,008
118
3.0% 4,209
117
2.8% 3,274
68
2.1%
11,491
304
2.6%
27
Phillips-Van Heusen
Goldman Sachs Group
News Corp.
CA
Viacom
L-3 Communications
Interpublic Group
Henry Schein
Polo Ralph Lauren
NYSE Euronext
McGraw-Hill
North Carolina
Goodrich
Progress Energy
Duke Energy
BB&T Corp.
VF
Pantry
Ruddick
Lowe's
Reynolds American
North Dakota
MDU Resources
Ohio
Macy's
J.M. Smucker
Limited Brands
FirstEnergy
Procter & Gamble
Sherwin-Williams
Kroger
Big Lots
Cardinal Health
Parker Hannifin
Oklahoma
Chesapeake Energy
Devon Energy
Williams
Oneok
Oregon
Precision Castparts
Nike
Pennsylvania
H.J. Heinz
Airgas
Wesco International
PPL
AmerisourceBergen
Comcast
Consol Energy
22
1
5.3%
210
7
3.5%
149
4
2.5%
381
12
3.2%
7,353
264
3.6% 10,915
571
5.2% 4,894
15 0.3%
23,162
820
3.5%
3,259
77
2.4% 2,889
114
3.9% 2,502
127
5.1%
8,650
318
3.7%
751
48
6.4%
699
15
2.1%
633
14
2.2%
2,083
77
3.7%
1,579
67
4.2% 1,982
38
1.9% 1,490
96
6.4%
5,051
201
4.0%
1,258
52
4.1% 1,210
57
4.7% 1,272
45
3.6%
3,740
154
4.1%
216
17
7.8%
142
6 4.3%
241
18
7.4%
599
29
4.8%
344
20
5.9%
308
16
5.1%
300
12
4.1%
952
49
5.1%
578
37
6.4%
448
12
2.7%
351
24
6.7%
1,378
72
5.3%
166
17 10.2%
52
15 28.8%
181
20 11.0%
399
22
5.5%
1,064
54
5.1%
879
46
5.2%
981
78
8.0%
2,923
178
6.1%
10,226 1,740 17.0% 14,526
968
6.7% 7,924
281
3.6%
32,676
2,989
9.1%
592
1,406
2,189
1,071
613
564
30
170
3,228
876
2,175
42
13
39
18
26
23
1
6
188
50
136
7.1%
0.9%
1.8%
1.7%
4.2%
4.1%
3.5%
3.3%
5.8%
5.7%
6.2%
552
1,237
1,771
2,066
504
451
87
148
2,825
848
2,041
6
41
3
15
15
18
5
7
123
41
134
1.1%
3.3%
0.2%
0.7%
2.9%
3.9%
5.2%
4.6%
4.4%
4.8%
6.5%
738
1,173
1,575
3,673
593
362
49
153
3,506
748
2,129
17
12
17
89
18
10
2
9
166
37
142
2.4%
1.0%
1.1%
2.4%
3.1%
2.8%
3.4%
6.1%
4.7%
4.9%
6.7%
1,883
3,816
5,534
6,810
1,710
1,377
167
472
9,559
2,472
6,345
19
40
59
122
59
51
7
22
477
127
411
1.0%
1.0%
1.1%
1.8%
3.4%
3.7%
4.4%
4.6%
5.0%
5.2%
6.5%
336
10
3.1%
393
2.1%
572
0.2%
1,301
18
1.4%
1,849
597
701
1,320
730
1,209
1,242
8,983
678
1,752
355
1,300
355
20
2
4
12
20
51
35
266
17
95
15
20
23
1.1%
0.3%
0.6%
0.9%
2.8%
4.2%
2.8%
3.0%
2.5%
5.4%
4.2%
1.5%
6.4%
1,938
131
883
507
712
566
1,235
8,368
623
1,702
323
980
391
76
3
6
9
12
1
44
295
18
40
12
63
18
3.9%
2.1%
0.7%
1.8%
1.7%
0.2%
3.6%
3.5%
2.9%
2.4%
3.6%
6.5%
4.6%
2,015
567
290
444
378
539
2,116
8,409
714
1,967
250
959
510
1
3
4
8
5
13
56
229
28
43
9
46
20
0.0%
0.5%
1.4%
1.8%
1.4%
2.3%
2.6%
2.7%
3.9%
2.2%
3.6%
4.8%
3.9%
5,802
1,295
1,874
2,271
1,820
2,314
4,593
25,760
2,015
5,421
928
3,238
1,255
97
8
14
29
38
64
135
790
63
179
36
129
60
1.7%
0.6%
0.7%
1.3%
2.1%
2.8%
2.9%
3.1%
3.1%
3.3%
3.8%
4.0%
4.8%
2,884
2,943
562
755
78
13
2
13
2.7%
0.4%
0.4%
1.7%
1,712
1,447
999
699
275 16.1%
17
1.1%
12
1.2%
2
0.3%
3,791
4,348
2,148
795
24
21
24
10
0.6%
0.5%
1.1%
1.3%
8,387
8,738
3,709
2,248
173
50
38
25
2.1%
0.6%
1.0%
1.1%
1,335
1,084
33
46
2.4%
4.2%
1,239
699
31
40
2.5%
5.7%
1,347
846
33
42
2.5%
4.9%
3,921
2,629
97
128
2.5%
4.9%
566
3,627
400
465
166
978
1,023
6,104
427
13
43
6
1
1
43
31
384
11
2.3%
1.2%
1.4%
0.3%
0.9%
4.4%
3.0%
6.3%
2.6%
499
4,444
307
374
172
248
818
5,106
704
1
46
3
33
2
14
25
156
41
0.2%
1.0%
1.0%
8.8%
1.2%
5.6%
3.0%
3.1%
5.8%
534
2,072
419
480
323
943
747
4,058
621
1
59
8
6
12
2
25
284
11
0.2%
2.8%
1.8%
1.3%
3.6%
0.2%
3.3%
7.0%
1.7%
1,599
10,143
1,126
1,318
661
2,169
2,588
15,268
1,752
13
147
17
25
15
59
81
513
63
0.8%
1.5%
1.5%
1.9%
2.3%
2.7%
3.1%
3.4%
3.6%
28
Hershey
PPG Industries
UGI
Rhode Island
CVS Caremark
South Carolina
Scana
Domtar
Tennessee
International Paper
Eastman Chemical
AutoZone
FedEx
Dollar General
Texas
FMC Technologies
El Paso
EOG Resources
Apache
Texas Instruments
Tenet Healthcare
Holly
Spectra Energy
Marathon Oil
Flowserve
AT&T
GameStop
Halliburton
Kimberly-Clark
CenterPoint Energy
J.C. Penney
Southwest Airlines
Atmos Energy
Dean Foods
Celanese
RadioShack
Exxon Mobil
Fluor
ConocoPhillips
Waste Management
Whole Foods Market
Virginia
Computer Sciences
General Dynamics
Norfolk Southern
Advance Auto Parts
Owens & Minor
CarMax
Altria Group
SAIC
Dollar Tree
Dominion Resources
839
28
3.4%
671
41
6.2%
568
14
2.4%
2,078
83
4.0%
502
15
3.0%
275
15
5.5%
689
29
4.2%
1,466
59
4.0%
428
18
4.2%
475
21
4.5%
357
22
6.2%
1,260
62
4.9%
449
20
4.4%
432
21
4.9%
381
26
6.7%
1,261
66
5.3%
298
14
4.6%
223
10
4.7%
178
13
7.4%
699
37
5.3%
5,629
340
6.0%
5,913
394
6.7%
5,537
356
6.4%
17,079
1,090
6.4%
534
177
1
15
0.2%
8.5%
522
560
6
4
1.1%
0.7%
534
268
6
4
1.1%
1.5%
1,590
1,005
1
23
0.1%
2.3%
198
507
508
1,161
1,793
980
19
18
9
34
44
26
9.6%
3.6%
1.8%
2.9%
2.5%
2.6%
905
193
446
1,034
1,339
546
7
11
14
26
50
20
0.8%
5.7%
3.2%
2.6%
3.7%
3.7%
353
387
359
1,007
1,226
190
2
7
3
21
17
1
0.6%
1.8%
0.9%
2.0%
1.4%
0.6%
1,456
1,087
1,314
3,202
4,358
1,716
14
14
27
81
111
47
1.0%
1.3%
2.0%
2.5%
2.5%
2.7%
65
1,236
753
1,328
3,769
158
366
192
899
982
202
17,496
554
1,918
1,609
705
581
745
335
128
214
334
7,711
454
6,291
1,517
400
0
5
1
4
16
6
5
22
32
0
137
10
42
94
24
4
19
6
2
11
14
292
27
320
97
40
0.1%
70
0.4% 1,229
0.2%
874
0.3%
437
0.4% 1,375
205
1.6%
224
2.4%
44
2.4%
807
3.3%
494
0.1%
143
0.8% 18,293
1.8%
509
2.2%
589
5.8% 1,643
3.4%
548
0.7%
403
2.6%
164
1.8%
291
1.3%
371
4.9%
294
4.1%
326
3.8% 2,576
6.0%
734
5.1% 2,524
6.4% 1,396
10.1%
247
3 5.3%
38 2.3%
5
0.1%
1
0.1%
5
0.3%
9 16.7%
2 0.7%
3
1.7%
19
1.7%
143
3.6%
3
2.3%
37
0.2%
13
2.4%
50
1.9%
15
1.2%
11
1.5%
25
2.7%
10
3.6%
8
2.6%
10
3.3%
11
7.8%
14
4.8%
407
4.0%
19
3.7%
543
4.8%
51
3.0%
22 11.7%
198
4,096
4,824
3,600
6,893
417
924
424
2,834
5,465
474
54,879
1,596
5,181
4,513
1,976
1,894
1,187
919
792
643
950
20,439
1,707
20,024
4,606
834
2
9
1
3
24
2
6
6
42
98
9
1,124
35
116
102
45
44
28
22
26
23
35
784
68
945
222
86
0.9%
0.2%
0.0%
0.1%
0.4%
0.5%
0.6%
1.3%
1.5%
1.8%
1.9%
2.0%
2.2%
2.2%
2.3%
2.3%
2.3%
2.4%
2.4%
3.3%
3.6%
3.7%
3.8%
4.0%
4.7%
4.8%
10.3%
582
3,150
2,367
1,290
557
182
613
5,709
874
630
5,287
22
4
61
31
18
10
27
258
46
31
306
134 27.3%
6
0.2%
74
2.7%
53
1.9%
15
3.9%
6
3.5%
10 10.3%
351
7.3%
28
4.1%
21
5.8%
114
4.4%
1,521
9,170
6,739
5,072
1,369
535
1,163
15,366
2,351
1,497
10,229
145
23
144
119
39
24
54
720
116
80
548
9.5%
0.2%
2.1%
2.3%
2.9%
4.5%
4.6%
4.7%
4.9%
5.3%
5.4%
3.8%
0.1%
2.6%
2.4%
3.2%
5.4%
4.4%
4.5%
5.3%
5.0%
5.8%
447
2,940
1,622
911
432
188
452
4,868
781
508
2,329
2
2.2%
63
24
2.0% 1,631
4 0.5% 3,196
2 0.4% 1,835
4
0.3% 1,749
11
5.4%
54
2
1.0%
334
2 4.7%
188
1
0.1% 1,128
77 15.5% 3,989
6
4.5%
129
950
5.2% 19,090
12
2.4%
533
24
4.1% 2,674
7 0.4% 1,261
10
1.8%
723
24
6.0%
910
1 0.6%
278
8
2.7%
293
15
4.1%
293
2
0.6%
135
7
2.2%
290
86
3.3% 10,152
21
2.9%
519
82
3.2% 11,209
73
5.3% 1,693
24
9.7%
187
33
13
8
35
7
9
17
111
42
28
128
7.3%
0.4%
0.5%
3.8%
1.6%
4.5%
3.8%
2.3%
5.3%
5.4%
5.5%
492
3,080
2,750
2,871
381
165
97
4,789
696
359
2,613
29
Washington
Paccar
Costco Wholesale
Nordstrom
Wisconsin
Rockwell Automation
Harley-Davidson
Kohl's
Bemis
Fiserv
Wisconsin Energy
186
1,426
991
8
77
49
4.4%
5.4%
5.0%
79
1,426
696
145
357
1,782
222
761
704
3
6
70
9
32
51
2.0%
1.8%
3.9%
4.2%
4.2%
7.3%
65
252
1,588
148
718
591
4
66
37
4.7%
4.6%
5.3%
96
1,542
648
9
77
38
8.9%
5.0%
5.9%
361
4,394
2,335
4
220
124
1.1%
5.0%
5.3%
17 26.6%
5
2.1%
60
3.7%
5
3.2%
29
4.0%
48
8.1%
460
994
1,425
181
628
574
3
21
45
9
43
46
0.7%
2.1%
3.2%
5.0%
6.8%
8.0%
670
1,603
4,795
551
2,107
1,870
17
33
174
23
104
145
2.5%
2.0%
3.6%
4.2%
4.9%
7.7%
Methodology:
This study represents an in-depth look at state (and local) corporate
income taxes over the 2008-10 period. It is based on data collected
for a November 2011study of federal corporate tax payments published
by Citizens for Tax Justice and the Institute on Taxation and Economic
Policy, titled Corporate Taxpayers and Corporate Tax Dodgers. That
if companies did not separate U.S. pretax profits from foreign, but foreign
profits were obviously small, we made our own geographic allocation,
based on a geographic breakdown of operating profits minus a prorated
share of any expenses not included therein (e.g., overhead or interest), or
we estimated foreign profits based on reported foreign taxes or reported
foreign revenues as a share of total worldwide profits.
report covered 280 large Fortune 500 corporations. This new state
corporate report includes the 265 companies of those 280 that fully
disclosed their state corporate income tax payments. Over the three-year
period, these 265 companies reported $1trillion in pretax U.S. profits,
and, on average, paid state taxes on about a third of that amount.
Where significant, we adjusted reported pretax profits for several items

to reduce distortions. In the second half of 2008, the U.S. financial system
imploded, taking our economy down with it. By the fourth quarter of
2008, no one knew for sure how the federal governments financial rescue
plan would work. Many banks predicted big future loan losses, and took
1. Choosing the Companies:

Our report is based on corporate annual reports to shareholders and
the similar 10-K forms that corporations are required to file with the
Securities and Exchange Commission. We relied on electronic versions
of these reports from the companies web sites or from the SEC web site.
big book write-offs for these pessimistic estimates. Commodity prices

for things like oil and gas and metals plummeted, and many companies
that owned such assets booked impairment charges for their supposed
long-term decline in value. Companies that had acquired goodwilland
other intangible assets from mergers calculated the estimated future
returns on these assets, and if these were lower than their carrying value
As we pursued our analysis, we gradually eliminated companies from the

study based on two criteria: either (1) a company lost money in any one
of the three years; or (2) a companys report did not provide sufficient
on their books, took big book impairment charges. All of these book
write-offs were non-cash and had no effect on either current income
taxes or a companys cash flow.
information for us to accurately calculate its domestic profits, current

state income taxes, or both.
As it turned out, the financial rescue plan, supplemented by the best parts
of the economic stimulus program adopted in early 2009, succeeded in
2. Method of Calculation:
Conceptually, our method for computing effective state corporate tax
rates was straightforward. First, a companys domestic pretax profit
was determined. (We excluded foreign profits since state income taxes
averting the Depression that many economists had worried could have
happened. Commodity prices recovered, the stock market boomed, and
corporate profits zoomed upward. But in one of the oddities of book
accounting, the impairment charges could not be reversed.
do not apply to them.) We then determined a companys current state

income taxes. Current taxes are those that a company is obligated to
pay during the year; they do not include taxes deferred due to various
tax incentives. Finally, we divided current taxes by pretax profits to
determine effective tax rates.similar change.
A. Issues in measuring profits. The pretax U.S. profits reported in
the study are generally as the companies disclosed them.1 In a few cases,
Here is how we dealt with these extraordinary noncash charges, plus

restructuring charges, that would profits were reported as foreign, even
We did have to leave out from the study companies whose geographic allocations were obviously ridiculous (e.g., almost all or even more than all of their
pretax profits were reported as foreign, even though most of their revenues and
assets were in the United States). Google and Microsoft are two examples of
such apparently liar companies that we left out of the study. For such companies, it may be that they reported in their annual reports how they misallocated
their profits on their tax returns, rather than where their profits were really
earned.
For multinational companies, we are at the mercy of companies accurately

allocating their pretax profits between U.S. and foreign in their annual reports.
Hardly anyone but us cares about this geographic book allocation, yet fortunately for us, it appears that the great majority of companies were reasonably
honest about it.
One company, Mattel, offered two versions of its geographic allocation of
profits. We used the more plausible one.
For better or worse, we did, with grave reservations, include some potential
liar companies that we highly suspect made a lot more in the U.S., and less
overseas, than they reported to their shareholders (e.g., Apple, Amgen, Gilead
Sciences, and EMC). We urge our readers to treat these companies true effective U.S. income tax rates as possibly much lower than what we reluctantly
report. We will be working more on this issue, and will report our findings in a
later study.
accounting, the impairment charges could not be reversed.
(b) Impairment charges to assets (tangible or intangible) that are

depreciable or amortizable on the books will affect future book income
somewhat (by reducing future book write-offs, and thus increasing future
book profits). But big impairment charges still hugely distort current year
though most of their otherwise distort annual reported book profits and
book profit. So as a general rule, we also added these back to reported
effective tax rates:
profits if the charges were significant.

(c) Caveat: Impairments of assets held for sale soon were not
1. Smoothing adjustments
added back.
Some of our adjustments simply reassign booked expenses to the years

that the expenses were actually incurred. These smoothing adjustments
All significant adjustments to profits made in the study are reported in
avoid aberrations in one year to the next.
the company-by-company notes to Corporate Taxpayers and Corporate
a. Provisions for loan losses by financial companies: Rather
Tax Dodgers, which is available at www.itepnet.org.
than using estimates of future losses, we generally replaced companies

projected future loan losses with actual loan charge-offs less recoveries.
B. Issues in measuring state income taxes. The primary source for
Over time, these two approaches converge, but using actual loan charge-
current state income taxes was the companies income tax notes to their
offs is more accurate and avoids year-to-year distortions. Typically,
financial statements. From reported current taxes, we subtracted excess
financial companies provide sufficient information to allow this kind of
tax benefits from stock options (if any), which reduced companies tax
adjustment to be allocated geographically.
payments but which are not reported as a reduction in current taxes,
b. Restructuring charges: Sometimes companies announce a
but are instead reported separately (typically in companies cash-flow
plan for future spending (such as the cost of laying off employees over the
statements). We divided the tax benefits from stock options between
next few years) and will book a charge for the total expected cost in the
federal and state taxes based on the relative statutory tax rates (using a
year of the announcement. In cases where these restructuring charges
national average for the states).
were significant and distorted year-by-year income, we reallocated the

costs to year the money was actually spent (allocated geographically).
3. Negative tax rates.
2. Impairments
A negative effective tax rate means that a company enjoyed a tax rebate,
Companies that booked impairment charges typically went to great
usually obtained by carrying back excess tax deductions and/or credits
lengths to assure investors and stock analysts that these charges had
to an earlier year and receiving a tax refund check.
no real effect on the companies earnings. Some companies simply

excluded impairment charges from the geographic allocation of
4. Note: Companies do not provide information on their state income
their pretax income. For example, ConocoPhillips assigned its 2008
taxes on a state-by-state basis. As a result, the figures in our report show
pretax profits to three geographic areas, United States, Foreign, and
only the companies nationwide state income taxes.
Goodwill impairment, implying that the goodwill impairment charge,
if it had any real existence at all, was not related to anything on this planet.
In addition, many analysts have criticized these non-cash impairment
though most of their otherwise distort annual reported book profits and
charges as misleading, and even a charade. Here is how we treated
effective tax rates:
impairment charges:
(a) Impairment charges for goodwill (and intangible assets with
indefinite lives) do not affect future book income, since they are not
amortizable over time. We added these charges back to reported profits,
allocating them geographically based on geographic information that
companies supplied, or as a last resort by geographic revenue shares.

Corporate Tax Dodgers States Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Corporate Tax Dodgers States Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Corporate Tax Dodging In the Fifty States,

68 of the 265 companies managed to pay no state income tax at

In 2009 alone, 32 companies paid no state income tax. Another

A November 2011 study by Citizens for Tax Justice and the

Perhaps most striking, if these 265 corporations had paid the

Of the 280 profitable Fortune 500 corporations included in our

Some companies, such as DuPont, Goodrich, International

A full methodology is provided at the end of the report.

The Long-Term Decline of State Corporate

a state contemplating some kind of new corporate tax break, either as

As recently as 1986, state corporate income taxes equaled 0.5 percent

Linkage to federal tax laws means a steady stream of

But in the name of economic development, these corporations are

definitions as a starting point in calculating their own corporate tax base,

Fortunately, every state has the option of decoupling from specific

able to pay less in taxes.3

federal corporate giveawaysand many have chosen to disallow some

State tax incentives

According to a study by University of Iowa economist Peter Fisher,

the effective corporate tax rate on manufacturing companies in the

20 states he studied fell by 30 percent between 1990 and 1998 alone.

can be used to largely or entirely eliminate corporate income tax liability

Tax incentives, most of them corporate tax credits, offset 30 percent of

in the states in which the corporation is actually operating stores and

corporate tax liability in these states in 1998up from 10 percent in

care to employees, to conducting product research and development, to

that treat parents and subsidiaries as separate taxpaying entities involves

company-specific tax breaks. But as the work of the nonprofit watchdog

This technique has recently received a lot of attention in Wisconsin.6

straightforward job-creation requirements and clawback rules designed

had set up subsidiaries in corporate-income-tax-free Nevada, to which

tax breaks to expand, relocate or simply stay where they are.

they had transferred the ownership of loans, mortgage-backed securities,

Corporate tax sheltering through profit-shifting among

have become increasingly adept at taking advantage of loopholes in state

being deducted by the banks (not to mention the depreciation on the

and capital gains generated by the Nevada-based intangibles had been

of these loopholes allow corporations to artificially shift their profits (on

placed beyond the tax reach of Wisconsin. If small-town banks in

Wisconsin had discovered how to use Nevada subsidiaries to cut their

tax them at lower rates or not at all.

Profit shifting among states is enabled by a provision of most states

corporate tax laws that treats every individual corporation in a multi-

Finally, most state corporate income taxes are vulnerable to serious

erosion through what is called transfer pricing. If a widget manufacturer

hundreds of subsidiaries) as a separate corporation for tax purposes. This

in Georgia (with a top corporate income tax rate of 6 percent) has

practice known as separate-entity taxationenables a number of

a warehouse in South Carolina (top rate of 5 percent), it can reduce

tax avoidance techniques.

purchased with deposits from Wisconsin households and businesses,

a wholesaling subsidiary. The plant then charges the subsidiary an

The Toys R Us Shelter:

The most notorious tax shelter that separate-entity taxation facilitates is

the Delaware Holding Company, used most famously by Toys R Us.

rate. This same transfer-pricing game, played internationally, is widely

In the most common scenario, a corporation that operates retail stores

understood to be a major source of the recent erosion of the federal

transfers its logos and other trademarks to a subsidiary corporation it has

created in a tax-haven state such as Delaware or Nevada. The stores then

See Michael Mazerov, Closing Three Common Corporate Income Tax

deduction was enacted in October of 2004 to compensate manufacturers

has had a poor track record in proving that multinational corporations

international transfer prices are resulting in an abusive shifting of income