Mylan's EpiPen profit was 60% higher than what the CEO told Congress | Hacker News Reader

Mylan's EpiPen profit was 60% higher than what the CEO told Congress

latimes.com

57 pointsphonon49 comments

The profit CEO Heather Bresch told Congress about was calculated after factoring in the 37.5% U.S. tax rate, according to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission first reported by the Wall Street Journal. That tax rate is more than five times the overall tax rate the company actually paid last year and is much higher than its actual U.S. tax rate, which tax specialists have pegged at close to zero.

Is Bresch now at risk of prosecution for making false or misleading statements in her Congressional testimony?[1]

[1] http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/07/what-happens-if-you-lie-to-co...

I wouldn't hold my breath. Bresch is the daughter of a senator.

America's Ruling Class is held to a different standard than you or I.

On the contrary, the FBI would love to prosecute a senator or their family.

Can you back this claim up with some evidence?

I suspect a hint at the Clintons. I have no evidence for the hint or the desire.

"This is complete bullshit. The FBI would love to prosecute a senator or their family"

Citation needed. Do you work for the FBI?

> the FBI would love to prosecute a senator or their family.

The FBI doesn't prosecute anybody. US Attorneys do that.

There have been only six successful prosecutions for lying to Congress in the 60 years up to 2006.[1] One from the Red Scare, two from Watergate, two federal employees who lied about dealings with suppliers, and one involving the CEO of an insurer who filed false financial statements. Congress can do this if it wants to, but seldom bothers.

[1] https://www.qu.edu/prebuilt/pdf/SchoolLaw/LawReviewLibrary/2...

Don't lie to Congress.

That said, I'm not too torn up about the lack of prosecution. Congressional hearings are just a circus when they involve highly political issues. Most of the time, the "questioning" is editorialization, and Congress-critters use hearings as an opportunity to generate soundbites and score political points. Nobody is interested in the truth. I don't see any reason to dignify such hearings by treating them like court proceedings.

Can we stop using the term “Congress-critters” in serious discussion? It’s a distraction which cheapens whatever point you were otherwise making.

It's my way of protesting the lack of a gender-neutral way of referring to a group of Senators and Representatives.

Congresspeople?

https://www.google.com/search?q=congresspeople&ie=utf-8&oe=u...

Congresspeople? Members of congress? Persons what are elected to work in that big domey building?

Members of Congress, or MC [1]. The UK (and other parliamentary governmental) analogue is MP -- Member of Parliament. The term fell out of favor in the US, but nonetheless exists.

[1] https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/mc

Why does everyone (including the director of the NSA) get away with lying to Congress?

Because America is completely corrupt.

I wish people who downvoted you gave an explanation. I don't understand how this statement is controversial.

edit: The pedantry below is incredible. I hope you guys are at least consistent in it.

"Completely"?

Not sure how that added anything to the conversation.

It answered the question. Every facet of the government I've dealt with is corrupt. Full stop. Period.

Because calling a government completely corrupt is hyperbole. Find me a government, I'll find you an honest bureaucrat that manages to help people in spite of being a government employee.

Going pretty OT here, but I would argue that a much bigger problem than corruptness in government agencies is good old fashioned incompetence. It is damn near impossible to fire someone for poor performance in the federal government.

My father was a federal bureaucrat for over 25 years. He related stories of some employees he had to deal with who had major personality disorders, were incompetent, abusive etc., and yet it took years to get them dismissed, even though everyone from top to bottom knew they were nothing but a liability to the agency.

We were already talking about the USA federal government, so the ball was already in your court.

What's the point? If you honestly believe the entire government is corrupt I have no shared basis of rationality. Just enjoy your half of the country, I'll enjoy mine.

So what, your interactions with the government has been wonderful? You sound like you don't know what you're talking about.

No, they've been mediocre, like most people. This is entirely different than being "completely" corrupt.

I've also certainly not witnessed corruption personally. If the government were "completely" corrupt I doubt this would be the case.

Let me know how things go for you when you need the government's support on anything. You won't get any. The only thing you get from the government is a turd sandwich. It's no coincidence, though, that you've had no problem give give giving to the government.

It was merely a point of order. You said, "Find me a government, I'll find you..." in the context of this thread, in which that variable already has a specific value. Don't pretend you're making some sort of general point when this entire discussion is quite a bit more specific.

After all, another response to your challenge might have been, ummm, DPRK? Can you find an "honest bureaucrat" complicit in that travesty?

Because "completely corrupt" is hyperbole. If the U.S. government is "completely corrupt," what do you call the government of places like India or Bangladesh where you have to bribe a police officer to be allowed to pay a ticket?

Really? This is what this important discussion has come to? Debating the choice of adjectives?

What happens in India or Bangladesh has no bearing whatsoever to the Americans who have to pay for this stuff.

Those governments are also completely corrupt. Perhaps "completely" is throwing you off. I don't think it means "as corrupt as it's possible to be," but rather "fundamentally and routinely corrupt."

Every section of government I've had the pleasure of dealing with is corrupt. Every branch, every service. Frankly, I think the entire American system is corrupt. Ergo, completely corrupt.

The US is in the top (as in good) decile worldwide when measuring corruption:

http://www.transparency.org/cpi2015?gclid=CjwKEAjwjqO_BRDrib...

No. What you should have said is:

"The US is in the top (as in good) decile worldwide when measuring perceived corruption[.]"

This is not the same as lacking corruption.

What reason do you have to expect measurement error in this report?

Even more so because the local religion is the belief that we're the "most free" and "fair" in the world. That coupled with decades of gutting anything like a functional education system pretty much works in favor of the corrupt and the powerful.

I have to disagree here - the prevailing religion in the US is money. The almighty dollar ruleth over all, and the high priests of Wall St. tell us what truth actually is.

You can explain away most of the really messed up things about the US by simply following the money.

Considering how few people actually have the money, you need to keep the vast majority who don't have it in line somehow. Uneducated and convinced of their "exceptional nature" is one proven method.

Congress is allowed to lie to congress, why hold 3rd parties to a different standard?

Congress lies to us (the citizens) and expects us to do the same. Medical costs would skyrocket as our elderly oligarchy started having heart attacks caused by even mild truth-telling.

I might edit this comment later so that it properly represents my cynicism ... Right now I'm prepping for presidential debate watching by having a good pre-cry.

The Wall Street Journal article has substantially more details about what happened and how the numbers were calculated: http://www.wsj.com/articles/mylan-clarifies-epipen-profit-fi....

"It also is important to note that use of a statutory tax rate for the jurisdiction being analyzed (in this instance, the U.S.) is standard."

Is this true?

"The amount we don't pay justifies the amount a consumer does pay"

That's the big question on my mind. If it is standard, then I don't see anything wrong here.

So do they pay tax on those units sold in the US?

They pay tax on the profit left, after all expenses have been deducted. Given there's a myriad of "loopholes" one can use (i.e. earning stripping through loans, certain consulting or production fees that flow to lower tax foreign entities, etc), that's probably not much.

The largest line-item is likely IP licensing or co-development fees. The US entity will pay large licensing fees to foreign entities for the right to sell EpiPens in the US. Despite being located elsewhere, the foreign entity will own these rights. As pointed out elsewhere, these "earnings stripping" techniques can substantially reduce the income of the domestic affiliate. It has to maintain "routine returns" for its contributions, but this is nothing compared to the IP profits that flow elsewhere. There are laws explicitly blessing these sort of arrangements (IRC § 482), but the IRS and corporate taxpayers argue endlessly about precisely how much value should flow where.

The LA Times article didn't refer to CEO Bresch's testimony, so I'm including the relevant pieces here. Apologies for all caps, I'm copying as-is. Rep Coleman asking questions to Bresch.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?415549-1/mylan-inc-ceo-heather...

WE KNOW YOU PROFITED FROM INCREASING THE PRICE OF EPIPEN. HE OF -- THE COMPANY HAS ALSO INCREASED PROFITS BY TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE TAX LOOPHOLE. THE TEXAN VERSION WHICH INVOLVES A COMPANY MOVING ITS OFFICIAL HEADQUARTERS ABROAD TO A LOWER -- TO LOWER THE TAXES PAID. IN 2014, MYLAN MOVED TO THE NETHERLANDS.

>> THAT IS TRUE.

YOU WRITE TO SHAREHOLDERS ABOUT THE TEXAN VERSION AND I QUOTE, THE TRANSACTION ALSO IS EXPECTED TO LOWER MY LINK TAX RATE -- MYLAN'S TAX RATE. LOWER TO 20-20 1% IN THE FIRST FULL YEAR AFTER THE CONSUMMATION OF THE TRANSACTION. WHAT WAS THE COMPANYWIDE EXPECTED TAX RATE IN 2014?

>> I BELIEVE IT WAS IN THE MID-20'S BEFORE WE INVERTED.

WHAT IS IT TODAY?

>> BETWEEN 15-17%

...

DO YOU THINK IT IS FAIR THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO PAY THE TAXES AS A U.S. COMPANY?

>> WE DO PAY TAXES HERE IN THE UNITED STATES FOR ALL OF THE SALES AND REVENUE THAT WE RECEIVE IN THE UNITED STATES. WE ARE PAYING OUR TAXES. FOR EVERYTHING WE SELL.

...

DID YOU LOWER THE COST OF THE EPIPEN EXPENSE THEY WOULD BE SAVING BY THIS MOVE?

>> 15-17% IS OUR GLOBAL TAX RATE. THAT IS AFTER AVERAGING EVERYTHING UP. IN THE UNITED STATES, WE ARE PAYING HIGHER TAXES ON EVERYTHING THAT WE SELL.

I can only conclude her testimony is directly contradicted by the LA times article.

I believe "Texan Version" should be "Tax Inversion" :)

Stenography is wickedly hard. All is forgiven.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com