See below report from the Center for American Progress.  Reaction statement from Jeremy Funk, Comm. Director, Americans United for Change: "It's not surprising Big Oil insists they can't live without billions in taxpayer subsidies despite reporting $93 billion in profits. It's not even surprising that Big Oil turns around and uses those taxpayer dollars/profits to inflate their own stock and their CEOs bonuses. With greed this out of control, the only thing that could surprise anymore is if BP or Exxon tried to declare themselves tax-exempt religious organizations.  Big Oil's greedy behavior is so predictable that if they are successful in convincing Washington to gut the Renewable Fuel Standard and hobble their cheaper, cleaner competition  (like the ethanol industry that unlike Big Oil, don't take subsidies), it will come as no surprise when prices go north at the pump and the nation relapses on its addiction to oil from unstable overseas regions."

Report excerpt: Of course, when it comes to spending their money, the priorities of oil companies are fairly obvious. All of the companies, except for ConocoPhillips, spent a combined total of $32 billion, or nearly 40 percent of their total profits, to repurchase their own stock. (see Table 1) This increases the value of the remaining shares, providing a bounty to senior executives, boards of directors, and other large shareholders. The CEOs of these five companies had a combined compensation of $96 million in 2012, the last year for which data are available, or nearly $20 million per CEO. This is nearly 400 times greater than the $51,107 median income for a family of four during that same year. These five major oil corporations also spent $45 million on lobbying in 2013; every $1 spent on lobbying helped the companies protect $53 of their tax breaks?an outstanding rate of return.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2014/02/10/83879/with-only-93-billion-in-profits-the-big-five-oil-companies-demand-to-keep-tax-breaks/

With Only $93 Billion in Profits, the Big Five Oil Companies Demand to Keep Tax Breaks

By Daniel J. Weiss and Miranda Peterson | February 10, 2014

The 2013 profit totals are in for the big five oil companies?BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobil, and Shell. Their financial reports indicate that they earned a combined total of $93 billion last year, or $177,000 per minute. (see Table 1) After years of oil production declines, the big five oil companies actually increased their total production by 34 percent in 2013, predominately due to BP and ConocoPhillips almost doubling their total production. The companies' higher oil production yet lower profits indicate that it is becoming more expensive to produce oil as the number of newer, easier, and cheaper fields shrink. This is why, despite their outsized earnings, the oil companies are not only fighting to keep their tax breaks but also lobbying to lift the crude oil export ban. But doing so could hurt working families, our economy, and our energy security. Instead, we need to invest in cleaner transportation alternatives.

As mindboggling as it sounds, Big Oil's $93 billion in profits in 2013?impressive by any standard?were nonetheless a 27 percent reduction in profits compared to 2012, primarily because gasoline averaged 16 cents per gallon?or 4 percent?less. Despite the decreases, Exxon Mobil, Shell, and Chevron still had the first, seventh, and eighth, respectively, highest profits of any global public company on the 2013 Fortune 500 list. BP finished 30th, while ConocoPhillips ranked 50th, mostly because it spun off its refining business partway through 2012.

It would not be surprising if the big five oil companies use their 2013 decline in profits as another excuse to pressure Congress to retain their $2.4 billion-per-year tax breaks. The largest of these special provisions allows these companies to qualify for the "limitation on section 199 deduction attributable to oil, natural gas, or primary products," which will cost taxpayers $14.4 billion over 10 years, according to the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation. This tax break was enacted in 2004 and was designed to encourage manufacturing to remain in the United States rather than move overseas. It ought not apply to oil and natural gas production since the oil and gas fields cannot be moved to another nation.

The Joint Committee on Taxation found that the second-largest deduction was for "modifications of foreign tax credit rules applicable to major integrated oil companies which are dual capacity taxpayers." This provision is worth $7.5 billion over 10 years. Seth Hanlon, former Director of Fiscal Reform at the Center for American Progress, best describes why this tax break is unwarranted:

Our tax system allows companies that do business abroad to reduce from their tax bill any income taxes paid to other governments. The rules are supposed to prevent oil companies from claiming credit for royalty payments to foreign governments. Royalties are not taxes; they are fees for the privilege of extracting natural resources.

... oil companies have been permitted to claim credits for certain payments to foreign governments, even in countries that generally impose low or no business tax (suggesting that these payments, or levies, are in fact a form of royalty). Dual capacity taxpayer rules, therefore, are a subsidy for foreign production by U.S. oil companies.

The decline in profits is also why the American Petroleum Institute, Exxon Mobil, and other oil companies are lobbying to lift the crude oil export ban, which would enable them to sell their domestic oil at the world, or Brent, price that fetched nearly $10 per barrel more than the domestic, or West Texas Intermediate, price on February 7. Lifting the ban would force the United States to import more expensive foreign oil to replace the exported domestic oil, which could raise gasoline prices. Banking giant Barclays Plc predicts that lifting the current ban could add $10 billion annually to gasoline prices paid at the pump.

If there is any good news here for American families and businesses, it is that gasoline prices, which hit a record high in 2012, were lower in 2013. This cut at the pump reduced the average household's annual gasoline expenditures.

The fact that profits decreased in 2013 despite production increasing by 34 percent calls into question the big five companies' reliance on finding and developing more difficult, dangerous oil fields?such as those in the Arctic Ocean. It is fairly clear that such a business model is not economically sustainable. Instead, they?and we?could benefit from greater investment in cleaner, alternative transportation technologies.

Of course, when it comes to spending their money, the priorities of oil companies are fairly obvious. All of the companies, except for ConocoPhillips, spent a combined total of $32 billion, or nearly 40 percent of their total profits, to repurchase their own stock. (see Table 1) This increases the value of the remaining shares, providing a bounty to senior executives, boards of directors, and other large shareholders. The CEOs of these five companies had a combined compensation of $96 million in 2012, the last year for which data are available, or nearly $20 million per CEO. This is nearly 400 times greater than the $51,107 median income for a family of four during that same year. These five major oil corporations also spent $45 million on lobbying in 2013; every $1 spent on lobbying helped the companies protect $53 of their tax breaks?an outstanding rate of return.

In addition to receiving unjustified tax breaks, the big five oil companies also benefit from the lack of federal limits on carbon pollution generated by oil and gas production, transportation, and refining. The Environmental Protection Agency reported that "petroleum and natural gas systems" and refiners were the second- and third-largest sources of carbon and other climate pollution among the major industrial sectors that must report their emissions. Since there are no federal limits on this pollution, American families and businesses must bear the costs of more climate pollution, such as damages from extreme weather events, heightened smog, and tropical diseases. These?and other?oil companies can dump their carbon and other climate pollution in the sky for free. And at our expense.

Despite the decline in profits in 2013, BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobil, and Shell are some of the richest, most profitable companies in the world. They produce a valuable commodity that is essential to our economy. However, their proposal to eliminate the crude oil export ban, their battle to keep some unnecessary federal tax breaks, and their uncontrolled climate pollution all could or do impose real costs on American families. It's up to President Barack Obama and Congress to retain and adopt policies that benefit all Americans, not just Big Oil's bottom line.

Mortgage Credit Certificates to provide Iowa home buyers with up to $2,000 in annual federal income tax credits 

(DES MOINES) - Gov. Terry Branstad and Lt. Gov. Kim Reynolds today partnered with the Iowa Finance Authority and the Iowa Association of REALTORS to announce an opportunity for new Iowa home buyers to reduce their federal income tax liability by up to $2,000 a year for the life of their mortgage through the 2014 Take Credit Mortgage Credit Certificate program.  The program is estimated to assist 585 home buyers and is administered by the Iowa Finance Authority (IFA).

"With tax season upon us, many Iowans are looking for ways to keep more of their hard-earned income," said Branstad. "The Take Credit Mortgage Credit Certificate Program announced today offers new Iowa home buyers a way to do just that and put even more momentum behind Iowa's already strong real estate market as we enter the home buying season. I encourage all Iowa home buyers to look into this valuable resource."

"Research has consistently shown the importance of the housing sector on the economy and the long-term social and financial benefits," said Reynolds. "Every Iowa home sale provides a boost to the local economy, supports strong neighborhoods and aligns Iowa families for long-term stability."

The 2014 Take Credit Program provides eligible home buyers with a tax credit against their federal income tax liability every year for the life of their mortgage, as long as the home is used as their primary residence, up to a maximum of 30 years. The program is available only for IFA-approved new purchases closing after February 3, 2014. Eligible financing is limited to 30-year, fixed-rate, fully amortizing loans.

The amount of the tax credit is based on a percentage of the homeowners' mortgage interest. For the 2014 Take Credit Program, the credit rate is set at 30 percent of the annual interest paid on the mortgage loan, up to a maximum of $2,000 per year.

To take advantage of the program home buyers must be approved for a mortgage and meet federal eligibility requirements. Interested home buyers should visit IowaFinanceAuthority.gov/TakeCredit to find a Take Credit Participating Lender, access eligibility information and more.

After an eligible homeowner has closed a mortgage loan with an IFA Take Credit Participating Lender, IFA will issue the homeowner a mortgage credit certificate for pre-approved applicants. The homeowner in turn may apply the credit against their federal income tax liability on an annual basis for the life of their mortgage. The credit may be claimed on IRS Form 8396.

"This program is a win-win for Iowa as it will help to fuel an already healthy Iowa real estate market and help hundreds of Iowa families realize a reduction in their federal income taxes," said Iowa Finance Authority Executive Director Dave Jamison.

Iowa Association of Realtors CEO Dave Bert said, "Iowa home sales in 2013 increased by an impressive 7.9 percent. The Take Credit program announced today will encourage even more home buyers to take the step into homeownership."

The mortgage credit certificate was authorized by Congress in the 1984 Tax Reform Act and functions like a federal income tax credit. Funding for the program is made available through federal private activity bond volume cap, which was set to expire if not used. The mortgage certificate credit funding will be available through 2014 or until the funds are expended.

# # #

WASHINGTON -- Five members of the Senate Finance Committee today expressed strong disappointment at the IRS's decision to award $62.5 million of employee bonuses, despite government-wide budget cuts, and asked for reconsideration of the decision and an explanation of current and future bonus plans.

Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa); Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Ranking Member of the Finance Committee; Pat Roberts (R-Kan.); John Cornyn (R-Texas); and Richard Burr (R-N.C.) wrote to IRS Commissioner John Koskinen to express their concerns.

The senators called the bonuses "an insult to taxpayers," given the IRS's "deterioration in performance" due to budget constraints and government-wide guidance to restrict bonuses as much as possible during the mandatory budget cuts known as "sequestration."

"Sequestration has forced everyone to make difficult decisions when it comes to spending," the senators wrote to Koskinen.  "The American people are looking to the government to make responsible fiscal choices and use their taxpayer dollars in the most effective way.  The IRS's decision to spend $62.5 million on bonuses is a violation of the public's trust.  We strongly urge you to reconsider your decision."

The Finance Committee has jurisdiction over the IRS.  The text of the senators' letter is available here.

-30-