“No taxes to be paid with owning Berkshire”
It depends on your investment profile but basically, dividends increase your taxable income. Anyone making an income will effectively get 'lower returns' on their investments due to this effect. If you had the choice between identical shares that either give a dividend or don't, you'll find that stock that pays a dividend has a lower price, and increases in value more slowly than stock that doesn't. (all other things being equal)  There's a whole bunch of economic theory behind this but in short, the current stock price is a measure of how much the company is worth combined with an estimation of how much it will be worth in the future (NPV of all future dividends is the basic model). When the company makes profit, it can keep those profits, and invest in new projects or distribute a portion of those profits to shareholders (aka dividends). Distributing the value to shareholders reduces the value of the company somewhat, but the shareholders get the money now. If the company doesn't give dividends, it has a higher value which will be reflected in a higher stock price.  So basically, all other things being equal (which they rarely are, but I digress) the price and growth difference reflects the fact that dividends are paying out now. (In other words, if you wanted non-dividend shares you could get them by buying dividend shares and re-investing the dividend as new shares every time there was a payout, and you could get dividend-share like properties by selling a percentage of non-dividend shares periodically). Dividend income is taxable as part of your income right away, however taxes on capital gains only happen when you sell the asset in question, and also has a lower tax rate. If you buy and hold Berkshire Hatheway, you will not have to pay taxes on the gains you get until you decide to sell the shares, and even then the tax rate will be lower. If you are investing for retirement, this is great, since your income from other sources will be lower, so you can afford to be taxed then. In many jurisdictions, income from capital gains is subject to a different tax rate than the rest of your income, for example in the US for most people with money to invest it's either 15% or 20%, which will be lower than normal income tax would be (since most people with money to invest would be making enough to be in a higher bracket). Say, for example, your income now is within the 25% bracket. Any dividend you get will be taxed at that rate, so let's say that the dividend is about 2% and the growth of the stock is about 4%. So, your effective growth rate after taxation is 5.5% -- you lose 0.5% from the 25% tax on the dividend. If, instead, you had stock with the same growth but no dividend it would grow at a rate of 6%. If you never withdrew the money, after 20 years, $1 in the dividend stock would be worth ~$2.92 (1.055^20), whereas $1 in the non-dividend stock would be worth ~$3.21 (1.06^20). You're talking about a difference of 30 cents per dollar invested, which doesn't seem huge but multiply it by 100,000 and you've got yourself enough money to renovate your house purely out of money that would have gone to the government instead. The advantage here is if you are saving up for retirement, when you retire you won't have much income so the tax on the gains (even ignoring the capital gains effect above) will definitely be less then when you were working, however if you had a dividend stock you would have been paying taxes on the dividend, at a higher rate, throughout the lifetime of the investment.  So, there you go, that's what Mohnish Pabrai is talking about. There are some caveats to this. If the amount you are investing isn't large, and you are in a lower tax bracket, and the stock pays out relatively low dividends you won't really feel the difference much, even though it's there. Also, dividend vs. no dividend is hardly the highest priority when deciding what company to invest in, and you'll practically never be able to find identical companies that differ only on dividend/no dividend, so if you find a great buy you may not have a choice in the matter.  Also, there has been a trend in recent years to also make capital gains tax progressive, so people who have a higher income will also pay more in capital gains, which negates part of the benefit of non-dividend stocks (but doesn't change the growth rate effects before the sale).  There are also some theoretical arguments that dividend-paying companies should have stronger shareholders (since the company has less capital, it has to 'play nice' to get money either from new shares or from banks, which leads to less risky behavior) but it's not so cut-and-dried in real life.
"In the normal course of events, you should receive a separate check for the amount of the purchase, and that amount should not be included in your wages as shown on your W-2 statement.  If the amount is included on your paycheck, it should still be listed separately as a non-taxable item, not as part of wages paid.  In other words, the IRS should not even be aware that this money  was paid to you, there is no need to list the amount anywhere on your  income tax return, and if you are paranoid about the matter, staple the stub attached to the reimbursement to a copy of your bank statement showing that you deposited the money into your account and save it in your file of tax papers for the year, just in case the IRS audits you and requires you to document every deposit in your checking account.  The amount is a business expense that is deductible on your employer's tax return, and your employer is also required to keep documentation that the  employee expense reimbursement plan is running as per IRS rules (i.e., the employer is not slipping money to you ""under the table"" as a reimbursement instead of paying you wages and thus avoiding the employer's share of FICA taxes etc) and that is why your employer needs the store receipt, not a hand-written note from you, to show the IRS if the IRS asks. You said you paid with ""your own cash"" but in case this was not meant literally and you paid via credit card or debit card or check, then any mileage award, or points, or cash back for credit card use are yours to keep tax-free, and any interest charges  (if you are carrying a revolving balance or paid through your HELOC) or  overdraft or bounced check fees are yours to pay." "You are confusing entirely unrelated things. First the ""profit distribution"" issue with Bob's S-Corp which is in fact tax evasion and will probably trigger a very nasty audit. Generally, if you're the sole employee of your own S-Corp, and the whole S-Corp income is from your own personal services, as defined by the IRS - there's no profit there. All the net income from such a S-Corp is subject to SE tax, either through payroll or through your K-1. Claiming anything else would be lying and IRS is notorious for going after people doing that. Second - the reclassification issue. The reason employers classify employees as contractors is to avoid payroll taxes (which the IRS gets through Bob's S-Corp, so it doesn't care) and providing benefits (that is Bob's problem, not the IRS). So in the scenario above, the IRS wouldn't care whose employee Bob is since Bob's S-Corp would have to pay all the same payroll taxes. The reclassification is an issue when employees are abused. See examples of Fedex drivers, where they're classified as contractors and are not getting any benefits, spend their own money on the truck and maintenance, etc. The employees are the ones who sued for reclassification, but in this case the IRS would be interested as well since a huge chunk of payroll taxes was not paid (driver's net is after car maintenance and payments, not before as it would be if he was salaried). So in your scenario reclassification is not as much a concern to Bob as his tax evasion scheme claiming earnings from performing personal services as ""profits from S-Corp"". A precedent to look at, as I mentioned elsewhere, would be the Watson v Commissioner case." "There is actually a recent paper that attempted to decompose Buffett's outperformance. I've quoted the abstract below: ""Berkshire Hathaway has realized a Sharpe ratio of 0.76, higher than any other stock or mutual fund with a history of more than 30 years, and Berkshire has a significant alpha to traditional risk factors. However, we find that the alpha becomes insignificant when controlling for exposures to Betting-Against-Beta and Quality-Minus-Junk factors. Further, we estimate that Buffett’s leverage is about 1.6-to-1 on average. Buffett’s returns appear to be neither luck nor magic, but, rather, reward for the use of leverage combined with a focus on cheap, safe, quality stocks. Decomposing Berkshires’ portfolio into ownership in publicly traded stocks versus wholly-owned private companies, we find that the former performs the best, suggesting that Buffett’s returns are more due to stock selection than to his effect on management. These results have broad implications for market efficiency and the implementability of academic factors.""" And so what was the logical alternative?  How does Hank Paulson:  1.   Get $150-300 billion dollars into the hands of individual taxpayers so that they don't default on their home mortgages and wipe out the banking system?  2.  Make sure the $150-300 B is going to individuals who actually need the capital, weren't bad actors in taking on too much debt and causing everyone else significant harm by engaging in risky borrowing?  3.  Sufficiently protect the $150-300 B in loans so that the US Gov't can get paid back and not have it be some massive giveaway of taxpayer dollars?    And all this had to be done within a matter of days.  Ontop of which, why aren't you railing against the irresponsible automakers who didn't pay back their TARP loans and instead were forgiven, while the banks paid back their loans in full with interest and a profit to the US Taxpayer?  The automakers and the unions basically got free money (after Obama came into office and under his direction) on the back of the taxpayer.  Isn't that crony capitalism when unions who are Democratic sympathizing voters get loans that are ultimately forgiven by the federal government?  The whining you make about private entities like Berkshire, who did nothing to create the crisis and merely took advantage of it, with little to no help from the federal government is remarkable.  It's like straight out of a socialist playbook. "Interesting read. I'm not trying to get political with this post, but it's something that I found genuinely interesting while reading this article.   My dad is an accountant for a large corporation and described tax law as ""15% white, 15% black, and 70% gray"". I'm sure that Cat isn't the only company that is trying to avoid paying US corporate tax rates—regardless of where it falls on the legality or white/gray/black spectrum. This case may be somewhat of an outlier in that it's pretty clear there was some shady tax avoidance and the tax sum is large ($2Bn). Yet, I couldn't help but feel that the amount of government intervention, lawyer/court fees, whistle-blower payout, not to mention company productivity loss from the avoidance, cleanup, etc. puts a damper on the expected value of this case for the general American citizen or tax-payer.  Which leads me to my point. There was some talk recently about the corporate tax rate being dropped down to 15%. I'm someone who generally leans left on issues, but are there legitimate benefits to this? It seems that large corporations simply employ huge teams of accountants to game the tax code and never end up paying anything close to the 30%. Would reducing the rate eliminate a lot of this tax avoidance behavior and result in more system efficiency, while the government returns roughly equal sums of tax revenue from corporations? It would obviously be beneficial to smaller businesses that can't afford the legal means necessary to pay lower rates as well.   From a progressive standpoint, my worry with dropping the rate is that companies would still find ways to simply squeeze more and more profit for the bottom line. It'd be interesting to find a way to leverage reducing the tax rate on large corporations by somehow tying it to increased pay and benefits to workers. I'm not sure of the proper implementation, but letting corporations keep more of their money without the hassle of ""setting up 70 shell companies"" and incentivizing them to re-invest in workers, R&amp;D, etc. makes more sense than companies never paying 30%, and even when caught for illegal acts, being tied up in court for 10 years.   I'll end here because I'm beginning to ramble a bit, but the article was interesting for viewing corporate taxation on a system-wide level." Thats a good point but they are still not giving the companies cash.  I think some people read these headlines and think their taxes are literally being handed to these companies as a check which is not the case.  I did note that one company near me is getting actual cash to help with their move which is the first time I have heard of something like this: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/12/01/2816928/chiquita-payout-called-unique.html This doesn't make much sense. What costs are you referring to? And aren't they using roads, airports etc that federal money goes into? Do you think payroll taxes paid through employees should be the major consideration on payment of taxes for corporations? Also, do you think European criticism of Amazon for avoiding paying taxes is off-base? "For the USA part of the equation the ""fair market value"" is the value at the time you inherited it (time of death), and thus there is no capital gain."