Some of you may be aware of a corporate move called Inversion, where a US co. is acquired by a foreign company or moves their headquarters to another country to "avoid" US taxes by having the companies headquarters based in a foreign land. Safelite is owned by Belron which is based in England and Belron is owned by D'Iteron which is based in Belgium. Does anyone know if Safelite pays their fair share of US taxes? Or is their foreign ownership a way to avoid paying US taxes? Seems like a fair question for their PR Dept.

Don't get me started on the taxes, but in all fairness maybe they just read the rule book.

Don't blame Safelite. It is not illegal to avoid paying unnecessary taxes. In fact, it is their fiduciary duty to avoid paying unnecessary taxes. Safelite is just another willing pawn to the insurance industry.

Why not just ignore Safelite?

Burger King is doing it..........

The question is out there: Does safelite avoid US taxes by virtue of its foreign ownership?

(Forget trying to pass a law, turn public opinion on this foreign company)

No
Safelite may be owned by belron
But it's corp office is registered in Columbus Ohio.
Look it up before you say crisp like this

No
Safelite may be owned by belron
But it's corp office is registered in Columbus Ohio.
Look it up before you say ignorant stuff like this

No-Well aware that there is a Safelite office in Columbus. I am an ex-employee of the Columbus based operation.

However I seem to remember that Safelite bought Belron Inc (technically) and then the London based arm of Belron/D'Iteron bought the whole operation?. Which could mirror the transaction that Burger King is proposing with its purchase of Tom Horton's in Canada.

I appreciate No's response, but does anyone really know how Safelite is structured as it pertains to paying taxes in the US? They used to have a fellow named Doug __________? Could we get a response from their CFO or their PR people. AGRR could maybe get a response.

Didn't Belron purchase Safelite?

Belron purchased Elite / Glasspro and formed Belron Inc. Belron Inc. purchased Maverick, AGS and later Safelite and became Belron US. Belron US bought a couple of more things and became Safelite Group (again), which is wholly owned by Belron, which is owned by D'iteren. There was a lot of restructure on paper in 2008/9 I recall.

I think the tax evasion thing is a dry hole. All multi-national companies, whether foreign owned, or domestic, play games with Forex and such to maximize revenue and minimize tax, but when compared to what some small/mid S corps do to avoid taxes, are light weight - albeit with bigger numbers. They will take every legal tactic they can to minimize tax liability, but it isn't worth the risk to do anything off board, or even close.

In general, Safelite pays top of the mark on every fee, tax, license and such out there. They rarely challenge unemployment, and always dot every i and cross every t legally, unless they make a mistake. I'm not really talking about business practices here, just licensing, fees, software licenses, etc.. I don't say this as a compliment, more an observation...it is a by product of having a corporate bulk / overhead, people make a living in columbus by following all the rules, filling out all the forms etc. If they miss a license or a tax issue, it is clerical. Occasional sales tax issues can pop up, or wage and hour, but it is never really a tactic, just oversight that is corrected. Again, not supporting or defending anything, just facts. I guarantee they are maximizing every tax issue possible on a national scale, but I doubt they would put a billion dollar business that is working on public awareness at risk to save a fractional amount.

The elephant in the room is the state sales tax not being paid every time a short pay is issued.

history-gracias.

Risk, thats interesting considering the entire TPA concept is a house of cards. A strategy risking that the powers that be will continue to look the other way, a true Sword of Damocles.
Hardly an acceptable risk on this side of the pond.

The predator pricing weapon bankrupted safelite once, independents need to ensure they repeat that "history".

Its time the new Safelite learned the way to make a small fortune in glass is to start with a huge one, since experience didn't provide the new owners with that education from the old owners.

history, You left out the part where Belron bought some of Safelite and then sold its interest in Safelite and then waited for Safelite to go into receivorship so they could come back and scarf up the whole company. Also of note is when Safelite Solutions was simply known as SGC or SGC network at a time when there was a concern with contracting new insurance companies and not maintaining the "arms length" distance from the Safelite name.

Now that they have achieved monopoly status (in the TPA industry) they make no bones about being part of the Safelite family.

The insurance companies don't care as long as they can use Safelite to depress and control pricing on the majority of the glass repair industry.

I didn't leave it out, it was a decade prior, and a completely different situation. They didn't wait for receivership. They waited until the latest investment group was ready to bail completely, versus a minority stake and I think let the first wound heal up some. Then they went in whole. The timing on SGC was wrapped around the entire structure under one corporate umbrella. They technically are not a monopoly, due primarily to Lynx, but nobody has done anything to take a dent out of them either from a competition standpoint.

I think insurance companies would look at another option if one was available that had the level of whistles and bells, but that is a terrible investment and a ton of money to build the army unless you are in already. Solera should be interesting. End game will always be that a TPA will absolutely run contrary to a glass shops best interest, doesn't really matter which one. Ask a doctor about dealing with them.

Technically, a company does not have to have cornered the market to be considered a monopoly. Only about 70% or more. I think Safelite Solutions is there. I do agree that TPA's are being used by the insurance industry for more than just saving administrative costs.

if anything, it would be a monopsony, not a monopoly, and it fails to meet the definition of either. Their chief competitor was just purchased for 12x earnings, so it seems that competition or perceived ability to compete is not a problem. Not saying I like it, but combat requires proper strategy and calling it a monopoly isn't that.

Wrong again. It doesn't even come close to a monopsony.

http://business-law.freeadvice.com/business-law/trade_regulation/monopoly_power.htm




Determining if a Company Has a Monopoly

The first prong is deciding whether a company even has a monopoly. A general definition of a monopoly is where nearly all of one product type or service(Third Party auto glass claims administration) is owned by one person or group of people within a community or area (United States). Thereby, the sole control of this product or service is given to one party to the elimination of all others within the marketplace. Courts will usually look at a company’s market share for a particular product or service to see if a monopoly exists. If a company has a market share of greater than 75 percent, they will probably be considered a monopoly. For market share purposes, courts will make an apples-to-apples comparison by looking at identical products or products that are so similar they could be substituted to determine market share.

Courts will also review other factors including the markets affected (Auto Glass Repair Industry) by the excessive market share, also called the relevant market. If a fruit grower only grows and sells fruit in California, the courts will not usually uphold a complaint of monopoly power by a seller who only operates in New York City, unless the grower can show some type of overlap in markets.

Once the courts find that a monopoly exists, it will move to the second prong of monopoly power. The second part of the test is whether the company engaged in some type of unfair or anti-competitive conduct. This second prong is not defined by a statute, but rather is evaluated on a case-by-case basis; and it usually requires some type of showing that the monopoly power was going to or used to abuse their monopoly. 

The glass shop is not the customer. The glass shop is a vendor (thus monopsony vs. monopoly). If you want to go into glass insurance claims management business, you can. Solera just paid 260M to do that. The basis of your claim is that SGC has a controlling (monopolistic) stake in the entire industry from claim to install, which is not true, or even close to true. There are at least 5K glass companies out there (most of which aren't really happy). The overall share of the S business is far below any reasonable monopoly threshold.

The second prong of the monopoly test is subjective. There has to be harm to the customer (or the likelihood of harm). That isn't happening. The customer is the insurance company at face value, or could be considered the glass consumer with a stretch, and every effort to show consumer harm has fallen on it's face.

From the outside, it looks like the glass industry is whining. When compared to a price line for the last two decades for similar products across the board, it is clear why. If I am a decent attorney, I simply show this as evidence that the TPA system (with S in the lead position) has created savings for consumers and insurance companies.

This type of attack is wasted effort...just like it has been for the last 15 years.

I doubt either of you are completely wrong.

It seems you both miss the core issue.












Who is the Customer?

There has been no proof that what the insurance industry is doing to the auto glass industry saves the consumer anything. There is proof, however, that the insurance industry is using the TPA model to unjustly enrich itself at the expense of the majority of the auto glass industry and the consumer end user.

I seem to recall a thread on here a long time ago about Safelite or one of their affiliates who filed for re-sale TAX ID #'s in about 30 States.

I then read about one of their network affiliates who was trying to convince retail glass shops that they didn't have to pay taxes on claims they were handling for insurers. I could be wrong but, I doubt that my memory is that bad or off.

As far as "Duh" goes, Belron bought Safelite, Belron is owned by a publicly traded company in Belgium. Inversion is the newest tax scam for corporations and nothing would surprise me. XS is right about Burger King.

There are several large corporations that are doing it and we should carefully consider who we should support when it comes to tax dollars needed to re-build our infrastructure. China is a large polluter but they ARE re-building their infrastructure/s for highways, roads, dams/water projects, etc... at a much more alarming rate than we are. About 8% of their GNP is spent on this each year; double our rate by far - almost triple.

History - I hate to put it this way, but; you failed your "history lesson."

While policy language is slowly moving away from the indemnification model to the PPO/HMO language, they aren't there just yet. Until insurers elect the "replace" option instead of paying for the loss in "dollars", you are wrong about who the customer really is. Mark1/YEAF has tried to teach many others this simple concept but most fail to grasp this reality.

Many years ago in KY, the State Supreme Court had to remind State Farm about the concept of "diminished value." State Farm argued strenuously that they didn't owe for it until one of the more informed Justices pointed out the following (and I'm paraphrasing this):

"There are four principle legs in the stool of property damage indemnification: Quality (Fit), Function, Safety, and Value. If we are to believe State Farm, there isn't any real harm about this "diminished value" of automobiles. We all know that this isn't true and that diminished value exists. Even if we were to believe State Farm's attorneys now, if we remove this leg of "value" from the stool of indemnification, there would only be three legs holding up this stool of indemnification. What we can't allow is the opportunity for State Farm (or any insurer) to remove another leg from this stool in the future. Thus, we cannot and will not risk removing this obligation until you decide to change your policy language and premium rates to reflect removing this burden you have always owed for.

Diminished Value is an old Black Law concept of an aspect of a tort and must be paid for, as it has for over 150 years and maybe longer. What assurances (hypothetically speaking) can State Farm give this Court... that if we allow you to remove 'diminished value' from the stool, what assurance can you provide that you will not be back in this court in a few years... asking to remove one of the three remaining legs?"

The court was right because State Farm has been sued and settled for hundreds of millions in aftermarket part claims on two separate occasions since the Kentucky State Supreme Court gave State Farm a "history lesson."

Further and worse, this industry has not trained the consumer (the real customer). Our company pays for this every day and every minute we spend educating our customers about this reality of consumerism. I hate to read this board and then only post when I become irate at some industry news that I read from our industry (or the collision, or both). I find out that the
Boyd Group (collision and auto glass) will raise $100 million and that their chief executive glass officer will sell off over $8M of his $16M in holdings as a side offering to these funds who purchase and re-sell this offering.

Will it take AGS or Harmon or whomever is whoring up the market at that moment to "ask for free glass" or glass at the lowest discount ever until this industry "gets it?" I apologize for this outburst but my vacation finally wore off and I can't take the stupidity of some of my competitors.

I also read that Safelite is asking for LYNX's blood pressure and pulse to help validate their whining argument regarding steering.