Patrick Byrne indicates that they keep a small percentage of profits in Bitcoin and are looking to increase that percentage when they start getting more of their partners accepting Bitcoin.
I think you meant "any of their partners". Right now (mostly due to accounting laws) a business is going to have a hard time accepting anything other than currency (any currency) for payment, hence I'd like to see how they intend to "keep some of the profits in bitcoins" other than converting dollars back to bitcoins. Both overstock.com and tigerdirect make it clear that they use an exchange so that they can receive real currency. Were they to actually receive bitcoins in payment you can be sure that more than a few tax officials would start wondering about it.
Technically BTC that is received would have to go on the books as stock or similar. Thus keeping "revenue" in BTC means capturing payment in books at time of receipt, in which case the value you have captured is non-financial instrument asset. This asset has to be depreciated. Selling that BTC later on (for dollars) results in even further revenue. This just artificially drives up the "earned revenue" in the year-end balance, making it an almost certainty that you would be paying vastly more in tax than you would otherwise have done.
Every time the topic comes up, all the BTC proponents, with not a single accounting or economics degree between them (Patrick Byrne has the "do you want fries with that" Philosophy degree) start disagreeing with practicing accountants, book-keepers and economists. BTC as money starts looking even more of a joke when you actually try to keep books with it - book-keeping, and all the laws made in every country to audit it, don't work on a deflationary currency.
BTC can't work as a currency. It was designed as a poor joke on otherwise smart people who are a little clueless about accounting, economics, book-keeping, etc.