Quantcast
Connect with us

Crackdown on ‘corporate inversions’ highlights the monstrosity of US tax code

Published

on

Companies such as drugmaker Pfizer and medical device maker Medtronic that have used a technique called an inversion to reduce their tax bill recently got a smackdown from President Barack Obama:

I am very pleased that the Treasury Department has taken new action to prevent more corporations from taking advantage of one of the most insidious tax loopholes out there, and fleeing the country just to get out of paying their taxes… They benefit from our research and our development and our patents. They benefit from American workers, who are the best in the world. But they effectively renounce their citizenship.

ADVERTISEMENT

That new action, announced on April 4, involves tightening the rules by which which a U.S. company acquires or merges with a foreign business in order to change its corporate headquarters and enjoy lower taxes. The aim is to make these so-called corporate inversions harder.

The new rules immediately scored a victory by torpedoing the planned US$152 billion merger between New York-based Pfizer and Dublin-based Allergan because one of the Treasury changes would have severely limited the tieup’s tax benefits. Had it gone through, it would have been the biggest inversion ever, overtaking the $50 billion Medtronic deal completed in 2015.

But it won’t stop them altogether – especially in high-tech sectors like pharmaceuticals – because the underlying reason U.S. companies invert is that the corporate tax rate here (35 percent) is so much higher than in countries like Ireland (12.5 percent).

The issue has received tons of attention this year as candidates from all sides declare inversions “disgusting” (Donald Trump) and “nothing less than a tax scam” (Bernie Sanders).

ADVERTISEMENT

Perhaps the most important lesson we should draw from all the attention inversions are getting, however, is that the powerful incentive to relocate abroad to pay less tax will remain until Congress and the president can agree to reform and rationalize the U.S. tax code. Until then, companies will continue to do whatever they can within the law to lower their tax bills, and that includes inverting.

How to invert

In simple terms, an inversion involves a company shifting its corporate headquarters to a lower-tax jurisdiction. For large multinational companies like Pfizer, the annual savings can be in the billions.

ADVERTISEMENT

But it is not just a matter of declaring a new address and printing new stationery. The U.S. company has to acquire a foreign business large enough to qualify for the inversion so that the combined entity can get all the tax perks. If the target company is too small, the tax savings are diminished, making it less worth it.

Under one of the new Treasury rules, meeting that threshold became a lot harder because now the foreign company cannot itself have bulked up its equity base with serial acquisitions in the prior 36 months. In other words, recent purchases won’t count toward the company’s size for tax purposes, making it potentially not large enough to qualify for all the benefits of inverting. That’s exactly what Botox-maker Allergan had done and why the deal was killed.

Overall, inversions aren’t that numerous, though they have increased substantially in the past couple decades. Just six were completed in 2015, up from four in each of the previous two years, according to Bloomberg.

ADVERTISEMENT

Why companies invert

Here is the gist of the arguments in favor of inversions:

The U.S. federal corporate tax rate is the highest in the developed world. Not only that, but unlike most major countries, U.S. tax is applicable not only to a company’s American operations but to its activities across the globe.

ADVERTISEMENT

Some argue this creates a comparative disadvantage relative to companies in lower-tax nations because higher taxes mean less money left over for dividends for shareholders or investment in research and development, undermining the competitiveness of American companies.

And since inversions are technically legal, it’s a company’s fiduciary duty to its shareholders to do all it can (legally) to reduce its tax burden.

To counter arguments that it’s unpatriotic because it costs U.S. jobs, inversion backers say that it generally changes very little in terms of operations and employment levels in each jurisdiction.

Who has to ‘foot the bill’?

Critics of inversions, however, contend it’s more than just jobs at stake. Shifting a company’s tax bill overseas means the rest of us are left to “foot the bill,” in the words of Republican Senator Charles Grassley.

ADVERTISEMENT

Congress’ nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation estimated in 2014 that the U.S. government will forgo $33.6 billion in corporate tax revenue over the next 10 years as a result of inversions.

This helps explain why inversions have enemies among both Democrats and Republicans. If U.S. multinationals pay less tax, the difference has to be made up by individual taxpayers and companies (who would otherwise pay less).

In addition, critics argue that the tax rate companies actually pay isn’t that high once loopholes and other deductions are taken into account. That rate is much lower but varies according to who’s doing the analysis (19.4 percent, according to Citizens for Tax Justice, and 27 percent, according to PricewaterhouseCoopers). What they actually pay only the Internal Revenue Service knows.

In that same vein, companies already have many ways to avoid a large U.S. tax bite, from leaving their foreign profits overseas (and out of the reach of the IRS) or by using various tax avoidance schemes.

ADVERTISEMENT

Why all the hullabaloo?

As noted earlier, inversions aren’t that numerous and, despite the new rules, won’t be stopped entirely. So why do they draw so much ire?

Primarily, the point is that they appear unpatriotic, particularly in an election year, making them an easy target for politicians. As Obama put it, companies that do inversions are essentially renouncing their U.S. citizenship yet still benefiting from all the things taxpayers pay for such as infrastructure and education.

More fundamentally, however, they highlight the bloated monstrosity that is the U.S. corporate tax code, with thousands of arcane provisions and loopholes that require an army of accountants to take advantage of. That leaves them out of reach of the majority of small business owners.

These small businesses cannot take advantage of international tax loopholes, making them resentful of large multinational firms that can shift operations, earnings and tax payments across countries. Hence, the issue of inversions highlights fundamental tensions between domestic and multinational businesses as well as between single-jurisdiction governments and companies that operate beyond borders.

These issues have been building steam over the past two decades but have been ignored by a political establishment content to “kick the can down the road” and avoid making the hard decisions.

ADVERTISEMENT

Despite the virtually unanimous opinion that we need to rationalize the tax code, nothing is done, in my view, because of the concentrated vested interest on the part of international tax experts, lobbyists, lawyers and the large firms that can afford to hire them with generous professional fees in Washington, D.C.

Ironically, Obama’s speech introducing the new Treasury rules used virtually the same words as that of Senator Grassley, suggesting perhaps that a bipartisan effort to rationalize the U.S. tax code may be possible.

The Conversation

By Farok J. Contractor, Distinguished Professor of Management & Global Business, Rutgers University

ADVERTISEMENT

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.


Report typos and corrections to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Donald Trump is making a mockery of Marco Rubio — and the Florida senator is letting him

Published

on

Sen. Marco Rubio was once one of Donald Trump’s most formidable opponents; now, the Florida senator bends over backward to excuse the president’s corruption.

In 2016, Rubio and Trump sparred frequently on the Republican primary debate stage. Trump picked the uninspired nickname “Little Marco” for the senator, which didn’t seem to do much damage on its own, but Rubio never gained the momentum or strength that his backers hoped would prove to be strong enough to take down the reality TV candidate. As Rubio grew desperate, he launched one of his most memorable and pitiful attacks by stooping to his opponent’s level, implying that Trump had a small penis. It was more of an embarrassing moment for Rubio than anyone else, though Trump helped himself with a crude rejoinder.

Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

The faith of Fox News: How the network’s propaganda warps viewers’ sense of reality

Published

on

A longtime sticking point among Fox News employees is their insistent differentiation between its news division, where employees practice actual journalism, and its opinion division, where employees practice actual nativism, spew misinformation, and have been actively campaigning for Donald Trump’s re-election since 2016.  Inside the organization, they claim to believe that the news side is separate from the opinion side, and insist that the audience can tell the difference.

News anchor Shepard Smith once characterized comparing the two as “apples and teaspoons.”

Continue Reading
 

2020 Election

Maddow warns Russia is interfering in the 2020 election in ‘exactly the same way’ as they did in 2016

Published

on

MSNBC's Rachel Maddow on Monday warned that Russia and the Republicans are running the "exact same play" against Democrats in 2020 -- and this time will be aided by the United States Justice Department.

"And they are playing it again already for the next election. And some of it is happening just like it did in 2016. And some of it is worse and I think it’s going to be more powerful than it was in 2016. In part because this is a second draft for these guys, right? They ran this play in 2016. They worked out some of the kinks," she explained. "Now they’ll do it again with the benefit of knowing what worked for them and what didn’t work the first time around. It’s a second draft. It’s going to be better and more polished."

Continue Reading
 
 
Help Raw Story Uncover Injustice. Join Raw Story Investigates for $1 and go ad-free.
close-image