Tax Analysts Blog

A Bipartisan Approach to Stopping Corporate Expatriations

Posted on Jul 28, 2014

Democrats believe tax reform won’t come fast enough to stop the new wave of inversions. And Republicans don’t like the proposals by the Obama administration or by congressional Democrats to expand the foreign ownership requirements necessary to allow a corporation to expatriate. But that doesn’t mean there is no common ground on which the two parties can come together to significantly slow the pace of inversions. One approach to deterring expatriations that has gotten little attention in the press is tightening current law rules to prevent firms that invert from stripping profits out of the United States.

Putting matters in the simplest terms, corporations that transfer their legal domicile out of the United States get two benefits. First, profits from their operations outside the United States are exempt from U.S.tax. Second, those corporations are much better able to shift profit from their U.S. operations to tax havens. It is this second advantage that is particularly objectionable. In the biz, this is known as earnings stripping. And it is remarkably easy to accomplish: A wholly owned subsidiary in a tax haven makes a loan to the U.S. business. The U.S. business then deducts the interest payments and reduces its U.S. tax. The tax haven subsidiary books the income but pays little or no tax on that income.

These loans are all legal fiction. They are entirely the creation of lawyers for the sole purpose of avoiding U.S. tax. They have no impact on the underlying business operations of the corporation, and in fact are not even reported to shareholders in company annual reports.

In its latest budget, the Obama administration has a proposal (p. 49) that would make it much more difficult for foreign corporations to strip profits out of the United States with related-party lending. Although they have not offered any proposals of their own just yet, Senate Democrats have made it clear that they too are interested in limiting abusive related-party lending. At the Senate Finance Committee’s July 22 hearing, committee Chair Ron Wyden, Sen. Sherrod Brown, and Sen. Charles E. Schumer all expressed strong interest in this approach to combating inversions.

But it isn’t just Democrats who object to earnings stripping. In his opening statement at the July 22 hearing, Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley said: “One area that should be studied further is the role tax rules that allow inverted companies to strip income out of the United States play in a company’s decision to invert. Reforms to curtail such abuses should be considered to protect the U.S. tax base and reduce the incentive to invert.”

And two days later, Sen. Orrin Hatch, the lead Republican on the Finance Committee, said: "We have to fight income stripping. And there's a way of doing that, and we're going to come up with that. . . . Companies flip the debt over here, where they can deduct the interest, and put the income over there.”

Grassley and Hatch are not breaking new ground. In 2002 Grassley sponsored legislation that included limits on earnings stripping. Also that year, Ways and Means Committee Chair Bill Thomas proposed limiting earnings stripping. At the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, the Bush Treasury Department was also adamant about the need to prevent foreign companies from inappropriately shifting income out of the United States. Unfortunately, objections from the business community and foreign governments blocked inclusion of earnings stripping rules from the final anti-inversion legislation enacted in 2004.

Some press reports are stressing the partisan divide on the issue of inversions. But history and recent statements from the Republicans quoted above show us that there is a lot of room for agreement.

Read Comments (3)

edmund dantesJul 28, 2014

If you want to stop inversions, it's very easy--lower the corporate federal tax
rate to 20%, and and join the rest of the world and stop taxing worldwide
income. No more inversions, no new earnings stripping. If you want successful
companies to self-deport so as to share more American wealth with the rest of
the world, keep on having pointless debates while leaving the law alone.

I don't deny the problem of earnings stripping, but I believe it is a secondary
motivator at most for inversions. If there is actual evidence to the contrary,
I'd love to see it. But I doubt that tightening the rules on earning stripping
can blunt the powerful appeal of being able to flexibly reinvest foreign
earnings without a US tax penalty.

Hagopian EsqJul 28, 2014

Interesting approach @Edmund Dantes, that would certainly change corporate
motivation

emsig beobachterJul 29, 2014

Of course, if we want to "go European," we should also adopt a heavy VAT,
single payer health care system, better public transportation, etc.

However, if we want to keep worldwide income taxation adopt formulary
apportionment, combined reporting, and end deferment. Ths implies that credits
will be provided for foreign income taxes paid. Adoption of this system does
not preclude true tax reform including: ending special credits and deductions,
more realistic depreciation schedules (OECD countries increased service lives
of many assets to achieve some rate reduction), and reduce marginal rates. This
won't solve all problems, but nit's better than what we've got. As long as a
company has a permanent establishment (of course we'll have to modify the
definition of permanent establishment)they can be subject to our combined
reporting with formulary apportionment.

P.S. If the Europeans are so enamored of territorial taxation, why the BEPS
project?

Submit comment

Tax Analysts reserves the right to approve or reject any comments received here. Only comments of a substantive nature will be posted online.

By submitting this form, you accept our privacy policy.

* REQUIRED FIELD

All views expressed on these blogs are those of their individual authors and do not necessarily represent the views of Tax Analysts. Further, Tax Analysts makes no representation concerning the views expressed and does not guarantee the source, originality, accuracy, completeness or reliability of any statement, fact, information, data, finding, interpretation, or opinion presented. Tax Analysts particularly makes no representation concerning anything found on external links connected to this site.