Tax Analysts Blog

How Should the U.S. Stop Profit Shifting?

Posted on Apr 8, 2013

Suppose the state police want to crack down on speeding, which the public is complaining has become rampant. But the police have a problem with enforcement. Some savvy entrepreneur has developed an anti-radar gun that blocks the ability of radar guns to measure speed. And separately, a court has ruled that their radar guns are inaccurate and cannot be presented as evidence in traffic court.

To address the public’s concerns the state legislature passes a law that applies penalties to drivers in situations where speeding is likely. One of the rules is that a vehicle on the road cannot have “excessive horsepower.” Now this is rough justice because there are many vehicles with excessive horsepower that do not speed and there are many vehicles without excessive horsepower that do. But because radar guns are not working well, the legislature thinks this rule will help their cause without too much hardship on the rights of drivers.

The legislature basically defines excessive horsepower as a lot more horsepower than a driver needs given the functions carried out by the vehicle (e.g., towing a trailer) and the weight it must carry (e.g., a large family). This would be what lawyers call a “facts and circumstances” determination that would vary from case to case. It would be very hard to administer and clever drivers would figure out ways around the rules (e.g., by mounting a trailer hitch to the back of the vehicle to ‘prove’ the vehicle is used for towing).

I would say that lawmakers have not addressed the issue effectively because they are replacing one poor enforcement device (radar guns) with a poor enforcement standard that is difficult to enforce (the “excessive horsepower” standard).

In the current debate about international tax reform a somewhat analogous situation has developed. There are several proposals now being floated (including one in the President’s budget (Treasury "General Explanation" of FY 2013 Budget, p. 88) and Options A and C of Ways and Means Committee Chair Dave Camp’s Discussion Draft("Section-by-Section" summary pp. 32-35)) that try to backstop our inadequate transfer pricing rules by subjecting foreign income to U.S. tax if that income is from an intangible asset (e.g., patents, trademarks, trade names). It well known in the international tax community that income from these assets is often inappropriately shifted into tax havens.

To relate this to our little story, our ineffective transfer pricing rules are like the poorly functioning radar guns and the targeting of intangible income is like the targeting of vehicles with “excessive horsepower.” The new standard is difficult to enforce and susceptible to abuse. We are trading one method of enforcement that works poorly in practice for another.

If the police need more rules to help them fight speeding, it is better to develop rules that are easy to enforce and easy for citizens to understand. For example, prohibit driving by youths unaccompanied by adults under the age of 21 after 10 pm. In the international arena, I would suggest Congress develop formulaic rules to target situations where transfer price abuse is likely. Two indicators that also have been suggested by the President and Chairman Camp are low levels of foreign tax and high rates of return. Any backstop to our current transfer pricing rules should target income that is subject to low tax and is generating high returns. Mechanical rules can be developed for each of these standards. This would result in far less uncertainty and far fewer administrative difficulties than a facts and circumstances determination.

Read Comments (2)

Former territory managerApr 7, 2013

This is the same argument used that created the sec. 482 regs. They are sure
effective, so that we are in this situation.

Thomas BeckettApr 10, 2013

Why not abolish deferral and tax all corporate income (both foreign and
domestic) on a current-year "accrual" basis at a uniform low rate? That would
seem to eliminate the undesirable incentives to shift profits (and investment)
abroad while at the same time making the US tax environment internationally
competitive -- by virtue of the low rate. We'd be better off with an accrual
system that taxed all corporate profits at say 15%-18% rather than tolerate our
deferral system with its absurdly high statutory rate and its absurdly
dysfunctional transfer pricing regime.

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.


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.