FT.com / UK - US budget proposal to attack overseas tax breaks.
The FT noted yesterday (and I was too busy to note it):
The Obama administration yesterday unveiled plans for a fresh assault on international tax avoidance that officials say will help reduce the deficit from a record $1,556bn this year.
Under the plan, US-based multinationals that transfer brands and patents to foreign affiliates that pay little tax overseas would pay a surcharge on the excess returns on those assets.
The message is clear: Obama is going for tax compliance. Tax compliance is seeking to pay the right amount of tax (but no more) in the right place at the right time where right means that the economic substance of the transactions undertaken coincides with the place and form in which they are reported for taxation purposes.
In the process Obama is saying that he is not recognising the property rights established by some states, and rightly so I am afraid. When many secrecy jurisdictions have been, for all practical purposes, been captured by the financial services sector as agents for their services then Obama is right to say he's going to tax the substance of the transactions and ignore the form in which they are structured.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Richard – this springs of massive double standards by the US. If you ask any US tax lawyer or accountant why US MNCs actively reorganise their non-US subsidiaries on a regular basis they will state that this to to reduce non-US taxes. Part of the US tax regulations state that reducing or saving overseas taxes (even if this involves aggressive tax planning – my brackets) is a valid business reason and will be supported by the IRS.
The US and the IRS only care about the US tax base and do not give a second thought to overseas taxes.
The USA runs some the biggest and most successful secrecy jurisdictions going yet they won’t deal with it? Even US corporations use these jurisdictions to hide profits etc. When you can set up a company without any due diligence, push whatever money you want through it and then close it down a year later without any questions asked etc etc…doesn’t that strike you as wrong? Have a read of this article which was published yesterday, it makes interesting reading http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1956102-1,00.html