The US is targeting the biggest tax havens in the world. The FT reports that:
A pledge by Democrats in Congress to crack down on tax avoidance and to pay for spending measures as they are approved has put the practices of a range of international companies under the spotlight.
"These multinationals avoid US taxation on their actual earnings by siphoning off revenues by sending payments through US tax treaty countries with low withholding rates, before they are forwarded on to the parent corporations," a Democratic aide said.
This move targets 'treaty shopping' where profits, interest and royalties are all routed through countries that provide them with favourable treatment for tax and those self-same countries also have a strong network of tax treaties that allows the favourable treatment to flow through to the country of eventual ownership of the income streams in question.
Number 1 target has to be the Netherlands. It's a flagrant abuser of the tax law or other nations and the EU, as I and my co-authors showed last year in the report we wrote for SOMO entitled "The Netherlands: a Tax Haven?".
Others have noted today though that this will also hit the UK.
Quite right too. Tax law is there to be enforced. Corporations who abuse the rules shift the burden of tax onto others, and those others are either compliant companies or, more likely, ordinary people. This shifts the burden of tax down the income scale and as such this is regressive behaviour. Worse though, treaty shopping shows contempt for the rule of law and the role of democratic government. This undermines society as we know it.
That's disastrous. As such this move is good news. The UK should reciprocate. The role of places like the Netherlands, Switzerland, Belgium, Luxembourg and Ireland in this abusive game should be exposed, and ended.
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:
This look-through, anti-treaty-shopping proposal has been in the U.S. tax news since about 29 July. Following are the comments and links I’ve posted on my web site about it:
July 29: When Reuven Avi-Yonah and Kimberly Clausing unveiled their formulary apportionment corporate tax proposal (available at http://www1.hamiltonproject.org/views/papers/200706clausing_aviyonah.htm) at the Hamilton Project meeting in June, I thought their goal of removing the incentive to shift income to low-tax countries was laudable but unlikely to ever see legislative daylight. The passage of the amended Farm Bill this week by the U.S. House of Representatives changed all that.
Of course, the Farm Bill (H.R. 2419) (available at http://www.martintittle.com/publications/HR2419.pdf) does not embrace formulary apportionment. It does, however, include a revenue raiser (originally submitted as a separate bill, H.R. 3160, (available at http://www.martintittle.com/publications/HR3160.pdf) by Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas) that undermines the international income shifting of non-U.S. parent companies in a fairly aggressive way. If the U.S. subsidiary of a foreign company makes payments to a foreign subsidiary of the foreign company, and if those payments are subject to IRC Chapter 3 withholding, then the withholding rate will be either the rate in effect for payments to the country of the subsidiary or the home country of the parent, whichever is higher. This amounts to a kind of mandatory “check the box” provision, in which the separate corporate existence of the foreign subsidiary disappears for withholding tax purposes whenever the rate of withholding for the parent’s home country would yield higher withholding tax revenue.
The day after the Doggett amendment was announced, the U.S. administration (through the Office of Management and Budget) came out against it, (see http://www.martintittle.com/publications/hr2419sap-r.pdf) saying
1) that it would “discourage foreign investment in the United States, override tax treaties the U.S. has with many nations, and raise questions under other international agreements” and
2) that if it (and other objectionable provisions) were included in the final legislation, “the President’s senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.”
Business spokespeople also chimed in, noting that the amendment would be particularly hard on parent companies in countries like Brazil and the Republic of China/Taiwan that have no tax treaty with the U.S.
The Senate is scheduled to begin deliberations on the Farm Bill after Labor Day.
Aug. 1: Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa and ranking member of the U.S. Senate Finance Committee (SFC), came out against the Doggett amendment today in an interview with BNA.
Aug. 2: Yesterday, SFC Chair Max Baucus, D-Montana, confirmed that the Doggett amendment will not be in the Senate version of the Farm Bill. Whether House members will be able to slip some version of it back in during conference negotiations remains to be seen.
Aug. 7 and 15: Sen. Grassley came out against the Doggett amendment again on these two days in telephone press conferences.