Tuck Reunion 2014 - International Tax Reform in the U.S.: Why Are We Stuck in Neutral?
1. Leslie Robinson
Associate Professor
Tuck Reunion 2014
INTERNATIONAL TAX REFORM IN THE U.S.:
WHY ARE WE STUCK IN NEUTRAL?
2.
3. AGENDA
What is a corporate inversion?
A process by which an existing corporation changes its
country of residenc
Why are inversions happening?
Symptom of an ‘uncompetitive’ tax system
What can / should the U.S. do about them?
General reform of the U.S. corporate tax code
Specific provisions to deal with tax-motivated inversions
Aside: Is tax avoidance immoral or unpatriotic?
4. CORPORATE INVERSIONS: 1983 - 2014
A Spike in Corporate Inversions
2014 2004
In last decade, 47 corporations have moved their address overseas to pay less U.S. taxes
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
AOE
Corporat ion
Alkermes
DutchCo
St ratasys
TE Connect ivity
Mallinckrodt
Pharmaceut icals
TIMELINE
1 9 8 3
• Helen of Troy
•McDermott International
Source :
Congressional Research Service
* Represents companies that inverted between 2009 and 2014.
&
• Santa Fe Int ’l
•Everest Reinsurance
•Appl i ed Power
•Whit e Mountain Ins.
•Tra nso ce an
•PXRE Group
• Trenwick
• Xoma
1999
•R&B Falcon
•Hungar ia n Telephone & Cabl e Corp.
• Arcad e Acqu i sit ion Grp
• Ene rgy I nfr astructure
•Ascend Acqu i sit ion
•Acqui sit i on Grp.
• Foste r Whe el er
•Patch I nt’l In c
•Tyco El ectr i c
•Star Maritime Acquisition Group
•N ob l e Corp .
• Co op er In dust ries
• We ather f or d In t ’l
• Ing ersoll-Ran d
• PWC Co nsult i ng Ltd .
2001
•Global Santa Fe Corp.
•Fost er Wheeler,
•Accenture
•Global Marine
2012
1 9 9 4 1 9 9 6 1 9 9 7 1998 2000
2005 2009 2013 2010 2008
2002
•Fluid Media Net work
•Western Goldfields
•Lincoln Gol d
2007
• 2020 ChinaCap Acquisit ion
•InterAmerica Acquisit ion
•Ideation Acquisi t ion Grp.
•Vant age Energy Services
• Alyst Acquisit ion Grp.
• Alpha Secu rity
• ENSCO I nt ’ l
2011
•Al ker m es, Inc
•Pl astin um Pol ymer Te ch Corp.
•Valient/ Biovail
• Pentair
• Rowan Compa nies
• AON
• Tro nox I nc
• Argona ut
• Jazz Pharmaceu t ical s /
Azu r Phar m a
• D.E. Maste r Bl ender s
•Eaton/Coop er
•Cade nce Pha rmaceu ticals
• Act avis / Warner • Chi l cott
•End o Hea lt h Solu t i ons
•Liber ty Globa l PLC
• Gold Reser ve
•Playstar
29
In the last
decade
Legislation to tighten rules to
limit inversions would save
taxpayers nearly $20 billion
over ten years .
47
In 20 years
7. DEFINITION OF AN INVERSION
A corporate inversion is a process by which
an existing corporation changes its country of
residence by becoming a subsidiary of a
parent corporation in another country,
and if tax motivated….
With the objective of facing a lower tax rate
in its new country of residence and paying no
tax on its foreign-source income.
8. BEFORE INVERSION
U.S.
Company
Non-U.S.
Company
1
Non-U.S.
Company
2
Non-U.S.
Company
3
Paren
t
Subsidiary
9. U.S.
Company
Non-U.S.
Company
1
Non-U.S.
Company
2
Non-U.S.
Company
3
AFTER INVERSION
Paren
t
Subsidiary
10. ANATOMY OF INVERSIONS
PARENT COUNTRY (AFTER INVERSION) IN RED
Naked inversion versus merger/acquisition
E.g. Coopers Industries (U.S.) to Bermuda (naked)
E.g., Argonaut (U.S.) acquire PXRE (Bermuda)
New parent as acquirer or target
E.g., Ensco (UK) acquire Pride (U.S.)
E.g., Eaton (U.S.) acquire Cooper (Ireland)
11. TAXONOMY OF CROSS-BORDER M&A
All cross-border mergers and acquisitions
(M&A)
Headquarter relocations
Inversions
Tax-motivated inversions
One estimate puts tax motivated inversions at
<1% of deal value for all cross-border M&A
13. SOME DATA
JOHANNES VOGET. RELOCATION OF HEADQUARTERS AND INTERNATIONAL TAXATION. JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ECONOMICS (2011).
About 6% of multinationals relocated their
headquarters to another country
Sample period: 1997–2007
33 countries represented
Using Zephyr database by BvD
14. HEADQUARTER RELOCATIONS
Table 1
Multinationals and headquarter relocations
Country Firms Headquarter Multinationals Headquarter Percent
firms relocations
Australia 2374 1251 76 5 6.6%
Austria 3305 593 52 2 3.8%
Belgium 30433 4483 294 20 6.8%
Canada 1630 866 100 7 7.0%
Denmark 22729 6309 213 16 7.5%
Finland 8283 933 99 9 9.1%
France 90783 11427 367 23 6.3%
Germany 25396 4773 322 30 9.3%
Ireland 16505 3577 84 9 10.7%
Italy 121006 9390 300 12 4.0%
Japan 95379 3073 446 2 0.4%
Luxembourg 1271 171 21 2 9.5%
Netherlands 52007 1299 290 28 9.7%
Norway 18778 5193 94 15 16.0%
Spain 92611 17729 197 8 4.1%
Sweden 21975 4834 413 19 4.6%
Switzerland 1607 449 117 7 6.0%
United Kingdom 139132 31974 508 37 7.3%
United States 21023 5506 1158 27 2.3%
Total 766227 113830 5151 278 5.4%
Johannes Voget. Relocation of headquarters and international taxation. Journal of Public Economics (2011).
16. FINDINGS
JOHANNES VOGET. RELOCATION OF HEADQUARTERS AND INTERNATIONAL TAXATION. JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ECONOMICS (2011).
The additional tax due in the home country upon
repatriation of foreign profits has a positive
effect on the numbers of relocations.
Headquarters in territorial countries more likely
The presence of controlled foreign corporation
legislation has a positive effect on the number of
relocations.
Headquarters in countries with no CFC rules more
likely
17. TAX SYSTEMS
Country
Method of
double
tax relief
Statutory
tax rate
CFC
Legislation?
Strength of
CFC
Legislation
Australia Territorial 30.0 Y 3
Austria Territorial 25.0 N -
Belgium Territorial 34.0 N -
Canada Territorial 26.3 Y 4
Denmark Territorial 24.5 Y 4
Finland Territorial 20.0 Y 4
France Territorial 34.4 Y 4
Germany Territorial 30.2 Y 4
Ireland Worldwide 12.5 N -
Italy Territorial 27.5 Y 3
Japan Territorial 37.0 Y 5
Luxembourg Territorial 29.2 N -
Netherlands Territorial 25.0 N -
Norway Territorial 27.0 Y 5
Spain Territorial 30.0 Y 4
Sweden Territorial 22.0 Y 5
Switzerland Territorial 21.1 N -
UK Territorial 21.0 Y 7
U.S. Worldwide 39.1 Y 3
Leslie Robinson and Kevin Markle. Tax haven use across international tax regimes. Working
paper.
19. U.S. TAX SYSTEM
“With the developed world's highest
corporate tax rate at over 39% including
state levies, plus a rare demand that
money earned overseas should be taxed
as if it were earned domestically, the U.S.
is almost in a class by itself.” (Wall Street
Journal, Sept. 15, 2014)
20. 2014 TAX COMPETITIVENESS INDEX
The United States
ranked last
with respect to the
international provisions
of its tax code.
21. COSTS & BENEFITS OF AN INVERSION
FIRM PERSPECTIVE
Costs
Shareholder-level tax liability
Potential change to real operations
Business synergies (if through merger)
Change in governance structure
Change in regulatory environment
Benefits
Reduction in income tax on future income
Improved access to internal capital
Business synergies (if through merger)
Change in governance structure
Change in regulatory environment
22. BEFORE INVERSION: TAX COSTS
U.S.
Company
t=35%
Non-U.S.
Company
1
(t=20%)
Non-U.S.
Company
2
(t=20%)
Non-U.S.
Company
3
(t=20%)
t=corporate tax rate
• When foreign
earnings are paid
to the parent in
the form of a
dividend from 1, 2
or 3, the income is
taxed at 15%
(35%-20%).
• Otherwise,
earnings are
‘trapped’,
generating
implicit costs.
• Loans from 1, 2,
and 3 to the U.S.
will be treated as
a distribution.
23. AFTER INVERSION: TAX BENEFITS
U.S.
Company
(t=35%)
Non-U.S.
Company
1
(t=20%)
Non-U.S.
Company
2
(t=20%)
Non-U.S.
Company
3
(t=20%)
t=corporate tax rate
• Previously
‘trapped’,
earnings in 1 and
3 may be loaned
to 2 for
shareholder
distributions or
investment in the
U.S. company.
• Company 2 can
loan to the U.S.,
generating
significant interest
deductions to
lower U.S. tax
liability.
24. COSTS (& BENEFITS?) OF AN INVERSION
GOVERNMENT PERSPECTIVE
Costs
Erosion of the U.S. tax base
Cost advantage for foreign-controlled firms
Reduction in perceived fairness of tax system
Shift in real operations to another country
Change in governance structure
National pride from headquarter location
Benefits
None that come to mind…
26. INVERSION LEGISLATION
What constitutes a ‘true’ expatriation? What is a ‘real’ foreign firm?
American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 targeted inversions
The owners of the new company are substantially different from the
owners of the original company (based on value)
> 80 percent continuing ownership: inversion benefits disallowed
> 60 percent continuing ownership: inversion benefits restricted
Exception to the above : The firm has substantial business operations in
the country where the new headquarters is to be located
2004: Substantial = Facts and circumstances
2006: Substantial = 10 percent
2010: Substantial = Facts and circumstances
2012: Substantial = 25 percent
27. CORPORATE INVERSIONS: 1983 - 2014
A Spike in Corporate Inversions
2014 2004
In last decade, 47 corporations have moved their address overseas to pay less U.S. taxes
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
AOE
Corporat ion
Alkermes
DutchCo
St ratasys
TE Connect ivity
Mallinckrodt
Pharmaceut icals
TIMELINE
1 9 8 3
• Helen of Troy
•McDermott International
Source :
Congressional Research Service
* Represents companies that inverted between 2009 and 2014.
&
• Santa Fe Int ’l
•Everest Reinsurance
•Appl i ed Power
•Whit e Mountain Ins.
•Tra nso ce an
•PXRE Group
• Trenwick
• Xoma
1999
•R&B Falcon
•Hungar ia n Telephone & Cabl e Corp.
• Arcad e Acqu i sit ion Grp
• Ene rgy I nfr astructure
•Ascend Acqu i sit ion
•Acqui sit i on Grp.
• Foste r Whe el er
•Patch I nt’l In c
•Tyco El ectr i c
•Star Maritime Acquisition Group
•N ob l e Corp .
• Co op er In dust ries
• We ather f or d In t ’l
• Ing ersoll-Ran d
• PWC Co nsult i ng Ltd .
2001
•Global Santa Fe Corp.
•Fost er Wheeler,
•Accenture
•Global Marine
2012
1 9 9 4 1 9 9 6 1 9 9 7 1998 2000
2005 2009 2013 2010 2008
2002
•Fluid Media Net work
•Western Goldfields
•Lincoln Gol d
2007
• 2020 ChinaCap Acquisit ion
•InterAmerica Acquisit ion
•Ideation Acquisi t ion Grp.
•Vant age Energy Services
• Alyst Acquisit ion Grp.
• Alpha Secu rity
• ENSCO I nt ’ l
2011
•Al ker m es, Inc
•Pl astin um Pol ymer Te ch Corp.
•Valient/ Biovail
• Pentair
• Rowan Compa nies
• AON
• Tro nox I nc
• Argona ut
• Jazz Pharmaceu t ical s /
Azu r Phar m a
• D.E. Maste r Bl ender s
•Eaton/Coop er
•Cade nce Pha rmaceu ticals
• Act avis / Warner • Chi l cott
•End o Hea lt h Solu t i ons
•Liber ty Globa l PLC
• Gold Reser ve
•Playstar
29
In the last
decade
Legislation to tighten rules to
limit inversions would save
taxpayers nearly $20 billion
over ten years .
47
In 20 years
30. MY TESTIMONY IN A NUTSHELL
There is no evidence that U.S. firms bear higher
explicit tax costs on foreign income than their
competitors
There is evidence that U.S. firms bear implicit tax
costs from deferral, but no comparison has been
made to their competitors
The issue is not territorial versus worldwide
Ending deferral and lowering the tax rate could be
‘better’ than adopting a territorial system
Stop gap measures to curb inversions will merely
change the form of inversions and may result in
unintended consequences for the U.S. economy
35. INVERSION REGULATIONS
Treasury Notice 2014-52 (issued 09/22/2014)
Limits the ability to access the accumulated deferred
earnings of foreign subsidiaries of U.S. firms
Restricts certain techniques used in inversion
transactions that allowed firms to qualify with less than
80% ownership
Changes in regulation are a stop gap
measure
Targeted legislation is needed to reduce
incentives and ability of firms to invert
Estimated to take 2-3 years
36. LIMIT TAX BENEFITS POST-INVERSION
U.S.
Company
(t=35%)
Non-U.S.
Company
1
(t=20%)
Non-U.S.
Company
2
(t=20%)
Non-U.S.
Company
3
(t=20%)
t=corporate tax rate
• Prevent
previously
‘trapped’,
earnings in 1 and
3 from being
loaned to 2 for
shareholder
distributions or
investment in the
U.S. Company.
• Limit situations
where the
shareholders of 2
are deemed to be
substantially
different than the
original
shareholders of
the U.S.
37. KLAUSENPASS, SWISS ALPS (07/24/2014)
(THAT’S ME ON SWITCHBACK # 426…)
One of life’s many ironies: I spent a lot of money putting myself off the grid
during the one week out of my life when my income potential was the
greatest.
BUT…we had so much fun…
39. Ethics in Action,
Professor Rick Shreve & Professor Leslie Robinson (Guest)
TAX AND REPUTATION
40. THE RISE OF TAX SHAMING
Starbucks protester, December 2012.
The tide of public opinion is visibly turning. Why?
41. ATTACK ON STARBUCKS IN THE UK
Foreign companies like Starbucks which
have avoided paying large corporation tax
bills in the UK “lack moral scruples", says
British Prime Minister David Cameron.
“We are not accusing you of being illegal,”
Public Accounts Committee chairman
Margaret Hodge said, “we are accusing you
of being immoral.”
42. TWO KEY DRIVING FORCES
Journalists are doing their own investigations and printing
‘sensational’ stories about how firms avoid taxes
E.g., In April 2012, the “But Nobody Pays That” NYT series
was awarded a Pulitzer Prize for explanatory journalism. The
Pulitzer jury said Mr. Kocieniewski’s work “penetrated a legal
thicket to explain how the nation’s wealthiest citizens and
corporations often exploited loopholes and avoided taxes.”
We are in an age of deep public spending cuts and real
austerity
E.g., Stephen Timms, financial secretary to the Treasury, says
that failing to pay the correct tax will "rob our public services of
valuable resources" at a time when the public purse is under
intense pressure because of the bank bailouts.
43.
44. TAX AVOIDANCE IN THE UK
HMRC estimates that corporate tax
avoidance is costing the UK economy
something between 45 to 90 billion pounds a
year.
Tax avoidance undoes austerity measures
(i.e., policies used by governments to reduce
budget deficits during adverse economic
conditions) and widens the gap between the
rich and the poor in British society.
45. DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
1. What is the situation facing Starbucks in the UK?
2. Do you agree with Starbucks' decision to make
'voluntary' tax payments? Why or why not?
3. What does it mean for Starbucks to pay its 'fair
share' of UK corporate tax?
4. Do you think legal tax avoidance should ever be
perceived as immoral? Why or why not?
5. There is a growing culture of tax shaming
companies by both the media and politicians. The
idea that Starbucks would voluntarily pay more tax
than it legally owes demonstrates the effectiveness
of tax shaming. However, is tax shaming justifiable?
Why or why not?
46. CASE QUESTIONS (P. 4)
1. Looking at the common-size income statement data in
Appendix A, what might have prompted Starbucks to re-locate
its ‘roasting technology’ to the Netherlands and put the royalty
arrangement in place in 2002? Is this type of ‘tax planning’
different than other kinds of strategic planning? Why or why
not?
2. Are statements by Starbucks to its investors that the UK
market is “successful” inconsistent with Starbucks UK realizing
an operating loss in 14 out of 15 years? Why or why not?
3. What is the viewpoint of Starbucks? Of Starbucks’ customers?
Of UK politicians? Of Economists? Which viewpoint is most
consistent with yours? Why?
4. Does Starbucks’ community outreach influence the way you
think about the morality of their tax planning arrangements?
Why or why not?
47. INTERNATIONAL TAX PLANNING
‘Stateless income tax planning’
A phrase coined by legal tax scholars
Traditional factors of production – land, labor, and
capital – were the primary factors when many
income tax systems were developed
Today, even a simple business model can be turned
into intangibles assets for which ‘fees’ must be paid
within a multinational group
Intangible “ownership” is divorced from the actual business
or customers that the intangibles serve
Generally entails deductions in high tax countries; income
in low tax countries
48. INTERCOMPANY ARRANGEMENTS
Funds British operations with debt
Starbucks Coffee Company (UK) Ltd.
British licensed stores
Starbucks Corporation
Global headquarters
Intercompany interest paid
by Starbucks UK to the
US (and other group
companies) reduces UK
profit and in some cases is
taxed at low rates in
jurisdictions where interest
income is reported
Starbucks Manufacturing EMEA BV
Roasting facility
Licensing agreement
Intellectual property
Intercompany
royalty paid by
Starbucks UK
reduces UK profit
and is taxed at low
rates in jurisdiction
where royalty
income is reported
Use of the Starbucks
brand, roasting
technology etc.
Case: Figure 1 (pg. 5)
52. NON-TAX CONTRIBUTIONS TO UK
• Investment in people and stores (Case: Appendix A pg.
6)
Other Data: 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Number of Employees 580 971 1746 3002 3946 4861 5299 6092 6645 7771 9225 9623 8647 8763 8739
Number of Owned Stores 66 95 161 252 322 373 420 467 514 580 664 666 601 607 593
• Investment in community (Case: pg. 3)
E.g., Tenth place in the Financial Times 50 Best Workplaces in the UK and
one of the 100 Best Workplaces in Europe; Partners with Prince’s Trust to
give disadvantaged young people skills and work experience to get a job or
secure training in the UK.
53. DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
1. What is the situation facing Starbucks in the UK?
2. Do you agree with Starbucks' decision to make
'voluntary' tax payments? Why or why not?
3. What does it mean for Starbucks to pay its 'fair
share' of UK corporate tax?
4. Do you think legal tax avoidance should ever be
perceived as immoral? Why or why not?
5. There is a growing culture of tax shaming
companies by both the media and politicians. The
idea that Starbucks would voluntarily pay more tax
than it legally owes demonstrates the effectiveness
of tax shaming. However, is tax shaming justifiable?
Why or why not?
54. THE ACADEMIC LITERATURE AND THE “UNDER-SHELTERING
PUZZLE”
Survey evidence
69 percent of executives surveyed cite “potential
harm to firm reputation” as a reason for not
adopting a tax planning strategy
Empirical evidence
Investors respond negatively to news a firm is
accused of engaging in a tax shelter; the
reaction is greater for retail firms (but, reverses
quickly)
55. SOCIAL MEDIA
Source: www.YouGov.com
• On June 23, 2013, Starbucks announced that it made its first £5 million
payment to HMRC, confirming that it was following through with the plan laid
out last December.
• According to YouGov’s social media analysis nearly a third heard about the
brand that day, up from 16 per cent the day before. Leaving no ambiguity as
to what was driving the increased activity, top words mentioned alongside
Starbucks were “tax”, “corporation”, “UK”, “pays” and “first”.
56. BRAND DATA
Source: www.YouGov.com
• Buzz score measures the net balance of positive and negative things people
have heard about a brand.
• Before Reuters story: +2.7; after PAC investigation: -44.4; after first payment: -
10.0.
57. CONSUMER LOYALTY
YouGov asked: If there were a Costa Coffee, a Starbucks and a Cafe Nero
next door to each other, which one would be your first choice to visit?
Now Before the tax row
Costa 39.4% 31.8%
Starbucks 15.4% 22.7%
Caffe Nero 12.1% 12.3%
Source: www.YouGov.com
• Costa said (same-store) sales rose 7.1 per cent in the 3 months to November
29, 2012 (versus 6.8% in the previous 3months). Andy Harrison, CEO said of
the backlash: “It’s clearly not bad for our business.” Still, the cause and effect
is not clear.
• Hodge encouraged taxpayers to boycott the U.S. chain. "I'm not going to buy
Starbucks tomorrow, I think everybody should go and buy Costa," she told
BBC2's Newsnight in October 2012.
58. COSTA VERSUS STARBUCKS
Source: www.YouGov.com
• Index score takes into account how customers rate the brand in terms of
impression, quality, value, reputation, satisfaction and whether they would
recommend it.
59. RECENT ACADEMIC STUDIES
Branding experts note:
On the one hand - Customers have very long memories and their
emotional tie to a brand is a very important part of the loyalty. If a
company with a strong brand damages that, it also damages its
financial value.
One the other hand - It is hard to measure the direct impact of tax
shaming on sales and profit. Reputational damage is difficult to
ascertain and can quickly dissipate. Though one impact of tax
shaming is that individuals can boycott brands, the number of
people who take direct action is relatively low.
No empirical evidence that firms or executives bear
reputational costs from engaging in tax avoidance
Examine CEO/CFO turnover, auditor turnover, lost sales,
increased advertising costs, decreased media reputation
Also, no change in tax avoidance behavior post public scrutiny
60. DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
1. What is the situation facing Starbucks in the UK?
2. Do you agree with Starbucks' decision to make
'voluntary' tax payments? Why or why not?
3. What does it mean for Starbucks to pay its 'fair
share' of UK corporate tax?
4. Do you think legal tax avoidance should ever be
perceived as immoral? Why or why not?
5. There is a growing culture of tax shaming
companies by both the media and politicians. The
idea that Starbucks would voluntarily pay more tax
than it legally owes demonstrates the effectiveness
of tax shaming. However, is tax shaming justifiable?
Why or why not?
61. SOME THOUGHTS
Who bears the burden of taxation?
E.g., Starbucks announced price increases as of
June 25, 2013 on many of its coffee drinks
What about taxes other than income taxes?
E.g., Total tax contribution framework of PwC and
World Bank
The notion of ‘fair share’ is loosely based on
revenues or market share, but corporate tax is
based on profits.
Do governments need to fundamentally rethink their
tax systems?
62. DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
1. What is the situation facing Starbucks in the UK?
2. Do you agree with Starbucks' decision to make
'voluntary' tax payments? Why or why not?
3. What does it mean for Starbucks to pay its 'fair
share' of UK corporate tax?
4. Do you think legal tax avoidance should ever be
perceived as immoral? Why or why not?
5. There is a growing culture of tax shaming
companies by both the media and politicians. The
idea that Starbucks would voluntarily pay more tax
than it legally owes demonstrates the effectiveness
of tax shaming. However, is tax shaming justifiable?
Why or why not?
63. SOME THOUGHTS
Spirit of the law versus the letter of the law
Can the spirit of the law be enforced?
Some countries instituting general anti-avoidance
rules (GAARs)
Does the transaction have a valid business
purpose?
Would more transparency solve things?
Currently, no tax authority sees the full picture
of a multinational firm’s group structure. Should
they?
64. DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
1. What is the situation facing Starbucks in the UK?
2. Do you agree with Starbucks' decision to make
'voluntary' tax payments? Why or why not?
3. What does it mean for Starbucks to pay its 'fair
share' of UK corporate tax?
4. Do you think legal tax avoidance should ever be
perceived as immoral? Why or why not?
5. There is a growing culture of tax shaming
companies by both the media and politicians. The
idea that Starbucks would voluntarily pay more tax
than it legally owes demonstrates the effectiveness
of tax shaming. However, is tax shaming justifiable?
Why or why not?
65. SOME THOUGHTS
Tax naming and shaming is increasing
E.g., Amazon, Google, GE, Apple, Microsoft,
HP
When do we breach taxpayer confidentiality?
Could it be considered immoral for a
politician to single out a particular company
to ‘assure’ the public that the government is
proactively combatting tax avoidance?
Journalists are calling me to ask me for sources of information and to check their work or even ask for my opinion. Iceland and Century Aluminum.
Tax competition.
The last thing I did was save my bank $1m by entering into a real estate swap with a company that we intended to enter into a merger with – early enough that we were not legally considered related parties, but late enough that the ‘related party rule’ was operating in spirit. Accelerate losses on future sales of real estate and defer gains.
Sometimes income can be put in high tax countries such as U.S. to use excess foreign tax credits.
Cost of sales includes 20 percent markup on coffee purchased from Swiss subsidiary. The income earned by the Swiss subsidiary would normally be taxed in the U.S. at a 35 percent rate as earned, however, there is an exception for dealing in agricultural commodities (which Starbucks qualifies for). The Swiss subsidiary never actually takes possession of any of the coffee beans, but it does perform the required business functions of ‘preparation of contracts and invoices, arranging freight, insurance and credit, arranging shipping documents, storage and warehousing, and dealing with quality claims.’
Coffee roasting is performed in the Netherlands.
When viewed from the perspective of the group as a whole, Starbucks believes its UK operation to be profitable. UK GAAP ignore intercompany payments in consolidation, while tax rules in each individual country include intercompany payments.
A lot of accusations that UK is mis-managed if it can’t generate a profit.
39 percent of total tax revenue comes from income tax in the UK (9 percent from corporations). The rest comes from property, sales, social security, payroll, etc.
Second most prevalent answer
YouGov is the authoritative measure of public opinion and consumer behaviour in the United Kingdom.
