PDA

View Full Version : Obama Taking On Corporate Tax Cheats



LoungeMachine
05-04-2009, 06:08 PM
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama's move to curb overseas tax havens and job out-sourcing was his first major proposal in what promises to be a broad overhaul of the U.S. tax system.

* Obama chose a relatively populist initial step.

Americans have little sympathy for companies that park their money in places like the Cayman Islands in order to avoid paying U.S. taxes.

And they are even more fed up with companies who have benefited from tax incentives for shipping jobs overseas, blaming these policies for a broad erosion of the U.S. labour market.

* Not everyone agrees with his salvo at tax havens.

Daniel Griswold, an expert at the Cato Institute think tank, said locating affiliates in foreign markets is now the chief way that U.S. companies reach new customers outside the United States.

"This demagogic grab for more revenue will only cripple the ability of U.S. companies to expand their sales in global markets, putting in jeopardy the U.S.-based jobs that support their foreign affiliates," he wrote in a blog.

* Demands for more revenues to close a widening budget deficit and pay for government programs are driving what could turn out to be the biggest overhaul in the U.S. tax code since 1986. Continued...

SNAP ANALYSIS - Obama takes first step in tax overhaul | World | Reuters (http://uk.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUKTRE5435LM20090504)













Meltdown 101: How do foreign tax havens work?
By MATTHEW PERRONE – 50 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama's proposals to crack down on foreign tax shelters target obscure, complex financial practices that help some of the nation's biggest corporations hold on to billions of dollars.

How do these tax loopholes work, and what would today's proposals mean for companies?

Here are some questions and answers about tax shelters.

Q: What are foreign tax shelters?

A: Tax shelters are countries with corporate tax rates much lower than those of the U.S., which make them popular for U.S. businesses looking to lower their tax bills.

Whereas the U.S. corporate tax rate is 35 percent, Iceland's is 15 percent and Switzerland's is just 8.5 percent. Many countries in the Caribbean don't tax corporations at all. Companies shift profits to subsidiaries in such low-tax countries to avoid paying the Internal Revenue Service.

Q: How do companies use tax shelters to save money?

A: One of the most popular tactics involves setting up multiple overseas subsidiaries to move profits from high-tax countries to low-tax countries. Under so-called "check the box" rules, companies can register their subsidiaries as separate units that aren't subject to U.S. tax rules.

In one scenario, a U.S. company could use operations in the Virgin Islands to avoid paying taxes on investments in Sweden. The company does this by setting up three new corporations: a subsidiary in Sweden, a holding company in the Virgin Islands as well as another subsidiary owned by the holding company.

The Virgin Islands subsidiary makes a loan to the Sweden subsidiary for a new facility there. The interest on the loan would be income for the subsidiary in the Virgin Islands and a tax deduction for the Swedish subsidiary.

Many companies use such set ups to funnel income from high-tax Europe to no-tax Caribbean. While the company would pay taxes on the transaction if it occurred in the U.S., "check the box" rules allow the company to avoid paying taxes in both Sweden and the U.S.

Q: What happens to money stored in tax havens?

A: In most cases it stays there. Companies can avoid paying taxes on overseas profits indefinitely, as long as they don't bring it back to the U.S.

"They never bring the profits back, or if they do, they only bring a very small amount back," said Amy Mathias, an analyst with the investment adviser, Washington Research Group. Most companies use the money to build new facilities, hire more workers and expand business overseas.

Q: How widespread is the use of tax shelters?

A: A January report by congressional investigators found that 83 of the 100 largest publicly traded companies in the U.S. operate subsidiaries in tax havens, like the British Virgin Islands and Bermuda, where there is no corporate tax.

Use of subsidiaries varies greatly among big corporations. Banking giant Citigroup has more than 4,000 subsidiaries, according to the Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan investigative arm of Congress. Procter & Gamble, which sells Tide laundry soap, Cover Girl makeup and hundreds of other consumer products, has about 80.

Q: How do these practices affect the federal government?

A: Members of Congress estimate that the federal government loses $100 billion in tax revenues each year due to offshore tax abuse. Obama said Monday that his proposed changes in the tax code would generate an average of about $21 billion a year in new tax revenues.

Q: How would the Obama proposal change the way companies operate overseas?

A: The proposal outlined today would not force companies to return profits from overseas to the U.S., a worst case scenario for many company executives. Instead Obama would stop companies from deducting expenses in the U.S. that help support their operations overseas. This would have the effect of increasing their tax burden, since companies are generally able to deduct the vast majority of their expenses.

Q: If the practices being targeted today are so detrimental, why did Congress permit them in the first place?

A: Tax experts say the "check the box" rules were originally designed to prevent companies from paying excessive taxes on their various subsidiaries. The rules also cut down on the paperwork needed to file taxes.

"It's perfectly legal and it's a wonderful financial planning tool," said Alan Appel, a counsel in the law firm Bryan Cave LLP. "But it was never envisioned that these practices would occur in the international area."

Q: What do company executives think of the proposal?

A: As expected, representatives for some of the largest multinational corporations came out against today's proposal, saying it would force companies to eliminate jobs in the U.S. that support their operations abroad.

"Imposing up to $200 billion on manufacturers doing business overseas is going to have a negative impact on the industry," said Dorothy Coleman, a vice president with the National Association of Manufacturers. "About 95 percent of the world's consumers are in foreign markets and if we want to continue to grow foreign business, we have to be able to compete."

Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.


The Associated Press: Meltdown 101: How do foreign tax havens work? (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ibSMh-jZ80xqPzHTBljs7SSqNe4wD97VLL8O0)

chefcraig
05-04-2009, 07:07 PM
This is kind of tricky. On one hand, under a capitalist system, you can understand companies wishing to take advantage of offshore practices that allow them to skirt U.S. tax law. On the other hand, our own country sure could use that revenue, particularly with the current economy.

As a result, rather than punishing companies by introducing a tariff structure, it would make one hell of a lot more sense to create avenues in which these companies are actually given incentive to do their "banking" on the continent. What would it hurt? Rather than forcing companies to give a percentage of what amounts to next to nothing (as the majority of the banking and it's monies remain overseas), why not encourage them to do most of their banking in the U.S., without a form of punishment via restrictions or exaggerated tax amounts?

Essentially, the government would take a smaller cut of a larger percentage. It sure as shit beats getting a larger cut of very little, which any way you figure it, is still next to nothing.

GAR
05-04-2009, 09:38 PM
Obama's going down as the worst president ever.

Next, he'll want to tax the internet: he wants to tax carbon dioxide! What a fuckin' asshole!

Dr. Love
05-04-2009, 09:45 PM
someone told me you quit the site again

Dr. Love
05-04-2009, 09:45 PM
is that true

Nickdfresh
05-04-2009, 10:08 PM
He's trying to prove he can pay his cable bill.

chefcraig
05-04-2009, 10:28 PM
someone told me you quit the site again


He's trying to prove he can pay his cable bill.

Yeah, those "One Week Sabbaticals" are frighteningly short in this economy.
I'll be on a weeks' long Army sabbatical - RothFans (http://www.rothfans.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2618)

Back to the thrust...

I'm not saying that someone should dig up FDR and ask him to explain the finer points of the "New Deal", yet it seems to me that rather than penalizing companies for doing business abroad, perhaps a better idea would be to offer them inspiration for doing business here. Fuck it, give them tax breaks that allow them to create plants here in the United States. Allow them to pay Americans a livable (and taxed) wage. In other words, create growth at home. The only reason companies are seeking to do their business in markets other than in the U.S. is because it is currently an unfeasible idea, not to mention an unsound business practice: Losing money sort of defeats the goal of being in business in the first place, ya know?

By the same token, running about and putting out brush fires by fining businesses is not going to solve anything, when the big picture is taken into view. It is merely near-sighted, short-term grandstanding, playing to the choir in it's cynical expedience. Yeah, it bumps a few points in the acceptance polls, yet ultimately accomplished dick. For one thing, it alienates the very people (the businesses themselves) that are needed to turn this economic downward spiral upward, to right an incredibly listing ship and making it seaworthy again.

LoungeMachine
05-04-2009, 10:57 PM
Obama's going down as the worst president ever.

Next, he'll want to tax the internet: he wants to tax carbon dioxide! What a fuckin' asshole!

I should just delete this since you QUIT.

:gulp:

I AM the Deleter of Posts

chefcraig
05-04-2009, 11:20 PM
I AM the Deleter of Posts

Ahhh...the most feared man in the harem. (Note the tattoo inserted on the bicep, your scariness.)


http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/7562/axedsc.jpg (http://img8.imageshack.us/my.php?image=axedsc.jpg)

LoungeMachine
05-04-2009, 11:21 PM
:lmao:

Love it.

Big Train
05-04-2009, 11:38 PM
I'll be curious to see where he goes with this. At the end of the day, the kind of loopholes that remain and the kinds he closes.

I see he is also going after corporate boards he thinks are too comfy with each other (i.e. Apple and Google).

Nitro Express
05-05-2009, 05:55 PM
Maybe President Obama should start going after his own staff. The Secretary of the Treasury got busted for not paying income tax.

Nitro Express
05-05-2009, 06:01 PM
The reality is we have been going down the shitter long before Barrack Obama came onto the scene. Do I agree with the bailout. Nope. I think we should have just let the banks go broke. Bailing out crooks and incompetants does not solve anything long-term. Plus, those in power are using the crises to empower themselves more. Jesus Christ himself could be president but he would have inherited a shitty mess that has been in the making for decades. There are no easy answers. We are fucked one way or another. My main question is how do we keep the fuck-over at a minimum? The problem festers because the greedy dupe or buy off the politicians and nobody wants to bite the bullet. They just want to pass it off onto the next sucker in office.

hideyoursheep
05-08-2009, 03:21 AM
Our founding fathers' idea of a USA has never existed in my lifetime.