The U.S. Collects Lower Level of Corporate Taxes Than Most Developed Countries

April 9, 2015 10:32 AM | | Bookmark and Share

Read this report in PDF.

The United States has one of the lowest corporate tax levels in the developed world, according to an analysis of the most recent data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). In 2013, the United States had the eighth lowest level of corporate taxes as a share of GDP
(2.0 percent) among the 33 developed countries for which data are available. On average, corporate taxes account for 2.9 percent of GDP – almost 50 percent higher than the level in the United States – among our competitors.

U.S. corporate income taxes have continually declined as a percentage of GDP since 1945. Yet there is a growing and vocal movement among well-financed lobbying groups to push federal lawmakers to lower the corporate tax rate. These business-backed groups claim the U.S. corporate tax rate is too high, citing the  35 percent federal statutory tax rate. But that narrow argument ignores critical facts such as the many egregious tax breaks and loopholes that pervade our corporate tax code. A 2014 study by Citizens for Tax Justice examined five years’ worth of data and found that Fortune 500 companies paid an average federal effective corporate income tax rate of 19.4 percent, which is substantially less than the U.S. statutory rate of 35 percent. In fact, the same study found that many profitable, large U.S. corporations such as Boeing, General Electric and Verizon paid no federal corporate income taxes at all.[1]


[1] Citizens for Tax Justice, “The Sorry State of Corporate Taxes”, February 2014. http://www.ctj.org/corporatetaxdodgers/


    Want even more CTJ? Check us out on Twitter, Facebook, RSS, and Youtube!

Who Pays Taxes in America in 2015?

April 9, 2015 10:01 AM | | Bookmark and Share

Read this report in PDF.

All Americans pay taxes. Everyone who works pays federal payroll taxes. Everyone who buys gasoline pays federal and state gas taxes. Everyone who owns or rents a home directly or indirectly pays property taxes. Anyone who shops pays sales taxes in most states.

But in sum, the nation’s tax system is barely progressive. Those who advocate for top-heavy tax cuts and erroneously claim the wealthy are overtaxed focus solely on the federal personal income tax, while ignoring  other taxes that Americans pay. As the table to the right illustrates, the total share of taxes (federal, state, and local) that will be paid by Americans across the economic spectrum in 2015 is roughly equal to their total share of income. 

Many taxes are regressive, meaning they take a larger share of income from poor and middle-income families than they do from the rich. To offset the regressive impact of payroll taxes, sales taxes and even some state and local income taxes, we need federal income tax policies that are more progressive.

Some features of the federal income tax offset the regressivity of other taxes, at least to a degree. For example, the federal personal income tax provides refundable tax credits such as the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and the Child Tax Credit, which can reduce or eliminate federal personal income tax liability for low-income working families and can even result in negative personal income tax liability, meaning families receive a check from the IRS.

These tax credits are only available to taxpayers who work and therefore pay federal payroll taxes. These progressive provisions do make the income tax more progressive, but overall they do little more than offset the regresssivity of other taxes that poor and middle-income families pay.

Estimates from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy tax model, which are illustrated in these charts and tables, include the following key findings:

■ The richest one percent of Americans pay 23.8 percent of total taxes and receive 22.2 percent of total income.

■ The poorest one-fifth of Americans pay 2.0 percent of total taxes and receive 3.2 percent of total income.

■ Each income group will pay a total share of taxes that is quite similar to each group’s total share of income.

■ Contrary to popular belief, when all taxes are considered, the rich do not pay a dispropor­tionately high share of taxes. Although each income quintile pays combined federal, state and local taxes that are roughly equivalent to their share of the nation’s income, this by no means indicates our tax system is fine as is.  In a truly progressive tax system, millionaires and billionaires wouldn’t be paying roughly the same tax rates as working families earning $100,000 per year.

 


    Want even more CTJ? Check us out on Twitter, Facebook, RSS, and Youtube!

Rand Paul’s Record Shows He’s a Champion for Tax Cheats and the Wealthy

| | Bookmark and Share

No member of Congress has been more active in the cause of protecting tax cheaters and tax avoidance by our nation’s wealthiest individuals and corporations than Sen.(now presidential candidate) Rand Paul.

While Paul is a standard bearer of anti-tax conservatives through his advocacy of radical policies such as the flat tax, his advocacy of tax avoidance and his lead role in blocking or even trying to repeal basic anti-tax-evasion measures makes him a radical outlier.

Tax Evasion and Avoidance

Most prominently, Sen. Paul, for years, has single-handedly blocked ratification of a critical tax treaty with Switzerland that would allow the United States to go after the thousands of tax cheaters who hide their income in Swiss bank accounts to evade taxes. In addition, Sen. Paul has been a leader in the movement to repeal the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA), vital law enforcement legislation that helps tax authorities collect information on offshore bank accounts. In both cases, the beneficiaries of his policies are tax evaders and the losers are honest taxpayers who are forced to pick up the tab for the billions lost each year to tax evasion.

Another critical component of Sen. Paul’s pro-tax evasion agenda has been his long time assault on the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Like fellow presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz, Sen. Paul has recklessly called for the abolition of the IRS without explaining how the government would function without any sort of revenue collection agency akin to the IRS. While this kind of rhetoric is largely blather, it has real world consequences. Sen. Paul’s language has led directly to the deep and devastating cuts to the IRS in recent years that have hamstrung the agency’s ability to go after tax evaders and perform basic functions.

On the issue of corporate tax avoidance, Sen. Paul has been a prominent advocate for the aggressive use of loopholes by our nation’s largest corporations. During the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigation’s infamous hearing on Apple’s avoidance of tens of billions of dollars in taxes using Ireland subsidiaries and accounting gimmicks, Sen. Paul sided with Apple, saying that the Senate should apologize to the company and that discussions of tax reform should not include examining specific tax avoidance practices of companies.

Taking this to the next level, Sen. Paul wants to reward offshore tax avoidance through a repatriation holiday. This would give an enormous tax break to the worst tax avoiders, including Apple and dozens of other companies, by allowing them to pay a 6.5 percent rather than 35 percent tax rate on their offshore profits upon repatriation. While proponents of a repatriation holiday, like Sen. Paul, argue that such a proposal could be used to pay for infrastructure, the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation found that a holiday would lose $95 billion in revenue over ten years.

Tax Cuts for the Rich

Sen. Paul has also proposed changes that would increase taxes on the overwhelming majority of Americans, while at the same time providing massive tax breaks to the very wealthy. For instance, Sen. Paul has proposed the implementation of a flat tax, which would tax income at a single flat rate and entirely exempt capital gains, dividends and interest from taxation. A Citizens for Tax Justice analysis of a similar flat tax proposal found that it would increase taxes on the bottom 95 percent of Americans by almost $3,000 on average and at the same time give the richest 1 percent of Americans an average tax cut of nearly $210,000.

This stark unfairness should be no surprise. In fact, the authors of the “Flat Tax” endorsed by Sen. Paul had this to say about their proposal in their 1983 book: It “will be a tremendous boon to the economic elite,” they admitted. And they also added, “Now for some bad news. . . . It is an obvious mathematical law that lower taxes on the successful will have to be made up by higher taxes on average people.”

Besides advocating for a regressive flat tax, Sen. Paul has indicated that he will soon “propose the largest tax cut in American history.” What’s striking about this is that any tax cut, let alone an extremely large one, is out of touch with the dire fiscal realities our nation is facing. Even the most recent budget proposal by the House Republicans, which includes trillions in draconian and infeasible cuts to critical public programs, assumes that revenue levels need to stay at the already low level of current policy.

While Sen. Paul has a reputation as a maverick on many issues, when it comes to tax issues, he adheres to the worst excesses of the anti-tax, anti-middle-class conservative movement. 

State Rundown 4/7: Bad Ideas Die Hard

| | Bookmark and Share

Click Here to sign up to receive the 
State Rundown in your inbox.

SRLogo.jpg

Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback doubled down on defending his disastrous tax cuts, insisting that the state would benefit from a shift away from income taxes to consumption taxes. The governor claimed that such taxes, which fall more heavily on middle and working-class citizens, are more “growth oriented” than the income tax, despite the problems with this claim. Brownback has proposed increases in taxes on cigarette and alcohol consumption this session to make up for freefalling revenues, and has indicated willingness to increase the sales tax. Meanwhile, the deep budget cuts enacted in the wake of Brownback’s tax cuts means Kansas schools will close early this year. 

It seems as if New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s lottery privatization plan is a bust. The Associated Press reports that the New Jersey lottery, once among the most profitable in the nation, has failed to meet state revenue targets for the second year in a row. Legislators have already lowered income expectations for the struggling lottery, but Gtech, the private firm in charge of operations is trailing even the revised number by $64 million. Gtech is the same company responsible for the abysmal performance of the Illinois State Lottery after it was privatized in 2011. Former Gov. Pat Quinn fired the firm last summer.

Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval hit back at critics of his proposed increase in business license fees, singling out a report by the Tax Foundation as irresponsible and “intellectually dishonest.” Sandoval wants to replace Nevada’s flat fee of $200 for a business license with a tiered system that takes into account gross receipts and the type of business. The new fees would range from $400 to $4 million a year and would raise $430 million. The governor would use the new revenue to help increase education funding by nearly $782 million. He has gained the support of business and interfaith groups, as well as the majority of Nevada voters.

 

Following Up:
North Carolina: An editorial in The News and Observer blasted the income tax cut proposal offered by state Senate leaders, noting that “while they’ve been cutting taxes for the wealthy and businesses, which have gotten most of the breaks, they’ve bashed the public schools, cut the university system and put the state in such a tight revenue margin that further tax cuts could be catastrophic.”

Idaho: The state Senate killed the tax plan offered by House leaders that would have removed the sales tax on groceries, increased the gas excise tax and lowered income taxes for the wealthy. ITEP found that the overall impact (PDF) of these changes would be higher taxes for low- and middle-income taxpayers, and dramatically lower taxes for the affluent (the top 1 percent of earners would receive an average benefit of $5,000 per year).  While an alternative plan has yet to be formulated, the Senate appears to be interested in refocusing efforts on the original objective of this legislation: raising money for transportation.

Nebraska: The proposed gas tax increase continued its progress through the state’s unicameral legislature, when senators voted 26-10 to advance the measure. Two more votes are required before the bill reaches Gov. Pete Ricketts, who does not support increasing the gas tax.

 

Things We Missed:
The Georgia legislature approved a sweeping transportation deal last Tuesday that will raise $1 billion for infrastructure maintenance and improvements through a mix of new revenue sources. The final version of House Bill 170 raises the existing state gas tax by 6.7 cents and reforms the tax so that it will grow alongside fuel-efficiency gains and general inflation, rather than being tied to gas prices. The bill also introduced a new $5-per-night hotel and motel tax and a new fee of $50 to $100 on heavy commercial trucks. The measure eliminated tax breaks for commercial airlines and electric cars to raise revenue as well. Gov. Nathan Deal has indicated that he will sign the measure into law.

 

States Ending Session This Week:
Mississippi (Sunday) (note: the end of the session means no new tax cut proposals can be considered in Mississippi this year)


Will this Tax Day be the First and Last Including Premium Tax Subsidies for Millions of Americans?

| | Bookmark and Share

The $962 billion (over 10 years) in low- and middle-income tax subsidies provided by the Affordable Care Act (ACA) have now taken center stage in public discourse as the Supreme Court considers King v. Burwell, a case that could strike down as much as 87 percent of these subsidies going forward by not allowing the subsidies in states without a state-run health insurance exchange. On  average, these tax subsidies pay out $268 monthly per eligible person and cover 72 percent of the cost of paying for health insurance premiums. Given this, if the court strikes the subsidies down, it is possible that millions of low- and middle-income Americans would lose their health insurance going forward because they will no longer be able to afford it.

The ACA tax subsidies are available to individuals who enroll in a health insurance plan through an exchange and have a household income between 100 and 400 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL). They are paid out each month in advance directly to insurers and are set up to ensure that low- and middle-income families will only pay a sensible percentage (with this percentage increasing as income rises) of their overall income. For example, the subsidies would ensure that a family at the federal poverty line will not have to pay more than two percent of their income on healthcare premiums, while a family at 400 percent of the poverty line will not have to pay more than 9.5 percent of their income.

When filing their tax returns this year, individuals have to reconcile the subsidies they received based on their estimated income with the income they actually received, sometimes resulting in an additional refund or payment back to the IRS. A new report from the Kaiser Family Foundation predicts that 50 percent of subsidy-eligible tax households will owe some repayment and 45 percent will receive a refund.

While the Supreme Court may strike down the tax subsidies in many states, as we’ve noted before, the move would be a pretty radical one given that it would mean tearing crucial benefits from 7.5 million Americans based on a technicality. The Supreme Court has previously upheld the core of the ACA in 2012, when it rejected claims that the ACA’s imposition of a fee on those who do not purchase health insurance is unconstitutional by arguing that the fee constitutes a tax.

At this point, it is unclear how the Obama Administration, the Republican-led Congress or various state governments would respond if the Supreme Court were to strike down the tax subsidies. Much of the ambiguity is driven by the uncertainty over the precise approach the Supreme Court could take in its ruling, which even in ruling against the tax subsidies could potentially allow the Obama Administration or state governments some avenue for ensuring that the tax subsidies stay intact.

When the Supreme Court announces its decision, likely in late June, here’s hoping it will not make health insurance more expensive or even unobtainable for millions of middle- and low-income Americans by striking down the majority of the ACA’s tax subsidies. 

More Than 20 States Considering Detrimental Tax Proposals

| | Bookmark and Share

It’s not hard to sell tax cuts. Who among us would turn down extra money in our pockets by way of fewer taxes?

But state lawmakers do us all a gross disservice when they tout tax cuts to serve their political goals but fail to address the consequences or talk about who will really benefit. The adverse after-effects are often many and disproportionately fall on low- and middle-income taxpayers. This is why the trend to push for tax cuts, in some cases on top of cuts recently enacted, is worrisome. States cannot continually cut taxes and adequately pay for services that the public overwhelming wants. And it is not fair to pay for cuts to more progressive personal and corporate income taxes by heaping more taxes on those least able to pay.

Currently, lawmakers in more than 20 states are considering major tax proposals (See an ITEP summary of most proposals here and here). Much has been made about the fact that many conservative state lawmakers are considering hiking taxes this year, but with very few exceptions, these lawmakers plan to use the revenue gained from increasing one tax to cut or eliminate another.  While a handful of these tax shift proposals have provisions that would benefit working people, the vast majority would deliver the greatest benefit to wealthy taxpayers and profitable corporations, thus making state tax systems more regressive than they already are.

In Ohio, for example, Gov. Kasich has proposed further slashing personal income taxes across the board, which on the surface may sound like it will benefit all taxpayers. However, the governor’s plan recoups most of the lost revenue by raising the sales tax a full half a percent and expanding the tax to more services. The problem with this, of course, is that sales taxes are inherently regressive, which means the plan actually increases taxes on those least able to pay. An ITEP analysis of the Governor’s plan found that the top one percent of Ohio taxpayers would receive an average tax break of close to $12,000 while the average taxpayers in the bottom 60 percent would actually see their taxes go up by more than $100.

Other proposals out right cut taxes without any plans to replace the lost revenue. In North Carolina, Senate members have recently put forward a plan to slash personal and corporate income taxes which would cost the state well more than $1 billion a year, despite the fact that the state faces a $300 million budget deficit. The proposal would be the second billion-dollar tax cut in as many years. Texas lawmakers are getting closer to finalizing a more than $4 billion tax cut package that would reduce property and business taxes. 

The Cost of Tax Cuts

The problem with state politicians’ dogged pursuit of tax cuts is that they don’t come without a cost. Public services such as education, public health and safety, infrastructure, etc. either must be pared back or paid for using some other source of revenue. 

ITEP along with many academics and news outlets have written extensively about the Kansas experiment. Gov. Sam Brownback promised Kansans that his top-heavy tax cuts would pay for themselves by stimulating economic growth. Widely derided three years ago, that claim has proven to be untrue and now the state is scrambling to make up lost revenue. Gov. Brownback has proposed increasing (regressive) alcohol and tobacco taxes to help partially plug a growing budget gap and House and Senate members have floated other largely regressive tax hikes. Further, the state has had to reduce funding to schools, higher education and social services. The proposed tax increases will undoubtedly hit low- and middle-income more as will the cuts in vital services that promote broader access to opportunity.

Tax cuts simply don’t work as an engine of economic growth, and it is time for governors and state legislators to stop peddling their plans as such. The truth about state tax systems is that each of them takes a greater share of income from their very poorest residents than their richest residents. The majority of pending tax cut and tax shift plans on the table would exacerbate this nationwide problem.

There is a right, progressive way for policymakers to approach tax policy. Last year, the District of Columbia broadened its sales tax base to include more services and made permanent a higher tax rate for the wealthiest residents. At the same time, it lowered taxes for middle-income earners and strengthened the Earned Income Tax Credit to put more money in the pockets of working people. Given that every state tax system requires more of its lowest-income residents than the rich, the right approach to tax reform is to focus on measures that would make corporations and the wealthy, those most able, pay their fair share.

Six States Have Raised or Reformed Their Gas Taxes This Year

| | Bookmark and Share

As we’ve noted previously, eight states enacted gas tax increases or reforms in 2013 and 2014 to better fund their transportation infrastructure.  So far this year, six more states have joined this list, meaning that a total of 14 states have taken action on the gas tax in just over two years’ time (Wyoming kicked off this trend in February 2013).  Here’s a quick rundown of what has been enacted this year: 

1. After years of debate, Iowa’s gasoline and diesel taxes finally rose by 10 cents per gallon on March 1 as a result of legislation enacted in February.  The increase was Iowa’s first in more than a quarter century.

2. Next door in South Dakota, lawmakers quickly followed Iowa’s lead with a law that raised gasoline and diesel taxes by 6 cents starting April 1.

3. Utah took a more long-term approach to its gas tax with a law that will hugely improve the tax’s sustainability.  In addition to raising the rate by 5 cents on January 1, 2016, the state also converted its fixed-rate gas tax into a smarter variable-rate gas tax that will initially grow alongside gas prices, and then eventually alongside the greater of gas prices or inflation.  Utah is now the 19th state to adopt a variable-rate gas tax.

4. Georgia Gov. Deal has promised to sign a transportation funding bill recently approved by the state legislature.  Under the bill, the state portion of the gas tax will rise by 6.7 cents on July 1.  Until 2018, the rate will rise each subsequent July based on growth in both vehicle fuel-efficiency and inflation, after which point the inflation factor will be dropped and the rate will be determined based on fuel-efficiency changes alone.  Georgia is the first state in the nation to tie its gas tax rate to fuel-efficiency gains: a recommendation we have made in the past.

5. Kentucky drivers received a 1.6 cent gas tax cut on April 1, far less than the 5.1 cent cut that would have taken effect if lawmakers had not acted.  This was accomplished by raising the state’s minimum gas tax level from 22.5 to 26.0 cents per gallon.  In addition to this boost in the state’s gas tax “floor,” lawmakers also reformed (PDF) the tax with an eye toward predictability by mandating that gas tax cuts brought on by falling gas prices cannot exceed 10 percent per year.

6. North Carolina drivers are also seeing their gas taxes fall, but only temporarily and not by as much as would have otherwise been the case.  Under a bill signed by Gov. Pat McCrory, gas tax rates fell by 1.5 cents on April 1 and will drop by an additional penny on both January 1 and July 1 of next year.  This gradual 3.5 cent cut is less than half the full 7.9 cent cut that otherwise would have taken effect this summer.  Additionally, lawmakers also agreed to swap out their price-based gas tax formula in favor of allowing the tax rate to grow alongside population and the general inflation rate—a change they think will generate a more substantial, predictable stream of revenue in the years ahead.

It is likely that more states will follow the lead of these half dozen states before 2015 legislative sessions come to a close.  Our earlier surveys identified eight states in particular that are also giving the idea careful consideration: Idaho, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, South Carolina, Vermont, and Washington State.

Dozens of Companies Admit Using Tax Havens

April 1, 2015 01:23 PM | | Bookmark and Share

Hundreds More Likely Do the Same, Avoiding $600 Billion in U.S. Taxes

Read this report in PDF (Includes Company by Company Appendices)

Download the Company by Company PRE Data (XLS)

It’s been well documented that major U.S. multinational corporations are stockpiling profits offshore to avoid U.S. taxes. Congressional hearings over the past few years have raised awareness of tax avoidance strategies of major technology corporations such as Apple and Microsoft, but, as this report shows, a diverse array of companies are using offshore tax havens, including the pharmaceutical giant Amgen, the apparel manufacturer Nike, the supermarket chain Safeway, the financial firm American Express, banking giants Bank of America and Wells Fargo, and even more obscure companies such as Advanced Micro Devices and Group 1 Automotive.

All told, American Fortune 500 corporations are avoiding up to $600 billion in U.S. federal income taxes by holding more than $2.1 trillion of “permanently reinvested” profits offshore. In their latest annual financial reports, twenty-eight of these corporations reveal that they have paid an income tax rate of 10 percent or less in countries where these profits are officially held, indicating that most of these profits are likely in offshore tax havens.

How We Know When Multinationals’ Offshore Cash is Largely in Tax Havens

Offshore profits that an American corporation “repatriates” (officially brings back to the United States) are subject to the U.S. tax rate of 35 percent minus a tax credit equal to whatever taxes the company paid to foreign governments. Thus, if an American corporation reports it would pay a U.S. tax rate of 25 percent or more on its offshore profits, that indicates it has paid foreign governments a tax rate of 10 percent or less.

Twenty-eight American corporations have acknowledged paying less than a 10 percent foreign tax rate on the $470 billion they collectively hold offshore. The table on the following page shows the disclosures made by these 28 corporations in their most recent annual financial reports.

It is almost always the case that profits reported by American corporations to the IRS as earned in tax havens were actually earned in the United States or another country with a tax system similar to ours.  Most economically developed countries (places where there are real business opportunities for American corporations) have a corporate income tax rate of at least 20 percent, and typically tax rates are higher.

Countries that have no corporate income tax or a very low corporate tax — countries such as Bermuda, the Cayman Islands, and the Bahamas — provide very little in the way of real business opportunities for American corporations like Qualcomm, Safeway, and Microsoft. But large Americans corporations use accounting gimmicks (most of which are, unfortunately, allowed under current law) to make profits appear to be earned in tax haven countries. In fact, a 2014 CTJ examination of corporate financial filings found U.S. corporations collectively report earning profits in Bermuda and the Cayman Islands that are 16 times the gross domestic products of each of those countries, which is clearly impossible. 

Hundreds of Other Fortune 500 Corporations Don’t Disclose Tax Rates They’d Pay if They Repatriated Their Profits

At the end of 2014, 304 Fortune 500 companies collectively held a whopping $2.15 trillion offshore. (A full list of these 304 corporations is published as an appendix to this paper.)

Clearly, the 28 companies that report the U.S. tax rate they would pay if they repatriated their profits are not alone in shifting their profits to low-tax havens—they’re only alone in disclosing it.  The vast majority of these companies — 247 out of 304 —decline to disclose the U.S. tax rate they would pay if these offshore profits were repatriated. (57 corporations, including the 28 companies shown on this page, disclose this information. A full list of the 57 companies is published as an appendix to this paper.) The non-disclosing companies collectively hold $1.56 trillion in unrepatriated offshore profits at the end of 2014.

Accounting standards require publicly held companies to disclose the U.S. tax they would pay upon repatriation of their offshore profits — but these standards also provide a gaping loophole allowing companies to assert that calculating this tax liability is “not practicable.”  Almost all of the 247 non-disclosing companies use this loophole to avoid disclosing their likely tax rates upon repatriation — even though these companies almost certainly have the capacity to estimate these liabilities.

Hundreds of Billions in Tax Revenue at Stake

It’s impossible to know precisely how much income tax would be paid, under current tax rates, upon repatriation by the 247 Fortune 500 companies that have disclosed holding profits overseas but have failed to disclose how much U.S. tax would be due if the profits were repatriated. But if these companies paid the same 29 percent average tax rate as the 57 disclosing companies, the resulting one-time tax would total $432 billion for these 247 companies. Added to the $169 billion tax bill estimated by the 57 companies who did disclose, this means that taxing all “permanently reinvested” foreign income of the 304 companies at the current federal tax rate could result in $601 billion in added corporate tax revenue.

20 of the Biggest “Non-Disclosing” Companies Hold $906 Billion Offshore

While hundreds of companies refuse to disclose the tax they likely owe on their offshore cash, just a handful of these companies account for the lion’s share of the permanently reinvested foreign profits in the Fortune 500. The nearby table shows the 20 non-disclosing companies with the biggest offshore stash at the end of the most recent fiscal year. These 20 companies held $906 billion in unrepatriated offshore income — more than half of the total income held by the 247 “non-disclosing” companies. Most of these companies also disclose, elsewhere in their financial reports, owning subsidiaries in known tax havens. For example:

General Electric disclosed holding $119 billion offshore at the end of 2014. GE has subsidiaries in the Bahamas, Bermuda, Ireland and Singapore, but won’t disclose how much of its offshore cash is in these low-tax destinations. [Some of it is clearly there; see text box below.]

Pfizer has subsidiaries in the Cayman Islands, Ireland, the Isle of Jersey, Luxembourg and Singapore, but does not disclose how much of its $74 billion in offshore profits are stashed in these tax havens.

Merck has10 subsidiaries in Bermuda alone. It’s unclear how much of its $60 billion in offshore profits are being stored (for tax purposes) in this tiny island.

Congress Should Act

While corporations’ offshore holdings have grown gradually over the past decade, there are two reasons it is vital that Congress act promptly to deal with this problem. First, a large number of the biggest corporations appear to be increasing their offshore cash significantly. Seventy-seven of the companies surveyed in this report increased their declared offshore cash by at least $500 million each in the last year alone. Seven particularly aggressive companies each increased their permanently reinvested foreign earnings by more than $5 billion in the past year. These include Apple, General Electric, Microsoft, IBM, Google, Oracle and Gilead Sciences.

A second reason for concern is that companies are aggressively seeking to permanently shelter their offshore cash from U.S. taxation by engaging in corporate inversions, through which companies acquire smaller foreign companies and reincorporate in foreign countries, thus avoiding most or all U.S. tax on their profits.

Even “Non-Disclosers” Slip Up Sometimes

As noted above, General Electric does not disclose the U.S. tax it would owe if its $110 billion offshore stash was repatriated. But in its 2009 annual report, GE noted that it had reclassified $2 billion of previously earned foreign profits as “permanently reinvested” offshore, and said that this change resulted “in an income tax benefit of $700 million.” Since $700 million is 35 percent of $2 billion, this is an admission that the expected foreign tax rate on this $2 billion of offshore cash was exactly zero, which in turn strongly suggests that GE’s “permanent reinvestment” plan for this $2 billion involved assigning it to one of its tax haven subsidiaries.

What Should Be Done?

Many large multinationals that fail to disclose whether their offshore profits are officially in tax havens are the same companies that have lobbied heavily for tax breaks on their offshore cash. These companies propose the government either enact a temporary “tax holiday” for repatriation, which would allow companies to officially bring offshore profits back to the U.S. and pay a very low tax rate on the repatriated income, or give them a permanent exemption for offshore income in the form of a “territorial” tax system. Either of these proposals would increase the incentive for multinationals to shift their U.S. profits, on paper, into tax havens.

A far more sensible solution would be to simply end “deferral,” that is, repealing the rule that indefinitely exempts offshore profits from U.S. income tax until these profits are repatriated. Ending deferral would mean that all profits of U.S. corporations, whether they are generated in the U.S. or abroad, would be taxed by the United States in the year they are earned. Of course, American corporations would continue to receive a “foreign tax credit” against any taxes they pay to foreign governments, to ensure profits are not double-taxed. 

Conclusion

The limited disclosures made by a handful of Fortune 500 corporations show that corporations are brazenly using tax havens to avoid taxes on significant profits. But the scope of this tax avoidance is likely much larger, since the vast majority of Fortune 500 companies with offshore cash refuse to disclose how much tax they would pay on repatriating their offshore profits.

Lawmakers should resist calls for tax changes, such as repatriation holidays or a territorial tax system, that would reward U.S. companies for shifting their profits to tax havens.  If the Securities and Exchange Commission required more complete disclosure about multinationals’ offshore profits, it would become obvious that Congress should end deferral, thereby eliminating the incentive for multinationals to shift their profits offshore once and for all. 

For the full list of unrepatriated profits and taxes owed, click to read the pdf or download the Excel spreadsheet.


    Want even more CTJ? Check us out on Twitter, Facebook, RSS, and Youtube!