Home » Opinion » Foreign Views
How to stop US firms from moving abroad
Print Edition
A growing number of American companies are seeking to move their legal headquarters abroad by acquiring or merging with foreign companies.
In the latest case, Medtronics plans to acquire Irish-based Covidien, a much smaller company spun off by US-based Tyco, and move its legal headquarters to low-tax Ireland, culminating in the largest ever “inversion” or “redomiciliation” of a US company. Walgreens is reportedly considering moving its headquarters to the United Kingdom by acquiring the remaining public shares of Alliance Boots, the Swiss-based pharmacy giant.
Such deals reflect deep flaws in the US corporate tax system. The US has the highest statutory corporate tax rate among developed countries and is the only G-7 country clinging to an outmoded worldwide tax system under which the foreign profits earned by US-headquartered companies incur additional domestic taxes when they are repatriated.
By contrast, all other G-7 countries have adopted “territorial” systems that impose little or no domestic tax on the repatriated earnings of their global companies. This difference puts US-headquartered multinationals at a disadvantage relative to their foreign competitors in foreign locations. To offset this, US multinationals take advantage of a deferral option in US tax law.
Deferral allows them to postpone —potentially indefinitely — the payment of US corporate tax on their foreign earnings until they are repatriated.
Not surprisingly, as their foreign earnings have grown as a share of total earnings, and as foreign corporate tax rates have plummeted, US companies’ stock of foreign earnings held abroad has soared, now topping US$2 trillion.
The US system thus implies significant costs, as companies hold more cash abroad, borrow more to finance domestic cash requirements, and invest more in foreign locations. Deferred earnings are “locked out” of the US economy: The government receives no tax revenues from them, and they are not directly available for domestic use by US companies.
Efficiency costs
Overall, deferral distorts corporate balance sheets, imposing efficiency costs on US companies that are estimated to be 5 percent to 7 percent of deferred earnings. As the stock of deferred earnings grows, these costs accumulate, and moving legal headquarters abroad through cross-border acquisitions becomes a logical step for US companies with a large stock of deferred earnings abroad. Companies like Medtronics can then use future foreign earnings in the US with little or no repatriation tax.
To be sure, strategic rather than tax considerations drive corporate mergers and acquisitions. The recent surge in cross-border M&As to a seven-year high is the result of ample cash, strong balance sheets, cheap financing, and buoyant stock markets. But tax considerations play a major role in corporate decisions regarding how acquisitions are financed and where a merged entity is located. Large balances of foreign earnings are available to many US firms to finance their foreign acquisitions, and the competitive disadvantages of the US corporate tax system militate against locating the merged entities in the US.
Though American officials rail against inversions as unpatriotic, they are an efficiency-enhancing response to the flaws in the corporate tax system. As the prospects for corporate tax reform deteriorate, cross-border mergers with redomicilation are becoming an attractive option for many of America’s most competitive global companies.
Under current law, US companies can move their legal headquarters abroad for tax purposes by buying a smaller foreign company as long as the acquired company’s shareholders end up owning at least 20 percent of the combined company. To discourage inversions via cross-border M&A, President Barack Obama’s administration and several Democratic members of Congress have proposed legislation that would increase that to at least 50 percent.
Moreover, a merged foreign company would be treated as a US company for tax purposes (regardless of share ownership) if its management and control functions and a substantial share of its economic activity — sales, employment or assets — are located in the US. If enacted, the legislation would apply these new conditions retroactively to inversions occurring from May 2014.
Lessons from Britain
Such policies will not address the underlying causes of inversions, will add to the widely acknowledged distortions in the corporate tax regime, and are likely to have negative unintended consequences. The US should learn from the British example. In 2008, several large UK companies threatened to redomicile in Ireland because of its lower corporate tax rate. The British government responded by cutting its corporate tax rate from 28 percent to 20 percent by 2015; introducing a territorial tax system that exempts UK-based companies’ foreign earnings from domestic taxation.
Bold and prompt US action to reform the corporate tax system is essential. Sadly, that is not likely in a deeply divided Congress in an election year.
Laura Tyson, who chaired the President’s Council of Economic Advisers under Bill Clinton, is Professor of Global Management at the Haas School of Management, University of California at Berkeley. Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2014. www.project-syndicate.org
- About Us
- |
- Terms of Use
- |
-
RSS - |
- Privacy Policy
- |
- Contact Us
- |
- Shanghai Call Center: 962288
- |
- Tip-off hotline: 52920043
- 沪ICP证：沪ICP备05050403号-1
- |
- 互联网新闻信息服务许可证：31120180004
- |
- 网络视听许可证：0909346
- |
- 广播电视节目制作许可证：沪字第354号
- |
- 增值电信业务经营许可证：沪B2-20120012
Copyright © 1999- Shanghai Daily. All rights reserved.Preferably viewed with Internet Explorer 8 or newer browsers.
