Tax repatriation

October 19, 2011

By David Cay Johnston
The author is a Reuters columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.

The practice of favoring big corporations seems likely to take a costly leap forward soon, if Congress passes an $80 billion tax holiday for a handful of U.S. multinational corporations with untaxed profits overseas.

Sponsors of legislation to grant the holiday, which is gaining support in Congress, say it would encourage these companies to repatriate their profits, giving an infusion of cash to the sluggish U.S. economy that will create jobs.

But this ignores the negative impact on the losers: the other 99 percent of corporations who are not eligible for such a deal. Then there are the legions of workers likely to be pink-slipped, and taxpayers generally, who will have to make up the shortfall with more taxes and fewer services.

There are smarter ways to deal with the $1.4 trillion of U.S. profits sitting offshore and avoiding the U.S. corporate income tax. We’ll get to those solutions. But first, here are some facts on how the system works.

Companies license the rights to pharmaceuticals, software and other intellectual property to offshore subsidiaries, or they engage in cost-sharing arrangements with these offshore units.

The subsidiaries then charge the U.S. parent royalties and other fees, which the parent can count as tax-deductible expenses in the United States. And the subsidiaries take their profits in entities known as “tax nothings,” so-called because they are invisible to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service. So long as the profits are indefinitely reinvested offshore, no tax is due. The problem arises when the companies want to bring the profits back to the United States. That is where a tax holiday comes in.


When Congress passed a similar tax holiday in 2004, the biggest beneficiary was drug manufacturing giant Pfizer Inc , according to a report to Congress by the IRS in June 2008. Pfizer brought back $37 billion and saved $11 billion in taxes.

Since then, the company has piled up another $42.5 billion in untaxed profits overseas, its disclosure statement at the end of last year showed.

Pfizer is among several companies lobbying Congress for another holiday for untaxed offshore profits. It and other firms want an 85 percent tax rate discount. Under the bill before Congress — offered by senators John McCain, a Republican, and Kay Hagan, a Democrat — the discount would be 75 percent.

Are our politicians unaware that the biggest businesses, and the wealthiest business owners, already bear lighter tax burdens than those who make less?

Business owners who make more than $5 million from all sources pay lower median and average tax rates than those who make as little as $350,000, a new study by the Congressional Research Service shows.

Congress listens most to those who lobby and make campaign donations, so the other 99 percent of corporations and business owners, like the 99 percent of taxpayers, tend to get the burden, not the benefit, of tax favors.


Nearly 2,500 years ago, the Romans stopped the rich and powerful from twisting the law for their own benefit by publishing the Twelve Tables, bronze plates that set forth a host of laws. It had taken the illiterate Roman plebeians, the ancient 99 percent, two centuries of demonstrations to get the laws in writing.

Today’s 99 percent can read, but tax law is so difficult to decipher that it may as well be written in Latin.

And, as the tax holiday bill shows, the ancient problem of the rich twisting the law for their own benefit endures.

I cannot fathom any legitimate reason to reward companies for using tax havens to delay the payment of taxes.

Doing so would be unfair to every purely domestic U.S. company, which cannot take advantage of this proposed act of favoritism, and to every individual taxpayer.

Then there’s the issue of jobs. In 2004, Congress gave 843 companies an 85 percent tax break on untaxed profits parked offshore. Republican Sen. John Ensign said that law, called the American Jobs Creation Act, would create 660,000 jobs.

Instead, many companies destroyed jobs. Pfizer shed 48,000 workers between the end of 2003 and the end of 2009, its annual reports show.

Asked to comment, Pfizer said it could not quantify the effect of the 2004 law, not least because of its acquisition of Pharmacia, the maker of arthritis drug Celebrex, the year before. “Given the number of significant events occurring during this period, including changes to the healthcare industry landscape, Pfizer’s acquisition of Pharmacia, and the economic downturn, it is not possible to say with any certainty the number of jobs created or lost,” Pfizer said in a statement.

Overall, the Institute for Policy Studies, a liberal think tank, estimated that 600,000 jobs were destroyed by the 2004 law. Other studies show more than 100,000 jobs lost.

Democratic Senator Carl Levin, who chairs the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, released a report last week saying there is “no evidence that the previous repatriation tax giveaway put Americans to work, and substantial evidence that it instead grew executive paychecks, propped up stock prices, and drew more money and jobs offshore.”


There is a smarter approach, one that would help with the United States‘ economic and fiscal woes:

Congress should impose a 50 percent tax on untaxed offshore profits earned in 2010 and earlier, unless they are repatriated by Dec. 31. Companies that repatriate would pay the standard 35 percent corporate income tax rate. If companies do nothing, which is unlikely, the measure would raise about $700 billion, slashing the deficit this fiscal year by 63 percent.

Second, Congress should require that, to escape the 50 percent tax, any repatriated profits be immediately paid out as dividends — on top of any existing dividends paid in 2011. Not all dividends would be taxed immediately, because many shares are held in pension funds and endowments. But the flow of cash would help the economy because, after all, the tax holiday sponsors say a flood of cash from overseas is just what the economy needs.


We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see

More proof, as if we needed any more, that massive tax breaks for mega-corporations do not create jobs. The offshore tax penalty sounds like a fine idea.

Posted by 4ngry4merican | Report as abusive

Here’s a head-scratcher. U.S. corporations can use foreign subsidiaries to earn income that’s untaxed in the U.S., but ordinary U.S. citizens who live in foreign countries are required to file a U.S. income-tax form every year and if they earn more than a certain amount, often must pay U.S. taxes on the excess. Sometimes ordinary middle-class incomes can attract U.S. taxes if there’s a wrinkle such as investment income.
It’s hard for me to think of another country that taxes people living abroad.
This looks like another illustration of the widespread complaint that the whole U.S. tax system is designed to benefit the powerful at the expense of the middle class.

Posted by globecrawler | Report as abusive

Why don’t individual citizens get tax preferences on overseas source income? All our competitors in Europe do that, even to the point of not taxing foreign income at all if its citizens do not live in their home country. Many countries do not tax a single individual homestead below a certain value either. Here we give tax breaks to buy speed boats!

Why are Government give-aways in the USA for large corporations and billionaires only? Here, they seem to think paying off on an insurance policy is a “give-away” when the insured is a common citizen. We need to export these people, not our jobs.

Posted by txgadfly | Report as abusive

We need to reform our tax code: Lower rates for corporations and individuals and remove ALL deductions and loopholes – very simple (and do so in a manner that raises revenues). We don’t need 15,000 pages worth of inefficient tax code.

Posted by jaham | Report as abusive

Bravo David!

We need these type of articles… send them to all member of congress, please.

They typical small business still only have a 15% threshold at $ 50K. It should be raised to $ 100K just to do with inflation in the past 20 years. The savings will create jobs for sure and can be offset by the repatriation measures you suggest.

Posted by robb1 | Report as abusive

jaham, your economic theory has already been invented and is called the Laffer Curve. Look it up. Reagan implemented it and it was a disaster. He immediately raised taxes to offset the damage. You are not living in the real world. Let’s stick to economic theories that have been proven. The only one I can think of that really worked in the past was attributed to a man named John Maynard Keynes.

Posted by possibilianP | Report as abusive

So first was the attempt of injecting money into the banks to make sure the lent the money to businesses and individuals who needed, they bought t-bills and credit remained frozen even when the taxpayers bailed them out. Round 2. Repatriate offshore money to create jobs. Why don’t U.S. lawmakers consider the number of corporations investing in the 1st place (and not through M&A, but PP&E)? Nobody is investing in the U.S., even when they have money! It’s not a time to screw the taxpayers, again.

Posted by another1 | Report as abusive

This is a good article. I am not usually for tax increases, but I support this measure because of the desperate times we find ourselves in.

Posted by M.C.McBride | Report as abusive

Ugh! As soon as someone mentions offshore assets, people get hysterical and come up with ludicrous proposals to force corporations to bring the money home and subject profits that were already subject to foreign tax, to a separate batch of dividend taxes. Ridiculous moves like this will only encourage corporations to redomicile elsewhere. Even though offshore tax havens are notoriously high cost places to conduct actual business, if policymakers push hard enough, it might just become economical to move whole corporate headquarters abroad.

The whole discussion assumes that all international corporate tax planning involves shifting profits to a mailbox beside a sandy beach in a low-rate tax haven. While I don’t deny that some of that does happen (and should be audited heavily), a lot of international corporate tax planning revolves around more mundane concerns, like how to fund a business’s international operations.

As a general principle, tax should only be paid on income once, in the jurisdiction in which it is earned when it is earned. America subjects income that was earned abroad, regardless of whether it was active business income, or passive investment income, to full taxation when the corporation seeks to repatriate it. Double tax is the real injustice, and the reason why corporations continue to defer repatriation.

At the very least, America should allow corporations to claim credits for previously paid foreign tax against the repatriation taxes. Better still would be to allow profit legitimately earned through active business operations to return tax free.

Posted by pheebel_wimpe | Report as abusive

Really, you think they will run and hide, then why are they in such a rush to bring all that money over here? We all know why, they want the protections of the US, but they just don’t want to pay for it; that is left up to us tax payers. I say call their bluff, my bet is that they will decide brining back a portion of those profits is much better than leaving it overseas where any corrupt government can take it whenever they please.

Posted by WD7179 | Report as abusive