States vie with feds to punish company moves abroad. But does it work?

March 14, 2016
A woman passes by the Pfizer World Headquarters building in the Manhattan borough of New York, November 23, 2015.  Pfizer Inc  on Monday said it would buy Botox maker Allergan Plc  in a record-breaking deal worth $160 billion to cut its U.S. tax bill by moving its headquarters to Ireland.   REUTERS/Brendan McDermid - RTX1VI00

The Pfizer World Headquarters building in the Manhattan borough of New York, November 23, 2015. REUTERS/Brendan McDermid

State lawmakers are getting into the act of demonizing corporate inversions even though there is not much they can do to stop them. Corporate inversions, in which U.S. companies merge with or are acquired by an overseas business, are a hot topic on the campaign trail and in the halls of Congress. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Democrats on Capitol Hill portray inversions as a nefarious maneuver by corporate executives to take advantage of lower tax rates abroad. But those politicians have misdiagnosed the ailment.

Inversions are not a problem for the United States. They are a symptom of a problem. The root problem is the United States levies the highest statutory corporate tax rate in the developed world and, unlike all other developed nations, imposes double taxes on profits earned abroad. Rather than confront this problem, Clinton, Sanders and others, including Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), deride major companies at campaign events.

GOP frontrunner Donald Trump bashes companies for moving their headquarters abroad just as much as Clinton and Sanders. Yet Trump, like Senator Marco Rubio, Ohio Governor John Kasich and other Republican candidates, actually proposes to get at the root problem by cutting corporate tax rates.

A combination photo shows the Pfizer (top) and Allergan logos. Pfizer Inc secured formal board approval on November 22, 2015 for its acquisition of Botox maker Allergan Plc for more than $150 billion, a deal that will create the world's biggest drug maker, according to people familiar with the matter.  REUTERS/Carlo Allegri/Thomas White/Files      TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY

A combination photo of the Pfizer (top) and Allergan logos. REUTERS/Carlo Allegri/Thomas White/Files

Now lawmakers at the state level are joining in on the demagoguery, with legislation that would punish employers for bad federal tax policy. In response to Pfizer’s November announcement that it is buying Allergen and moving its headquarters to Ireland, where the 12.5 percent corporate rate is less than one half of the 35 percent imposed by the United States, the New Jersey Assembly passed legislation that prohibits inverted companies from receiving state contracts or development tax credits.

The New Jersey bill would effectively punish companies for responding to unsound federal tax policy. If the state senate approves the measure, Governor Chris Christie should veto it. It would only make New Jersey, whose business tax climate is already hostile to employers, even less hospitable.

“Corporate inversions take place because of the federal tax code,” said Andrew Musick, director of taxation and economic development at the New Jersey Business and Industry Association, “and have nothing to do with state programs or state contracts. In fact, they have little to no impact on New Jersey’s corporate business-tax collections or the jobs and facilities located in the state.”

New Jersey lawmakers need to realize that companies that do business in the state face a combined federal and state corporate tax rate of 44 percent, compared to the 25 percent, on average, European corporate rate. New Jersey residents already pay the highest property taxes in the country, the sixth-highest income tax rate, the fifth-highest corporate rate and contend with the nation’s second-highest overall tax burden. The last thing New Jersey needs are new laws that make the state even less competitive than it already is.

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie speaks in a press conference at the State House in Trenton, New Jersey, March 3, 2016.  REUTERS/Dominick Reuter

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie at a news conference at the State House in Trenton, New Jersey, March 3, 2016. REUTERS/Dominick Reuter

Legislators in Trenton aren’t the only ones busy hatching a plan that will do nothing to halt corporate inversions. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew issued rules meant to tamp down on inversions – to little effect.

Clinton, the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, has proposed an exit tax, which would require U.S. companies to pay taxes on foreign earnings immediately. Under current law, those earnings aren’t taxed by Uncle Sam until the company repatriates them to the United States.

What’s amazing is that Clinton sees high taxes pushing companies to relocate their headquarters abroad — and her solution is new taxes. It is as if she is effectively telling companies that the beatings will continue until morale improves.

It’s interesting that the same Democratic politicians and pundits who lambasted Mitt Romney for saying that corporations are people, too, on the 2012 campaign trail, now insist that corporations have patriotic or moral duties, as though they are people. What is clear, in any case, is that the burden of corporate taxes is borne by people.

In fact, the Obama administration and federal government recently began acknowledging this.

Until 2013, Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation models assumed that the burden of corporate taxes was borne entirely by the owners of capital (stocks, bonds, mutual funds, IRAs and so on). That changed when the committee announced, in an October 2013 study, that it would begin reporting on the impact corporate taxes have on both capital and labor.

The decision came after the Treasury Department and the Congressional Budget Office made similar adjustments in their models to account for labor’s share of corporate taxes. In fact, it has been during the Obama administration, which has signed into law trillions of dollars in higher taxes, that key nonpartisan fiscal scorekeepers have begun to recognize that corporate taxes are paid for, in part, by workers in the form of lower compensation and reduced opportunities.

If New Jersey state legislators are really interested in stopping inversions, they should contact members of their congressional delegation and urge them to support tax reform that cuts the corporate rate and stops double taxation of U.S. companies’ overseas profits.

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this article mistakenly featured a photograph of the ABInBEV logo. The company is not the result of an inversion.

4 comments

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 http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/

Notice Grover specifically said “statutory” corporate tax rate. His argument falls to pieces when you recognize that the effective corporate tax rate is much lower and competitive with many European countries. According to the GAO, the effective tax rate for big profitable corporations was just 12.6% in 2010. Isn’t that low enough for Grover?

Posted by distancematters | Report as abusive

Why are corporate taxes never paid for with reduced executive compensation, but according to Norquist & Gleason are paid for by hourly workers only?

Lower taxes have never had an affect on jobs or business growth.

That in fact, since 1950 lower taxes have created inequality through higher executive compensation, increased shareholder dividends, and the tax savings have gone to buy back of outstanding shares.

Posted by Flash1022 | Report as abusive

Kansas and Louisiana both had corporate tax slash programs under republican governors. Both states then saw a huge decline in revenues, and are now in enormous debt. It failed. It’s been tried. It did not work. It’s really that simple.

Posted by Solidar | Report as abusive

Bobby Jindal was trying to get an A+ on the little Grover Norquist report card, so he could run for President and look good nationally. But he tanked Louisiana’s economy after 8 years of terrible management. Now the only thing Jindal is going to be President for is Wanker’s Mobile Home States Water Board.

Buncha winnners, Grover and his “pledges.”

Posted by Solidar | Report as abusive