Moving to a Territorial Tax May Not Be the Windfall Multinationals Expect

By :: April 4th, 2013

House Republicans, former GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney, and the chairs of President Obama’s 2010 fiscal commission, Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, have all called for changing the way the U.S. taxes multinational corporations. The concept: Shift from a system where U.S. firms pay U.S. tax on their worldwide income to one where they’d pay U.S. tax only on what they earn at home—a structure known as a territorial system. A territorial system would accomplish this by removing the current tax that U.S. multinationals pay, net of foreign income tax credits, on dividends that their foreign affiliates repatriate to the U.S. parent company.

Backers of a territorial tax, including CEOs of many multinationals themselves, argue that the current worldwide system puts U.S. firms at a competitive disadvantage since they must pay the high U.S. tax rate on repatriated profits earned by their affiliates in low-tax countries, while multinationals based in territorial countries pay only the local tax rate on these profits. They also argue that since nearly all of the rest of the world uses a territorial system, it only makes sense for the U.S. to follow suit. The United Kingdom and Japan are the latest nations to eliminate their taxes on repatriated dividends.

These are compelling claims but for one problem: Existing territorial systems are in fact hybrids that include elements of a worldwide tax. And the current U.S. system is itself a mix of worldwide and territorial systems, in large part because it allows U.S. companies to defer tax on foreign income until they repatriate those earnings back to the U.S.

Any new system in the U.S. would almost certainly be a hybrid as well. As a result, the benefits to U.S.-based multinationals would vary widely. Some firms would come out ahead, but others would not.

While some worry about relatively high U.S. taxes on foreign source income, others worry that some U.S multinationals pay little tax on their domestic income. Multinational companies can shift their reported income from the U.S. to low-tax jurisdictions by allocating interest expenses and other fixed costs to domestic operations and manipulating the prices they report on intercompany transactions (transfer prices). This erodes the domestic tax base, especially for companies with large amounts of intangible assets such as patents, technical know-how, and brand identification. There is no easy way for tax authorities to determine what price companies should charge their affiliates for the use of these assets.

All countries have rules to protect their domestic corporate tax base. Transfer pricing rules and limits on interest deductibility (“thin capitalization” rules) curb income shifting. Other rules depart from a pure territorial system by requiring companies to pay an immediate tax on passive income accrued in foreign jurisdictions or by imposing a minimum tax on income from tax havens. For instance, the U.S. “subpart F” rules apply accrual taxation to portfolio investments and certain other foreign-source income.

While the United Kingdom and Japan have eliminated their taxes on repatriated income, they are also re-assessing their taxes on foreign accrued income. Japan taxes on a current basis foreign income that is subject to local tax rates of less than 20 percent. The U.K. limits the deductibility of interest expense against U.K income and is considering reforming rules for taxing accrued foreign profits.

U.S. lawmakers are trying to find the same balance. House Ways & Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R-MI) has proposed a territorial tax that would exempt 95 percent of foreign dividends received. But he’d also tighten subpart F and enact new thin capitalization rules. In addition, he’s considering three options to prevent base erosion –a tax on excess returns (similar to a proposal by President Obama), a version of the low effective tax rate test used by Japan, and inclusion in subpart F of intangible income from low-tax countries.

In practice, going territorial would eliminate all or most of the tax on repatriated dividends from foreign affiliates. But to counter increased incentives to shift reported profits overseas, the move to territorial could also include new rules to prevent income shifting and increased accrual taxation of some foreign source income.

These changes would eliminate the lock-in for repatriated profits, but could raise the tax burden on profits left overseas. Such a switch could increase economic efficiency because the lock-in of funds overseas imposes costs on multinationals, while producing no revenue for the U.S. Treasury. But would this benefit U.S. multinationals? Some corporations will indeed benefit from the chance to bring back their overseas profits without paying today’s repatriation tax. But others, who have learned how to avoid tax on their intangible profits under the current rules, may find themselves paying more. As with much else, the devil is in the details. Some corporations may regret getting what they wished for.


  1. Tax Roundup, 4/5/2013: Illegally Blonde edition. And: Vaudtitor vacates. « Roth & Company, P.C  ::  8:59 am on April 5th, 2013:

    […] Eric Todor, Moving to a Territorial Tax May Not Be the Windfall Multinationals Expect (TaxVox) […]

  2. Michael Bindner  ::  11:54 pm on April 8th, 2013:

    If the shareholders pay more in dividend taxes (and they are, by 40% at the highest levels – going from 15% to 25%), then this may not be so big a deal – as repatriations are usually distributed rather than invested. More importantly, if the US is going to start playing like the rest of the industrialized world in its tax policy, it is past time to think seriously about Value Added Taxation (especially if it allows more families to avoid paying income and payroll taxes).

  3. Private  ::  2:27 am on April 25th, 2013:

    Is the intent that this would also apply to individuals? That is Americans living and working outside the US will not be required to pay any US tax on their foreign income, and only need to file a NR tax return if they have US sourced income.

  4. michigan labor law poster  ::  7:59 am on June 14th, 2013:

    I stumbled on your site on http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.

    org/2013/04/04/moving-to-a-territorial-tax-may-not-be-the-windfall-multinationals-expect/ and I’m so thankful I did. I feel as though you’re
    reading my mind right now. You come across as knowing so much regarding this, as if
    you authored the book on it or something like that. While I think some extra media like
    some pics or a couple of videos, this will be a fantastic resource.
    I will undoubtedly return.

  5. consolidation debt debt reduction  ::  8:28 pm on July 18th, 2013:

    Much agreed. I discover something completely new and challenging on pages I come upon on http://taxvox.
    on a daily basis. It’s definitely helpful to read through content from other authors and use certain things from other websites.

  6. Chris Oxford  ::  11:00 am on September 25th, 2013:

    I suggest to remove the value added tax.

  7. Malorie  ::  6:15 am on May 24th, 2014:

    I loved as much as you’ll receive carried out right here.
    The sketch is attractive, your authored subject matter stylish.
    nonetheless, you command get bought an edginess over that
    you wish be delivering the following. unwell unquestionably come
    further formerly again as exactly the same nearly a lot often inside
    case you shield this hike.

  8. Michael Bindner  ::  12:59 am on May 28th, 2014:

    No, its time to join the real world and real world countries have a VAT, which if high enough ends the need for corporate profits taxes and the ability to dodge them.

  9. nokia the latest  ::  8:37 pm on July 28th, 2014:

    Awesome blog! Do you have any recommendations for aspiring writers?

    I’m planning to start my own site soon but I’m a little lost on everything.

    Would you propose starting with a free platform like WordPress or go for
    a paid option? There are so many choices out there that I’m
    completely confused .. Any suggestions? Bless you!

  10. fiberglass dock storage box  ::  10:11 pm on August 24th, 2014:

    Many anglers avoid the use of whole eggs altogether because they although they contain all kinds of essential nutritional components fish are obviously going to recognise them from previous egg-containing baits plus eggs affect digestion in various ways.
    Connect “A’s” positive terminal to “B’s” negative terminal.
    Revealed in my unique readymade bait and homemade bait carp and catfish bait
    secrets ebooks is far more powerful information look up my
    unique website (Baitbigfish) and see my biography below for details of
    my ebooks deals right now.

    my page; fiberglass dock storage box

  11. Roma  ::  6:17 pm on September 6th, 2014:

    hello!,I really like your writing so so much! percentage we keep up a correspondence more about your article on AOL?
    I require a specialist in this space to unravel my problem.
    May be that is you! Looking ahead to see you.

    my page … (Roma)

  12. bandage dresses ebay shop  ::  10:42 pm on September 15th, 2014:

    But always use good sense and an objective eye with this
    fashion favorite. This means your purse should match your briefcase if you need to
    use both of them on the same occasion. Within the Wet
    Seal online store, you’ll find jeans, tops, graphic tees, sweaters, bottoms, dresses, active wear, outerwear, shoes, accessories, and intimates.

    Also visit my web-site :: bandage dresses ebay shop

  13. dock how to do the box step  ::  4:06 pm on September 16th, 2014:

    Everyone wants cheap bait these days but the big problem is that cheap often means rubbish.
    Connect “A’s” positive terminal to “B’s” negative terminal.
    Some day you will have to divide your worms
    and start a new farm because of their rapid reproduction rate.

    My web blog: dock how to do the box step