Two Ways to Fix the Corporate Income Tax: Internationalize it or Kill It

By :: April 4th, 2014

In an important new paper, Eric Toder of the Tax Policy Center and Alan Viard of the American Enterprise Institute say that corporate tax reforms now being debated in Congress fall far short of solving the widespread problems with the levy. Rather than merely lowering rates and tinkering with tax rules for U.S.- based multi-national corporations, as President Obama and many members of Congress have proposed, Toder and Viard argue that the corporate system needs what they call “major surgery.”

In a paper funded by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, they propose two alternatives: Either build a tax based on a broad international agreement on how to allocate corporate income among countries, or kill the corporate income tax entirely and replace it with a direct tax on shareholders. In such a system, capital gains would be taxed as they accrue rather than when they are realized upon the sale of shares.

Toder and Viard have both been around Washington a long time and neither has any illusions about the political and technical challenges of either change. But, they argue, the policy options currently on the table “fail to resolve the fundamental contradictions in the current corporate income tax.”

The corporate tax has many well-known shortcomings. Two of the biggest: It’s inability to respond to both the explosion of international commerce  and the growing share of corporate income produced with  intellectual property.  Because the U.S. tax on multinational corporations is based on  corporate residence and income source—economic concepts that increasingly lack clear meaning in the real world---it is relatively simple for firms to manipulate the law to reduce their tax liability.

They argue that current reform proposals could improve matters on the margin, but can’t  resolve these basic contradictions. Neither would the extreme options of either taxing accrued income of U.S. multinationals on a world-wide basis or exempting foreign-source income from tax.

World-wide taxation might prevent U.S. multinationals from shifting reported income to low-tax countries, but it would also place them at a competitive disadvantage if other countries don’t impose similar rules on their multinationals.  A pure territorial tax that exempts all foreign-source income would make U.S. multinationals more competitive, but would encourage them to shift investments and reported income overseas.

What to do? As Viard and Toder see it, there are two options. Neither is perfect but both address the problems a single country has in imposing unilateral tax rules on global entities.

The first would encourage the United States to seek an agreement with other countries on a uniform rule for allocating corporate income among jurisdictions. For instance, countries could apportion income by formula, or agree to tax income from intangibles (such as patents) based on the location of sales.   The base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) project at the OECD, undertaken at the request of the G-20, is exploring ways countries can cooperate to reduce tax avoidance by multinationals. But the OECD has not yet addressed the basic issue of how to allocate profits of multinationals.

Alternatively,  the U.S. could scrap its corporate income tax entirely for publicly-traded companies. U.S. shareholders would be taxed directly at ordinary income tax rates on their dividends and accrued gains, with a deduction for accrued losses.  The tax would be based only on the residence of the shareholder, not of the corporation or on where it earned its income.  Owners of closely-held businesses would pay individual income tax on their firm’s profits,  just as partnerships and S corporations are taxed  today.

While this design is simple, it raises many technical issues: What about shares held by tax-exempt investors such as charitable organizations or qualified retirement plans? Today, they  indirectly pay corporate income tax but in this new model they’d pay no tax at all on these shares.  How do you allocated profits among multiple classes of stock? What happens to existing business tax preferences, which would disappear for publicly-traded corporations but could remain in place for other businesses?  [HG1] While Eric and Alan suggest some solutions, they  acknowledge these are difficult issues.

Finally, there is the cost. TPC estimates that shifting to a shareholder tax would reduce federal revenues by $168 billion at 2015 income levels. How does Congress make up that lost revenue?

Viard and Toder have come up with some creative solutions to a knotty problem. At the very least, they’ve given tax wonks something to talk about. And, with luck, they may help convince lawmakers to break out of today’s non-productive corporate tax debate.

They are discussing their recommendations at a panel discussion this morning at AEI. You can link to the Webcast here.

 

 

5Comments

  1. Tax Roundup, 4/4/14: Your Honor, nobody follows that law! And: extenders adavance. « Roth & Company, P.C  ::  10:00 am on April 4th, 2014:

    […] Gleckman, Two Ways to Fix the Corporate Income Tax: Internationalize it or Kill It. (TaxVox).  I vote […]

  2. Eugene Patrick Devany  ::  11:57 am on April 4th, 2014:

    Tax all businesses (pass-through and C corporations) with a 4% VAT and 8% income (with no tax expenditures and no payroll taxes). Individuals should be able to lower their income tax rate with an optional net wealth tax. Read more at TaxNetWealth.com

  3. Michael Bindner  ::  5:23 am on April 5th, 2014:

    Interesting suggestions. I would add a third, drop the corporate income tax and switch to a Value Added Tax (funding domestic civil and military discretionary spending) and a VAT-like Net Business Receipts Tax (funding social programs) – with a residual income surtax to fund net interest, debt repayment and defense (and yes that would be high). The VAT and NBRT could be regional (with a constitutional amendment to allow region specific rates) while the income tax could be national (or international).

    The rub in a national or international tax would be that there is no nationally sovereign body that can legitimately lay and collect direct taxes (even Europe does not for the EU). There would have to be an elected allied legislature (I do not yet trust world democracy, especially in the countries formerly called the USSR or China – the Arab world, not so much either). If you think the Tea Party minds Obama now, wait until he proposes such a thing. More cooperation by treaty on rules may well be enough – but in either scenario it will be hard to get the Caymens, Ireland and a multitude of others to go along. Indeed, it would be far easier to end the practice of companies declaring where their HQ is, even when it is not. A VAT is harder to avoid.

    The other option, getting rid of the corporate income tax, has promise but loopholes will quickly show up. If we do go down that road, the way to fund the difference would have to be increasing the capital gains and dividend rates (so no one pumps all their increase into stock price raises). As for taxing unrealized capital gains, I believe a VAT and NBRT are a much better choice – although increasing the CGT and Div rates are still winners in my book.

  4. Michael Bindner  ::  5:23 am on April 5th, 2014:

    sounds a little too libertarian to work

  5. love here  ::  12:37 am on April 9th, 2014:

    Articles work in your case 24-7 Once a write-up is up, it’ll keep working to suit your needs as long since it remains in cyberspace. This usually produced by agency staff who project the amount and kinds of staff needed and still have already established salary rates and benefit packages for those staff. http://cort.as/8IPk