Could The U.S. Fix Taxation of Multinational Corporations With A Sales-Based Formula?

By :: August 26th, 2014

Corporate inversions have been the topic of the summer for tax wonks (beats jellyfish and beach traffic, I suppose), but the issue is a classic bit of Washington misdirection. Instead of focusing on the real disease—an increasingly dysfunctional corporate income tax—we are obsessing over a symptom—firms such as Burger King engaging in self-help reform by relocating their legal residences overseas.

The good news is the tax inversion flap has generated some interesting ideas for broader changes in the way we tax multinational firms. One, raised in a July paper published in Tax Notes by Mike Udell and Aditi Vashist, would base a firm’s U.S. taxable profits on the U.S. share of its total worldwide sales.

Under such a system, called single sales factor apportionment, a multinational would report income for all its worldwide entities and be taxed on a share of its total worldwide profits. But the tax would be apportioned by the percentage of the firm’s worldwide sales that occur in an individual country. For instance, if half of a firm’s sales occurred in the U.S., half of its worldwide profits would be subject to U.S. tax. The levy would apply to all corporations, whether based in the U.S. or elsewhere.

This would be a dramatic change from today’s system, where U.S.-based firms pay tax on current domestic income but defer tax on foreign profits until those earnings are returned to the U.S. while foreign firms pay U.S. tax based on U.S. source income. It would also be a significant shift from current law that treats a multinational corporation’s foreign affiliates as independent entities. Multinationals use today’s rules to sharply reduce taxes by booking profits to affiliates in low-tax jurisdictions and allocating deductible costs to units in high-tax jurisdictions.

Single sales factor apportionment is hardly new. In 2012, 18 states used such a system for their corporate income taxes, according to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. Traditionally, states apportioned corporate income taxes on three factors—property, payroll, and sales—though many now overweight the sales component. A few years ago, California tried to expand its apportionment system to include worldwide income but was blocked by the courts. Michael Mazerov of the Center on Budget & Policies Priorities has taken a detailed, but critical, look at the state experience.

After reviewing the effects on about 2,100 non-financial businesses, Udell and Vashist figure their plan would generate about $250 billion-a-year at today’s 35 percent rate. Or, it could raise the same amount as the current corporate tax with a rate of 28.6 percent.

Their estimate assumes firms don’t change behavior to reduce their tax liability. The authors also make four key adjustments to their basic plan by apportioning worldwide interest expenses, allowing firms to deduct state and local taxes, retaining current law tax expenditures, and adding passive income. The net effect of these changes would reduce their tax base by nearly half.

Their plan might be simpler to administer than current law, though it is hardly without complexity. It would stop many current methods of tax avoidance but may open the door to others. And because it would no longer base taxation on the residence of a business, inversions would no longer be an effective way for firms to avoid taxes.

The authors acknowledge a huge potential loophole in their idea: While firms must report consolidated income through a single return, they could avoid the unitary tax problem by selling through unrelated non-U.S. third-party businesses that would, in turn, distribute in the U.S. This simple step would reduce U.S. sales by the producing firm, thus allowing it to avoid some U.S. tax.

For any formulary apportionment system to really work, all industrialized nations would have to agree to use the same formula, though they could set their own tax rates. That would require new tax treaties across the globe. But because countries with high levels of consumption (such as, say, the U.S.) would reap much of the benefit, it is not clear why poorer, low consumption countries would agree to participate.

Still, with its focus on a single formula, the Udell and Vashist plan is a variation on an idea raised by (among others) my Tax Policy Center colleague Eric Toder and AEI’s Alan Viard: Create a worldwide formula for dividing corporate profits among countries. This sounds great, but watching the European Union agonize over relatively modest changes to the tax regime for multinationals, it is hard to see it happening any time soon.

Give Udell and Vashist credit for trying to take the international debate beyond inversions. Their idea seems to have attracted interest from some in the business community as well as some progressives, such as the Campaign for America’s Future. Let’s see if it can get any traction among lawmakers.

11Comments

  1. Michael Bindner  ::  4:18 am on August 27th, 2014:

    Revenue apportionment of profit is an interesting idea, though still complex. It would seem that a Value Added Tax or a VAT-like Net Business Recepits Tax would be easier and catch profits of US operations just as effectively. The question is what proposal will pass more easily – revenue apportionment or VAT? If neither, maybe administrive action on inversions really is all we can do – if we can even do that. The fact that investment bankers seem to be selling these, even though the corporate tax changes sparking their need are not happening, speaks volumes. Maybe the SEC should look at all inversion actions as fraud and THAT will be how to stop them.

  2. Ralph H  ::  1:36 pm on August 27th, 2014:

    I suspect this would work, mainly because we are currently more a consuming nation rather than manufacturing. Why not a net sales tax instead? Easier to audit, and it could be a relatively small rate to equal our NET return from corporate income tax. It would be much fairer to domestic (smaller) firms as they can’t use the loopholes, I mean legitimate deductions available to large multinationals.

  3. Our Solution To Burger King-Style Abandonment Of U.S. Gains Traction | digger666  ::  9:35 am on August 28th, 2014:

    […] Tuesday, Howard Gleckman at the Tax Policy Center amplified this idea. In “Could The U.S. Fix Taxation of Multinational Corporations With A Sales-Based Formula?” Gleckman wrote about the report and the idea of this new way to tax […]

  4. A solution to Burger King-like inversions: sales-based tax rates | Xtax  ::  10:50 pm on August 28th, 2014:

    […] post Could The U.S. Fix Taxation of Multinational Corporations With A Sales-Based Formula? appeared first […]

  5. Bill Parks  ::  8:02 pm on August 30th, 2014:

    The problem with a sales tax is that it falls equally on the very profitable and those companies that are losing money. The Single Sales Factor Apportionment could be relatively easy to administer and it would be much fairer. More information is available at americaprofits.org.

  6. A Burger King boycott? Senator takes a stand against corporate inversions. | World News Source  ::  10:50 pm on September 2nd, 2014:

    […] be taxed during a US corporate taxation rate, no matter where it is legally incorporated. TPC’sHoward Gleckman delves deeper into this taxation process in his examination of a new paper by Michael Udell and Adithi […]

  7. A Burger King boycott? Senator takes a stand against corporate inversions. | News Today  ::  11:20 pm on September 2nd, 2014:

    […] be taxed during a US corporate taxation rate, no matter where it is legally incorporated. TPC’sHoward Gleckman delves deeper into this taxation process in his examination of a new paper by Michael Udell and Adithi […]

  8. Is It Time to Repeal The Corporate Income Tax? | Is It Time to Repeal The Corporate Income Tax? | Social Dashboard  ::  9:21 am on September 4th, 2014:

    […] Talk of repeal began after my TPC colleague Eric Toder and AEI’s Alan Viard published an important new paper suggesting the corporate levy could be replaced with a direct tax on shareholders. Toder and Viard raised repeal as one of two possible solutions to the vexing problem of the corporate income tax. Unsurprisingly, this dramatic idea attracted the most attention though the other—a proposal for a new international formula for taxing corporate profits –has also generated some interesting discussion. […]

  9. abolishing the corporate income tax – TaxVox – Taxes-Info.com  ::  7:53 pm on September 4th, 2014:

    […] Talk of dissolution began after my TPC co-worker Eric Toder and AEI’s Alan Viard published an critical new paper suggesting a corporate levy could be transposed with a approach taxation on shareholders. Toder and Viard lifted dissolution as one of dual probable solutions to a disturbing problem of a corporate income tax. Unsurprisingly, this thespian thought captivated a many courtesy yet a other—a offer for a new general regulation for fatiguing corporate boost –has also generated some interesting discussion. […]

  10. Is It Time to Repeal The Corporate Income Tax? | Xtax  ::  11:37 am on September 5th, 2014:

    […] Talk of repeal began after my TPC colleague Eric Toder and AEI’s Alan Viard published an important new paper suggesting the corporate levy could be replaced with a direct tax on shareholders. Toder and Viard raised repeal as one of two possible solutions to the vexing problem of the corporate income tax. Unsurprisingly, this dramatic idea attracted the most attention though the other—a proposal for a new international formula for taxing corporate profits –has also generated some interesting discussion. […]

  11. Is it time to repeal the corporate income tax? – News  ::  3:15 am on September 7th, 2014:

    […] Talk of repeal began after my TPC colleague Eric Toder and AEI’s Alan Viard published an important new paper suggesting the corporate levy could be replaced with a direct tax on shareholders. Toder and Viard raised repeal as one of two possible solutions to the vexing problem of the corporate income tax. Unsurprisingly, this dramatic idea attracted the most attention though the other—a proposal for a new international formula for taxing corporate profits –has also generated some interesting discussion. […]