Corporate Taxation And Corporate Tax

3) Molly sells her car, valued at $30,000, to her nephew Todd for $18,000. Molly has made a taxable gift.

For a corporation in 2012, the domestic production activities deduction is equal to 9% of the higher of (1) qualified production activities income or (2) taxable income. However, the deduction cannot exceed 50% of the W-2 wages related to qualified production activities income.

With the advancements in the globalization of the economy, corporations are finding more ways to avoid the extraordinary tax rates set in place of The United States Of America. With the loss of revenue from large companies dodging taxes the government must make up for the loss by either raising taxes or changing the tax code. A recent company to avoid american taxes is Johnson Controls, a company that “…would not exist as it is today but for American taxpayers, who paid $80 billion in 2008…”(The Editorial Board). This use of American resources to get through tough times, and run to another county during an economic incline is an act that calls for reform in the American tax system. However congress has not passed any legislation to fix the

The precise structure of inactive investment in a foreign nation depends largely on the treatment of the structure under the tax laws of the host country and the U.S.

However, the companies only have to pay the U.S. tax for foreign revenues once they bring the profits back to the United States. As a result of these current tax laws, U.S. companies that seek to avoid high corporate tax rates hold their foreign earned profits overseas. “It just makes no sense to pay a substantial tax on it,” said Joseph Kennedy, a senior fellow at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (Rubin, R.). It is far too easy for an IT corporation to create a patent in a foreign country and direct revenue to a corporation within that country, thus avoiding the much higher U.S. tax rates. According to Joint Committee on Taxation estimates, the lost revenue is increasing over time as corporations find even more creative ways to make their U.S. profits look like offshore income (Richards, K., & Craig, J.). As result, multinational American corporations have as much as $2 trillion held in overseas subsidiaries and if brought into the United States with the current tax laws, the federal government could benefit by nearly $50 billion per year.

Throughout years large American industrial companies have been running away from U.S. taxes, but there has been a new change. Companies such as Apple and Google have been affected by a change foreign countries are going through collecting higher taxes than before. It seems as if no longer can these companies get away with paying low taxes. This is happening because the European Commission have passed an order to collect high taxes. One example is Ireland who was ordered to collect fourteen billion dollars from Apple, which brought a surprise to this company. Companies have run out of places to run and pay one percent or less of taxes in foreign places, instead of paying back home.

The main objective of many companies is to minimize their tax obligations. Jeffers (2014) discussed the reason of why companies adopt tax inversion strategies. The researcher indicated that the income maximization is a major reason of companies attempting to reduce their tax liability (pp. 100-101). Tax inversion strategies provide companies an advantage to lower income tax rate. Today, U.S. corporations renounce its U.S. citizenship and move to low-tax countries. Companies that reincorporate oversees are not obligated to pay U.S. taxes on earning income (p. 99). Many countries implement tax competition strategies to attract and retain businesses. Well-known companies, such as Exxon Mobil, Hewlett Packard, Tyco, General Electric, PepsiCo, etc. take benefits of tax shelter opportunities overseas (p. 102). Other benefits of the jurisdiction abroad are flexible banking laws and simplified litigation processes.

“The United States has the highest corporate tax rate of the 34 developed, free-market nations that make up the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). The marginal corporate tax rate in the United States is 35% at the federal level… according to the 2013 OECD Tax Database. The global average is much lower, at 25%” (Fontinelle, 2014). Even though there are ways for businesses to decrease or even avoid these payments, this high figure deters foreign investors from considering the United States for business and sends them looking in more favorable countries like Canada or Ireland. Adding to pushing away potential foreign investors, U.S. firms flee to those tax favorable places to avoid it. “When these companies move their headquarters or create foreign subsidiaries, jobs and profits move overseas” (Fontinelle,

However, the introduction of such a law becomes increasingly difficult when the companies being questioned are some of the largest and wealthiest in the world. In order to truly understand the stature of these companies, one would need to look into some of the statistics regarding them. Remarkably, according to Al Jazeera America “the largest 500 U.S. companies would owe an estimated $620 billion in U.S. taxes” if they had to declare all their overseas stockpiles, of around $2.1 trillion (“Al Jazeera America”). In addition, it found that “three-quarters of the 500 biggest companies utilize tax havens”. The top three offenders included Apple, General Electric and Microsoft. In many cases according to the report, the money is not being utilized to improve foreign economies. By this they mean to say that, U.S. businesses were not using their overseas profit to build factories and employ individuals. Instead, the overseas profit was a result of accounting tricks purposely implemented to benefit the business alone. To put all of this in perspective, the United States is losing billions of dollars to foreign economies. These taxes are being introduced into countries such as Ireland and Luxembourg. In other words the money that should be invested in the United States of America on public services, is being

Prior to the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment of the American Constitution, the majority of the income received by the federal government was through tariffs and excise taxation (Pollack, 2013). Tariffs are taxes “levied by governments on the value including freight and insurance of imported products (Tariffs and Import Fees, 2014)”. Excise taxes are “taxes paid when purchases are made on a specific good, such as gasoline (Excise Tax, 2014).” While the individual citizen did not incur wage taxation, through trickle-down economics, consumers often dealt with higher costs of goods as importers sought to recoup

The income earned by the U.S. individuals and corporations in the foreign countries or foreign source are taxed by the U.S. government, even though other countries also tax any income earned within their borders. To offset this double taxation of income by two different countries, the U.S. grants both individuals and corporations a foreign tax credit (FTC) that can be used to offset income taxes assessed by a foreign country on the income earned there (Foreign Tax Credit, FTC, n.d.). The FTC is allowable for foreign income taxes and other similar taxes, such as excess profit and war profit taxes. However, only income taxes qualify for the credit. The Value Added Taxes (VAT) and property, sales and severance taxes do not qualify, although they may be deductible.

The United States of America, a country driven by business, money, and technological advancement, has the third highest corporate income tax rate in the world; the highest among the thirty-four industrialized nations of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (Pomerleau, 1). Large corporations that have developed in the United States have recognized this. In 1982, McDermott Inc., with the help of its lawyers, developed a strategy in which they could continue with their business, founded in New Orleans, without having to be punished by the prohibitive tax rates employed by the U.S. government (Mider, 2). Thus, the corporate tax inversion was conceived; an idea that allowed businessmen and women that have used

Intercompany transactions could occur across national borders, it would lead MNC companies to get more exposure to the differences of the tax regulations between countries. This might lead MNC companies to set up their objective to minimize their taxes through the use of discretionary transfer prices. These issues are attracted the attention of the member of the U.S. senate, foreign governments and international organization such as the OECD, G20 and European Union (EU).

A tax haven is a country that offers foreign corporations and individuals relatively low corporate and income tax rates, with a politically and economically stable environment. Some tax havens are Switzerland, Hong Kong, Bermuda, Ireland, and the Cayman Islands. Although the businesses have moved across seas, the United States forces them to pay the corporate tax. Fortunately for the businesses, it they keep their income and money across seas they do not have to the pay the American corporate tax, Unfortunately this is ghastly for the United States Government businesses keep their products and profits over seas.

The actions of multinational corporations (MNCs), which derive from their morally dubious goals, may be completely legitimate within a capitalist society. One of these actions that will be examined in this essay is the use of tax havens, as a way of avoiding higher tax liability. This paper will utilise the case study of Apple’s tax avoidance, in examining the legitimation of a company’s goal of profit maximisation, a goal that is against the moral/social consensus