Another Repatriation Tax Holiday?
Election 2012 voters beware … of candidates’ and pundits’ calls for a second
repatriation tax holiday to coax U.S. firms to reinvest their foreign earnings in
domestic operations.
The prospect of another repatriation tax holiday might seem enticing. The initial
American Jobs Creation Act (ACJA) of 2004 cut the tax rate from 35 to 5 percent,
prompting companies to bring home $312 billion. But now, amid an escalating $14
trillion national debt, many of the same companies are among those keeping about
$3 trillion on ice — more than $1 billion of it in foreign subsidiaries — to delay
paying federal taxes. The United States levies the highest corporate income tax
rate among industrial nations and is on average 15 percentage points higher than
that of U.S. trading partners.
These factors underscore a case for avoiding, or at least restructuring, a second
such holiday, according to new research by Mike Faulkender, associate professor
of finance. His findings show the AJCA-intended reinvestment was marginal and primarily
from smaller companies less able to otherwise raise capital (via bond markets, equity
holders, etc.). Conversely, big firms, such as Pfizer, which hauled home $43 billion,
applied very little of its repatriated funds to new investment.
Nonetheless, former GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum floated the idea
during primary season. Related proposals have surfaced in Congress with bipartisan
backing from the likes of Sens. John McCain and Chuck Schumer.
“Do we want to apply another temporary patch to a gaping problem?” Faulkender
asks rhetorically.
Another tax holiday also would be counterproductive. “The AJCA explicitly called
for a one-time event,” Faulkender says. “A repeat would incentivize companies to
plan for periodic holidays and invest even more in foreign subsidiaries to maximize
the benefit.”
“And because capital is inherently fungible, government is limited in dictating
whether these firms reinvest in U.S. operations and add jobs,” he adds. “If we bring
back the holiday, it would make sense to limit the deduction to $1 billion to $2
billion per company in order to avoid giving the likes of Pfizer a tax break with
zero incentive for domestic investment afterward.”
Larger, U.S.-based transnational companies tend to jump at favorable investment
opportunities, domestic or abroad, and do not need money sitting in their foreign
subsidiaries to act.
“The source of the problem circles back to the tax rate,” says Faulkender. “As
a country, we need to acknowledge we do not have a closed economy. Business and
capital are increasingly fluid regardless of borders. So why not address this core
of the issue by changing the tax structure?”
Reform ideas from both sides of the aisle fall short, he adds. A Republican-proposed
territorial tax would eliminate any repatriation tax, but provide no incentive for
reinvesting domestically. The Obama administration-endorsed “global minimum tax,”
based on immediately taxing revenue in the foreign subsidiary on top of the host
government tax, risks encouraging large firms to pull out of the country. “Imagine
Google headquarters and its U.S. jobs moving to Ireland, with its 10 percent tax
rate.”
Faulkender says the most effective and efficient approach lies in a competitive
tax rate. That would offset potential lost revenue by creating incentives for long-term
domestic investment. It would also bolster a sparse tax base. “To more directly
recoup revenue, we could flip the 35-to-15-percent corporate-to-personal income
tax ratio, as individuals are relatively less likely to move abroad.”
But the latter idea is unpalatable for politicians, he concedes. “It’s much easier
to target and demonize an Exxon Mobil instead of its individual shareholders, illustrating
how political leadership on this issue gets in the way of sound economic policy.”
By Gregory Muraski