Goldman: What Happens Next On Tax Inversions?

Tyler Durden's picture

Via Goldman Sachs' Alec Phillips,

Corporate "inversion" transactions already looked like a potential catalyst for tax reform over the medium term, but an uptick in deal activity seems to have increased the probability of near-term policy activity as well. First, although Congress had looked unlikely to address the issue in the near term, it now appears possible that the issue will debated next month, though at this point we don't expect changes to be enacted into law. Second, President Obama and Treasury Secretary Lew have indicated that the administration is examining ways to intervene without Congress. Our expectation is that such changes might be announced shortly after Congress recesses for the election in early October. Overall, it appears unlikely that Congress or the Treasury will make changes this year that eliminate the tax benefits of inversion, but the probability of incremental changes has increased.

Q: What has changed?

Last week, the Treasury reversed its prior position and stated that it may have authority to partially address tax inversions. A widely held view over the last few months has been that the Treasury lacks the authority to block companies from tax expatriation as long they comply with existing rules. Treasury Sec. Lew himself stated in July that “we do not believe we have the authority to address this inversion question through administrative action.” However, on August 5 the Treasury reversed itself, stating that it is “reviewing a broad range of authorities for possible administrative actions that could limit the ability of companies to engage in inversions, as well as approaches that could meaningfully reduce the tax benefits after inversions take place.” The following day, President Obama explained that the administration is “examining…how existing statutes are interpreted by rule or by regulation or tradition or practice that can at least discourage some of the folks who may be trying to take advantage of this loophole.” While the administration has not committed to making any changes to existing policy, it seems likely in our view that the Treasury will announce at least an incremental change to the rules around inversions.

Q: What can be done without legislation?

Treasury officials have not said what action might be taken, but two areas appear to be in focus based on commentary by tax experts, such as Harvard Law professor and former Treasury official Stephen Shay and from lawmakers, such as House Ways and Means Committee Ranking Democrat Levin, who circulated draft legislation in late July on the issue:

  • “Earnings stripping.” The relatively high US statutory tax rate creates an incentive for companies to deduct as large a share of expenses as possible from US income. One means of doing so involves deducting interest in the US on loans from foreign subsidiaries. Rules exist to limit this practice, but the Treasury appears to be looking at tightening these rules. Rep. Levin's draft legislation would also further restrict these strategies.
  • Treatment of deferred overseas earnings. US-based companies typically avoid repatriating foreign profits in order to defer US tax on those earnings. The downside of doing so is that it is difficult under existing rules to distribute those earnings to shareholders or invest in US operations. Tax inversions provide companies with much greater flexibility in this area and this is a primary motivation for some companies to expatriate. Shay proposes tightening rules on use of pre-inversion foreign earnings, as does Rep. Levin's draft legislation. However, while nothing can be ruled out, future post-inversion foreign profits do not appear to be a focus.

The Treasury, which oversees the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), may look at other areas as well and there is significant uncertainty regarding how far it can go to limit the tax benefits to companies that expatriate. More importantly, there is even greater uncertainty regarding how far the Treasury will go. Part of the uncertainty has to do with the fact that some changes would probably apply beyond expatriated companies and could affect all US subsidiaries of foreign multinationals. For example, Rep. Levin's draft legislation would apply new restrictions on "earnings stripping" to all foreign-controlled US subsidiaries, not only those that were formally US-based companies. While the Treasury might like to focus any administrative changes it makes on expatriated companies, it is not clear whether it would have the ability to do so.

Q: Where does Congress stand on the issue?

Congressional Democrats have introduced two types of legislation targeting the inversion issue, and they look likely to introduce a third set of proposals soon.

  • First, several Democratic lawmakers have proposed raising the existing thresholds for eligibility to move to a foreign jurisdiction. Under current law, a US-based company may move its tax domicile abroad only if, as part of the transaction, the stock ownership changes by at least 20%. The pending proposals follow the President's budget by raising this threshold to 50% and requiring that the new foreign company have substantial business activity in the new tax jurisdiction.
  • The second group of proposals would prohibit the federal government from contracting with expatriated companies that do not meet the higher 50% threshold.
  • A third forthcoming set of bills would address earnings stripping and potentially other tax-reduction strategies that expatriated companies, among others, use to reduce their US tax rates.

As noted above, Rep. Levin (D-MI) looks likely to introduce legislation targeting these issues in the House, while Sen. Schumer (D-NY) has indicated he will offer legislation in the Senate.

Republicans have not spoken much on this issue. Senator Hatch (R-UT), the ranking Republican on the tax-writing Senate Finance Committee, has stated that while he would like to address the issue he will support a legislative intervention only if it is not retroactive, moves toward a territorial tax system, and does not raise net revenues for the Treasury. House Ways and Means Chairman Camp has pointed to his tax reform plan as the best way to address inversions. House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI), who may assume the chairmanship from Rep. Camp next year--Camp is term limited as chairman--has said a short-term fix could make the problem worse. All three of them view tax reform as the ultimate solution.

Q: What happens next?

Congress will be the focus in September. As noted above, additional legislation on the topic is likely to be introduced when Congress comes back into session and there is a chance that this could come up for a vote in the Senate, though passage seems less likely, and reaching the President's desk even less so. A second potential issue to watch will be the possibility that the issue could become wrapped up in the debate over extending government spending authority, which expires September 30. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has raised the possibility of including language to restrict inversion transactions in the upcoming spending bill that will need to pass by September 30 to keep the government operating. This could be an interesting strategy because Republicans, who have often lacked sufficient support among their own members for spending legislation, might need Democratic votes to pass it. That said, the likelihood that Congress enacts inversion-related legislation prior to the election remains low in our view.

Assuming that Congress does not act before it adjourns for the election in early October, the ball will be in the administration's court. Neither the Treasury nor the White House have indicated when they might announce any plans to use their existing authority to rein in inversion activity, but a delay until Congress adjourns seems likely. Not only would Treasury be able to use likely congressional inaction to justify its own approach, but a longer period of uncertainty regarding Treasury's intended policy changes would presumably deter more deal activity. While it is unclear what the Treasury will decide, it seems fairly likely that at least an incremental change related to inversions will be announced.

Following the mid-term election November 4, Congress will return for a "lame duck" session of Congress. The main item of interest will be "tax extenders" legislation to renew a number of expired and soon-to-expire corporate tax provisions. There is nothing in the legislation as it currently stands that addresses inversions, but it is hard to imagine that the issue will not be raised and/or amendments offered when the bill is debated.

Next year, how Congress addresses inversions will depend on two things: whether the pace of inversion transactions continues or eventually slows and whether Congress acts on tax reform. If the pace of deals slows--this could happen because of legislative or regulatory uncertainty or simply because there are not enough suitable acquisition targets for inversions--Congress may do nothing about corporate expatriations. However, if transactions continue at their current pace, an eventual response seems likely. As we recently noted, the inversion trend is renewing interest in tax reform and the increasing focus on the issue seems likely to create an opening for tax reform in 2015.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
NoWayJose's picture

Corporations have gone to the well too many times and turned inversion into a well worth it legal exercise.  I fully expect to see something like a corporate VAT tax where it doesn't matter where you are in the world -- if you do business in the US you pay it.  There are too many lobbied loop holes for corporations.

doctor10's picture

Could be wrong-but isn't this what the Crimeans did to the EU earlier this year? Basically out form under the EU bankerz taxes and debt?

Harbanger's picture

It's easier and more profitable to not do business in the US.

hidingfromhelis's picture

It's easier and more profitable to pay off legislators and be allowed to do business in the US but book the profits offshore.

Kaiser Sousa's picture

"Derivatives that helped inflate the 2007 credit bubble are being remade for a new generation. JPMorgan Chase & Co. is offering a swap contract tied to a speculative-grade loan index that makes it easier for investors to wager on the debt. Goldman Sachs Group Inc. is planning as much as 10 billion euros ($13.4 billion) of structured investments that bundle debt into top-rated securities, while ProShares last week started offering exchange-traded funds backed by credit-default swaps on company debt.

Wall Street is starting to return to the financial innovation that helped extend the debt rally seven years ago before exacerbating the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. The instruments are springing back to life as investors seek new ways to boost returns that are being suppressed by central bank stimulus. At the same time, they’re allowing hedge funds and other investors to bet more cheaply on a plunge after a 145 percent rally in junk bonds since 2008."


Squid Viscous's picture

OT-  was Robin "Williams" a heeb? my money says yes...

disabledvet's picture

Meh. How do you blame "big business" for a "jobless prosperity"? Think Congressman Camp is spot on...a short term fix could make the problem a lot worse. Some companies have volunteered not to do the inversion even though they could. If this becomes an issue of "patriotism" the entire economy could get whacked.

I think everyone agrees that our intervention in the Middle East was a war of choice now. We obviously don't need the oil. Now that we're going back in again..."plus Russia"...time for the bills to get paid?

My first thought is that this is a cover for a recession that a: we are either in or b: we are going into.

Interest rates are already the lowest in history...there is huge carry in the interest rate complex, all markets have boomed save the dollar...I say let it go. "Taint perrty" that's fer sure though.

Escrava Isaura's picture


Your post reminded me of this:

I think you might find your answer there.

kill switch's picture


This has nothing to do with this article but is summarizes the FUBAR we live in........

JR's picture

Ukraine Messing With Capital Investments

Michael S. Rozeff

It’s the exceptional state that treats capital in economically enlightened ways that promote capital accumulation. If they are like the U.S., they pass law after law and regulation after regulation that cause capital accumulation to stall, the result being stagnation or even deterioration in living standards. So, what does the new government in Ukraine do? It messes with existing contracts for the passage of natural gas through Ukraine. It does this under cover of calling the proposed new law “sanctions” against Russia. That’s a fabrication. But I wonder how the lenders at the IMF feel about these steps toward state control over gas transportation or the breaking of contracts with Russian companies. This is another step toward creating a hostile environment for capital investment in Ukraine and trade, the first one that I noted yesterday was a steep increase in taxes on the natural gas industry.

“Ukraine said on Monday that European energy companies would have to agree [to] major contract revisions when purchasing Russian natural gas if parliament approved imposing sanctions on Gazprom.”

This sort of action is definitely the wrong way to improve Ukraine’s economy: by inserting the force of the state into a major industry, by disrupting existing contracts, and by making potential investors in Ukraine doubt how secure their property rights will be. Along the way, Ukraine will be wanting to extract higher taxes on transportation through Ukrainian territory.

9:18 am on August 12, 2014 Email Michael S. Rozeff

are we there yet's picture

The governemnt always needs an increase in money. Always. Reality or logic are no barrier to their apitite for money and power. The logistics of how to tax foreign branches of US companies, or foreign pairent companies of US subsidaries for money made or moved around by accountants is logisticaly unworkable. Plus some foreign countries have currency controls in different ways that have too many hands grabing, and groping a milking a cows teats. The problem is that every congressman, and every tax official,and every federal reserve employee needs to have a 2 week enima and douche to get the message that the host is tired of unlimited paracites sucking blood they do not have.

earleflorida's picture

in america today when all revenue's come from the proletariet,... small and median size companies, with a huge negative or minimal contribution from corporate america are paid directly into government coffers, very little finds its way into mainstream america eg. QEinfinity ...,ironically it has become the dominant centrist theme in the corporate/ global economy, whilst its thesis remains staunchly tethered to the promulgation of 19th century regalia industrial revolution,... this capitalistic development in the land of 'Amerikana`Oz?'  such is an anathema too do...with friends from the dark side of the moon parading on wall street's feigned #33 liberty street adjacent marshalsea prison?   

it has turned, or morphed into a feudalistic system of inequality? what does this mean? let me explain: it has become the dominant tour`de'force in an economy lulled to sleep by a somnambulistic bureaucracy, where fascism hooks up with capitalism-- but, weighted not in a democratic treasury vault of ?tangibles?!?

the neo-con political marriage of wedge-issuing,  created too and fro, for the dumbed-down vacuuming of our polarized populus... but not for the rangefinders?, which can turn upside-down, right-side-up, the political functions of a capitalist state that can be trained in exercising in unorthodox ways without skipping a beat! while always guaranteeing the position of a full-fledged honour system ruling class? it never acts because it needs not too as the simplistic instrument of that class,... the bourgeoisie class!

this american capitalist and democratic republic of bourgeoisie is out of the closet!, with its internal divisions unwilling or unwantingly capable of excercising their marxist agenda in a democratic manner, yet they have usurped what is left of pure capitalism!,... through some queerish quixotic subserviant hybrid parliamentary system where their least concern be a constitution of executive priviledge from a bought and paid for shylock!

this has all occurred within a fortnite of yearlings, under constant warring... thus metastasising, and coalescing at the same time on the form development has taken in a dysfunctional society of wanna be socialist and whether the pre-conditioning of two-generations crushed by a twin-tower of psychosis`via ala'bibi'laden-a'isis? for a newly hatched bourgeoisie democracy with all the 'trimming?' can be excepted with gratitude and met with endearment from 'john`q' public through a grandios'esqe ordained corral of freedoms ain't free fodder of a 'snap'ped welfare trough and then sum, this electri'cuted reprsentation faux covenant globalist sanction'd... corporations our are people, too?

marx must be laughing in his grave with lenin giving a bolchevik fist pump of iron... to a high five capitalist democracy lost in a happening?