DOCSLIB.ORG

Closing the Billion Dollar Loophole

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Closing the Billion Dollar Loophole Closing the Billion Dollar Loophole How States Are Reclaiming Revenue Lost to Offshore Tax Havens Closing the Billion Dollar Loophole How States Are Reclaiming Revenue Lost to Offshore Tax Havens OSPIRG Phineas Baxandall, Dan Smith, Tom Van Heeke and Benjamin Davis, U.S. PIRG Education Fund Winter 2014 Acknowledgments The authors thank Dan Bucks, former Director of the Montana Department of Revenue and former Director of the Multistate Tax Commission, for providing guidance on this report’s methodology and details on state attempts to address offshore tax haven abuse. The authors bear any responsibility for factual errors. The recommendations are those of OSPIRG. The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not neces- sarily reflect the views of our funders or those who provided review. 2014 OSPIRG. Some Rights Reserved. This work is licensed under a Creative Com- mons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives 3.0 Unported License. To view the terms of this license, visit creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0. When consumers are cheated or the voices of ordinary citizens are drowned out by spe- cial interest lobbyists, OSPIRG speaks up and takes action. We uncover threats to public health and wellbeing and fight to end them, using the time-tested tools of investigative research, media exposés, grassroots organizing, advocacy and litigation. OSPIRG’s mission is to deliver persistent, result-oriented public interest activism that protects consumers, encourages a fair, sustainable economy, and fosters responsive, democratic government. For more information, please visit our website at www.ospirg.org. Layout: Harriet Eckstein Graphic Design Cover Photo: Maksym Dykha, Shutterstock Due to an error, an earlier version of Closing the Billion Dollar Loophole was mistakenly reported to have been written and produced by OSPIRG Foundation. In actuality, OSPIRG wrote and produced Closing the Billion Dollar Loophole. Table of Contents Executive Summary 1 Introduction 4 Offshore Tax Havens Cost States Billions 6 States Can Tax Corporate Revenues Held in 9 Offshore Havens by Updating their Tax Codes Combined Reporting and the History of State Attempts to 9 Close Offshore Tax Loopholes How to Close the Water’s Edge Loophole 10 States Have Collected Tax Revenue from Closing the Water’s Edge Loophole 11 All States Should Close Offshore Tax Loopholes 13 and Recapture Revenue Lost to Offshore Tax Havens Methodology 16 Estimating Additional Tax Revenue to Be Gained by Closing 16 the Water’s Edge Loophole Calculating State Tax Revenue Lost to Offshore Tax Havens 19 Appendix A: State-by-State Tax Revenue Lost 20 to Offshore Tax Havens Appendix B: State-by-State Potential Additional Tax 21 Revenue Collected by Closing the Water’s Edge Loophole Appendix C: Full Text of Oregon House Bill 2460 22 Notes 25 Executive Summary very year, corporations use compli- treat a proportionate share of the income cated gimmicks to shift U.S. earn- that corporations book to known tax havens Eings to subsidiaries in offshore tax as domestic income for state tax purposes, havens—countries with minimal or no since it can be reasonably extrapolated that taxes—in order to reduce their state and the income arose from business activity in federal income tax liability by billions of those states. dollars. Tax haven abusers benefit from Other states can also collect some of America’s markets, public infrastructure, the revenue lost to offshore tax havens educated workforce, security and rule of by adopting policies similar to those in law—all supported in one way or another Montana and Oregon. Specifically, states by tax dollars. But they use tax havens to must: escape supporting these public structures and benefits. Ultimately, ordinary taxpay- • Close the “water’s edge” loophole by ers end up picking up the tab, either in mandating that companies include the form of higher taxes or cuts to public their U.S. profits held in offshore spending priorities. tax havens when calculating taxes. While much attention is paid to the im- In many states, companies calcu- pact of tax haven abuse on federal revenue, late their tax liability based on their offshore tax havens also reduce state revenue income held in subsidiaries incorpo- because state tax codes are often tethered rated within the water’s edge (that is, to federally defined taxable income. With within the United States). By declar- Congress often gridlocked, states should ing a statutory list of tax havens, take action to reduce the impact of offshore states can tax corporate profits held tax havens on state budgets. in tax havens that lie past the water’s edge. Montana and Oregon have passed laws to curb offshore tax haven abuse • Before closing the water’s edge loop- and collect tax revenue that otherwise hole, states must adopt “combined would be lost. These two states simply reporting,” which requires corpora- Executive Summary tions to list the profits of all their and Oregon in closing the water’s edge subsidiaries on their tax forms. Com- loophole, they could have collected an addi- bined reporting provides states with tional billion dollars in combined revenues a ready formula that can be applied to tax haven income to determine Table ES-1. Closing the Water’s Edge which portion should be taxable by Loophole Would Have Generated the state. Millions of Dollars of Additional Tax Revenue in 2012* To date, 23 states and the District of Columbia have adopted combined report- Potential ing requirements, but of these jurisdictions Additional only Montana and Oregon have also closed Tax Revenue Rank State (millions) the water’s edge loophole by creating a statutory list of tax haven countries to be 1 California $246.4 accounted for in corporate combined re- 2 New York $141.6 ports. Montana is now collecting millions 3 Texas $141.5 of dollars in additional tax revenue and 4 Illinois $108.3 Oregon is poised to do the same with its 5 Massachusetts $79.0 new law coming into force in 2014. 6 Alaska $45.8 7 Minnesota $33.0 • Closing the water’s edge loophole al- lowed Montana to collect $4.2 million 8 Wisconsin $27.6 in corporate taxes that would have 9 New Hampshire $26.1 otherwise gone uncollected in 2008. 10 Kansas $21.9 In 2010, the last year for which data 11 Arizona $20.1 are available, closing the water’s edge 12 Michigan $18.9 loophole allowed Montana to collect 13 District of $17.9 an additional $7.2 million. Columbia 14 Colorado $15.3 • After closing the water’s edge loop- 15 North Dakota $14.9 hole in 2013, Oregon’s Legislative 16 Utah $12.9 Revenue Office expects the state will 17 West Virginia $9.6 collect $18 million in corporate taxes in the 2014 tax year that would have 18 Idaho $9.4 otherwise gone uncollected. In the 19 Nebraska $7.3 2015-2017 biennium, the Legislative 20 Maine $7.2 Revenue Office expects the state will 21 Hawaii $5.5 collect an additional $42 million. 22 Vermont $4.8 Other states too should close the water’s * With one exception—Massachusetts—all revenue estimates in this table are for 2012, edge loophole. In doing so they could col- calculated using 2012 data. The Massachu- lect millions in additional tax revenue to setts figure represents the midpoint of an reduce the tax burden on other taxpayers officially calculated range produced by the or increase needed services. In addition Massachusetts Department of Revenue using to Montana and Oregon, twenty-one 2011 data. The 2012 figure calculated using our own conservative methodology ($62.1 states and the District of Columbia have million) aligns closely with the low end of the combined reporting and could implement officially calculated range for 2011 ($64-$94 this reform. If they had joined Montana million). See note 45 for more information. 2 Closing the Billion Dollar Loophole in 2012 (note that this figure was calculated havens. In 2011, offshore tax havens cost using 2012 data for all states except Massa- states an estimated total of $20.7 billion chusetts where an official, state-generated in corporate tax revenue. California lost estimate for 2011 was used instead) (see $3.3 billion to offshore tax havens—the Table ES-1). most lost by any state. States that close Closing the water’s edge loophole would the water’s edge loophole could also put be a good start for states in reclaiming a pressure on Congress to stop offshore tax portion of the state revenues lost to tax haven abuse at the federal level. Executive Summary Introduction very person and every corporation in have funded the school programs and America benefits from government would have gone a long way toward closing services—from schools to paved Colorado’s 2012 fiscal year budget gap of E 3 roads to courts and public health. We all $450 million. should contribute our share in taxes when While corporations’ use of offshore tax it comes to paying the tab. Yet even though havens has exacerbated budget and revenue America’s corporations use these govern- problems in many states, recent attention ment services, many avoid paying taxes for has been more often paid to the huge sums them by moving their profits into offshore in federal taxes that multinational corpora- havens. tions avoid by abusing tax havens; a recent Not only is the practice of exploiting academic analysis estimated that the Fed- tax havens unfair, but it strains federal eral Treasury lost $90 billion in 2008 due and state budgets. In 2011, offshore tax to corporate tax haven use.4 Since corpora- havens prevented Colorado from collect- tions pay state income taxes largely based ing approximately $246 million in taxes, on their federally defined taxable income, and—with 2012 general fund revenues the revenue losses hit states as well.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Tax Challenges in the Digital Economy
    DIRECTORATE GENERAL FOR INTERNAL POLICIES POLICY DEPARTMENT A: ECONOMIC AND SCIENTIFIC POLICY TAX CHALLENGES IN THE DIGITAL ECONOMY STUDY Abstract This paper analyses direct and indirect tax challenges in the digital economy in light of the conclusions of the OECD’s BEPS (Base Erosion and Profit Shifting) Project. While assessing the recent reforms in the area of taxation within the EU and third countries, it revisits the question of whether or not specific measures are needed for the digital sector. Taking into account the recent scandals involving big digital companies and their aggressive tax planning practices in the EU, the specificities of the digital sector and the legal landscape in the 28 Member States, the paper makes policy recommendations for further tax reforms in order to tackle tax avoidance and harmful competition. This document was provided/prepared by Policy Department A at the request of the TAXE2 Committee. IP/A/TAXE2/2016-04 June 2016 PE 579.002 EN This document was requested by the European Parliament's Special Committee on Tax Rulings AUTHOR Eli HADZHIEVA, Dialogue for Europe RESPONSIBLE ADMINISTRATOR Dirk VERBEKEN EDITORIAL ASSISTANT Karine GAUFILLET LINGUISTIC VERSIONS Original: EN ABOUT THE EDITOR Policy departments provide in-house and external expertise to support EP committees and other parliamentary bodies in shaping legislation and exercising democratic scrutiny over EU internal policies. To contact Policy Department A or to subscribe to its newsletter please write to: Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy European Parliament B-1047 Brussels E-mail: [email protected] Manuscript completed in April 2016 © European Union, 2016 This document is available on the Internet at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/studies DISCLAIMER The opinions expressed in this document are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position of the European Parliament.
    [Show full text]
  • Greenstein: Assessing the Tax Provisions of the Bipartisan Budget and Tax Deals
    CBPP STATEMENT 202-408-1080 For Immediate Release: December 16, 2015 [email protected] Contact: www.cbpp.org Regan Lachapelle, 202- 408-1080, [email protected] Greenstein: Assessing the Tax Provisions of the Bipartisan Budget and Tax Deals The tax parts of the new bipartisan deals include provisions that mark a major achievement in reducing poverty and helping poor and modest-income working families, but also disturbing provisions that could cause budget deficits and health care costs to rise substantially over time. Assessing the tax provisions as a whole depends on the standard one uses: whether one compares them to exemplary tax policy or to what policymakers likely would do in the absence of these deals. Moreover, a more definitive judgment lies in the future, because much depends on whether the provisions delaying the excise tax on high-cost health insurance plans and suspending the health insurance and medical device taxes prove a death knell for those measures or whether they ultimately take effect, with reforms in the excise tax. Tax Credits for Working Families The deal makes permanent three significant improvements in the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and the low-income component of the Child Tax Credit (CTC), along with the American Opportunity Tax Credit (AOTC) — all of which were originally enacted as part of the 2009 Recovery Act. Under current law, these EITC and CTC improvements as well as the AOTC, which helps low- and middle-income families defray college costs, are set to expire at the end of 2017. Making the EITC and CTC improvements permanent would rank among the biggest anti-poverty achievements, outside of health reform, in years.
    [Show full text]
  • EFFECTS of the TAX CUTS and JOBS ACT: a PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS William G
    EFFECTS OF THE TAX CUTS AND JOBS ACT: A PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS William G. Gale, Hilary Gelfond, Aaron Krupkin, Mark J. Mazur, and Eric Toder June 13, 2018 ABSTRACT This paper examines the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) of 2017, the largest tax overhaul since 1986. The new tax law makes substantial changes to the rates and bases of both the individual and corporate income taxes, cutting the corporate income tax rate to 21 percent, redesigning international tax rules, and providing a deduction for pass-through income. TCJA will stimulate the economy in the near term. Most models indicate that the long-term impact on GDP will be small. The impact will be smaller on GNP than on GDP because the law will generate net capital inflows from abroad that have to be repaid in the future. The new law will reduce federal revenues by significant amounts, even after allowing for the modest impact on economic growth. It will make the distribution of after-tax income more unequal, raise federal debt, and impose burdens on future generations. When it is ultimately financed with spending cuts or other tax increases, as it must be in the long run, TCJA will, under the most plausible scenarios, end up making most households worse off than if TCJA had not been enacted. The new law simplifies taxes in some ways but creates new complexity and compliance issues in others. It will raise health care premiums and reduce health insurance coverage and will have adverse effects on charitable contributions and some state and local governments.
    [Show full text]
  • Tax Reform - Myths, Misunderstandings and Falsehoods
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Rusty Cannon, Vice President Utah Taxpayers Association (801) 721-7136 [email protected] Tax Reform - Myths, Misunderstandings and Falsehoods The volume of hysteria and incorrect information based on myths and falsehoods surrounding the tax reform bill is becoming almost deafening. When gubernatorial candidates jump at the chance to be photographed with smiles on their faces as they proudly sign a petition that would HIKE taxes on Utah citizens to the tune of almost $200 million annually- we have to speak up. Has anyone actually bothered to read the bill? So far, in our conversations with those complaining about the bill it is abundantly clear that virtually nobody has. If the public is so misinformed that they are applauding those that try and score political points off of such blatant falsehoods, we need to do everything we can to educate and inform the public as to what the actual facts are. We realize tax reform can be confusing and boring, but ​ ​ we are pleading for people to slow down and pay attention to the facts for just a minute. There has been much misinformation and misunderstanding in the public debate and we would like to make a few things clear. 1- SB 2001 (2019) is a significant tax cut to Utah taxpayers. It delivers a $348 million income ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ tax cut by lowering the rate from 4.95% to 4.66% that will go into effect early in 2020. This alone is critical in keeping Utah ahead of other states that are nipping at our economic heels as the best place to live and do business.
    [Show full text]
  • Effects of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act on State Individual Income Taxes
    Effects of The Tax Cuts And Jobs Act On State Individual Income Taxes Erin Huffer, John Iselin, Frank Sammartino, & David Weiner * INTRODUCTION In December 2017, President Donald Trump signed into law PL 115-97, commonly known as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA),1 which substantially changed federal individual and corporate income taxes. Many of the income tax changes in the TCJA will affect state income taxes through existing links between the federal and state income tax laws. This article analyzes the effect of the TCJA on state individual income taxes. We discuss the impact of the new law and simulate the change in taxes that would automatically occur in several illustrative states if they were to make no modifications to their own income tax rules. We find that the two elements of the TCJA that generate the largest changes to state individual income taxes are the increase in federal standard deductions (a large tax decrease), and the elimination of federal personal exemptions (a large tax increase). For states that link to both elements, the two changes mostly offset each other, although elimination of personal exemptions has a slightly larger effect. In contrast, states that only link to one of these elements of federal law will see more dramatic changes in state income taxes. Part I of our Article summarizes the various ways states link to federal law. In Part II we briefly describe the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, focusing particularly on provisions that impact state income taxes. Part III explores how state linkages in four sample states and the District of Columbia will affect overall income taxes, the distribution of tax changes by income groups, and the percentage of households that will see an increase, decrease, or no change in their state income taxes.
    [Show full text]
  • Corporate Tax Dodgers: 10 Companies and Their Tax Loopholes
    10 COMPANIES AND THEIR TAX LOOPHOLES 2013 REPORT Authors: Scott Klinger, Sarah Anderson, Javier Rojas, Institute for Policy Studies Editorial Support: Frank Clemente, Americans for Tax Fairness Designer: Tyler Driscoll Methodology For a description of the methodologies used to determine corporate taxes paid, corporate tax subsidies and CEO compensation go here: http://www.americansfortaxfairness.org/baseball-methodolgy/ The Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) is a community of public scholars and organizers linking peace, justice, and the environment in the United States and globally. We work with social movements to promote true democracy and challenge concentrated wealth, corporate influence, and military power. Visit online at: www.ips-dc.org/ Americans for Tax Fairness (ATF) is a diverse campaign of 280 national, state, and local organizations united in support of a tax system that works for all Americans. It has come together based on the belief that the country needs comprehensive, progressive tax reform that results in greater revenue to meet our growing needs. Visit online at: www.americansfortaxfairness.org/ HIGHLIGHTS OF 10 CORPORATE TaX DODGERS BANK OF AMERICA Had $17.2 billion in profits offshore in 2012 on which it paid no U.S. taxes. Reported it would owe $4.3 billion in U.S. taxes if profits are brought home. CITIGROUP Had $42.6 billion in profits offshore in 2012 on which it paid no U.S. taxes. Reported it would owe $11.5 billion in U.S. taxes if profits are brought home. EXXONMOBIL Paid just a 15% federal income tax rate from 2010-2012, less than half the official 35% corporate tax rate – a tax subsidy of $6.2 billion.
    [Show full text]
  • 62321 Tax Expenditure Report
    August 2021 Revenue and budget More public money to private interests State lawmakers increase tax breaks while scrapping tax expenditure review Wendy Patton Jenny Driscoll Introduction We all need clean water, safe streets, good schools and all the other public services that contribute to the quality of our life. We pool our tax dollars to pay for them. Not all entities pay the same taxes because state lawmakers give out tax exemptions, credits and deductions, formally known as tax expenditures.1 The state of Ohio will forgo over $9 billion in each year of the current two-year budget because of tax breaks: a little more than a third of the value of state taxpayer dollars used in the General Revenue Fund.2 Some tax expenditures help nearly everyone, like the personal exemption from the income tax or the sales tax exemption for prescription drugs. Some tax breaks help certain individuals and serve the greater good, like a sales tax break on prosthetic devices that helps people who have lost limbs function in society. Others, like the sales tax break on timeshares of private jets, are targeted at the very wealthy and do very little for the greater good. Some sales tax breaks help groups of corporations or organizations, like a tax break for vendors for submitting sales tax collections to the Ohio Department of Taxation or the sales tax exemption for churches and nonprofits. In the new budget bill for 2022 and 2023 lawmakers agreed to spend over $300 million through the tax code on new tax breaks, primarily to incentivize corporations to use temporary workers, and families to educate children at home or in private schools.
    [Show full text]
  • The Double Irish and Dutch Sandwich Tax Strategies: Could a General Anti- Avoidance Rule Counteract the Problems Caused by Utilisation of These Structures?
    DANIELLE THORNE THE DOUBLE IRISH AND DUTCH SANDWICH TAX STRATEGIES: COULD A GENERAL ANTI- AVOIDANCE RULE COUNTERACT THE PROBLEMS CAUSED BY UTILISATION OF THESE STRUCTURES? LLM RESEARCH PAPER LAWS 516: TAXATION, DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL FACULTY OF LAW 2013 Danielle Thorne Laws 516 Abstract This paper analyses the Double Irish and Dutch Sandwich tax structures used by large multinational enterprises. These structures enable companies to shift significant profits to offshore tax havens through the use of wholly owned subsidiaries in Ireland and the Netherlands. Application of the New Zealand General Anti- Avoidance rule in s BG 1 of the Income Tax Act 2007 reveals that any attempt to counteract these structures would be highly fact dependent. The paper concludes that it would be possible to apply the rule, but that there would be practical difficulties in relation to enforceability of the Commissioner’s ruling. A similar result was reached when applying the United States General Anti-Avoidance rule. The attempted application of the General Anti-Avoidance rules reveals a fundamental flaw in the income tax system. That is, the inability of the current system to regulate and control intangible resources and technology based transactions. Word length The text of this paper (excluding abstract, table of contents, footnotes and bibliography) comprises approximately 14,994 words. Subjects and Topics General Anti-Avoidance Rule Income Tax Act 2007 Multinational Enterprises Double Irish and Dutch Sandwich Tax Avoidance 2 Danielle Thorne Laws 516 Contents I Introduction .................................................................................... 5 II Avoidance Strategies: The Double Irish and the Dutch Sandwich.... 6 A Residency or Source Based Taxation .............................................. 7 B The Double Irish: Company Structure and Licensing Arrangements 8 C The Double Irish: Tax Benefits ....................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Tax Incentives for Health Insurance
    Tax Incentives for Health Insurance Leonard E. Burman Cori E. Uccello Laura L. Wheaton Deborah Kobes Discussion Paper No. 12 May 2003 Leonard E. Burman is a senior fellow at the Urban Institute and codirector of the Tax Policy Center. Cori E. Uccello is a consultant in the Urban Institute’s Income and Benefits Policy Center. Laura L. Wheaton is a senior research associate in the Urban Institute’s Income and Benefits Policy Center. Deborah Kobes is a research assistant at the Urban Institute and Tax Policy Center. We are grateful to Joe Antos, Linda Bilheimer, Linda Blumberg, Sonia Conly, Judy Feder, Gillian Hunter, Len Nichols, Eric Toder, and Sheila Zedlewski for very helpful comments on an earlier draft. Support from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is gratefully acknowledged. Any errors or opinions are the authors’ and should not be taken to represent the views of the funders, officers, trustees, or staff of any of the institutions with which they are affiliated. The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center The Tax Policy Center (TPC) aims to clarify and analyze the nation’s tax policy choices by providing timely and accessible facts, analyses, and commentary to policymakers, journalists, citizens and researchers. TPC’s nationally recognized experts in tax, budget and social policy carry out an integrated program of research and communication on four overarching issues: fair, simple and efficient taxation; long-term implications of tax policy choices; social policy in the tax code; and state tax issues. A joint venture of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, the TPC receives support from a generous consortium of funders, including the Annie E.
    [Show full text]
  • A Guide to Federal Tax Incentives for Brownfields Redevelopment
    A Guide to Federal Tax Incentives for Brownfields Redevelopment 2011 Edition ii Brownfields Federal Programs Guide Table of Contents Introduction . .1 Brownfields.Expensing.Tax.Incentive. .2 New.Markets.Tax.Credits. .5 Low.Income.Housing.Tax.Credits. .9 Historic.Rehabilitation.Tax.Credits. 12 Energy.Efficiency.and.Renewable.Energy. 15 State.Finance.Support. 20 Brownfields Federal Programs Guide iii Introduction The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) encourages brownfields developers to learn about and take advan- tage of the variety of financial and technical assistance resources available to support a brownfield project. The success of many brownfields cleanup and redevelopment projects depends on the ability of developers and investors to craft a financing package that leverages numerous sources of funding available from a variety of sources. Taking advantage of federal, state and local tax incentives and credits allows a brownfield developer to use resources normally spent to pay taxes for other purposes. This can help site redevelopers save the cash needed to address contamination issues. The extra cash flow resulting from a tax break also can improve a project’s appeal to lenders. Federal tax credits and incentives often are an important part of the mix. This guide provides an overview of the key federal tax incentives and credits that can be leveraged for brownfields cleanup, redevelopment and reuse. The descriptions of these incentives and credits are simplified explanations of provisions in the U.S. tax code, which often contains additional caveats, restrictions, and modifications. Anyone inter- ested in using these incentives should review the relevant sections of the tax code in detail and consult a tax profes- sional prior to making business decisions.
    [Show full text]
  • Tax) Bill: Retail Sales Taxation of Services
    BYU Law Review Volume 46 Issue 1 Article 9 Spring 2-15-2021 Netflix and (Tax) Bill: Retail Sales Taxation of Services Grace Stephenson Nielsen Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/lawreview Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Grace Stephenson Nielsen, Netflix and (Tax) Bill: Retail Sales Taxation of Services, 46 BYU L. Rev. 249 (2021). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/lawreview/vol46/iss1/9 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Brigham Young University Law Review at BYU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in BYU Law Review by an authorized editor of BYU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 5.S TEPHENSON NIELSEN_FIN.NH (DO NOT DELETE) 2/9/2021 9:21 PM Netflix and (Tax) Bill: Retail Sales Taxation of Services Grace Stephenson Nielsen* CONTENTS I. POLITICAL AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS OF SERVICE TAXES ........................... 255 A. Advantages of an RST on Services ......................................................... 256 1. Base erosion: More money, more problems consistency ............. 256 2. Correcting economic distortions .................................................... 261 B. Design Concerns ....................................................................................... 261 1. Tax cascading: Exempting business-to-business services ........... 262 2. Vertical equity concerns .................................................................. 264 3. Essential services exemptions
    [Show full text]
  • Rising Profits, Falling Tax Shares: Fixing What's Broken Corporate
    December 3, 2019 Rising Profits, Falling Tax Shares: Fixing What’s Broken By Kurt Wise, Senior Policy Analyst Businesses in Massachusetts depend for their success and Snapshot of Findings profitability on a wide array of investments made by our state and local governments. These include investments in • The share of total MA state taxes paid transportation infrastructure, in a healthy and well- by corporations through their income and related taxes has fallen markedly educated work force, in public safety, and in a legal since the 1980s. system that enforces contracts and settles business • Meanwhile, corporations have disputes - to name just a few. Businesses help support collected a growing share of all these public functions through a variety of different taxes, income generated in the U.S. including property, sales and corporate income taxes. • Had the corporate tax share not While state and local business taxes amount to only a fallen, businesses would have paid another $1.4 billion in FY 2019. small portion of overall business costs for most U.S. • Restoring corporate income tax rates, businesses – on average, roughly 2 percent of total costs – reducing special business tax breaks, business taxes nevertheless are an important source of and reforming corporate tax revenue for communities and for the Commonwealth.1 disclosure laws all can help reverse the downward corporate tax trend. In Massachusetts, the revenue businesses contribute • Collecting more taxes from through their corporate excise and related tax payments corporations would improve tax fairness and racial equity in MA. has dropped markedly as a share of total state tax collections over the past four decades.2 Corporate Excise Collections Have Fallen as Share of Total MA Taxes Corporate Excise and Related Collections, as a Share of All State Tax Collections, State Fiscal Years 1980 - 2019 20% Avg.
    [Show full text]