DOCSLIB.ORG

Repatriating Offshore Funds: 2004 Tax Windfall for Select Multinationals

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Repatriating Offshore Funds: 2004 Tax Windfall for Select Multinationals United States Senate PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Carl Levin, Chairman Tom Coburn, Ranking Minority Member REPATRIATING OFFSHORE FUNDS: 2004 TAX WINDFALL FOR SELECT MULTINATIONALS MAJORITY STAFF REPORT PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE October 11, 2011 PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS SENATOR CARL LEVIN Chairman ELISE J. BEAN Staff Director and Chief Counsel ROBERT L. ROACH Counsel & Chief Investigator ALLISON F. MURPHY Counsel MARCELLE D. JOHNS Detailee MICHAEL J. MARTINEAU Detailee MARY D. ROBERTSON Chief Clerk 10/20/11 Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations 199 Russell Senate Office Building – Washington, D.C. 20510 Main Number: 202/224-9505 Web Address: www.hsgac.senate.gov [Follow Link to “Subcommittees,” to “Investigations”] REPATRIATING OFFSHORE FUNDS: 2004 TAX WINDFALL FOR SELECT MULTINATIONALS Table of Contents I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................. 3 A. Subcommittee Review ................................................... 3 B. Report Findings ........................................................ 4 1. U.S. Jobs Lost Rather Than Gained ..................................... 4 2. Research and Development Expenditures Did Not Accelerate . 4 3. Stock Repurchases Increased After Repatriation . 4 4. Executive Compensation Increased After Repatriation . 4 5. Only A Narrow Sector of Multinationals Benefited . 4 6. Most Repatriated Funds Flowed from Tax Havens . 4 7. Offshore Funds Increased After 2004 Repatriation . 4 8. More than $2 Trillion in Cash Assets Now Held by U.S. Corporations . 5 9. Repatriation is a Failed Tax Policy...................................... 5 C. Report Recommendation ................................................ 5 II. BACKGROUND....................................................... .. 5 A. U.S. International Tax System ............................................ 5 B. American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 ....................................... 6 C. 2004 AJCA Repatriation Profile .......................................... 8 III. SUBCOMMITTEE REVIEW ............................................... 9 A. Results of the Subcommittee Survey ....................................... 9 1. U.S. Jobs.......................................................... 10 2. Research and Development Expenditures . 16 3. Stock Repurchases................................................... 19 4. Executive Compensation.............................................. 23 5. Industry Sectors Benefiting from Repatriation . 28 6. Source of Repatriated Funds........................................... 30 7. Corporate Funds Held Offshore Post-Repatriation . 33 8. Current Domestic Cash Assets ......................................... 37 9. 2004 Repatriation Did Not Achieve Intended Stimulus Effect . 39 B. Conclusion . ......................................................... 41 IV. APPENDIX . ...................................................... 42 Table 1 - U.S. Employment . .......................................... 42 Table 2 - Stock Repurchases . ........................................... 43 Table 3 - Executive Compensation . ...................................... 44 Table 4 - Dollar Value of Restricted Stock Awards for Five Most Highly Compensated Executives at Surveyed Corporations . 45 Table 5 - Dividends from Tax Haven CFCs . 50 Table 6 - Post-AJCA Accumulated Offshore Funds, 2006-2010 . 51 Table 7 - Pre-AJCA Accumulated Offshore Funds, 2000-2004 . 52 Exhibits 1. Excerpt from "Estimated Budget Effects of the Conference Agreement for H.R. 4520, The American Jobs Creation Act of 2004," revenue chart prepared by the Joint Committee on Taxation, October 7, 2004; and letter from the Joint Committee on Taxation to The Honorable Lloyd Doggett, U.S. House of Representatives, providing revenue estimates for two proposals to modify section 965 of the Internal Revenue Code, April 15, 2011. 53 2. Excerpt from Cisco System, Inc. Response To Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations Survey, 2/18/09.. ......................................... 68 3. Excerpt from Altria Group, Inc. Response To Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations Survey, 2/18/10.. ..................................................... 69 4. Excerpt from Microsoft Corporation Response To Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations Survey, 2/18/09; and Microsoft Corporation FY06 Domestic Reinvestment Plan, May 25, 2006.. .................................................. 70 5. Excerpt from Oracle Corporation Response To Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations Survey, 2/17/09; and Oracle Corporation Section 965 Domestic Reinvestment Plan, May 27, 2005.. ..................................................... 77 6. Excerpt from The Coca Cola Co. Response To Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations Survey, 2/13/09 . ..................................................... 82 7. Excerpt from The Procter & Gamble Company Response To Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations Survey, 2/26/09.. ......................................... 83 8. Excerpt from Schering-Plough Corporation Response To Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations Survey, 2/18/09.. ......................................... 84 9. Excerpt from Johnson & Johnson Response To Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations Survey, 2/24/09.. ..................................................... 85 10. Offshore tax dodging hurts U.S. business, Michigan Midland Daily News, by Paul Egerman, small business entrepreneur, June 7, 2011.. 86 11. A Charlie Brown Congress?, The Hill, by Frank Knapp Jr., president and CEO of The South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce, June 29, 2011.. 88 12. Letter to Congress: No Tax Holiday for U.S. Multinationals, sent by 12 small business groups, June 14, 2011.. ................................................ 90 # # # REPATRIATING OFFSHORE FUNDS: 2004 TAX WINDFALL FOR SELECT MULTINATIONALS October 11, 2011 In 2004, the America Jobs Creation Act (AJCA) permitted U.S. corporations to repatriate income held outside of the United States at an effective tax rate of 5.25% instead of the top 35% corporate income tax rate. The purpose of this tax provision was to encourage companies to return cash assets to the United States, which proponents of the provision argued would spur increased domestic investment and U.S. jobs.1 In response, corporations returned $312 billion in qualified repatriation dollars to the United States and avoided an estimated $3.3 billion in tax payments,2 but the growth in American jobs and investment that was supposed to follow did not occur.3 1 See U.S. Congress, Conference Committee, “American Jobs Creation Act of 2004,” Conference Report accompanying H.R. 4520, H.Rep. No. 108-755, 108th Cong., 2nd sess., at 316 (Washington: GPO, 2004) (hereinafter “Conference Report”) (“[I]n order to qualify for the deduction, dividends must be described in a domestic reinvestment plan [which] . must provide for the reinvestment of the repatriated dividends in the United States, including as a source for the funding of worker hiring and training, infrastructure, research and development, capital investments, and the financial stabilization of the corporation for the purposes of job retention or creation.”). See also, e.g., 150 CONG. REC. S11038 (2004) (statement of Sen. Grassley) (“This bill contains some of the most important international tax reforms in decades, bringing foreign earnings home for investment in the United States instead of investing overseas, hence creating jobs in the United States.”); 150 CONG. REC. S4875 (2004) (statement of Sen. Graham) (“The rationale for this proposal is that reducing the tax rate will encourage U.S. multinational companies to expatriate income held offshore in order to make investments in the United States that will create jobs”); 150 CONG. REC. H8704 (2004) (Statement of Rep. Phil English-PA) (“Mr. Speaker, I particularly want to draw attention to one particular job-creating provision in this bill, which mirrors legislation I introduced and will lead to in-sourcing. This provision, known as the Homeland Investment Act, is one of the strongest stimulus proposals brought before Congress in recent years, and I think it is going to have a huge impact. It temporarily reduces the tax rate on foreign earnings of U.S. companies, when that money is brought back to the United States for investment here at home. The billions of dollars that will be brought back will be used by American employers to hire new workers, invest in top-of-the-line equipment, and build new plants right here at home, instead of in the countries where their earnings are currently stranded.”); 150 CONG. REC. H8724 (2004) (statement of Rep. Udall-CO) (“I will vote for it because it includes provisions to encourage American corporations doing business abroad to repatriate their overseas earnings for investment here at home. This has great potential to stimulate investment in new plant and equipment as well as in the research and development that support innovation, job creation, and prosperity.”); 150 CONG. REC. H4408 (2004) (statement of Rep. Eshoo-CA) (“I also strongly support the inclusion of incentives for corporations to repatriate their overseas profits which would stimulate the investment of hundreds of millions of dollars in our domestic economy”). 2 See “stimated Budget Effects of the Conference Agreement for H.R. 4520, The ‘American Jobs Creation Act,’” Joint Committee on Taxation, JCX-69-04, Item IV.22 (10/7/2004) (estimating a tax revenue
Load more

Recommended publications
  • OUTPUT-WSIB Voting Report
    2006 Proxy Voting Report 3M Company Ticker Security ID: Meeting Date Meeting Status MMM CUSIP9 88579Y101 05/09/2006 Voted Issue Mgmt For/Agnst No.Description Proponent Rec Vote Cast Mgmt 1.1Elect Linda Alvarado Mgmt For For For 1.2Elect Edward Liddy Mgmt For For For 1.3Elect Robert Morrison Mgmt For For For 1.4Elect Aulana Peters Mgmt For For For 2Ratification of Auditor Mgmt For For For Amendment to Certificate of Incorporation to Declassify the 3Board Mgmt For For For STOCKHOLDER PROPOSAL REGARDING EXECUTIVE 4COMPENSATION ShrHoldr Against Against For STOCKHOLDER PROPOSAL REGARDING 3M S ANIMAL 5WELFARE POLICY ShrHoldr Against Against For STOCKHOLDER PROPOSAL REGARDING 3M S BUSINESS 6OPERATIONS IN CHINA ShrHoldr Against Against For Abbott Laboratories Inc Ticker Security ID: Meeting Date Meeting Status ABT CUSIP9 002824100 04/28/2006 Voted Issue Mgmt For/Agnst No.Description Proponent Rec Vote Cast Mgmt 1.1Elect Roxanne Austin Mgmt For For For 1.2Elect William Daley Mgmt For For For 1.3Elect W. Farrell Mgmt For For For 1.4Elect H. Laurance Fuller Mgmt For For For 1.5Elect Richard Gonzalez Mgmt For For For 1.6Elect Jack Greenberg Mgmt For For For 1.7Elect David Owen Mgmt For For For 1.8Elect Boone Powell, Jr. Mgmt For For For 1.9Elect W. Ann Reynolds Mgmt For For For 1.10Elect Roy Roberts Mgmt For For For 1.11Elect William Smithburg Mgmt For For For 1.12Elect John Walter Mgmt For For For 1.13Elect Miles White Mgmt For For For RATIFICATION OF DELOITTE & 2TOUCHE LLP AS AUDITORS. Mgmt For For For SHAREHOLDER PROPOSAL - PAY-FOR-SUPERIOR- 3PERFORMANCE ShrHoldr Against Against For Page 1 of 139 2006 Proxy Voting Report SHAREHOLDER PROPOSAL - 4POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS ShrHoldr Against Against For SHAREHOLDER PROPOSAL - 5THE ROLES OF CHAIR AND CEO .
    [Show full text]
  • Printmgr File
    702 Southwest 8th Street Bentonville, Arkansas 72716-0215 (479) 273-4000 Corporate website: www.walmartstores.com NOTICE OF 2011 ANNUAL SHAREHOLDERS’ MEETING To Be Held June 3, 2011 Please join us for the 2011 Annual Shareholders’ Meeting of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. The meeting will be held on Friday, June 3, 2011, at 7:00 a.m. Central time in Bud Walton Arena, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas. The purposes of the 2011 Annual Shareholders’ Meeting are: (1) to elect as directors the 15 nominees named in the attached proxy statement; (2) to ratify the appointment of Ernst & Young LLP as the company’s independent accountants for the fiscal year ending January 31, 2012; (3) to vote on a non-binding, advisory resolution to approve the compensation of the company’s named executive officers, as described in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis and tabular compensation disclosure in the attached proxy statement; (4) to vote, on a non-binding, advisory basis, regarding the frequency of future advisory votes on the compensation of the company’s named executive officers; (5) to vote on the five shareholder proposals described in the attached proxy statement; and (6) to transact other business properly brought before the 2011 Annual Shareholders’ Meeting. Important Notice Regarding the Availability of Proxy Materials for the 2011 Annual Shareholders’ Meeting. This year, we will once again take advantage of the rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission that allow us to furnish our proxy materials over the internet. As a result, we are mailing a notice of availability of the proxy materials over the internet, rather than a full paper set of the proxy materials, to many of our shareholders.
    [Show full text]
  • Tax Heavens: Methods and Tactics for Corporate Profit Shifting
    Tax Heavens: Methods and Tactics for Corporate Profit Shifting By Mark Holtzblatt, Eva K. Jermakowicz and Barry J. Epstein MARK HOLTZBLATT, Ph.D., CPA, is an Associate Professor of Accounting at Cleveland State University in the Monte Ahuja College of Business, teaching In- ternational Accounting and Taxation at the graduate and undergraduate levels. axes paid to governments are among the most significant costs incurred by businesses and individuals. Tax planning evaluates various tax strategies in Torder to determine how to conduct business (and personal transactions) in ways that will reduce or eliminate taxes paid to various governments, with the objective, in the case of multinational corporations, of minimizing the aggregate of taxes paid worldwide. Well-managed entities appropriately attempt to minimize the taxes they pay while making sure they are in full compliance with applicable tax laws. This process—the legitimate lessening of income tax expense—is often EVA K. JERMAKOWICZ, Ph.D., CPA, is a referred to as tax avoidance, thus distinguishing it from tax evasion, which is illegal. Professor of Accounting and Chair of the Although to some listeners’ ears the term tax avoidance may sound pejorative, Accounting Department at Tennessee the practice is fully consistent with the valid, even paramount, goal of financial State University. management, which is to maximize returns to businesses’ ownership interests. Indeed, to do otherwise would represent nonfeasance in office by corporate managers and board members. Multinational corporations make several important decisions in which taxation is a very important factor, such as where to locate a foreign operation, what legal form the operations should assume and how the operations are to be financed.
    [Show full text]
  • US-Steuerreform: Chancen Und Risiken: Wer Gewinnt – Wer Verliert?
    ZUR DISKUSSION GESTELLT US-Steuerreform: Chancen und Risiken: Wer gewinnt – wer verliert? Die Steuerreform von US-Präsident Donald Trump sieht deutliche Steuersenkungen für Unternehmen und bescheidene Entlastungen für Privatpersonen vor. Vor allem Bezieher hoher Einkommen werden von der Reform profitieren. Zudem dürften die Staatsschulden nach vorläufigen Berechnungen über das kommende Jahrzehnt um mindestens eine Bil- lion Dollar anwachsen. Die Steuerreform wird aber auch voraussichtlich die Konjunktur in den USA anschieben, und sie wird den USA durch die Senkung der Unternehmensteuer- sätze einen massiven Wettbewerbsvorteil bescheren. Wie sollten die europäischen Länder reagieren? wirkungen auf effektive Unternehmensteuerbelas­- Christoph Spengel*, Marcel Olbert** und tungen und die damit verbundenen Konsequen- Kathrin Stutzenberger*** zen, mögliche Folgen für die Entwicklung ausländi- scher Direktinvestitionen sowie auf das Verhältnis US-Steuerreform 2018 – der Reform zu aktuellen steuerpolitischen Entwick- Implikationen und lungen auf EU-Ebene eingegangen (vgl. Spengel et al. 2018). Konsequenzen für Europa1 AUSWIRKUNGEN DER US-STEUERREFORM AUF DIE Christoph Spengel Am 22. Dezember 2017 verabschiedete US-Präsident EFFEKTIVE UNTERNEHMENSTEUERBELASTUNG Donald Trump mit Unterzeichnung des »Tax Cuts and Jobs Act« die größte Reform des US-Steuersystems seit Die Konsequenzen der US­Steuerreform für die effek- 1986. Diese sieht mit Wirkung ab dem 1. Januar 2018 auf tive Unternehmensteuerbelastung im Verhältnis zu Unternehmensebene neben einer
    [Show full text]
  • The Relationship Between MNE Tax Haven Use and FDI Into Developing Economies Characterized by Capital Flight
    1 The relationship between MNE tax haven use and FDI into developing economies characterized by capital flight By Ali Ahmed, Chris Jones and Yama Temouri* The use of tax havens by multinationals is a pervasive activity in international business. However, we know little about the complementary relationship between tax haven use and foreign direct investment (FDI) in the developing world. Drawing on internalization theory, we develop a conceptual framework that explores this relationship and allows us to contribute to the literature on the determinants of tax haven use by developed-country multinationals. Using a large, firm-level data set, we test the model and find a strong positive association between tax haven use and FDI into countries characterized by low economic development and extreme levels of capital flight. This paper contributes to the literature by adding an important dimension to our understanding of the motives for which MNEs invest in tax havens and has important policy implications at both the domestic and the international level. Keywords: capital flight, economic development, institutions, tax havens, wealth extraction 1. Introduction Multinational enterprises (MNEs) from the developed world own different types of subsidiaries in increasingly complex networks across the globe. Some of the foreign host locations are characterized by light-touch regulation and secrecy, as well as low tax rates on financial capital. These so-called tax havens have received widespread media attention in recent years. In this paper, we explore the relationship between tax haven use and foreign direct investment (FDI) in developing countries, which are often characterized by weak institutions, market imperfections and a propensity for significant capital flight.
    [Show full text]
  • September 15, 2020 What's in and What's out of the Final 2020 Tax
    September 15, 2020 What’s In and What’s Out of the Final 2020 Tax Package The 2020 tax package (HB 7097) was amended many times as it moved through the process. At first it grew, topping $230 million in tax savings at one point. Then, citing a need to keep more money in reserves for COVID-19 response, it started getting smaller. The total of the final tax package is $47.4 million, $10.8 million of which is local. All of the savings comes from two sales tax holidays, so the tax cuts are one-time. This reduces the tax package's fiscal hit to the state to $36.6 million in the upcoming budget year, with no recurring impact. The original tax package, developed in the House Ways and Means Committee, contained a mix of tax cuts and tax The Evolving Tax Package administration changes. Most of the cuts were small. The Version Tax Savings two largest tax cuts in the bill were both Florida TaxWatch House Ways & Means $167.2 priorities--a reduction in the communication services tax House Appropriations $193.4 (CST) of 0.5 percent and a reduction in the business rent tax Passed by House $198.4 (BRT) from 5.5 percent to 5.4 percent. The original bill Senate Appropriations $233.7 Senate 2nd Reading $107.1 would have reduced state and local taxes by $162.7 million Final Bill $47.4 (the sum of the one-time cuts and the recurring cuts1). More cuts were added in House the Appropriations Committee, pushing the total to $193.4 million.
    [Show full text]
  • International Cooperation and the 2017 Tax Act Susan C
    THE YALE LAW JOURNAL FORUM O CTOBER 25, 2018 International Cooperation and the 2017 Tax Act Susan C. Morse abstract. There is a silver lining for the corporate income tax in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. This is because the Act’s international provisions contain not only competitive but also cooperative elements. The Act adopts a lower, dual-rate structure that pursues a competitiveness strategy and taxes regular corporate income at 21% and foreign-derived intangible income at 13.125%. But the Act also supports the continued existence of the corporate income tax globally, thus favoring cooperation among members of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Its cooperative provisions feature the minimum tax on global intangible low-taxed income, or GILTI, earned by non-U.S. subsidiaries. Another cooperative provision is the base erosion and anti-abuse tax, or BEAT. The impact of the Act on global corporate income tax policy will depend on how the U.S. implements the law and on how other nations respond to it. introduction In 2017, House Speaker Paul Ryan, Representative Kevin Brady, and Senator Mitch McConnell accomplished something that many others, including former President Barack Obama, had long aimed to achieve. They lowered the federal corporate tax rate so that the U.S. rate now falls within the same range of rates used in most of the rest of the world. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA) has attracted just criticism for its deficit financing, for its abysmal legislative craftsmanship, and for its sometimes-misguided policy objectives.1 But Con- gress deserves credit for the TCJA’s international corporate tax provisions that 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Curacao Highlights 2020
    International Tax Curaçao Highlights 2020 Updated January 2020 Recent developments: For the latest tax developments relating to Curaçao, see Deloitte tax@hand. Investment basics: Currency – Netherlands Antilles Guilder (ANG) Foreign exchange control – A 1% license fee will be calculated as a percentage of the gross outflow of money on transfers from residents to nonresidents, and on foreign currency cash transactions. Holding companies may obtain an exemption from the fee. Accounting principles/financial statements – IAS/IFRS applies. Financial statements must be prepared annually. Principal business entities – These are the public and private company (NV and BV), general partnership, (private) foundation, Curaçao trust, limited partnership, and branch of a foreign corporation. Corporate taxation: Rates Corporate income tax rate 22%/3%/0% Branch tax rate 22%/3%/0% Capital gains tax rate 22%/3%/0% Residence – A corporation is resident if it is incorporated under the laws of Curaçao or managed and controlled in Curaçao. Basis – In principle, residents are taxed on worldwide income. Exemptions may apply for profits derived by permanent establishments located abroad. In addition, as from 1 July 2018, foreign-source income is excluded from the profit tax base (although there is an exception for certain services, including insurance and reinsurance activities; trust activities; the services of notaries, lawyers, public accountants and tax consultants; related services; income derived from the exploitation of intellectual property (IP); and shipping activities). Page 1 of 7 Curaçao Highlights 2020 Nonresidents are taxed only on Curaçao-source income. Foreign-source income derived by residents that is not excluded from the profit tax base is subject to corporation tax in the same way as Curaçao-source income.
    [Show full text]
  • Is Paying Taxes Habit Forming? Evidence from Uruguay
    Is Paying Taxes Habit Forming? Evidence from Uruguay Thad Dunning,∗ Felipe Monestiery Rafael Pineiro,˜ z Fernando Rosenblatt,x and Guadalupe Tun˜on´ { This draft: October 16, 2016 Prepared for presentation at the Comparative Politics Colloquium, University of California, Berkeley, October 20, 2016. We are grateful to Lihuen Nocetto for research assistance and to the J-PAL Governance Initiative for generous funding. We received helpful comments on this project from participants at EGAP meetings at Columbia University and the Universidad Diego Portales (Chile), the Political Geography Conference at Harvard, and seminars at Emory, Indiana University Bloomington, McGill, Princeton, Stanford, UCLA, University of Pennsylvania, University of Wisconsin-Madison, and Yale. The pre-analysis plan for this project was registered with EGAP (www.e-gap.org/design-registrations) as well as the American Economic Association (www.socialscienceregistry.org) in July 2014. The study was approved by the Office for the Protection of Human Subjects at the University of California, Berkeley (Protocol ID 2014-04-6286). ∗University of California, Berkeley. yUniversidad de la Republica,´ Montevideo, Uruguay zUniversidad Catolica,´ Montevideo, Uruguay xUniversidad Diego Portales, Santiago, Chile {University of California, Berkeley and University of Pennsylvania. 1 Abstract Interactions between citizens and their states often involve routinized, repeated behaviors—and repetition may itself breed habits of citizenship that exert a causal influence on behavior. This implies the possibility of virtuous or vicious cycles in civic participation, as well as broader development outcomes. Yet, it is usually difficult to separate habit from confounding explanations for repeated behaviors. We study a policy in Montevideo, Uruguay that randomly assigns tax holidays, or year-long interruptions of payments, to punctual taxpayers; the program is designed both to reward and induce tax compliance, a critical aspect of citizen-state interaction and a key facet of state capacity.
    [Show full text]
  • Tech Untaxed: Tax Avoidance in Silicon Valley, and How America's Richest Company Pays a Lower Tax Rate Than You Do
    2012 Tech Untaxed: Tax Avoidance in Silicon Valley, and How America’s Richest Company Pays a Lower Tax Rate than You Do SAMUEL S. KANG and TUAN NGO I The Greenlining Institute Tech Untaxed: Tax Avoidance in Silicon Valley, and How America’s Richest Company Pays a Lower Tax Rate than You Do SAMUEL S. KANG and TUAN NGO I The Greenlining Institute APRIL 2012 About the Greenlining Institute The Greenlining Institute is a national policy, research, organizing, and leadership institute working for racial and economic justice. We ensure that grassroots leaders are participating in major policy debates by building diverse coalitions that work together to advance solutions to our nation’s most pressing problems. Greenlining builds public awareness of issues facing communities of color, increases civic participation, and advocates for public and private policies that create opportunities for people and families to make the American Dream a reality. About Greenlining’s Consumer Protection Program and Our Legal Team Led by General Counsel Samuel Kang, Greenlining uses inhouse legal experts to ensure that there is equity in the state’s energy, telecom, and cable industries. Greenlining’s legal team is one of the few active racial justice advocates at the California Public Utilities Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, and other regulatory bodies. They work closely with grassroots leaders to ensure that the needs and solutions of communities of color are represented in the halls of these commissions. Greenlining plays a critical role in ensuring that California’s regulated companies remain leaders on issues of diversity and economic equity. In addition, our legal team builds bridges between grassroots leaders and corporate CEOs to ensure that positive dialogue leads to winwin solutions.
    [Show full text]
  • SUMMER 2021 Tax Compliance Software Category
    SUMMER 2021 Customer Success Report Tax Compliance Software Category Tax Compliance Software Category Tax compliance software gives you accurate federal and local tax computations, and automates tax filing and reporting. Top vendors present different solutions to manage specific types of transactions and their linked taxes. Sales tax compliance programs compute and process relevant taxes to be charged across jurisdictions. Further, Value-Added Tax (VAT) applications monitor regulations and automate computations across intricate scenarios. Advanced tax compliance tools support custom tax management for global sales. Many vendors also deliver managed audit reporting and tax filing for businesses of all sizes. SUMMER 2021 CUSTOMER SUCCESS REPORT Tax Compliance Software Category 2 Award Levels Customer Success Report Ranking Methodology The FeaturedCustomers Customer Success ranking is based on data from our customer reference platform, market presence, MARKET LEADER web presence, & social presence as well as additional data Vendor on FeaturedCustomers.com with aggregated from online sources and media properties. Our substantial customer base & market ranking engine applies an algorithm to all data collected to share. Leaders have the highest ratio of calculate the final Customer Success Report rankings. customer success content, content quality score, and social media presence The overall Customer Success ranking is a weighted average relative to company size. based on 3 parts: CONTENT SCORE ● Total # of vendor generated customer references (case studies, success stories, testimonials, and customer videos) ● Customer reference rating score TOP PERFORMER ● Year-over-year change in amount of customer references on Vendor on FeaturedCustomers.com with FeaturedCustomers platform significant market presence and ● Total # of profile views on FeaturedCustomers platform resources and enough customer ● Total # of customer reference views on FeaturedCustomers reference content to validate their vision.
    [Show full text]
  • Countries' Effective and Efficient Use of Tax Incentives for Investment
    Options for Low Income Countries' Effective and Efficient Use of Tax Incentives for Investment A REPORT TO THE G-20 DEVELOPMENT WORKING GROUP BY THE IMF, OECD, UN AND WORLD BANK Options for Low Income Countries’ Effective and Efficient Use of Tax Incentives for Investment A REPORT TO THE G-20 DEVELOPMENT WORKING GROUP BY THE IMF, OECD, UN AND WORLD BANK This report was prepared at the request of the G20 Development Working Group by the staffs of the International Monetary Fund, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the United Nations and the World Bank. I t h a s benefitted from consultation with other organisations working in the tax area, officials of developing countries, Civil Society Organisations, and business representatives. The report is prepared under the responsibility of the Secretariats and Staff of the four organisations. It reflects a broad consensus among these staff, but should not necessarily be regarded as the officially-endorsed views of those organisations or their member states. The report was presented as requested to the G20 DWG in September, 2015, and to the Executive Board of the IMF for information, in October, 2015. OPTIONS FOR LOW INCOME COUNTRIES' EFFECTIVE AND October 15, 2015 EFFICIENT USE OF TAX INCENTIVES FOR INVESTMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Experience shows that there is often ample room for more effective and efficient use of investment tax incentives in low-income countries. Tax incentives generally rank low in investment climate surveys in low-income countries, and there are many examples in which they are reported to be redundant—that is, investment would have been undertaken even without them.
    [Show full text]