- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Forcing US corporations to invest overseas
Posted on 7/21/14 at 10:03 am
Posted on 7/21/14 at 10:03 am
Our misguided corporate tax policy is resulting in billions of dollars on the balance sheets of US companies being invested in foreign corporations.
Case in point the morning--Yahoo. Yahoo has a large stake in Alibada which is set to go public.
Drug companies are doing the same almost on a monthly basis. Even Pfizer is doing it--
Case in point the morning--Yahoo. Yahoo has a large stake in Alibada which is set to go public.
quote:
That won’t happen in time for the IPO; Goldman told analysts on a conference call last week the 140 million shares Yahoo expects to sell in the deal will be fully taxed. But for its remaining 384 million shares, a loophole recently identified by analysts at Cantor Fitzgerald could help the company avoid paying billions of dollars to Uncle Sam.
The Internet portal holds a portion of its Alibaba shares in Hong Kong, a jurisdiction where share sales are exempt from capital gains taxes, Cantor Fitzgerald said in a July 9 note. That means that after holding its shares one year following Alibaba’s offering – the lock-up period imposed on most pre-IPO shareholders – Yahoo could sell off a portion or all of its remaining shares tax-free.
Of course, in that scenario, Yahoo would have to keep that cash overseas, spend it to acquire a foreign company or else pay taxes to repatriate it to the U.S.
A foreign acquisition could help Yahoo compete with online advertising rivals such as Google GOOGL -1.13%, which generates a higher portion of its ad revenue overseas, Cantor Fitzgerald’s Youssef Squali said in an interview.
“They need to increase their international exposure,” Squali said. “The question is, what can they buy?”
Drug companies are doing the same almost on a monthly basis. Even Pfizer is doing it--
quote:
The United States tax code is fueling Pfizer Inc.’s $98.7 billion bid to take over the London-based pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca. If the deal goes through as proposed, a new parent company in Britain would own the combined entity, making it easier for the new firm to strip income out of its American tax base. The deal is one of several recent transactions known as “inversions,” where a multinational company like Pfizer, based in New York, becomes an expatriate by acquiring a smaller foreign target.
Inversions are especially popular these days for pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, where most of the value of the company is found in tax-mobile intangible assets. Recent examples include Valeant Pharmaceutical’s acquisition of Biovail, a Canadian company, and Endo Health Solutions’ acquisition of Paladin Labs, another Canadian company. Ireland is another popular haven: the pharmaceutical company Actavis moved to Ireland by way of merger with Warner Chilcott, setting up the expatriation of Forest Laboratories through a merger with the now-Irish Actavis. While the tax treatment of shareholders in the United States in inversions varies — they are sometimes taxed on built-in gains at the time of inversion — the underlying tax motivations for these deals are consistent.
The United States tax code creates two reasons for these sorts of deals: (1) American corporations must pay tax on worldwide income, not just income in the United States, and (2) American corporations may defer tax on most income from foreign sources until the income is repatriated to the United States.
Posted on 7/21/14 at 10:09 am to I B Freeman
An intelligent politician would work to suspend those particular taxes, as long as the repatriated money is used to invest in expansion of operations here at home. They're not going to get it back any other way.
Posted on 7/21/14 at 10:11 am to Old Hellen Yeller
They should tax us companies on all income earned worldwide. That is exactly what they do for us citizens.
Posted on 7/21/14 at 10:18 am to tigeralum06
quote:
They should tax us companies on all income earned worldwide.
How many companies do you think the US would keep?
Posted on 7/21/14 at 10:21 am to I B Freeman
The US will get their money somehow through their typical extortion tactics. Since almost all international deals are done in US dollars, they are subject to all obscure US monetary policies.
Posted on 7/21/14 at 10:26 am to I B Freeman
quote:
Alibada
Alibaba brah
They had a good story about this as well about how the Alibaba management is mentoring all the soon to be millionaires. A lot of them have already sold their interest (similar to what people do with lotto tickets) to investment firms that pay them pennies on the dollar.
Posted on 7/21/14 at 10:40 am to I B Freeman
15% personal income tax
15% corporate income tax
2% federal sales tax
1 year tax holiday to reinvest your foreign money in the US
problem solved
just because this is an
15% corporate income tax
2% federal sales tax
1 year tax holiday to reinvest your foreign money in the US
problem solved
just because this is an
quote:thread, more film tax credits.
I B Freeman
Posted on 7/21/14 at 11:22 am to WeeWee
It is stupid to tax the income that individuals or corporations earn in other countries.
We are seeing the results now. Hundreds of lower profile companies have already moved their corporate headquarters offshore to avoid US taxes. Even Walgreens is exploring merging with an Irish company.
We are seeing the results now. Hundreds of lower profile companies have already moved their corporate headquarters offshore to avoid US taxes. Even Walgreens is exploring merging with an Irish company.
Posted on 7/21/14 at 11:26 am to wickowick
Why does it matter if the US loses a bunch of companies that don't pay income tax and outsource the majority of the labor anyway? Seems like a win win. The US loses few citizens for tax reasons.
Posted on 7/21/14 at 11:40 am to tigeralum06
I look at offshoring jobs as privatized foreign aid. I'd rather that they employ folks in their home country instead of the folks coming here to work. But it comes at a risk to the company because many countries don't have the standards that are mandatory - example; my company outsourced over 1500 accounting jobs to argentina - 6 months ago the offsite vendor who was storing over 2000 boxes of records burned down - sprinklers did not come on - security was asleep - total loss. Was it worth it? Ask management, they operate off the bottom line.
Posted on 7/21/14 at 12:42 pm to Big12fan
quote:
I look at offshoring jobs as privatized foreign aid
We are not talking about outsourcing. We are talking about companies moving and set up shop in other countries.
What if your company simply moved to Argentina and left only the manufacturing and sales here??
Posted on 7/21/14 at 12:46 pm to tigeralum06
quote:
Why does it matter if the US loses a bunch of companies that don't pay income tax and outsource the majority of the labor anyway? Seems like a win win. The US loses few citizens for tax reasons.
Just trillions in investments and billions in taxes. That is all that matters.
Right now there is over $1 trillion on balance sheets of public US companies that represents income they made in other countries and paid taxes in those countries. To invest that money in US factories and the like those companies would have to pay US corporate tax on it even though they earned somewhere else and paid taxes there too.
How utterly stupid is that? Made a bunch of money in China GM?--don't invest it here or we will take a third of it.
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News