Advertisement

May 25, 2013

Senate Committee Finds Most 'trapped' Offshore Income is Already in U.S.

Sen. Levin: 'Those foreign earnings are not trapped or locked offshore at all'

A select group of U.S. multinational corporations have been furiously lobbying for a tax holiday, they say, to bring more than a trillion dollars in so-called “trapped” foreign earnings back home and invest it in the American economy.

But a Senate report released Thursday shows the money is anything but trapped. Some of the richest firms have already brought hundreds of billions of dollars back to America, without paying U.S. taxes, and invested it in US banks, bonds, stocks and other assets.

The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations surveyed some of the best known U.S. multinationals and found that 27 of the cash-flush firms, including Apple, Google and Microsoft, had invested almost $250 billion in the United States.

 Microsoft chairman Bill Gates during a keynote address.Paul Sakuma/AP file

Microsoft chairman Bill Gates during a keynote address.Paul Sakuma/AP file

“Those foreign earnings are not trapped or locked offshore at all,” said Sen. Carl Levin, the Democrat from Michigan who chairs the subcommittee. “About half of the so-called offshore funds were actually onshore.”

Some of the firms leading the lobbying for a tax holiday, Levin noted, have brought home almost all their “trapped” funds. Apple, Google and Microsoft, for example, have brought back from 76 to 100 percent of their offshore earnings, the subcommittee found.

As the Center for Public Integrity has reported, the multinational firms are lobbying for a tax holiday because the US has a higher corporate income tax than many foreign countries. Under current law, when a foreign subsidiary returns its earnings to the American parent company, it must pay the difference between the tax of the country in which it conducts operations, and that charged in the United States.

Rather than pay the U.S. corporate income tax, as domestic companies must do, many multinational firms leave the money on the books of their foreign subsidiaries. If they could return their earnings to their parent corporation without paying the U.S. tax, they contend, more money would be invested in new research and development and jobs here at home.

“The fact that foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies have deposits in U.S. banks or in U.S. bonds does not mean that their American parent companies are able to deploy those funds in the US economy, said Abigail Gardner, a spokeswoman for WIN America, a coalition of firms pushing for the tax break.

Wall Street and government analysts estimate that US corporations carry some $1.4 trillion on the books of their foreign subsidiaries — and some $2 trillion on their books at home.

“They have gobs of cash,” Levin said. With bulging corporate coffers and low interest rates, said the senator, there is no rationale for giving a small segment of American firms a tax break that could cost the US Treasury from $40 billion to $80 billion.

Reprinted by Permission © 2013, The Center for Public Integrity®. All Rights Reserved.

About the Author

Staff Writer

Farrell is a prize-winning journalist and author. He spent his early career, and won a George Polk award, at The Denver Post. At The Boston Globe, he covered the first Iraq war, several presidential campaigns and served as the Globe’s White House correspondent and Washington editor, among other assignments. Farrell returned to The Denver Post in 2003 for four years as national columnist and Washington bureau chief for the newspaper and the MediaNews chain. During that time he helped lead the paper’s political coverage...

202-466-1300

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.