FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Taxes and the Corporate Person

by CHRISTOPHER BRAUCHLI

When there is an income tax, the just man will pay more and the unjust less on the same amount of income.

— Plato, The Republic

The question for people who live and work abroad is whether they can turn themselves into corporations. Corporations are, as lawyers have known for years, and as the now famous case of Citizens United reminded us, (even though it did so by being misread by many commentators) people just like the people who live in the house next door.  Since corporations are people and have the same rights as people, the question people of the flesh and blood kind ask is why human persons are not entitled to the same tax benefits as Congress gives corporation persons.

American citizens are taxed on their worldwide income, irrespective of where in the world it is earned.  An American who works all year in France is taxed by the United States on every penny of earned income in France just as if the American had earned that money working in the United States.  (The Internal Revenue Code in fact provides for a foreign earned income exclusion that permits U.S. citizens working abroad to exclude from income up to $92,500 in foreign earnings and, in addition, they can deduct certain housing amounts they receive while working abroad.  Everything in excess of those permitted exclusions, however, is taxed the same as if the citizen were working in the United States.)  Recent news caused persons working abroad to realize that their kind of persons are treated grossly different from corporate kinds of persons and that would seem to be a clear violation of the Equal Protection clause of the United States Constitution.

The equal treatment for tax purposes came into focus because of recent news about the practice of large United States corporations of diverting billions of dollars of work into foreign subsidiaries.  Those transfers protect the earnings of those subsidiaries from U.S. taxes unless the parent company repatriates the earnings into the United States.  So long as the earnings are held abroad they are not taxed.  The amount that the U.S. corporation persons may exclude is not the $92,500 that human persons may exclude.  It is all of the earnings of the subsidiary.  Those amounts are often in the billions. If that rule were applied to human persons they would not owe income tax if they spent their earnings outside the United States.

A Wall Street Journal article described in some detail how many U.S. corporations take advantage of this tax law.  According to the WSJ, in 2012 60 large U.S. corporations parked $166 billion overseas thus enabling them to protect 40% of their profits from U.S. taxes.  The only time those profits will be taxed by the IRS is if the company brings those earnings into the United States.  Among the companies surveyed, the WSJ reported that Abbott Laboratories has $40 billion in untaxed overseas earnings, Honeywell International Inc. has $11.6 billion, Microsoft Corp.  has $60.8 billion and Apple has $100 billion.  That report came at the same time it was announced that Apple planned to buy back $50 billion of stock from shareholders.  Since Apple has $100 billion parked overseas it would be easy for Apple to use those funds to effect the buyback.  Repatriating those funds, however, would cost it approximately $9.2 billion in taxes that it would prefer not to pay.  Therefore, it has issued a $17 billion bond offering with a relatively low interest rate.  The $308 million interest it pays on those bonds will be deducted by it on its tax returns giving it approximately a $100 million income tax deduction.  In addition to enjoying the tax deduction,  it avoids the $9.2 billion it would have had to pay had it repatriated funds in order to effect the buyback.

It does not take a tax scholar to realize that the deal corporate persons get on money they earn abroad is much better than the deal human persons get.  If corporate persons got the same deal as human persons then corporations that had earnings abroad in a given year of $1 billion, would have to pay tax on $999,907,500 instead of on $1 billion.  The difference would save the companies more than $3000 in taxes, a somewhat less favorable result than saving $9.2 billion.

There will undoubtedly be the occasional scholar who will remind the writer that a subsidiary of a corporation is not the same as the corporation itself and, therefore, the foregoing analysis is flawed.  The commentator may also observe that in fact Citizens United did not arrive at its conclusion by addressing “personhood” and, therefore, this entire commentary is meaningless. The proper response to the first criticism is if the subsidiary is simply an offspring of the parent corporation then the rule should be that any children of U.S. citizens working abroad should be given the benefit of the tax treatment that is accorded the subsidiary of corporations.  That is, of course, a silly distinction and one that no court, except perhaps the United States Supreme Court, would accept.  The proper response to the second criticism is “and your point is?”

More articles by:
Weekend Edition
July 22, 2016
Friday - Sunday
Jeffrey St. Clair
Good as Goldman: Hillary and Wall Street
Joseph E. Lowndes
From Silent Majority to White-Hot Rage: Observations from Cleveland
Paul Street
Political Correctness: Handle with Care
Richard Moser
Actions Express Priorities: 40 Years of Failed Lesser Evil Voting
Eric Draitser
Hillary and Tim Kaine: a Match Made on Wall Street
Conn Hallinan
The Big Boom: Nukes And NATO
Ron Jacobs
Exacerbate the Split in the Ruling Class
Jill Stein
After US Airstrikes Kill 73 in Syria, It’s Time to End Military Assaults that Breed Terrorism
Jack Rasmus
Trump, Trade and Working Class Discontent
John Feffer
Could a Military Coup Happen Here?
Jeffrey St. Clair
Late Night, Wine-Soaked Thoughts on Trump’s Jeremiad
Andrew Levine
Vice Presidents: What Are They Good For?
Michael Lukas
Law, Order, and the Disciplining of Black Bodies at the Republican National Convention
Victor Grossman
Horror News, This Time From Munich
Margaret Kimberley
Gavin Long’s Last Words
Mark Weisbrot
Confidence and the Degradation of Brazil
Brian Cloughley
Boris Johnson: Britain’s Lying Buffoon
Lawrence Reichard
A Global Crossroad
Kevin Schwartz
Beyond 28 Pages: Saudi Arabia and the West
Charles Pierson
The Courage of Kalyn Chapman James
Michael Brenner
Terrorism Redux
Bruce Lerro
Being Inconvenienced While Minding My Own Business: Liberals and the Social Contract Theory of Violence
Mark Dunbar
The Politics of Jeremy Corbyn
David Swanson
Top 10 Reasons Why It’s Just Fine for U.S. to Blow Up Children
Binoy Kampmark
Laura Ingraham and Trumpism
Uri Avnery
The Great Rift
Nicholas Buccola
What’s the Matter with What Ted Said?
Aidan O'Brien
Thank Allah for Western Democracy, Despondency and Defeat
Joseph Natoli
The Politics of Crazy and Stupid
Sher Ali Khan
Empirocracy
Nauman Sadiq
A House Divided: Turkey’s Failed Coup Plot
Franklin Lamb
A Roadmap for Lebanon to Grant Civil Rights for Palestinian Refugees in Lebanon
Colin Todhunter
Power and the Bomb: Conducting International Relations with the Threat of Mass Murder
Michael Barker
UK Labour’s Rightwing Select Corporate Lobbyist to Oppose Jeremy Corbyn
Graham Peebles
Brexit, Trump and Lots of Anger
Anhvinh Doanvo
Civilian Deaths, Iraq, Syria, ISIS and Drones
Christopher Brauchli
Kansas and the Phantom Voters
Peter Lee
Gavin Long’s Manifesto and the Politics of “Terrorism”
Missy Comley Beattie
An Alarmingly Ignorant Fuck
Robert Koehler
Volatile America
Adam Vogal
Why Black Lives Matter To Me
Raouf Halaby
It Is Not Plagiarism, Y’all
Rev. Jeff Hood
Deliver Us From Babel
Frances Madeson
Juvenile Life Without Parole, Captured in ‘Natural Life’
Charles R. Larson
Review: Han Kang’s “The Vegetarian”
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail