Don’t Miss a Post. Subscribe now.

Warren Seeks “Corporate Alternative Minimum Tax” of 15% On About 200 Companies

Here we go again with another Democrat tax ploy that allegedly only affects a few. 

Elizabeth Warren introduces a Corporate Alternative Minimum Tax

The tentative minimum tax for the taxable year shall be the excess of 15 percent of the adjusted financial statement income for the taxable year (as determined under section 56A), over the corporate AMT foreign tax credit for the taxable year. In the case of any corporation which is not an applicable corporation, the tentative minimum tax for the  taxable year shall be zero.

Corporate Minimum Tax Resurfaces

In the hunt for money, the WSJ comments  Corporate Minimum Tax Resurfaces

The plan, backed by Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.), Angus King (I., Maine) and Ron Wyden (D., Ore.) would affect about 200 companies and could raise hundreds of billions of dollars, the sponsors said. It isn’t clear yet what will be in the final plan, and the late-emerging proposals have encountered resistance among Democrats, while Republicans continue to be unified in opposition to the Biden agenda.

“Many profitable, U.S.-based corporations pay zero federal corporate income tax,” Mr. King said. “Our proposal is about simple fiscal sense and common fairness.” 

The plan is designed to raise money from companies without raising the 21% corporate income-tax rate.

Impacted Companies

The bill affects companies that have an “average annual adjusted financial statement income which is greater than $1,000,000,000“.

There are other restrictions, but the bill largely targets US technology giants but not by name. 

Retailers and companies that largely operate in the US are generally not targeted, at least for now.

What About Capital Investments?

The Journal notes that companies that make capital investments are allowed to take immediate tax deductions for the full cost but must spread the accounting expense over several years.

This tends to leave them with relatively low tax rates compared with their financial-statement income in the current year and leave them subject to be hit by the minimum tax.

In short, the AMT is likely to reduce investment. The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a progressive think tank in Washington, disputes that idea.

Foot in the Door

Q: Where does it stop?
A: $0

Once passed, Democrats hope to modify the income requirement from $1 billion to $500 million, to $250 million and then to nothing. 

Perhaps that transition happens in one big bang. 

15% Global Minimum Tax rate

Inquiring minds may be wondering if this is the same as Janet Yellen’s proposed 15% minimum global tax rate.

No, Warren’s proposal is different. 

I discussed the 15% GMT in Yellen Provides Another Reason to Scrap the Whole Build Back Better Plan

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen is doing an international end run via an OECD agreement to force Congress into damaging tax hikes.

Yellen seeks to tax gains on a “on a jurisdictional basis”, in other words, country-by-country. 

For example, if a Company makes money in Brazil but loses the same amount of money in South Africa, the two do not net out. 

To understand what’s going on, please consider Biden’s Country-by-Country Tax Canard

Under the 2017 tax reform, American companies pay U.S. tax on global profits as those profits arise each year. This is done largely via the global intangible low-tax income, or Gilti, regime that imposes an effective tax rate of at least 13.125% on overseas profits arising especially from intellectual property held by offshore subsidiaries. The Biden plan would increase the Gilti tax rate to a statutory 21% (and an effective 26.25% after accounting for quirky tax mechanics).

The Biden plan also would overhaul how companies calculate Gilti liability. Currently companies aggregate overseas earnings, losses and foreign tax credits in various markets into a single global calculation. The Biden plan would go country-by-country, meaning that for each jurisdiction in which a company does business it would have to compute its Gilti taxable profit, work out any local tax credits, and then figure the tax due.

Country-by-country reporting also threatens to make overseas investment uneconomical. A flaw in the 2017 version of Gilti—which the Biden plan leaves in place—is that it doesn’t allow companies to carry losses forward or back.

Under Gilti, if an American company starts a new subsidiary in high-tax Italy that makes losses its first few years, that company still will owe tax in the subsidiary’s first profitable year. The partial solution in 2017 was to allow companies to calculate Gilti on a global basis, so profits in some places would offset losses in others.

Yellen’s proposal is a nightmare for corporations and sure to limit investment. 

Yellen voluntarily agreed to OECD language regarding  jurisdictional basis in an attempt to railroad Congress into supporting a 15% minimum GMT. 

Yellen’s GMT is in addition to what Warren proposes.

Another Bait and Switch 

Warren’s proposal is another one of those ideas that will allegedly impact only billionaires or billion income companies. 

It won’t stop there. 

And it’s pretty clear her wealth tax idea is unconstitutional. But Democrats, especially Elizabeth Warren, just don’t give a damn.

For discussion, please see Digging Further Into the Question “Is Taxing Unrealized Gains Constitutional?”

Thanks for Tuning In!

Like these reports? If so, please Subscribe to MishTalk Email Alerts.

Subscribers get an email alert of each post as they happen.

Read the ones you like and you can unsubscribe at any time.If you have subscribed and do not get email alerts, please check your spam folder.

Mish

Subscribe to MishTalk Email Alerts.

Subscribers get an email alert of each post as they happen. Read the ones you like and you can unsubscribe at any time.

This post originated on MishTalk.Com

Thanks for Tuning In!

Mish

Comments to this post are now closed.

24 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
TexasTim65
TexasTim65
4 years ago
Zero Hedge is now reporting this is a dead issue after Manchin says No Go to this tax.
Thankfully saner minds prevailed.
Scooot
Scooot
4 years ago
Reply to  TexasTim65
For now maybe. If the wealth gap continues to expand they’ll come a time when ideology will have an easier time getting passed. 
Crispin
Crispin
4 years ago
If there were a “global jurisdiction” many of the anticipated problems would disappear. Taxation of an international Corporation is an international problem, easily resolved by having a global governance regime.  If the UN was replaced by something elected and responsible (accountable) a host of humanity’s problems would also be solved. Enough with the Wild West, already. 
The blatant cheating and hiding of money (avoidance and evasion) has reached such a scale that it threatens to undermine the entire world economy. It cannot and will not continue. It will end with a bang or a whimper, but it is so lamentably unjust that we can tolerate it no longer. It is not for the USA to solve, willingly or not. This matter requires a more collaborative common sense version of a fixed tax rate applied to realised net gain, considering past losses. 
StukiMoi
StukiMoi
4 years ago
Reply to  Crispin
“If there were a “global jurisdiction” many of the anticipated problems would disappear.”
No they wouldn’t. The problems would still remain. It’s just that obviously better alternatives just wouldn’t be so darned visible.
Same thing with Soviet Communism: Had the commies, as Marx intended, achieved “global jurisdiction,” Eastern Europeans simply wouldn’t have the obviously less dysfunctional West serve as an obvious reminder of how bad they rally had it.
They would then have had to lean on basic understanding of fundamental economics to figure that out. And we are all stuck witnessing how that goes…..
KidHorn
KidHorn
4 years ago
Companies don’t invest any more. They buy shares. Anything close to an investment is buying competitors with shares. It would make more sense to tax buybacks. Maybe then companies would invest.
Rbm
Rbm
4 years ago
The cycle continues. Republicans give tax breaks without cutting services to look good to their base and they can complain when democrats want to raise taxes to pay for programs for their base.  
Why not turn it over to the bean counters in the irs or wherever. Let them figure what works then vote on it.  The politicians are just taking a stand for whoever is financing  their campaign.   
.  
Tony Bennett
Tony Bennett
4 years ago
“Warren’s proposal”
Just that.  A proposal.  Where it will remain.
Her legislative record a tad scant.
thimk
thimk
4 years ago
It’s the supply chains stupid. Government funds trillions on dollars that can’t be spent. Public money will over compete with private money ,hugely inflationary.   If these programs are so important fund them from a reduction in Government costs. It is disconcerting that the Dems are so intensely focused on pursuing ideological policies that they ignore the current state of affairs. 
dbannist
dbannist
4 years ago
The proposal of course is madness.

Expect those with no economic sense to love the idea, especially low income voters who support Bernie.

Eventually, this, or something like this will pass.  It will not pass today, but insane proposals today are usually considered reasonable in 10 years time.

Invest accordingly.

ed_retired_actuary
ed_retired_actuary
4 years ago
Elizabeth Warren held an open “meet and greet” in my MA town last month, where I asked her why the Democratic tax proposals at that time did not incorporate Yellen’s minimum %.  She replied that the Democrats should get to that, and that she had personally proposed a 7% minimum.  It appears that her ambition (at least for large profitable corporations) has doubled since then.
I agree that fairness calls for eliminating largely accounting shifting of income to low tax (some as low as 1%) tax haven jurisdictions with tools that have little or no economic substance that are readily available to multinational firms, but not for ordinary households or many domestic businesses,
Captain Ahab
Captain Ahab
4 years ago
If the tax code enables companies to
a) deduct the costs of plant and equipment, research, product development, etc, against operating income
b) invest in themselves by expanding overseas, and
c) acquire other companies
it does not seem appropriate to levy a fine (tax) on their success. IT MAKES MORE SENSE TO CORRECT THE TAX CODE.
Eddie_T
Eddie_T
4 years ago
I won’t go to bat for highly profitable corporations who pay nothing, Sorry, Mish, but I don’t think this dog will hunt.
2020….Nike paid nothing on $2.9 B and got a 109M rebate.
       
             Salesforce, zero taxes on $2.6B.
             Dish Network, no taxes paid, on $2.5B
Fifty-five large US corporations paid no taxes last year, and many of them got further tax breaks. They should pay SOMETHING. The middle class is carrying their burden.
              
             
Captain Ahab
Captain Ahab
4 years ago
Reply to  Eddie_T
The first question is why are these corporations highly profitable? What role does the current tax code have in them not paying tax?
For example, Amazon is building a huge infrastructure of trucking, warehousing, etc, and has gone far beyond selling books.
Eddie_T
Eddie_T
4 years ago
Reply to  Captain Ahab
2019…….Amazon paid nothing on over 11B in profits. I get that they are making capital investments, but there should be limits on that deal. Bezos rode that very tax break to a net worth of nearly $200B. The reason corporations go untaxed is because they pay for the tax structure they want, by lobbying, pure and simple. 
I understand the theory that the tax burden is passed through and paid by shareholders, but the reality is different, unfortunately. The benefits accrue to the giant shareholders…..far beyond anything that is fair, especially when you look at what the corporations get, which is access to a very lucrative US market. 
Captain Ahab
Captain Ahab
4 years ago
Reply to  Eddie_T
Why would you want to limit the amount of capital investment for productive enterprises and give it to a TAX AND WASTE Government? How much has Amazon invested in itself prior to 2019 in order to make 11B in profits? Essentially, you are punishing success.  Sound about right?
Also, if companies are lobbying politicians for tax advantages, doesn’t it make sense to stop the lobbying? And if they are lobbying to that extent, why would they allow such taxes to proceed?
No, this is the democratic party at its worst. Like Obama, they generate hatred of ‘big corporations’ and ‘millionaires and billionaires’ because it serves their political agenda. All bull$hit.
Eddie_T
Eddie_T
4 years ago
Reply to  Captain Ahab
I only want to level the scales for the people who now pay MORE than their fair share. That would be ME….and probably you as well, if you’re a high income earner living and working in the US. 
Of course it makes sense to limit lobbying. But the government has been captured by the corporations, so it isn’t gonna happen. No political will for it in a country full of poorly educated people who all think they’re millionaires just temporarily down on their luck.
I don’ t necessarily endorse Warren’s plan….but if high taxes are levied on the middle class, there should be significant taxes on highly profitable companies who sell in our markets.
TheWindowCleaner
TheWindowCleaner
4 years ago
Reply to  Eddie_T
We have a fiat monetary system which means that we can create as much money as we want to WITHOUT ANY TAXATION AT ALL.  Of course we don’t want the chaos of not having a taxation cuddgle at all and we also don’t want high inflation, but if you implemented a 50% discount to the consumer at retail sale all of which was rebated back to the enterprise granting that discount you would be creating the libertarian wet dream of integrating price deflation into profit making economic systems. So WHYTF wouldn’t libertarians want to do that? Orthodoxy is the short answer. They should try thinking a new thought. Why? Because if you paired the 50% discount/rebate policy with say a $1000/mo. UBI you could completely eliminate the taxes that individuals and enterprise pay for welfare, unemployment insurance and social security and lower income taxes by at least half, as well. The banks own the joint having been granted their monopolistic paradigm of Debt Only for the creation and distribution of money. Break that up with the new monetary and financial paradigm of Gifting with a 50% discount/rebate policy at retail sale and you’ll be able to integrate the best aspects of the left and right agendas. Think about it.
TheWindowCleaner
TheWindowCleaner
4 years ago
Are my posts being seen here, or is there some kind of moderation going on.
Eddie_T
Eddie_T
4 years ago
You’re visible.
TexasTim65
TexasTim65
4 years ago
Reply to  Eddie_T
Why should their be limits on their capital investments as tax breaks? Actual true investment for productive things (not stock buybacks) should be encouraged, not discouraged.
The only thing taxing these companies does is decide where the money gets spent. Either on a productive profitable thing Amazon decides to build or something the government decides to spend it on (welfare, wars, roads etc). It’s the age old question, who spends your money better, you or the government?
Anyway, if I was a company subject to this nonsense, I’d just immediately split up into a bunch of smaller companies under the threshold. So if it’s 1 billion then and Amazon is worth 1 trillion then I’d create Amazon1, Amazon2, …. Amazon1000 which each one having ~1 billion in assets so I’d avoid the tax.
Eddie_T
Eddie_T
4 years ago
Reply to  TexasTim65
Capital investment is skin in the game of making money……and that’s clearly a good thing. But these giant corporations have no skin in the game of building a stable, prosperous society. Their CEO’s make out like bandits. They manage to accumulate great wealth using tools that simply aren’t available to any of the rest of us, and it is a force that over time has served to destabilize our social order.
We have a group of highly paid, highly skilled workers who completely support everything….all the social programs, the military, the infrastructure…everything. 
As dbannist mentioned yesterday, over 60% of Americans paid no net income tax in 2020. Maybe in a more normal year it’s bit less, but the trend is clear. We have a group of unskilled workers who are dead broke and living paycheck-to-paycheck…nothing left to squeeze out of them except sales tax.    Some of them are already on public assistance. This group is getting larger.
And we have this other class…..about 111,000 Americans who have assets of over $50M. It’s not the least bit uncommon for these people to pay far less income tax than the average doctor or attorney (or plumber, for that matter). They simply don’t consume much, in comparison with what they collect from investments, and so they have less skin in the game f keeping our society stable than anybody. Yet their money gives them outside political power because we have this perverted way of electing representatives that depends on big donations to buy media exposure and so forth.
Working stiffs at minimum wage are not paying the bills for this country. Billionaires and mega-millionaires aren’t either. You can make noises about being more fiscally responsible, but that isn’t happening, and so….we have a shrinking upper-middle class, shouldering more and more of the land in this country. I am such a tax donkey, and I object to be taken advantage of…..sorry. It’s a legitimate complaint, and things need to change in some way that makes it more equitable.
You don’t like taxing billionaire’s wealth? Don’t like raising corporate taxes in some way? Then explain to me how America the country stays solvent and politically stable going forward. I’m all ears.
Eddie_T
Eddie_T
4 years ago
Reply to  Eddie_T
Sorry for the typos. I hate autocorrect, did I say that?
TexasTim65
TexasTim65
4 years ago
Reply to  Eddie_T
The most obvious way is for the government to spend less, not more 🙂
My problem with this new tax is just that. It’s a new tax for moar spending. If this new tax was entirely for paying down debt you’d get me on board if it wasn’t onerous. I’d also be on board if it was a tax offset (ie corporations pay 200 billion more, middle class pays 200 billion less).
But I’m never getting on board for just more new taxes for more new spending. That’s exactly what I said it is. It’s the government saying they can spend your money better/more productively than you/businesses can.
Eddie_T
Eddie_T
4 years ago
Reply to  TexasTim65
Edit

Decorate Your Walls with Mish Fine Art Images

Click each image to view details or purchase in the store.

Stay Informed

Subscribe to MishTalk

You will receive all messages from this feed and they will be delivered by email.