Corporate Taxes

Latest story

125 Shares189 Views

Trump Dangles New Tax Cut Proposals With Real Political Appeal

by

The most recent and costliest of Mr. Trump’s ideas would end income taxes on Social Security benefits.First it was a tax cut for hotel and restaurant workers in Nevada, a swing state where Donald J. Trump proposed exempting tips from taxes. Then, in front of powerful chief executives gathered in Washington, Mr. Trump floated cutting the corporate tax rate, helping to ease concerns in the business community about his candidacy.Now Mr. Trump is calling for an end to taxing Social Security benefits, which could be a boon for retirees, one of the most politically important groups in the United States.Repeatedly during the campaign, Mr. Trump and Republicans have embraced new, sometimes novel tax cuts in an attempt to shore up support with major constituencies. In a series of social-media posts, at political rallies, and without formal policy proposals, Mr. Trump has casually suggested reducing federal revenue by trillions of dollars.While policy experts have taken issue with the ideas, Mr. Trump’s pronouncements have real political appeal, at times putting Democrats on their back foot. Nevada’s two Democratic senators and its powerful culinary union have endorsed ending taxes on tips. The AARP supports tax relief for seniors receiving Social Security benefits, though it has not taken a position on Mr. Trump’s proposal.“You do have to scratch your head a little bit when someone’s going around offering free lunches everywhere,” said Jesse Lee, a Democratic consultant and former Biden White House official. “We’re all for people having their lunch, but we have to raise taxes on the wealthy to pay for it.”The most recent and most expensive of Mr. Trump’s plans is ending income taxes on Social Security benefits, which could cost the federal government as much as $1.8 trillion in revenue over a decade, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. That would burn through the program’s financial reserves more quickly and hasten the moment when the government is no longer able to pay out Social Security benefits in full under current law.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

More stories

  • 100 Shares159 Views

    in Economy

    Biden Budget Lays Out Battle Lines Against Trump

    by

    President Biden and former President Donald J. Trump offer vastly different policy paths on almost every aspect of the economy.President Biden in his budget this week staked out major economic battle lines with former President Donald J. Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee. The proposal offers the nation a glimpse of the diverging directions that retirement programs, taxes, trade and energy policy could take depending on the outcome of the November election.During the past three years, Mr. Biden has enacted key pieces of legislation aimed at bolstering the green energy economy, making infrastructure investments and reinforcing America’s domestic supply chain with subsidies for microchips, solar technology and electric vehicles. Few of those priorities are shared by Mr. Trump, who has pledged to cut more taxes and erect new trade barriers if re-elected.The inflection point will be arriving as the economy enters the final stretch of what economists are now expecting to be a “soft landing” after two years of high inflation. However, the prospect of a second Trump administration has injected increased uncertainty into the economic outlook, as companies and policymakers around the world brace for what could be a dramatic shift in the economic stewardship of the United States.Here are some of the most striking differences in the economic policies of the two presidential candidates.Sparring over the social safety netAt first glance, Mr. Biden and Mr. Trump might appear to have similar positions on the nation’s social safety net programs. In 2016, Mr. Trump broke with his fellow Republicans and refused to support cuts to Social Security or Medicare. Mr. Biden has long insisted that the programs should be protected and has hammered Republicans who have suggested cutting or scaling back the programs.In his budget proposal on Monday, Mr. Biden reiterated his commitment to preserving the nation’s entitlement system. He called for new efforts to improve the solvency of Social Security and Medicare, including making wealthy Americans pay more into the health program. However, his plans were light on details regarding how to ensure both programs’ long-term sustainability.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 125 Shares109 Views

    in Economy

    In Budget Talks, Biden Rejects Hard Choices of the Past

    by

    The president has met Republican demands for debt reduction with a plan to trim deficits by taxing companies and the rich. Months after losing control of the House in 2010, President Barack Obama and his vice president, Joseph R. Biden Jr., released a budget proposal that bowed to Republican warnings about the need to rein in spending by promising a freeze in popular programs like education.Now president, Mr. Biden is confronting the same equation, with an emboldened new Republican majority in the House demanding deep spending cuts. But this time, Mr. Biden has made a sharp break from the past.His proposed budget does contain new steps to reduce deficits, but instead of talking about hard choices and freezing spending, Mr. Biden has pledged to defend popular federal programs from Republican attacks and instead rely almost exclusively on taxing corporations and high earners as the way to reduce the growth in the deficit by nearly $3 trillion over the next decade.The shifting strategy by Mr. Biden is rooted in his determination not to repeat political and economic mistakes from the Obama era, administration officials say privately. Economists now say economic mistakes from the Obama era slowed the recovery from the 2008 financial crisis. And publicly, officials point to polls to contend that voters side with the president on how to reduce deficits.“The American people are absolutely right that having the super-wealthy and special interests pay their fair share is the right way to reduce the deficit,” said Jesse Lee, a senior communications adviser to Mr. Biden’s National Economic Council.The budget fight is expected to drag out for months as both sides attempt to pin the blame on the other. Mr. Biden is attempting a different sort of budget triangulation from Mr. Obama’s plan, as he nods to concerns over the $31.4 trillion national debt but seeks to redefine the issue and turn conservatives’ longstanding antipathy toward tax increases into a negotiating and electoral weapon.“The Republicans have taken off the table making the wealthy and the well connected pay a little more to help reduce the national debt — that means they’re not really serious about the national debt,” Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, said in an interview.Understand Biden’s Budget ProposalPresident Biden proposed a $6.8 trillion budget that sought to increase spending on the military and social programs while also reducing future budget deficits.Recapturing a Centrist Identity: As he unveiled his proposal, Mr. Biden made curbing the budget gap one of his centerpiece promises. The move is part of a wider shift that sees the president speaking more to the concerns of the political middle.A Missing Plan for Social Security: Like the president’s previous budgets, his new proposal makes no mention of the program, which he promised to shore up during his 2020 campaign.N.Y. Transit Projects: President Biden’s budget plan routes about $1.2 billion to two of the biggest transit projects in New York City: the Second Avenue Subway extension and new train tunnels under the Hudson River.“Higher taxes aimed at billionaires and giant corporations that are hiding their money overseas would have very little effect on our economy, other than the ability to reduce the national debt or to invest more,” she said.House Republicans are refusing to raise a cap on the amount of debt the United States can have outstanding unless Mr. Biden agrees to large federal spending cuts, which could include slashing antipoverty programs and new measures meant to fight climate change. They say the current national debt load and new spending programs approved by the president are weighing on economic growth, partly by driving up borrowing costs for private businesses.They are trying to assemble their own budget proposal that can pass the House, likely centered on cuts to housing assistance, health care programs and other aid to the poor. In a caucus that fractures on key issues like how much to spend on the military and whether to raise retirement ages for Social Security and Medicare, members have found common purpose in skewering Mr. Biden’s fiscal plans.“After two years of economic failures, the American people desperately want results,” Representative Jason Smith of Missouri, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, said at the start of a hearing on Mr. Biden’s budget on Friday. “The budget before us today calls for $4.7 trillion in new taxes and sinks $6.9 trillion in new spending during a staggering debt crisis.”Mr. Biden has refused to negotiate directly over raising the debt limit but says he welcomes a conversation on the nation’s finances — on his own, populist terms.“What are they going to cut?” Mr. Biden mused to an audience in Philadelphia on Thursday, as he formally unveiled his budget and called on Republicans to follow suit..css-1v2n82w{max-width:600px;width:calc(100% – 40px);margin-top:20px;margin-bottom:25px;height:auto;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;font-family:nyt-franklin;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1v2n82w{margin-left:20px;margin-right:20px;}}@media only screen and (min-width:1024px){.css-1v2n82w{width:600px;}}.css-161d8zr{width:40px;margin-bottom:18px;text-align:left;margin-left:0;color:var(–color-content-primary,#121212);border:1px solid var(–color-content-primary,#121212);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-161d8zr{width:30px;margin-bottom:15px;}}.css-tjtq43{line-height:25px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-tjtq43{line-height:24px;}}.css-x1k33h{font-family:nyt-cheltenham;font-size:19px;font-weight:700;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve{font-size:17px;font-weight:300;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve em{font-style:italic;}.css-1hvpcve strong{font-weight:bold;}.css-1hvpcve a{font-weight:500;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}.css-1c013uz{margin-top:18px;margin-bottom:22px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz{font-size:14px;margin-top:15px;margin-bottom:20px;}}.css-1c013uz a{color:var(–color-signal-editorial,#326891);-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;font-weight:500;font-size:16px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz a{font-size:13px;}}.css-1c013uz a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}How Times reporters cover politics. We rely on our journalists to be independent observers. So while Times staff members may vote, they are not allowed to endorse or campaign for candidates or political causes. This includes participating in marches or rallies in support of a movement or giving money to, or raising money for, any political candidate or election cause.Learn more about our process.“What about Medicaid? What about the Affordable Care Act? What about veterans’ benefits? What about law enforcement? What about aid to rural communities? What about support for our military?” he asked. “What will they make — how will they make these numbers add up?”This debate is happening in an economic moment that is very different from 2011, when Mr. Obama issued his budget for the 2012 fiscal year.At that time, the gross national debt was about $15.5 trillion, or just under three-quarters of what was the annual output of the American economy. But the economy was nowhere close to recovering from the 2009 recession. The unemployment rate was 9 percent. The economy was running well below what economists call its potential — the amount of goods and services it would be producing at what you might call optimal performance.Then-President Barack Obama speaking about his budget proposal in 2009, with Mr. Biden, his vice president. Mr. Obama bowed to Republican demands to reduce deficits.Doug Mills/The New York TimesProgressive economists pushed Mr. Obama to take advantage of low interest rates to continue running large deficits and pump more money into the economy. After losing the House, though, he bowed to Republican demands to reduce deficits and pivoted the other way. His budget proposed caps on government spending and urged Congress “to act now to secure and strengthen Social Security for future generations” by taking steps to shore up its finances.A bout of brinkmanship later in 2011 between House Republicans and Mr. Obama nearly ended with the United States defaulting on its debt, before Mr. Obama agreed to a set of caps on future spending increases in exchange for lifting the limit. That deal helped cut the deficit by nearly two-thirds before Mr. Obama left office.Many economists have concluded that those measures dragged out the time it took for the economy to finally run hot enough to generate sustained wage gains for workers.Today’s economy has run so hot that the Federal Reserve is trying to cool it down to tame high inflation. Unemployment is 3.6 percent, and companies are having trouble finding workers. Republicans blame Mr. Biden’s spending policies for stoking inflation and say his tax proposals would further burden people and business owners already struggling with high prices.Progressive economists disagree — increasingly saying there is little threat to growth from large tax increases on companies and high earners.Even with his proposed savings, Mr. Biden’s budget still foresees the gross national debt increasing by about $18 trillion through 2033, to just above $50 trillion, or 128 percent of gross domestic product. It projects deficits to average about 1.5 percent more, as a share of the economy, than Mr. Obama projected in his 2012 budget. Yet administration economists say that under their plans, “the economic burden of debt would remain low.”Some progressive groups criticized Mr. Biden last week for focusing at all on deficit reduction in the budget. Others welcomed his emphasis on raising taxes for businesses and people earning more than $400,000.Budget hawks urged Mr. Biden last week to propose more — and more immediate — deficit reduction. Such reductions would pull consumer spending power out of the economy faster by raising taxes or reducing federal expenditures, or both. Advocates of deficit reduction said that could help ease price growth in the economy.Jerome H. Powell, the Fed chairman, told lawmakers in the House and Senate last week that federal tax and spending policy was “not contributing to inflation” today. He was pressed on that view by Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana, a Republican on the Budget Committee.“It’s undeniable that the only way we’re going to get this sticky inflation down is to attack it on the monetary side, which you’re doing, and on the fiscal side, which means Congress has got to reduce the rate of growth of spending and reduce — reduce the rate of growth of debt accumulation,” Mr. Kennedy said.“Now I get that you don’t want to get in the middle of that fight,” he added. “But the more we help on the fiscal side, the fewer people you’re going to have to put out of work. Isn’t that a fact?”“It could work out that way,” Mr. Powell replied. More

  • 125 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    How a New Corporate Minimum Tax Could Reshape Business Investments

    by

    With a new corporate minimum tax, Democrats would be adding complexity to an already byzantine tax system.WASHINGTON — At the center of the new climate and tax package that Democrats appear to be on the verge of passing is one of the most significant changes to America’s tax code in decades: a new corporate minimum tax that could reshape how the federal government collects revenue and alter how the nation’s most profitable companies invest in their businesses.The proposal is one of the last remaining tax increases in the package that Democrats are aiming to pass along party lines in coming days. After months of intraparty disagreement over whether to raise taxes on the wealthy or roll back some of the 2017 Republican tax cuts to fund their agenda, they have settled on a longstanding political ambition to ensure that large and profitable companies pay more than $0 in federal taxes.To accomplish this, Democrats have recreated a policy that was last employed in the 1980s: trying to capture tax revenue from companies that report a profit to shareholders on their financial statements while bulking up on deductions to whittle down their tax bills.The re-emergence of the corporate minimum tax, which would apply to what’s known as the “book income” that companies report on their financial statements, has prompted confusion and fierce lobbying resistance since it was announced last month.Some initially conflated the measure with the 15 percent global minimum tax that Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen has been pushing as part of an international tax deal. However, that is a separate proposal, which in the United States remains stalled in Congress, that would apply to the foreign earnings of American multinational companies.Republicans have also misleadingly tried to seize on the tax increase as evidence that President Biden was ready to break his campaign promises and raise taxes on middle-class workers. And manufacturers have warned that it would impose new costs at a time of rapid inflation.In a sign of the political power of lobbyists in Washington, by Thursday evening the new tax had already been watered down. At the urging of manufacturers, Senator Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona persuaded her Democratic colleagues to preserve a valuable deduction, known as bonus depreciation, that is associated with purchases of machinery and equipment.The new 15 percent minimum tax would apply to corporations that report annual income of more than $1 billion to shareholders on their financial statements but use deductions, credits and other preferential tax treatments to reduce their effective tax rates well below the statutory 21 percent. It was originally projected to raise $313 billion in tax revenue over a decade, though the final tally is likely to be $258 billion once the revised bill is finalized.The new tax could also inject a greater degree of complexity into the tax code, creating challenges in carrying out the law if it is passed.“In terms of implementation and just bandwidth to deal with the complexity, there’s no doubt that this regime is complex,” said Peter Richman, a senior attorney adviser at the Tax Law Center at New York University’s law school. “This is a big change and the revenue number is large.”What’s in the Democrats’ Climate and Tax BillCard 1 of 6A new proposal. More

  • 113 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    Analysis Deems Biden’s Climate and Tax Bill Fiscally Responsible

    by

    Despite Republican claims, the new legislation would be only a modest corporate tax increase, Congress’s Joint Committee on Taxation found.After more than a year of trying — and failing — to pack much of President Biden’s domestic agenda into a single tax-and-spend bill, Democrats appear to have finally found a winning combination. They’ve scrapped most of the president’s plans, dialed down the cost and focused on climate change, health care and a lower budget deficit.As soon as party leaders announced that new bill last week, Republicans began attacking it in familiar terms. They called it a giant tax increase and a foolish expansion of government spending, which they alleged would hurt an economy reeling from rapid inflation.But outside estimates suggest the bill would not cement a giant tax increase or result in profligate federal spending.An analysis by the Joint Committee on Taxation, a congressional nonpartisan scorekeeper for tax legislation, suggests that the bill would raise about $70 billion over 10 years. But the increase would be front-loaded: By 2027, the bill would actually amount to a net tax cut each year, as new credits and other incentives for low-emission energy sources outweighed a new minimum tax on some large corporations.That analysis, along with a broader estimate of the bill’s provisions from the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, suggests that the legislation, if passed, would only modestly add to federal spending over the next 10 years. By the end of the decade, the bill would be reducing federal spending, compared with what is scheduled to happen if it does not become law.And because the bill also includes measures to empower the Internal Revenue Service to crack down on corporations and high-earning individuals who evade taxes, it is projected to reduce the federal budget deficit over a decade by about $300 billion.Adding up the headline cost for what Democrats are calling the Inflation Reduction Act is more complicated than it was for many previous tax or spending measures that lawmakers approved. The bill blends tax increases and tax credits, just as Republicans did when they passed President Donald J. Trump’s signature tax package in 2017. But it also includes a spending increase meant to boost tax revenues and a spending cut meant to put more money in consumers’ pockets.Maya MacGuineas, the president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, said the composition of the deal was vastly different from a larger bill that Democrats failed to push through the Senate in the fall. It included several spending programs that were set to expire after a few years, and budget hawks warned that the overall package would add heavily to federal debt if those programs were eventually made permanent, as Washington has been known to do, without offsetting tax increases.Ms. MacGuineas called the original idea, known as Build Back Better, “a massive gimmicky budget buster.” She had kinder words for the new package, saying it “manages to push against inflation, reduce the deficit, and, once fully phased in, it would actually cut net spending, without raising net taxes.”“That is a pretty monumental improvement,” she added.The bill springs from an agreement between Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the majority leader, and Senator Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, a key centrist Democrat. President Biden blessed it last week, and it carries what remains of what was once his $4 trillion domestic agenda.Understand What Happened to Biden’s Domestic AgendaCard 1 of 7‘Build Back Better.’ More

  • 125 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    How Joe Manchin Left a Global Tax Deal in Limbo

    by

    Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen’s signature achievement is in jeopardy if the United States cannot ratify the tax agreement that she brokered.WASHINGTON — In June, months after reluctantly signing on to a global tax agreement brokered by the United States, Ireland’s finance minister met privately with Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen, seeking reassurances that the Biden administration would hold up its end of the deal.Ms. Yellen assured the minister, Paschal Donohoe, that the administration would be able to secure enough votes in Congress to ensure that the United States was in compliance with the pact, which was aimed at cracking down on companies evading taxes by shifting jobs and profits around the world.It turns out that Ms. Yellen was overly optimistic. Late last week, Senator Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia, effectively scuttled the Biden administration’s tax agenda in Congress — at least for now — by saying he could not immediately support a climate, energy and tax package he had spent months negotiating with the Democratic leadership. He expressed deep misgivings about the international tax deal, which he had previously indicated he could support, saying it would put American companies at a disadvantage.“I said we’re not going to go down that path overseas right now because the rest of the countries won’t follow, and we’ll put all of our international companies in jeopardy, which harms the American economy,” Mr. Manchin told a West Virginia radio station on Friday. “So we took that off the table.”Mr. Manchin’s reversal, couched in the language used by Republican opponents of the deal, is a blow to Ms. Yellen, who spent months getting more than 130 countries on board. It is also a defeat for President Biden and Democratic leaders in the Senate, who pushed hard to raise tax rates on many multinational corporations in hopes of leading the world in an effort to stop companies from shifting jobs and income to minimize their tax bills.The agreement would have ushered in the most sweeping changes to global taxation in decades, including raising taxes on many large corporations and changing how technology companies are taxed. The two-pronged approach would entail countries enacting a 15 percent minimum tax so that companies pay a rate of at least that much on their global profits no matter where they set up shop. It would also allow governments to tax the world’s largest and most profitable companies based on where their goods and services were sold, not where their headquarters were.Failure to get agreement at home creates a mess both for the Biden administration and for multinational corporations. Many other countries are likely to press ahead to ratify the deal, but some may now be emboldened to hold out, fracturing the coalition and potentially opening the door for some countries to continue marketing themselves as corporate tax havens.For now, the situation will allow for the continued aggressive use of global tax avoidance strategies by companies like the pharmaceutical giant AbbVie. A Senate Finance Committee report this month found that the company made three-quarters of its sales to American customers in 2020, yet reported only 1 percent of its income in the United States for tax purposes — a move that allowed it to slash its effective tax rate to about half of the 21 percent American corporate income tax rate.Not changing international tax laws could also sow new uncertainty for large tech companies, like Google and Amazon, and other businesses that earn money from consumers in countries where they do not have many employees or physical offices. Part of the global agreement was meant to give those companies more certainty on which countries could tax them, and how much they would have to pay.America’s refusal to take part would be a significant setback for Ms. Yellen, whose role in getting the deal done was viewed as her signature diplomatic achievement. For months last year, she lobbied nations around the world, from Ireland to India, on the merits of the tax agreement, only to see her own political party decline to heed her calls to get on board.Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen and Finance Minister Paschal Donohoe of Ireland met in Washington last month.Andrew Harnik/Associated PressAfter Mr. Manchin’s comments, the Treasury Department said it was not giving up on the agreement.“The United States remains committed to finalizing a global minimum tax,” Michael Kikukawa, a Treasury spokesman, said in a statement. “It’s too important for our economic strength and competitiveness to not finalize this agreement, and we’ll continue to look at every avenue possible to get it done.”Jared Bernstein, a member of Mr. Biden’s Council of Economic Advisers, told reporters at the White House on Monday that Mr. Biden “remains fully committed” to participating in a global tax agreement.Understand What Happened to Biden’s Domestic AgendaCard 1 of 6‘Build Back Better.’ More

  • 150 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    Treasury Secretary Yellen Looks to Get Global Tax Deal Back on Track

    by

    The Treasury secretary is traveling to Warsaw, Brussels and Bonn, Germany, this week at an uncertain time for the global economy.WARSAW — Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen arrived in Europe this week to join U.S. allies in confronting multiple threats to the world economy: Russia’s war in Ukraine, soaring inflation and food shortages.But one of Ms. Yellen’s first orders of business during a stop in Poland will be trying to get the global tax deal that she brokered last year back on track after months of fledgling deliberations about how to enact it. The two-pronged pact among more than 130 countries that was reached last October aimed to eliminate corporate tax havens by enacting a 15 percent global minimum tax. It would also shift taxing rights among countries so that corporations pay taxes based on where their goods and services are sold rather than where their headquarters are.Turning the agreement into a reality is proving to be a steep challenge.The European Union has already delayed its timeline for putting the tax changes in place by a year and progress has been halted over objections by Poland, which last month vetoed a plan to enact the new tax rate by the end of next year. Despite initially signing on to the deal, Poland has voiced reservations, including whether the minimum tax will actually prevent big tech companies from seeking out lower-tax jurisdictions. Polish officials have also expressed concern that the two parts of the tax agreement are moving ahead at different paces, as well as trepidation about the impact that raising its tax rate will have on its economy at a time when the country is absorbing waves of Ukrainian refugees.In meetings in Warsaw on Monday, Ms. Yellen pressed top Polish officials to let the process move ahead, making clear that the tax deal continues to be a priority of the United States. She is meeting with Poland’s prime minister, Mateusz Morawiecki, and the finance minister, Magdalena Rzeczkowska.According to the Treasury Department, Ms Yellen told Mr. Morawiecki that international tax reform and the global minimum tax would raise crucial revenues to benefit the citizens of both Poland and the United States.The meetings come at the beginning of a weeklong trip that also includes stops in Brussels and Bonn, Germany, which is hosting the Group of 7 finance ministers’ summit. Ms. Yellen will be focusing on coordinating sanctions against Russia with European allies and addressing growing concerns about how disruptions to energy and food supplies could affect the global economy.Poland’s finance minister, Magdalena Rzeczkowska, former head of the country’s tax agency. Her country has raised concerns over potential loopholes and the impact of the global tax plan.Radek Pietruszka/EPA, via ShutterstockThe tax agreement has been one of Ms. Yellen’s top priories as Treasury secretary. Gaining Poland’s support is critical because the European Union requires consensus among its member states to enact the tax changes.“I think the reality of turning a political commitment into binding domestic legislation is a lot more complex,” said Manal Corwin, a Treasury official in the Obama administration who now heads the Washington national tax practice at KPMG. “The E.U. has moved and gotten over most of the objections, but they still have Poland and it’s not clear whether they’re going to be able to get the last vote.”With President Emmanuel Macron of France heading the European Union’s rotating presidency until June, his administration was eager to get a deal implemented. But at a meeting of European finance ministers in early April, Poland became the sole holdout, saying there were no ironclad guarantees that big multinational companies wouldn’t still be able to take advantage of low-tax jurisdictions if the two parts of the agreement did not move ahead in tandem, undercutting the global effort to avoid a race to the bottom when it comes to corporate taxation.Poland’s stance was sharply criticized by European officials, particularly France, whose finance minister, Bruno Le Maire, suggested that Warsaw was instead holding up a final accord in retaliation for a Europe-wide political dispute. Poland has threatened to veto measures requiring unanimous E.U. votes because of an earlier decision by Brussels to block pandemic recovery funds for Poland.The European Union had refused to disburse billions in aid to Poland since late last year, citing separate concerns over Warsaw’s interference with the independence of its judicial system. Last week, on the eve of Ms. Yellen’s visit to Poland, the European Commission came up with an 11th-hour deal unlocking 36 billion euros in pandemic recovery funds for Poland, which pledged to meet certain milestones such as judiciary and economic reforms, in return for the money.Negotiators from around the world have been working for months to resolve technical details of the agreement, such as what kinds of income would be subject to the new taxes and how the deal would be enforced. Failure to finalize the agreement would likely mean the further proliferation of the digital services taxes that European countries have imposed on American technology giants, much to the dismay of those firms and the Biden administration, which has threatened to impose tariffs on nations that adopt their own levies.“It’s fluid, it’s moving, it’s a moving target,” Pascal Saint-Amans, the director of the center for tax policy and administration at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, said of the negotiations at the D.C. Bar’s annual tax conference this month. “There is an extremely ambitious timeline.”Countries like Ireland, with a historically low corporate tax rate, have been wary of increasing their rates if others do not follow suit, so it has been important to ensure that there is a common understanding of the new tax rules to avoid opening the door to new loopholes.“The idea of having multiple countries put the same rules in place is a new concept in tax,” said Barbara Angus, the global tax policy leader at Ernst & Young and a former chief tax counsel on the House Ways and Means Committee. She added that it was important to have a multilateral forum so countries could agree on how to interpret and apply the levies.Yet, while Ms. Yellen is pushing foreign nations to adopt the tax agreement, it remains unclear whether the United States will be able to pass its own legislation to come into compliance.An earlier effort by House Democrats to adopt a tax plan that would satisfy terms of the agreement fell apart in the Senate, where Democrats continue to disagree over the scope and cost of a tax and spending bill that President Biden has proposed.Rep. Kevin Brady of Texas, the ranking member on the House Ways and Means Committee, has led Republican opposition to an international tax agreement, saying it makes the United States “less competitive.”Anna Moneymaker/Getty ImagesRepublicans in Congress have made clear that they are unlikely to support any agreement that the Biden administration has brokered and called on the Treasury Department to consult with them before trying to move ahead.“As it is, there’s very little chance of a global minimum tax agreement — there is already resistance to approval at the E.U., which should be the easiest part of these discussions, and it will only get harder going forward,” said Representative Kevin Brady of Texas, the top Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee. “Meanwhile, here in the U.S., there’s little political support for an agreement that makes the U.S. less competitive and takes a big bite out of our tax base.”Ms. Yellen is expected to convey to her counterparts this week that the agreement is still a priority for the Biden administration and that she hopes that the United States can make the tax changes needed to comply with the agreement in a small spending package later this year, according to a person familiar with the negotiations. More

  • 175 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    How $2 Trillion in Tax Increases in Biden's Bill Target Companies and the Rich

    by

    The proposal to fund the president’s sprawling spending plan mostly turns up the dial on more conventional tax policies, while trying to curb maneuvers that allow tax avoidance.WASHINGTON — President Biden’s new plan to pay for his climate change and social policy package includes nearly $2 trillion in tax increases on corporations and the rich. But many of the more contentious and untested proposals that Democrats have been considering in recent weeks were left on the cutting-room floor.The latest proposal reflects the reality that moderate Democrats are unwilling to back certain ideas aimed at raising money, including taxing the unrealized capital gains of billionaires and giving the Internal Revenue Service more insight into the finances of taxpayers. Ultimately, the package of tax increases mostly turns up the dial on more conventional tax policies, while adding some new wrinkles to curb maneuvers that allow tax avoidance.“I think in terms of who they’re targeting, they did decide to target the larger population of very rich people and not just get the money from a very small group of superrich people,” said Howard Gleckman, a senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center.Here’s a look at what’s in the new tax plan:Taxing the rich.Instead of a wealth tax or a special tax on billionaires, Mr. Biden rolled out a new “surtax” on income for multimillionaires and billionaires. It would effectively raise the top tax rate on ordinary income to 45 percent for the highest earners.Those with adjusted gross income of more than $10 million would face an additional 5 percent tax on top of the 37 percent marginal tax rate they already pay. Those making more than $25 million would face an extra 3 percent surtax.The Biden administration estimates that these tax increases would hit the top .02 percent of taxpayers and raise $230 billion of tax revenue over a decade.The plan also aims to ensure that people making more than $400,000 are not able to use loopholes to avoid paying a 3.8 percent Medicare tax. The White House estimates that provision alone will generate $250 billion in tax revenue over the next 10 years.Making corporations pay more.Borrowing a page from his campaign playbook, Mr. Biden wants to impose a 15 percent minimum tax on profitable companies that have little to no federal tax liability. Many profitable companies are able to reduce or eliminate their tax liability through the use of tax credits, deductions and previous losses that can carry over. The new tax would apply to companies with more than $1 billion in so-called book income — profits that firms report to their shareholders but not to the I.R.S.The plan is meant to ensure that the approximately 200 companies that pay no corporate income tax will have to pay some money to the federal government.The White House estimates the provision, which was also included in a plan presented by Senate Democrats, will raise an additional $325 billion in tax revenue over a decade.Chye-Ching Huang, the executive director of the Tax Law Center at New York University, said on Thursday that the proposal could mean that financial statements where book income is reported could become the new “locus for tax avoidance.”A separate proposal would also enact a 1 percent surcharge on corporate stock buybacks. Buybacks have surged along with the stock market, with cash-rich firms like Apple, JPMorgan Chase and Exxon spending billions of dollars each year to buy back, then retire, shares in their own companies. That can help drive up the company’s stock price, enriching both shareholders and corporate executives whose compensation is often tied to their firm’s stock performance.The provision is projected to raise $125 billion over 10 years.Ending the tax race to the bottom.Mr. Biden’s framework would raise the tax that companies pay on foreign earnings to 15 percent, putting the United States in line with a global minimum tax that is being completed at the Group of 20 summit in Rome this week.The Biden administration initially wanted to double the current rate to 21 percent from 10.5 percent. In settling on 15 percent, the U.S. rate would match what was agreed to by the 136 countries participating in the global deal and could blunt criticism that American companies will face a competitive disadvantage.The global agreement is meant to end corporate tax havens and stop what Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen describes as the “race to the bottom” of declining corporate tax rates around the world.To deter companies from finding ways to avoid the tax, the plan would impose a penalty rate on foreign corporations based in countries that are not part of the agreement.The Biden administration projects the international plans would raise $350 billion over a decade.Narrowing the tax gap.White House and Treasury Department officials have spent months pushing a proposal to narrow the $7 trillion gap in taxes that are owed by individuals and businesses but not collected. The administration initially wanted to invest $80 billion in additional enforcement staffing at the I.R.S. and require banks to hand over more information about the finances of their customers.Under the new proposal, the I.R.S. would get more money to ramp up audits of people making more than $400,000. However, the new bank reporting proposal — which the Treasury has called critical to its ability to hunt down hidden revenue — was conspicuously absent. A lobbying campaign from banks prompted huge blowback from lawmakers, including Senator Joe Manchin III, a West Virginia Democrat whose vote is critical to passing the overall package.Treasury officials and a group of Senate Democrats are continuing to negotiate with Mr. Manchin on narrowing the proposal in a way that he could support.As it stands, the plan to bolster I.R.S. enforcement is projected to raise $400 billion over a decade, down from the $700 billion in the original proposal.Reducing the deficit, maybe.Mr. Biden said on Thursday that his plans were “fiscally responsible” and claimed that the proposals, if enacted, would reduce the country’s budget deficit.The $2 trillion of proposed tax increases would more than offset the $1.85 trillion in spending on housing, child care and climate initiatives. However, nonpartisan scorekeepers such as the Congressional Budget Office have in the past offered less rosy projections of what Biden administration proposals might actually raise in revenue.Additional I.R.S. enforcement personnel will take years to get up to speed, and audits could be less effective without the additional bank information the Treasury Department is seeking.Some Democratic lawmakers are also still fighting for the inclusion of provisions that could actually cost money, including a partial or temporary restoration of SALT, the state and local tax deduction that Republicans capped in 2017. Last-minute additions such as that could add to the cost of the overall package. More