Skip to main content

CHIQUITAFYFFES : Can Obama take the juice out of corporate inversions?

One of the "Hot Topics" that will be discussed at IPO Global Pineapple Conference in Costa Rica (November 4-6, 2014) :!events/c19qp!events/c19qp

After a US corporation inverts, a foreign company owns it (rather than it owning the foreign company). 

The US corporation is still subject to US taxes, but it can reduce its tax liability. How President Obama can discourage such behavior.

AUGUST 18, 2014

Jacquelyn Martin/AP/File

Politicians can debate whether corporate tax inversions are “unpatriotic” or simply a legitimate technique to reduce taxes–and commentators can argue over whether anything should be done to stop them. 

Experts also disagree about whether President Obama and his Treasury Secretary have the legal authority to write new rules to discourage inversions.

 In my view, on this last question, the law clearly provides Treasury that authority.

After a U.S. corporation inverts, a foreign company owns it (rather than it owning the foreign company). The U.S. corporation is still subject to U.S. taxes, but it can reduce its tax liability by borrowing large amounts from its foreign parent, and deducting the interest payments against its earnings. (If, without inverting, the U.S. corporation borrowed from a foreign subsidiary, it might defer, but it could not eliminate, the tax on its earnings; it might also trip other rules, like the tax on repatriated earnings.)

Treasury Secretary Jack Lew can use many different tools to stop this game. For example, in 1969, Congress enacted Section 385 of the Code, which authorizes him “to prescribe such regulations as may be necessary or appropriate to determine whether an interest in a corporation is to be treated for purposes of this title as stock or indebtedness.”

In other words, in appropriate circumstances, the Secretary may write rules to treat interests in a corporation as equity rather than debt. This matters because payments on equity (i.e., dividends) are not deductible and thus do not lower a corporation’s tax bill. 

 Thus, the interest payments to the foreign parent would no longer be deductible, which would remove virtually all of the appeal of such “earnings stripping” transactions.

Harvard Professor Stephen Shay first pointed out this authority –and several other sources of authority–to urge Lew to stem the flight of U.S. corporations (and their tax dollars). If Treasury acts, U.S. corporations could still flee—but they could not load up on debt afterwards to eliminate their future tax liabilities.

The U.S. Supreme Court has made clear the scope of legal authority for an agency that has been granted regulatory authority by Congress: “If Congress has explicitly left a gap for the agency to fill, there is an express delegation of authority to the agency to elucidate a specific provision of the statute by regulation. Such legislative regulations are given controlling weight unless they are arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute.” 

Regulations are subject to the “notice and comment” procedures of the Administrative Procedure Act, but properly created, have the full force and effect of law.

Here, Congress explicitly gave Treasury wide authority to treat interests in corporations as equity, not debt. 

So, writing rules that treat obligations that are issued by a U.S. corporation to a foreign affiliate as equity would hardly contravene Congress’ authorization. 

They could readily be written in a way that was not arbitrary and capricious. And Congress expressly asked Treasury to separate equity from debt without regard to Congress’ other efforts to limit interest deductions .

Admittedly, Treasury’s track record in writing regulations under section 385 is not great. In March 1981, Treasury proposed regulations under section 385, and finalized them 11 months later. Less than two years later, however, Treasury withdrew the regulations in the face of widespread criticism of their inflexible tests.

Treasury should try again. But, this time, it should focus on obligations issued by U.S. corporations to foreign affiliates. These rules might be limited, initially, to obligations to foreign affiliates in inverted groups but, eventually, to foreign affiliates in any group. 

Treasury’s authority is not diminished by the age of the statute—or the agency’s past efforts. So, while policy and political considerations may determine the administration’s course of action, Treasury could readily end a practice that threatens to undermine the U.S. corporate tax base.

Popular posts from this blog


While "Flavor" is very subjective, and each country that grows mangoes is very nationalistic, these are the mango varieties that are the most sought after around the world because of sweetnesss (Brix) and demand.

The Chaunsa has a Brix rating in the 22 degree level which is unheard of!
Carabao claims to be the sweetest mango in the world and was able to register this in the Guiness book of world records.
Perhaps it is time for a GLOBAL taste test ???

In alphabetical order by Country....



Alphonso (mango)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Alphonso (हापुस Haapoos in Marathi, હાફુસ in Gujarati, ಆಪೂಸ್ Aapoos in Kannada) is a mango cultivar that is considered by many[who?] to be one of the best in terms of sweetness, richness and flavor. 

It has considerable shelf life of a week after it is ripe making it exportable. 

It is also one of the most expensive kinds of mango and is grown mainly in Kokan region of western India.

 It is in season April through May and the fruit wei…

Mangoes date back 65 million years according to research ...

Experts at the Birbal Sahni Institute of Palaeobotany (BSIP) here have traced the origin of mango to the hills of Meghalaya, India from a 65 million year-old fossil of a mango leaf. 

The earlier fossil records of mango (Mangifera indica) from the Northeast and elsewhere were 25 to 30 million years old. The 'carbonized leaf fossil' from Damalgiri area of Meghalaya hills, believed to be a mango tree from the peninsular India, was found by Dr R. C. Mehrotra, senior scientist, BSIP and his colleagues. 

After careful analysis of the fossil of the mango leaf and leaves of modern plants, the BISP scientist found many of the fossil leaf characters to be similar to mangifera.

An extensive study of the anatomy and morphology of several modern-day species of the genus mangifera with the fossil samples had reinforced the concept that its centre of origin is Northeast India, from where it spread into neighbouring areas, says Dr. Mehrotra. 

The genus is believed to have disseminated into neighb…

DHL (INDIA) makes gifting mangoes as easy as 1-2-3-....

Gifting mangoes is now easy with DHL
Announcement / Corporate

 May 19, 2011, 14:04 IST

Come this summer pamper your loved ones abroad with a box of delicious mangoes through DHL’s Express Easy Mango service, a unique one-stop-shop and hassle-free service for gifting mangoes all across the world.

This unique service by DHL Express, the world’s leading express company, allows customers to send mangoes from India across the world to the following countries Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Hong Kong, Italy, Luxemburg, Maldives, Netherlands, Norway, Oman, Qatar Singapore, Switzerland and Sweden.

Mangoes can be availed of free of cost by merely paying for the Air Express service. In addition, DHL Express assists customers with the necessary paperwork along with procurement of quality-grade Alphonso mangoes.

Commenting on the new service, Mr. R.S Subramanian, Country Head, DHL Express India said: “With the advent of the mango season, it is no wonder that DHL Express Ea…