It is hard to envy the Bush administration. After weathering denunciations for its actions on the Kyoto Protocol and withdrawing from an OECD-led initiative to limit tax havens, it now finds itself locked in a dispute with the EU over the US Foreign Sales Corporation Tax.
Prior to recent revisions, the US Internal Revenue Service code allowed American exporters to establish Foreign Sales Corporations (FSC) as offshore subsidiaries to receive favorable treatment of corporate income taxes. The foreign earnings of US exporters were shielded from tax for sales made through offshore shell companies.
This tax break was granted to about 7,000 American companies whose exports are worth US$150 billion. For example, General Electric saved US$746 million from 1991 to 1998 by relying upon FSCs and Motorola saved US$378 million over the same period.
In its original form, companies would be exempt from US corporate taxes if they routed revenues from overseas sales through an offshore sales subsidiary. The US Congress made changes last year to bring the tax scheme into compliance with WTO rules and bring it more closely in line with the territorial tax systems used by most EU states. The new system provided for the elimination of some corporate income earned abroad as long as foreign taxes were paid on those earnings. However, the EU claimed that the amended form did not eliminate the injury.
Unimpressed by American offers to scale back the program, the European Commission took action. For its part, the EU sought approval from the World Trade Organization (WTO) to impose sanctions worth US$4 billion against US exports. The WTO dispute settlement panel found that the tax law gave US exporters an unfair advantage over foreign competitors in violation of world-trade rules since it acts as a prohibited export subsidy. According to EU data, the scheme reduces the potential federal tax burden of almost half of all US exporters by between 15 percent and 30 percent.
A final ruling is scheduled for August this year and further appeals by the US could postpone sanctions until December. If the US does not comply with the final ruling, the EU would be entitled to retaliate with up to US$4 billion in countervailing tariffs and duties.
This is good news for corporations that compete openly and rely upon their competitive advantage instead of turning to meddling governments. Now it will be up to American export powerhouses such as Boeing and Microsoft to show their mettle without relying upon subsidies to boost their bottom line.
Most of the FSCs are set up in Caribbean tax havens to handle the foreign sales of US exporters. According to EU estimates, a conservative approximation is that these tax breaks are worth more than US$4 billion to American exporters this year and as much as to US$25 billion over the next five years.
In force since 1984, it allows US corporations to operate in tax havens like the Virgin Island and Barbados so that profits from exports funneled through these corporations are exempt from American taxes. About US$1 in every US$4 of US exports come from firms that have registered foreign sales corporations under this scheme. (Interestingly, many European companies with subsidiaries in the US also take advantage of this tax concession.)
An earlier precedent, arising from a complaint initiated by the US government against an Australian firm, is the basis for requiring companies that received funds from this scheme to make retrospective repayment for these subsidies.
There is some hope that the loss of FSC exemptions will set off demands by American authorities for closer scrutiny of similar tax exemptions in all other countries. For example, Europe and other countries currently exempt exports from goods and services or value-added taxes.
Never mind that this will appear to be wanton retaliation. In the end, the result could be to reduce the ability of multinational companies to rely upon corporate welfare. For example, use of WTO mechanisms by US industry groups to challenge the subsidies paid to Airbus Industries should force it and all other airline manufacturers to compete on a level playing field.
Hopefully, this and other WTO rulings will herald a reduction in the involvements of politicians and bureaucrats in international trade matters. Before this happens, there must be an end to the misleading impression that such interventions serve overall national interests. In all cases, corporate welfare shifts costs to the wider community, while benefits accrue to a small group of well-organized capital owners and trade unionists that work with them.
Although it is doubtful that government officials have ever been able to facilitate trade transactions, they should still refrain from interfering with trade. In all events, their capacities to do so have been mitigated by globalization. Globalized capital markets allow decentralized decisions to readily identify commercially viable projects. With obstacles to trade and capital movements rapidly disappearing, "real" entrepreneurs do not require support from any government to sell their products or services.
Those firms that rely upon government assistance to close contracts are seldom the most efficient producers. These feeble competitors seek compensation for their weaknesses by offering financial support to political parties or individual candidates who promise to act on their behalf. Along with export subsidies under various guises, many trade deals involve direct government lending or loans underwritten by government guarantees. This allows domestic sellers to offer below-market interest rates to potential foreign buyers. Ironically, local taxpayers are effectively subsidizing consumption by foreigners and, in some case, the creation of jobs for them.
So-called competition under these conditions offers no clear benefits to the general public. Either they will face higher taxes or there will be distortions introduced into the economy due to preferences given to inefficient producers. These distortions may include higher costs for inputs being forced on more competitive producers or perhaps unwarranted abuse of the environment.
In the end, all citizens wind up paying the price. It is most obvious that the burden is borne by taxpayers and consumers. Less obvious are those workers that are kept out of jobs or capital owners receiving relatively lower returns due to such government policy interventions.
Instead of using their influence to promote their political agenda (or being exploited when others engage in the practice), members of the business community can and should strike their own deals, at their own risks while shouldering their own costs.
And this brings up one of the major benefits arising from a truly globalized economy. Trade flows in the future will increasingly be determined by true comparative advantage with less and less administrative legerdemain and governmental interference.
Christopher Lingle is global strategist for eConoLytics.com and author of The Rise and Decline of the Asian Century.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.