Why the Panama Papers matter

As a primer, this blog discussed the release of documents from the Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca, known as the Panama Papers, which disclose a network of shell corporations and entities established by the Panamanian law firm to assist clients in hiding funds and avoiding taxes.

In the news today, as found in this NY times article, the U.S. Justice Department (“DOJ”), through its Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative (for more information about this unit see this NY times article), has begun a forfeiture action against properties in the U.S. acquired by Malaysian individuals whom allegedly embezzled funds from the 1 Malaysia Development Berhad (“1MDB”, Malaysia’s sovereign wealth fund, designed to be used for investment that would return profits to support the Malaysian people).  

The DOJ is trying to seize $1 billion in assets including the $30.6 million penthouse at the Time Warner Center in Manhattan, a $39 million mansion in the Los Angeles hills, and a $17.6 million tear down home in Beverly Hills.  The DOJ is alleging that the individuals diverted over $3 billion funds from 1MDB for their own use.  The key individuals referenced are the stepson, close friends and associates of the prime minister of Malaysia.  There are even allegations that some of the funds diverted were used to fund the film “The Wolf of Wall Street” and also to purchase paintings from Picasso and Monet. 

The DOJ’s seizure action raises two questions:

1. Why isn’t the government getting tough in preventing US Multinational Corporations (US MNCs) from shifting their profits offshore to avoid U.S. taxes; and
2. Why are US banks allowing individuals to hide money in the U.S.

As previously discussed in this Blog, US MNCs have utilized transfer pricing, earnings stripping and inversions to shift profits from the U.S. to low tax jurisdictions to lower the effective tax rates paid by the US MNCs.  This recent news story (DOJ seizure) raises the question why isn’t the government utilizing more aggressive techniques to stop the US MNCs from shifting this income when the government is seizing asset allegedly begotten from embezzled funds of other nations.  Shouldn’t we first stop US tax income from flowing to low tax jurisdictions, then worry about US assets acquired by other nations’ stolen funds?

The Second question goes to the nature of the Panama papers and the uses of shell corporations to mask the identity of the owners of the shell corporations.  There is now an effort by the government to require banks to know the owners of the shell corporations.  See this NY Times article.  According to the article, the US Treasury is requiring US branches of foreign banks to know whom the beneficial owners of the shell corporations.  While the US Treasury’s plans have not actually translated to actual rules requiring banks to obtain the identities of the owners of the shell corporations it appears as if it is likely to get legislation passed through Congress to enact the more stringent requirements on banks. 

If you have specific and credible information about a U.S. MNC shifting its profits offshore using transfer pricing, inversions or earning stripping, or anyone not paying their taxes by using shell corporations through banks, contact our firm to discuss filling a tax whistleblower claim.  As a reminder, the IRS pays between 15-30% of the collected proceeds (tax, penalties, interest, and other amounts collected) based on the information provided and used by the IRS to stop tax violators.

Corporate Taxes: Are US Multinational Corporations really paying their fair share?

There has been extensive coverage in this blog about how US Multinational Corporations are not paying their fair share by utilizing Transfer Pricing, Inversions and Earnings Stripping to reduce their effective tax rates below the statutory 35%.

Some examples are: Pfizer tried to invert a couple of times to avoid paying the US tax rate, Apple and its Irish transfer pricing, Google with its double Dutch Irish sandwich transfer pricing, Caterpillar with its Swiss structure, and on and on.

Some of these USMNCs have argued that despite utilizing these accounting maneuvers, they still pay their fair share of taxes (See Apple CEO Tim Cook's comments on 60 Minutes).  Others question whether the USMNCs are actually paying their fair share and whether they are contributing to the overall tax gap.

In contrast to USMNCs trying to shift profits offshore to avoid US Tax, there is one USMNC that is paying its fair share.  Disney, yes that Disney, and despite negative criticism (NY Times article re Disney outsourcing tech jobs to India, and Disney caught in the LuxLeaks scandal), it appears as if Disney is actually paying its true tax liability without utilizing the accounting tricks that other USMNCs utilize to reduce their effective tax rates.

According to this Investopedia article, Disney is paying at or near the US corporate tax rate (35%) of income taxes.  For example, the author states that for 2015, Disney had pre-tax income of $13.9 billion and paid corporate income taxes of $4.4 billion.  The author, David Cay Johnston, also states that Disney earned only 1% of its profits in the U.S. and paid about "1.3% if all the corporate income taxes".

Johnston also states that one reason Disney is paying a higher rate of taxes is that Disney is keeping its Intellectual Property in the U.S. and not transferring the IP to low tax haven subsidiaries.  Johnston also criticizes Disney for not spending its profits in reinvesting in U.S. businesses but in conducting stock buy-backs.

Johnston's main point is that Congress should close the transfer pricing incentive/loophole that has permitted companies (Apple, Google, Pfizer to name only a few) to utilize transfer pricing, earnings stripping and inversions to erode the US tax base and pay less taxes.  Johnston also challenges whether the corporate tax is achieving the goals it was designed to achieve.

Maybe Johnston is correct in having Congress re-visit the utility of the corporate tax structure (a similar criticism of Bob Iger's, the Chairman of Disney).  Or maybe the IRS should be doing a better job at enforcing transfer pricing, inversions, and/or earnings stripping to prevent the USMNCs from shifting taxable income it its foreign base subsidiaries, despite its recent loss in the Medtronic case.

If you have specific and credible information about a company utilizing transfer pricing, inversions and/or earnings stripping to minimize its US taxes, contact us about filing an IRS Whistleblower claim to assist the IRS in attacking the various abusive transfer pricing applications by USMNCs.

More Accounting Tricks to Avoid Paying Tax by U.S. Multinational Corporations

As noted in this blog, the difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance is a fine line.  To assist in drawing the line properly and legally, corporations and individuals employ tax attorneys and accountants to minimize their tax liabilities.

As previously discussed in this blog, the triumvirate of "legal" tax dodging by U.S. Multinational Corporations ("USMNCs") is Inversions, Transfer Pricing and Earnings Stripping.  Another less publicized tool used by accountants of USMNCs is the "stock option loophole".  As the Citizens for Tax Justice ("CTJ") reports, USMNCs have utilized the "stock option loophole" to reduce their taxable income in the amount of $64.6 billion over the past 5 years.

Notable (Top 5) USMNCs which have utilized the stock option loophole include:

USMNC	Stock Option Tax Benefits from 2011-2015
Facebook	$5,665,000
Apple	$4,673,000
Google	$1,951,000
Goldman Sachs Group	$1,775,000
J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.	$1,666,000

The CTJ list documents 310 other companies that have reduced their federal and state corporate income taxes by a combined $64.6 billion dollars over the last 5 years.

What is the "stock option loophole"?  Simply put, it is an accounting mechanism to "track" stock options and to deduct the expense of stock options.  Why is this a loophole? The simple answer is that there is a disparity between the price the employee pays for the stock option and the price the stock options are worth.  For a more technical explanation see this PricewaterhouseCoopers (Accounting Firm) explanation.  Based on the PWC article, the USMNCs deduct this difference between the exercised price and the price their employees paid for the stock on the corporate taxes in the year that the options are exercised.

CTJ questions why the USMNCs are allowed a deduction fro giving their employees a benefit but in reality does not cost the USMNCs anything.  CTJ also states that reversing this may help to minimize the Tax Gap.

If you have specific and credible information about a company failing to pay its tax liabilities, contact our firm about filing an IRS Whistleblower claim to assist the IRS in holding the company liable for the taxes they should be paying.