Obama Could Invoke An Old Law To Stop Companies From Leaving America To Save On Taxes

[xchrom]

http://www.businessinsider.com/r-obama-could-curb-corporate-inversions-on-his-own-ex-us-official-2014-28



WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama could act without congressional approval to limit a key incentive for U.S. corporations to move their tax domiciles abroad in so-called "inversion" deals, a former senior U.S. Treasury Department official said on Monday.

By invoking a 1969 tax law, Obama could bypass congressional gridlock and restrict foreign tax-domiciled U.S companies from using inter-company loans and interest deductions to cut their U.S. tax bills, said Stephen Shay, former deputy assistant Treasury secretary for international tax affairs in the Obama administration. He also served as international tax counsel at Treasury from 1982 to 1987 in the Reagan administration.

In an article being published on Monday in Tax Notes, a journal for tax lawyers and accountants, Shay said the federal government needed to move quickly to respond to a recent surge in inversion deals that threatens the U.S. corporate tax base.

"People should not dawdle," said Shay, now a professor at Harvard Law School, in an interview on Friday about his article.



Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/r-obama-could-curb-corporate-inversions-on-his-own-ex-us-official-2014-28#ixzz38lLZS6Ni

[mucifer]

1. Lets hope he has the courage to do this.

[L0oniX]

10. LOL ...it's not like he needs campaign money anymore.

[msanthrope]

25. Proud and happy he's addressing this....

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/07/24/what-are-inversions-and-why-should-you-care?utm_source=email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=email356-text1&utm_campaign=economy

[L0oniX]

31. Enjoy your pride but I'm thinking I really don't have an interest in anything you have to say.

[msanthrope]

37. I wouldn't want you interested in me, silly! But read the blog from the White House

on the very issue you are grousing about!!!

[valerief]

43. Anthrax? nt

[sulphurdunn]

18. Don't hold your breath.

[calimary]

50. Needs to be done. SERIOUSLY.

I've always fantasized about giving them some "opportunity" to Play Fair with America - tell 'em "go ahead! Outsource anything you want. Freedom-freedom! Fine! Go overseas. Get rid of all your expensive and demanding American work force for the fabulous cheap-ass labor elsewhere! Party on!!!

...BUT...

In exchange for that wonderful freedom-freedom, EVERY SINGLE bolt, EVERY SINGLE car, EVERY SINGLE pharmaceutical molecule, EVERY SINGLE component, EVERY SINGLE EVERYTHING (AND all those packaged-up-in-bulk, too, of course) that's thus manufactured overseas will carry a penalty fee of DOUBLE OR maybe even TRIPLE OR QUADRUPLE what it cost you to pay an American worker's wage to manufacture whatever it is. So go ahead! Knock yerselves out. And that's whether you import those items back here to the U.S. for sale, or sell them only to other overseas clients. Go ahead! Have fun. But you will discover rather quickly that it WON'T be the cheap-ass way out that you thought it was gonna be. And it WON'T save you or your precious shareholders any money. Rather, it will COST you far more. And those "expensive" American wages will suddenly start to look like a bargain."

Make it cheaper to keep it in America and hire in America and make it in America and build in America. Make it exponentially more costly to try to cheat your way out of paying by going overseas. The costs for that should be NOSE-BLEED HIGH. They can still do it. But MAN would it fuck 'em in the pocketbook! That's the only thing they understand and the only language they speak. I don't care about the argument they present that it improves the cost of living in those other countries and then those folks can afford to buy our stuff. FUCK THAT! Besides, what guarantee do you have that they WILL buy our stuff instead of German stuff or Japanese stuff or Russian stuff or Brazilian stuff or WHOEVER's stuff? I care about the cost of living in THIS country and whether OUR folks can afford to buy our stuff. It has to be made prohibitively and ridiculously expensive to outsource. There MUST be penalties that would send them straight to groping desperately for the Maalox bottle.

[Scuba]

2. Boy, just wait'll he hears about this law! He'll do it right away! Right?

[xchrom]

3. !

[hobbit709]

4. I bet you're not holding your breath any more than I am.

[msanthrope]

24. Proud and happy he's already addressing this!!! Maybe you should join the list!!!

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/07/24/what-are-inversions-and-why-should-you-care?utm_source=email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=email356-text1&utm_campaign=economy

[tridim]

28. Doubters gonna doubt.

[Scuba]

35. From your link ...

Q: So what are we doing about it?

The President's FY 2015 Budget proposes that we do away with these loopholes, ensuring that American companies pay taxes to the country that made them great. And we could take the billions we'd save and put it toward rebuilding our infrastructure in this country — investing in a long-term plan to make sure our roads, bridges, ports, and railroads can support the demands of a 21st-century economy.

Right now, there are proposals before Congress that would do just that.

That's why the President is speaking today — and it's why this explainer blog exists in the first place.

Se he's not taking advantage of the existing law to solve this now, but instead is asking the Republican-controlled House to do something. Got it, thanks.

[msanthrope]

36. The "existing law" would be implemented exactly how? Can you give a single example

of the existing law....hell, can you name the existng law without clicking?

Can you name a single prosecution under that law?

What I find tiring about 'legal analysis' on DU is that this trope is so often repeated: a single article about another article is taken as legal gospel simply because it jibes with anti-Obama sentiment. No one actually reads the law they think is the magic bullet, but suddenly, we are supposed to turn the running of the country over to a pundit and his editor.

I also find it pretty god damn funny that here you want an expansion of executive powers. I'll remember that on the next NSA thread.

[Scuba]

38. Nice try, but a fail regardless. It was not me, but Stephen Shay, a former Obama administration ...

... official in the Treasury Department who stated that the President could invoke this law. He's hardly a "pundit".

What's really hilarious is your statement that you're "Proud and happy he's already addressing this!!!" (with three exclamation points, no less) despite his "addressing" be limited to asking the Republican-controlled House to do something while not taking advantage of the existing law in question.

Perhaps you'd also like to expand on how enforcing a 1969 law is an "expansion of executive powers".

Anyway, I'll suggest you take off the rose-colored glasses and realize that not everything President Obama has done is in the best interest of the American people, and that he deserves to be criticized when that's the case.

[msanthrope]

39. Okay--so you've got a single, former official opining on the Internet! Fantastic!

Did that official name a single prosecution, or suggest a way to implement his suggestion? Has it occurred to you that if a law hasn't been used in 40-odd years, it might not be effective?

I mean, look, I'm all for using everything we got, but just because some former government worker writes up a suggestion on the Internet, it doesn't mean we should castigate the President if he doesn't get right on it!

Which company is first?

[Scuba]

40. Can you cite any evidence that the President has considered and rejected this approach?

If so, what were his reasons for rejecting it?

Can you provide any evidence that this law has not been invoked previously, as per your claim?

[msanthrope]

41. No, Scuba--you are the one making claims. It is up to you to support them before asking me anything.

[Scuba]

42. It's your claim that the law has "hasn't been used in 40-odd years". Prove it.

You also claimed that invoking a 1969 law is "expansion of executive powers". How so?

Now then, what are the claims I made that you want me to support? In reviewing my posts on this thread I couldn't find any such claims.

[msanthrope]

45. I made none of those claims. But you've indicated usage of this law would work. Tell us how.

To expand on my point, Scuba....I've "claimed" nothing. I've merely asked you, over and over, how this would work.

Please answer my questions.

[Scuba]

47. Those are exactly your claims!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5305553

I also find it pretty god damn funny that here you want an expansion of executive powers.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5305677

Has it occurred to you that if a law hasn't been used in 40-odd years, it might not be effective?

[Baitball Blogger]

5. I don't know if it would be legal, by why not withhold federal contracts and award them only

to corporations that pay their taxes?

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

6. Good point.

[cstanleytech]

13. Maybe because what the companies are doing is still legal?

Not saying its ethical for the companies to do this stuff mind you because because its clearly not but if its legal then the government might not be able to do what you are suggesting unless of course congress steps in which they wont since congress is controlled by the republicans who are for sell to the highest bidder which in this case are the corporations.

[Baitball Blogger]

14. I think you stumbled on the way to close the loophole.

Just say'n.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

7. And wait for the howls of "Imperial Presidency" and "King Obama" by the Repukes

Of course it would be quite entertaining to hear them defend corporations leaving.

[toby jo]

8. Great air play for the election season.

[L0oniX]

9. The Third Way would not approve ...so that's out.

[msanthrope]

26. Your President is already addressing inversion......you should join the email list.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/07/24/what-are-inversions-and-why-should-you-care?utm_source=email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=email356-text1&utm_campaign=economy

[1StrongBlackMan]

11. In my experience ...

"silver bullet", simple solutions are anything but.

This "solution" needs to be investigated further before everyone signs on.

[abelenkpe]

12. Please please please do this!

My industry has been decimated by offshoring. So many of my friends and coworkers have been forced to either leave their line of work altogether or leave the country chasing jobs over the past two years. I know it's happened to many other once prosperous industries as well. Something has to be done.

[polichick]

15. Don't hold your breath.

[oldhippie]

16. What does "invoke" mean here versus ....

... just enforcing the law if it already exists? Why would anyone need to "invoke" anything. If the law already exits to do this, is or isn't it being enforced? What is going on here?

[Sherman A1]

20. Precisely

The law should be enforced.

[4dsc]

17. So do it already.

[JDPriestly]

19. K&R.

[KG]

21. He could, but he won't

[Hekate]

22. If Obama is going to do this, look for him to approach it methodically and behind-the-scenes.

"Fast and flashy" is not his style. Rather than saying he hasn't got the guts, or that he's owned by corporatists, or any of that other nonsense, look to his record and his past behavior.

In his Executive Orders, now that he has decided to move ahead without Congress, he has been methodical. He puts his staff to work, researching the law, finding out how far he can go and what to invoke. When he has something to say, he will say it. When he has a finished project to announce, he will do so. LGBT rights for federal civil service employees? Done. LGBT rights for federal contractors' employees? Done. LGBT rights for military personnel? Done. (And now, the states are falling like dominoes.) (And I'm sure I'll be corrected if any of these actions slipped through Congress and were not done by the President. I'm not always right.)

As we all know from living with this treasonous GOP Congress, the "transparency" you all say you want is an invitation to sabotage in the lowest degree from the GOP and their fellow-travelers.

I think it's entirely reasonable to ask questions regarding his intent, though, and I hope very much that the question of invoking the 1969 tax law will be addressed soon. I'd love to see it.

[msanthrope]

27. And here we go......

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/07/24/what-are-inversions-and-why-should-you-care?utm_source=email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=email356-text1&utm_campaign=economy

[Hekate]

30. Bingo! Anybody else in this thread care to read the link and chime in?

Thanks for the link, msanthrope

[DeSwiss]

23. K&R

''Society will develop a new kind of servitude which covers the surface of society with a network of complicated rules, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate. It does not tyrannise but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.''

~Alexis de Tocqueville

[yurbud]

32. Tell us after he actually does this

[MannyGoldstein]

33. Meanwhile, at the White House...

Last edited Mon Jul 28, 2014, 09:57 PM - Edit history (1)

"Now, now... Jamie... Lloyd... don't... don't worry... it's not happening... I'm not letting some Harvard Law School professor dictate US policy... yes, Elizabeth Warren's a Harvard... that's different... no, we couldn't have sent a message to all Harvard Law School professors by droning her... yes, it's a secret list, but there are no senators on it... "

[L0oniX]

49. LOL

[99Forever]

34. Let us know when he does it.

I'm not holding my breath.

[HuckleB]

44. Recommended.

[NorthCarolina]

46. LOL...sure thing. Like this would actually ever happen. It's far far more likely they

will simply find another way to squeeze a bit more revenue out of the masses. A form of taxation that is acceptable to the Third-Way crew and their GOP counterparts, something like taxing internet sales...oh wait they already did that.

[hobbit709]

48. How about a simple law? Don't want to pay taxes here, then you don't want to do business here either