Senate Finance Committee Chairman Releases Tax Reform Staff Discussion Drafts – More Expected

by BakerHostetler
Contact

From November 19 through 22, 2013, Senator Max Baucus, Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee (the "Committee"), released three staff discussion drafts that propose sweeping changes to the federal rules regarding international corporate tax, general business provisions concerning deductions for capital expenditures and tax accounting, and tax administration. The releases of the discussion drafts coincided with the releases by the Joint Committee on Taxation of three corresponding Technical Explanations.

Although revenue estimates of these proposals were not released, Chairman Baucus stated that tax reform as a whole should raise significant revenue for deficit reduction. The Chairman stated that the international proposals are intended to be revenue neutral in the long-term, and that the general business provisions are intended to raise significant revenue that would be used to finance a decrease in the corporate tax rate. However, he did not state how much new revenue the business provisions would generate, and the proposals do not specifically include the resetting of the corporate income tax rate.

Although Ranking Member Orrin Hatch's staff worked alongside the Chairman's staff, Sen. Hatch politely distanced himself from the discussion drafts, stating that he disagreed with the Chairman's decision to release the drafts before the budget conference negotiations were completed and that significant policy differences remain between the Republican and Democratic Committee members. Although Sen. Hatch pledged to continue to try to find common ground with Sen. Baucus, it remains to be seen whether Hatch will continue to work with Baucus in 2014. However, it is noteworthy that Sen. Baucus has been a leader in working closely on tax reform with both Sen. Hatch and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp.

DISCUSSION DRAFT ON INTERNATIONAL CORPORATE TAX

The stated goals of Chairman Baucus' draft of international tax reform are to:

  • Increase the competitiveness of the United States in attracting investment and jobs;
  • Increase the ability of U.S.-based businesses to compete against foreign businesses in foreign markets while reducing incentives to move business operations abroad;
  • Reduce incentives for companies to shift profits to low-taxed countries;
  • End the "lock-out" effect of deferral; and
  • Simplify the international tax rules.

The international tax proposals would repeal the deferral system for the earnings of foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies and replace it with a system under which all such foreign income would be either taxed immediately or forever exempt from U.S. tax. Two separate subpart F mechanisms are proposed to achieve this, "Option Y" and "Option Z," both of which are hybrid territorial/anti-deferral regimes that can be fine-tuned for revenue by adjusting the key inclusion percentages. However, it appears that both options are likely to impose current U.S. tax upon a larger proportion of foreign income than under present law, and in that sense, the proposal is more of an anti-deferral proposal. In addition, the discussion draft includes certain proposals common to both Option Y and Option Z.

Option Y

In general, Option Y would impose a minimum tax that would modify subpart F to immediately tax only the following types of income earned by a controlled foreign corporation (CFC), at a rate equal to 80 percent of the U.S. corporate tax rate, while allowing full foreign tax credits and full exemption for foreign earnings upon repatriation. Other types of active income that are presently included in subpart F would be excluded from subpart F. The taxed items of income would be:

  • Foreign personal holding company income, often referred to as "passive income." However, certain present-law exceptions to passive income would be significantly modified and made permanent:
    • The exception for regular dealers in property, including, but not limited to, hedging transactions,
    • Income of a CFC that is either a regulated financial institution or 80 percent (up from 70 percent) of the gross income of which is derived from the active and regular conduct of a lending, finance, or financial services business, and
    • Certain income from the active conduct of the insurance business;
  • Income subject to an effective rate of foreign tax lower than 80 percent of the maximum U.S. corporate rate. In general, dividends from other CFCs would be completely excluded from all categories of subpart F;
  • Income attributable to sales of property imported, or intended for import, into the United States, including as a component part, and property used in the manufacturing of such imported property. There would be no exception for manufacturing income; and
  • Income derived in connection with services (including financial services) provided with respect to persons and property located in the United States.

Option Z

Under Option Z, subpart F would include all income of CFCs except for 40 percent of a CFC's active income derived from activities outside the United States in connection with property sold for use outside the United States or services for persons outside the United States. In general, passive income would be effectively taxed at the full U.S. tax rate; however, income of a type that would be exempted from passive income under Option Y (as described above) may qualify for the 40 percent exclusion.

Proposals common to both Option Y and Z

The discussion draft provides for several proposals common to both Option Y and Option Z, for example:

  • Previously deferred income of CFCs would be subject to tax after a deduction that would yield an effective rate of 20 percent, with credits available for foreign taxes paid on the nondeductible portion, and the tax would be payable in installments over eight years;
  • Current income not immediately taxed would be exempt forever, as noted above;
  • Deemed repatriations through loans under section 956 would be repealed;
  • As discussed above, active banking, finance, and insurance income exceptions to subpart F would be modified and made permanent;
  • Foreign tax credits would be available only with respect to currently taxed income, and credit "baskets" would be modified to generally correspond to types of currently included income. There would be six categories of foreign tax credits and income under Option Y, and three categories under Option Z;
  • Indirect foreign tax credits from 10/50 companies would be repealed;
  • Entities owned in whole or in part by a CFC would be treated as "per se" corporations ineligible to elect pass-through status through "check the box;"
  • The "look through" provision of sec. 954(c)(6) would be repealed and the "same country" exception would be tightened (Option Y) or eliminated (Option Z); and
  • Other significant changes to the foreign tax credit rules would be made. These changes include implementing worldwide interest allocation, allowing allocations only on the basis of tax basis (not fair market value as under current law), and sourcing sales of inventory as 100 percent U.S. source if a taxpayer's office or fixed place of business is a material factor in the sale. This proposal may impose significant costs on U.S.-based multinationals.

Transfer pricing of intangible property and other base erosion proposals

Although the discussion draft leaves the basic approach of existing transfer pricing rules largely intact, it attempts to bolster transfer pricing rules of current law, including recent Treasury Regulations. The draft revises and expands the definition of intangible property under section 936(h)(3)(B) by specifically including workforce in place, goodwill, and going concern value as intangible property, as well as "any other item the value of which is not attributable to tangible property or the services of an individual." The discussion draft also reinforces the Commissioner's authority to specify the method used to determine the value of intangible property, both with respect to outbound restructurings of U.S. operations and inter-company pricing allocations. In addition, the discussion draft codifies the "realistic alternative principle" of current regulations.

In the more general area of base erosion, the discussion draft contains proposals which:

  • Disallow (not merely defer) interest expense deductions attributable to exempt foreign income of a CFC, on a basket-by-basket basis;
  • Limit the deductions for non-taxed reinsurance property and casualty premiums that are payable to affiliates;
  • Eliminate the portfolio interest exemption on corporate debt (except under a treaty); and
  • Deny deductions for payments to related parties for certain transactions utilizing a hybrid entity, certain exemptions, or conduit financing.
  • New rules for passive foreign investment companies (PFICs)

The discussion draft makes several significant changes to the current treatment of PFICs. The discussion draft would repeal the current law rules imposing an interest charge on certain transactions with respect to PFIC stock or permitting an election for current taxation of income. Instead, the proposal would require a U.S. person owning non-publicly traded PFIC stock to include as income a deemed return on the PFIC stock equal to the federal short-term rate plus five percent. Marketable PFIC stock would be required to be annually marked to market. Coordinating adjustments would be provided for actual distributions.

The proposal also modifies the test to determine if a foreign corporation would be a PFIC. The income test threshold would be reduced from 75 to 60 percent and the asset test would be eliminated.

Implications for taxpayers

Overall, the international tax proposals are expected to be revenue neutral in the "long-term," which apparently means after consideration of the revenue-raising effects of taxation of previously deferred income. However, it is difficult to understand how this would be the case, as many of the proposals appear to be significant revenue raisers. In broad terms, the international proposals tend to reduce or eliminate some of the existing benefits and planning opportunities currently available for structuring the foreign activities of U.S. corporate taxpayers. Whether these proposals would also increase the competitiveness of U.S. firms operating abroad in foreign markets, and of the United States generally in attracting investment and jobs, appears to be in doubt. Furthermore, although some of the international proposals may simplify compliance for the government, many, in particular the determination of what portion of foreign income would be subject to subpart F (under Option Y or Z), would be quite complex in operation. For example, the imported property provision may require new systems to track certain supply chain component information and link it to the property's destination.

Even if the international proposals as a whole are, in fact, revenue neutral over the long-term as claimed, every corporate taxpayer should carefully consider the impact of these proposals on its operations and finances because the impacts are likely going to be different, perhaps significantly different. This disparity makes the discussion draft very controversial. In particular, taxpayers with a significant amount of deferred foreign earnings (particularly low-taxed earnings) should carefully evaluate the impact of these proposals on their financial statements. In evaluating the impact of the proposals, consideration must be given to the post-reform corporate income tax rate. The following chart may be helpful in modeling the ultimate impact of various underlying corporate tax rates under the two options, under the current 35 percent corporate income tax rate, and assuming possible reductions in the corporate tax rate to 28 percent and 25 percent, as examples:

Option Y and Option Z; Rate Considerations

 

 

35% Tax Rate

28% Tax Rate

25% Tax Rate

Option Y (80% minimum tax) 

28%

22.4%

50%

Option Z (60% rate on active income; rest at 100%)

21%

16.8%

15%

Multinational taxpayers should also take into account that a number of the proposals would negatively impact legal or tax structures that they currently have in place. These taxpayers should consider whether those structures would remain viable. Examples of these proposals affecting numerous multinationals include the repeal of the "check the box" election in the foreign context, the repeal of the look through provision of section 954(c)(6), and the disallowance of interest expense deductions attributable to exempt foreign income.

DISCUSSION DRAFT ON DEDUCTIONS FOR CAPITAL EXPENDITURES AND TAX ACCOUNTING

Unlike the international tax proposals, these domestic cost recovery and accounting proposals are intended to raise enough revenue from corporations to finance a significant corporate rate reduction. In addition, the proposals attempt to better approximate economic depreciation and to simplify the cost recovery system. Committee staffers have reportedly claimed that the proposals would generate about $700 billion over a decade, enough to reduce the corporate tax rate by "several" percentage points.

Cost Recovery and Depreciation of Tangible Assets

Most notably, the discussion draft would generally repeal the current Modified Accelerated Cost Recovery System (MACRS) and Alternative Depreciation System (ADS) and replace them with a simplified cost recovery system based on pooling of assets. Four separate depreciation pools would be depreciated using rates from 5 to 38 percent under a 100 percent declining balance method. Real property would continue to be depreciated using a straight-line method, but the depreciation period would be extended to 43 years (up from the current 27.5 years for residential rental property and 39 years for nonresidential real property). Gain would be realized for a pool if, taking into account additions, dispositions, and depreciation, the pool balance dropped below zero at year end. In addition, the like-kind exchange exemptions would be repealed. Committee staffers claim that, although this proposal would initially result in slower cost recovery, costs should flatten in the long run.

The discussion draft also proposes to raise the permissible limit of expensing certain property under section 179 by extending the 2013 limit of $500,000 to 2014 and by permanently increasing the limit after that to $1 million. Certain capitalized expenditures described in the section below on intangible assets would be eligible for this treatment. Several industry-specialized expensing provisions would also be repealed (or not extended), including accelerated deductions for certain film and television productions under section 181.

Cost recovery of intangible assets

The discussion draft makes several changes to the cost recovery of intangible assets. In general, the amortization period for intangible assets under section 197 would be increased from 15 to 20 years. Taxpayers would be required to capitalize and amortize research and experimental expenditures over five years. The same treatment would be required for certain exploration and development costs and percentage depletion would be repealed. Fifty percent of advertising costs would be capitalized and amortized over five years and fifty percent would be expensed.

Repeal of LIFO and LCM

The discussion draft proposes to repeal the last-in-first-out (LIFO) and the lower of cost and market (LCM) methods of accounting for inventory. The taxable income resulting from this change in accounting method would be included in income at the new tax rate over a period of eight years. These proposals would have a large effect on the industries of manufacturing and oil and gas.

Restriction of Cash Method of Accounting to Small Businesses

The discussion draft would restrict the use of cash accounting to businesses with average annual gross receipts of $10 million or less (based on the previous three years). All businesses over the gross receipts threshold would be required to use the accrual method of accounting, including those businesses engaged in farming and personal services (which may use cash accounting at present).

Implications for taxpayers

These domestic proposals appear to cut against the intent of the international proposals to encourage business investment and job growth in the United States. If they are ultimately revenue neutral when balanced against the intended corporate rate cut, they may not create an overall disincentive. Although Chairman Baucus clearly is attempting to spread the pain across different sectors, unless these proposals are carefully fine-tuned in the legislative process, they are likely to have a disparate impact on different sectors of the economy. Again, it would be wise for companies impacted by any of these proposals to model their effects on their cash flow and financial statements.

DISCUSSION DRAFT ON TAX ADMINISTRATION

The proposals in the discussion draft on tax administration are intended to simplify the filing process and utilize technology, provide the IRS with new tools to address the increasing problem of identity theft and fraudulent tax refund claims, and to increase tax compliance through more efficient and expansive informational reporting.

CONCLUSION

The staff discussion drafts represent a serious attempt by Chairman Baucus to move forward on tax reform, notwithstanding the current political situation. Whether the international proposals are considered to be a modified territorial system or a modified anti-deferral system, they actually lay somewhere between both, and could ultimately form the basis for a compromise between the two possibilities and the two political parties. Chairman Baucus has staked out a position somewhere between the Obama Administration and the proposals of Chairman Camp. At the same time, the international proposals also tend to neutralize the so-called "lock-out" argument, by imposing tax on a CFC's earnings either currently or not at all. Thus, the staff discussion draft, while imperfect, must be taken seriously as a major step on the road to tax reform.

Unlike Chairman Camp's proposals, the Senate Finance staff discussion drafts contain numerous revenue raisers that eliminate special tax benefits granted to specific industries. Although Chairman Camp has stated that this "offset" approach is also his general tax reform approach, he may not have the political support at this time to take that step with respect to broad groups of taxpayers. He has acknowledged that he will not introduce a tax reform bill (or even an extenders bill for expiring provisions for that matter) in 2013.

While Chairman Camp appears to be pausing for the moment, Chairman Baucus has reiterated his goal of releasing additional tax reform discussion drafts in 2013. Presumably, at least one of these drafts will raise significant revenue for deficit reduction, as promised. Taxpayers should keep a careful watch for such proposals to be issued as we approach the holiday season.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© BakerHostetler | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

BakerHostetler
Contact
more
less

BakerHostetler on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.