Tax Havens: International Tax Avoidance and Evasion: Digitalcommons@Ilr

Cornell University ILR School
DigitalCommons@ILR
Federal Publications Key Workplace Documents
1-15-2015
Tax Havens: International Tax Avoidance and

Evasion
Jane G. Gravelle
Congressional Research Service
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/key_workplace

Thank you for downloading an article from DigitalCommons@ILR.
Support this valuable resource today!
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Key Workplace Documents at DigitalCommons@ILR. It has been accepted for inclusion
in Federal Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@ILR. For more information, please contact hlmdigital@cornell.edu.
Tax Havens: International Tax Avoidance and Evasion
Abstract
Addressing tax evasion and avoidance through use of tax havens has been the subject of a number of proposals
in Congress and by the President. Actions by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD) and the G-20 industrialized nations also have addressed this issue. In the 111th Congress, the HIRE
Act (P.L. 111-147) included several anti-evasion provisions, and P.L. 111-226 included foreign tax credit
provisions directed at perceived abuses by U.S. multinationals. Numerous legislative proposals to address both
individual tax evasion and corporate tax avoidance have been advanced.
Multinational firms can artificially shift profits from high-tax to low-tax jurisdictions using a variety of
techniques, such as shifting debt to high-tax jurisdictions. Because tax on the income of foreign subsidiaries
(except for certain passive income) is deferred until income is repatriated (paid to the U.S. parent as a
dividend), this income can avoid current U.S. taxes, perhaps indefinitely. The taxation of passive income
(called Subpart F income) has been reduced, perhaps significantly, through the use of hybrid entities that are
treated differently in different jurisdictions. The use of hybrid entities was greatly expanded by a new
regulation (termed check-the-box) introduced in the late 1990s that had unintended consequences for foreign
firms. In addition, earnings from income that is taxed often can be shielded by foreign tax credits on other
income. On average, very little tax is paid on the foreign source income of U.S. firms. Ample evidence of a
significant amount of profit shifting exists, but the revenue cost estimates vary substantially. Evidence also
indicates a significant increase in corporate profit shifting over the past several years. Recent estimates suggest
losses that may approach, or even exceed, $100 billion per year.
Individuals can evade taxes on passive income, such as interest, dividends, and capital gains, by not reporting
income earned abroad. In addition, because interest paid to foreign recipients is not taxed, individuals can
evade taxes on U.S. source income by setting up shell corporations and trusts in foreign haven countries to
channel funds into foreign jurisdictions. There is no general third-party reporting of income as is the case for
ordinary passive income earned domestically; the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) relies on qualified
intermediaries (QIs). In the past, these institutions certified nationality without revealing the beneficial
owners. Estimates of the cost of individual evasion have ranged from $40 billion to $70 billion. The Foreign
Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA; included in the HIRE Act, P.L. 111-147) introduced required
information reporting by foreign financial intermediaries and withholding of tax if information is not
provided. These provisions became effective only recently, and their consequences are not yet known.
Most provisions to address profit shifting by multinational firms would involve changing the tax law: repealing
or limiting deferral, limiting the ability of the foreign tax credit to offset income, addressing check-the-box, or
even formula apportionment. President Obamas proposals include a proposal to disallow overall deductions
and foreign tax credits for deferred income, along with a number of other restrictions. Changes in the law or
anti-abuse provisions have also been introduced in broader tax reform proposals. Provisions to address
individual evasion include increased information reporting and provisions to increase enforcement, such as
shifting the burden of proof to the taxpayer, increased penalties, and increased resources. Individual tax
evasion is the main target of the HIRE Act, the proposed Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act, and some other
proposals.
Keywords
tax evasion, tax havens, Congress
This article is available at DigitalCommons@ILR: http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/key_workplace/1378

Comments
Suggested Citation
Gravelle, J. G. (2015). Tax havens: International tax avoidance and evasion. Washington, DC: Congressional
Research Service.
This article is available at DigitalCommons@ILR: http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/key_workplace/1378

Tax Havens: International Tax Avoidance
and Evasion
Jane G. Gravelle
Senior Specialist in Economic Policy
January 15, 2015

7-5700
www.crs.gov
R40623
Summary
Addressing tax evasion and avoidance through use of tax havens has been the subject of a number
of proposals in Congress and by the President. Actions by the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the G-20 industrialized nations also have addressed
this issue. In the 111th Congress, the HIRE Act (P.L. 111-147) included several anti-evasion
provisions, and P.L. 111-226 included foreign tax credit provisions directed at perceived abuses
by U.S. multinationals. Numerous legislative proposals to address both individual tax evasion and
corporate tax avoidance have been advanced.
Multinational firms can artificially shift profits from high-tax to low-tax jurisdictions using a
variety of techniques, such as shifting debt to high-tax jurisdictions. Because tax on the income of
foreign subsidiaries (except for certain passive income) is deferred until income is repatriated
(paid to the U.S. parent as a dividend), this income can avoid current U.S. taxes, perhaps
indefinitely. The taxation of passive income (called Subpart F income) has been reduced, perhaps
significantly, through the use of hybrid entities that are treated differently in different
jurisdictions. The use of hybrid entities was greatly expanded by a new regulation (termed check-
the-box) introduced in the late 1990s that had unintended consequences for foreign firms. In
addition, earnings from income that is taxed often can be shielded by foreign tax credits on other
income. On average, very little tax is paid on the foreign source income of U.S. firms. Ample
evidence of a significant amount of profit shifting exists, but the revenue cost estimates vary
substantially. Evidence also indicates a significant increase in corporate profit shifting over the
past several years. Recent estimates suggest losses that may approach, or even exceed, $100
billion per year.
Individuals can evade taxes on passive income, such as interest, dividends, and capital gains, by
not reporting income earned abroad. In addition, because interest paid to foreign recipients is not
taxed, individuals can evade taxes on U.S. source income by setting up shell corporations and
trusts in foreign haven countries to channel funds into foreign jurisdictions. There is no general
third-party reporting of income as is the case for ordinary passive income earned domestically;
the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) relies on qualified intermediaries (QIs). In the past, these
institutions certified nationality without revealing the beneficial owners. Estimates of the cost of
individual evasion have ranged from $40 billion to $70 billion. The Foreign Account Tax
Compliance Act (FATCA; included in the HIRE Act, P.L. 111-147) introduced required
information reporting by foreign financial intermediaries and withholding of tax if information is
not provided. These provisions became effective only recently, and their consequences are not yet
known.
Most provisions to address profit shifting by multinational firms would involve changing the tax
law: repealing or limiting deferral, limiting the ability of the foreign tax credit to offset income,
addressing check-the-box, or even formula apportionment. President Obamas proposals include a
proposal to disallow overall deductions and foreign tax credits for deferred income, along with a
number of other restrictions. Changes in the law or anti-abuse provisions have also been
introduced in broader tax reform proposals. Provisions to address individual evasion include
increased information reporting and provisions to increase enforcement, such as shifting the
burden of proof to the taxpayer, increased penalties, and increased resources. Individual tax
evasion is the main target of the HIRE Act, the proposed Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act, and some
other proposals.

Contents
Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1
Where Are the Tax Havens? ............................................................................................................ 3
Formal Lists of Tax Havens....................................................................................................... 3
Developments in the OECD Tax Haven List ............................................................................. 5
Other Jurisdictions with Tax Haven Characteristics .................................................................. 7
Methods of Corporate Tax Avoidance ............................................................................................. 9
Allocation of Debt and Earnings Stripping ............................................................................. 10
Transfer Pricing ....................................................................................................................... 12
Contract Manufacturing........................................................................................................... 13
Check-the-Box, Hybrid Entities, and Hybrid Instruments ...................................................... 14
Cross Crediting and Sourcing Rules for Foreign Tax Credits ................................................. 15
The Magnitude of Corporate Profit Shifting.................................................................................. 16
Evidence on the Scope of Profit Shifting ................................................................................ 16
Estimates of the Cost and Sources of Corporate Tax Avoidance ............................................. 19
Importance of Different Profit Shifting Techniques ................................................................ 22
Methods of Avoidance and Evasion by Individuals ....................................................................... 24
Tax Provisions Affecting the Treatment of Income by Individuals ......................................... 25
Limited Information Reporting Between Jurisdictions ........................................................... 26
U.S. Collection of Information on U.S. Income and Qualified Intermediaries ....................... 26
European Union Savings Directive ......................................................................................... 27
Estimates of the Revenue Cost of Individual Tax Evasion ............................................................ 27
Alternative Policy Options to Address Corporate Profit Shifting .................................................. 28
Broad Changes to International Tax Rules .............................................................................. 28
Repeal Deferral ................................................................................................................. 28
Targeted or Partial Elimination of Deferral ....................................................................... 29
Allocation of Deductions and Credits with Respect to Deferred
Income/Restrictions on Cross Crediting ........................................................................ 30
Formula Apportionment .................................................................................................... 31
Narrower Provisions Affecting Multinational Profit Shifting ................................................. 32
Eliminate Check-the-Box, Hybrid Entities, and Hybrid Instruments................................ 32
Tighten Earnings Stripping Rules; Limit Interest Deductions .......................................... 32
Foreign Tax Credits: Source Royalties as Domestic Income for Purposes of the
Foreign Tax Credit Limit or Create Separate Basket; Eliminate Title Passage
Rule; Restrict Credits for Taxes Producing an Economic Benefit ................................. 33
Transfer Pricing ................................................................................................................. 33
Other Provisions ................................................................................................................ 34
Options to Address Individual Evasion ......................................................................................... 34
Information Reporting ............................................................................................................. 34
Multilateral Information Sharing or Withholding; International Cooperation .................. 34
Expanding Bilateral Information Exchange ...................................................................... 35
Unilateral Approaches: Withholding/Refund Approach; Increased Information
Reporting Requirements................................................................................................. 35
Other Measures That Might Improve Compliance .................................................................. 35
Incentives/Sanctions for Tax Havens ................................................................................ 35

Revise and Strengthen the Qualified Intermediary Program ............................................. 36

Place the Burden of Proof on the Taxpayer ....................................................................... 36
Treat Shell Corporations as U.S. Firms ............................................................................. 36
Extend the Statute of Limitations ...................................................................................... 36
Greater Resources for the Internal Revenue Service to Focus on Offshore ...................... 37
Make Civil Cases Public as a Deterrent ............................................................................ 37
John Doe Summons ........................................................................................................... 37
Strengthening of Penalties ................................................................................................. 37
Address Tax Shelters ......................................................................................................... 38
Regulate the Rules Used by States to Permit Incorporation.............................................. 38
Make Suspicious Activity Reports Available to Civil Side of IRS.................................... 38
Summary of Enacted Legislation in 2011 ...................................................................................... 38
The Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment (HIRE) Act (P.L. 111-147): FATCA ............ 38
Reporting on Foreign Accounts......................................................................................... 39
Deduction of Interest for Bearer (Nonregistered) Bonds .................................................. 39
Additional Information Reported on Tax Returns ............................................................. 39
Penalties ............................................................................................................................ 39
Statute of Limitations ........................................................................................................ 39
Reporting on Foreign Passive Investment Companies ...................................................... 39
Electronic Filing ................................................................................................................ 40
Trusts ................................................................................................................................. 40
Treat Equity Swaps as Dividends ...................................................................................... 40
Economic Substance Doctrine: The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, P.L.
111-148. ................................................................................................................................ 40
P.L. 111-226 ............................................................................................................................. 40
Preventing Splitting Foreign Tax Credits from Income .................................................... 41
Denial of Foreign Tax credits for Covered Asset Acquisitions ......................................... 41
Separate Foreign Tax Credit Limit for Items Resourced Under Treaties .......................... 42
Limitation on the Use of Section 956 (the Hopscotch Rule) ......................................... 42
Special Rule for Certain Redemptions by Foreign Subsidiaries ....................................... 42
Modification of Affiliation Rules for Allocating Interest Expense ................................... 43
Repeal of 80/20 Rules ....................................................................................................... 43
Technical Correction to the HIRE Act .............................................................................. 43
Summary of Legislative Proposals ................................................................................................ 44
American Jobs and Closing Loopholes Act (H.R. 4213, 111th Congress) ............................... 44
Source Rules on Guarantees .............................................................................................. 44
Boot-Within-Gain Revisions ............................................................................................. 44
President Obamas International Tax Proposals ...................................................................... 45
Provisions Affecting Multinational Corporations and Other Tax Law Changes ............... 45
Provisions Relating to Individual Tax Evasion, Not Enacted in the HIRE Act ................. 49
The Wyden-Gregg and Wyden-Coats Tax Reform Bills ......................................................... 49
Chairman Camps Territorial Tax Proposal (Included in H.R. 1, 113th Congress) and
Senator Enzis Bill (S. 2091, 112th Congress) ...................................................................... 50
Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act ...................................................................................................... 51
111th Congress (S. 506 and H.R. 1245) ............................................................................. 51
112th Congress (S. 1346 and H.R. 2669) ........................................................................... 52
113th Congress (H.R. 1554, S. 1533, and H.R. 3666)........................................................ 53
114th Congress ................................................................................................................... 53
Finance Committee Proposal, 111th Congress ......................................................................... 54

Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act, S. 386, 111th Congress ............................................... 54

Incorporation Transparency and Law Enforcement Assistance Act, S. 1483, H.R.
3416, 112th Congress ............................................................................................................ 55
Additional Proposals in the 113th Congress ............................................................................. 55
Tables
Table 1. Countries Listed on Various Tax Haven Lists .................................................................... 4
Table 2. U.S. Company Foreign Profits Relative to Gross Domestic Product (GDP), G-7 ........... 17
Table 3. U.S. Foreign Company Profits Relative to GDP, Larger Countries (GDP at Least
$15 billion) on Tax Haven Lists and the Netherlands................................................................. 17
Table 4. U.S. Foreign Company Profits Relative to GDP, Small Countries on Tax Haven
Lists ............................................................................................................................................ 18
Table 5. Source of Dividends from Repatriation Holiday: Countries Accounting for At
Least 1% of Dividends ............................................................................................................... 24
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 55

Introduction
The federal government loses both individual and corporate income tax revenue from the shifting
of profits and income into low-tax countries. The revenue losses from this tax avoidance and
evasion are difficult to estimate, but some have suggested that the annual cost of offshore tax
abuses may be around $100 billion per year.1 International tax avoidance can arise from wealthy
individual investors and from large multinational corporations; it can reflect both legal and illegal
actions.
Tax avoidance is sometimes used to refer to a legal reduction in taxes, whereas evasion refers to
tax reductions that are illegal. Both types are discussed in this report, although the dividing line is
not entirely clear. A multinational firm that constructs a factory in a low-tax jurisdiction rather
than in the United States to take advantage of low foreign corporate tax rates is engaged in
avoidance, whereas a U.S. citizen who sets up a secret bank account in the Caribbean and does
not report the interest income is engaged in evasion. There are, however, many activities,
particularly by corporations, that are often referred to as avoidance but could be classified as
evasion. One example is transfer pricing, where firms charge low prices for sales to low-tax
affiliates but pay high prices for purchases from them. If these prices, which are supposed to be at
arms-length, are set at an artificial level, then this activity might be viewed by some as evasion,
even if such pricing is not overturned in court because evidence to establish pricing is not
available.
Most of the international tax reduction of individuals reflects evasion, and this amount has been
estimated to range from about $40 billion to about $70 billion a year.2 This evasion has occurred
in part because the United States does not withhold tax on many types of passive income (such as
interest) paid to foreign entities; if U.S. individuals can channel their investments through a
foreign entity and do not report the holdings of these assets on their tax returns, they evade a tax
that they are legally required to pay. In addition, individuals investing in foreign assets may not
report income from these assets. In 2010, Congress enacted the Foreign Account Tax Compliance
Act (FATCA),3 which has recently become effective and requires foreign financial institutions to
report information on asset holders or be subject to a 30% withholding rate. Its consequences for
evasion have yet to be determined.
Corporate tax reductions arising from profit shifting also have been estimated. As discussed
below, estimates of the revenue losses from corporate profit shifting vary substantially, ranging
from about $10 billion to about $90 billion, or even higher.4 This activity appears to have
increased substantially in recent years.
1
See U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Investigations, Staff Report on Dividend Tax Abuse, September 11, 2008.
2
Joseph Guttentag and Reuven Avi-Yonah, Closing the International Tax Gap, In Max B. Sawicky, ed. Bridging the
Tax Gap: Addressing the Crisis in Federal Tax Administration, Washington, DC, Economic Policy Institute, 2005.
Most recently, Gabriel Zucman estimated a revenue loss of $36 billion for evasion of tax on financial investments. See
Gabriel Zucman, Taxing Across Borders: Tracing Personal Wealth and Corporate Profits, Journal of Economic
Perspectives, Vol. 28, no. 4, Fall, 2014, pp, 121-148.
3
The Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act was enacted in 2010 as part of the Hiring Incentives to Restore
Employment Act (P.L. 111-147). See CRS Report R43444, Reporting Foreign Financial Assets Under Titles 26 and
31: FATCA and FBAR, by Erika K. Lunder and Carol A. Pettit.
4
Most recently, Zucman estimated, using two different methodologies, $54 billion and $133 billion for 2013. Gabriel
Zucman, Taxing Across Borders: Tracing Personal Wealth and Corporate Profits, Journal of Economic Perspectives,
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service 1

In addition to differentiating between individual and corporate activities, and evasion and
avoidance, there are also variations in the features used to characterize tax havens. Some
restrictive definitions would limit tax havens to those countries that, in addition to having low or
non-existent tax rates on some types of income, also have such other characteristics as the lack of
transparency, bank secrecy and the lack of information sharing, and requiring little or no
economic activity for an entity to obtain legal status. A definition incorporating compounding
factors such as these was used by the Organization for Economic Development and Cooperation
(OECD) in their 2000 tax shelter initiative. Others, particularly economists, might characterize as
a tax haven any low-tax country with a goal of attracting capital, or simply any country that has
low or non-existent taxes. This report addresses tax havens in their broader sense as well as in
their narrower sense.
Although international tax avoidance can be differentiated by whether it is associated with

individuals or corporations, whether it is illegal evasion or legal avoidance, and whether it arises
in a tax haven narrowly defined or broadly defined, it can also be characterized by what measures
might be taken to reduce this loss. In general, revenue losses from individual taxes are more
likely to be associated with evasion and more likely to be associated with narrowly defined tax
havens, while corporate tax avoidance occurs in both narrowly and broadly defined tax havens
and can arise from either legal avoidance or illegal evasion. Evasion is often a problem of lack of
information, and remedies may include resources for enforcement, along with incentives and
sanctions designed to increase information sharing, and possibly a move towards greater
withholding. Avoidance may be more likely to be remedied with changes in the tax code.
Several legislative proposals have been advanced that address international tax issues. President
Obama has proposed several international corporate tax revisions which relate to multinational
corporations, including profit shifting, as well as individual tax evasion. Some of the provisions
relating to multinationals had earlier been included in a bill introduced in the 110th Congress by
Chairman Rangel of the Ways and Means Committee (H.R. 3970). Major revisions to corporate
international tax rules were also included in S. 3018, a general tax reform act introduced by
Senators Wyden and Gregg in the 111th Congress, and a similar bill, S. 727, introduced by
Senators Wyden and Coats in the 112th Congress.5 This bill had provisions to tax foreign source
income currently, which could have limited the benefits from corporate profit shifting. In the 113th
Congress, H.R. 694 (Representative Schakowsky) and S. 250 (Senator Sanders), also would have
eliminated deferral. Former Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp has proposed a lower
corporate rate combined with a move to a territorial tax system (which would exempt foreign
source income). His bill, H.R. 1 (a general tax reform bill), was introduced in the 113th Congress.
Because a territorial tax could increase the scope for profit shifting, the proposal contains detailed
provisions to address these issues. A territorial tax proposal with anti-abuse provisions has also
been introduced by Senator Enzi (S. 2091, 112th Congress).6
(...continued)
Vol. 28, no. 4, Fall, 2014, pp, 121-148.
5
See Obama Backs Corporate Tax Cut If Wont Raise Deficit, Bloomberg, January 25, 2011,
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-26/obama-backs-cut-in-u-s-corporate-tax-rate-only-if-it-won-t-affect-
deficit.html.
6
See CRS Report R42624, Moving to a Territorial Income Tax: Options and Challenges, by Jane G. Gravelle, for a
discussion of the Camp and Enzi proposals.

The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations has been engaged in international tax
investigations since 2001, holding hearings and proposing legislation.7 In the 111th Congress, the
Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act, S. 506, was introduced by the chairman of that committee, Senator
Levin, with a companion bill, H.R. 1265, introduced by Representative Doggett. The Senate
Finance Committee also has circulated draft proposals addressing individual tax evasion issues. A
number of these anti-evasion provisions (including provisions in President Obamas earlier
budget outlines) were adopted in the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment (HIRE) Act, P.L.
111-147. Subsequently, revised versions of the Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act have been introduced.8
The Permanent Subcommittee also released a study of profit shifting by multinationals in
preparation for a hearing on September 20, 2012.9
The first section of this report reviews what countries might be considered tax havens, including a
discussion of the Organization for Economic Development and Cooperation (OECD) initiatives
and lists. The next two sections discuss, in turn, the corporate profit-shifting mechanisms and
evidence on the existence and magnitude of profit-shifting activity. The following two sections
provide the same analysis for individual tax evasion. The report concludes with overviews of
alternative policy options, a summary of legislation enacted in the 111th Congress, and a summary
of specific legislative proposals.
Where Are the Tax Havens?

There is no precise definition of a tax haven. The OECD initially defined the following features
of tax havens: no or low taxes, lack of effective exchange of information, lack of transparency,
and no requirement of substantial activity.10 Other lists have been developed in legislative
proposals and by researchers. Also, a number of other jurisdictions have been identified as having
tax haven characteristics.
Formal Lists of Tax Havens

The OECD created an initial list of tax havens in 2000. A similar list was used in S. 396,
introduced in the 110th Congress, which would have treated firms incorporated in certain tax
havens as domestic companies; the only difference between this list and the OECD list was the
exclusion of the U.S. Virgin Islands from the list in S. 396. Legislation introduced in the 111th
7
For a chronology of earlier years, see Martin Sullivan, Proposals to Fight Offshore Tax Evasion, Part 3, Tax Notes
May 4, 2009, p. 517.
8
In the 113th Congress, H.R. 1554, H.R. 3666, and S. 1533 were introduced. In the 112th Congress, a revised version of
the Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act (H.R. 2669 and S. 1346) was introduced. In addition to these bills, in the 111th
Congress, a different bill, S. 386, introduced by Chairman Leahy of the Senate Judiciary Committee, would have
expanded the money-laundering provisions to include tax evasion and provided additional funding for the tax division
of the Justice Department. S. 569, also introduced by Chairman Levin, would have imposed requirements on the states
for determination of beneficial owners of corporations formed under their laws. This proposal has implications for the
potential use of incorporation in certain states as a part of an international tax haven plan. Other bills addressing
international issues have also been introduced.
9
Memo on Offshore Profit Shifting and the U.S. Tax Code, at http://www.levin.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/
subcommittee-hearing-to-examine-billions-of-dollars-in-us-tax-avoidance-by-multinational-corporations/?section=
alltypes.
10
Organization for Economic Development and Cooperation, Harmful Tax Competition: An Emerging Global Issue,
1998, p. 23.

Congress to address tax haven abuse (S. 506, H.R. 1265) used a different list taken from Internal
Revenue Service (IRS) court filings but had many countries in common. The definition by the
OECD excluded low-tax jurisdictions, some of which are OECD members that were thought by
many to be tax havens, such as Ireland and Switzerland. These countries were included in an
important study of tax havens by Hines and Rice.11 The Government Accountability Office
(GAO) also provided a list.12
Table 1 lists the countries that appear on various lists, arranged by geographic location. These tax
havens tend to be concentrated in certain areas, including the Caribbean and West Indies and
Europe, locations close to large developed countries. There are 50 altogether.
Table 1. Countries Listed on Various Tax Haven Lists

Caribbean/West Indies Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Aruba, Bahamas, Barbados,e,e British Virgin Islands,
Cayman Islands, Dominica, Grenada, Montserrat,a Netherlands Antilles, St. Kitts and
Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and Grenadines, Turks and Caicos, U.S. Virgin Islandsa,e
Central America Belize, Costa Rica,b,c Panama
Coast of East Asia Hong Kong,b,e Macau,a,b,e Singaporeb
Europe/Mediterranean Andorra,a Channel Islands (Guernsey and Jersey),e Cyprus,e Gibralter, Isle of Man,e
Ireland,a,b,e Liechtenstein, Luxembourg,a,b,e Malta,e Monaco,a San Marino,a,e
Switzerlanda,b
Indian Ocean Maldives,a,d Mauritius,a,c,e Seychellesa,e
Middle East Bahrain, Jordan,a,b Lebanona,b
North Atlantic Bermudae
Pacific, South Pacific Cook Islands, Marshall Islands,a Samoa, Nauru,c Niue,a,c Tonga,a,c,d Vanuatu
West Africa Liberia
Sources: Organization for Economic Development and Cooperation (OECD), Towards Global Tax Competition,
2000; Dhammika Dharmapala and James R. Hines, Which Countries Become Tax Havens? Journal of Public
Economics, Vol. 93, 0ctober 2009, pp. 1058-1068; Tax Justice Network, Identifying Tax Havens and Offshore
Finance Centers: http://www.taxjustice.net/cms/upload/pdf/Identifying_Tax_Havens_Jul_07.pdf. The OECDs gray
list is posted at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/38/14/42497950.pdf. The countries in Table 1 are the same as the
countries, with the exception of Tonga, in a 2008 Government Accountability Office (GAO) Report, International
Taxation: Large U.S. Corporations and Federal Contractors with Subsidiaries in Jurisdictions Listed as Tax Havens or
Financial Privacy Jurisdictions, GAO-09-157, December 2008.
Notes: The Dharmapala and Hines paper cited above reproduces the Hines and Rice list. That list was more
oriented to business issues; four countriesIreland, Jordan, Luxembourg, and Switzerlandappear only on that
list. The Hines and Rice list is older and is itself based on earlier lists; some countries on those earlier lists were
eliminated because they had higher tax rates.
In 2010, the Netherlands Antilles dissolved, with the islands of Curacao and St. Maarten becoming autonomous
and the islands of Belaire, St. Eustastius, and Saba becoming part of the Netherlands. Curacao has indicated a plan
to phase out its favorable tax treatment of offshore firms.
St. Kitts may also be referred to as St. Christopher. The Channel Islands are sometimes listed as a group, and
sometimes Jersey and Guernsey are listed separately. S. 506 and H.R. 1245 specifically mention Jersey and also
refer to Gurensey/Sark/Alderney; the latter two are islands associated with Guernsey.
11
J.R. Hines and E.M. Rice, Fiscal Paradise: Foreign Tax havens and American Business, Quarterly Journal of
Economics, vol. 109, February 1994, pp. 149-182.
12
Government Accountability Office, International Taxation: Large U.S. Corporations and Federal Contractors with
Subsidiaries in Jurisdictions Listed as Tax Havens or Financial Privacy Jurisdictions, GAO-op-157, December 2008.

a. Not included in S. 506, H.R. 1245.

b. Not included in original OECD tax haven list.
c. Not included in Hines and Rice (1994).
d. Removed from OECDs list; subsequently determined they should not be included.
e. Not included in OECDs gray list as of August 17, 2009; currently on the OECD white list. Note that the gray
list is divided into countries that are tax havens and countries that are other financial centers. The latter
classification includes three countries listed in Table 1 (Luxembourg, Singapore, and Switzerland) and five
that are not (Austria, Belgium, Brunei, Chile, and Guatemala). Of the four countries moved from the black
to the gray list, one, Costa Rica, is in Table 1 and three, Malaysia, Uruguay, and the Philippines, are not.
Developments in the OECD Tax Haven List

The OECD list, the most prominent list, has changed over time. Nine of the countries in Table 1
did not appear on the earliest OECD list. These countries not appearing on the original list tend to
be more developed larger countries and include some that are members of the OECD (e.g.,
Switzerland and Luxembourg).
It is also important to distinguish between OECDs original list and its blacklist. OECD
subsequently focused on information exchange and removed countries from a blacklist if they
agree to cooperate. OECD initially examined 47 jurisdictions and identified a number as not
meeting the criteria for a tax haven; it also initially excluded six countries with advance
agreements to share information (Bermuda, the Cayman Islands, Cyprus, Malta, Mauritius, and
San Marino). The 2000 OECD blacklist included 35 countries; this list did not include the six
countries eliminated due to advance agreement. The OECD had also subsequently determined
that three countries should not be included in the list of tax havens (Barbados, the Maldives, and
Tonga). Over time, as more tax havens made agreements to share information, the blacklist
dwindled until it included only three countries: Andorra, Liechtenstein, and Monaco.
A study of the OECD initiative on global tax coordination by Sharman, also discussed in a book
review by Sullivan, argues that the reduction in the OECD list was not because of actual progress
towards cooperation so much as due to the withdrawal of U.S. support in 2001, which resulted in
the OECD focusing on information on request and not requiring reforms until all parties had
signed on.13 This analysis suggests that the large countries were not successful in this initiative to
rein in on tax havens. A similar analysis by Spencer and Sharman suggests little real progress has
been made in reducing tax haven practices.14
Interest in tax haven actions has increased recently. The scandals surrounding the Swiss bank
UBS AG (UBS) and the Liechtenstein Global Trust Group (LGT), which led to legal actions by
the United States and other countries, focused greater attention on international tax issues,
primarily information reporting and individual evasion.15 The credit crunch and provision of
13
J. C. Sharman, Havens in a Storm, The Struggle for Global Tax Regulation, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New
York, 2006; Martin A. Sullivan, Lessons From the Last War on Tax Havens, Tax Notes, July 30, 2007, pp. 327-337.
14
David Spencer and J.C. Sharman, International Tax Cooperation, Journal of International Taxation, published in
three parts in December 2007, pp. 35-49, January 2008, pp. 27-44, 64, February 2008, pp. 39-58.
15
For a discussion of these cases see Joint Committee on Taxation Tax Compliance and Enforcement Issues With
Respect to Offshore Entities and Accounts, JCX-23-09, March 30, 2009. The discussion of UBS begins on p. 31 and the
discussion of LGT begins on p. 40. This document also discusses the inquiries of the Permanent Subcommittee on
Investigations of the Senate Homeland Security Committee relating to these cases.

public funds to banks has also heightened public interest. The tax haven issue was revived
recently with a meeting of the G20 industrialized and developing countries that proposed
sanctions, and a number of countries began to indicate commitments to information sharing
agreements.16
The OECD currently has three lists: a white list of countries implementing an agreed-upon
standard, a gray list of countries that have committed to such a standard, and a black list of
countries that have not committed. On April 7, 2009, the last four countries on the black list,
which were countries not included on the original OECD listCosta Rica, Malaysia, the
Philippines, and Uruguaywere moved to the gray list.17 The gray list includes countries not
identified as tax havens but as other financial centers. According to news reports, Hong Kong
and Macau were omitted from the OECDs list because of objections from China, but are
mentioned in a footnote as having committed to the standards; they also noted that a recent
flurry of commitments brought 11 jurisdictions, including Austria, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg,
Singapore, and Switzerland into the committed category.18 As of May 18, 2012, only one
country (Nauru) appeared on the gray list for tax havens and one (Guatemala) appeared on the
gray list for financial centers.19
Many countries that were listed on the OECDs original blacklist protested because of the
negative publicity and many now point to having signed agreements to negotiate tax information
exchange agreements (TIEA) and some have negotiated agreements. The identification of tax
havens can have legal ramifications if laws and sanctions are contingent on that identification, as
is the case of some current proposals in the United States and of potential sanctions by
international bodies.
More recently, the OECD has focused attention on its Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS)
initiative. Among the elements of this initiative is the Global Forum on Transparency and
Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes, which has begun rating countries on various criteria.
As of October 2014, it had under way 105 reviews of countries based on various standards.20 The
countries are rated as compliant, largely compliant, partially compliant, or noncompliant. As of
2014, 71 jurisdictions had received a full review, with 42 of those rated as noncompliant. Of 34
countries that had undergone only a phase 1 review, which examines the legal and regulatory
framework, 12 were not able to advance to the final (phase 2) review, which looks into the
implementation of the regulatory framework in practice. As with the evolution of the OECD list,
these evaluations focus on one aspect of the characteristics of tax havens.
16
Anthony Faiola and Mary Jordan, Tax-Haven Blacklist Stirs Nations: After G-20 Issues mandate, Many Rush to
Get Off Roll, Washington Post, April 4, 2009, p. A7.
17
This announcement by the Organization for Economic Development and Co-operation (OECD) was posted at
http://www.oecd.org/document/0/0,3343,en_2649_34487_42521280_1_1_1_1,00.html.
18
David D. Stewart, G-20 Declares End to Bank Secrecy as OECD Issues Tiered List, Tax Notes, April 6, 2009, pp.
38-39.
19
Organization for Economic Development and Cooperation, http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/50/0/43606256.pdf.
20
OECD, Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes, Tax Transparency: 2014
Report on Progress, http://www.oecd.org/tax/transparency/GFannualreport2014.pdf.

Other Jurisdictions with Tax Haven Characteristics

Criticisms have been made by a range of commentators that many countries are tax havens or
have aspects of tax havens and have been overlooked. These jurisdictions include major countries
such as the United States, the UK, the Netherlands, Denmark, Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Portugal,
and Canada. Attention has also been directed at three states in the United States: Delaware,
Nevada, and Wyoming. Finally, there are a number of smaller countries or areas in countries, such
as Campione dItalia, an Italian town located within Switzerland, that have been characterized as
tax havens.
A country not on the list in Table 1, but which is often considered a tax haven, especially for
corporations, is the Netherlands, which allows firms to reduce taxes on dividends and capital
gains from subsidiaries and has a wide range of treaties that reduce taxes.21 In 2006, for example,
Bono and other members of the U2 band moved their music publishing company from Ireland to
the Netherlands after Ireland changed its tax treatment of music royalties.22 A 2010 newspaper
report explained the role of the Netherlands in facilitating movement to tax havens through
provisions such as the various Dutch sandwiches, which allow money to be funneled out of
other countries that would charge withholding taxes to non-European countries, to be passed on
in turn to tax havens such as Bermuda and the Cayman Islands.23 Issues have recently been raised
in the Netherlands government about its role in tax avoidance.24 The European Commission also
began investigating, in June 2014, whether certain arrangements in Ireland, Luxembourg, and the
Netherlands constitute prohibited state aid; the inquiry was later expanded to all member states.25
In addition, the European Union has agreed to add an anti-abuse clause to its provision to prevent
double taxation within member states, which may have implications for these arrangements in the
future.26
21
See, for example, Micheil van Dijk, Francix Weyzig, and Richard Murphy, The Netherlands: A Tax Haven? SOMO
(Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations), Amsterdam, 2007 and Rosanne Altshuler and Harry Grubert,
Governments and Multinational Corporations in the Race to the Bottom, Tax Notes, February 27, 2009, pp. 979-992.
22
Fergal OBrien, Bono, Preacher on Poverty, Tarnishes Halo Irish Tax Move, October 15, 2006, Bloomberg.com,
http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&refer=home&sid=aef6sR60oDgM#.
23
See Jesse Drucker, Google 2.4% Rate Shows How $60 Billion Lost to Tax Loopholes, Bloomberg, October 21,
2010, posted at http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-21/google-2-4-rate-shows-how-60-billion-u-s-revenue-lost-
to-tax-loopholes.html and Yahoo, Dell Swell Netherlands $13 Trillion Tax Haven, Bloomberg, January 23, 2013,
posted at http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-23/yahoo-dell-swell-netherlands-13-trillion-tax-haven.html.
24
In 2013, the Dutch government adopted a motion to stop the use of arrangements in the Netherlands. See
Accountancy Live, Dutch Sandwich Tax Loophole Looks Likely to be Closed, April 12, 2013,
https://www.accountancylive.com/dutch-sandwich-tax-loophole-looks-set-be-closed. According to information
received from the Embassy of the Netherlands, the Netherlands has adopted unilateral measures, including exchange of
information with treaty partners regarding legal entities incorporated in the Netherlands which lack economic substance
that are engaged in financial transactions.
25
EY Tax Insights, European Union, Ireland, Luxembourg and Netherlands: State Aid Commission Investigates
Transfer Pricing Arrangements on Corporate Taxation of Apple (Ireland), Starbucks (Netherlands) and Fiat Finance
and Trade (Luxembourg), Ernst and Young, June 2014, http://taxinsights.ey.com/archive/archive-news/european-
unionirelandluxembourg-and-netherlandsstate-aidcommission.aspx. A further inquiry in Luxembourg
regarding Amazon was opened in October, 2014, and a general inquiry of all member states was initiated in December
2014. See European Commission, State aid: Commission Extends Information Enquiry on Tax Rulings Practice to all
Member States, December 17, 2014, at http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-2742_en.htm.
26
Council of the European Union, Parent-Subsidiary Directive: Council Agrees to Add Anti-Abuse Clause Against
Corporate Tax Avoidance, December 9, 2014, http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/
ecofin/146127.pdf.

Some have identified the United States and the United Kingdom (UK) as having tax haven
characteristics. Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Junker urged other EU member states to
challenge the United States for tax havens in Delaware, Nevada, and Wyoming.27 One website
offering offshore services mentions, in their view, several overlooked tax havens which include
the United States, United Kingdom, Denmark, Iceland, Israel, and Portugals Madeira Island.28
(Others on their list and not listed in Table 1 were Hungary, Brunei, Uruguay, and Labuan
[Malaysia]).29 In the case of the United States the article mentions the lack of reporting
requirements and the failure to tax interest and other exempt passive income paid to foreign
entities, the limited liability corporation which allows a flexible corporate vehicle not subject to
taxation, and the ease of incorporating in certain states (Delaware, Nevada, and Wyoming). Issues
have recently been raised in the Netherlands about its role in tax avoidance
Another website includes in its list of tax havens Delaware, Wyoming, and Puerto Rico, along
with other jurisdictions not listed in Table 1: the Netherlands, Campione dItalia, a separate
listing for Sark (identified as the only remaining fiscal paradise), the UK, and a coming
discussion for Canada.30 Sark is an island country associated with Guernsey, part of the Channel
Islands, and Campione dItalia is an Italian town located within Switzerland.
The Economist reported a study by a political scientist experimenting with setting up sham
corporations; the author succeeded in incorporating in Wyoming and Nevada, as well as the UK
and several other places.31 Michael McIntyre discusses three U.S. practices that aid international
evasion: the failure to collect information on tax exempt interest income paid to foreign entities,
the system of foreign institutions that act as qualified intermediaries (see discussion below) but do
not reveal their clients, and the practices of states such as Delaware and Wyoming that allow
people to keep secret their identities as stockholder or depositor.32
In a meeting in late April 2009, Eduardo Silva, of the Cayman Islands Financial Services
Association, claimed that Delaware, Nevada, Wyoming, and the UK were the greatest offenders
with respect to, among other issues, tax fraud. He suggested that Nevada and Wyoming were
worse than Delaware because they permit companies to have bearer shares, which allows
anonymous ownership. A U.S. participant at the conference noted that legislation in the United
States, S. 569 (111th Congress), would require disclosure of beneficial owners in the United
States.33
Nicholas Shaxson, in his book Treasure Islands, organizes tax havens into four categories: (1)
continental European havens such as Switzerland and Luxembourg; (2) a British zone of
influence (which includes the City of London34 as well as countries formally related to the UK,
27
Charles Gnaedinger, Luxembourg P.M Calls out U.S. States as Tax Havens Tax Notes International, April 6, 2009,
p. 13.
28
See http://www.offshore-fox.com/offshore-corporations/offshore_corporations_0401.html.
29
Another offshore website lists in addition to the countries in Table 1 Austria, Campione dItalia, Denmark, Hungary,
Iceland, Madeira, Russian Federation, United Kingdom, Brunei, Dubai, Lebanon, Canada, Puerto Rico, South Africa,
New Zealand, Labuan, Uruguay, and the United States. See http://www.mydeltaquest.com/english/.
30
See http://www.offshore-manual.com/taxhavens/.
31
Haven Hypocrisy, The Economist, March 26, 2008.
32
Michael McIntyre, A Program for International Tax Reform, Tax Notes, February 23, 2009, pp. 1021-1026.
33
Charles Gnaedinger, U.S., Cayman Islands Debate Tax Haven Status, Tax Notes, May 4, 2009, p. 548-545.
34
The City of London is the small, 1.22 square mile area at the center of the larger city of London. It contains the
financial district.

such as Jersey, Guernsey, the Isle of Man, Bermuda, and many of the islands in the West Indies
and Caribbean, and those influenced by the UK); (3) a U.S. zone of influence (the United States
itself, some of its states, along with the Virgin Islands, Marshall Islands, Liberia, and Panama),
and (4) other jurisdictions.35 Anthony van Fossen, in his study of Pacific Island tax havens,
indicates that connection with the UK and specifically with the City of London is a contributor to
a successful tax haven. While the United States has limited the activities of some islands in its
sphere of influence, one of the most important tax havens in this area is the Marshall Islands,
which specializes in flags of convenience.36
In addition, any country with a low tax rate could be considered as a potential location for shifting
income to. In addition to Ireland, three other countries in the OECD not included in Table 1 have
tax rates below 20%: Iceland, Poland, and the Slovak Republic.37 Most of the eastern European
countries not included in the OECD have tax rates below 20%.38
The Tax Justice Network probably has the largest list of tax havens, and includes some specific
cities and areas.39 In addition to the countries listed in Table 1, they include in the Americas and
Caribbean, New York and Uruguay; in Africa, Mellila, Sao Tome e Principe, Somalia, and South
Africa; in the Middle East and Asia, Dubai, Labuan (Malaysia), Tel Aviv, and Taipei; in Europe,
Alderney, Belgium, Campione dItalia, City of London, Dublin, Ingushetia, Madeira, Sark,
Trieste, Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, and Frankfurt; and in the Indian and Pacific
oceans, the Marianas. The only county listed in Table 1 and not included in their list was Jordan.
Ronen Palan, Richard Murphy, and Christian Chavagneux report 11 different lists of tax havens.
Although the Tax Justice Network is the largest such list, a few countries not on this list appear on
others.40 Eight countries appeared on all lists: the Bahamas, Bermuda, the Cayman Islands,
Guernsey, Jersey, and Malta. Palan, Murphy, and Chavagneux also suggest adding Belgium to the
Netherlands and Luxembourg as a location for holding companies in Europe. In addition, they
discuss the aspects of rules in the United States and the United Kingdom that might justify
identification as a tax haven.
Methods of Corporate Tax Avoidance

U.S. multinationals are not taxed on income earned by foreign subsidiaries until it is repatriated to
the U.S. parent as dividends, although some passive and related company income that is easily
shifted is taxed currently under anti-abuse rules referred to as Subpart F. (Foreign affiliates or
subsidiaries that are majority owned U.S. owned are referred to as controlled foreign
corporations, or CFCs, and many of these related firms are wholly owned.) Taxes on income that
is repatriated (or, less commonly, earned by branches and taxed currently) are allowed a credit for
35
Nicholas Shaxson, Treasure Islands: Uncovering the Damage of Offshore Bankers and Tax Havens, Palgrave
MacMillan, New York, 2011.
36
Anthony van Fossen, Tax Havens and Sovereignty in the Pacific Islands, St. Lucia, Queensland, Australia,
University of Queensland Press, 2012.
37
See http://www.oecd.org/document/60/0,3343,en_2649_34897_1942460_1_1_1_1,00.html.
38
For tax rates see http://www.worldwide-tax.com/index.asp#partthree.
39
Tax Justice Network, Tax Us if You Can, September, 2005.
40
Ronen Palan, Richard Murphy, and Christian Chavagneux, Tax Havens: How Globalization Really Works, Ithaca,
Cornell University Press, 2012.

foreign income taxes paid. (A part of a parent company treated as a branch is not a separate entity
for tax purposes, and all income is part of the parents income.)
Foreign tax credits are limited to the amount of tax imposed by the United States, so that they, in
theory, cannot offset taxes on domestic income. This limit is imposed on an overall basis,
allowing excess credits in high-tax countries to offset U.S. tax liability on income earned in low-
tax countries, although separate limits apply to passive and active income. Other countries either
employ this system of deferral and credit or, more commonly, exempt income earned in foreign
jurisdictions. Most countries have some form of anti-abuse rules similar to Subpart F.
If a firm can shift profits to a low-tax jurisdiction from a high-tax one, its taxes will be reduced
without affecting other aspects of the company. Tax differences also affect real economic activity,
which in turn affects revenues, but it is this artificial shifting of profits that is the focus of this
report.41
Because the United States taxes all income earned in its borders as well as imposing a residual tax
on income earned abroad by U.S. persons, tax avoidance relates both to U.S. parent companies
shifting profits abroad to low-tax jurisdictions and the shifting of profits out of the United States
by foreign parents of U.S. subsidiaries. In the case of U.S. multinationals, one study suggested
that about half the difference between profitability in low-tax and high-tax countries, which could
arise from artificial income shifting, was due to transfers of intellectual property (or intangibles)
and most of the rest through the allocation of debt.42 However, a study examining import and
export prices suggests a very large effect of transfer pricing in goods (as discussed below).43
Some evidence of the importance of intellectual property can also be found from the types of
firms that repatriated profits abroad following a temporary tax reduction enacted in 2004; one-
third of the repatriations were in the pharmaceutical and medicine industry and almost 20% in the
computer and electronic equipment industry.44
Allocation of Debt and Earnings Stripping

One method of shifting profits from a high-tax jurisdiction to a low-tax one is to borrow more in
the high-tax jurisdiction and less in the low-tax one. This shifting of debt can be achieved without
changing the overall debt exposure of the firm. A more specific practice is referred to as earnings
stripping, where either debt is associated with related firms or unrelated debt is not subject to tax
by the recipient. As an example of the former earnings stripping method, a foreign parent may
lend to its U.S. subsidiary. Alternatively, an unrelated foreign borrower not subject to tax on U.S.
interest income might lend to a U.S. firm.
The U.S. tax code currently contains provisions to address interest deductions and earnings
stripping. It applies an allocation of the U.S. parents interest for purposes of the limit on the
41
Effects on economic activity are addressed in CRS Report RL34115, Reform of U.S. International Taxation:
Alternatives, by Jane G. Gravelle.
42
Harry Grubert, Intangible Income, Intercompany Transactions, Income Shifting and the Choice of Locations,
National Tax Journal, vol. 56, March 2003, Part II, pp. 221-242.
43
Simon J. Pak and John S. Zdanowicz, U.S. Trade With the World, An Estimate of 2001 Lost U.S. Federal Income Tax
Revenues Due to Over-Invoiced Imports and Under-Invoiced Exports, October 31, 2002.
44
CRS Report R40178, Tax Cuts on Repatriation Earnings as Economic Stimulus: An Economic Analysis, by Donald J.
Marples and Jane G. Gravelle.

foreign tax credit. The amount of foreign source income is reduced when part of U.S. interest is
allocated and the maximum amount of foreign tax credits taken is limited, a provision that affects
firms with excess foreign tax credits.45 There is no allocation rule, however, to address deferral,
so that a U.S. parent could operate its subsidiary with all equity finance in a low-tax jurisdiction
and take all of the interest on the overall firms debt as a deduction. A bill introduced in 2007
(H.R. 3970) by Chairman Rangel of the Ways and Means Committee would introduce such an
allocation rule, so that a portion of interest and other overhead costs would not be deducted until
the income is repatriated.46 This provision is also included in President Obamas proposals for
international tax revision and in some congressional proposals.
While allocation-of-interest approaches could be used to address allocation of interest to high-tax

countries in the case of U.S. multinationals, they cannot be applied to U.S. subsidiaries of foreign
corporations. To limit the scope of earnings stripping in either case, the United States has thin
capitalization rules. (Most of the United States major trading partners have similar rules.) A
section of the Internal Revenue Code (163(j)) applies to a corporation with a debt-to-equity ratio
above 1.5 to 1 and with net interest exceeding 50% of adjusted taxable income (generally taxable
income plus interest plus depreciation). Interest in excess of the 50% limit paid to a related
corporation is not deductible if the corporation is not subject to U.S. income tax. This interest
restriction also applies to interest paid to unrelated parties that are not taxed to the recipient.
The possibility of earnings stripping received more attention after a number of U.S. firms
inverted, that is, arranged to move their parent firm abroad so that U.S. operations became a
subsidiary of that parent. The American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 (AJCA; P.L. 108-357)
addressed the general problem of inversion by treating firms that subsequently inverted as U.S.
firms. During consideration of this legislation there were also proposals for broader earnings
stripping restrictions as an approach to this problem that would have reduced the excess interest
deductions. This general earnings stripping proposal was not adopted. However, the AJCA
mandated a Treasury Department study on this and other issues; that study focused on U.S.
subsidiaries of foreign parents and was not able to find clear evidence on the magnitude.47
Noted in the Treasurys mandated study, there is relatively straightforward evidence that U.S.
multinationals allocate more interest to high-tax jurisdictions, but it is more difficult to assess
earnings stripping by foreign parents of U.S. subsidiaries, because the entire firms accounts are
not available. The Treasury study focused on this issue and used an approach that had been used
in the past of comparing these subsidiaries to U.S. firms. The study was not able to provide
conclusive evidence about the shifting of profits out of the United States due to high leverage
rates for U.S. subsidiaries of foreign firms but did find evidence of shifting for inverted firms.
Inversions have recently become an issue. Although some firms inverted following the 2004
legislation based on an activity exception, that approach was limited by regulation. In 2014, a
number of U.S. firms inverted, or considered inversion, by merging with a smaller foreign firm.
The President has proposed tighter restrictions on these inversions, and two bills regarding this
45
In 2004 the interest allocation rules were changed to allocate worldwide interest, but the implementation of that
provision was delayed and has not yet taken place. See CRS Report RL34494, The Foreign Tax Credits Interest
Allocation Rules, by Jane G. Gravelle and Donald J. Marples.
46
See CRS Report RL34249, The Tax Reduction and Reform Act of 2007: An Overview, by Jane G. Gravelle.
47
U.S. Department of Treasury, Report to Congress on Earnings Stripping, Transfer Pricing and U.S. Income Tax
Treaties, November 2007.

matter, H.R. 4679 and S. 2360, were introduced in the 113th Congress. Regulatory changes to
limit some of the benefits have been made.48
Transfer Pricing
The second major way that firms can shift profits from high-tax to low-tax jurisdictions is
through the pricing of goods and services sold between affiliates. To properly reflect income,
prices of goods and services sold by related companies should be the same as the prices that
would be paid by unrelated parties. By lowering the price of goods and services sold by parents
and affiliates in high-tax jurisdictions and raising the price of purchases, income can be shifted.
An important and growing issue of transfer pricing is with the transfers to rights to intellectual
property, or intangibles. If a patent developed in the United States is licensed to an affiliate in a
low-tax country income will be shifted if the royalty or other payment is lower than the true value
of the license. For many goods there are similar products sold or other methods (such as cost plus
a markup) that can be used to determine whether prices are set appropriately. Intangibles, such as
new inventions or new drugs, tend not to have comparables, and it is very difficult to know the
royalty that would be paid in an arms-length price. Therefore, intangibles represent particular
problems for policing transfer pricing.
Investment in intangibles is favorably treated in the United States because costs, other than
capital equipment and buildings, are expensed for research and development, which is also
eligible for a tax credit. In addition, advertising to establish brand names is also deductible.
Overall these treatments tend to produce an effective low, zero, or negative tax rate for overall
investment in intangibles. Thus, there are significant incentives to make these investments in the
United States. On average, the benefit of tax deductions or credits when making the investment
tend to offset the future taxes on the return to the investment. However, for those investments that
tend to be successful, it is advantageous to shift profits to a low-tax jurisdiction, so that there are
tax savings on investment and little or no tax on returns. As a result, these investments can be
subject to negative tax rates, or subsidies, which can be significant.
Transfer pricing rules with respect to intellectual property are further complicated because of cost
sharing agreements, where different affiliates contribute to the cost.49 If an intangible is already
partially developed by the parent firm, affiliates contribute a buy-in payment. It is very difficult to
determine arms-length pricing in these cases where a technology is partially developed and there
is risk associated with the expected outcome. One study found some evidence that firms with cost
sharing arrangements were more likely to engage in profit shifting.50
One problem with shifting profits to some tax haven jurisdictions is that, if real activity is
necessary to produce the intangible these countries may not have labor and other resources to
48
See CRS Report R43568, Corporate Expatriation, Inversions, and Mergers: Tax Issues, by Donald J. Marples and
Jane G. Gravelle for a discussion.
49
The Treasury Department issued new proposed regulations relating to cost sharing arrangements. See Treasury
Decision 9441, Federal Register, vol. 74, No. 2, January 5, 2009, pp. 340-39, http://www.transferpricing.com/pdf/
TD_9441.pdf. These rules include a periodic adjustment which would, among other aspects, examine outcomes. See
Cost Sharing Periodic Payments Not Automatic, Officials Say, Tax Notes, February 23, 2009, p. 955.
50
Michael McDonald, Income Shifting from Transfer Pricing: Further Evidence from Tax Return Data, U.S.
Department of the Treasury, Office of Tax Analysis, OTA Technical Working Paper 2, July 2008.

undertake the activity. However, firms have developed techniques to take advantage of tax laws in
other countries to achieve both a productive operation while shifting profits to no-tax
jurisdictions. An example is the double Irish, Dutch sandwich method that has been used by some
U.S. firms, including, as exposed in news articles, Google.51 In this arrangement, the U.S. firm
transfers its intangible asset to an Irish holding company. This company has a subsidiary sales
company that sells advertising (the source of Googles revenues) to Europe. However,
sandwiched between the Irish holding company and the Irish sales subsidiary is a Dutch
subsidiary, which collects royalties from the sales subsidiary and transfers them to the Irish
holding company. The Irish holding company claims company management (and tax home) in
Bermuda, with a 0% tax rate, for purposes of the corporate income tax. This strategy allows the
Irish operation to avoid even the low Irish tax of 12.5% and, by using the Dutch sandwich, to
avoid Irish withholding taxes (which are not due on payments to European Union companies).
More recently, European countries have complained about companies such as Google, Apple,
Amazon, Facebook, and Starbucks using this strategy in some cases.
Ireland has indicated it will be ending the rule that allows a firm to be incorporated in Ireland but
have its tax home elsewhere, although the country will retain its low 12.5% corporate tax rate and
is considering a lower rate for earnings from technology.52 Profits can also be shifted directly to a
tax haven, as in the case of Yahoo, where the Dutch intermediary can transfer profits directly to
the tax haven (in this case, the Cayman islands) because it does not collect a withholding tax, as
would be the case with France or Ireland.53
Contract Manufacturing
When a subsidiary is set up in a low-tax country and profit shifting occurs, as in the acquisition of
rights to an intangible, a further problem occurs: this low-tax country may not be a desirable
place to actually manufacture and sell the product. For example, an Irish subsidiarys market may
be in Germany and it would be desirable to manufacture in Germany. But to earn profits in
Germany with its higher tax rate does not minimize taxes. Instead the Irish firm may contract
with a German firm as a contract manufacturer, who will produce the item for cost plus a fixed
markup. Subpart F taxes on a current basis certain profits from sales income, so the arrangement
must be structured to qualify as an exception from this rule. There are complex and changing
regulations on this issue.54
51
Jesse Drucker, Google 2.4% Rate Shows How $60 Billion Lost to Tax Loopholes, Bloomberg, October 21, 2010,
posted at http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-21/google-2-4-rate-shows-how-60-billion-u-s-revenue-lost-to-tax-
loopholes.html, and Yahoo, Dell Swell Netherlands $13 Trillion Tax Haven, Bloomberg, January 23, 2013, posted at
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-23/yahoo-dell-swell-netherlands-13-trillion-tax-haven.html.
52
Editorial Board, Ireland, Still Addicted to Tax Breaks, New York Times, October 20, 2014,
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/20/opinion/ireland-still-addicted-to-tax-breaks.html?_r=0.
53
Szu Ping Chang, Facebook Hid 440m in Cayman Islands Tax Haven, The Telegraph, December 23, 2012, at
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/9763615/Facebook-hid-440m-in-Cayman-Islands-
tax-haven.html; Lori Hinnant, Europe Takes On Tech Giants And Tax Havens, Associated Press, at
http://www.manufacturing.net/news/2012/12/europe-takes-on-tech-giants-and-tax-havens.
54
See for example William W. Chip, Manufacturing Foreign Base Company Sales Income, Tax Notes, November
19, 2007, p. 803-808.

Check-the-Box, Hybrid Entities, and Hybrid Instruments

Another technique for shifting profit to low-tax jurisdictions was greatly expanded with the
check-the-box provisions. These provisions were originally intended to simplify questions of
whether a firm was a corporation or a partnership. Their application to foreign circumstances
through the disregarded entity rules has led to the expansion of hybrid entities, where an entity
can be recognized as a corporation by one jurisdiction but not by another. For example, a U.S.
parents subsidiary in a low-tax country can lend to its subsidiary in a high-tax country, with the
interest deductible because the high-tax country recognizes the firm as a separate corporation.
Normally, interest received by the subsidiary in the low-tax country would be considered passive
or tainted income subject to current U.S. tax under Subpart F. However, under check-the-box
rules, the high-tax corporation can elect to be disregarded as a separate entity. Thus, from the
perspective of the United States, there would be no interest income paid because the two are the
same entity. Check-the-box and similar hybrid entity operations also can be used to avoid other
types of Subpart F income, for example from contract manufacturing arrangements. According to
David R. Sicular, this provision, which began as a regulation, has been, albeit temporarily,
codified (called the look-through rules).55 The look-through rules expand the scope of check-the-
box to more related parties and circumstances. They began as temporary provisions but have been
extended numerous times. Currently, they expired at the end of 2014.
Hybrid entities relate to issues other than Subpart F. For example, a reverse hybrid entity formerly
could be used to allow U.S. corporations to benefit from the foreign tax credit without having to
recognize the underlying income. As an example, a U.S. parent could have set up a holding
company in a county that was treated as a disregarded entity, and the holding company could
have owned a corporation that was treated as a partnership in another foreign jurisdiction. Under
flow-through rules, the holding company was liable for the foreign tax and, because it was not a
separate entity, the U.S. parent corporation was therefore liable, but the income could have been
retained in the foreign corporation that was viewed as a separate corporate entity from the U.S.
point of view. In this case, the entity was structured so that it was a partnership for foreign
purposes but a corporation for U.S. purposes.56 Provisions in P.L. 111-226 eliminated this
practice.
In addition to hybrid entities that achieve tax benefits by being treated differently in the United
States and the foreign jurisdiction, there are also hybrid instruments that can avoid taxation by
being treated as debt in one jurisdiction and equity in another.57
55
See David R. Sicular, The New Look-Through Rule: W(h)ither Subpart F? Tax Notes, April 23, 2007, pp. 349-378
for a discussion of the look-through rules under Section 954(c)(6).
56
For a discussion of reverse hybrids see Joseph M. Calianno and J. Michael Cornett, Guardian Revision: Proposed
Regulations Attach Guardian and Reverse Hybrids, Tax Notes International, October 2006, pp. 305-316.
57
See Sean Foley, U.S. Outbound: Cross border Hybrid Instrument Transactions to gain Increased Scrutiny During
IRS Audit, http://www.internationaltaxreview.com/?Page=10&PUBID=35&ISS=24101&SID=692834&TYPE=20.
Andrei Kraymal, International Hybrid Instruments: Jurisdiction Dependent Characterization, Houston Business and Tax
Law Journal, 2005, http://www.hbtlj.org/v05/v05Krahmalar.pdf.

Cross Crediting and Sourcing Rules for Foreign Tax Credits

Income from a low-tax country that is received in the United States can escape taxes because of
cross crediting: the use of excess foreign taxes paid in one jurisdiction or on one type of income
to offset U.S. tax that would be due on other income. In some periods in the past the foreign tax
credit limit was proposed on a country-by-country basis, although that rule proved to be difficult
to enforce given the potential to use holding companies. Foreign tax credits have subsequently
been separated into different baskets to limit cross crediting; these baskets were reduced from
nine to two (active and passive) in the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004.
Because firms can choose when to repatriate income, they can arrange realizations to maximize
the benefits of the overall limit on the foreign tax credit. That is, firms that have income from
jurisdictions with taxes in excess of U.S. taxes can also elect to realize income from jurisdictions
with low taxes and use the excess credits to offset U.S. tax due on that income. Studies suggest
that between cross crediting and deferral, U.S. multinationals typically pay virtually no U.S. tax
on foreign source income.58
This ability to reduce U.S. tax due to cross crediting is increased, it can be argued, because
income that should be considered U.S. source income is treated as foreign source income, thereby
raising the foreign tax credit limit. This includes income from U.S. exports which is U.S. source
income, because a tax provision (referred to as the title passage rule) allows half of export income
to be allocated to the country in which the title passes. Another important type of income that is
considered foreign source and thus can be shielded with foreign tax credits is royalty income
from active business, which has become an increasingly important source of foreign income. This
benefit can occur in high-tax countries because royalties are generally deductible from income.
(Note that the shifting of income due to transfer pricing of intangibles, advantageous in low-tax
countries, is a different issue.) Interest income is another type of income that may benefit from
this foreign tax credit rule.
Since all of this income arises from investment in the United States, one could argue that this
income is appropriately U.S. source income, or that, failing that, it should be put in a different
foreign tax credit basket so that excess credits generated by dividends cannot be used to offset
such income. Two studies, by Harry Grubert and by Grubert and Rosanne Altshuler, have
discussed this sourcing rule in the context of a proposal to eliminate the tax on active dividends.59
In that proposal, the revenue loss from exempting active dividends from U.S. tax would be offset
by gains from taxes on royalties.
In addition to these general policy issues, there are numerous other, narrower techniques that
might be used to enhance foreign tax credits; several of these were the focus of legislation in H.R.
58
Government Accountability Office, U.S. Multinational Corporations: Effective Tax Rates are Correlated With Where
Income is Reported, GAO-08-950, August 2008. Melissa Costa and Jennifer Gravelle, Taxing Multinational
Corporations: Average Tax Rates, Tax Law Review, vol. 65, no. 3, spring 2012, pp. 391-414; Jennifer Gravelle, Who
Will Benefit from a Territorial Tax, Presented at the 105th Conference of the National Tax Association, 2012.
59
Harry Grubert, Tax Credits, Source Rules, Trade and electronic Commerce: Behavioral Margins and the Design of
International Tax Systems. Tax Law Review, vol. 58, January 2005; also issued as a CESIFO Working Paper no. 1366,
December 2004; Harry Grubert and Rosanne Altshuler, Corporate Taxes in a World Economy: Reforming the
Taxation of Cross-Border Income, in John W. Diamond and George Zodrow, eds., Fundamental Tax Reform: Issues,
Choices and Implications, Cambridge, MIT Press, 2008.

4213, the American Jobs and Loophole Closing Act, with most provisions enacted in P.L. 111-
226.
The Magnitude of Corporate Profit Shifting

This section examines the evidence on the existence and magnitude of profit shifting and the
techniques that are most likely to contribute to it.
Evidence on the Scope of Profit Shifting

There is ample, and simple, evidence that profits appear in countries inconsistent with an
economic motivation. This section first examines the profit share of income of controlled
corporations compared to the share of gross domestic product and how it has changed recently.60
The first set of countries, acting as a reference point, includes the remaining G-7 countries that
are also among the United States major trading partners. These countries account for 12% of
pretax profits and 21% of rest-of-world gross domestic product. The second group of countries
includes larger countries from Table 1 (with gross domestic product [GDP] of at least $15
billion), plus the Netherlands, which is widely considered a tax conduit for U.S. multinationals
because of its holding company rules. These countries account for about 40% of earnings and 4%
of rest-of-world GDP. The third group of countries includes smaller countries listed in Table 1,
with GDP less than $10 billion. These countries account for 18% of earnings and less than one-
tenth of 1% of rest-of-world GDP.61
As indicated in Table 2, income-to-GDP ratios in the large G-7 countries in 2010 ranged from
0.2% to 3.3%, the larger amounts reflecting in part the United States relationships with some of
its closest trading partners. Overall, this income as a share of GDP is 0.7%. Outside the UK and
Canada, this income as a share of GDP is around 0.3% to 0.6% and does not vary with country
size (Japan, for example, has over twice the GDP of Italy). Canada and the UK also have
appeared on some tax haven lists, and the larger income shares could partially reflect that fact.62
There has been relatively little change in the aggregate between 2004 and 2010 (the latest year
IRS data on earnings of multinational firms are available).
60
Data on earnings and profits of controlled foreign corporations are taken from Lee Mahoney and Randy Miller,
Controlled Foreign Corporations 2004, Internal Revenue Service Statistics of Income Bulletin, Summer 2008,
http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/04coconfor.pdf. Data on gross domestic product (GDP) from Central Intelligence
Agency, The World Factbook, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook.Data for profits for 2008
and 2010 multinational earnings from U.S. Statistics of Income, U.S. Corporations and Their Controlled Foreign
Corporations, http://www.irs.gov/uac/SOI-Tax-Stats-Controlled-Foreign-Corporations. Data on GDP from Central
Intelligence Agency, The World Factbook, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook. Most GDP
data to compare with the 2004 earnings is from 2008 and based on the exchange rate, but for some countries only
earlier years and data based on purchasing power parity were available. GDP data to compare with 2010 earnings were
from 2013 data. These data are those posted on the website at the time the ratios were calculated. Because GDP data
are from somewhat later years, the ratios may be slightly understated.
61
These ratios changed between 2004 and 2010. For 2004, the remaining G-7 countries accounted for 38% of rest-of-
world GDP and 32% of earnings, the countries in Table 3 accounted for 5% of rest-of-world GDP and 30% of
earnings, and the countries in Table 4 accounted for less than 1% of rest-of-world GDP and 14% of earnings.
62
One offshore website points out that Canada can be desirable as a place to establish a holding company; see Shelter
Offshore, http://www.shelteroffshore.com/index.php/offshore/more/canada_offshore.

Table 2. U.S. Company Foreign Profits Relative to Gross Domestic

Product (GDP), G-7
Profits of U.S. Controlled Profits of U.S. Controlled
Foreign Corporations as a Foreign Corporations as a
Country Percentage of GDP, 2004 Percentage of GDP, 2010
Canada 2.6 3.3

France 0.3 0.6
Germany 0.2 0.4
Italy 0.2 0.3
Japan 0.3 0.4
United Kingdom 1.3 2.1
Weighted Average 0.6 0.7
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) calculations, see text.
Table 3 reports the share for the larger tax havens listed in Table 1 for which data are available,
plus the Netherlands. In general, U.S. source profits as a percentage of GDP are considerably
larger than those in Table 2. In the case of Luxembourg, these profits were 18% of output in 2004
and 127% in 2010. Shares are also very large in Ireland and the Netherlands (42% and 17%,
respectively), where they have both grown substantially. Shares in Switzerland and Cyprus have
also grown. In most cases, the shares are well in excess of those in Table 2.
Table 3. U.S. Foreign Company Profits Relative to GDP, Larger Countries

(GDP at Least $15 billion) on Tax Haven Lists and the Netherlands
Corporations as a Percentage of Corporations as a Percentage of
Country GDP, 2004 GDP, 2010
Costa Rica 1.2

Cyprus 9.8 13.6
Hong Kong 2.8 2.6
Ireland 7.6 41.9
Luxembourg 18.2 127.0
Netherlands 4.6 17.1
Panama 3.0 0.1
Singapore 3.4 4.7
Switzerland 3.5 12.3
Source: CRS calculations, see text.

Note: Dashes indicate data not available. Profits data for Costa Rica, which were listed separately in the 2008
tax data indicate a 1.2% share.
Table 4 examines the small tax havens listed in Table 1 for which data are available. In Bermuda,
the British Virgin Islands, and the Cayman Islands profits are multiples of total GDP and in all
cases have grown substantially. Profits are well in excess of GDP in four jurisdictions for 2004
(the three above plus the Marshall Islands), although data for the Marshall Islands are not

available for 2010. In other jurisdictions in Table 4, profits are a large share of output. These
numbers clearly indicate that the profits in these countries do not appear to derive from economic
motives related to productive inputs or markets but rather reflect income easily transferred to low-
tax jurisdictions.
Table 4. U.S. Foreign Company Profits Relative to GDP,

Small Countries on Tax Haven Lists
Corporations as a Percentage of Corporations as a Percentage of
Country GDP, 2004 GDP, 2010
Bahamas 43.3 70.8

Barbados 13.2 5.7
Bermuda 645.7 1614.0
British Virgin Islands 354.7 1803.7
Cayman Islands 546.7 2065.5
Guernsey 11.2
Jersey 35.3
Liberia 61.1
Malta 0.5
Marshall Islands 339.8
Mauritius 4.2
Netherland Antilles 8.9 -
Source: CRS calculations, see text.

Notes: Dashes indicate data not available. Using 2008 earnings shares were 23.6% in Guernsey, 21.8% in Jersey,
31.0% in Liberia, 1.1% in Malta, and 6.6% in Mauritius. Based on the combined GDP in Curacao and St. Maartin,
the share for the Netherland Antilles grew to 24%.
These data suggest not only a significant amount of profit shifting but also a notable change. The
share of pretax profits reported by controlled foreign corporations in countries identified as tax
havens in Table 1 plus the Netherlands and reported in both years increased from 44% in 2004 to
59% in 2010, an increase of one-third.
Evidence of profit shifting has been presented in many other studies. Grubert and Altshuler report
that profits of controlled foreign corporations in manufacturing relative to sales in Ireland are
three times the group mean.63 GAO reported higher shares of pretax profits of U.S. multinationals
than of value added, tangible assets, sales, compensation, or employees in low-tax countries such
as Bermuda, Ireland, the UK Caribbean, Singapore, and Switzerland.64 Costa and Gravelle
63
Harry Grubert and Rosanne Altshuler, Corporate Taxes in a World Economy: Reforming the Taxation of Cross-
Border Income, in John W. Diamond and George Zodrow, eds., Fundamental Tax Reform: Issues, Choices and
Implications, Cambridge, MIT Press, 2008.
64
Income is Reported, GAO-08-950, August 2008.

reported similar results for tax havens using subsequent data.65 Martin Sullivan reports the return
on assets for 1998 averaged 8.4% for U.S. manufacturing subsidiaries, but with returns of 23.8%
in Ireland, 17.9% in Switzerland, and 16.6% in the Cayman Islands.66 More recently, he noted
that of the 10 countries that accounted for the most foreign multinational profits, the 5 countries
with the highest manufacturing returns for 2004 (the Netherlands, Bermuda, Ireland, Switzerland,
and China) all had effective tax rates below 12% while the 5 countries with lower returns
(Canada, Japan, Mexico, Australia, and the United Kingdom) had effective tax rates in excess of
23%.67 A number of econometric studies of this issue have been done.68
Estimates of the Cost and Sources of Corporate Tax Avoidance

There are no official estimates of the cost of international corporate tax avoidance, although a
number of researchers have made estimates, nor are there official estimates of the individual tax
gap.69 In general, the estimates are not reflected in the overall tax gap estimate. The magnitude of
corporate tax avoidance has been estimated through a variety of techniques and not all are for
total avoidance. Some address only avoidance by U.S. multinationals and not by foreign parents
of U.S. subsidiaries. Some focus only on a particular source of avoidance.70
Estimates of the potential revenue cost of income shifting by multinational corporations vary
considerably, with some estimates in excess of $100 billion annually. The only study by the IRS
in this area is an estimate of the international gross tax gap (not accounting for increased taxes
collected on audit) related to transfer pricing based on audits of returns. They estimated a cost of
about $3 billion, based on examinations of tax returns for 1996-1998.71 This estimate would
reflect an estimate not of legal avoidance, but of non-compliance, and for reasons stressed in the
study has a number of limitations. One of those is that an audit does not detect all non-
compliance, and it would not detect avoidance mechanisms which are, or appear to be, legal.
65
Melissa Costa and Jennifer Gravelle, U.S. Multinationals Business Activity: Effective Tax Rate and Location
Decisions, National Tax Association Proceedings from the 103rd Annual Conference, 2010; http://www.ntanet.org/
images/stories/pdf/proceedings/10/13.pdf.
66
Martin Sullivan, U.S. Citizens Hide Hundreds of Billions in the Caymans, Tax Notes, May 24, 2004, p. 96.
67
Martin Sullivan, Extraordinary Profitability in Low-Tax Countries, Tax Notes, August 25, 2008, pp. 724-727. Note that
the effective tax rates for some countries differ considerably depending on the source of data; the Netherlands would be
classified as a low tax country based on data controlled foreign corporations but high tax based on BEA data. See
Income is Reported, GAO-08-950, August 2008.
68
See James R. Hines, Jr., Lessons from Behavioral Responses to International Taxation, National Tax Journal, vol.
52 (June 1999): 305-322, and Joint Committee on Taxation, Economic Efficiency and Structural Analyses of
Alternative U.S. Tax Policies for Foreign Direct Investment, JCX-55-08, June 25, 2008, for reviews. Studies are also
discussed in U.S. Department of Treasury, The Deferral of Income of Earned Through Controlled Foreign
Corporation, May, 2000, http://www.treas.gov/offices/tax-policy/library/subpartf.pdf.
69
This point is made by The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, A Combination of Legislative
Actions and Increased IRS Capability and Capacity are Required to Reduce the Multi-billion Dollar U.S. International
Tax Gap, January 27 2009, 2009-I-R001.
70
This discussion focuses on the consequences for U.S. revenues, but profit shifting also affects revenues in other
countries. For a review of the literature and issues, see International Monetary Fund, Spillovers in International
Corporate Taxation, May 9. 2014, http://www.imf.org/external/np/pp/eng/2014/050914.pdf.
71
U.S. Department of the Treasury, IRS, Report on the Application and Administration of Section 482, 1999.

Some idea of the potential magnitude of the revenue lost from profit shifting by U.S.
multinationals might be found in the estimates of the revenue gain from eliminating deferral. If
most of the profit in low-tax countries has been shifted there to avoid U.S. tax rates, the projected
revenue gain from ending deferral would provide an idea of the general magnitude of the revenue
cost of profit shifting by U.S. parent firms. The Joint Committee on Taxation projected the
revenue loss from deferral to be $83.5 billion in FY2014.72 The Administrations estimates for
ending deferral were smaller at $63.4 billion.73 These estimates could be either an overstatement
or an understatement of the cost of tax avoidance. They could be overstated because some of the
profits abroad accrue to real investments in countries that have lower tax rates than the United
States and thus do not reflect artificial shifting. They could be an understatement because they do
not reflect the tax that could be collected by the United States rather than foreign jurisdictions on
profits shifted to low-tax countries. For example, Ireland has a tax rate of 12.5% and the United
States has a 35% rate, so ending deferral (absent behavioral changes) would only collect the
excess of the U.S. tax over the Irish tax on shifted revenues, or about two-thirds of lost revenue.
Altshuler and Grubert estimated for 2002 that the corporate tax could be cut to 28% if deferral
were ended, and based on corporate revenue in that year the gain was about $11 billion.74 That
year was at a low point because of the recession; if the share had remained the same, the gain
would have been around $26 billion for FY2014.75 The projection of the effects of deferral in tax
expenditures has increased much faster than revenues, however.
Researchers have looked at differences in pretax returns and estimated the revenue gain if returns
were equated. This approach should provide some estimates of the magnitude of overall profit
shifting for multinationals, whether through transfer pricing, leveraging, or some other technique.
Martin Sullivan, using Commerce Department data, estimates that, based on differences in pretax
returns, the cost for 2004 was between $10 billion and $20 billion. Sullivan subsequently reports
an estimated $17 billion increase in revenue loss from profit shifting between 1999 and 2004,
which suggests that earlier number may be too small.76 Sullivan suggests that the growth in profit
shifting may be due to check-the-box. Sullivan subsequently estimated a $28 billion loss for 2007
which he characterized as conservative.77 Charles Christian and Thomas Schultz, using rate of
72
Joint Committee on Taxation, Estimates of Federal Tax Expenditures for 2014-2018, October 31, 2008, JCX-97-14,
August 5, 2014, https://www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&id=4663.
73
Budget for FY2015, Analytical Perspectives, p. 210. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/
fy2015/assets/spec.pdf.
74
Harry Grubert and Rosanne Altshuler, Corporate Taxes in the World Economy, in Fundamental Tax Reform:
Issues, Choices, and Implications ed. John W. Diamond and George R. Zodrow, Cambridge, MIT Press, 2008.
75
For historical and projected revenues, see Congressional Budget Office, http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010,
2014.
76
Shifting Profits Offshore Costs U.S. Treasury $10 Billion or More, Tax Notes, September 27, 2004, pp. 1477-1481;
U.S. Multinationals Shifting Profits Out of the United States, Tax Notes, March 10, 2008, pp. 1078-1082. $75 billion
in profits is artificially shifted abroad. If all of that income were subject to U.S. tax, it would result in a gain of $26
billion for 2004. Sullivan acknowledges that there are many difficulties in determining the revenue gain. Some of this
income might already be taxed under Subpart F, some might be absorbed by excess foreign tax credits, and the
effective tax rate may be lower than the statutory rate. Sullivan concludes that an estimate of between $10 billion and
$20 billion is appropriate. Altshuler and Grubert suggest that Sullivans methodology may involve some double
counting; however, their own analysis finds that multinationals saved $7 billion more between 1997 and 2002 due to
check-the-box rules. Some of this gain may have been at the cost of high-tax host countries rather than the United
States, however. See Rosanne Altshuler and Harry Grubert, Governments and Multinational Corporations in the Race
to the Bottom, Tax Notes International, February 2006, pp. 459-474.
77
Martin Sullivan, Transfer Pricing Costs U.S. At Least $28 Billion, Tax Notes, March 22, 2010, pp. 1439-1443.

return on assets data from tax returns, estimated $87 billion was shifted in 2001, which, at a 35%
tax rate, would imply a revenue loss of about $30 billion.78 Adjusted proportionally to revenue,
that amount would be $70 billion in 2014. As a guide for potential revenue loss from avoidance,
these estimates suffer from two limits. The first is the inability to determine how much was
shifted out of high-tax foreign jurisdictions rather than the United States, which leads to a range
of estimates. At the same time, if capital is mobile, economic theory indicates that the returns
should be lower, the lower the tax rate. Thus the results could also understate the overall profit
shifting and the revenue loss to the United States.
Simon Pak and John Zdanowicz examined export and import prices, and estimated that lost
revenue due to transfer pricing of goods alone was $53 billion in 2001.79 This estimate should
cover both U.S. multinationals and U.S. subsidiaries of foreign parents, but is limited to one
technique. Kimberly Clausing, using regression techniques on cross-country data, which
estimated profits reported as a function of tax rates, estimated that revenues of over $60 billion
are lost for 2004 by applying a 35% tax rate to an estimated $180 billion in corporate profits
shifted out of the United States.80 She estimates that the profit-shifting effects are twice as large as
the effects from shifts in actual economic activity. This methodological approach differs from
others that involve direct calculations based on returns or prices and is subject to the econometric
limitations with cross-country panel regressions. In theory, however, it had an overall of coverage
of shifting (that is both outbound by U.S. parents of foreign corporations and inbound by foreign
parents of U.S. corporations and covering all techniques).
Clausing and Reuven Avi-Yonah estimate the revenue gain from moving to a formula
apportionment based on sales that is on the order of $50 billion per year because the fraction of
worldwide income in the United States is smaller than the fraction of worldwide sales.81 While
this estimate is not an estimate of the loss from profit shifting (since sales and income could differ
for other reasons), it is suggestive of the magnitude of total effects from profit shifting. A similar
result was found by another study that applied formula apportionment based on an equal weight
of assets, payroll, and sales.82
A more recent study by Clausing indicated that the revenue loss from profit shifting may have
been as high as $90 billion in 2008, although an alternative data set indicates profit shifting of
$57 billion.83 For the last five years, the first method yielded losses ranging from 20% to 30% of
78
Charles W. Christian and Thomas D. Schultz, ROA-Based Estimates of Income Shifting by Multinational
Corporations, IRS Research Bulletin, 2005 http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/05christian.pdf.
79
Simon J. Pak and John S. Zdanowicz, U.S. Trade With the World, An Estimate of 2001 Lost U.S. Federal Income Tax
Revenues Due to Over-Invoiced Imports and Under-Invoiced Exports, October 31, 2002.
80
Kimberly Clausing, Multinational Firm Tax Avoidance and Tax Policy, National Tax Journal, vol. 62, December
2009, pp. 703-725, Working Paper, March 2008. Her method involved estimating the profit differentials as a function
of tax rate differentials over the period 1982-2004 and then applying that coefficient to current earnings.
81
Kimberly A. Clausing and Reuven S. Avi-Yonah, Reforming Corporate Taxation in a Global Economy: A Proposal
to Adopt Formulary Apportionment, Brookings Institution: The Hamilton Project, Discussion paper 2007-2008, June
2007.
82
Douglas Shackelford and Joel Slemrod, The Revenue Consequences of Using Formula apportionment to Calculate
U.S. and Foreign Source Income: A Firm Level Analysis, International Tax and Public Finance, vol. 5, no. 1, 1998,
pp. 41-57.
83
Kimberly A. Clausing, The Revenue Effects of Multinational Firm Income Shifting, Tax Notes, March 28, 2011,
pp. 1580-1586.

profits. Using the second method, the range was 13% to 20%. If rising proportional to revenue,
the 2014 level would be $66 billion to $104 billion.
Gabriel Zucman, using two different methodologies, found the revenue cost for profit shifting
could range from $55 billion to $133 billion for 2013.84 The lower number is from estimating the
share of profits booked in tax havens and not repatriated, which would be assumed to be taxed
fully if made subject to U.S. taxes. The second examines the decline in effective tax rate over
time, and the residual, after accounting for other factors (about two-thirds), is attributed to profit
shifting.
It is very difficult to develop a separate estimate for U.S. subsidiaries of foreign multinational
companies because there is no way to observe the parent firm and its other subsidiaries. Several
studies have documented that these firms have lower taxable income and that some have higher
debt to asset ratios than domestic firms. There are many other potential explanations these
differing characteristics, however, and domestic firms that are used as comparisons also have
incentives to shift profits when they have foreign operations. No quantitative estimate has been
made.85 However some evidence of earnings stripping for inverted firms was found.86
Importance of Different Profit Shifting Techniques

Some studies have attempted to identify the importance of techniques used for profit shifting.
Grubert has estimated that about half of income shifting was due to transfer pricing of intangibles
and most of the remainder to shifting of debt.87 In a subsequent study, Altshuler and Grubert find
that multinationals saved $7 billion more between 1997 and 2002 due to check-the-box rules.88
Some of this gain may have been at the cost of high-tax host countries rather than the United
States, however.
Some of the estimates discussed here conflict with respect to the source of profit shifting. The
Pak and Zdanowich estimates suggest that transfer pricing of goods is an important mechanism of
tax avoidance, whereas Grubert suggests that the main methods of profit shifting are due to
leverage and intangibles. The estimates for pricing of goods may, however, reflect errors, or
84
Perspectives, vol. 28, no. 4, Fall, 2014, pp, 121-148.
85
These studies are discussed and new research presented in U.S. Department of Treasury, Report to Congress on
Earnings Stripping, Transfer Pricing and U.S. Income Tax Treaties, November 2007. One study used a different
approach, examining taxes of firms before and after acquisition by foreign versus domestic acquirers, but the problem
of comparison remains and the sample was very small; that study found no differences. See Jennifer L. Blouin, Julie H.
Collins, and Douglas A. Shackelford, Does Acquisition by Non-U.S. Shareholders Cause U.S. firms to Pay Less
Tax? Journal of the American Taxation Association, Spring 2008, pp. 25-38. Harry Grubert, Debt and the Profitability
of Foreign Controlled Domestic Corporations in the United States, Office of Tax Analysis Technical Working Paper
No. 1, July 2008, http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/tax-policy/library/otapapers/otatech2008.shtml#2008.
86
In addition to the 2007 Treasury study cited above, see Jim A. Seida and William F. Wempe, Effective Tax Rate
Changes and Earnings Stripping Following Corporate Inversion, National Tax Journal, vol. 57, December 2007, pp.
805-828. They estimated $0.7 billion of revenue loss from four firms that inverted. Inverted firms may, however,
behave differently from foreign firms with U.S. subsidiaries.
87
Harry Grubert, Intangible Income, Intercompany Transactions, Income Shifting, and the Choice of Location,
National Tax Journal, Vo. 56,March 2003, Part 2.
88
Rosanne Altshuler and Harry Grubert, Governments and Multinational Corporations in the Race to the Bottom,
Tax Notes International, February 2006, pp. 459-474.

money laundering motives rather than tax motives. Much of the shifting was associated with trade
with high-tax countries; for example, Japan, Canada, and Germany accounted for 18% of the
total.89 At the same time, about 14% of the estimate reflected transactions with countries that
appear on tax haven lists: the Netherlands, Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, and Ireland.
A study by Jost Hekemeyer and Michael Overesch based on an analysis of 25 empirical studies
found that transfer pricing was considerably more important than debt, accounting for an
estimated 72% of the total, although their review covered studies on non-U.S. multinationals.90
The growing importance of firms holding substantial intangible assets may point to a growing
important of transfer pricing of intangibles. Hekemeyer and Overesch also found that reported
profits on average decrease by 0.8% with a one percentage point change in the tax differential
between two locations.
Some evidence that points to the importance of intangibles and the associated profits in tax haven
countries can be developed by examining the sources of dividends repatriated during the
repatriation holiday enacted in 2004.91 This provision allowed, for a temporary period,
dividends to be repatriated with an 85% deduction, leading to a tax rate of 5.25%. The
pharmaceutical and medicine industry accounted for $99 billion in repatriations or 32% of the
total. The computer and electronic equipment industry accounted for $58 billion or 18% of the
total. Thus these two industries, which are high tech firms, accounted for half of the repatriations.
The benefits were also highly concentrated in a few firms. According to a recent study, five firms
(Pfizer, Merck, Hewlett-Packard, Johnson & Johnson, and IBM) are responsible for $88 billion,
over a quarter (28%) of total repatriations.92 The top 10 firms (adding Schering-Plough, Du Pont,
Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, and PepsiCo) accounted for 42%. The top 15 (adding Procter and
Gamble, Intel, Coca-Cola, Altria, and Motorola) accounted for over half (52%). These are firms
that tend to, in most cases, have intangibles either in technology or brand names.
Finally, as shown in Table 5, which lists all countries accounting for at least 1% of the total of
eligible dividends (and accounting for 87% of the total), most of the dividends were repatriated
from countries that appear on tax haven lists.
89
Data are presented in Whos Watching our Back Door? Business Accents, Florida International University, Fall
2004, pp. 26-29.
90
Jost H. Heckemeyer and Michael Overesch, Multinationals Profit Response toTax Differentials: Effect Size and
Shifting Channels, Center for European Economic Research, Discussion Paper 13-045, 2013, http://ftp.zew.de/pub/
zew-docs/dp/dp13045.pdf.
91
Data are taken from Melissa Redmiles, The One-Time Dividends-Received Deduction, Internal Revenue Service
Statistics of Income Bulletin, spring 2008, http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/08codivdeductbul.pdf.
92
Rodney P. Mock and Andreas Simon, Permanently Reinvested Earnings: Priceless, Tax Notes, November 17,
2008, pp. 835-848.

Table 5. Source of Dividends from Repatriation Holiday:

Countries Accounting for At Least 1% of Dividends
Country Percentage of Total
Netherlands 28.8
Switzerland 10.4
Bermuda 10.2
Ireland 8.2
Luxembourg 7.5
Canada 5.9
Cayman Islands 5.9
United Kingdom 5.1
Hong Kong 1.7
Singapore 1.7
Malaysia 1.2
Source: Internal Revenue Service.
Methods of Avoidance and Evasion by Individuals

Individual evasion of taxes may take different forms, and they are all facilitated by the growing
international financial globalization and ease of making transactions on the Internet. Individuals
can purchase foreign investments directly (outside the United States), such as stocks and bonds,
or put money in foreign bank accounts and simply not report the income (although it is subject to
tax under U.S. tax law). There has been little or no withholding information on individual
taxpayers for this type of action. They could also use structures such as trusts or shell
corporations to evade tax on investments, including investments made in the United States, which
may take advantage of U.S. tax laws that exempt interest income and capital gains of non-
residents from U.S. tax. Rather than using withholding or information collection the United States
has largely relied in the past on the Qualified Intermediary (QI) program where beneficial owners
are not revealed. To the extent any information gathering from other countries is done it is
through bilateral information exchanges rather than multilateral information sharing. The
European Union had developed a multilateral agreement but the United States does not
participate.
New developments in information exchange may affect individual tax evasion both in the United
States and abroad. In 2010, Congress enacted the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA)
as part of the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act (HIRE; P.L. 111-147).93 FATCA
recently become effective and requires foreign financial institutions to report information on asset
holders or be subject to a 30% withholding rate. Its effectiveness is yet to be determined, although
revenue projections when enacted did not predict a significant effect.
93
See CRS Report R43444, Reporting Foreign Financial Assets Under Titles 26 and 31: FATCA and FBAR, by Erika
K. Lunder and Carol A. Pettit.

More recently, 51 other countries signed a multi-lateral information exchange agreement that set
reporting standards which should eventually lead to fuller exchange of tax information by most
countries.94
Tax Provisions Affecting the Treatment of Income by Individuals

The ability of U.S. persons (whether firms or individuals) to avoid tax on U.S. source income that
they would normally be subject to arises from U.S. rules that do not impose withholding taxes on
many sources of income. In general interest and capital gains are not subject to withholding.
Dividends, non-portfolio interest (such as interest payments by a U.S. subsidiary to its parent),
capital gains connected with a trade or business, and certain rents are subject to tax, although
treaty arrangements widely reduce or eliminate the tax on dividends. In addition, even when
dividends are potentially subject to a withholding tax, new techniques have developed to
transform, through derivatives, those assets into exempt interest.95
The elimination of tax on interest income was unilaterally initiated by the United States in 1984,
and other countries began to follow suit.96 Currently, fears of capital flight are likely to keep
countries from changing this treatment. However, it has been accompanied with a lack of
information reporting and lack of information sharing that allows U.S. citizens, who are liable for
these taxes, to avoid them whether on income invested abroad or income invested in the United
States channeled through shell corporations and trusts. Citizens of foreign countries can also
evade the tax, and the U.S. practice of not collecting information contributes to the problem.
Based on actual tax cases, Guttenberg and Avi-Yonah describe a typical way that U.S. individuals
can easily evade tax on domestic income through a Cayman Islands operation with little expense
using current technology. The individual, using the Internet, can open a bank account in the name
of a Cayman corporation that can be set up for a minimal fee. Money can be electronically
transferred without any reporting to tax authorities, and investments can be made in the United
States or abroad. Investments by non-residents in interest bearing assets and most capital gains
are not subject to a withholding tax in the United States.97
In addition to corporations, foreign trusts can be used to accomplish the same approach. Trusts
may involve a trust protector who is an intermediary between the grantor and the trustees, but
whose purpose may actually be to carry out the desires of the grantor. Some taxpayers argue that
these trusts are legal but in either case they can be used to protect income from taxes, including
those invested in the United States, from tax, while retaining control over and use of the funds.
94
OECD, Multilateral Competent Authority Agreement, October 29, 2014, http://www.oecd.org/tax/exchange-of-tax-
information/multilateral-competent-authority-agreement.htm.
95
See Joint Committee on Taxation Tax Compliance and Enforcement Issues With Respect to Offshore Entities and
Accounts, JCX-23-09, March 30, 2009, p. 6 for a discussion.
96
This history is described by Reuven Avi-Yonah in testimony before the Committee on Select Revenue Measures of
the Ways and Means Committee, March 5, 2008.
97
Joseph Guttentag and Reuven Avi-Yonah, Closing the International Tax Gap, in Max B. Sawicky, ed. Bridging the
Tax Gap: Addressing the Crisis in Federal Tax Administration, Washington, D.C., Economic Policy Institute, 2005.

Limited Information Reporting Between Jurisdictions

In the past, the international taxation of passive portfolio income by individuals has been easily
subject to evasion because there was no multilateral reporting of interest income. Even in those
cases in which bilateral information sharing treaties, referred to as Tax Information Exchange
Agreements (TIEAs) were in place, they had limits. As pointed out by Avi-Yonah, most of these
agreements are restricted to criminal matters, which are a minor part of the revenues involved and
pose difficult issues of evidence. Also, these agreements sometimes require that the activities
related to the information being sought constitute crimes in both countries, which can be a
substantial hurdle in cases of tax evasion. The OECD has adopted a model agreement with the
dual criminality requirements.98 TIEAs usually allow for information only upon request, requiring
the United States and other countries to identify the potential tax evaders in advance and they do
not override bank secrecy laws.
In some cases the countries themselves have little or no information of value. One article, for
example, discussing the possibility of an information exchange agreement with the British Virgin
Islands, a country with more than 400,000 registered corporations, where laws require no
identification of shareholders or directors, and require no financial records, noted: Even if the
BVI signs an information exchange agreement, it is not clear what information could be
exchanged.99
U.S. Collection of Information on U.S. Income and Qualified

Intermediaries
Under the QI program, the United States did not require U.S. financial institutions to identify the
true beneficiaries of interest and exempt dividends. The IRS set up a QI program in 2001, under
which foreign banks that received payments certify the nationality of their depositors and reveal
the identity of any U.S. citizens.100 However, although QIs are supposed to certify nationality,101
apparently some relied on self-certification.102 QIs are also subject to audit. However, UBS, the
Swiss bank involved in a tax abuse scandal that helped clients set up offshore plans, was a QI,
and that event raised some questions about the QI program.
A nonqualified intermediary must disclose the identity of its customers to obtain the exemption
for passive income such as interest and or the reduced rates arising from tax treaties, but there are
also questions about the accuracy of disclosures.
The FATCA provisions in P.L. 111-147 strengthened the rules affecting qualified intermediaries
identification of asset holders, with backup withholding provisions. The projected revenue gain
was quite small (less than $1 billion per year) relative to projected costs (discussed below).
98
Testimony of Reuven Avi-Yonah, Subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures, Ways and Means Committee, March
31, 2009.
99
Brown Pushes U.K. Tax havens On OECD Standards Tax Notes International, April 20, 2009, pp. 180-181.
100
A very clear and brief explanation of the origin of the QI program and of the requirements can be found in Martin
Sullivan, Proposals to Fight Offshore Tax Evasion, Tax Notes, April 20, 2009, pp. 264-268.
101
For additional discussion of the QI program, see Joint Committee on Taxation, Tax Compliance and Enforcement
Issues With Respect to Offshore Entities and Accounts, JCX-23-09, March 30, 2009.
102
Martin A. Sullivan, Proposals to Fight Offshore Tax Evasion, Tax Notes, April 20, 2009.

European Union Savings Directive

The European Union, in its savings directive, has developed among its members an option of
either information reporting or a withholding tax. The reporting or withholding option covers the
member countries as well as some other countries. Three states, Austria, Belgium, and
Luxembourg, have elected the withholding tax. While this multilateral agreement aids these
countries tax administration, the United States is not a participant.
Estimates of the Revenue Cost of Individual Tax

Evasion
A number of different approaches have been used to estimate corporate tax avoidance, however,
all of these approaches rely on data reported on assets and income. For individual evasion,
estimates are much more difficult because the initial basis of the estimate is the amount of assets
held abroad whose income is not reported to the tax authorities. In addition to this estimate, the
expected rate of return and tax rate are needed to estimate the revenue cost.
Joseph Guttentag and Avi-Yonah estimate a value of $50 billion in individual tax evasion, based
on an estimate of holdings by high net worth individuals invested outside the United States at
$1.5 trillion.103 Using a rate of return of 10% and a tax rate of approximately one-third, they
obtain an estimate of $50 billion. They also summarize two other estimates in 2002 of $40 billion
for the international tax gap by the IRS and $70 billion by an IRS consultant.
To the extent that the earnings are interest, the 10% rate of return may be too high, while if it is
dividends and capital gains, the tax rate is too high. Using a tax rate of 15% (currently applicable
to capital gains and dividends) would lead to about $23 billion. In the case of equity investments,
if a third of the return is in dividends and half of capital gains is never realized, the tax rate would
be 10% or about $15 billion assuming the 10% return. During 2002 and beginning in 2011,
however, the tax rate on capital gains and dividends is 20%, indicating a loss of $20 billion rather
than $15 billion. For interest, since investors can earn tax free returns in the neighborhood of 4%
to 5% on domestic state and local bonds, to yield a 5% after-tax return at a 35% tax rate would
require a pretax yield of about 7.7%. The estimate would then be $40 billion.
The Tax Justice Network has estimated a worldwide revenue loss for all countries of $255 billion
from individual tax evasion, basically using a 7.5% return and a 30% tax rate.104 These
assumptions would be consistent with a $33 billion loss for the United States using the $1.5
trillion figure. Their worldwide numbers are consistent with $11 trillion in offshore wealth. Their
more recent estimates place wealth at $21 trillion to $32 trillion, which would double or triple
these estimates.105 Thus the cost for the United States could be much larger approaching $100
billion.
103
Joseph Guttentag and Reuven Avi-Yonah, Closing the International Tax Gap, in Max B. Sawicky, ed. Bridging
the Tax Gap: Addressing the Crisis in Federal Tax Administration, Washington, D.C., Economic Policy Institute, 2005.
104
Tax Justice Network, Tax Us If You Can, September, 2005.
105
Tax Justice Network, Estimating the Price of Offshore, July22, 2012, at http://www.taxjustice.net/cms/
front_content.php?idcat=148.

Zucman estimates $1.2 trillion in U.S. financial wealth abroad based on anomalies in investment
data, with an estimated tax loss of $36 billion in 2013.106 There is no way to know whether the
high-profile cases of prosecuting individuals, tax amnesty, or the imminent arrival of FATCA
might have reduced these amounts of wealth.
Alternative Policy Options to Address Corporate

Profit Shifting
Because much of the corporate tax revenue loss arises from activities that either are legal or
appear to be so, it is difficult to address these issues other than with changes in the tax law.
Outcomes would likely be better if there is international cooperation. Currently, the possibilities
for international cooperation appear to play a bigger role in options for dealing with individual
evasion than with corporate avoidance.
Several of the issues addressed below, such as hybrid entities and instruments, transfer pricing for
intangibles, and debt also have been considered in the OECD action plan on base erosion and
profit shifting.107
Broad Changes to International Tax Rules

The first set of provisions would introduce broad changes in international tax rules, and include
significant restrictions in deferral or allocation of income and capital.
Repeal Deferral
One approach to mitigate the rewards of profit shifting is to repeal deferral, or to institute true
worldwide taxation of foreign source income. Firms would be subject to current tax on the
income of their foreign subsidiaries, although they would continue to be able to take foreign tax
credits. According to estimates cited above, this change currently would raise from $63.4 billion
to $83.4 billion per year.
Many of the issues surrounding the repeal of deferral have focused on the real effects of repeal on
the allocation of capital. Traditionally, economic analysis has suggested that eliminating deferral
would increase economic efficiency, although recently some have argued that this gain would be
offset by the loss of production of some efficient firms from high-tax countries. Some have also
argued for retaining the current system or moving in the other direction to a territorial tax. These
economic issues are discussed in detail in another CRS report.108
Repeal of deferral would largely eliminate the value of the planning techniques discussed in this
report. There are concerns, however, that firms could avoid the effects of repeal by having their
106
Perspectives, vol. 28, no. 4, Fall, 2014, pp, 121-148.
107
See OECD, Action Plan on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting, http://www.oecd.org/ctp/BEPSActionPlan.pdf.
108
CRS Report RL34115, Reform of U.S. International Taxation: Alternatives, by Jane G. Gravelle.

parent incorporate in other countries that continue to allow deferral. The most direct and
beneficial to reducing firms tax liabilities of these planning approaches, inversion, has been
addressed by legislation in 2004.109 Mergers would be another method to counter the
implementation of deferral, although mergers involve real changes in organization that would not
likely be undertaken to gain a small tax benefit. Another possibility is that more direct portfolio
investment (i.e., buying shares of stock by individual investors) in foreign corporations will
occur. There has been a significant growth in this direct investment, although the evidence
suggests this investment has been due to portfolio diversification and not tax avoidance.110
S. 767, a broad tax reform bill introduced by Senators Wyden and Coats in the 112th Congress,
would have eliminated deferral. In the 113th Congress, H.R. 694 (Representative Schakowsky)
and S. 250 (Senator Sanders), also would have eliminated deferral.
Targeted or Partial Elimination of Deferral

More narrow proposals to address deferral and tax avoidance would tax income in tax havens
currently or some additional income of foreign subsidiaries. They include
eliminating deferral for specified tax havens;

eliminating deferral in countries with tax rates that are below the U.S. rate by a
specified proportion;
eliminating deferral for income on the production of goods that are imported into
the United States;
eliminating deferral for income on the production of goods that are exported,
requiring a minimum payout share; and
taxing currently at a lower minimum rate.
Restricting current taxation to tax havens would likely address some of the problems associated
with transfer pricing and leveraging, without ending deferral entirely. Defining a tax haven under
those circumstances would be crucial. A bill introduced in the 110th Congress, S. 396, which
defined as a U.S. firm any U.S. subsidiary in a tax haven not engaged in an active business, had a
list of countries that was the same as the original OECD tax haven list, except for the U.S. Virgin
Islands. Some countries that are often considered tax havens, would not be subject to such
provisions, leaving some scope for corporate tax avoidance. In addition, firms could shift some
operations to other lower tax countries and increase the amount of foreign tax credits available,
which would be a loss to U.S. revenue. Some concerns have also been expressed that listing
specific tax haven countries would make cooperative approaches, such as tax information sharing
treaties, more difficult.
An alternative, which would not require identifying particular countries, would be to restrict
deferral based on a tax rate that is lower than the U.S. rate by a specified amount. For example,
109
Firms with 80% continuity of ownership would be treated as U.S. firms and firms with at least 60% continuity of
ownership would be subject to tax on the transfer of assets for the next 10 years.
110
See CRS Report RL34115, Reform of U.S. International Taxation: Alternatives, by Jane G. Gravelle. See also
International Corporate Tax Reform Proposals: Issues and Proposals, Forthcoming, Florida Tax Review, by Jane G.
Gravelle.

the French, who generally have a territorial tax, tax income earned in jurisdictions with tax rates
one-third lower than the French rate. For the United States, whose tax rate is similar to the French
rate, this ratio would indicate a tax rate lower than 24%.
Another proposal directed to runaway plans would eliminate deferral for investments abroad that
produce exports into the United States. S. 1284, also in the 110th Congress, would have imposed
current taxation on such activities by expanding Subpart F income to include income attributable
to imports into the United States of goods produced by foreign subsidiaries of U.S. firms. The
main problem with this proposal is administering it, which would include tracing selling to a third
party for resale.
A somewhat different and more restrictive proposal was made by Senator Kerry during the 2004
presidential campaign. He proposed to eliminate deferral except in cases in which income is
produced and sold in the controlled foreign corporations jurisdiction. This approach would, like
deferral in general, be likely to significantly restrict opportunities for artificial profit shifting,
because most of the income in tax haven or low-tax jurisdictions does not arise from real activity;
indeed, these jurisdictions are too small in many cases to provide a market. As with the previous
proposal, however, the administration of such a plan would be difficult.
An option that would not go as far as eliminating deferral altogether would be to require some
minimum share to be paid out. A related option would be to tax income currently but at a
minimum rate that is lower than the U.S. rate. Then-Chairman Baucus of the Senate Finance
Committee released, in 2013, a discussion draft of a proposal that would have taxed foreign
source income when earned at rates 60% or 80% of the statutory rate.111 The 60% and 80% were
only suggestions at this point. The President has also suggested minimum tax approaches, without
providing specifics.112 Chairman Camps tax reform proposal in the 113th Congress (S. 1) includes
a minimum tax on intangible income as part of anti-abuse provisions in moving to a territorial tax
system.
Allocation of Deductions and Credits with Respect to Deferred

Income/Restrictions on Cross Crediting
A proposal that does not end deferral but makes the shifting of profits from high-tax countries less
attractive is a provision to allocate deductions and credits, so as to deny those benefits until
income is repatriated. This approach was included in a tax reform bill introduced by Chairman
Rangel of the Ways and Means Committee in 2007 (H.R. 3970) and is included in the current
proposals by President Obama. Under this proposal, a portion of certain overall deductions, such
as interest or overhead, that reflects the share of foreign deferred income, would be disallowed.
The foreign tax credit allocation rule would allow credits for the share of foreign taxes paid that
are equal to the share of foreign source income repatriated. Disallowed deductions and credits
would be carried forward. (President Obamas proposal does not allocate research and
experimental expenses.)
111
Senate Finance Committee, Baucus Unveils Proposals for International Tax Reform, November 19, 2013, at
http://www.finance.senate.gov/newsroom/chairman/release/?id=f946a9f3-d296-42ad-bae4-bcf451b34b14.
112
The Presidents Framework for Business Tax Reform: A Joint Report by the White House and the Department of the
Treasury, February 2012, http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/Documents/The-Presidents-Framework-
for-Business-Tax-Reform-02-22-2012.pdf

The allocation-of-deductions provision would decrease the tax benefits of sheltering income in
low-tax jurisdictions and encourage repatriation of income relative to current law and presumably
reduce profit shifting, as well as decrease benefits of real investment abroad. The foreign tax
credit allocation rule could have a variety of effects. It would make foreign investment abroad
less attractive because it would increase the tax on income when eventually repatriated. It also
would discourage investment in low-tax jurisdictions that could no longer be sheltered by foreign
tax credits and discourage repatriation of earnings on existing activities because of the potential
tax to be collected.
The allocation of credits accomplishes some of the restrictions on cross crediting that could also
be achieved by increasing the number of baskets. As discussed below, one possible separate
basket would be for active royalties. Another possibility would be to impose a per country limit
with a separate basket for each country (and baskets within each for passive, active, etc., income).
S. 3018, a broad tax reform bill introduced by Senators Wyden and Gregg in the 111th Congress,
and a similar bill, S. 727, introduced by Senators Wyden and Coats in the 112th Congress, would
have provided for a per country limit, as would have H.R. 694 (Representative Schakowsy) and
S. 250 (Senator Sanders) in the 113th Congress.
Formula Apportionment
Another approach to addressing income shifting is through formula apportionment, which would
be a major change in the international tax system. With formula apportionment, income would be
allocated to different jurisdictions based on their shares of some combination of sales, assets, and
employment. This approach is used by many states in the United States and by the Canadian
provinces to allocate income. (In the past, a three factor apportionment was used, but some states
have moved to a sales based system.) Studies have estimated a significant increase in taxes from
adopting formula apportionment. Slemrod and Shackleford estimate a 38% revenue increase from
an equally weighted three-factor system.113 A sales-based formula has been proposed by Avi-
Yonah and Clausing that they estimate would raise about 35% of additional corporate revenue, or
$50 billion annually over the 2001-2004 period.114
The ability of a formula apportionment system to address some of the problems of shifting
income becomes problematic with intangible assets.115 If all capital were tangible capital, such as
buildings and equipment, a formula apportionment system based on capital would at least lead to
the same rate of return for tax purposes across high-tax and low-tax jurisdictions. Real distortions
in the allocation of capital would remain, since capital would still flow to low-tax jurisdictions,
but paper profits could not be shifted. An allocation system based on assets becomes more
difficult when intangible assets are involved. It is probably as difficult to estimate the stock of
intangible investment (given lack of information on the future pattern of profitability) as it is to
113
Douglas Shackelford and Joel Slemrod, The Revenue Consequences of Using Formula apportionment to Calculate
U.S. and Foreign Source Income: A Firm Level Analysis, International Tax and Public Finance, vol. 5, no. 1, 1998,
pp. 41-57.
114
Kimberly A. Clausing and Reuven A. Avi-Yonah, Reforming Corporate Taxation in a Global Economy : A
Proposal to Adopt Formulary Apportionment, Brookings Institution: The Hamilton Project, Discussion paper 2007-08,
June 2007.
115
These and other issues are discussed by Rosanne Altshuler and Harry Grubert, Formula Apportionment: Is it Better
than the Current System and Are There Better Alternatives? National Tax Journal, vol. 63, no. 4, pt. 2, December
2010, pp. 1145-1184.

allocate it under arms-length pricing. In the case of an allocation based on sales, profits that might
appropriately be associated with domestic income as they arise from domestic investment in
R&D would be allocated abroad. Moreover, new avenues of tax planning, such as selling to an
intermediary in a low-tax country for resale, would complicate the administration of such a plan.
Whether the benefits are greater than the costs is in some dispute.116
One problem is that if the United States adopted the system there could be double taxation of
some income and no taxation of other income unless there were a multinational plan. The
European Union has been considering a formula apportionment applied to its member states,
based on property, gross receipts, number of employees and cost of employment.117 This proposal
and the consequences for different countries are discussed by Devereux and Loretz.118 If the
European Union adopted such a plan it would be easier for the United States to adopt a similar
apportionment formula without as much risk of double or no taxation with respect to its major
trading partners.
Narrower Provisions Affecting Multinational Profit Shifting

Various more narrow provisions could be considered that would be more focused on preventing
abuses and have fewer consequences for the overall structure of international corporate taxation.
Note that P.L. 111-226 addresses a number of problems with the foreign tax credit; these changes
are summarized below along with other legislation in 2011 relating to international tax avoidance
and evasion.
Eliminate Check-the-Box, Hybrid Entities, and Hybrid Instruments

A number of proposals have been made to eliminate check-the-box and in general to adopt rules
that would require legal entities to be characterized in a consistent manner by the United States
and the country in which an entity is established. This proposal has been made by McIntyre.119
Rules requiring that legal entities be characterized in a consistent manner by the United States
and by the country in which they are established and that tax benefits arising from inconsistent
treatment of instruments be denied would address this particular class of provisions that
undermine Subpart F and the matching of credits and deductions with income. President Obamas
first budget proposal included a provision that disallows a subsidiary to treat a subsidiary
chartered in another country as a disregarded entity.
Tighten Earnings Stripping Rules; Limit Interest Deductions

In the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, a further restriction on earnings stripping rules was
considered as an alternative to the anti-inversion measure. These provisions were not enacted but
were to be studied in a Treasury report. The 2004 House proposal would have raised revenue by
116
Ibid.
117
See European Commission, European Corporate Tax Base: Making Business Easier and Cheaper, press release,
March 16, 2011, http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-319_en.htm?locale=en
118
Michael P. Devereux and Simon Loretz, The Effects of EU formula Apportionment on Corporate Tax Revenues,
Fiscal Studies, Vol. 29, no. 1, March 2008, pp. 1-33. http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/119399105/
PDFSTART?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0.
119
Michael McIntyre, A Program for International Tax Reform, Tax Notes, February 23, 2009, pp. 1021-1026.

dropping the debt-to-asset share test and lowering the interest share standard to 25% for ordinary
debt, 50% for guaranteed debt, and 30% overall. In general, further restrictions on earnings
stripping could be considered to address shifting through debt for U.S. subsidiaries of foreign
parents.
President Obamas budget proposals include a more restrictive rule for multinational firms,
allocating interest across the firms related groups in proportion to earnings.120 Allocation rules
were also included in Chairman Camps Tax Reform Proposal in the 113th Congress (H.R. 1).
Foreign Tax Credits: Source Royalties as Domestic Income for Purposes of the
Foreign Tax Credit Limit or Create Separate Basket; Eliminate Title Passage
Rule; Restrict Credits for Taxes Producing an Economic Benefit
As noted above, one of the issues surrounding the cross-crediting of the foreign tax credit is the
use of excess credits to shield royalties from U.S. tax on income that could be considered U.S.
source income. Two options might be considered to address that issue: sourcing these royalties as
domestic income for purposes of the credit or putting them into a separate foreign tax credit
basket.121 The same issue applies to the provision that allows half of the income from exports to
be allocated to the country in which the title passes. President Obamas proposal includes a
provision to restrict the crediting of taxes that are in exchange for an economic benefit (such as
payments that are the equivalent of royalties).
Transfer Pricing
Michael McIntyre has suggested some other proposals to deal with transfer pricing, which include
making transfer pricing penalties nearly automatic for taxpayers who have not kept
contemporaneous records. He also suggests use of some type of formula apportionment plan as a
default for transfer pricing for non-complying taxpayers so the IRS does not have to conduct a
detailed transaction by transaction assessment for the court.
President Obamas budget proposals would address some of the transfer pricing issues associated
with the transfer of intangibles by clarifying that intangibles include workforce in place,
goodwill, and going concern value and that they are valued at their highest and best use. The plan
would allow the IRS commissioner to aggregate intangibles if that leads to a more appropriate
value.
These proposals would likely have small effects. Any significant solution to the transfer pricing
problem, especially for intangibles, is difficult to entertain short of an elimination of deferral.
120
See Department of the Treasury, General Explanations of the Administrations Fiscal Year 2015 Revenue
Proposals, March 2014, http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/Documents/General-Explanations-
FY2015.pdf.
121
Harry Grubert, Tax Credits, Source Rules, Trade and Electronic Commerce: Behavioral Margins and the Design of
International Tax Systems, Tax Law Review, vol. 58, January 2005; also issued as CESIFO Working Paper no. 1366,
December 2004.; Harry Grubert and Rosanne Altshuler, Corporate Taxes in a World Economy: Reforming the
Taxation of Cross-Border Income, in John W. Diamond and George Zodrow, eds., Fundamental Tax Reform: Issues,
Choices and Implications, Cambridge, MIT Press, 2008.

The Presidents budget proposals also included a more significant proposal to treat excess returns
on intangibles in a low-tax country as Subpart F income (and therefore not subject to deferral)
and to place it in a separate foreign tax credit basket. If such an approach could be successfully
implemented, it might have important consequences for transfer pricing using intangibles.
Other Provisions
There are numerous other proposals that often have a narrow focus, such as on methods of
avoiding taxes on repatriation and shifting headquarters. These provisions are discussed as a part
of proposed legislation in the final section of this report.
Options to Address Individual Evasion

Most of the options for addressing individual evasion involve more information reporting and
additional enforcement. There are options that would involve fundamental changes in the law,
such as shifting from a residence to a source basis for passive income. That is, the United States
would tax this passive income earned in its borders, just as is the case for corporate and other
active income. This change involves, however, many other economic and efficiency effects that
are probably not desirable. The remainder of the proposals discussed here do not involve any
fundamental changes in the tax itself, but rather focus on administration and enforcement.
The options discussed below are drawn from many sources, including academics and
practitioners, organizations, and the Internal Revenue Service, and contained in legislative
proposals; citations to these sources are provided at this point and legislative proposals are
summarized in the next section.122
Subsequent sections explain proposals that were adopted in the HIRE Act, P.L. 111-147.
Information Reporting
Expanded information reporting can involve multilateral efforts, changes in the current bilateral
treaties, or unilateral changes.
Multilateral Information Sharing or Withholding; International Cooperation

The European Union Directive, which would require information reporting (or withholding), is
one example of a multilateral approach to information reporting. Avi-Yonah and Avi-Yonah and
Guttentag have suggested that current Treasury policy is to focus on bilateral agreements to
122
For discussions of various proposals listed see Tax Justice Network, Ending the Offshore Secrecy System, March
2009, http://www.taxjustice.net/cms/upload/pdf/TJN_0903_Action_Plan_for_G-20.pdf ; testimony of Reuven Avi-
Yonah, Peter Blessing, Stephen Shay, and Douglas Shulman before the Subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures of
the Ways and Means Committee, March 31, 2009; Martin Sullivan, Proposals to Fight Offshore Tax Evasion, Tax
Notes, part 1, April 20, 2009, pp. 264-268; part 2: April 27, 2009, pp. 371-373; part 3, May 4, 2009, pp. 516-520;
Reuven Avi-Yonah, Testimony before the Committee on Select Revenue Measures of the Ways and Means Committee,
March 5, 2008; Testimony of Jack A. Blum and, Testimony on the Cayman Islands and Offshore Tax Issues before the
Senate finance Committee, July 24, 2008; Michael McIntyre, A Program for International Tax Reform, Tax Notes,
February 23, 2009, pp. 1021-1026.

achieve information exchange, but that the United States should also focus on cooperation with
the OECD and G-20 and other appropriate organizations to improve information and persuade tax
havens to enter into exchanges based on the OECD model. Shay suggests this approach as well
and particularly references electronic information exchange.
The Tax Justice Network has proposed that the United Nations develop a global tax cooperation
standard, set up a panel to determine compliant states, and deny recognition to non-compliant
jurisdictions. They have also suggested that the IMF and World Bank country assessments
address tax compliance.
Expanding Bilateral Information Exchange

A number of commentators have suggested an increase in the scope of bilateral information
treaties to provide for regular and automatic exchanges of information. This would require the
U.S. banks to increase their collection of information.
Avi-Yonah and Avid-Yonah and Guttentag suggest adopting the model OECD bilateral Tax
Information Exchange Agreement (TIEA ). This information exchange would relate to civil as
well as criminal issues, it would not require suspicion of a crime other than tax evasion, and
would override tax haven bank secrecy laws. Non-tax havens could be induced to make such
agreements to obtain information, and thus, such a change would require collection of
information on interest payments by banks and financial institutions. Treasury has proposed only
16 countries, but Avi-Yonah and Guttenberg suggest no reason to restrict the provision in this
way. Treasury could use existing authority not to exchange information that might be misused by
non-democratic foreign governments.
Unilateral Approaches: Withholding/Refund Approach; Increased Information

Reporting Requirements
This step is one that the United States could undertake without multilateral or bilateral
cooperation, namely imposing withholding taxes on interest income and other exempt income
received from U.S. sources by foreign intermediaries and providing a refund upon proof that the
beneficial recipient was eligible. Avi-Yonah suggests this change with the hope that it would be
adopted multilaterally.
A variation of this approach would be to require disclosure of the names of customers including
beneficial owners, with withholding imposed if disclosure was not forthcoming as adopted in the
HIRE Act, discussed subsequently.
Other Measures That Might Improve Compliance
Incentives/Sanctions for Tax Havens

Avi-Yonah and Avi-Yonah and Guttenberg suggest a carrot and stick approach to tax havens.
They argue that little of the benefit of tax havens flows to their sometimes needy residents, but
rather to the professionals providing banking and legal services, who often live elsewhere. They
suggest transitional aid to move away from these offshore activities. For non-cooperating tax
havens, they suggest the Treasury use its existing authority to deny benefits of the interest

exemption. They suggest that tax havens cannot continue to exist unless the wealthy countries
permit it, because funds are not productive in tax havens.
The Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act would extend to tax enforcement the sanctions of the Patriot Act
used to impose penalties for money laundering and terrorist financing. Sanctions vary in severity
and range from increased reporting on transactions to prohibitions. Sullivan points out that the
U.S. government has used the Patriot Act sparingly, however, and questions whether this change
would be a credible threat.
Blessing suggests that sanctions should be multilateral rather than unilateral.
Revise and Strengthen the Qualified Intermediary Program

Several proposals relating to the QI program, which were discussed by witnesses at a Ways and
Means Committee hearing on March 31, 2009, were reported by Sullivan. Some changes have
already been made by FATCA (in the HIRE Act, discussed below).
Place the Burden of Proof on the Taxpayer

An important part of the Stop Tax Haven Abuse proposal is to place the burden of proof in court
on the taxpayer; this approach was also suggested by Blum. As noted above, there is also a shift
in the burden of proof for accounts with non-qualified intermediaries for filing an FBAR (Foreign
Bank and Financial Account Report).
President Obamas proposal would create a presumption that the funds in foreign accounts are
large enough to require an FBAR, which is required when amounts exceed $10,000. It would treat
failure to file for amounts in excess of $200,000 as willful, which permits criminal penalties and
larger civil penalties.
The HIRE Act (P.L. 111-147) would assume that, when adequate information is not provided,
foreign accounts exceed the $50,000 minimum that requires reporting (under other provisions) on
the tax return for purposes of assessing penalties.
Treat Shell Corporations as U.S. Firms

The Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act includes a provision to treat any firm that is publicly traded or has
assets over $50 million as a U.S. corporation. This provision would include hedge funds but
would not affect subsidiaries of multinational firms because decisions are made by the parent
firm. Sullivan argues that such a provision would have a devastating effect on the U.S. hedge
fund industry, where offshore firms generally attract tax exempt U.S. investors and foreigners
who wish to avoid filing tax returns, as well as U.S. tax evaders, and that legislative relief for
U.S. tax exempt investors (pension funds, university endowments) would be likely.
Extend the Statute of Limitations

Extensions in the statute of limitations are said by some to be needed due to the complexity of the
international cases and difficulty of obtaining information. Extension has been proposed by
numerous commentators, is supported by the IRS officials and is included in the proposed Stop
Tax Haven Abuse Act, proposals discussed by the Senate Finance Committee, and proposals

made by President Obama. These legislative proposals would extend the statute of limitations
from 3 years to 6 years, but Blum also suggests the possibility of 10 years. The HIRE Act (P.L.
111-147) extends the statute of limitations to six years.
Greater Resources for the Internal Revenue Service to Focus on Offshore

Numerous suggestions have been made to expand IRS resources for combating overseas tax
abuses. President Obamas proposal, for example, has proposed to fund 800 new positions to
combat international abuses.
Blum says that agents should not be pressured to give up difficult cases because of short-term
performance goals based on closing cases and collecting revenues.
Make Civil Cases Public as a Deterrent

Blum suggests all settlements involving offshore schemes in excess of $1 million should be
excluded from the restrictions of Section 6103 that require settled civil cases to be confidential.
He argues that no one knows about these cases and thus taxpayers think the possibility of being
caught is small.
John Doe Summons

A provision in the proposed Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act would make it easier to issue John Doe
summons where the IRS does not know the names of taxpayers and now must ask courts for
permission to serve the summons. This section provides that in any case involving offshore secret
accounts, the court is to presume tax compliance is at issue, to relieve the IRS of the obligation
when the only records sought are U.S. bank records, and to issue John Doe summons for large
investigative projects without addressing each set of summons separately.
Strengthening of Penalties
Increased penalties are included in the proposed Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act, the Finance
Committee Draft and President Obamas proposals. Among the penalty provisions in various
proposals are increased penalties for failure to file FBARs; basing the FBAR penalty on the
highest amount in period rather than on a particular day; and increased penalties on abusive tax
shelters, failure to file information on foreign trusts, and certain offshore transactions. President
Obamas proposals would double accuracy-related penalties for foreign transactions and increase
penalties for trusts and permit them to be imposed if the amount in the trust cannot be established;
this provision was included in The HIRE Act (P.L. 111-147).
The proposed Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act also includes a provision that legal opinions that take
the position that a transaction is more likely than not to prevail for tax purposes will no longer
shield taxpayers from penalties.

S. 386, the Fraud Recovery and Investment Act, would introduce criminal penalties. Some tax
attorneys have questioned whether these proposals are too harsh or might undermine amnesty or
voluntary compliance.123
Address Tax Shelters

The proposed Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act would make a number of additional changes addressing
tax shelters, including prohibiting the patenting of tax shelters, developing an examination
procedure so that bank regulators could detect questionable tax activities, disallowing fees
contingent on tax savings, removing communication barriers between enforcement agencies,
codifying regulations, making it clear that prohibition of disclosure by tax preparers does not
prevent congressional subpoenas, and providing standards for tax shelter opinion letters.
Regulate the Rules Used by States to Permit Incorporation

Blum suggests that all U.S. Limited Liability Companies (LLCs) have a taxpayer ID number, a
requirement not imposed in Delaware and other states that keep no records of ownership. S. 569
would tighten regulations to require record-keeping and identification of beneficial owners of
corporations and LLCs and commission a study of partnerships and trusts.
Make Suspicious Activity Reports Available to Civil Side of IRS

The proposal that information on suspicious activity reports filed by financial institutions under
anti-money laundering acts be made available to the civil side of IRS was made by Blum, who
indicated that agency policy at the top levels had prohibited this information sharing. It is
included in a provision in the Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act.
Summary of Enacted Legislation in 2011

Three bills enacted in 2011 contain provisions relating to international compliance: the HIRE Act,
the Affordable Care Act, and P.L. 111-226.124
The Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment (HIRE) Act

(P.L. 111-147): FATCA
The foreign provisions in this act are projected to have a relatively small effect, $8.7 billion over
10 years, when compared with estimated costs of international evasion of around $40 billion a
year. This section of the act is referred to as the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, or FATCA.
123
See Jeremiah Coder, Proposed offshore Crime Legislation Worries Defense Bar, Tax Notes Today, March 23,
2009. The attorneys are concerned that money laundering charges would not have to be approved through the
Department of Justices tax division, that penalties of up to 20 years gives prosecutors too much power, that the
provisions may trap taxpayers who want to participate in IRS voluntary disclosure, and that they would also discourage
the quiet disclosure where taxpayers simply report past information.
124
P.L. 111-226 has no short title.

Reporting on Foreign Accounts

This provision would institute withholding on payments, at a 30% rate, to foreign financial
institutions and other institutions unless certain information requirements are met. Although the
provision allows considerable regulatory scope, the requirements include providing specific
details on U.S. beneficial owners. The institution determines U.S. beneficial owners, with
oversight by the Treasury.
Deduction of Interest for Bearer (Nonregistered) Bonds

Non-registered bonds (with some exceptions, including those issued by natural persons, not for
public sale, or of maturities of less than a year) are subject to restrictions, including an excise tax
and denial of interest deductions; there is an exception for foreign targeted bonds. Foreign-
targeted bonds are designed to be sold to non-U.S. persons, payable outside of the United States,
and containing a statement that any bond held by a U.S. person will be subject to U.S. tax laws.
This provision repeals the foreign targeted bond exception for purposes of interest deductibility.
Non-registered state and local bond interest for these bonds are also not eligible for tax exclusion.
Additional Information Reported on Tax Returns

Individuals who are required to file an FBAR (Foreign Bank and Financial Account Report)
would also be required to report this information on the tax return if the amount in the account is
$50,000 or more. For purposes of this report on the tax return, interests in foreign trusts would
also be included. A presumption will be made that the amount of the account is at least $50,000
when no detailed information is provided.
Penalties
The 20% accuracy-related penalty that already applies is increased to 40% for transactions
involving foreign accounts where the taxpayer failed to disclose reportable information. A
reasonable cause exception would not be available. In the case of failure to report or under-
reporting foreign trusts, the initial penalty is 35% of the trust amount (5% in certain cases). If the
failure to report continues for 90 days, an additional penalty of $10,000 is imposed for each 30-
day period, but the total cannot exceed the amount of the trust. This provision would change the
initial penalty from 35% (5%) of the trust amount a minimum of $10,000. The $10,000 for each
30-day period is continued indefinitely, with a refund of any excess when the taxpayer does
report. This proposal addresses the problem of the IRS not being able to assess a penalty because
it cannot determine the amount in the account.
Statute of Limitations
The statute of limitations for cross-border transactions is extended from three to six years in
instances where more than $5,000 of income is omitted.
Reporting on Foreign Passive Investment Companies

The legislation addresses reporting by passive foreign investment companies (PFICs) by
codifying proposed regulations requiring shareholders to file annual information reports. The

Secretary of the Treasury has regulatory authority over the type of information and can also
provide for regulations that address duplicate reporting from other provisions in the legislation.
Electronic Filing
Electronic filing is required of persons who file at least 250 returns (including information
returns). This legislation requires electronic filing for financial institutions regardless of whether
the institution provides 250 returns, which would generally be relevant to foreign financial
institutions.
Trusts
The legislation would further restrict foreign trusts by treating the grantor as the owner if there is
a future contingency for a U.S. beneficiary or an agreement the grantor is involved in that might
provide for a U.S. beneficiary. It also places the burden of proof on the grantor, treats a loan or
use of property without appropriate compensation as a benefit, and requires information
reporting.
Treat Equity Swaps as Dividends

This provision addresses the problem of disguising dividends that are subject to taxation as
interest that is not. This provision, which would generally treat equity swaps as dividends, would
raise $1.1 billion for FY2011-FY2020 according to the Presidents proposals.
Economic Substance Doctrine: The Patient Protection and

Affordable Care Act, P.L. 111-148.
The economic substance doctrine was adopted in the health reform legislation, P.L. 111-148. This
provision, although general in nature, is relevant to international tax evasion and avoidance.
Firms that enter into tax savings arrangements that are found not to have economic substance can
have their tax benefits disallowed by the courts under what has become known as the economic
substance doctrine. The doctrine is sometimes interpreted differently by different courts, and
recent legislative proposals have sought to make the doctrine more uniform through statute.
Generally, this provision requires a transaction to meet both an objective test (profit was made)
and a subjective test (profit was intended). Penalties are also imposed. Supporters argue that the
stricter test will not only reduce tax avoidance but also make treatment more consistent across the
courts. Some tax attorneys are concerned that more specific rules might provide a roadmap to
structuring arrangements that will pass the test.
P.L. 111-226
On May 20, 2010, the Ways and Means Committee Chairman Levin and Senate Finance
Committee Baucus released a plan for combining Senate and House proposals for extending
temporary tax benefits and providing for spending increases.125 Among the revenue raisers were
125
Press release at http://waysandmeans.house.gov/press/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=11191; summary at
(continued...)

several foreign provisions largely relating to the foreign tax credit, which were developed jointly
with the Treasury Department. Some are also included in the Presidents 2011 budget proposals.
They would raise $14.451 billion over 10 years. These provisions were adopted as part of H.R.
4213 on May 28, 2010.
Some of these issues arise from the overall limit on the foreign tax credit, which allows aggregate
foreign taxes paid abroad to be credited against U.S. tax on aggregate foreign earnings. Under
these rules, firms are either in excess credit positions (they have foreign taxes that cannot be used
because aggregate foreign taxes exceed aggregate U.S. tax on foreign source income) or in an
excess limit position (they do not have enough foreign taxes to offset U.S. tax on foreign source
income). In the former case, any technique that increases the amount of their income that is
considered foreign source reduces overall tax because it increases the limit on foreign tax credits;
in the latter case, any technique that allows recognition of foreign taxes without the
accompanying income reduces taxes.
H.R. 4213 was not enacted, but a smaller spending bill using H.R. 1586 as a vehicle included
most of the foreign provisions in H.R. 4213. H.R. 1586 provided money to the states for
education and Medicaid funding, with costs paid for in part by these foreign revisions. It was
signed into law on August 10, 2010. The provisions are summarized below.126
Preventing Splitting Foreign Tax Credits from Income

This provision addresses the issue of reverse hybrids and mechanisms that allow firms to
recognize and take credits for foreign taxes paid without reporting the income that gave rise to the
foreign taxes (discussed earlier in this report), thus using those credits to offset tax on unrelated
income. The proposal would implement a matching rule so that foreign tax credits would not be
recognized until the income is taken into account. This proposal is estimated to raise $6.325
billion over 10 years.
Denial of Foreign Tax credits for Covered Asset Acquisitions

Taxpayers can acquire a firm by purchasing stock or by purchasing the underlying assets. In the
latter case, assets are valued at current market value, which generally increases depreciation
deductions. Certain U.S. tax rules allow a stock acquisition to be treated as an asset acquisition.
Foreign governments may not apply a similar rule. As a result, depreciation deductions under the
foreign rules are smaller than under the U.S. rules, and income and foreign taxes paid are higher.
The excess of foreign taxes over U.S. taxes on this transaction can be used to offset U.S. tax on
unrelated foreign income under the overall foreign tax credit limitation. Such an outcome can also
occur when taxpayers acquire entities that are partnerships for U.S. purposes and corporations for
foreign tax purposes. The provision prevents firms from obtaining credits for these excess taxes.
This proposal is estimated to raise $4.025 billion over 10 years.
(...continued)
http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/111/America_Jobs_Summary.pdf.
126
Revenue estimates for H.R. 4213 are in JCX-30-10, May 28, 2010. https://www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=
startdown&id=3685.

Separate Foreign Tax Credit Limit for Items Resourced Under Treaties
Current tax treaties provide that some income that would normally be considered U.S. source
income can be resourced in foreign countries. For example, interest paid on U.S. securities to a
firms foreign subsidiary would normally be U.S. source income, but under a treaty may be
sourced in the foreign country. The foreign country may tax net interest (interest income less
interest paid), but the entire gross interest payment would be considered foreign source and
eligible for offsetting foreign tax credits. This increase in foreign source income could, absent
other provisions, lead to tax reductions from excess foreign taxes on other income. Current law
places this operation in a separate foreign tax credit basket when the foreign firm is a subsidiary
of a U.S. firm incorporated abroad. This provision extends the treatment to branch operations and
disregarded entities (that are treated the same as branches under check-the-box rules). The
provision would apply to taxable years beginning after the date of enactment. This proposal is
estimated to raise $253 million over 10 years.
Limitation on the Use of Section 956 (the Hopscotch Rule)

The hopscotch rules issue arises from the combination of two different tax provisions. The first is
the treatment of dividends from foreign subsidiaries when there are multiple tiers of these
subsidiaries. For example, a U.S. parent might have a subsidiary (tier 1), which in turn has a
subsidiary (tier 2). If a tier 2 firm wants to pay a dividend to the parent, it would first be paid to
the tier 1 subsidiary, which would in turn pay it to the parent. The foreign tax credit allowed
would be a blend of the tax rate in the tier one subsidiary and the tier 2 subsidiary. For example, if
one-half of the income of the tier 1 subsidiary was its own and the tax rate was 10% and one-half
was from the payment from the tier 2 firm with a 50% tax rate, and dividend paid by the tier 1
subsidiary to the U.S. parent would have a 30% rate. These deemed taxes paid could be used for
foreign tax credits against any U.S. tax on foreign source income. The second provision is Section
956, which was designed to prevent firms from returning income to the U.S. parent without
paying tax, but using methods such as lending to the parent or buying property from the parent. A
payment made in this fashion is construed as a dividend. Therefore, if the tier 2 subsidiary made a
transaction that fell into the Section 956 rules, it could hopscotch over the tier 1 subsidiary and
receive a full 50% tax rate: two-thirds larger than the 30% rate allowed under the blended credit
rule. This provision preserves the blended rate in the case of Section 956 transactions. This
proposal is estimated to raise $1.010 billion over 10 years.
Special Rule for Certain Redemptions by Foreign Subsidiaries

This issue relates to circumstances where a foreign multinational company owns a U.S. firm,
which in turn owns a foreign subsidiary, and the foreign subsidiary purchases stock in the U.S.
firm from the foreign multinational with cash. The cash payment can be considered a direct
dividend payment to the foreign multinational up to the earnings and profits of the foreign
subsidiary and thus bypasses the U.S. tax system. (If earnings and profits of the subsidiary are
exhausted the payment comes from earnings and profits of the U.S. company and are subject to
dividend withholding taxes unless exempted by treaty.) The earnings and profits of the foreign
subsidiary are reduced by the amount of the payment so that they are not available for future
taxation. If the foreign subsidiary had paid a dividend directly to the U.S. parent, it would have
been subject to tax at the firm level and to a withholding tax on the dividend (unless exempted by
treaty). This provision would not allow earnings and profits of the foreign subsidiary to be taken

into account if more than 50% of the dividend would bypass the U.S. tax system. It is estimated
to raise $255 million over 10 years.
Modification of Affiliation Rules for Allocating Interest Expense

Foreign tax credits are limited to the U.S. tax that would be due on foreign source income if taxed
in the United States. In determining foreign source income, a share of the interest paid by the U.S.
parent and related U.S. affiliates is assigned to foreign income based on the share of total assets
that are foreign. The more interest that is assigned to foreign sources, the smaller the foreign
source income and the lower the foreign tax credit limit. Although the affiliate rules generally
exclude foreign corporations, a special provision applies to foreign affiliates that are 80% owned
and where 50% of earnings are effectively connected to U.S. business to prevent firms from
hiding their interest in these types of affiliates. If the effectively connected earnings are greater
than 80%, all interest and assets are taken into account. If the effectively connected earnings are
between 50% and 80%, only the effectively connected assets and earnings are included. This
change provides that all assets and interest are included as long as effectively connected earnings
are 50% or more. This proposal is estimated to raise $405 million over 10 years.
Repeal of 80/20 Rules

Under current law, dividends and interest paid by a domestic corporation are generally U.S.
source income and subject to gross basis withholding if paid to a foreign person. (As discussed
earlier in this report, portfolio interest and bank deposit interest paid to foreigners is exempt.)
Interest and dividends paid by a firm with a least 80% of its gross income foreign source and due
to an active foreign business are not subject to withholding. This interest can also increase foreign
source income and the foreign tax credit limit. The determination of eligibility is made during the
previous three-year period. The provision repeals the 80/20 company rules (and also the 80/20
rules for resident alien individuals). It grandfathers existing 80/20 companies if they also meet a
new test (that combines the company with its existing subsidiaries) and if it does not add a new
substantial line of business. It also excludes payment of interest on existing obligations. This
provision is estimated to raise $153 million over 10 years.
Technical Correction to the HIRE Act

The provision makes a technical correction to the foreign compliance provisions of the Hiring
Incentives to Restore Employment Act (P.L. 111-147) to clarify the statute of limitations.

Summary of Legislative Proposals

This section summarizes current legislative proposals that are designed to address or have
consequences for international tax evasion and avoidance.
American Jobs and Closing Loopholes Act (H.R. 4213, 111th

Congress)
As noted above, most foreign provisions in H.R. 4213 were included in the act, P.L. 111-226.
Below are two provisions, one specifically a foreign provision and one related to foreign tax
issues, that were not included.
Source Rules on Guarantees

Dividends and interest are generally sourced depending on the residence of the payor, whereas
payments for services are sourced to the country where the service is performed. The treatment of
guarantee fees is unclear, depending on whether compared to interest or services. Sourcing these
payments like services allows U.S. subsidiaries of foreign firms to make deductible payments that
reduce U.S. income without paying the withholding tax (as they would with interest). This
provision treats these fees the same as interest: sourced to the residence of the payor. Payments by
foreign persons are also U.S. source if allocable to income effectively connected with U.S.
business. Treasury is to identify other transactions that are in the nature of guarantees. This
proposal is estimated to raise $2.025 billion over 10 years.
Boot-Within-Gain Revisions
The boot-within-gain revisions are generally applicable to domestic as well as foreign activities
but have implications for international transactions. When a person or firm sells stock and uses
the proceeds to purchase other stocks, capital gain is recognized to the extent that the sales price
of the stock exceeds the basis of that stock (typically what was originally paid for it). In general, a
gain is not recognized in exchanges of stock in corporate reorganizations. If the exchange
includes cash or property (boot), gain is recognized to the extent of the boot. If the boot is more
than the gain, all of the boot will not be taxed. However, if the boot is considered equivalent to a
dividend, it will be taxed in full. One of the rules that allows the payment not to be considered as
a dividend is a termination of interest (liquidation). Check-the-box rules permit a transaction to be
considered a liquidation for U.S. purposes (i.e., a disregarded entity) but not for foreign purposes.
Thus, one foreign subsidiary of a U.S. firm can pay cash to the U.S. parent for stock in another
foreign subsidiary of the U.S. firm without the transactions being viewed as a dividend
repatriation, thereby potentially reducing U.S. tax. In addition, two U.S. subsidiaries of a foreign
parent can engage in a similar transaction without generating a U.S. withholding tax on the
dividend. If the foreign parent does not have a treaty eliminating the tax, this treatment reduces
U.S. taxes. This revision would treat payments in these cases as a dividend.

This provision was included in the Presidents budget proposals and estimated to raise $3.6
billion from FY2015 to FY2024.127
President Obamas International Tax Proposals128

President Obamas international proposals include several proposals that relate to multinational
corporations: allocation of deductions and credits, a restriction on use of foreign tax credits when
associated income is not recognized, and a restriction on check-the-box. They also include
proposals addressing individual tax evasion. International provisions have been presented in each
budget. One provision in the first (FY2010) budget ending check-the-box was dropped in
subsequent budgets. Otherwise, provisions were continued and expanded over time. Overall,
these provisions are projected to raise $276 billion for FY2015-FY2024 as presented in the
current FY2015 budget. The provisions are discussed in the order in which they are presented
unless otherwise noted, because revenue effects depend on that order. The budget also proposes
additional resources for the IRS for international enforcement. In addition to budget proposals,
President Obama presented a separate corporate tax reform proposal that included international
provisions. This proposal included five elements: the allocation of interest for deferred income
(discussed below), a tax on excess intangibles (discussed below), a minimum tax on foreign
source income in low tax countries, disallowing a deduction for the cost of moving abroad, and
providing a 20% credit for costs of moving an operation from abroad to the United States.129
Some of the Presidents proposals have been adopted. Two provisions relating to foreign tax
credits were enacted in P.L. 111-226 (foreign tax credits and reverse hybrids, and the 80/20 rule).
The HIRE Act (P.L. 111-147) included a provision treating equity swaps and other dividend
equivalent payments as dividends; the other foreign compliance provisions were, in most cases,
also in the Presidents. These provisions are not listed below.
The remainder of this section summarizes provisions in the Presidents budget proposals.
Provisions Affecting Multinational Corporations and Other Tax Law Changes
Hybrid Entities and Check-the-Box (FY2010 Budget Only)

The most significant provision in the FY2010 budget, based on revenue gain, is a revision
directed at hybrid entities and check-the-box. This provision requires that a corporation cannot
disregard a subsidiary corporation unless it is incorporated in the same jurisdiction. This rule does
not apply to the parent and its first level subsidiary. Thus, a U.S. parent with a subsidiary in a low
tax country could treat that subsidiary as a branch (disregard it as a separate entity). The
subsidiary in the low-tax country, however, could not treat its own high-tax country subsidiary as
a disregarded entity. This provision was included in the FY2010 proposals, where it was projected
to raise $86.5 billion for FY2010-FY2019. It was not included in later budgets.
127
See Treasury Greenbooks, at http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/Pages/general_explanation.aspx.
128
These proposals are listed in the various Treasury Greenbooks, at http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-
policy/Pages/general_explanation.aspx.
129
The Presidents Framework for Business Tax Reform: A Joint Report by the White House and the Department of the
Treasury, February 2012, http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/Documents/The-Presidents-Framework-
for-Business-Tax-Reform-02-22-2012.pdf.

Allocation of Deductions and Credits

Two of these proposals would allocate deductions and credits, so as to deny those benefits until
income is repatriated. This approach was included in a tax reform bill introduced by Chairman
Rangel of the Ways and Means Committee in 2007 (H.R. 3970). A portion of overall deductions,
such as interest, that reflect the share of foreign deferred income, would be disallowed until the
income is repatriated. The foreign tax credit allocation rule would allow credits for the share of
foreign taxes paid that is equal to the share of foreign source income repatriated, a provision the
discussion of the proposals refers to as pooling. Disallowed deductions and credits would be
carried forward. The proposal specifically excludes deductions for research and experimentation
from the allocation rule. The FY2011 and subsequent budget proposals were narrower and limited
to interest deductions; they also included a different set of allocation rules.
The revenue gain for FY2015-FY2024 was $43.2 billion for the limit on interest deductions and
$74.6 billion for the foreign tax credit pooling.
Taxing Excess Returns on Intangibles

This provision, which did not appear in the 2010 budget proposal but appeared in subsequent
budgets, would treat excess returns in a low-tax country on intangibles transferred to it from the
United States as Subpart F income (subject to current taxation) and in a separate foreign tax credit
basket (so that other foreign taxes could not offset U.S. taxes due on the excess returns). This
provision is projected to raise $26.0 billion for FY2015-FY2024.
Transfer Pricing of Intangibles

The proposal would clarify several rules that are relevant to the transfer of intangibles. First, it
would clarify that intangibles include workforce in place, goodwill, and going concern value.
Second, it would allow the IRS commission to aggregate intangibles if that leads to a more
appropriate value. Finally, it would clarify that intangibles are valued at their highest and best as
it would be by a willing buyer and seller with reasonable knowledge of the relevant facts. This
provision is projected to raise $2.7 billion for FY2015-FY2024.
Disallow Deductions for Reinsurance Premiums to Foreign Affiliates

U.S. insurance companies can reduce taxes by purchasing reinsurance from foreign affiliates,
with a deduction of the premiums by the U.S. firm but no tax on the income of the foreign
affiliate. This provision would disallow these deductions for reinsurance premiums when they are
more than 50% of the basic premiums received. This provision was not in the FY2010 budget; it
is projected to raise $7.5 billion in revenue for FY2015-FY2024.
Restrict Deductions for Excessive Interest of Members of Financial

Reporting Groups
The proposal would allocate interest deductions among related firms that consolidate financial
reporting, based on the share of earnings of each firm. This provision is projected to raise $48.6
billion for FY2015-FY2024.

Prevent Repatriation of Earnings in Cross-Border Transactions

(Boot Within Gain)
The plan includes a proposal to require that distributions that are characterized as reorganizations
but are in the nature of a dividend repatriation are subject to tax. This issue arises within the
framework of an exchange of stock on the one hand for stock and property (called boot) and rules
that provide the minimum of gain be based on the boot or overall gain. This proposal was
projected to raise $297 million from FY2010 to FY2019. The 2011 budget includes a broader
provision regarding to boot within gain that covers domestic transactions as well, and such a
provision is also included in H.R. 4213.
Foreign Tax Credits for Dual-Capacity Taxpayers

This provision would restrict foreign tax credits for taxes paid where there is an income tax that is
paid in part to receive a benefit (i.e., the firm is paying a tax in a dual capacity) to the amount that
would be paid if the taxpayer were not a dual-capacity taxpayer. This provision typically relates
to taxes being substituted for royalties in oil-producing countries; there is a provision that it will
not abrogate any existing treaties. This provision was projected to raise $10.4 billion for FY2015-
FY2024.
Tax Gain on the Sale of a Partnership Interest on Look-Through Basis

This provision, first appearing in the FY2013 budget outline, would require gain on sale of a
partnership interest to be treated as income effectively connected to U.S. business (and thus
taxable) to the extent of the transferor partners effective connected income. It is projected to
raise $2.8 billion for FY2015-FY2024.
Prevent Use of Leveraged Distributions from Foreign Related Corporations to

Avoid Dividend Treatment
This provision, first appearing in the FY2013 budget outline, would address a mechanism to
avoid treatment of a payment as a dividend (but rather a reduction in basis) when a foreign
corporation funds the payment from a separate related foreign corporation. It is projected to raise
$3.5 billion for FY2015-FY2024.
Extend Section 338(h)(16) to Certain Asset Acquisitions

This provision, first appearing in the FY2013 budget outline, extends rules limiting the ability of
firms to increase foreign tax credits for certain asset acquisitions. It is projected to raise $1 billion
for FY2015-FY2024.
Remove Foreign Taxes from a Section 902 Corporations Foreign Tax Credit Pool
When Earnings Are Eliminated
This provision first appears in the FY2013 budget outline. Current law allows a foreign tax credit
for dividends paid or deemed paid or certain transactions. This provision reduces foreign tax
credits for any action that reduces earnings and profits, since a reduction in earnings and profits

will ultimately reduce the potential amount of dividends. It is projected to raise $0.4 billion for
FY2015-FY2024.
Create a New Category of Subpart F Income for Transactions Involving Digital

Goods or Services
The proposal would create a new category of Subpart F income, foreign base company digital
income. It would include income of a controlled foreign company (CFC) from the lease or sale of
a digital copyrighted article or from the provision of a digital service developed by a related party.
It is projected to raise $11.7 billion for FY2015-FY2024.
Present Avoidance of Foreign Base Company Sales Income Through

Manufacturing Service Arrangements
Among income included in Subpart F and subject to current taxation is foreign base company
sales income, income from a purchase and resale by a related corporation of property
manufactured outside the CFCs jurisdiction and sold outside that jurisdiction. This provision
expands that treatment to property manufactured outside of, but on behalf of, the firm. This
provision is projected to raise $24.6 billion from FY2015-FY2024.
Restrict the Use of Hybrid Arrangements That Create Stateless Income

The proposal would disallow deductions for interest and royalty payments made to related parties
under hybrid arrangements in which the income is not taxed in the other jurisdiction. It is
projected to raise $0.9 billion in FY2015-FY2024.
Limit the Application of Exceptions Under Subpart F for Certain Transactions

That Use Reverse Hybrids to Create Stateless Income
Subpart F, which imposes tax on easily manipulated income, has a same-country exception so that
it generally does not apply to payments between related firms organized in the same country
under the presumption that there is a tax payment and deduction at the same tax rate. However, in
the case of a foreign reverse hybrid, where the firm is viewed as a corporation by the United
States but a partnership by the foreign country, the U.S. corporation is not seen as a distinct entity
and not subject to tax. The proposal would provide that the exception to Subpart F not apply in
these cases. This provision is projected to raise $1.3 billion for FY2025-FY2024.
Limit the Ability of Domestic Entities to Expatriate

This provision would allow U.S. firms that merge with other firms and establish a foreign
headquarters (invert) to be treated as U.S. firms as long as the U.S. firms shareholders retain
more that 50% ownership (the current level is 80%). The proposal would also disallow inversions
if the new firm has substantial business activities in the United States and is primarily managed
and controlled in the United States. In addition, the proposal would extend the inversion rules
now covering corporations and partnerships with a trade or business to all partnerships.

This provision is projected to raise $17 billion for FY2015-FY2024.
Provisions Relating to Individual Tax Evasion, Not Enacted in the HIRE Act
The Presidents proposals included a number of provisions relating to individual evasion,
including reporting of information, withholding, and various penalties. Overall these provisions
were projected to raise revenues of $8.7 billion from FY2010 to FY2019 in the FY2010 budget
and $5.4 billion from FY2011-FY2021 in the FY2011 budget. Most of these provisions, or some
version of them, were adopted in the HIRE Act, including increased reporting on foreign accounts
(withholding and information on U.S. beneficial owners). The remaining provisions are
summarized below. These provisions were not in subsequent budgets.
Reporting on Transfers
U.S. persons financial intermediaries and qualified intermediaries would be required to report
financial transfers. U.S. persons and qualified intermediaries would be required to report the
formation or establishment of a foreign entity. The floor is $10,000 in the FY2010 budget
proposal, but $50,000 in the FY2011 proposal.
Additional Information Reported on Tax Returns: Lower Floor

The HIRE Act required individuals who are required to file an FBAR (Foreign Bank and
Financial Account Reports) to report this information on the tax return if the amount in the
account is $50,000 or more, a provision similar to the FY2011 budget proposal. The FY2010
proposal had a lower floor of $10,000.
Burden of Proof and Presumption Provisions

The FY2010 proposal contains a number of provisions that provide evidentiary presumptions
(shifts in the burden of proof) in civil and administrative cases. If an individual has a foreign
account it is presumed to be large enough to require filing an FBAR. If a person has an account of
over $200,000 it is presumed that failure to file is willful (which opens the possibility of criminal
as well as higher civil penalties). If a payment subject to withholding is made to a foreign person
on an FDAP, the presumption is that that person is not eligible for withholding.
Statute of Limitation: No Floor

The statute of limitations for cross-border transactions is extended from three to six years with no
floor in the FY2010 budget proposal; in the HIRE Act and the FY2011 budget, it applies to
instances where more than $5,000 of income is omitted.
The Wyden-Gregg and Wyden-Coats Tax Reform Bills

Major revisions to corporate international tax rules are also included in S. 3018, a general tax
reform act introduced by Senators Wyden and Gregg in the 111th Congress, and a similar bill, S.

727, introduced by Senators Wyden and Coats in the 112th Congress.130 As part of revenue to
finance a lower tax rate, this bill eliminates deferral of tax on foreign source income (taxes
income currently) which should largely eliminate any benefits of profit shifting, since income
would be taxed in any case. It also imposes a per country foreign tax credit limit.
Chairman Camps Territorial Tax Proposal (Included in H.R. 1, 113th

Congress) and Senator Enzis Bill (S. 2091, 112th Congress)
These proposals would shift from the current system of deferral to a territorial tax, where no tax
would be imposed on active dividends of foreign subsidiaries. Moving to a territorial tax
increases the benefits for profit shifting to low-tax jurisdictions because there is never an issue of
subsequent taxation, as is the case with deferral. The Camp proposal would combine a territorial
tax with a lower corporate tax rate, whereas S. 2091 is a stand-alone territorial tax provision. Both
contain provisions to limit the scope of profit shifting, although it is not clear how effective they
would be.131
The Camp proposal would limit the amount of borrowing by the U.S. parent and impose one of
three anti-base-erosion options, two directed at intangible income. Option A is similar to a
proposal made by President Obama in his budget proposals that would tax excess earnings on
intangibles (in excess of 150% of costs) in low-tax jurisdictions as Subpart F. The inclusion
would be phased out between a 10% and a 15% rate. Option B would tax income that is subject to
an effective foreign tax rate below 10% unless it qualifies for a home country exception. The
home country exception applies when a firm conducts an active trade or business in the home
country, has a fixed place of business, and serves the local market. Option C would tax all foreign
income from intangibles (whether earnings by the foreign subsidiary or royalty payments) but
allow a deduction for 40%, resulting in a tax rate of 15% at a 25% statutory tax rate. Option C
was adopted for the final tax reform bill, H.R. 1, which also lowered the U.S. corporate tax rate to
25%.
S. 2091 does not have provisions restricting borrowing. Its anti-base-erosion provisions are a
version of Option B in the Camp proposal along with a version of the first part of Option C would
be included. Income in countries with tax rates of half or less than the U.S. rate (17.5%) would be
subject to tax. However, operations that conduct an active business, with employees and officers
that contribute substantially, would be excepted except to the extent the income is intangible
income of the CFC. The CFCs intangible income would be Subpart F income. These rules
provide more scope for exemption as compared to the rules in the Discussion Draft which would
require exempt income to carry out activities serving the home country market. The bill also
includes the first part of Option C, allowing a 17.5% tax rate on intangible income (such as
royalties) earned by a domestic corporation. Intangible income would be placed in a separate
foreign tax credit basket.
130
See Obama Backs Corporate Tax Cut If Wont Raise Deficit, Bloomberg, January 25, 2011,
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-26/obama-backs-cut-in-u-s-corporate-tax-rate-only-if-it-won-t-affect-
deficit.html.
131
See CRS Report R42624, Moving to a Territorial Income Tax: Options and Challenges, by Jane G. Gravelle, for
additional discussion.

Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act132

This bill was introduced in the 111th Congress by Senator Carl Levin (S. 506) and by
Representative Lloyd Doggett (H.R. 1265). Some of the provisions or related provisions in the
bills were included in the HIRE Act. Provisions in the Stop Tax Haven Abuse that are addressed
in the HIRE Act (P.L. 111-147) include burden of proof (Section 101), statute of limitations
(Section 104), information reporting on U.S. beneficiaries of foreign accounts (Section 105), trust
abuses (Section 106), treatment of dividend equivalents (Section 108), and passive foreign
investment corporations (PFICs; Section 109). In addition, the health reform legislation, P.L. 111-
148, included the economic substance doctrine. The original bills provisions are summarized
below, followed by summaries of bills from the 112th, 113th, and 114th Congresses.
111th Congress (S. 506 and H.R. 1245)

Section 101 would provide a burden of proof change. It would require the taxpayer involved in
offshore secrecy jurisdictions to produce evidence, based on the presumption that the taxpayer is
in control, that funds or other property are not taxable income, and that the account is not large
enough to trigger a reporting threshold. (The bill also addresses securities law issues.) This
section also contains the list of 34 tax haven jurisdictions taken from IRS court filings, and
provides Treasury with the authority to add or remove jurisdictions. An important standard for
being excluded from the list is an effective, and automatic, exchange of information.
Section 102 would expand the provisions in the Patriot Act of 2001, which gave Treasury the
authority to require domestic financial institutions to take special measures (including providing
information and prohibiting transactions) with respect to foreign jurisdictions relating to money
laundering to cover instances of impeding U.S. tax enforcement.
Section 103 would require a publicly traded corporation or one with gross assets of $50 million or
more whose management and control occurs primarily in the United States to be treated as a U.S.
company. This provision is directed at shell corporations, including hedge funds and investment
management businesses, set up in jurisdictions such as the Cayman Islands. It would not apply to
subsidiaries of U.S. corporations simply because some decisions are made at the parent
headquarters, but would still apply to shell subsidiaries.
Section 104 would extend the limit on audit periods from three years to six years for offshore
jurisdictions with secrecy laws.
Section 105 would require U.S. financial institutions and brokers to file 1099 forms for any
foreign account when they know the beneficial owner is a U.S. person. It would also require these
institutions to report to the IRS when they set up offshore accounts and entities.
Section 106 addresses potential trust abuses. Foreign trusts have employed liaisons called trust
protectors as a way for shielding U.S. taxpayers exercising control over the trust; the legislation
provides that any powers held by a trust protector would be attributed to the trust grantor. It also
132
For a more detailed explanation of the 111th Congress bill, see Senator Levins Introductory Remarks, March 3,
2009. This proposal has also been discussed by Martin Sullivan, Proposals to Fight Offshore Tax Evasion, Part 3,
Tax Notes, May 4, 2009, pp. 516-520. For a discussion of the 112th Congress bill see Senator Levins Introductory
Remarks, July 12, 2011.

provides that any U.S. person benefitting from a trust is treated as a beneficiary even if not named
in the trust instrument, that future or contingent beneficiaries are treated as current ones, and that
loans of assets and property as well as cash or security are treated as trust distributions.
Section 107 addresses legal opinions, stating that an activity is more likely than not to survive
challenge by the IRS, which are used to shield taxpayers from large penalties. The legislation
provides that a legal opinion of this nature would not apply in an offshore secrecy jurisdiction,
providing exceptions to protect legitimate operations.
Section 108 would prevent dividend equivalents from escaping the dividend withholding tax.
Section 109 addresses reporting by PFICs by codifying proposed regulations regarding PFIC
reporting by direct or indirect shareholders who are U.S. persons, and also requiring reporting by
U.S. persons who directly or indirectly cause the PFIC to be formed or sent or receive assets.
Some of the sections of title II of the bill affect securities law rather than tax issues. Some
provisions are tax-related, however.
Section 204 addresses an IRS John Doe summons where the IRS does not know the names of
taxpayers and now must ask courts for permission to serve the summons. This section provides
that in any case involving offshore secret accounts, the court is to presume tax compliance is at
issue, to relieve the IRS of the obligation when the only records sought are U.S. bank records, and
to allow them to issue John Doe summonses for large investigative projects without addressing
each set of summonses separately.
Section 205 would address issues relating to the Foreign Bank and Financial Account Report
(FBAR) requirement for a person controlling a foreign financial account of over $10,000. This is
an additional rule from the requirement to report this information on the tax return, and IRS is
now charged with enforcing this FBAR requirement. This provision would amend tax disclosure
rules to more easily permit IRS to use tax data, change the penalty to refer to the highest average
in the account during a year (and not on a specific day), and allow IRS access to information on
Suspicious Activity Reports (SAR).
The last title of the bill relates to abusive tax shelters, and contains several provisions. It would
strengthen penalties, prohibit the patenting of tax shelters, require development of an examination
procedure so that bank regulators could detect questionable tax activities, disallow fees
contingent on tax savings for tax shelters, remove communication barriers between enforcement
agencies, codify regulations and make it clear that prohibition of disclosure by tax preparers does
not prevent congressional subpoenas, and provide standards for tax shelter opinion letters. It
would also codify the economic substance doctrine, to require both an objective and subjective
test for economic substance.
112th Congress (S. 1346 and H.R. 2669)

Section 101 would extend the sanctions for money laundering to impeding tax enforcement
(similar to previous provision in Section 102).
Section 102 would strengthen and clarify FATCA (Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, adopted
as part of the HIRE Act) in a variety of ways, including additional burden of proof requirements,
expand the types of accounts that need to be disclosed, and other revisions.

Section 103 is similar to Section 103 in the previous bill.
Section 104 is similar to Section 105 of the previous bill.
Section 105 would require credit default swap (CDS) payments sent from the United States to be
sourced as U.S. income and subject to tax.
Section 106 would treat funds deposited in U.S. accounts as U.S. source income subject to tax.
Some of the sections in the next title do not relate to taxes. Those that do include
Section 201 would require multinational corporations to provide the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) with country by country information.
Section 202 would provide a penalty up to $1 million for hiding offshore stock holdings.
The final title of the bill relates to abusive tax shelters and is similar to provisions in the previous
legislation.
113th Congress (H.R. 1554, S. 1533, and H.R. 3666)

H.R. 1554, introduced by Representative Doggett, is similar to the Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act in
the 112th Congress. S. 1533, introduced by Senator Levin, and H.R. 3666, introduced by
Representatives DeLauro and Doggett, differ in some respects from H.R. 1554.
The first two major sections of these bills are the same as the previous bill (Sections 101-105) and
Sections 201, 202, 205, and 206.
The final section of the bills, entitled Ending Corporate Offshore Tax Avoidance, contains
substantive changes in the treatment of multinationals, similar to some of those that have been
included in the Presidents proposals (discussed above). They include the allocation of expenses
and foreign tax credit pooling, treatment of income from intangibles to low-taxed affiliates as
Subpart F income, limitations on income shifting through intangible property transfers, a repeal
of check-the-box rules for certain foreign entities and CFC look-through rules, and allocations of
interest deductions.
114th Congress
Representative Doggett and Senator Whitehouse announced introduction of a Stop Tax Haven
Abuse Act in January 2014. The bill is similar to S. 1533 and H.R. 3666, although the interest
allocation is broader and an additional section introduces the changes in treatment of inversions in

the Presidents budget (such as treating any merger with a foreign firm in which U.S.
shareholders maintain majority interests as a U.S. firm).133
Finance Committee Proposal, 111th Congress

A draft of this proposal was circulated on March 12, 2009, and has been discussed by Sullivan.134
Several of its proposals were included in the HIRE Act (statute of limitations, requiring FBAR
information to be filed with the tax return, increasing trust penalties to a minimum of $10,000,
expanding the definition of distributions, and increasing the penalties for underpayments
associated with foreign accounts).
It would require entities transferring funds offshore to report to the IRS the
amount, destination, and account information. Publicly traded companies would
be excluded.
The statute of limitations would be extended from three to six years for tax
returns that report or should have reported certain international transactions.
It would require the foreign bank and financial account report (FBAR) to be filed
with the tax returns.
Tax preparers would be required to ask due diligence questions to determine
whether an FBAR should be filed.
The foreign trust failure-to-file penalty would be increased to a $10,000
minimum and the definition of property considered to be a distribution for
foreign trusts would be expanded, and would include artwork and jewelry.
Fines and penalties on payments attributable to certain offshore transactions
would be doubled.
A provision in the Heroes Earnings Assistance and Relief Tax Act of 2008 (P.L.
110-245) would be modified to require offshore entities that hire workers under a
government contract be treated as American employers by establishing a rule that
any individual who performs at least 100 hours of service a month is an
employee and not an independent contractor.
Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act, S. 386, 111th Congress

This proposal, introduced by Chairman Leahy of the Senate Judiciary Committee, included a
provision to apply the international money laundering statute to tax evasion, and set aside funds
for the Justice Department to pursue financial fraud, including funds to the tax division. It had
been passed by the Senate. The House version of the bill, H.R. 1748, and the enacted law, P.L.
111-21, did not include the tax provision but did include additional funds.
133
For a summary of the bill, see http://doggett.house.gov/images/doggettstoptaxhavenabuseactsummary.pdf.
134
See Committee on Finance News Release, March 12, 2009, http://finance.senate.gov/press/Bpress/2009press/
prb031209b.pdf; See also Martin A. Sullivan, Proposals to fight Offshore Tax Evasion, Part 2, Tax Notes, April 27,
2009, pp. 371-373.

Incorporation Transparency and Law Enforcement Assistance Act,

S. 1483, H.R. 3416, 112th Congress
This proposal (introduced as S. 569 in the 111th Congress) would establish uniform requirements
for states relating to the disclosure of beneficial owners of corporations and limited liability
companies, including updating and maintenance of information after terminating, imposing
additional requirements for those not U.S. citizens or permanent residents, providing penalties,
and updating of such disclosures. It also authorizes a study of requirements of partnerships, trusts,
and other legal entities. This bill is relevant, among other things, to issues raised about the use of
states as international tax havens.
Additional Proposals in the 113th Congress

A number of bills introduced in the 113th Congress would have made a variety of changes in the
tax law affecting the treatment of foreign source income. H.R. 694 (Representative Schakowsky)
and S. 250 (Senator Sanders) would have made fundamental changes similar in some respects to
the Wyden-Coats bill: treat firms managed and controlled in the United States as domestic firms,
repeal deferral, impose a per country foreign tax credit limit, and limit credits for dual capacity
tax payers. H.R. 3793 (Representative Maffei) and S. 1844 (Senator Shaheen) would adopt the
management and control provision. H.R. 1555 (Representative Doggett) also would adopt this
provision, as well as repeal the look-through rule for royalties and certain intangible income and
adopt the boot-within-gain provision discussed above. After the problem of firms inverting via
merger became prominent, bills that incorporated the Presidents proposal to treat as domestic
firms mergers with U.S. firms and other provisions included H.R. 4679 (Representative Levin), S.
2360 (Senator Levin), H.R. 4985 (Representative Van Hollen), and S. 2489 (Senator Walsh). H.R.
5338 also included the management and control provision, and S. 2489 also included allocation of
income provisions. S. 268 (Senator Levin) is a bill that includes many of the provisions of the
various Stop Tax Havens Abuse legislation but not the fundamental law changes of the Sanders
bill (S. 250).
Author Contact Information
Jane G. Gravelle
Senior Specialist in Economic Policy
jgravelle@crs.loc.gov, 7-7829

Tax Havens: International Tax Avoidance and Evasion: Digitalcommons@Ilr

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tax Havens: International Tax Avoidance and Evasion: Digitalcommons@Ilr

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tax Havens: International Tax Avoidance and Evasion: Digitalcommons@Ilr

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cornell University ILR School

Tax Havens: International Tax Avoidance and

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/key_workplace

This article is available at DigitalCommons@ILR: http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/key_workplace/1378

This article is available at DigitalCommons@ILR: http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/key_workplace/1378

January 15, 2015

Congressional Research Service

Congressional Research Service

Congressional Research Service

Revise and Strengthen the Qualified Intermediary Program ............................................. 36

Congressional Research Service

Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act, S. 386, 111th Congress ............................................... 54

Congressional Research Service

Congressional Research Service 1

Although international tax avoidance can be differentiated by whether it is associated with

Congressional Research Service 2

Where Are the Tax Havens?

Formal Lists of Tax Havens

Congressional Research Service 3

Table 1. Countries Listed on Various Tax Haven Lists

Congressional Research Service 4

a. Not included in S. 506, H.R. 1245.

Developments in the OECD Tax Haven List

Congressional Research Service 5

Congressional Research Service 6

Other Jurisdictions with Tax Haven Characteristics

Congressional Research Service 7

Congressional Research Service 8

Methods of Corporate Tax Avoidance

Congressional Research Service 9

Allocation of Debt and Earnings Stripping

Congressional Research Service 10

While allocation-of-interest approaches could be used to address allocation of interest to high-tax

Congressional Research Service 11

Congressional Research Service 12

Congressional Research Service 13

Check-the-Box, Hybrid Entities, and Hybrid Instruments

Congressional Research Service 14

Cross Crediting and Sourcing Rules for Foreign Tax Credits

Congressional Research Service 15

The Magnitude of Corporate Profit Shifting

Evidence on the Scope of Profit Shifting

Congressional Research Service 16

Table 2. U.S. Company Foreign Profits Relative to Gross Domestic

Canada 2.6 3.3

Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) calculations, see text.

Table 3. U.S. Foreign Company Profits Relative to GDP, Larger Countries

Costa Rica 1.2

Source: CRS calculations, see text.

Congressional Research Service 17

Table 4. U.S. Foreign Company Profits Relative to GDP,

Bahamas 43.3 70.8

Source: CRS calculations, see text.

Congressional Research Service 18

Estimates of the Cost and Sources of Corporate Tax Avoidance

Congressional Research Service 19

Congressional Research Service 20

Congressional Research Service 21