Obama could curb corporate 'inversions' on his own: ex-U.S. official

WASHINGTON Mon Jul 28, 2014 12:25am EDT

U.S. President Barack Obama disembarks from Air Force One as he arrives at Los Angeles International Airport in Los Angeles, California, July 23, 2014. REUTERS/Larry Downing

U.S. President Barack Obama disembarks from Air Force One as he arrives at Los Angeles International Airport in Los Angeles, California, July 23, 2014.

Credit: Reuters/Larry Downing

Related Topics

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

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

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

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

If the administration were to take the steps he discusses, Shay said, some of the many inversion deals that are said to be in the works might be halted in their tracks.

The regulatory power conferred by the tax code section he has in mind, known as Section 385, is "extraordinarily broad" and would be a "slam dunk" for the Treasury Department, he said.

A recent sharp upswing in inversion deals is causing alarm in Washington, with Obama last week urging lawmakers to act soon on anti-inversion proposals from him and other Democrats. But Republican opposition has blocked Congress from moving ahead.

Meantime, investment bankers and tax lawyers are aggressively promoting inversion deals among corporate clients, with U.S. drugstore chain Walgreen Co one of several companies known to be evaluating such a transaction.

Medical technology group Medtronic Inc, based in Minnesota, and drug maker AbbVie Inc, of Illinois, are in the midst of inverting to Ireland by buying smaller Irish rivals and shifting their tax domiciles to that country.

The biggest attraction of inversions for U.S. multinationals is putting their foreign profits out of the reach of the U.S. Internal Revenue Service. But another incentive is to make it easier to do so-called "earnings stripping" transactions.

This legal strategy involves making loans from a foreign parent to a U.S. unit, which can then deduct the interest payments from its U.S. taxable income. Plus, the foreign parent can book interest income at its home country's lower tax rate.

Section 385 empowers the Treasury secretary to set standards for when a financial instrument should be treated as debt, eligible for interest deductibility, and when it should be treated as ineligible equity.

If a corporation has loaded debt into a U.S. unit beyond a certain level, Section 385 could be used by the government to declare the excess as equity and ineligible for deductions.

"The stuff I'm describing should be putting a crimp in tax-motivated deals," Shay said.

(Editing by Eric Walsh)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (21)
2Borknot2B wrote:
That is the kind of order that would definitely let people know that he is fighting for the American people. All the other stuff is fluffy in comparison to this. L.

Jul 28, 2014 1:02am EDT  --  Report as abuse
NPeril wrote:
We’ll have to see if the White House has the smarts and courage to advance against the Big $$$.

Typically, the President and his camp target less powerful government/corporate interests or leverages, by Executive Order, the Federal Agencies which he controls or even strikes out at individual/groups of citizens through ploys such as conflict/crisis, misdirection and divide/conquer. But now; the White House may take on Global-Class $$$. And unless, Big $$$ gains more from their potential surrender to “inversions”; White House efforts may result in such debilitating retaliations that the President and his Party/Associates could be ruined beyond recognition in the near future.

My goodness; this should be great theater.

Jul 28, 2014 1:23am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Shay didn’t mention that this could/would have no effect for deals already done since it can’t be applied retroactive to those.

Again, it seems the focus is on eliminating the loopholes instead of fixing the problems with the tax code and tax rates. I do agree with NPeril though. An Obama decision of this magnitude will result in a scorched earth event for him and his party.

Jul 28, 2014 4:42am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.