Profit Shifting Before and After the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act

Author(s):  
Kimberly A. Clausing
2020 ◽  
Vol 73 (4) ◽  
pp. 1233-1266
Author(s):  
Kimberly A. Clausing

In recent years, profit shifting by multinational companies (MNCs) has generated substantial revenue costs to the U.S. government. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) changed U.S. international tax law in several important ways. This paper discusses the nature of these changes and their possible effects on profit shifting. The paper also evaluates the effects of the global intangible low-taxed income (GILTI) tax on the location of taxable profits. Once company adjustment to the legislation is complete, estimates suggest that the GILTI tax will reduce the corporate profits of U.S. multinational affiliates in haven countries by about 12-16 percent, modestly increasing the tax base in both the United States and in higher-tax foreign countries. However, a per-country minimum tax would generate much larger increases in the U.S. tax base; a per-country tax at the same rate reduces haven profits by 23-31 percent, resulting in larger gains in U.S. tax revenue.


2020 ◽  
Vol 73 (4) ◽  
pp. 1065-1086
Author(s):  
Erin Henry ◽  
Richard Sansing

We examine the effect of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA) on corporate tax preferences and how this effect varies with firm characteristics such as financial performance. We show that the TCJA significantly reduced the extent to which a subsample of profitable firms is tax favored, but it did not change average cash tax differences for the full sample that includes firms with losses. The associations between the tax preferences of profitable firms and their characteristics were generally unaffected by the TCJA. In a sample that includes loss firms, we find that larger firms are less tax favored after the TCJA.


2018 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 97-120 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan J. Auerbach

On December 22, 2017, President Donald Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), the most sweeping revision of US tax law since the Tax Reform Act of 1986. The law introduced many significant changes. However, perhaps none was as important as the changes in the treatment of traditional “C” corporations—those corporations subject to a separate corporate income tax. Beginning in 2018, the federal corporate tax rate fell from 35 percent to 21 percent, some investment qualified for immediate deduction as an expense, and multinational corporations faced a substantially modified treatment of their activities. This paper seeks to evaluate the impact of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act to understand its effects on resource allocation and distribution. It compares US corporate tax rates to other countries before the 2017 tax law, and describes ways in which the US corporate sector has evolved that are especially relevant to tax policy. The discussion then turns the main changes of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 for the corporate income tax. A range of estimates suggests that the law is likely to contribute to increased US capital investment and, through that, an increase in US wages. The magnitude of these increases is extremely difficult to predict. Indeed, the public debate about the benefits of the new corporate tax provisions enacted (and the alternatives not adopted) has highlighted the limitations of standard approaches in distributional analysis to assigning corporate tax burdens.


2018 ◽  
Vol 46 (3) ◽  
pp. 806-808
Author(s):  
Michael S. Sinha ◽  
Aaron S. Kesselheim

2018 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 73-96 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joel Slemrod

Based on the experience of recent decades, the United States apparently musters the political will to change its tax system comprehensively about every 30 years, so it seems especially important to get it right when the chance arises. Based on the strong public statements of economists opposing and supporting the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, a causal observer might wonder whether this law was tax reform or mere confusion. In this paper, I address that question and, more importantly, offer an assessment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. The law is clearly not “tax reform” as economists usually use that term: that is, it does not seek to broaden the tax base and reduce marginal rates in a roughly revenue-neutral manner. However, the law is not just a muddle. It seeks to address some widely acknowledged issues with corporate taxation, and takes some steps toward broadening the tax base, in part by reducing the incentive to itemize deductions.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ivalina Kalcheva ◽  
James Plecnik ◽  
Hai Tran ◽  
Jason Turkiela

Author(s):  
Deborah Combs ◽  
Brian Nichols

This paper explores how the tax cuts and jobs act of 2017 impacts middle-class taxpayers by calculating the tax liability at different levels of income and deductions in 2017 versus 2018. The results confirm the statements supporting the positive effect of the tax change for the middle class. The tax cut and jobs act eliminates personal exemptions, changes the standard deductions at various incomes and family sizes, and lowers marginal tax rates. After providing details of the act, this research examines the definition of the U.S. middle class by using prior research from the Pew Research Center, the United States Census Bureau, and the federal reserve to determine which income levels are attributable to the middle class. Then the tax liability for these income classes is calculated for single and married filing jointly taxpayers in both 2017 and 2018 to determine if the tax cuts and jobs act reduces the tax liability for the middle class. The results show that in almost all scenarios the tax liability in 2018 will be lower than in 2017, regardless of whether standard or itemized deductions are taken. The marriage penalty is no longer applicable, and the new tax act provides a substantial benefit to large families


Author(s):  
Charles D. Bailey ◽  
James M. Plecnik

This study focuses on whether an ethical prompt, adapted from Mazar et al. (2008), can reduce easily concealed tax evasion—i.e., tax evasion relating to cash-based income for which the IRS relies on voluntary compliance. We also consider the “Dark Triad” personality traits and other individual attitudes and characteristics that may drive or predict tax evasion intentions. We unexpectedly find that ethical prompts do not affect intent to engage in tax evasion, but our result is consistent with a newly released large-scale replication project that fails to find an effect for this much-discussed religious/ethical prompt, and the power of our test is about 80%. Of the variables studied, only psychopathy, commitment to the process of taxation, and fear of punishment predict intent to evade. These findings are consistent across two samples, taken both before and after the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017.


2021 ◽  
pp. 13-21
Author(s):  
Paul Zschocke
Keyword(s):  
Jobs Act ◽  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document