Montreal “Mafia Row” Rizzuto house has buy offer

Every penny from this sale ought to go to the City of Montreal. It's not much, but it might cover a few weeks worth of corruption maybe.

Public disclosure of global corporate tax info, coming soon in the US?

I was happy to see a rather lengthy discussion in Tax Analysts[gated] a little while ago, authored by Randall Jackson on the emerging US corporate tax transparency rules. These rules derive from a global movement to counter corruption, called the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI). The US rules were enacted as a hasty and rather stealthy last-minute addendum to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act of 2010, and have yet to be implemented, in part because of intense industry pressure. That pressure continues, especially from the American Petroleum Institute, even though that organization expresses support for EITI in principle. Jackson describes how the disclosure rules came about under Dodd-Frank, and what information is set to be disclosed when the first US companies begin making their disclosures thereunder (February 2014 at the earliest):

Dodd-Frank section 1504 amends the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by adding a new section 13(q), "Disclosure of Payments by Resource Extraction Issuers," which requires country-by-country (and project-by-project) reporting of all payments, including taxes, made to all foreign governments and the U.S. federal government. (Analysis of Dodd-Frank .) 

The legislation requires companies engaged in the commercial development of oil, natural gas, or minerals that file a yearly report with the SEC to file an additional detailed annual report (new Form SD, which is separate from countries' 10-K annual report) listing all their payments, including taxes, fees (including license fees), royalties, production entitlements, bonuses, dividends, and payments for infrastructure improvements. Payments of at least $100,000 during the most recent fiscal year must be listed.

...Reports must be detailed and specific, listing payments to each foreign government, foreign subnational government, and the U.S. federal government. (Payments to subnational U.S. governments, such as state governments, need not be reported.) The reports will be publicly available online. 

More specifically, the reports must separately list each project and the types and totals of payments made in connection with each project; the types and totals of amounts paid to each government, including a separate list of the governments that received payments; the total payments by category; the currency in which the payments were made; the relevant financial period; and the business segment of the company that made the payment.

Jackson discusses the origin of the inclusion of the EITI addendum in Dodd-Frank (by means of an amendment by Senators Cardin & Lugar, whose prior attempt to pass EITI as a stand alone bill failed in 2009) and the subsequent industry pressure in some amount of detail. He includes a description of API's attempt to unwind the legislation via a legal challenge. API is arguing that the SEC failed to undertake a sufficient cost/benefit analysis of the rules, failed to study how the rules and costs would impact US companies doing business in other countries, and failed to create exemptions in cases where foreign law would prohibit the required disclosure. Jackson quotes the complaint: "the Commission did not even bother to determine how many countries had laws on the books prohibiting disclosure." He also quotes the SE's response:

[T]he SEC wrote that it had rejected commentators' suggestions to exempt firms operating in countries where the required disclosure is prohibited because the agency is skeptical that such prohibitions actually exist, and allowing exemptions would violate the spirit of the law. Furthermore, it said that allowing that kind of exemption could encourage foreign countries to pass anti-transparency laws or to interpret existing laws in a harsher fashion.

To which Cardin and Lugar responded:

"API wants to push us back to a time when the U.S. had few tools to add accountability and stability to the inherently unstable energy sector," Cardin said. "Congress and the SEC carefully crafted a reasonable and very manageable reporting requirement that will bring greater transparency to the oil, gas, and mineral sectors." 

"The U.S. economy and our values substantially benefit when our companies are working in oil-, gas-, and mineral-rich states," Lugar added. "But the benefits will not be realized if investments serve to entrench authoritarianism, corruption, and instability. With oil prices high and volatile, our economy needs more transparent markets, not less.

Cardin and Lugar, along with Senator Levin, have submitted an amicus curiae brief in support of the SEC, which Jackson quotes:

"Resource companies can believe whatever they wish and make any communication they wish about their payments to foreign governments, 'the resource curse,' or the benefits or costs of transparency; they have done so throughout this process. What resource companies may not do is impede the power of the legislative branch to require disclosure of objective information to fulfill compelling public policy objectives, including the strengthening of American national and energy security and investor protection."

It remains to be seen whether industry will be successful in pushing back the EITI regime; if not, we should start seeing the additional disclosure I believe by September of this year. So here is a question. How many multinational extractive industry companies are there in the world, and how many will be covered by the US EITI regime? In other words, if and when the US rules are in place, how many extractive industry companies will not have their information revealed through these disclosure rules by virtue of affiliation with US companies? Is it a few, many, or most? If anyone knows whether this is known or could be ascertained, I'd like to know.

How Much Water?

Water comes up on occasion as a topic related to taxation and society because of its character as a public good and a private commodity. A reader sent this infographic of interest, click on it to see a bigger version. Interesting advice on the bottom: to save water, drink beer (instead of milk). Or drink water, instead of everything else. It's so strange to me that it take more water to make instant potatoes, which are dehydrated potatoes, than to make the actual potatoes. I assume the same logic applies to things like powdered milk, detergents, etc.

Anti-austerity Protestors in Portugal: "Screw the troika, we want our lives back"

Austerity is spreading across the globe like a bad virus, despite the vehement opposition of the general population. In Portugal, thousands of demonstrators have held marches across the country in protest. From Al Jazeera:

Tens of thousands of people filled a Lisbon boulevard during Saturday's protests and headed to the finance ministry carrying placards saying "Screw the troika, we want our lives back". 

The troika is a reference to the European Commission, the International Monetary Fund and the European Central Bank, the lenders behind the country's financial bailout. 

Many protesters were singing a 40-year-old song linked to a 1974 popular uprising known as the Carnation Revolution. 

Portugal is expected to suffer a third straight year of recession in 2013, with a two percent contraction. The overall jobless rate has grown to a record 17.6 percent. The marches were powered mostly by young people among whom unemployment is close to 40 percent.

 ...After several years of tax increases and welfare cuts, austerity is poised to deepen as the government looks for another $5.2bn to cut over the next two years. The national health service, education, pensioners and government workers are likely to be the hardest hit. The government is locked into debt-cutting measures in return for the $102bn financial rescue set up in 2011.  

More tax hikes and spending cuts are on the way for Portugal: when it comes to the IMF, you must pay your debts regardless of the consequences. That was always the IMF way of course, but when austerity plus regressive taxation was being imposed on impoverished countries with disastrous social and economic results, the global North didn't seem too bothered by it. One protestor in Lisbon is quoted as saying, "This government has left the people on bread and water, selling off state assets for peanuts to pay back debts that were contracted by corrupt politicians to benefit bankers." That scenario is lifted straight out of the IMF's playbook throughout Africa in the 1990s.

Treaty angle on PPL, the US foreign tax credit case

David Cameron has a fresh take on the PPL case which is worth a read, in yesterday's Tax Notes [gated]. He's wondering why no one has raised the US-UK tax treaty, which he thinks would resolve the creditability issue with ease.  He says:

... Because neither PPL nor Entergy raised the treaty issue, the Tax Court, the Third Circuit, and the Fifth Circuit relied solely on the requirements of section 901 and the regulations that define a creditable tax. The complete lack of any reference to the U.K.-U.S. tax treaty is extremely curious because the treaty provided more than adequate grounds to conclude that the windfall tax was creditable under U.S. law. 

...The [applicable] U.K.-U.S. tax treaty identified specific existing taxes imposed by the United Kingdom and designated them as income taxes for which a credit would be available (covered taxes).  

Importantly, covered taxes may well include foreign taxes that would not qualify as income taxes under domestic law.... 

...[T]he language describing the indirect credit under article 23(1) does not specifically refer to an "income tax" but only to a "tax paid to the United Kingdom by that corporation with respect to the profits out of which such dividends are paid." 

... The failure of the taxpayers in PPL and Entergy to raise the treaty issue is all the more curious given the IRS's recognition in a coordinated issue paper that the windfall tax involved a treaty issue.[The IRS claimed that the Windfall Tax would not be creditable because it was a one-time levy imposed on appreciation in value, but the] IRS's analysis of the treaty issue is not ... convincing. 

... The Supreme Court need not decide whether a formalistic or substantive analysis applies under section 901 because the U.K.-U.S. tax treaty provides an alternative argument -- a definition of an income tax at least as broad as that under section 901 and the application of a substantive analysis to determine if a tax satisfies that definition -- to conclude that the windfall tax is creditable based on the Tax Court's findings. 

...By ignoring the existence of the U.K.-U.S. tax treaty, the parties and the lower courts in PPL have overlooked a significant aspect of the case. The Supreme Court should not repeat their mistake.

I agree with David that the treaty argument should have been made, even though I am less convinced than he is that on substance the "windfall tax" is really even a tax at all--I think it looks like a purchase price adjustment. But that was also not an argument brought up by anyone at trial, instead the IRS conceded that the "tax" was in fact a tax. Having done so, the treaty does seem to present the more permissive regime.

But a big part of this story is David's puzzlement about the treaty being overlooked by all the parties and all the judges, despite the IRS having previously articulated a treaty-based position on the very tax in question. Can it be that the parties just assumed the treaty did not apply, or if it did apply, did not provide a different result? Can it be that they all made those assumptions without undergoing a close analysis, without doing any research?

If so David is suggesting that a big mistake has potentially been made, and if the Supreme Court rules against the taxpayer in PPL, it may have been a quite costly mistake. That's bad for the taxpayer and bad form on the part of the lawyers, but intriguingly, it also suggests that even in a top fight litigation situation like this, it is possible that the tax law experts on both sides overlooked an applicable legal regime, most likely because the regime in question involved international law rather than a statute in the tax code.

That is a fascinating observation for those of us who like to think about the rule of law as the product not of legal texts by themselves but of their dynamic implementation in practice. If a legal text exists but is ignored by the legal system, can it really be said to be law at all? David is suggesting that the US-UK treaty is a tree falling in a forest, unheard by anyone. Usually I am worried that people will imagine that they hear trees falling in forests when there are no trees at all--that is, I worry about non-legal assertions being treated as equivalent to law (for example, OECD guidelines). David's article suggests that the opposite may have happened in this case.

IRS brushes aside the constitution to make way for FATCA

In a Tax Notes International article [gated] today, Lee Sheppard discusses remarks about FATCA by Jesse Eggert, Treasury associate international tax counsel, at a March 1 IFA meeting. The most troubling aspect for me comes in the last part, when Sheppard describes a Q&A over the intergovernmental agreements and the IRS rep casually dismisses any constraints on the Treasury's attempt to bind the US with these documents as a matter of international law. There are two main questions here and both answers strike me as deeply problematic. First, there is this:

Can there be an IGA with a country that has no treaty or tax information exchange agreement? Yes, Eggert responded. It would have to be a Model II or nonreciprocal Model I . Amendments would have to be made to add information protections and assistance provisions.

With respect, this does not accord with what we have been given to understand so far about these IGAs. One need only read the preambles to the IGA models and signed agreements and consider the treaty power briefly to see that there is a very large legal difficulty here. As I have said before (and have a feeling I will be saying repeatedly), the Executive Branch cannot simply bind the US to any agreement it wants to without doing violence to a constitutional process that has been expressly laid out and subject to decades of analysis and debate by the country's most preeminent legal minds.

This is why the IRS has been very quietly implying that the IGAs interpret existing treaties. I don't agree on the merits that this could possibly be true, but the IRS needs it to be true because if it is not true, the only alternative is that the IGAs are sole executive agreements entered into by the executive branch with no congressional oversight whatsoever. That puts them on the most precarious legal ground in terms of foreign policy power in the US, and by this statement Eggert pushes them closer in that direction.

Second, there is this:

Does Treasury have authority to make IGAs? Eggert argued that IGAs are within Treasury's statutory authority to make FATCA regulations (section 1471(b)). Treasury and IGA signatories are discussing how to make domestic implementing laws consistent.

Again with all due respect, this just simply is not true as a matter of US law. The executive branch does not have the power to authorize itself to enter into treaties without congressional oversight. It is the constitution that provides the treaty power, and Congress is expressly involved. Congress could have granted the executive specific authority in this case, as it has done in other cases, but it clearly did not do so here. It is not clear what Eggert means by "making domestic implementing laws consistent." Maybe that refers to the domestic laws of treaty partner countries, which will have to change their data privacy laws to accomodate the information sought by the IRS. If so, that has nothing to do with the US. From what we have seen so far, it seems clear that the IRS is treating the IGAs as operational once the other country so indicates it is operational from their perspective (cf Mexico).

Arguing that the authority is implied within Congress' mandate to Treasury to issue regulations under 1471 is blowing a hole through the treaty power. It argues that Congress empowers the Executive Branch with treaty making authority with each and every directive to enact regulations. It makes a farce of the congressional executive agreement process that has been begrudgingly accepted as authentic by most constitutional scholars today. And never mind the old standard, the Article II treaty power. By this logic if the President wants an international agreement--any international agreement of any kind--he never needs to consult the Senate again, he can simply find some reference by the Congress directing his regulators to regulate. If Eggert is right in this assessment, it is not a stretch to see this as the beginning of the end of the Article II treaty ratification process in the United States. In other words if this works, then it's anything goes when it comes to the Executive Branch overriding domestic law with an international agreement.

Finally, I note that one other Q&A Sheppard mentions is also intriguing, though on the surface it seemed uncontroversial:

Existing IGAs will be interpreted to say that countries may choose the definition of an item in the final regulations which came later in time. Treasury will not amend IGAs wholesale when regulations change, Eggert explained.

This may seem benign--it provides flexibility despite the apparently rigid parameters of the documents (which are treaties, after all, and not so easy to just unilaterally alter at whim). But this is in fact very interesting as a legal matter because it quietly moves the world a little closer to yet another US tradition that many people in other countries find odd if not outright incompatible with international law, namely, the treatment of treaties as equal in legal status to other laws, including statutes and case law, so that treaties can be overridden at any time by a new statute or judicial decision. But it goes a further step to include regulations within that overriding scope--where they might not so clearly belong even under US law.

In other words, the IRS is saying that not only does the "last in time" rule apply to IGAs (as they would to any US international agreement), but we'll apply the last in time rule to other countries too (even if under their own laws the treaty would override later-enacted domestic laws); moreover the last-in-time rule is now extended to treasury regulations (a unilateral law that will be used to "interpret" a bilateral agreement, yet another controversial treaty interpretation position), and finally we are going to make it the treaty partner's choice to pick among the regimes to get the best result (which treats treaty partners not as negotiators in a bilateral agreement but rather in the same way as taxpayers subject to an elective regime).

It is getting progressively more difficult to keep up with the sheer volume of violations of laws and norms being undertaken by the IRS in order to get FATCA to work. It is rather disheartening (in the sense of being a scholar who studies legal process as though it matters) to realize that to many or most people involved in this project, all of these violations are just technicalities and semantics getting in the way of a result everyone wants.

Who is to blame for Starbucks-style tax dodging?

The answer is "government" if you believe the Telegraph, from an opinion by "Richard Emerton, Head of Board Practice at Korn/Ferry Whitehead Mann" (an executive recruiting firm). He's enthusiastic about tax competition: the kind that will keep European companies "competitive" on a "level playing field" by lowering their taxes on purpose, and he's keen to blame government alone for any failure of tax policy to date, e.g. the kind of failure that led to the public shaming of Starbucks and friends.

I agree with Emerton when he says stop blaming the companies (alone) for failing to pay taxes when this is the system that has been deliberately set up to meet them. But let us not forget that the rules have long been written collaboratively amongst government and business interests with virtually no civil society oversight. Once again, multinationals have the best tax system money can buy. Emerton does forget to mention that part, and goes too far in shifting the blame to government alone. Excerpts:

...The UK Government has done a good job in creating a tax system that encourages businesses to set up in Britain and the Chancellor has made it clear he wants international businesses to operate here. It is therefore important he does all he can to prevent European politics from perverting his well-intentioned efforts to look at the problem from an international perspective.  

What strikes me as counter-productive about the debates that have taken place over the likes of Starbucks and Google is the anti-business rhetoric from many politicians in the search for public approval. A degree of anger from the public may be understandable, but is it directed at the right targets? Korn/Ferry’s latest “Boardroom Pulse” survey of FTSE 100 chairmen suggests that business leaders think not.

Not sure what that survey asked, but let's assume it was something on the order of, "do you enjoy being publicly pilloried for doing your best to exploit every means of tax reduction your government generously makes available to you?" And the follow up question ought to have been (but probably was not) "Do you enjoy public scrutiny of your constant attempts to influence tax policy at every level of governance in order to achieve that generosity of spirit on the part of lawmakers?" To which the answer would no doubt have likewise been a resounding "business leaders think not." Emerton goes on:

While agreeing that the public has a right to be angry, many respondents felt that dissatisfaction should be directed towards the tax legislation and those in charge of it, rather than the companies observing it.Indeed, it is governments that have failed to modernise international tax legislation in decades, despite the wholesale changes that have taken place in the way businesses operate across borders. 

Oh, but Mr. Emerton, you failed to define a key term here: "those in charge of it." I mean, it's not like the companies that help write the law are shy about it. That is, after all, what organizations like the BIAC and the ICC are for, and if you don't know what the BIAC or ICC are, well, you're not trying hard enough to understand international tax. Look also for example at any number of marketing brochures by the likes of the big four. They are not hiding their influence, they are selling it as a product. Here's one by KPMG that I just happened to come across yesterday:

Our professionals have been directly involved in writing and reviewing the applicable Treasury regulations ... which govern tax-free separations."

You will come across this kind of claim all the time if you do any work at all in tax, so it is disingenuous at best to fail to mention industry influence as a major aspect of tax lawmaking at the national and international levels. But Mr. Emerton moves along quickly to make hay of the old adage that every one has a right to minimize their taxes and for company directors this has become a duty:

The chairmen we surveyed pointed out that company directors have a fiduciary duty to minimise tax bills, providing they are acting in an ethical manner and are not inviting legal risks.

That's a pretty vague provided, and a big weight to carry for fiduciary law. Emerton hammers it home:

Which raises a fundamental question stemming from the tax issue – should the primary duty of a company’s board and senior management be to its shareholders, or to the wider moral and social concerns of the public?

Notice this is assumed to be an either/or and not a both, and it's also committing the false dilemma fallacy. But having committed, we must have follow-through:

The chairmen we talked to were divided. Yes, business leaders have a duty to drive value for their shareholders. And yes, businesses also have a duty to act responsibly as members of wider society. It is the responsibility of the leaders of these businesses to strike a balance and most of them make significant efforts to do so. Inevitably, sometimes they get this balance wrong, but attacking them for trying to drive shareholder value while playing by the rules of the game will solve little. A better focus of our energies is to ensure that international tax laws are strengthened by the regulatory framework governing businesses, allowing them to focus on achieving long-term sustainable value for shareholders and for society. However, policymakers must ensure that this isn’t achieved at the expense of a level playing field for businesses across the world, not just one part of it.

The author channels every "we paid all the tax that is legally due" defense ever given in the face of public pressure against tax dodging. He also invokes the "level playing field" metaphor, which is always invoked for every destructive tax policy that was ever invented in response to every other destructive tax policy that was ever invented. So three cheers for tax industry rhetoric, bandied about in any tax policy dialogue to make sure no one thinks too hard about the systemic choices at issue here.

Score ten points to Mr. Emerton in pointing out that blame for tax dodging rests in a legal system that has been specifically designed to encourage it. But take away nine points for failing to mention the big part business plays in constantly perpetuating that kind of design. Then take away two more points for failing to mention that some things only look like dutiful tax minimization until the tax authority figures out what you are doing, and then they are clearly tax evasion. Cf Dow, Ernst & Young, and Jenkins & Gilchrist tax partners, and that's all in just one week.

That puts the column in the negative territory, which is right about where the author appears to think that the tax liabilities of fiduciary-duty-abiding corporate managers ought to keep their companies' tax burdens.