International Tax Avoidance And Tax Evasion

The role of multinational companies (MNEs) in international trade has become very great importance in the last 20 years. This is in large part to the increase in the integration of national economies and technological progress, in particular in the area of communication. The growing importance of MNEs develop complex issue of taxation on both the tax administration as well as MNEs, since the regulations of each country in the taxation of MNEs can be considered in isolation, but should be considered in the wider international importance (Grimwade, 2000).

Companies in the US are finding clever deceiving ways to get what they want. Many companies like Google are investing offshore to avoid American taxes. Others like the company Monsanto uses

However, the companies only have to pay the U.S. tax for foreign revenues once they bring the profits back to the United States. As a result of these current tax laws, U.S. companies that seek to avoid high corporate tax rates hold their foreign earned profits overseas. “It just makes no sense to pay a substantial tax on it,” said Joseph Kennedy, a senior fellow at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (Rubin, R.). It is far too easy for an IT corporation to create a patent in a foreign country and direct revenue to a corporation within that country, thus avoiding the much higher U.S. tax rates. According to Joint Committee on Taxation estimates, the lost revenue is increasing over time as corporations find even more creative ways to make their U.S. profits look like offshore income (Richards, K., & Craig, J.). As result, multinational American corporations have as much as $2 trillion held in overseas subsidiaries and if brought into the United States with the current tax laws, the federal government could benefit by nearly $50 billion per year.

Throughout years large American industrial companies have been running away from U.S. taxes, but there has been a new change. Companies such as Apple and Google have been affected by a change foreign countries are going through collecting higher taxes than before. It seems as if no longer can these companies get away with paying low taxes. This is happening because the European Commission have passed an order to collect high taxes. One example is Ireland who was ordered to collect fourteen billion dollars from Apple, which brought a surprise to this company. Companies have run out of places to run and pay one percent or less of taxes in foreign places, instead of paying back home.

Managing assessment safe houses and different strategies utilized by rich people and expansive organizations to evade duty is significant; the measure of cash lost by creating nations to expense safe houses surpasses all universal advancement aid. This increments worldwide imbalance as well as implies that a higher extent of open consumption must be financed by citizens in lower pay bunches. In numerous nations tax assessment, has stopped to be fundamentally

The main objective of many companies is to minimize their tax obligations. Jeffers (2014) discussed the reason of why companies adopt tax inversion strategies. The researcher indicated that the income maximization is a major reason of companies attempting to reduce their tax liability (pp. 100-101). Tax inversion strategies provide companies an advantage to lower income tax rate. Today, U.S. corporations renounce its U.S. citizenship and move to low-tax countries. Companies that reincorporate oversees are not obligated to pay U.S. taxes on earning income (p. 99). Many countries implement tax competition strategies to attract and retain businesses. Well-known companies, such as Exxon Mobil, Hewlett Packard, Tyco, General Electric, PepsiCo, etc. take benefits of tax shelter opportunities overseas (p. 102). Other benefits of the jurisdiction abroad are flexible banking laws and simplified litigation processes.

A sustainable budget with crackdowns on tax avoidance and loopholes, address the issue of tax avoidance that are cause by legal

Host countries laws specifically on taxes and repatriation of profits might affect due to political reforms in their country. (Fox, 2015)

9. The Internet company Google managed to avoid $2 billion in international income taxes in 2011 by moving a hefty sum of its revenues to subsidiaries in Bermuda, according to CNBC, which cited a report by Bloomberg.[1] The search giant reportedly stashed $9.8 billion in revenues to its shell company in Bermuda — which doesn't have a corporate income tax — last year allowing the company to shave its overall tax rate by almost 50 percent. Google's Bermuda move was disclosed in a Nov. 21 filing by a subsidiary in the Netherlands. While the company's move to shift funds to the country was legal, it could spur the growing global criticism of corporate tax

However, the introduction of such a law becomes increasingly difficult when the companies being questioned are some of the largest and wealthiest in the world. In order to truly understand the stature of these companies, one would need to look into some of the statistics regarding them. Remarkably, according to Al Jazeera America “the largest 500 U.S. companies would owe an estimated $620 billion in U.S. taxes” if they had to declare all their overseas stockpiles, of around $2.1 trillion (“Al Jazeera America”). In addition, it found that “three-quarters of the 500 biggest companies utilize tax havens”. The top three offenders included Apple, General Electric and Microsoft. In many cases according to the report, the money is not being utilized to improve foreign economies. By this they mean to say that, U.S. businesses were not using their overseas profit to build factories and employ individuals. Instead, the overseas profit was a result of accounting tricks purposely implemented to benefit the business alone. To put all of this in perspective, the United States is losing billions of dollars to foreign economies. These taxes are being introduced into countries such as Ireland and Luxembourg. In other words the money that should be invested in the United States of America on public services, is being

➢ Taxation – firms functioning when dealing with a different country the subject to that country’s laws and regulations.

“Panama Papers: The Real Scandal Is What’s Legal” by Brooke Harrington was written on April 6th, 2016 and published in ‘The Atlantic’. In this article, Harrington stresses the idea that tax avoidance and offshore finances are entangled with the acts of many governments seeing that it is what stabilizes the economic growth of a country. The author discusses the link between the Panamanian wealth management firm Mossack Fonesca, to a numerous amount of financial crimes. The “Panama Papers” are documents that consist of firms who are allegedly involved in fraud, money laundering, and theft. No country would even think to create strict laws towards ending tax evasion because it would hurt several economies and firms like Mossack Fonesca whose

In addition to allowing corporations to store billions of untaxed dollars, tax havens are also used to support dictators and undemocratic societies. All dictators like Muammar Gaddafi have had billions of dollars stashed in tax havens all around the world. “Tax havens are also used as the principal route through which laundered money escapes developing countries.” (Palan)

Intercompany transactions could occur across national borders, it would lead MNC companies to get more exposure to the differences of the tax regulations between countries. This might lead MNC companies to set up their objective to minimize their taxes through the use of discretionary transfer prices. These issues are attracted the attention of the member of the U.S. senate, foreign governments and international organization such as the OECD, G20 and European Union (EU).

The actions of multinational corporations (MNCs), which derive from their morally dubious goals, may be completely legitimate within a capitalist society. One of these actions that will be examined in this essay is the use of tax havens, as a way of avoiding higher tax liability. This paper will utilise the case study of Apple’s tax avoidance, in examining the legitimation of a company’s goal of profit maximisation, a goal that is against the moral/social consensus