RESTRAINING HARMFUL TAX COMPETITION: AN ANALYSIS OF AMERICAN CFC LEGISLATION
Capital and labor mobility facilitates cross-border activities of enterprises. In the era of globalization the optimal choice of investment location gives enterprises an opportunity to profit maximization. As a result the governments competing for foreign direct investment offer to enterprises preferential tax treatment. In order to minimize the loss of tax revenue countries imposing high effective tax rates on enterprises implement diversified anti-tax-avoidance measures. One of these measures is controlled foreign corporation. The article examines the application of the controlled foreign corporation rules in the United States of America to combat harmful tax competition. It has to be underlined, that the American controlled foreign corporation legislation was a prototype for other countries that use this institution to prevent tax avoidance. The aim of this article is to review the controlled foreign corporation legislation in the USA, analyze the structure of CFCs and the structure of their subpart F income in this country and evaluate the efficiency of this anti-tax-avoidance measure. The author describes inter alia, implications of harmful tax competition and the CFC rules. As the provisions of controlled foreign corporation are also planned to be introduced in Poland, the American legislation might be a good example of its successful implementation.
Tax Havens: International Tax Avoidance and Evasion
The federal government loses both individual and corporate income tax revenue from the shifting of profits and income into low-tax countries, often referred to as tax havens. Tax havens are located around the world with concentrations in the Caribbean and Europe. Corporate profit shifting may cost up to $60 billion in revenue and remedies are likely to involve tax law changes. Individual income tax losses more often arise from tax evasion, and are facilitated by the lack of information reporting; remedies involve administrative changes, especially in requirements for information reporting. Losses may be as much as $70 billion per year.
Complexity, Network-Decisions And Alternative Risk Premia: Some New Theories Of Structural Change And Portfolio Decisions.
Structural Change is the basis for many decisions such as government fiscal and monetary policies, government interventions, corporate-expenditure decisions, corporate strategic decisions, portfolio management decisions in finance; household allocation decisions, etc.. Structural change in industries and national economies is increasingly more difficult to detect partly because of the growth and dominance of Complex Systems and “Networks” in modern industries and economies – such Networks and Complex Systems include GVCs (global value chains), retail store networks; franchising networks; internet networks; services networks; credit-chains in industries; online social networks; etc.. The relationship between Complexity and Structural Change is well established in the physics, applied math and economic dynamics literatures. Traditional definitions and modeling of structural change have erroneously focused on changes in labor, technological progress, market share, and or capital – which are grossly inadequate in the new economy and post- global financial crisis (as confirmed by changes in the global retailing and housing industries and other industries). Also the modeling of structural change seems to be constrained by the availability of data, and often omits the relationship between structural change on one hand, and globalization, financial stability and international financial contagion. This article: i) introduces the Operations Strategy Model of structural change, explains how it differs from the Lewis Model of Structural Change; and explains the often omitted relationship between operations strategy (of companies and government agencies) and structural change; ii) introduces other new Complexity-based models/theories of Structural Change in industries; iii) reviews the relationships among Operations Research, Complexity and Structural Change; iv) explains the symbiotic relationship between structural change on one hand, and economic growth, financial stability, financial contagion and globalization; v) discusses the significant gap between academic research and practice and explains some issues and factors that should be considered in the development and testing of structural change models; vi) explains how alternative risk premia can be generated from new models of Structural Change.