Why doesn’t every company and individual use tax-havens to pay less taxes?
"I believe that an understanding of the taxation system can help to understand our place in it, and how that impacts each of our personal finances. I will try to remain unbiased here but this is a somewhat subjective question, so please bear with me if you disagree on any point. Some of these tax savings are well-advertised, and can be used by many people, such as tax credits for mass-transit passes which exists in some countries. But some of these tax savings are things you never heard of before, until it winds up on the news. Why do some people seem to get tax savings that you and I cannot get, and why do those people always seem to have so much more money than us? A simplistic answer can show this in three parts: (1) The source of one's income; (2) Transaction costs; and (3) ""tax loopholes"". Tax savings occur proportionately to one's income, and if the savings apply to investment income, they occur proportionately to one's wealth. If someone living paycheck to paycheck with a minimal amount in a bank account ""saves tax on investment income"", they might reduce their taxable interest from $50 to $0. That's because they simply don't have any other investment income to reduce. All of their income comes in the form of employment, which is typically very hard to save taxes on. Most governments have a very firm grasp on the taxation of employment income, because it is a huge proportion of income in the country (and therefore has the largest amount of tax associated), and because it is very straightforward (work for someone = employment income). A more cynical person than I might point out that investment income is earned by the very wealthy, who can afford to lobby for politicians to pass favourable investment income laws. Even very straightforward tax saving opportunities may cost money to enable. The simplest example would be: if a tax saving opportunity is so complicated that an average person can't understand it themselves, then an accountant, lawyer, or banker will need to be the one to explain it. And that can cost you money. If your tax isn't so much to begin with, then the transaction costs to achieve the tax savings could be higher than the tax savings themselves. For example, most countries have tax savings / deferrals if you start a corporation. These rules typically exist to promote investment in the local economy. But someone who earns $10k in a side-business might not be able to afford the $3k in incorporation costs just to save $2k in taxes. The more income and wealth you have, the more these transaction costs become worthwhile. I'm going to generally define ""tax loopholes"" for the purposes of this answer as something where a somewhat arbitrary situation allows for taxes that a layman would consider unfair or unexpected. This often occurs with good intentions but poor legislation - the government tries to provide a benefit to a deserving group or to promote an activity, but ends up allowing another group to take advantage.  For example in Canada, there existed until a few years ago tax saving rules about passing on wealth to children at lower tax rates, only when a close family member is near-death [setting up a 'testamentary trust' between a grandparent and a grandchild could in some circumstances allow that trust to be created with additional 'tax brackets', meaning more income would be taxed at a less-than top tax rate before being distributed to the grandchildren].  The rules were put in place with the idea that ""oh gee, a family member has died, and the dang ol' family is grieving so hard they can't distribute the wealth to the next generation for a few months on account of all the crying. We should make it so that the estate is taxed like a person, and if they earn only a little income, they have a low tax rate, and they only get taxed at the full rate if they have a lot of income"". Seems reasonable enough, but if a family is ready to pass on wealth at the same time as someone is nudging the bucket with their foot, a morbid discussion with your lawyer and accountant could set your children up for life with forever reduced taxes on massive inheritances.  In the case of the Panama / Paradise leaks, tax savings are due to all 3 of the above: Those who have massive wealth (and therefore earn the majority of their income from investments instead of employment) can afford the transaction costs associated with taking advantage of specific ""tax loopholes"". The simplest example of which is just that income earned in a foreign country might have a lower tax rate than income earned domestically. This is often a result of ""cracks"" in the foreign tax treaties between countries, which exist generally to promote business between countries and prevent double-taxing individuals who need activity in both countries for whatever reason. Take for example the ""Apple loophole"". Apple has operations around the world. Some activity occurs in low-tax jurisdictions. Apple reports a high percentage of the value of R&D as being associated with those jurisdictions. Those branches in low-tax jurisdictions charge the high-tax branches (such as the US) with fees for use of their valuable research. So much of Apple's income is reported in those foreign jurisdictions. It won't be taxed in the US until Apple ""repatriates"" the cash back to the US. Until then, the cash sits in the foreign jurisdiction, accruing less tax. This and similar rules can be used by individuals wealthy enough to hold corporations in foreign jurisdictions with low tax rates. How each particular rule / ""loophole"" works will depend on the nature of a specific case - tax law is complex, and the rules between countries are even more so. These foreign tax loopholes are closing every year. It is getting harder and harder to hide money offshore, and it is getting less and less likely that you will be able to find a country with juuuust the right loopholes for your own offshore wealth. These types of news leaks will only help to expedite those changes." "Your ""average company and taxpayer"" generally wouldn't have significant off-shore/foreign income. In the U.S., for example, even if you have your employer deposit all of your salary to an account at a foreign bank, they would still report it to the IRS as income. Removing the money from your home country isn't what gets it out of being taxed, it's that the money was never in your home country." In a nutshell, there are significant entrance hurdles, legally and especially financially. The fixed cost and effort to get it set up is high (although later, the proportional cost and efforts are negligible). Therefore, this is only of interest for taxable amounts of seven digits or more - which most people don’t reach. "Ditto @GradeEhBacon, but let me add a couple of comments: But more relevantly: GradeEhBacon mentioned transaction costs. Yes. Many tax shelters require setting up accounts, doing paperwork, etc. Often you have to get a lawyer or accountant to do this right. If the tax shelter could save you $1 million a year in taxes, it makes sense to pay a lawyer $10,000 to set it up right. If it could save you $100 a year in taxes, paying $10,000 to set it up would be foolish. In some cases the tax savings would be so small that it wouldn't be worth the investment of spending $20 on a FedEx package to ship the paperwork. Inconvenience. Arguably this is a special case of transaction costs: the cost of your time. Suppose I knew that a certain tax shelter would save me $100 a year in taxes, but it would take me 20 hours a year to do the paperwork or whatever to manage it. I probably wouldn't bother, because my free time is worth more than $5 an hour to me. If the payoff was bigger or if I was poorer, I might be willing. Complexity. Perhaps a special case of 3. If the rules to manage the tax shelter are complicated, it may not be worth the trouble. You have to spend a bunch of time, and if you do it wrong, you may get audited and slapped with fines and penalties. Even if you do it right, a shelter might increase your chance of being audited, and thus create uncertainty and anxiety. I've never intentionally cheated on my taxes, but every year when I do my taxes I worry, What if I make an honest mistake but the government decides that it's attempted fraud and nails me to the wall? Qualification. Again, as others have noted, tax shelters aren't generally, ""if you fill out this form and check box (d) you get 50% off on your taxes"". The shelters exist because the government decided that it would be unfair to impose taxes in this particular situation, or that giving a tax break encourages investment, or some other worthy goal. (Sometimes that worthy goal is ""pay off my campaign contributors"", but that's another subject.) The rules may have unintended loopholes, but any truly gaping ones tend to get plugged. So if, say, they say that you get a special tax break for investing in medical research, you can't just declare that your cigarette and whiskey purchases are medical research and claim the tax break. Or you talked about off-shore tax havens. The idea here is that the US government cannot tax income earned in another country and that has never even entered the US. If you make $10 in France and deposit it in a French bank account and spend it in France, the US can't tax that. So American companies sometimes set up bank accounts outside the US to hold income earned outside the US, so they don't have to bring it into the US and pay the high US tax rate. (US corporate taxes are now the highest of any industrialized country.) You could, I suppose, open an account in the Caymans and deposit the income you earned from your US job there. But if the money was earned in the US, working at a factory or office in the US,  by a person living in the US, the IRS is not going to accept that this is foreign income." "There are tax free bonds in the United States.  They are for things like public housing and other urban projects.  They are tax free for everyone but only rich people buy them.  Why?   The issue is that the tax free nature of the bond is included in its yield.  So rather than yielding say a 5% return, they figure that the owner is getting 20% off due to not paying taxes.  As a result, they only give a 4% return but are as risky as a 5% return investment.  Net result, only rich people invest in tax free bonds.  ""Rich"" is defined here to mean people paying a 20% tax on long term investment returns.   Or take the State and Local Tax (SALT) deduction, which has been in the news recently.  Again, it is technically open to everyone.  But there is also a standard deduction that is open to everyone.  For the typical family, state and local taxes might be 5% of income.  So for a family making $100k a year, that's $5k.  The same family can take a $13k or so standard deduction instead of itemizing.  So why would they take the smaller deduction?   As a practical matter, two groups take the SALT deduction.  People rich enough to pay more than $13k in state and local taxes and people who also take the mortgage interest deduction.  So it helps a lot of people who are rich quite a bit.  And it helps a few middle class people some.   But if you are lower middle class with a $30k mortgage on a tiny house and paying 4% interest, then that's only $1200 a year.  Add in property taxes of $3000 and SALT of $2.8k and that's only $7k.  Even if the person gives $3k to charity, the $13k deduction is a lot better and requires less paperwork.   Contrast that with someone who has $500k mortgage at 3.6% interest.  That's $18k in interest alone.  Add in a SALT of $7k and property taxes of $50k, and there's $75k of itemized deductions, much better than $13k.  Now a $7k donation to charity is entirely deductible.  And even after the mortgage interest deduction goes away, the other $64k remains." "And yet, the same law that these individuals and companies use to   lower their taxes applies for every citizen and company of the   country. Thus, in principle, every individual and company could make   use of these methods. Clearly, they do not. Why? Misconception number 1. How did you conclude they do not? Because NY Times didn't spend time doing an expose' on your plumber? The Panama Papers and the Paradise Papers contain the files from merely three companies that help in this large industry. This is a story about poor IT policies of three companies. A potential reason could be the price charged to set up and maintain these services. This is a significant deterrent.  The costs of forming offshore entities are perpetuated by the expensive lawyers, registered agents and incompetent government representatives in these tiny jurisdictions. (For what its worth, even most United States are pretty incompetent at these administrative processes. Really only a few financial centers and a few exceptions have it all streamlined.) These are scale problems primarily. The incompetence of different nation/state's public sectors will make you realize everything you take for granted. The main message emerging from Panama Papers, Paradise Papers, and the like, is that it is the rich, powerful and famous who make use of and benefit from tax havens. But not exclusively for tax purposes. Newspapers, and even the organization leaking this information, is driving clicks to a gullible and impressionable public. I've talked with ICIJ (who release and push the discussion on the Panama/Paradise Papers), they really do believe in their ""tax expose'"" angle, but lack any consideration of how business work. 'Tax Haven'. These are sovereign nations with due process with democratically elected legislatures who looked at their budget and realized they don't need to fund their government via passive taxes. Their governments offer a good and service that people want, and it provides enough revenues to their governments. Many of these jurisdictions have well evolved corporate laws for fast evolving business models.  For example, The Segregated Portfolio Company in the British Virgin Islands is more well defined and supported by clearer case law and is more useful entity than a Series LLC in the few United States that support it. There are at least a dozen reasons why someone would use a ""tax haven"", where only one of them is ""tax""." Many of the Financial intermediaries in the business, have extraordinary high requirements for opening an account. For example to open an account in Credit Suisse  one will need 1 million US dollars. However, if you are employed by a company that exists in a tax haven and your services are provided to an employer by that tax haven company, it is the tax haven company that gets paid, not you. Under various schemes that company need not pay you at all. For example it may make you a loan which is not taxed (ie you don't pay tax on a loan, just as you don't pay tax on the money lent you by a mortgage company). You are bound by the terms of the loan agreement to repay that loan at a rate that the company finds acceptable. Indeed the company may find eventually that it is simply convenient to write off the loan as unrecoverable. if the owners/officers of he company write off your loans, how much tax will you have paid on the money you have had as   loans? The taxman can of course state that this was simply set up to avoid tax (which is illegal) so you should have a balancing scheme to show that that the loans were taken to supplement income,just as one might take a bank loan / mortgage, not replace it entirely as a tax scam. Hiring tax counsel to provide this adequate proof to HMRC has a price.  Frequently this kind of loophole exists because the number of people using it were sufficiently low not to warrant policing ( if the policing costs more than the tax recovered, then it is more efficient to ignore it) or because at some stage the scheme has been perfectly legal (as in the old offshore'education' trust recommended by the government a few decades ago). When Gordon Brown set out a 75% tax rate (for his possibly ideological reasons rather than financially based ones)for those who had these accounts , he encountered opposition from MPs who were going to be caught up paying high tax bills for what was effctively retrospective taxation, so there was a built in 'loophole' to allow the funds to be returned without undue penalty.  If you think that is morally wrong, consider what the response would be if a future Chancellor was to declare all IAs the work of the devil and claim that retrospective tax would need to be paid on all ISA transactions over the last few decades.eg: tot up all the dividends and capital gains made on an ISA in any year and pay 40% tax on all of them, even if that took the ISA into negative territory because the value today was low/ underperfoming. Yet this has been sggested as a way of filling in the hole in the budget on the grounds that anyone with an ISA can be represented as 'rich' to a selected party of voters.
I'm going to guess that now you're going to explain how you shouldn't add up these percentages. That is most certainly wrong. The reason is that countries aren't going to agree on an order in which to tax a company. It wouldn't go like: well UK taxes first then Germany will tax whatever is left in net profits. Why the hell would Germany agree to that? They would each want their percentage of the *untaxed* pie. "Tax US corporate ""persons (citizens)"" under the same regime as US human persons/citizens, i.e., file/pay taxes on all income earned annually with deductions for foreign taxes paid.  Problem solved for both shareholders and governments.  [US Citizens and Resident Aliens Abroad - Filing Requirements](https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/us-citizens-and-resident-aliens-abroad-filing-requirements)  &gt;If you are a U.S. citizen or resident alien living or traveling outside the United States, **you generally are required to file income tax returns, estate tax returns, and gift tax returns and pay estimated tax in the same way as those residing in the United States.**  Thing is, we know solving this isn't the point.  It is to misdirect and talk about everything, but the actual issues, i.e., the discrepancy between tax regimes applied to persons and the massive inequality it creates in tax responsibility.  Because that would lead to the simple solutions that the populace need/crave.  My guess is most US human persons would LOVE to pay taxes only on what was left AFTER they covered their expenses." "You mean to tell me that everyone doesn't pay his/her fair share?!  Please say it isn't so. :) Therein lies the welfare state:  Tax the rich more heavily to subsidize the poor, and hobble the rich's ability to do so on their own accord. In any case, though, in the United States, if you make any money whatsoever, that usually counts as income, and can hence be taxed.  Here's the IRS' definition of gross income.  Pretty all-inclusive, isn't it? Businesses are allowed to deduct expenses to count against their income, but if one has more expenses than income year after year, (a) this is the road to financial ruin, and (b) the IRS puts an end to the tax losses after enough years of failing to show a profit. So, sure, if a businessperson doesn't have any income, then they're technically using the roads, etc., ""for free,"" but unless the businessperson wants to live off the land and the kindness of strangers, he'd better turn a profit eventually.  Then he'll be taxed." "That's a very clear explanation, thanks! So a few additional things if anyone will humor my curiosity...  1. By ""one-time"" tax, does that mean a company that has, say, $5B overseas could bring that back into the US and just be taxed $500M, then keep the remaining $4.5B?  2. Could a company choose a percentage of their overseas money to transfer into the US? Like, only bring in 8% of that $5B ($400M) and be taxed $40M, while keeping all the rest outside the US? Or would it be mandatory to bring it all over?  3. Would most companies just start that same practice of routing to tax havens again after this tax is implented?" "It sounds good, but perhaps they've overlooked several things that would need to be addressed before anything like this could work well.  1) If there is a leak in the overall flow, such as a HFT hedge fund sucking money out of the markets at an enormous rate into a tax haven, such a system would just perpetuate the existing rise of the superwealthy entities. They still get richer without spending much in return.  2) As described they have only talked about one government, one nation, one monetary recycling system, as if nations are closed boxes. They are not. Money flows across borders with ease. Nations **compete** to maximise the amount of assets they hold within their borders at any given time. These can be fixed capital assets too. So nothing prevents the ""global equity investment"" they mention from starting to resemble all the powerful corporations concentrated in a single favoured nation over time. That would represent a lot of political power concentrated in ways that are not necessarily favourable to individual sovereign national legal systems elsewhere.  It is possible that this could mean that nations would compete to lower taxes to zero to attract corporations, thereby risking bankrupting governments unless the income from the global equity index compensated enough. At 6% it won't match current tax rates.  The second point also means that nations cannot unilaterally decide to implement this unless they have a guaranteed additional inflowing income from transnational activities that could compensate for excessive outflow." Many examples in Europe and other countries have shown once you break that barrier people will go to extreme lengths to avoid it. So much so back in the 80s in the UK tax rates over 75% were imposed, needless to say when they reduced it to 40% they actually got more money.   Ultimately it does more harm than good to the economy and means well paid jobs leave the country and go elsewhere. The exact same thing is happening right now with the French moving to London.  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18234930 "You're confused. This has nothing to do with taxes. It has to do with screwing people out of profit-sharing.  The shell company pays bogus/hyper-inflated fees to the parent company, who pays taxes on them.  That way, the contract with the shell company that says ""you get 5% of the profits"" now means nothing." "'Note that ""to keep an investor from lowering their tax bill"" is not an explanation'. Well, yes it is. In fact  it is the only explanation. The rule plainly exists to prevent someone from realizing a loss when their economic situation remains unchanged before/after a sale. Now, you might say 'but I have suffered a loss, even if it is unrealized!' But, would you want to pay tax on unrealized gains? The tax system still caters to reducing the tax impact of investments, particularly capital investments. Part and parcel with the system of taxing gains only when realized, is that you can recognize losses only when realized. Are there other ways to 'artificially' reduce taxable income? Yes. But the goal of a good tax system should be to reduce those opportunities. Whether you agree that it is fair for the government to prevent this tax-saving opportunity, when others exist, is another question. But that is why the rule exists." "First, I'm not a CPA or international tax accountant; my entire understanding of the French tax system is entirely from what I've read in places like the WSJ, Barrons, WaPo, etc.   However, ***my understanding*** is that French tax law works something like this. Let's say France has a tax rate of 35%. First, it must be assessed where the controlling entity is. In this case, if the majority of production and labor, or if the corporation is primarily based in France, it would proceed as follows. Taxes are initially paid based on transfer pricing to the original local entity (this avoids ""double taxation""). So in the example above, you would pay 10% to India on the $3,000,000 in profits ($300,000). You would then reduce the 35% French tax rate by the 10% already paid. This means you would pay an additional 25% to France ($750,000). The premise is that you have an effective ""minimum"" tax threshold for being in France. In the case above, companies like GE would have to pay the difference (this doesn't get into tax breaks/shelters on previously recorded losses, etc.).   Again, ***I AM NOT SURE ON THIS***. This is my basic understanding and am by no means a tax accountant/lawyer/etc. From what I understand; however, this hasn't necessarily been a good thing for France either (California is likely a similar case study with the Unitary return requirement). The fact is the world is very global nowadays. Its easier and cheaper for the companies to just leave instead of being forced to pay higher taxes...  IMO, Germany hit it right on the head. Low corporate tax rates with high personal tax rates. This maintains a very business friendly environment (business move there because of the skilled labor and low corporate taxes), but they effectively pass the burden on to individuals (who also benefit from the pro-business environment). You'd be hard pressed to find an economist that doesn't think Germany's economy has been very strong over the past decade (very good Soros speech that was recently posted about his analysis of the Euro and Germany's unfair benefits, but that's a whole different gear).   What I find the issue to be is the whole concept is complex enough that's difficult to explain to the average person with a 2 second attention span. That's why I like writing posts like this, to try to help people understand how finance and businesses operate behind the scenes!" [90% of their income](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Bahamas) is from services.  And 80% of that income is from the US..... Do some research.    Still waiting for this no tax, no government utopia which works *so well* (yet there doesn't seem to be a good example of in existence...) A government is there to serve the people. Under this logic, a government is doing a disservice to its people by allowing a corportation to have a signicantly lower tax rate in relation to the value a corportation would gain from doing business in that country.   For all I know, Starbucks would only do business in the UK if the value it sees from doing business there is at the tax rate it is paying out now. However, like a corportation testing the markets for price, the UK government is doing a disservice to its own people for not doing its own research on the value Starbucks is seeing. The US is one of the only countries which taxes its citizens on global income. You're  ignoring the high fixed costs of compliance with the US tax code, both for individuals and institutions. Compliance is so big an issue that foreign banks are turning away US customers rather than having to comply with FATCA, leaving people unable to open a bank account. Also, renunciations of citizenship are up something like 400%, and they aren't all billionaires. Braeburn is no more a hedge fund than any other off-shore entities corporations create to manage taxes creatively. All of the major corporate entities in the world do the same thing. Apple isn't even very good at it comparatively. Part of the purpose of a tax haven is retaining more capital for reinvestment.  Then you have more control over how, when and where you pay taxes.  Once the capital has been retained in your haven you can strategically deploy it to other favorable locations on the globe.  Should you ever want part of it to hit a personal account in the US you'd have a tax liability.  But at this level you could just put your ownership of that account up as collateral on a loan and buy your boat that way instead. I don't know enough about international tax law to dispute what you say, but I would think that if it were illegal we would be seeing more repurcussions for nearly EVERY multinational company using these practices. How can you prove that the licensing deal between bluehat9 llc and bluehat9 lp (cayman) is illegitimate?