|
|
|
|
Columbia FDI Perspectives
Perspectives on topical foreign direct investment issues
No. 199 May 8, 2017
Editor-in-Chief: Karl P. Sauvant ([log in to unmask])
Managing Editor: Matthew Schroth ([log in to unmask])
|
|
The US is the largest source of FDI, accounting for 24% of the world’s outward stock. Now that Congress and the new presidential administration are putting forward plans for reforming the corporate tax regime, and especially the way multinational enterprises (MNEs) are taxed on their foreign earnings, we should consider the effects of these plans on FDI flows and the behavior of MNEs.
At the moment, US MNEs face income tax liabilities for the profits of their foreign affiliates, with a deduction for the taxes paid in host countries. Since payment is deferred until the income is returned to the US—and because the corporate tax rate in the US (35%) is higher than in most other countries—companies tend to accumulate earnings abroad to avoid a large tax bill at home. By the latest estimates, US companies hold US$2.343 trillion abroad in “reinvested foreign earnings.”[1] Half of these have been reinvested in productive assets, as is common practice for MNEs anywhere;[2] but half of that sum is estimated to be kept in liquid assets in low-tax territories.[3]
A reform that addresses this distortion should have short-term and long-term effects on FDI flows. To begin with, there are plans to bring back the earnings accumulated abroad by substituting the tax liability for a one-off toll.[4] If companies perceive this offer as time-limited, as it was the case with the American Jobs Creation Act (AJCA) in 2004, the amounts repatriated could be very high. For instance, assuming that the final deal only attracts half of the reinvested foreign earnings kept in liquid assets (or 25% of the total), the repatriation would be US$600 billion, double the average annual FDI outflows from the US over the past few years. The reform should try to spread this repatriation across several years, but the annual US FDI flows (and those of some other countries) would still be severely distorted.[5]
What will parent companies do with this one-off inflow? The objective of the reform is to increase investment in the US. But most of the accumulated foreign earnings are owned by large information technology and pharmaceutical companies that can already access as much capital as they want in the US.[6] It is more likely that the funds will be used to reduce debt, pay dividends or engage in large share buy-backs. It may also increase the appetite for domestic acquisitions, already high among technology firms. Regulators and market players should be aware of potential disruptions that a sudden inflow could create in financial markets.
In the long term, the reform is likely to reduce the incentives to keep future foreign earnings abroad, bringing the reinvestment rate of US foreign affiliates in line with those of the rest of the world. This should affect mostly the type of reinvested earnings kept in liquid assets in low-tax territories. But even a marginal impact on the decision to reinvest in productive assets would be felt in some host countries: reinvested earnings by US MNEs account for 19% of total FDI inflows in Mexico, for example.[7] These effects also may be seen between two non-US economies, as foreign affiliates of US MNEs have less capital to invest in other countries.
A second aspect concerns the effect on the global efforts to prevent tax avoidance by MNEs through profit shifting. If the reform brings the US corporate rate more in line with that of other large economies, it will reduce a significant distortion in the global corporate tax system. But unless the corporate tax is eliminated, US companies (like those of other countries) will still have an incentive to shift profits to tax havens.
Overall, US corporate tax reform is likely to generate large FDI flows, as companies unwind their stocks of reinvested foreign earnings. Lower corporate tax may increase investments in the US in the long-run, but little of the repatriated foreign earnings will be invested in productive capacity However, if it reduces the incentive that US companies shift profits abroad, this reform could help to harmonize international tax regulations and discourage aggressive tax planning. The US and other governments should seize this chance to continue the cooperation on this agenda.
* The Columbia FDI Perspectives are a forum for public debate. The views expressed by the author(s) do not reflect the opinions of CCSI or Columbia University or our partners and supporters.
** Miguel Pérez Ludeña ([log in to unmask]) is an economist at the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC). The author is grateful to Jennifer Blouin, Gary Hufbauer and Leslie Robinson for their helpful reviews. Columbia FDI Perspectives (ISSN 2158-3579) is a peer-reviewed series.
[2] See UNCTAD, World Investment Report 2016 (Geneva: UNCTAD, 2016), p.7.
[5] Repatriated earnings are counted as negative FDI outflows in home countries (a credit in the financial account of the balance of payments) and as negative FDI inflows in host countries (a debit).
[6] In AJCA’s experience, only firms that were capital constrained used the repatriated funds to increase investment. See Michael W. Faulkender and Mitchell A. Petersen, “Investment and capital constraints: repatriations under the American Jobs Creation Act,” NBER Working Paper no. w15248, August 2009, https://ssrn.com/abstract=1454981.
|
|
|
The material in this Perspective may be reprinted if accompanied by the following acknowledgment: “Miguel Pérez Ludeña, ‘United States corporate tax reform and global FDI flows,’ Columbia FDI Perspectives, No. 199, May 8, 2017. Reprinted with permission from the Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment (www.ccsi.columbia.edu).” A copy should kindly be sent to the Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment at [log in to unmask].
|
|
For further information, including information regarding submission to the Perspectives, please contact: Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment, Matthew Schroth, [log in to unmask].
- No. 198, Terutomo Ozawa, “How to handle the job-offshoring backlash?”, April 24, 2017.
- No. 197, Ana Arias Urones and Ashraf Ali Mahate, “FDI sectorial diversification: the trade-transport-tourism nexus,” April 10, 2017.
- No. 196, John Gaffney, “The Equal Representation in Arbitration Pledge: two comments on its scope of application,” March 27, 2017.
All previous FDI Perspectives are available at http://ccsi.columbia.edu/publications/columbia-fdi-perspectives/.
Other relevant CCSI news and announcements
- In April 2017, CCSI launched a series of short videos from the authors of Rethinking Investment Incentives: Trends and Policy Options (published by Columbia University Press in July 2016), summarizing the important messages from each chapter. The first 4 videos, featuring Ana Teresa Tavares-Lehmann, Sarianna Lundan, Christian Bellak and Philippe Gugler have already been posted. New videos will be posted weekly. The use of incentives to attract investment is connected to and impacts the most pressing challenges facing us today, including climate change, corruption, conditions/availability of employment, harmful competition, and inefficient public spending. How, when, where, and why governments use incentives to attract, keep and influence investment is therefore critically important to whether and how society benefits from investments and to other public policy decisions and trade-offs. It is increasingly apparent, however, that the use of incentives is not well understood—including by the policy makers who use them—which necessitates a closer look and, in many cases, a policy response.
- CCSI, in partnership with the Danish Institute for Human Rights and the Sciences Po Law School Clinic recently published a discussion paper on a Collaborative Approach to Human Rights Impact Assessments (HRIAs) of private sector investment projects. This discussion paper sets out a robust model for a collaborative approach to HRIAs that involves project-affected people and the company, and potentially other stakeholders, in jointly undertaking an HRIA that is considered credible by all sides and can help to address the power imbalances that often exist between companies and communities. The paper is the result of a two-year long project, supported by The Tiffany & Co. Foundation, and is based on extensive desktop research, interviews with 49 people with relevant experience, as well as a roundtable that brought together over a dozen stakeholders and HRIA experts to provide feedback on the research findings and recommendations. The discussion paper is also summarized in this briefing note.
- In March 2017, CCSI submitted comments to the ICSID Secretariat regarding proposed revisions to ICSID's arbitration rules. CCSI's submission provided illustrative suggestions for amendments to the ICSID arbitration rules regarding a range of issues, including: recognizing and safeguarding of the rights and interests of non-parties; improving transparency of the dispute resolution process; preventing actual and apparent conflicts of interest; addressing concerns raised by third-party funding; and ensuring legitimacy of settlement agreements.
|
|
Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment
Columbia Law School - Earth Institute
Columbia University |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
