Cisco’s billionaire CEO John Chambers has led the recent campaign to let multinationals repatriate their overseas profits to the U.S. at an 85 percent discount.
So it’s particularly awesome that Bloomberg News has an investigation today showing how Chambers and Cisco have gamed the tax system to park $32 billion in profits in low-tax countries.
We have several stories rolled into one powerful one here: A piercing of the PR campaign for a tax holiday led by Chambers, a corporate story about how Cisco avoids paying its fair share of taxes, and most importantly, a piece showing clearly how repatriation holidays incentivize bad behavior. That last is evident from the headline on:
Biggest Tax Avoiders Would Win on Tax Break
That’s a tough headline, and my old Journal colleague Jesse Drucker has the goods to back it up. He reports that:
Cisco Systems Inc. (CSCO) has cut its income taxes by $7 billion since 2005 by booking roughly half its worldwide profits at a subsidiary at the foot of the Swiss Alps that employs about 100 people…
Cisco’s techniques cut the effective tax rate on its reported international income to about 5 percent since 2008 by moving profits from roughly $20 billion in annual global sales through the Netherlands, Switzerland and Bermuda, according to its records in four countries. The maneuvers, permitted by tax law, show how companies that use such strategies most aggressively would get the biggest benefit from the holiday, said Edward D. Kleinbard, a law professor at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles.
This is the latest in Drucker’s series of reports on how American companies use loopholes to avoid paying taxes.
For instance, here’s one thing Cisco does, and it’s perfectly legal:
Cisco transfers a portion of the patent rights to technology developed in the U.S. to a Dutch unit, which sells some of the resulting products back to its parent for eventual distribution in the U.S., according to annual reports filed by the Amsterdam subsidiary. That means Cisco credits about $5 billion in U.S. sales annually to the Netherlands.
Drucker reports that Cisco’s Amsterdam hub has just 2 percent of its global workforce but gets credited with more than 50 percent of its global revenues. But that’s not the end of it. Cisco then transfers most of the profit from the Netherlands to low-or-no-tax countries like Switzerland and Bermuda, in the process shortchanging countries like France and Germany. Its Swiss unit has just a hundred workers and its Bermuda unit is a shell company.
There’s lots of great context here too, like how much the repatration holiday is estimated to cost U.S. taxpayers ($79 billion over ten years), what that would pay for (all federal cancer research), how much these schemes cost taxpayers every year ($90 billion), what corporations did with the windfall they got from the last repatration holiday (gave it to shareholders), and how the revolving door is at work here: Obama’s former communications director Anita Dunn is advising the tax-holiday campaign.
And this is just funny:
On earnings calls, in speeches and in national media, Chambers has made the case for the tax break, saying it would help overcome a corporate tax system he calls “a dinosaur” and “put more than two million Americans back to work.”
It’s unclear whether any jobs would come from Cisco, which announced plans in May to shed an unspecified number of workers.
This is one of those stories that ought to totally alter the debate in Washington, but the interests are powerful, the stakes are high, and Bloomberg is one of the few outlets left with the resources to take these kinds of stories on.
Don’t underestimate how hard it is to produce a story like this. Tax investigations are time-consuming and mind-numbing. The issues are arcane and opaque. There’s a ton of work that goes into this kind of thing.
In other words, it doesn’t just pop out of a toaster, as Audit Chief Dean Starkman likes to say. All the more reason to applaud this one.
" Reporters and their 'but we need time to look into stuff'—wah, wah."
-Starkman
#1 Posted by James, CJR on Tue 28 Jun 2011 at 04:22 PM
I'm not seeing any hypocrisy here..
Cisco is using legal means to pay taxes in the lowest place it can (smart) and it's CEO is begging the U.S. to lower tax rates to bring money back home..
Is there some scandal here?
Some new revelation? That businesses use legal means to avoid taxes? Is that it?
Stop the presses!
#2 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Tue 28 Jun 2011 at 05:56 PM
What he claims it's going to be used for:
"Chief Executive Officer John T. Chambers has led the charge for the tax holiday, which would be the second since 2004. He says it would encourage companies to “repatriate” as much as $1 trillion held abroad, spur domestic investment and create jobs...
On earnings calls, in speeches and in national media, Chambers has made the case for the tax break, saying it would help overcome a corporate tax system he calls “a dinosaur” and “put more than two million Americans back to work.”"
What it's actually going to be used for:
"The tax-holiday push comes as the company faces shareholder pressure to add to its cash outlays by paying higher dividends to boost its stock price. It closed at $15.05 yesterday, down 25.6 percent this year...
The company needs that cash to prop up its share price -- which explains its support for the tax break, said Sandeep Shyamsukha, a communications analyst at Auriga USA LLC in San Francisco. Since 2006, Cisco has spent $43.5 billion on stock buy-backs. In April, it paid its first shareholder dividend. Consumer advocate Ralph Nader, who owns Cisco stock, this month called for doubling the payout, as first reported in the Wall Street Journal.
“The stock is struggling, the company has reached a mature phase and investors are demanding more returns,” said Shyamsukha, who has a “hold” recommendation on Cisco shares. “There’s tremendous pressure on the management to give out dividends and higher buybacks and that’s probably what’s pushing them in this direction.”"
What the real problem is:
"Under current law, American companies can defer federal income taxes on most overseas earnings indefinitely. When they do return to the U.S., they’re taxed at the corporate rate of 35 percent -- with credits for foreign income taxes paid. Thus, companies paying little overseas face higher U.S. tax bills upon repatriation, and would get more benefit from the discount...
“Why should we reward firms for successfully gaming the tax system when we in turn are called on to make up the missing tax revenues?” said Kleinbard, a former corporate tax attorney at Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP. “Much of these earnings overseas are reaped from an enormous shell game: Firms move their taxable income from the U.S. and other major economies -- where their customers and key employees are in reality located -- to tax havens.”"
The order of quotes has been shifted to better make the argument.
#3 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 28 Jun 2011 at 07:52 PM
I don't see how a call for lower tax rates runs counter to a determination to increase stock prices.. How is this "hypocrisy" in Reality Land?
When a business follows the laws and the rules to maximize profits it's "gaming" the tax system? Says who, except commie/liberal kooks?
Is there some "illegal" thing, or some "fraud" thing we're missing here?
Seriously, people?
The problem isn't the taxpayers... It's the system that drives corporations to pay taxes to foreign governments...
Corporations shouldn't pay income taxes.. Eliminating corporate income taxes will fix a whole lot of what's wrong in this country. Corporations can't vote.. So why should they pay income taxes? Let the income taxes be paid by shareholders - you know, actual humans?... Real people, who have a real stake!
The only justification for the existence corporate income taxes is that it reduces the apparent tax burden on real people. This is a silly, stupid justification.
Corporate income taxes are driving this. Not businesses.
#4 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Tue 28 Jun 2011 at 09:12 PM
The justification for tax cuts is that the repatriated revenues will be used to create jobs. They won't. It never happens. The only thing that will happen is that companies who play fair with the country (not moving profits to tax havens and recognizing overseas earnings as they accrue) will lose compared to companies that scam the system.
And shareholders might get bigger dividends while stock prices will get a boost.
Employment is dependent on consumer demand. This does nothing to increase consumer demand. $78.7 billion is a lot to lose for no benefit.
#5 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 28 Jun 2011 at 10:28 PM
Someone needs to introduce Ryan to a dictionary so he can look up what the word "hypocrisy" means. It is perfectly consistent for Cisco to keep their profits abroad to get a lower tax rate, then lobby for a lower rate here so they can bring it back. It's only rewarding them if they ever bring the profits back and the whole point of the holiday is to reward them for repatriating, rather than investing it abroad.
As for the call by Thimbles for more consumer demand because it leads to more employment, I can only shake my head. The hypocrisy of lefties in railing against materialism then calling for govt to prop up "demand" with more spending is a thing to behold.
#6 Posted by Ajay, CJR on Wed 29 Jun 2011 at 02:54 AM
@Ajay: The leftists only have a problem with materialism among the "rich" (anyone who has more money than they do).
It's natural for the "poor" to demand food, shelter, medicine, cell phones, laptops, etc from others.
All we have to do to create a permanently equitable utopian society is take all the stuff from the rich and dole it out to the poor.
#7 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Wed 29 Jun 2011 at 07:34 AM
"As for the call by Thimbles for more consumer demand because it leads to more employment, I can only shake my head. The hypocrisy of lefties in railing against materialism then calling for govt to prop up "demand" with more spending is a thing to behold."
Let me say first, I will listen and attempt to understand you in a civil manner if you attempt to do the same with me. But if you want to be another padkiller, there's enough tedium in the world. Do you want us to understand one another or insult each other? Your choice.
Propping up consumer demand isn't a left or right thing; it's an economics thing. Conservatives are trying to stimulate demand by tax cuts, tax rebates, and tax holidays. They think that tax cuts will allow consumer to spend more money and tax holidays will create private sector jobs. Progressives have a different approach.
But the thing to keep in mind is that this conservative approach doesn't work.
Tax cuts do not resolve the disruption that caused consumers to lose confidence in the first place. When consumer confidence is low, cash is hoarded or used to pay bills because consumers are worried that layoffs or arbitrary changes by banks to their fees, interest rates, and credit rating will arrive in the coming months and sink them. Consumers are going to be tight with their money, which forces businesses to cut back on services, which forces layoffs, which decreases consumer confidence... deflationary spiral.
Tax holidays do not create jobs because the private sector creates jobs in relation to their market activity which is in relation to consumer demand. If you have no customers, you don't hire more burger flippers. We have a depressed economy. What the conservatives and the business lobby are suggesting is that the government lose tax revenue that it desperately needs "to pay down debt" in order to stimulate consumer demand and increase jobs. Using that rationale, maybe one could justify the tax holiday if it were true.
But it isn't. This conservative approach doesn't work.
Now if you want to talk about "leftist anti-materialism" or the progressive approach to economics, I will be happy to have that discussion. But I don't need another conservative, Ayn Rand blurting, listen to half the argument only with the intention to mischaracterize the parts heard, savor the ignorance like fine wine, moron like padkiller.
Because you can't have a discussion with a person like that. Are you better than that?
PS. In my mind too, "Cisco’s Tax Hypocrisy" doesn't seem like the right words. "Cisco's Unlikely Tax Promises" seems more appropriate.
#8 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 29 Jun 2011 at 11:26 AM
Thimbles wrote (paraphrasing): Blah, blah, blah... I hate padikiller... Blah, blah, blah... Conservatives are morons... Blah, blah, blah... padikiller is an idiot... Blah, blah, blah.... Tax cuts don't work... Blah, blah, blah... Progressives are smart, conservatives are stupid... Blah, blah, blah... I really, really, really hate padikiller... Blah, blah, blah.. Progressives have a different approach that is better, but I can't say what it is, because doing so makes your case, Ajay... Blah, blah, blah... Man! Do I hate padikiller!.... Blah, blah, blah....
You notice what you don't see here in Thimble's latest little diatribe? Any defense of Ajay's criticism! Ajay noted the true hypocrisy - the liberal hypocrisy that decries "materialism" while simultaneously demanding increased spending. And Thimbles does what he always does - he dodges the criticism to do his Liberal Two Step.
Of course the government doesn't "desperately need" money.. Liberals desperately need the government to spend more money - their only hope of survival lies in keeping the gravy train flowing from the treasury to the dependent underclass that forms the base of their political support. When the SSI checks don't go out for the first time, the crap will hit the fan, and they know it.
What the country desperately needs is for the federal government to shrink to about 25% of its current size and scope. What the country needs is for all the able-bodied people collecting government checks to get off their lazy asses and get jobs. What the country needs is to have a food stamp program that provides staple goods to truly poor and incapacitated people, instead of paying for steak and lobster for lazy, obese mooches. What the country needs is cut out subsidies to farmers, miners, businesses etc, except to the extent necessary to maintain a strategic food and mineral reserves. Keep going.. You get the drift...
Cutting spending will create havoc, no doubt. Defaulting on our debt will create havoc as well.
Havoc can be dealt with. Either is better than the liberal plan - More spending, more debt...
Dealing with insane government entitlement spending and even more insane borrowing by using inflation or devaluation to keep the gravy train rolling, as the liberals want to do, will condemn this nation's economy to a slow death and will engender more misery than the short-term detox of a cold-turkey government reformation.
The liberals have a big problem here, brought on by the crazy spending of the Obama/Pelosi/Reid two-year stint... In the old days, a stalwart liberal could pin government spending on the military or on government subsidies and make a point on the Sunday morning circuit.. The problem now is that if we were to eliminate defense spending entirely, we would still have a TRILLION dollar deficit. The entitlement spending has to go.. PERIOD.
#9 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Wed 29 Jun 2011 at 12:54 PM
padishiller's on a role. But he forgot, "What this country needs is a good five-cent (Cuban) cigar."
Hey, fattysucker, we do need a 5-cent cigar, don't we? and a good two-bit shave and a haircut?
Gee our old Lasalle ran great. . . .
#10 Posted by Edward Ericson Jr., CJR on Wed 29 Jun 2011 at 04:29 PM
Thimbles, I don't see any insults, only a characterization concerning materialism that you don't bother denying. You're right that some conservatives try to justify tax cuts as stimulating demand, whereas I'd prefer the govt just stopped trying to monkey with demand in the first place.
#11 Posted by Ajay, CJR on Wed 29 Jun 2011 at 04:36 PM
That's because I'm not going to bother with that discussion if you do not have the ability to have it.
You accused "the left" of hypocrisy based on my statements about all people, particularly conservatives, on the topic of consumer demand.
Why should I defend myself from an accusation based on a misunderstood argument? First understand the argument then we can have a discussion about the accusation. And in order to understand the argument, you have to have some basic understanding of supply and demand and what happens in an economy when that gets dislocated during a systemic shock like the one we had under Ayn Rand disciple, "markets regulate themselves", "fraud doesn't exist", "Bubble? What bubble?", central banker, Alan Greenspan.
Start here: http://www.businessinsider.com/richard-koo-balance-sheet-recession-2011-6#the-us-housing-situation-looks-a-lot-like-japan-1
and then listen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6k0_a1JS5hU
#12 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 29 Jun 2011 at 07:56 PM
I called hypocrisy on the lefties based on "calling for govt to prop up 'demand' with more spending," which is decidedly not a statement made by "all people, particularly conservatives." Perhaps you are a leftie but don't believe in raising govt spending and don't rail against materialism, but you have chosen not to deny either. Rather, you make a bunch of vague, general accusations, while I easily showed that your single specific example about hypocrisy is nonsense. You accuse me of misunderstanding the argument, when it is obvious that it is you who misunderstands it. I am well aware of all the economic concepts you list and how your arguments about those issues are largely bunkum. You might want to stick the subject, since you only sound more ignorant when you reference a lot of irrelevant nonsense.
#13 Posted by Ajay, CJR on Wed 29 Jun 2011 at 09:38 PM
...DOSE were da days . . .
#14 Posted by Ejay, CJR on Wed 29 Jun 2011 at 10:15 PM
"calling for govt to prop up 'demand' with more spending,"
Why is there concern over consumer demand? Is that because of some leftist comunisocialist dogma or is it because private sector "[e]mployment is dependent on consumer demand"?
Is the relationship between employment and demand an economic reality in your mind or some fasco-hippie fantasy?
"hypocrisy on the lefties based on "calling for govt to prop up 'demand' with more spending,""
Why spending? Spending on what? What is the rationale behind the commu-hippies suggestions? I understand conservatives who want to prop up demand by giving away tax revenue willy nilly. Have you bothered to understand what "lefties" are calling for and why?
"Rather, you make a bunch of vague, general accusations"
What vague general accusations? I made a bunch of them I guess. Show me a couple.
"showed that your single specific example about hypocrisy"
What example? The word "hypocrisy" was Ryan's word, not mine. Let's keep clear who it is you are arguing with.
"I am well aware of all the economic concepts you list and how your arguments about those issues are largely bunkum."
Is "supply and demand" bunkum? Are "systemic shocks" bunkum? Would you care to explain how they are bunkum or how "how [my] arguments about those issues" are bunkum? Again, we're getting into things which are basic economic realities and I'm not sure you recognize them.
I'm not going to discuss the validity of Euclidian geometry with someone who views addition as a lefty bunkum. Same goes for "lefty materialism".
#15 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 29 Jun 2011 at 11:07 PM
Lol, thimbles, your arguments are beyond idiotic. The first sentence of my last comment made clear I was talking about the hypocrisy of the lefties, yet you feign confusion that I'm still talking about Ryan's title. This is the classic misdirection of someone who has no argument, so you sprinkle rhetorical chaff to muddy the waters and avoid acknowledging your mistake. Riiight, my problem is with "supply and demand," not your nonsense about systemic shocks and central banks, keep living in your fantasy world. I don't want to discuss materialism with you, because I know your answers before you even mouth them, which is why I was able to make that prediction. It is just hilarious that even you seem to know how dumb your arguments are, so you refrain from even making them now, choosing instead to type a bunch of random words from an economics primer, in the hope that it resembles an argument. :)
#16 Posted by Ajay, CJR on Thu 30 Jun 2011 at 12:01 AM
Oooo-kay. I guess we're really not capable of having a discussion, padclone. Don't say I didn't try.
Idiot.
#17 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 30 Jun 2011 at 12:33 AM
Thimbles has the magical ability to type in English without conveying the least bit of information. He's kind of like the Dennis Miller of threads.
Now he dodges to geometry, of all places, seeking intellectual shelter from Euclid!
Ajay's point remains - the left's feigned abhorrence of materialism or commercialism only applies to its enemies. The commie/liberals damned sure want plenty of commercial materials flowing into the trailer parks and projects, and the very notion of "stimulus" is predicated upon the idea that demand for material goods will benefit the economy.
What's the biggest health problem our "poor" face? Obesity. The second biggest problem? Substance abuse.
So, do you see Trudy Lieberman or her ilk (the liberals who claim concern for public health) calling for limiting food stamp purchases to low-calorie, nutritious foods? Mandatory "Let's Move" exercise programs for SNAP recipients? Drug or alcohol testing for welfare recipients?
Hell no!
They want and enhanced version of the current system - Misery 2.0 - where you get even more of your crack money in cash on the first of the month from the treasury, no strings attached. Where you get a credit card loaded with more food stamp money that lets you buy Pepsi, Pizza Rolls, lobster and brie, at any price and from any store, They want the phone company doling out more free cell phones under government order - with data plans, no doubt. They want unemployment checks for longer periods, and more of them.
This is the hypocrisy of the left, illustrated. It doesn't take geometry to see it.
#18 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Thu 30 Jun 2011 at 04:23 AM
"Drug or alcohol testing for welfare recipients?
Hell no!"
Why of course not padi. No good liberal wants to eat the poor absent a fine marinade.
Jesus, do you listen to yourself?
#19 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 30 Jun 2011 at 06:15 PM
You see what I mean about Thimbles and the Dennis Miller thing?...
this one's kind of like Dennis Miller meets Hannibal Lecter and they both smoke a couple of shermans to the point of incomprehension.
Inscrutable without being interesting, and without even conveying any information at all... Word vomit...
Returning to subject of tax hypocrisy... We must note President Obama's "dickish" "corporate jet" hissy last evening... Which is predicated upon the supposedly unjust nature of these tax breaks he signed into law in 2009!...
Making jets made sense then... But apparently not now that he has Pelosi beating down his door with her pissed-off commie contingent... Obama's nothing but a joke. 18 more months of this kind of stupidity is too long!
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/18/stimulus-includes-tax-break-promote-private-jet-sales/
#20 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Thu 30 Jun 2011 at 07:18 PM
Obama's gonna increase taxes on rich people's jets.
REVOLUTION!
No seriously, do you listen to yourself?
#21 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 30 Jun 2011 at 09:14 PM
LOL...
The hypocrisy doesn't lie in Obama's newfound intent to revoke tax breaks on corporate jets... It lies in the fact the he made the tax breaks in the first place
Flip... Flop. Flobama!...
18 months.... Tick.. tick... tick....
#22 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Thu 30 Jun 2011 at 10:12 PM
Somebody needs to take their clozapine.
#23 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 30 Jun 2011 at 11:15 PM