Amazon vs. Commissioner: Has Cost Sharing Outlived Its Usefulness?

R. Avi-Yonah
{"title":"Amazon vs. Commissioner: Has Cost Sharing Outlived Its Usefulness?","authors":"R. Avi-Yonah","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2961235","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"President Trump has decreed that for every new regulation, two old regulations should be repealed. The next time the IRS wishes to adopt a new tax regulation, I have two candidates for repeal: cost sharing and “check the box”, the 1997 regulation that enables US-based multinationals to shift profits from high to low tax foreign jurisdictions without triggering US tax. Both of those regulations run directly contrary to the intent of Congress in enacting Subpart F (the CFC rules) in 1961 and amending Code section 482 by adding the super royalty rule in 1986. They are the technical building blocks underlying the ability of US based multinationals to avoid US tax on profits economically earned in the US. It is high time for both of them to go.","PeriodicalId":330166,"journal":{"name":"Law & Society: Public Law - Tax eJournal","volume":"53 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law & Society: Public Law - Tax eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2961235","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

President Trump has decreed that for every new regulation, two old regulations should be repealed. The next time the IRS wishes to adopt a new tax regulation, I have two candidates for repeal: cost sharing and “check the box”, the 1997 regulation that enables US-based multinationals to shift profits from high to low tax foreign jurisdictions without triggering US tax. Both of those regulations run directly contrary to the intent of Congress in enacting Subpart F (the CFC rules) in 1961 and amending Code section 482 by adding the super royalty rule in 1986. They are the technical building blocks underlying the ability of US based multinationals to avoid US tax on profits economically earned in the US. It is high time for both of them to go.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
亚马逊与专员之争:成本分摊已经过时了吗?
特朗普总统下令,每出台一项新法规,就必须废除两项旧法规。下次美国国税局希望采用新的税收法规时,我有两个废除的候选方案:成本分担和“复选框”(check The box)。1997年的这项法规使美国的跨国公司能够将利润从高税收的外国司法管辖区转移到低税收的外国司法管辖区,而不会触发美国的税收。这两项法规都直接违背了国会在1961年颁布第F部分(CFC规则)和在1986年通过增加超级特许权使用费规则来修订法典第482条的意图。它们是总部位于美国的跨国公司能够避免在美国以经济方式赚取的利润在美国纳税的技术基石。他们俩都该走了。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Misdirected Recipients of Tax Reform: Section 199A, its True Beneficiaries, and Application to Low- and Middle- Income Residents Consistent Taxation in a Cashless Society Is It Time to Eliminate Federal Corporate Income Taxes? Brief of Amici Curiae Former Government Officials in Support of Respondents, CIC Services, LLC v. Internal Revenue Service Allocating COVID-19 State Aid Equitably – The Case of Denmark
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1