The debate over just what to do about corporate inversions is exposing one fault-line after another in U.S. tax and economic policy.
Perhaps the biggest irony of all, however, is that one company after another is forking over millions of dollars in legal and investment banking fees in order to base themselves in the United Kingdom, once known for being the domain of sky-high taxes, active labor unions and other such things that corporate leaders deplore. But after decades under Margaret Thatcher and “New Labor,” the high taxes in the U.K. are felt mostly by individuals, not corporations. By next year, the main corporate income tax rate will have fallen to 20 percent, from 28 percent in 2010 — and about half the top 39.1 percent nominal rate at which corporate income is taxed between the federal and state levels in the U.S.
The result? It’s almost a race to reincorporate abroad, with M&A transactions being the device of choice. A case in point is Chicago-based pharmaceutical company AbbVie, which agreed to pay $54 billion to acquire Shire, the Irish drug manufacturer earlier this month. The allure wasn’t just Shire’s lineup of products, but its status as an EU-based company, which will enable AbbVie to reincorporate on the island of Jersey in the English Channel. The company will still be run from Chicago, though.
Related: Corporate Tax Inversions Will Cost U.S. Billions — and We’ll All Pay
Understandably, this has President Barack Obama and a bevy of Congressional figures fuming, and talking about “corporate deserters.” The Joint Committee on Taxation calculated in May that placing new limits on the ability of companies to undertake these inversions would allow the U.S. Treasury to collect nearly $20 billion in additional revenue over the next decade. But Congress hasn’t put those limits in place. For as much as the deficit has come down in recent years, that added corporate tax revenue could still make a bit of difference.
Related: Obama Could Curb Corporate ‘Inversions’ on His Own
Let’s be pragmatic. A corporation’s objective is to make money for its shareholders, not pour that money into the coffers of any government. What we are seeing today is the all-too-predictable outcome of decades of evolution of giant transnational corporations that are increasingly independent of any single nation state. Instead, the states rely on them: That’s the logic behind tax holidays and other goodies doled out by state and local governments trying to convince big employers to relocate to their neck of the woods or to stay put.