The IRS vs. foreign investment

Mar 05, 2003 01:00 AM

by Andrew F. Quinlan

Foreigners have invested more than $ 1 tn in capital in the United States since 1984, when Congress and the Reagan administration established a policy of not taxing interest they earn on US bank deposits. This influx of capital will be jeopardized if a proposed Internal Revenue Service rule is implemented.
The regulation (133254-02) would require banks to report interest paid to non-resident aliens, although their deposits are not subject to US taxes. This would harm America's economy and undermine the competitiveness of US financial institutions. The price is high, especially given that the IRS does not have the authority to issue this rule.

Executive branch agencies and departments are supposed to issue regulations that implement laws enacted by Congress. More specifically, the IRS is supposed to promulgate regulations that help enforce US tax law. Since the United States government does not tax bank deposit interest paid to non-resident aliens, the IRS does not need to collect this information. Indeed, the IRS admits that the purpose of this regulation is to help foreign governments tax the income their citizens earn in the United States.
Congress has examined the tax treatment of indirect foreign investment on several occasions. The desire to attract capital has always led lawmakers to decide not to tax or require reporting of bank deposit interest paid to non-resident aliens. The proposed IRS regulation, however, seeks to overturn the outcome of this democratic process. This would undermine the rule of law and President Bush's efforts to rein in regulatory abuses.
The current tax and privacy rules for foreign investors have been a huge success, attracting about $ 1 tn to US financial institutions. These funds finance car loans, home mortgages and small business expansion in America. If the regulation is approved, however, foreigners will shift a substantial share of their funds to London, Hong Kong and other jurisdictions that protect investors' interests.

Financial institutions around the world compete for liquid capital. American banks have successfully competed, but this profitable source of deposits will become very unstable if banks are forced to put foreign tax law above US tax law. Money will flow out of America, making it more difficult for US banks to meet the challenge of foreign competition.
The economic loss would be substantial; Stephen Entin of the Institute for Research on Economics of Taxation estimates the regulation would annually cost $ 80 bn in lost output, or 0.8 % of US gross domestic product. The IRS asserts that the total regulatory burden on financial institutions will increase by only 500 hours. This estimate is absurdly low. To read and interpret the rule, seek appropriate legal and accounting advice and report on thousands of accounts will surely impose a far greater burden.

The IRS regulation is a slap in the face of tax reformers. All proposals to fix the tax code, such as the flat tax, are based on common-sense principles such as taxing income only once and taxing only income inside our borders. But the new regulation would sabotage tax reform by helping foreign governments double-tax income earned in America.
For example, the European Union would like the United States to join a cartel for the purpose of double-taxing cross-border savings. The Bush administration has rejected the EU request, but the IRS rule undermines that position. In fact, the EU considers the proposed regulation supportive of its cartel.

The IRS is ignoring laws requiring cost-benefit analysis of proposed regulations. It has effectively exempted itself from regulatory oversight by incorrectly declaring most of its regulations either "interpretative" within the meaning of the Administrative Procedure Act or not "major" within the meaning of Executive Order 12866. Yet many IRS regulations impose significant economic costs and should be subject to regulatory review.
Collecting private financial information on non-resident investors and sharing that data with foreign governments hinders jurisdictional competition. It enables high-tax governments to impose levies on income earned outside their borders, particularly discriminatory taxes on capital. Thus the regulation would encourage governments to increase marginal tax rates on mobile capital.

The current version of the regulation is a slight modification of a rule proposed in the waning days of the Clinton administration. The original proposal required reporting deposit interest paid to all non-resident aliens, but intense opposition led to its withdrawal in the summer of 2002. The IRS immediately issued the new version, which limits information collection to residents of 15 developed countries, including some EU members. However, it is clear that the IRS intends to eventually extend the regulation to citizens of all nations.
The regulation is also contrary to the administration's position on the treatment of confidential taxpayer information. On several occasions, former Secretary Paul O'Neill and other Treasury officials stated that the US government does not support automatic information sharing. Rather, O'Neill said information should only be provided on a case-by-case basis in response to specific requests -- and with full respect for due process and individual privacy. The proposed rule clearly violates this commitment, since any information collected would be automatically forwarded to foreign governments.

The proposed IRS regulation is bad tax policy and bad regulatory policy. It is inconsistent with President Bush's tax reform agenda. And it will hurt the US economy by reducing the capital available for workers, consumers, homeowners and entrepreneurs. The rule would become effective following its final publication in the Federal Register. Instead, it should be withdrawn by the Treasury Department.

Andrew F. Quinlan is president of the Centre for Freedom and Prosperity, a non-profit organization that seeks to promote economic prosperity by advocating competitive markets and limited government.

Source: United Press International
Market Research

The International Affairs Institute (IAI) and OCP Policy Center recently launched a new book: The Future of Natural Gas. Markets and Geopolitics.

Cover_242-width

The book is an in-depth analysis of some of the fastest moving gas markets, attempting to define the trends of a resource that will have a decisive role in shaping the global economy and modelling the geopolitical dynamics in the next decades.

Some of the top scholars in the energy sector have contributed to this volume such as Gonzalo Escribano, Director Energy and Climate Change Programme, Elcano Royal Institute, Madrid, Coby van der Linde, Director Clingendael International Energy Programme, The Hague and Houda Ben Jannet Allal, General Director Observatoire Méditerranéen de l’Energie (OME), Paris.

For only €32.50 you have your own copy of The Future of Natural Gas. Markets and Geopolitics. Click here to order now!


 

Upcoming Conferences
« August 2017 »
August
MoTuWeThFrSaSu
1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31

Register to announce Your Event

View All Events