The Next Step in Corporate Tax Reform
Chuck Sheketoff
Do you think policymakers, tax analysts, and interested citizens should better understand and evaluate whether the corporate income tax is structured in such a way that all corporations doing business in the state pay their fair share of the tax and tax liabilities are distributed among corporations as policymakers intend?
Do you think these individuals should analyze whether specific corporate tax cuts enacted to achieve a variety of economic development-related objectives are actually achieving those objectives?
Do you think exposing problems with the corporate tax system to policymakers, the media, and the general public would increase the likelihood that appropriate changes in tax policy will be enacted?
If you answered yes to any of those questions, then you should be interested in corporate tax disclosure and a new report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities titled State Corporate Tax Disclosure: The Next Step in Corporate Tax Reform (PDF).
In the report you will read about "The Fading State Corporate Income Tax." For instance, while profits and federal corporate income tax receipts have grown at about the same rate from 1993 to 2005 (7.8 and 7.8 percent respectively), state corporate income tax collections have fallen short (6.6 percent), which means that individual taxpayers are left picking up a larger share of the responsibility for funding state services.
You will get all the arguments you need to make "The Case for Company-specific Corporate Tax Disclosure."
The next time some apologist for the current secrecy – and for the current tax system where large corporations with significant revenues pay little in state income taxes – calls you “anti-business,” if you have read the section titled "Responding to Arguments against Company-specific Disclosure" you’ll be prepared.
Perhaps your conflict-adverse friend or your legislator in Salem asks "aren't there less controversial alternatives?" The section "Proposed Alternatives to Company-specific Disclosure Are Inadequate" will give you the facts you need to say with confidence "no, we should just do it.”
Last, and certainly not least, there's a detailed "Explanation of the Model State Corporate Tax Disclosure Act" that will help you understand the bill that will be printed soon in Salem. I'll add the bill number to this post when it becomes available, so stay tuned.
The bottom line: read State Corporate Tax Disclosure (PDF) so you can help Oregon take the next step. And visit the Corporate Accountability Reporting Resources page at the Oregon Center for Public Policy.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
8:18 a.m.
Feb 15, '07
Chuck,
Thank you for doing this. We are indeed fortunate to have you and your organization providing hard data on tax and public policy issues for Oregon. For too long the corporate world and the anti-tax crowd has controlled the information flow. Companies like Nike and Intel could publish their side, but we had trouble getting our hands on the hard data to counter their positions. They have sucker punched our politicians and the result is that individuals feel that they pay too much tax after almost two decades of cutting taxes. Of course the tax cuts went to the large corporations not to individuals.
9:06 a.m.
Feb 15, '07
Chuck Sheketoff identifies one reason for State Corporate Tax Disclosure -- extracting greater tax revenues from corporations. Maybe. But a better reason for action by the Oregon legislature is that disclosure is investor friendly. Oregon is not going to attact corporate headquarters by being management friendly. States like New Jersey beat us hands down on that dimension. But we might possibly attract and retrain corporate headquarters by being exceptionally shareholder friendly. The fact is that corporate headquarters are very valuable to a community in a way that many economic activities are not.
I am not convinced that State Corporate Tax Disclosure would encourage corporations to pay more corporate income taxes, but I am open to persuasion. The main reason that state corporate income tax revenues have fallen as a proportion of taxes collected is that states have moved away from uniformity in apportionment practices. This means that corporations now have greater latitude to recognize income where corporate rates are lower. Because Oregon has a high corporate income tax rate. changes in apportionment rules have affected Oregon's corporate tax revenues more than in most states.
While I am not convinced that increasing corporate income tax payments is necessarily a good thing (the incidence of corporate income taxes is hard to parse), we ought to understand how to accomplish that end. Obviously, eliminating the corporate kicker ought to be the first order of business. Lowering corporate income taxes rates is also an obvious possibility. Returning to a triangular system of apportionment based on assets and employment as well as on the location of sales is a third -- that would increase revenues from companies like Nike and Intel, for examples.
Feb 15, '07
Excellent post and linked article, but I am not sure how to reconcile the reasonable privacy needs of business with your proposal. Should I be able to obtain information regarding my competitor's gross income, or total deductions or net tax liability? For publicly traded companies that information is probably available anyway (although perhaps not broken down by state), but for private businesses that information is sensitive and it seems like that information could be used to the disadvantage of the taxpayer, particularly as the level of detail increases.
Clearly the Oregon legislature needs to force all businesses to pay their fair share of state taxes, but we can't let Oregon gain a reputation of being less accommodating to businesses than its sister states. I am already watching a lot of small to medium size manufacturing and distribution companies migrate to Washington where there is no corporate income tax and where development land is cheaper. I don't think anybody wants the outward migration of good jobs to get any worse than it already is.
Feb 15, '07
The only corporations that pay any tax are public traded corps. Private corporations typically pay out all the profit to the owners/shareholders to limit corporate taxes. Why would anyone leave money in a corporation just to be taxed more?? That would be poor fiscal policy. And remember, the "kicker" is simply over collected taxes, so their money. The fact that govt collected me or my businesses tax money is justification for keeping it is really idiotic. If you want more money, budget for it and get it approved. A better strategy is to forgo all corporate taxes in favor of having more people with better jobs, since we rape them for 9% with the state income tax. Perhaps even a sliding scale based on whether a company has their HQ here and some number of manufacturing/other workforce. Can anyone is Salem ever think out of the box? Money comes from peoples wallets, not their businesses.
Why we are having this conversation at all is amazing. The next biennial budget is up 20%, or $4 BILLION dollars a year. That ain't enough? Shouldnt we be reducing the state income tax percentage rate to 7% instead, and just let the unwashed masses keep their money?
Sheesh, Ted could not even find it in himself to get the State Police any new money, out of a $4 BILLION budget INCREASE. Oregon is not a business friendly state, it's a PERS friendly, tax friendly, we know what is better for business and taxpayers than they do state. Oregon doesn't need or deserve more tax revenues.
Feb 15, '07
Lots of small business entities (corporations, LLCs, etc.) pay Oregon income tax. Yes, Mom and Pop companies usually distribute all profits to themselves prior to the end of their tax year to avoid paying tax at the entity level, but there are hundreds and probably thousands of middle-size business entities in Oregon that pay taxes. I am the attorney for dozens of them.
My point is - catch the cheaters, close the loopholes, and if necessary raise tax rates to make business pay a fair share. But be careful when proposing laws that make private tax return information into pubic information.
Would you want your next door neighbor or your ex-wife (or the bartender at the Elks Club) to know how much tax you paid last year? Not sure I would, and small businesses have some of the same concerns.
Feb 15, '07
oops, got too excited. LLCs don't pay tax at the entity level. Ignore that mistake in the above.
4:15 p.m.
Feb 15, '07
"And remember, the "kicker" is simply over collected taxes, so their money. The fact that govt collected me or my businesses tax money is justification for keeping it is really idiotic."
How so? If I make $10,000 in a year, I'll be taxed for (say) $2,500. If I make $15,000, I'll be taked for $3,750. That's not "overcollected taxes," that's legitimate taxes based on unforseen additional tax revenue--predicated on unforseen additional income.
Or to put it another way--since you seem to think that the target revenue figure is what should end up in the treasury at the end of the year--if you make less than you predicted next year, you won't mind paying the additional tax on the amount you predicted...right?
12:17 p.m.
Feb 16, '07
Would you want your next door neighbor or your ex-wife (or the bartender at the Elks Club) to know how much tax you paid last year? Not sure I would, and small businesses have some of the same concerns.
Sure. Why not? I don't understand what the problem is. There's nothing in your tax files that's a corporate trade secret.
Maybe it's because most of my company's revenues ARE a matter of public record (through campaign C&E reporting), but I just don't see what the big deal is.
The secret formula for the next New Coke isn't in their tax filing. Heck, the CEO's salary isn't even in there.
Feb 17, '07
Kari Chisholm Would you want your next door neighbor or your ex-wife (or the bartender at the Elks Club) to know how much tax you paid last year? Not sure I would, and small businesses have some of the same concerns.
Sure. Why not? I don't understand what the problem is. There's nothing in your tax files that's a corporate trade secret. JK: Again Blueoregon is showing its lack of understanding business. Say I have a small business that has hit the mother lode of a popular product. I only sell it on the internet, so the competition has no hint that I am very successful and thus will not decide to compete with me. Until the competition sees that I am making a killing from my tax filings.
The obvious solution it to take my business and YOUR job somewhere else. Hope you want to commute to Vancouver which is currently advertizing the lack of a corporate tax!
Thanks JK
6:04 p.m.
Feb 18, '07
JK writes: Again Blueoregon is showing its lack of understanding business. Say I have a small business that has hit the mother lode of a popular product. I only sell it on the internet, so the competition has no hint that I am very successful and thus will not decide to compete with me. Until the competition sees that I am making a killing from my tax filings.
State corporate tax disclosure is primarily addressed to businesses that are now required to report their general-purpose financial statements to the public and file extensive financial information with the SEC on a quarterly basis. All of this information is available to investors (including potential rivals). What tax disclosure would do is give everybody greater insight into their cash flows, as well as their income and tax management practices. Some privately held businesses would be affected, but I don't think the small business case cited by JK is relevant.
The merits of the corporate income tax (few in my opinion) or the corporate kicker (none) deserve their own discussion.