FORTUNE -- There's a widely shared idea that if the U.S. reduced its corporate income tax rate to 25% from the current 35%, big corporations would stop playing tax games. They would then pour all their attention into profit-making rather than allocating a ton of talent to tax avoidance, and we would all be richer and happier as a result.
Apple's recent plan to supposedly return a big part of its company's cash hoard to investors shows how naïve that kind of thinking is. And, by the way, it also shows that Apple (AAPL) is actually more into playing tax and accounting games than it is into returning cash.
As you likely know, about two-thirds of the $145 billion of cash on Apple's books is held in overseas subsidiaries, and Apple would have to pay U.S. income tax if it used that money in the U.S. So instead of bringing in money from overseas to pay for its stepped-up stock buybacks and higher cash dividend, Apple will borrow money instead.
It's a perfect tax arbitrage. Let's say Apple borrows money at an interest cost of 3% a year (which is more than it would likely pay), and uses it to buy back stock at the current price of about $410 a share. Each share that Apple buys back will reduce its annual dividend obligation by $12.20 a share, at the company's current dividend rate. The interest on the borrowed money would be $12.30 a share -- about the same as the dividend. But interest is tax deductible, and dividends aren't.
At a 35% tax rate, the borrowed money would cost Apple $8 after taxes for each share it bought back. That's significantly less than the $12.20 after-tax cost of its $12.20 dividend. At a 25% tax rate, the borrowing would cost $9.23 after taxes -- but that's still less than $12.20. So lowering the tax rate to 25% from 35% doesn't remove Apple's incentive to play the deduct-interest-to-retire-stock tax game. It would be less lucrative than it is at 35% -- but it's still lucrative. And, by the way, the borrowing-to-buy back maneuver would not only reduce Apple's taxes, it would increase its earnings per share.
With tax rates at 35%, it's considerably cheaper for Apple to borrow money in the U.S. than it would be for it to repatriate cash held in foreign subsidiaries. But even if the tax rate were only 25%, it would still be cheaper for it to borrow than to repatriate.
Besides, history shows that lowering the corporate tax rate doesn't reduce companies' desires to play games. The 1986 tax reform act reduced the corporate rate to 34% from the previous 46%. So what happened? After a brief period, probably measured in nanoseconds, companies began trying to get around the 34% (now 35%) rate the same way they had tried to get around the 46% rate.
There's a wonderful series that Reuters published last year detailing the efforts made by European subsidiaries of U.S. multinationals like Starbucks (SBUX) and Amazon (AMZN) and eBay (EBAY) to move taxable income out of places like England, Germany, and France, which have corporate rates in the mid-20s, to places like Luxembourg, where rates are considerably lower.
These games are familiar to those of us who follow U.S. tax policy, such as it is. You set up a subsidiary in a low-tax area that owns "intellectual property," and that collects royalties that subsidiaries in higher-tax areas get to deduct. You have all sorts of intra-corporate loans, with tax-deductible interest paid in higher-tax areas and collected in low-tax and no-tax areas. And on and on and on. Except that instead of moving income from the U.S. to low-tax places, you move income from higher-tax European countries to lower-tax European countries.
The bottom line: Even if Washington gridlock is broken long enough to cut the corporate rate to 25%, there will always be a Luxembourg or a Cayman Islands, or some other low-tax Shangri-la that will offer rates low enough to keep tax lawyers gainfully employed. You can take it to the bank. An offshore bank, of course.
Studies suggest that lower tax rates won't boost corporate investment or the economy.
On Wednesday, when Obama announced his plan to revise the corporate tax code and lower the top rate companies pay, he cited the fact that in many other developed nations corporations pay less. It's a familiar point. Republicans make it all the time. The buzz word is competitiveness. And people on both sides of the political isle seem MOREStephen Gandel, senior editor - Feb 23, 2012 10:31 AM ET
In an interview, the Republican presidential candidate says he'll reduce corporate taxes and overturn regulations. Will that be enough to turn the economy around?
By David Whitford, editor-at-large
FORTUNE -- Mitt Romney came to Manhattan for a day in mid-December to ask for money from his Wall Street friends. In a tactical shift preceded by Newt Gingrich's unexpected surge in the polls, he also sat for a series of interviews with news MOREDec 28, 2011 5:00 AM ET
FORTUNE -- Here's the Times' original story about GE, which says in the third paragraph: "Its American tax bill? None." And here's the story that Jeff Gerth of ProPublica and I published on Apr. 4, pointing out that the Times had confused a number that companies use to report earnings with a totally different (and non-public) number they use to determine taxes owed to the IRS.
As part of our article, MOREAllan Sloan, senior editor-at-large - Nov 17, 2011 5:01 AM ET
If our nation's biggest companies want to improve their image with Americans, then they need to come clean on what they owe Uncle Sam.
FORTUNE -- It was enough to make anyone from a big company want to crawl under his chair. Here was David Crosby of the Crosby, Stills & Nash folk rock group holding forth at a recent performance in New York City's Beacon Theatre, not about war or MOREAllan Sloan, senior editor-at-large - Nov 17, 2011 5:00 AM ET
How P&G gets past paying taxes on deals is perfectly legal, but it's still a prime example of why the system needs reform.
FORTUNE -- The tax-avoidance spotlight has been shining brightly, via the media, on companies like General Electric (GE), Exxon Mobil (XOM), Verizon (VZ), and big multinational banks. But some of the most clever and innovative tax avoiding is being done by a company not usually associated with financial MOREAllan Sloan, senior editor-at-large - Oct 19, 2011 5:00 AM ET
Business leaders aren't worried that Washington is running out of tools to fix the economy. They say the White House stubbornly insists on reaching for the wrong toolbox.
By Nina Easton, senior editor-at-large
FORTUNE -- James A. Baker III knows something about running a White House in the midst of a grueling recession, with voters on the verge of casting a thumbs up or down on the boss's second term. Baker was MOREJun 7, 2011 8:30 AM ET
|4 federal agencies to shut Friday|
|Wall Street tries to buck global sell-off|
|Tesla repays federal loan nearly 10 years early|
|Japan plunge spooks global markets|
|Shazam overhauls iPad app as music market heats up|