Baucus US tax reform proposal: A warning for Apple and Google

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Garden, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Baucus US tax reform proposal: A warning for Apple and Google

apple.jpg

After the release of Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus’ discussion draft outlining his proposals for US corporate tax reform, Jim Ditkoff, senior vice president – finance and tax – at science and technology company Danaher Corporation, analyses the proposals and explains why companies like Apple and Google may regret some of their lobbying efforts.

Ditkoff immediately draws comparison between the Baucus discussion draft and previous proposals made by Dave Camp, chairman of the House Ways & Means Committee.

“I think it’s interesting, and perhaps inevitable, that the Republican proposal that is now being championed by Baucus (Montana Democrat) is the proposal of Ways & Means chairman Camp (Michigan Republican) to tax all of the pre-enactment earnings and profits of foreign subsidiaries of US corporations at a reduced US tax rate,” said Ditkoff.

However, Baucus is seeking to not only impose the retroactive tax (the discussion draft is vague here, saying this would be at a reduced rate of “for example, 20%, payable over eight years”) but also wants to currently tax most of the future income of foreign subsidiaries of US corporations, whether that income is active or passive and whether or not that income is repatriated.

“Specifically, Baucus offers the choice of a US tax on 80% of all foreign earnings or on 60% of active foreign earnings and 100% of other foreign profits,” said Ditkoff.

But the Senate Finance Committee chairman does have one proposal that Ditkoff likes.

“That is his proposal to tax the income of foreign subsidiaries from selling products or providing services to US customers at full US tax rates. This is obviously not good tax policy,” he said. “It means that foreign companies without a US parent will have a tremendous advantage in selling products and providing services to US customers.”

On top of that, Ditkoff believes the proposal would not encourage US multinationals to move their tax haven foreign manufacturing operations back to the US, saying there are plenty of non-tax reasons to manufacture in Singapore or China, rather than California.

What he likes about the proposal is that it targets companies such as Apple and Google that have been arguing the loudest for a territorial tax system.

“They wanted to continue manufacturing the products they sell to US customers in foreign tax havens and then to bring those low-taxed profits back to the US tax-free to finance buy-backs – nobody is even pretending anymore that these companies were going to use those funds to create jobs in the US,” said Ditkoff. “Now Baucus is saying that they won’t need to pay US taxes on the repatriation of those foreign manufacturing profits, because they will be subject to full US taxes the moment they are earned. Be careful what you wish for.”

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

The threat of 50% tariffs on Brazilian goods coincides with new Brazilian legal powers to adopt retaliatory economic measures, local experts tell ITR
The country’s chancellor appears to have backtracked from previous pillar two scepticism; in other news, Donald Trump threatened Russia with 100% tariffs
In its latest G20 update, the OECD also revealed tense discussions with the US where the ‘significant threat’ of Section 899 was highlighted
The tax agency has increased compliance yield from wealthy individuals but cannot identify how much tax is paid by UK billionaires, the committee also claimed
Saffery cautioned that documentation requirements in new government proposals must be limited if medium-sized companies are not exempted from TP
The global minimum tax deal is not viable without US participation, Friedrich Merz has argued
Section 899 of the ‘one big beautiful’ bill would have spelled disaster for many international investors into the US, but following its shelving, attention turns to the fate of the OECD’s pillars
DLA Piper’s co-head of tax for the US and Latin America tells ITR about her fervent belief in equal access to the law, loving yoga, and paternal inspirations
Tax expert Craig Hillier agrees with the comparison of pillar two to using a sledgehammer to crack a nut
The amount is reported to be up 57% from the £5.6bn that the UK tax agency believes was underpaid in the previous year
Gift this article