May 5, 2024

DealBook: Calculating Apple’s True U.S. Tax Rate

Some have suggested that Timothy D. Cook’s calculation of Apple's tax rate is based on a badly distorted measure of United States income.Jason Reed/ReutersSome have suggested that Timothy D. Cook’s calculation of Apple’s tax rate is based on a badly distorted measure of United States income.

One lesson from the Senate hearing about Apple’s offshore tax planning is that figuring out what a multinational company actually pays in taxes is harder than it should be. At the risk of sounding Clintonesque, it depends on what the meaning of “pays” is.

“The way I look at this is that Apple pays 30.5 percent of its profits in taxes in the United States,” Apple’s chief executive, Timothy D. Cook, said at the hearing. The statutory rate for companies is 35 percent, and in theory the government taxes corporations on their worldwide income at that rate. Mr. Cook explained that Apple paid less on a global basis because its profits generated abroad were taxed at a lower rate than in the United States.

The way I arrive the real taxes paid by Apple is a little different. As Bloomberg News highlighted recently, Mr. Cook’s calculation is based on a badly distorted measure of United States income.

Standard Deduction
View all posts


The whole point of the Senate hearing was to show how Apple shifts substantial amounts of its economic profits from the United States to Ireland, where they are taxed at a rate close to zero. Those profits are then sheltered in Ireland and untaxed unless Apple decides to bring the cash back to the United States.

These overseas profits create deferred tax liabilities that will not be taxed until the cash is repatriated. But Apple is reluctant to repatriate its overseas cash; it would rather lobby for another tax holiday and bring the cash back tax-free. An added benefit of a tax holiday for Apple is that it would provide a quick jump in reported earnings when the accounting entry for the deferred tax liability is reversed.

My point is that politicians and voters are interested in a very different question than Apple’s shareholders. Shareholders are indifferent to whether a dollar of tax is paid to the Treasury Department or to a foreign government and credited in full by the American tax system. Either way, it’s a dollar that won’t be distributed to the shareholders.

But as voters we care about actual dollars flowing to the federal government. You can’t finance a food stamp program with foreign tax credits.

Most of us think of paying taxes as writing a check to the government or having money withheld from a paycheck. By this common sense measure, how much tax does Apple actually pay?

The number can be calculated from the company’s tax return, but tax returns are not public. Felix Salmon of Reuters has suggested that public companies file their tax returns with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The problem is that many companies would resist disclosing information that could offer competitors insight into company strategy, including tax avoidance strategies.

It’s sometimes possible to dig through a company’s filings and figure out the amount of cash paid in taxes, but accounting conventions make the task onerous and imprecise. It shouldn’t be this hard.

Here’s my suggestion. Congress should require every large American company to disclose to the public a simple number each year, which I would call the “true U.S. tax rate”: (1) the amount of cash tax payments to the Treasury Department divided by (2) worldwide pretax book income. To account for fluctuations, we might calculate this number over a three-year period.

According to the Senate report, Apple paid $5.3 billion to the Treasury Department in the fiscal years 2009 to 2011. Its worldwide pretax book income over that period was about $65 billion. Thus, Apple’s “true U.S. tax rate,” according to my own calculation, was 8.2 percent.

Companies might complain that this figure is deceptive, as it does not account for foreign taxes paid and credited in the United States, or book-tax differences like accelerated depreciation. But so what?

The point of the disclosure is to allow voters and policy makers an easy way to understand how well the tax system is working and what each corporation contributes to the public coffers.


Victor Fleischer is a professor at the University of Colorado Law School, where he teaches partnership tax, tax policy and deals. Twitter: @vicfleischer


This post has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: June 4, 2013

An earlier version of this column referred incorrectly to Mr. Cook’s estimate of Apple’s 2012 tax liability. It does not include deferred tax liabilities. According to Mr. Cook’s written testimony, the estimate was based on “a reflection of federal taxes Apple paid against U.S. pretax earnings, not a calculation of Apple’s final tax liability for FY 2012.”

Article source: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/06/04/calculating-apples-true-u-s-tax-rate/?partner=rss&emc=rss

Special Report: Tax Planning: With Shifts Possible in U.S. Tax Policy, Beware of Sudden Moves

But financial advisers say that in their rush to do something this year, investors might end up with regrets.

“Any time you make a decision purely for tax reasons, it has a way of coming back and biting you,” said Mag Black-Scott, chief executive of Beverly Hills Wealth Management. “Could you be at a 43 percent tax on dividends instead of 15 percent? The straight answer is yes, of course you could. But what if that doesn’t happen? What if they increase just slightly?”

Various proposals are on the table, but the measures the wealthy say they worry most about are an increase in the capital gains rate to 20 percent from 15 percent, which would affect investments like stocks and second homes; an increase in the 15 percent tax on dividends; and a limitation on deductions, which would effectively increase the tax bill.

For the truly wealthy, there is also the question of what will happen to estate and gift taxes.

In addition, the health care law sets a 3.8 percent Medicare tax on investment income for individuals with more than $200,000 in annual income (and couples with more than $250,000).

Taking taxes on capital gains as an example, Ms. Black-Scott, who started her career at Morgan Stanley in the late 1970s, said people needed to remember that the rates were 28 percent when Ronald Reagan was president. “If they go from 15 to 20 percent, is it really that bad?” she asked.

“You need to say, ‘Do I like the stock?’ If you do,” she continued, “why would you get rid of it?”

Here is a look at some of the top areas where short-term decisions based solely on taxes could end up hindering long-term investment goals.

APPRECIATED STOCK Many people have large holdings in a single stock, often the result of having worked for a company for many years. And the stock may have appreciated significantly over that time. But if they are selling now solely for tax reasons, advisers say, they should not. The stock may continue to do well and more than compensate for increased capital gains.

There is, however, an upside to decisions driven by an increase in the capital gains rate: Wealthier clients may finally be pushed to diversify their holdings. “If you have 75 percent of your wealth in one stock, then it’s a really appropriate time to think about this,” said Timothy R. Lee, managing director of Monument Wealth Management. If the increased tax rate “is a motivating factor for some people, O.K. Letting go of that control and the pride that goes with it is a really difficult decision.”

Selling stock now may also make sense when it is in the form of stock options set to expire early next year. “Do you want to take the risk the price will drop in January?” asked Melissa Labant, director of the tax team at the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. “What if we have a fiscal cliff or a change in the markets? If you’re comfortable, do it now.”

Some investors may also fear that higher taxes will drive all stocks down. Patrick S. Boyle, investment strategist at Bessemer Trust, said there was no historical link between tax increases and stock market performance.

In the most recent three tax increases, he said, “the market has actually gone up in the six months before and after.” He added: “It’s not that tax rates aren’t important. They are. It’s just that there are so many other things going on that are more important than tax policy.”

MUNICIPAL BONDS Bonds sold to finance state and local government projects are tax-free now and will be tax-free next year. That is no reason to load up on them.

Tax-free municipal bonds have always been attractive to people in higher-income tax brackets. Now, advisers fear that individuals just above the $200,000 threshold, people who say they do not feel wealthy but will probably be paying higher taxes on their incomes and investments, will try to offset those increases by moving more of their investments into municipal bonds.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/03/business/global/03iht-srtaxwealth03.html?partner=rss&emc=rss