Republicans are working on developing a much smaller infrastructure package than the Biden administration’s American employment plan, relying on usage fees like tolls instead of corporate tax increases.
The GOP package would cost between $ 600 billion and $ 800 billion, as opposed to the $ 2.3 trillion proposed by Democrats and the government. Biden has called for the maximum corporate tax rate to be raised to 28 percent to help pay for the infrastructure package.
The 2017 tax cuts and jobs cut the company’s top rate from 35 percent to 21 percent, so Biden’s plan would effectively cut that in half. However, Republicans have vowed to defy his plan, arguing that raising taxes during the pandemic would halt economic recovery. Instead, a group of Republican Senators is putting together their own package that makes individual users of infrastructure elements such as roads, tunnels and bridges responsible.
“I think the pay should come from the people who use it. So if it’s an airport, the people who fly,” said Senator Mitt Romney, R-Utah, according to Business Insider. “If it’s a port, the people who go into the port; If it is a rail system, the people who use the rails. If it’s highways, it should be gasoline if it’s a gasoline-powered vehicle. “
Bloomberg via Getty Images
“We can pay for it without collecting taxes,” said Senator Steve Daines, R-Montana, according to Bloomberg News.
While user fees are likely to help fund infrastructure improvements, as has traditionally been the case, Democrats are likely to be against relying heavily on this approach.
“The Republicans’ red line on corporate earnings is utterly unreasonable,” said Ron Wyden, chairman of the Senate, D-Oregon finance committee, in a statement Thursday. “Companies have never contributed less to federal income than they do now. Our analysis of the CBO data shows that corporate earnings have declined nearly 40 percent from the 21st century average since the Republicans were granted tax breaks. I’m not talking about comparing where we are today to where we were in the 1950s – I’m talking about comparing where we are today and where we were five years ago. In 2018, the United States was the last of the OECD countries to die in terms of corporate tax revenues it collected as a percentage of GDP. Republicans’ insistence that the world’s most profitable corporations shouldn’t add a single cent to investments in roads, schools, and our clean energy future is simply unacceptable. “
Some experts are skeptical of Biden’s infrastructure plan. “I have trouble thinking of it as an infrastructure plan because I don’t think you could come up with a broader definition of infrastructure,” said Jeremy Swan, executive director of CohnReznick’s financial sponsorship and financial services industry. “If you look at the key components of the plan, they are transportation, disabled and elderly care, manufacturing, buildings, job creation, utilities, electric vehicles, education, and incorporating some aspects of the grid and telecommunications. Maybe some of us are too old-fashioned, but I remember the days when the infrastructure consisted of roads, bridges, tunnels and maybe some buildings. This is possibly much wider than the typical infrastructure so it will certainly be a challenge to get this done through Congress as one side says this is way too wide and this is not infrastructure and the other side says it is not wide enough. “
He’s also skeptical about how the corporate tax hikes will affect spending. “From a tax perspective, the biggest aspect is how we pay for it. I think the numbers they’ve been tossing around are that infrastructure spending will be somewhere around 1 percent of GDP over the next seven or eight years, ”Swan said. “That brings you to $ 2.3 trillion or $ 2.4 trillion. The proposal – at least the original plan, and I expect there will be significant changes – is that we will change the corporate tax rate. We’re going to look at what the big companies pay from a tax perspective and move the corporate tax rate from 21 percent to 28 percent. We are going to set a minimum tax rate for large companies. We are basically going to get rid of some of the international tax components of the Tax Cut and Jobs Act of 2017. You are basically in charge of the businesses, but if you look at that, the estimates I’ve seen say they probably generate around half a percent of GDP a year from a government revenue perspective. They allow 14 to 15 years to effectively pay for the next seven or eight years of infrastructure spending. It could take up to 16 years to get it back. If you use 16 as a round number, that’s four administrations. That is the first term of the Biden administration and then three more administrations. Who should say this won’t be reduced or changed? I don’t buy into what people say it’s a self-funded plan because we are spending money and collecting taxes. It’s not about apples. “
Companies would pay far more under the Biden plan proposals. “That’s a 33 percent increase in the tax rate,” said Jim Brandenburg, tax partner at the professional services company Sikich. “I think it can be difficult for some of them to continue expanding, either hiring new employees or investing in machinery and equipment when they have a higher tax burden, especially due to the pandemic. Some do better than others, but some are still trying to work that through so it can be difficult to get a tax hike beyond that. For some companies, the higher rate may make them a little less competitive with some countries around the world where rates are lower than what we are on our way there. “
Last week the Treasury Department released more details on what is known as the Made in America tax plan. The main elements include increasing the corporate tax rate to 28 percent; Strengthening the Global Minimum Tax for US Multinational Corporations; Reducing the incentive for foreign jurisdictions to maintain extremely low corporate tax rates by encouraging the introduction of robust minimum taxes worldwide; Introduction of a minimum tax of 15 percent on book income for large companies that report high profits but have low taxable income; Replacing incentives that reward excess profits from intangible assets with more generous incentives for new research and development; Replace fossil fuel subsidies with incentives for clean energy production; and enforcement to address corporate tax avoidance.
“The corporate AMT, which was canceled by the tax reform in 2017, was abolished in 2018,” said Brandenburg. “It looks like this is being brought back in some way. They have a new 15 percent based on book revenue for large companies that they seem to want to bring back. “
Most of the proposed changes are on the corporate side, but there would be few changes for pass-through companies like S-companies and partnerships, at least as part of the original plan unveiled earlier this month.
Businesses and their tax planners are bracing themselves for the changes, even if it is not yet clear how those changes will turn out to be. “Overall, we see a general expectation that there will be a significant corporate tax reform, regardless of whether it will be added to the infrastructure package or passed separately and when it will take effect, has yet to be determined,” said Albert Liguori, Managing Director at Alvarez & Marsal Taxand in New York. “If you interview the people in the public market, you will find that everyone expects something to happen, but there are a lot of questions about what exactly is going to happen.”
Tax planning is complicated, especially for large multinational corporations that were able to take advantage of the many incentives provided by the Tax Reduction and Employment Act a few years ago. Now you will likely need to recall some of the changes you made to your strategy.
“When the 2017 law came into effect, it was such a big change that existential questions were raised as to whether we are really willing to change the way we do things to take advantage of it, or whether we are just stay and anticipate that the next government will turn all these dials in different ways, because frankly the law of 2017 did just that, ”Liguori said. “A number of dials and new dials have been installed, all of which are confusingly interdependent, so now you need advanced software to do all of this. The market is already somewhat prepared for change, and I think the expectation is that the total corporate rate will increase and the tax on non-US profits of a US multinational company will be more taxed. “
Businesses may also have to budget for the administration’s proposal to impose a minimum tax on book revenue, though the Treasury Department estimates that only about 45 businesses would be affected. “In the last few years around 45 companies have paid a minimum book tax liability according to the President’s proposal,” says the Treasury Plan. “This minimum book tax is a targeted approach to ensure that the most aggressive tax evaders are forced to bear significant tax liabilities. The average business faced this tax would see an increased minimum tax liability of about $ 300 million per year. “
Of course, only the largest corporations could probably figure out what those minimum taxes would be. “I think the idea of a minimum tax on book income is far more difficult than anyone would like to admit,” Liguori said. “Not only is it challenging how this affects business decision-making and whether it encourages proper behavior, but it is also extremely mechanically difficult to find out. Imagine going through your year trying to make business decisions. Now you need to calculate a different version of income tax that you did not have to calculate before. Only companies with extremely advanced technology systems, like some of our customers, can make decisions based on where their best tax response lies because of the enormous complexity. Mechanically there is much more to it. It’s really difficult to understand how it works, and I think administration and finance also see how complex this has to be and how annoying it will be to put it on the lion’s share of businesses. But the biggest ones, maybe they have the resources to handle this complexity. Ultimately, I think there will be a limited number of companies to which this will apply, and that seems to be in line with policy objectives anyway. “