U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

72–279 2012

TAX REFORM AND FOREIGN INVESTMENT 

IN THE UNITED STATES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SELECT REVENUE MEASURES 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JUNE 23, 2011

Serial No. 112–SRM3 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means 

( 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
ii 

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SELECT REVENUE MEASURES 

PAT TIBERI, Ohio, Chairman 

PETER ROSKAM, Illinois 

ERIK PAULSEN, Minnesota 

RICK BERG, North Dakota 

CHARLES BOUSTANY, Louisiana 

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts, 

Ranking Member 

MIKE THOMPSON, California 

JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut 

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada 

JON TRAUB, Staff Director 

JANICE MAYS, Minority Staff Director 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
iii 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Advisory of June 23, 2011, announcing the hearing ............................................. 2 

WITNESSES 

PANEL 1: 

Nancy L. McLernon, President & Chief Executive Officer, Organization 

for International Investment ........................................................................... 5 

Alexander Spitzer, Senior Vice President—Taxes, Nestle Holdings, Inc. ....... 14 

Claude Draillard, Chief Financial Officer, Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation . 22 

Jeffrey DeBoer, President & Chief Executive Officer, The Real Estate 

Roundtable ........................................................................................................ 28 

PANEL 2: 

Gary Hufbauer, Reginald Jones Senior Fellow, Peterson Institute for International Economics ........................................................................................... 61 

Robert Stricof, Tax Partner, Deloitte Tax LLP .................................................. 67 

Bret Wells, Assistant Professor of Law, University of Houston Law Center .. 79 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

The Honorable Ms. Berkley .................................................................................... 100 

Brian Dooley ............................................................................................................. 101 

Mayer Brown LLP ................................................................................................... 107 

Overseas Shipholding Group .................................................................................. 109 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING

ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

TAX REFORM AND FOREIGN INVESTMENT 

IN THE UNITED STATES 

THURSDAY, JUNE 23, 2011 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SELECT REVENUE MEASURES, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in 

Room 1100, Longworth House Office Building, the Honorable Patrick Tiberi [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

[The advisory of the hearing follows:] 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
2 

HEARING ADVISORY 

Chairman Tiberi Announces Hearing on Tax Reform and Foreign Investment in the United 

States 

Thursday, June 23, 2011 

Congressman Pat Tiberi, (R–OH), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures of the Committee on Ways and Means, today announced that the 

Subcommittee will hold a hearing on the importance of foreign direct investment 

(FDI) to the U.S. economy and how tax reform might affect foreign-headquartered 

businesses that invest and create jobs in the United States. The hearing will take 

place on Thursday, June 23, 2011, in Room 1100 of the Longworth House 

Office Building at 10:00 A.M. 

In view of the limited time available to hear witnesses, oral testimony at this 

hearing will be from invited witnesses only. However, any individual or organization 

not scheduled for an oral appearance may submit a written statement for consideration by the Committee and for inclusion in the printed record of the hearing. A 

list of invited witnesses will follow. 

BACKGROUND: 

Foreign direct investment plays an important role in the U.S. economy. According 

to the Commerce Department, FDI increased to $194.5 billion in 2010 after plummeting to $134.7 billion in 2009 as a result of the economic downturn. (In 2008, FDI 

reached an all-time high of $328.3 billion.) U.S. subsidiaries of foreign-based companies employ 5.6 million American workers—roughly 5 percent of the U.S. private 

sector workforce. Foreign-headquartered companies share many of the same concerns about the U.S. tax system that purely domestic companies raise, such as the 

relatively high U.S. corporate tax rate. Foreign-based companies also face tax issues 

unique to their business structure, and some commentators have suggested that 

there are tax obstacles to additional FDI in the United States. 

In 2007, the Treasury Department published a study on inbound transactions that 

covered earnings stripping, transfer pricing, and eligibility for tax treaty benefits. 

Among other findings, the study determined that there was not conclusive evidence 

on whether U.S. subsidiaries of foreign parents engage in earnings stripping. Treasury recommended that policymakers continue examining the question as better information becomes available. 

In announcing the hearing, Chairman Tiberi said, ‘‘Foreign direct investment 

is critical to growing the economy and creating jobs. U.S. affiliates of foreign-based companies often consider themselves American businesses, and 

share the same concerns about U.S. tax policy as other American businesses, such as the high corporate rate. At the same time, some tax issues 

are unique to foreign investment, and as part of fundamental tax reform 

the Subcommittee must examine those issues as well.’’ 

FOCUS OF THE HEARING: 

The hearing will focus on the important role that FDI plays in expanding the U.S. 

economy and creating jobs for American workers. The hearing will explore the tax 

environment facing foreign investors and foreign-headquartered businesses investing or operating in the United States. It also will examine a number of tax provisions applicable to inbound activity, including (but not limited to) the U.S. corporate 

tax rate, foreign investment in real property, and the earnings stripping rules of 

Code section 163(j). 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
3 

DETAILS FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS: 

Please Note: Any person(s) and/or organization(s) wishing to submit written comments for the hearing record must follow the appropriate link on the hearing page 

of the Committee website and complete the informational forms. From the Committee homepage, http://waysandmeans.house.gov, select ‘‘Hearings.’’ Select the hearing for which you would like to submit, and click on the link entitled, ‘‘Click here 

to provide a submission for the record.’’ Once you have followed the online instructions, submit all requested information. ATTACH your submission as a Word document, in compliance with the formatting requirements listed below, by the close 

of business on Thursday, July 7, 2011. Finally, please note that due to the 

change in House mail policy, the U.S. Capitol Police will refuse sealed-package deliveries to all House Office Buildings. For questions, or if you encounter technical 

problems, please call (202) 225–3625 or (202) 225–2610. 

FORMATTING REQUIREMENTS: 

The Committee relies on electronic submissions for printing the official hearing 

record. As always, submissions will be included in the record according to the discretion of the Committee. The Committee will not alter the content of your submission, 

but we reserve the right to format it according to our guidelines. Any submission 

provided to the Committee by a witness, any supplementary materials submitted for 

the printed record, and any written comments in response to a request for written 

comments must conform to the guidelines listed below. Any submission or supplementary item not in compliance with these guidelines will not be printed, but will 

be maintained in the Committee files for review and use by the Committee. 

1. All submissions and supplementary materials must be provided in Word format and MUST 

NOT exceed a total of 10 pages, including attachments. Witnesses and submitters are advised 

that the Committee relies on electronic submissions for printing the official hearing record. 

2. Copies of whole documents submitted as exhibit material will not be accepted for printing. 

Instead, exhibit material should be referenced and quoted or paraphrased. All exhibit material 

not meeting these specifications will be maintained in the Committee files for review and use 

by the Committee. 

3. All submissions must include a list of all clients, persons and/or organizations on whose 

behalf the witness appears. A supplemental sheet must accompany each submission listing the 

name, company, address, telephone, and fax numbers of each witness. 

The Committee seeks to make its facilities accessible to persons with disabilities. 

If you are in need of special accommodations, please call 202–225–1721 or 202–226– 

3411 TTD/TTY in advance of the event (four business days notice is requested). 

Questions with regard to special accommodation needs in general (including availability of Committee materials in alternative formats) may be directed to the Committee as noted above. 

Note: All Committee advisories and news releases are available on the World 

Wide Web at http://www.waysandmeans.house.gov

f 

/. 

Chairman TIBERI. The hearing will come to order. Good morning, everybody, and thank you for joining us this morning for another in a series of hearings on comprehensive tax reform. 

As I think everybody by now knows, under the leadership of 

Chairman Camp the Ways and Means Committee has been working through a full assessment of our Federal Tax Code. And, from 

the assessment, it is clear the Tax Code stifles job creation at a 

time when unemployment rates in Ohio and across the country remain well above their historic averages. The goal is tax reform is 

to reverse this trend. The time is long overdue to write a Tax Code 

that better incentives job creation in the United States of America. 

Today’s hearing highlights an important contributor to our economy: foreign companies who directly invest in the United States of 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
4 

America. Their investment is critical to growing the economy and 

creating jobs. Over the past 10 years, affiliates of foreign companies have employed between five and six million workers in America. 

This month the Administration released two reports affirming 

the importance of foreign direct investment. I agree, and look forward to working with the Administration to eliminate the regulatory barriers standing in the way of creating greater foreign investment. 

Chairman Camp requested that the Select Revenue Measures 

Subcommittee further examine inbound issues raised in prior tax 

reform hearings. We have heard concerns from U.S. businesses 

about the Tax Code. Many U.S. affiliates of foreign-based companies view themselves as American businesses, rather than foreign 

businesses. Today’s hearing will provide them the opportunity to 

share their concerns. 

Today’s hearing will also examine tax rules specific to foreign investment, including earnings stripping and transfer pricing. The effectiveness of those rules in preventing foreign companies from 

using the Tax Code to create a competitive advantage over domestic companies is the subject of great debate. 

Finally, I look forward to examining the impacts of the Foreign 

Investment and Real Property Tax Act. With talk of a double-dipper session increasing the availability of capital from foreign investors is a common-sense step to strengthening the U.S. commercial 

real estate market. Last year, Congressman Crowley introduced 

legislation with me to address this issue. I understand similar legislation is in the works this year, and I applaud those bipartisan 

efforts. 

I want to welcome all our witnesses to today’s hearing, and look 

forward to their testimony. With that, I yield to our ranking member, my friend from Massachusetts, Mr. Neal. 

Mr. NEAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank you 

again for calling this important hearing today. 

Our committee has been examining the impact of tax reform on 

U.S. multinational companies. I am pleased to now shift gears, and 

to focus on the equally important topic of the taxation on foreignowned companies operating in the United States. 

In order to remain competitive in a global economy, foreign investment in the United States is critical. This is especially true 

during these difficult economic times, when job creation is more important than ever. And foreign-owned companies create jobs here, 

in the United States. Today these companies employ, as you have 

noted, over five million Americans, and support an annual payroll 

of over $400 billion. In my home state of Massachusetts, U.S. subsidiaries of foreign-owned companies have created almost 190,000 

jobs. 

I was very pleased to hear the announcement by the White 

House Council of Economic Advisors on Monday that in 2010 foreign direct investment in the United States had increased by 49 

percent from the low it reached in 2009. I certainly look forward 

to hearing today’s witnesses discuss how we can continue to encourage foreign investment in the U.S. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
5 

Today’s hearing will also focus on whether our current tax system favors foreign companies over domestic companies. One of today’s witnesses will testify that foreign-owned companies have a 

significant competitive advantage in the U.S. marketplace over 

U.S.-owned companies. In my opinion, we should treat foreign and 

domestic companies equally. That is why I have introduced legislation to close the loophole that allows the use of excessive affiliate 

reinsurance by foreign insurance groups to strip their U.S. income 

into tax havens, avoid tax, and gain a competitive advantage over 

American companies. 

But before concluding, I would like to thank the chairman for the 

bipartisanship that he has developed in offering this hearing. 

Henry Ford noted that coming together is a beginning, keeping together is progress, and working together offers success. I hope we 

will continue to work together on tax reform, and we can use this 

hearing as a model to continue the work that we have witnessed 

in both the Majority and Minority status that I have had on this 

subcommittee. I believe that is how we will best achieve success in 

reforming our tax system. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman TIBERI. Thank you, Mr. Neal. And I concur. I want 

to thank you for your leadership on this specific issue, and just 

thank the staff, as well. Both the Republican staff and the Democrat staff worked together on this hearing, and I want to applaud 

both sides, both staffs, for their hard and diligent work. 

I also want to, before we begin, recognize a new member of our 

subcommittee, hails from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, colleague and good friend, Mr. Gerlach. Thank you for joining our 

subcommittee. 

Before we introduce the witnesses for the panel, I ask unanimous 

consent that all Members’ written statements be included in the 

record. 

[No response.] 

Chairman TIBERI. Without objection, so ordered. We will now 

turn to our first panel of witnesses. I want to extend a welcome to 

Nancy McLernon, president and CEO of the Organization for International Investment; Mr. Alexander Spitzer, senior vice president 

of taxes for Nestle Holdings; Claude Draillard, Dassault Falcon Jet 

Corporation, Little Ferry, New Jersey; and Jeffrey DeBoer, president and chief executive officer of the Real Estate Roundtable, here 

in Alexandria, Virginia. 

With that, Nancy, you can begin your testimony. You have five 

minutes. 

STATEMENT OF NANCY L. MCLERNON, PRESIDENT & CHIEF 

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ORGANIZATION FOR INTERNATIONAL 

INVESTMENT, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Ms. MCLERNON. Thank you. Good morning. Chairman Tiberi, 

Ranking Member Neal, and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify this 

morning. I applaud your leadership in holding this timely hearing 

on the importance of foreign direct investment to the U.S. economy. 

I am president and CEO of the Organization for International Investment. OFII is a business association exclusively comprised of 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
6 

the U.S. subsidiaries of global companies. OFII refers to our members as insourcing companies, due to the jobs these firms insource 

to the United States. 

OFII advocates for fair and non-discriminatory treatment in U.S. 

law and regulation for these companies and the millions of Americans they employ. Our mission is to ensure that the United States 

remains the most attractive location for foreign investment and job 

creation for global companies looking to expand around the world. 

This hearing comes at a time when the United States faces serious fiscal challenges at home, and an increasingly competitive global landscape for attracting and retaining investment. And while the 

United States remains the world’s largest recipient of foreign investment, its share of global investment has declined dramatically, 

from garnering 40 percent of the world’s cross-border capital 10 

years ago, to about 17 percent now. 

The committee’s work on fundamental tax reform is vital to ensure that the United States remains the premiere location for global companies to invest. Simply put, America cannot afford to lose 

more ground in the race for the world’s investment. 

The U.S. subsidiaries of global companies already play a significant role in America’s economy. The chairman and Mr. Neal already talked about the number of jobs. These companies employ 

over five million American workers, which is about five percent of 

the private sector workforce. They maintain an annual payroll of 

over $400 billion, and account for 6 percent of GDP. And while they 

make up less than one percent of all U.S. businesses, these firms 

pay a full 17 percent of corporate taxes. And these companies pile 

billions of dollars in earnings each year back into their U.S. operations, reinvesting over $93 billion, according to the most recent 

annual data. 

Foreign direct investment tends to disproportionately create and 

sustain high-end jobs for Americans. U.S. subsidiaries pay their 

employees over 30 percent more than the average company, reflecting the high-scale nature of their scientific, engineering, and manufacturing workforce. And in the hard-hit manufacturing sector 

alone, U.S. subsidiaries account for 13 percent of the labor force, 

which is about 2 million jobs. 

Annually, foreign direct investment leads to over $40 billion in 

domestic research and development, accounting for more than 14 

percent of America’s private sector R&D. And while counterintuitive to some, many globally-based companies have established 

their American operations as a platform from which to manufacture goods to sell to the world. U.S. subsidiaries produce more than 

18 percent of total U.S. exports. 

It is worth noting that the vast majority of inbound investment 

to the United States come from firms headquartered in other developed countries. In 2010, almost 90 percent of inbound investment 

came from Canada, Europe, and Japan. It is worth noting that for 

all the headlines it generates, Chinese investment accounts for a 

minuscule portion of foreign investment in the United States: less 

than one percent. 

In the midst of recent economic challenges, foreign investment 

has continued to be an engine for job creation and a catalyst for 

growth throughout the country. For example, at a time when the 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
7 

unemployment rate is a focus of national attention, Netherlandsbased Philips Electronics is working to fill 1,500 job openings 

across the country. The company already employs over 25,000 people in the United States, including over 1,000 at its manufacturing 

facility in Highland Heights, Ohio, where they develop, produce, 

and export high-end medical imaging technologies such as MRI and 

CT scanners for customers around the world. 

Philips also chose to place the global headquarters of its health 

care division in Massachusetts, and does the vast majority of its 

worldwide health care manufacturing work in the United States. 

However, the competition to attract and retain companies like 

Philips has never been stronger. Companies today have an unprecedented array of options when looking to expand their business 

around the world. 

OFII sees tax reform as an important opportunity to encourage 

greater investment in the United States. As American businesses, 

OFII members share many of the same concerns regarding tax policy as other U.S. companies. Specifically, we believe Congress 

should give due consideration to three overriding factors. 

First, OFII is united with the broader American business community, and its support for reducing U.S. federal corporate income 

tax. In fact, OFII’s annual survey of chief financial officers showed 

that the corporate tax rate ranked as the policy change that would 

have the greatest impact on incentivizing investment here. 

Second, OFII encourages increasing the certainty, transparency, 

and reliability of the U.S. tax system to allow for long-term strategic planning. 

And finally, most important to this unique slice of the business 

community, OFII strongly cautions against any proposals that 

would disadvantage U.S. subsidiaries in their efforts to do business 

in our market on a level playing field. Such policy would surely impact our ability to attract global investment. 

I am pleased to answer any questions you may have, and I look 

forward to working with this committee and Congress in considering tax reform that will increase investment in the United 

States. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. McLernon follows:] 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
8 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1 here 72279.001
9 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2 here 72279.002
10 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 3 here 72279.003
11 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 4 here 72279.004
12 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 5 here 72279.005
13 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 6 here 72279.006
14 

f 

Chairman TIBERI. Thank you, Ms. McLernon. 

Mr. Spitzer, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF ALEXANDER SPITZER, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, TAXES, NESTLE HOLDINGS, INC., NORWALK, CONNECTICUT 

Mr. SPITZER. Yes, thank you. Good morning. My name is Alex 

Spitzer. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, Members of the Committee, I am grateful for the opportunity to share my personal 

views on international tax policy, as it relates to U.S. operations 

of multinational firms and, in particular, any impediments that 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 7 here 72279.007
15 

may serve as a barrier to attracting international investment into 

the U.S. manufacturing base. 

I am senior vice president of taxes for Nestle in the U.S., and 

have held the top job in the company for the last 26 years. Nestle, 

a Swiss public company, is the world’s largest food company, with 

sales over 100 billion, and was established in 1866, 50 years-plus 

before the enactment of the U.S. federal income tax. 

For more than 110 years, Nestle has been insourcing into the 

U.S. and investing in American factories, jobs, and businesses. Our 

first factory in the U.S. was built around 1900 in Upstate New 

York to produce chocolate products. Nestle manufactures, in the 

U.S., a large range of products, including Stouffers, Lean Cuisine, 

Gerber, Jenny Craig, PowerBar, Hot Pockets, Poland Spring, Deer 

Park, Edy’s, Haagen-Dazs ice cream, Nescafe Coffee, CoffeeMate, 

DiGiorno Pizza, and also in the pet food area, Friskies, Alpo, Purina, and Beneful. 

We have a total of 51,000 employees in the U.S., and 85 manufacturing facilities and 7 R&D centers. Nestle’s U.S.-manufactured 

product sales approximate 28 billion annually, including 600 million in exports out of the U.S. 

Nestle in the U.S. has been consistently ranked by Fortune magazine as the number one consumer food products company in the 

industry. Excluding acquisitions, we have invested approximately 

5.5 billion over the last 6 years in M&A and factories in our U.S. 

businesses. And since I have been at the company, we have reinvested just about all of our U.S. profits back into our operations 

here to grow our U.S. businesses. 

When Nestle acquires a business, we usually maintain current 

management and increase investment and expansion, rather than 

cut costs or dismantle the business. For example, after we completed our Dreyer’s acquisition, we invested over 100 million in expanding our Bakersfield, California plant, making it the largest ice 

cream factory in the world. 

Turning to tax policy, there has been much discussion of the U.S. 

corporate tax rate and its impact on the country’s ability to compete for global investment. There is no doubt that a lower tax rate 

and a more transparent Tax Code would make the U.S. more competitive for investment from abroad. The rest of the world is moving towards lower tax rates. Simply put, the U.S. must do the 

same. 

However, I also want to highlight a number of other areas of particular interest to my business. The ability of the inbound business 

community and Nestle itself to deduct ordinary and necessary business expenses related to investments, such as interest and royalty 

for both federal and state tax purposes is of great concern, and 

weighs heavily on our investment decisions. 

Not only are inbound companies singled out with regard to restrictions on the deductibility of debt service via section 163(j), recently there seems to be a coordinated IRS effort to audit inbound 

companies with regard to debt equity type issues, although there 

is no indication of any abuse. Despite the fact that a 2007 treasury 

report found no evidence of widespread abuse with regard to section 163(j), there is still much uncertainty regarding further reVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:02 Feb 17, 2012 Jkt 072279 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\72279.XXX GPO1 PsN: 72279

ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
16 

strictive legislation in this area. This uncertainty weighs heavily on 

investment decisions. 

In addition, various legislative proposals concerning corporate 

residency rules, treaty overrides, also contribute to the climate of 

uncertainty. There is now growing uncertainty at the state level. 

In many cases, states seem to be bent on conducting their own individual foreign fiscal policy. Many states have enacted legislation 

to deny deduction of interest and royalties paid to foreign parent 

companies, even those headquartered in treaty countries. These initiatives would violate the federal and treaty rules concerning permanent establishments. And, unlike most sub-national governments, the states are not bound by the U.S. tax treaties. 

While I understand this is not within the committee’s jurisdiction, it would be helpful if members would promote the inclusion 

of the states in upcoming treaties. If this trend of taxation continues, I am afraid not only will it discourage investment into the 

U.S., but it will jeopardize our tax treaty network and/or encourage 

reciprocal treatment by our treaty and trading partners. 

In this regard, a proposal to deal with the growing problem has 

already been introduced. I ask that you review and support the 

Business Activity Tax Simplification Act of 2011, which is currently 

before the House Subcommittee on Courts, Commercial, Administrative Law of the House Committee on the Judiciary. 

As a U.S. citizen, I think it important for the United States to 

create a competitive environment to attract and maintain investment by a competitive tax regime, as well as ensure fairness and 

certainty in our tax rules and administration. We should put the 

welcome mat out for investment in an affirmative, proactive manner. 

As the committee moves forward in considering reforms to the 

tax system, I urge that you do so in a non-discriminatory way that 

maximizes job-creating investment in the United States. 

Thank you for thoughtfully framing this discussion. I am happy 

to respond to any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Spitzer follows:] 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
17 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 8 here 72279.008
18 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 9 here 72279.009
19 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 10 here 72279.010
20 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 11 here 72279.011
21 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 12 here 72279.012
22 

f 

Chairman TIBERI. Thank you, Mr. Spitzer. 

Mr. DRAILLARD. 

STATEMENT OF CLAUDE DRAILLARD, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, DASSAULT FALCON JET CORPORATION, LITTLE FERRY, 

NEW JERSEY 

Mr. DRAILLARD. Good morning. My name is Claude Draillard, 

and I am the chief financial officer of Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation. Thank you for inviting me to testify this morning. 

Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation—DFJ, in short—is a fullyowned U.S. subsidiary of Dassault Aviation, a French business airVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:02 Feb 17, 2012 Jkt 072279 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\72279.XXX GPO1 PsN: 72279

ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 13 here 72279.013
23 

craft manufacturer which is a major player in the global aviation 

industry. 

Since 1972, DFJ’s operations have grown from a small sales office in New York City to a company with 7 locations throughout the 

United States. DFJ and its subsidiaries currently employ a staff of 

over 2,500 workers in the U.S., and is a major provider of jobs, 

mostly in Arkansas, New Jersey, and other states. DFJ also has offices in nine other states. And as the business aircraft market is 

a global market, we also operate a number of sales offices internationally. 

DFJ and its subsidiaries in the United States are operating in 

the following lines of business for Falcon aircraft: sale of new and 

pre-owned for the United States, Canada, Mexico, South America, 

Pacific Rim, and Asia; outfitting and customization of the vast majority of Falcon aircraft, including engineering, and this includes 

Falcon aircraft sold outside of DFJ’s territory; some research and 

development work for cabin and cockpit options, either as in-production installation or as after-market installation; and all aftermarket services, such as sales and repair of spare parts. 

DFJ provides quality, high-salaried jobs throughout the United 

States. The nature of DFJ’s business requires the employment and 

training of highly-skilled professionals in all locations: engineers, 

pilots, support engineers and technicians, aviation mechanics, but 

also CPAs and other types of professionals. 

DFJ also provides indirect employment all across the United 

States through a network of suppliers of all sizes, including divisions of major equipment manufacturers, such as United Technologies, as well as local vendors that help provide flexibility to our 

production operations. 

Because business aviation is a high-tech, highly regulated industry with very demanding customers, continued investment in technology and facilities is necessary to operate a long-standing profitable company. DFJ has a history of reinvesting the cash generated 

by its American operations back into the United States in the form 

of new technologies and production upgrades, rather than distributing dividends to its foreign parent. 

This trend has allowed DFJ to make additional investments in 

the U.S. DFJ’s average capital expenditure, excluding R&D, in the 

last 10 years has been in the vicinity of 15 million per year, enabling the company to expand its Little Rock, Arkansas, operations, 

enhance its maintenance operations, and invest in new IT tools and 

other product life cycle management tools. 

With the globalization of the economy, the relative weight of the 

United States market in new orders for new and pre-owned aircraft 

has decreased. Even though it remains a significant market in 

number of units, the U.S. is no longer a growing market, but mostly a mature renewal market. 

Like everyone else, DFJ is navigating the current economic uncertainties and the dramatic changes in world economic powers. In 

this fragile time of recovery and economic change, an array of uncertainties in U.S. tax policies and regulations add obstacles to 

growth and new investment. In addition to the U.S. corporate rate 

already being the second highest in the world, there is concern of 

a rising direct and indirect tax burden for U.S. businesses. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
24 

At the same time, some emerging countries are experiencing 

budget surpluses that increase their ability to provide ever bigger 

tax incentives. In anticipation of this, businesses are asking themselves, ‘‘Should we keep investing in the U.S. when the country’s 

economy does not seem to be recovering quickly? Should we look 

to move where countries are providing tax incentives for investment?’’ 

Will current provisions to encourage investment and job creation 

be able to survive, such as R&D credit and domestic manufacturer’s deduction, to provide some measure of relief? 

At the same time, U.S. tax regulations, along with IRS announcements and private letter rulings, have reached a new level 

of complexity. Interpretations are becoming ever more difficult to 

understand and reconcile. Disagreement in the reading of tax regulations and provisions has significantly lowered the pace of transaction between parties. 

Another layer of complexity is added when state tax legislation 

comes into play. For structured transactions such as international 

leases of business aircraft, a number of elements need to be analyzed on top of federal tax issues, states question the validity for 

them of tax treaties. State sales tax, use tax, and income tax provisions make certain types of transactions extremely costly. 

The business aviation industry is geographically shifting. While 

DFJ is committed to its United States investments, there is increasing incentive to look elsewhere to deploy our resources. Needless to say, predictable, pro-growth tax policy and simplification of 

federal regulations would make it more attractive to maintain our 

investment in the United States. 

I will be happy to answer any of your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Draillard follows:] 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
25 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 14 here 72279.014
26 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 15 here 72279.015
27 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 16 here 72279.016
28 

f 

Chairman TIBERI. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. DeBoer, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF JEFFREY DEBOER, PRESIDENT & CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, THE REAL ESTATE ROUNDTABLE, ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA 

Mr. DEBOER. Thank you, and good morning. My name is Jeff 

DeBoer, I am president and CEO of the Real Estate Roundtable. 

President Obama had it correct earlier this week when he said 

investments by foreign-domiciled companies and investors create 

well-paid jobs, contribute to economic growth, productivity, and 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 17 here 72279.017
29 

support American communities. Unfortunately, the reality is, in 

the case of foreign capital investment and U.S. commercial real estate, our current laws significantly discourage the type of job-creating economic growth that the President was touting. 

America needs to be able to compete globally for investment capital for all types of positive economic activities. And today that simply isn’t the case when we compete globally for capital for our real 

estate markets. 

Our commercial real estate markets historically have been very 

positive contributors to economic growth. Healthy commercial real 

estate markets provide jobs in construction, design, management, 

architecture, and many other areas. Strong real estate values provide the resources through property tax payments and transfer fees 

to fund local budgets and pay for roads, police, and education needs 

that we all think are essential to healthy communities. 

But today, while some commercial real estate markets have 

started to come back, most markets nationwide remain deeply troubled. They are marked by very weak property values caused by excessively high unemployment, the lack of business expansion, and 

extremely low consumer confidence. 

In addition, large amounts of commercial real estate debt are 

maturing. But because of steep property declines and restrictive 

credit availability, trillions of dollars of commercial real estate debt 

nationwide will not be able to be refinanced without large infusions 

of equity capital. The resulting burden on our nation’s banking system, particularly community banks, is inhibiting small business 

lending and holding back job creation. 

Everyone in my industry asks, ‘‘Where will the capital come from 

that is needed to rebalance our loans?’’ One source that is ready 

and willing is foreign-based capital. However, while ready and willing to invest, this capital is essentially not able to invest, because 

the Foreign Investment in Real Property Tax Act, FIRPTA, make 

it highly undesirable, economically and administratively. 

FIRPTA is a discriminatory tax. It only applies to foreign investors in U.S. real property. The 35 percent FIRPTA tax, combined 

with state and local taxes, and frequently with the branch profits 

tax, results in a foreign investor paying a tax as high as 54 percent 

on capital gain. 

In addition, the administrative burdens and cost associated with 

structuring investments in U.S. real estate is significant. No other 

asset class faces this tax. 

A report by University of California professor Ken Rosen found 

that reforming FIRPTA would unlock billions of dollars in investments into U.S. commercial real estate. This is capital that is currently sitting on the sidelines or, more likely, going to other countries that have more favorable tax rules. 

The time has come and gone for FIRPTA. Frankly, it should be 

repealed, and perhaps you can do that in tax reform. There are 

meaningful, cost-efficient reforms that can and should be made 

now, however. We are pleased that Congressman Brady and Congressman Crowley and other Members of the Committee are working on legislation to make two simple meaningful changes. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
30 

First, the existing small shareholder exemption for foreign investments in publicly-traded REITs should be doubled from 5 to 10 

percent. 

Second, an IRS notice called 2007–55 should be withdrawn. Action in this area would significantly help smaller markets, where 

capital is most needed. This latter point on the IRS notice does not 

require legislation; Treasury could do it now with the stroke of a 

pen. In this regard, we strongly support efforts that Mr. Crowley 

and Mr. Brady and others on the committee are making to urge the 

Treasury to review this notice, and hopefully withdraw it. 

One other significant issue concerns foreign investment in U.S. 

debt. There are significant confusions regarding when a foreign 

source capital can invest in debt in America and restructure that 

debt. It would be very helpful to have these guidelines straightened 

out and made more clear. 

These simple reforms would spur billions of dollars in foreign investment in U.S. real estate debt and equity. This type of investment would significantly help stabilize troubled lending markets. It 

would help create jobs. It would help move our economy forward. 

Importantly, the end result would be to make our nation globally 

competitive for capital looking to invest in real estate. 

Thank you for including our point of view in today’s hearing, and 

I look forward to responding to any questions you have. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. DeBoer follows:] 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
31 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 18 here 72279.018
32 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 19 here 72279.019
33 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 20 here 72279.020
34 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 21 here 72279.021
35 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 22 here 72279.022
36 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 23 here 72279.023
37 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 24 here 72279.024
38 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 25 here 72279.025
39 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 26 here 72279.026
40 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 27 here 72279.027
41 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 28 here 72279.028
42 

f 

Chairman TIBERI. Thank you to the entire panel. Very good testimony. 

Question one is for the entire panel, and I will start with Ms. 

McLernon. What advantages do you see, from where you sit, do foreign entities have to invest in the United States? And what are the 

disadvantages that the U.S. has for foreign entities to provide capital and invest? 

Ms. MCLERNON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What advantages 

do foreign companies have? Let’s go with that one first. I think foreign companies—— 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 29 here 72279.029
43 

Chairman TIBERI. Not advantages that they have. What advantages are there for foreign entities to invest in the United 

States—— 

Ms. MCLERNON. Okay. 

Chairman TIBERI [continuing]. And what are the disadvantages 

for a foreign entity to invest in the United States? 

Ms. MCLERNON. What I hear time and again from my member 

companies, in terms of the reason to invest in the U.S., certainly 

the size of our economy is a main reason for companies to invest. 

When choosing amongst a number of different countries, it is the 

quality of our workforce that comes up time and time again as the 

main reason for encouraging investment here. 

We have talked on the panel about some companies that have 

global operations here in the U.S. So those are the operations they 

can really place just about anywhere, and they are choosing to 

place here. And again, it is the quality of the workforce that I am 

hearing. 

However, I am also hearing that there is a concern about that 

quality going forward. Our investment in the ability to maintain a 

skilled workforce in the years ahead, I think, has been raised to 

the top level of concerns for our companies. They manufacture here 

at the very high end. And so those are the types of workers that 

they are going to look for here, because that’s where it makes 

sense, where the U.S. can have a competitive advantage. So, I 

would say that that is one of the reasons that these companies 

come here. 

In terms of disadvantages, specifically for my unique slice of the 

business community, certainly within the tax area, the one issue 

that, in addition to FIRPTA that was mentioned earlier, is the 

163(j) provision in our Tax Code, which is inherently discriminatory, only impacts practically the U.S. subs of foreign companies. 

And it inhibits their ability to expand and grow here by the way 

in which—that these companies are restricted from borrowing from 

their parent company or borrowing from a third party with a parent company guarantee. 

So that is the provision in our Tax Code that does provide some 

disincentives to these firms, in terms of being here. 

Chairman TIBERI. Mr. Spitzer. 

Mr. SPITZER. Sure. Nestle invests in the U.S. And we are a food 

company, obviously, so, food costs, transportation costs of moving 

food from Europe to the U.S. are very expensive. So we go where 

the market is, where our consumers are, where natural resources 

are, workforce, et cetera. 

But I think some of the disadvantages—I have to echo Nancy’s 

comments about restrictions on the ability to deduct interest and 

borrow. You know, we align our expenses with our profits. So if we 

have expenses related to an investment in a factory or a business 

here, the interest expense that goes with that profit should be 

aligned. We align for basic economic reasons, for exchange control 

reasons. In other countries, if we are concerned about expropriation 

or political unrest, we align profits and expenses. And interest is 

just a general expense of doing business anywhere. 

So, restricting an inbound investment artificially, as compared to 

an investment by a U.S.-headquartered company, is a disincentive. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
44 

And further restrictions on interest deductions would be even a 

greater disincentive to invest here. 

Another disincentive is that most U.S. companies are on the U.S. 

exchanges. Nestle is not. So, for us to use our stock in an acquisition, it is almost impossible. So we have to do it with cash, and we 

do all our acquisitions with cash. So, once again, interest becomes 

a more important element of that acquisition. 

So, there are substantial disadvantages for a foreign company 

trying to come in and invest in the U.S. 

Chairman TIBERI. Thank you. Sir. 

Mr. DRAILLARD. Well, for Dassault Falcon Jet, investing in the 

United States was primarily being close to our customers. The 

United States is still the number one market for business aircraft, 

in number of units, by far. Other countries are emerging, but the 

United States is still the primary source of new orders for us and 

for all the major players in this industry. 

The other advantages, as Nancy was talking about earlier, was 

certainly the skill of the workforce. But we see—and we dramatically see it since, I would say, 2006—a decrease in the level of the 

workforce. We are finding locally, especially in areas like the center 

of the country and the southeast of the country, we have more and 

more trouble finding local people that have the skills we are looking for a high-end, high-technology industry. 

As far as we are talking about disadvantages, disadvantages are 

mostly in our export efforts. The lack of tax treaties between the 

United States and other countries sometimes hinder us from basically growing our business and getting the fruits from our efforts 

and exporting U.S.—well, mostly U.S.—manufactured goods. Even 

though we are owned by a French company, 60 percent of the airplanes we are selling has U.S. content. 

Mr. DEBOER. It is hard to imagine something more disadvantageous than a 54 percent exit tax on an investment in U.S. real estate. My statement has details on that. 

But on top of that, I would say that the investments that do 

come in create a tremendous misallocation of resources for American investors seeking to partner with foreign capital sources, because the structures that need to be assembled to make these investments occur at any level require a tremendous amount of tax 

planning and a tremendous amount of resource allocation that 

should be going somewhere else, and could be put to a more productive use. 

I would like to also highlight, in addition to this FIRPTA issue 

which, again, affects investment in U.S. real estate on an equity 

basis—and we need equity to rebalance these loans—but think 

about the debt situation. 

We have a tremendous amount of commercial real estate debt 

that is, essentially, under water and needs to be restructured. This 

troubled debt, if it is acquired by a foreign capital source, foreign 

capital sources have to worry about being deemed to be in the trader business here in the United States. And so they are very hesitant to make these investments, because they don’t know quite 

what the guidelines are from the Treasury Department. This has 

been on their business plan since 2006. They have been petitioned 

by a wide array of actors in this area to make guidelines and safe 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
45 

harbors more clear for investors. And so I would urge that that also 

be looked at. 

Chairman TIBERI. Last question for the entire panel, as well, 

and we will start here on this side, with Mr. DeBoer. 

In addition to your comments about FIRPTA, is there anything 

specifically in the Tax Code, the current Tax Code, that makes it 

less likely to see foreign capital, foreign investment, foreign companies to come into the United States? And if you could, elaborate in 

addition to what you have already elaborated on FIRPTA. 

Mr. DEBOER. Well, again, I think that, as has been stated, we 

are in a global economy. And so it’s not always just what is in our 

tax law, but it is what is in other countries’ tax laws. And the way 

other nations treat real estate investment is much different than 

the way that our nation treats real estate investment. So, in addition to this barrier that we have, we look at it as a barrier compared to what other nations have, and we see it to be highly discriminatory here. 

So, I guess I would leave it at that. 

Mr. DRAILLARD. I would tend to agree with what has just been 

said. On top of that, I would say that the earnings stripping is 

probably one of the biggest problems that we see not so much ourselves, but our customers. 

Mr. SPITZER. Yes, I think 163(j) is the biggest impediment. But 

also debt equity issues. I mentioned that the IRS, the administration of the law by the IRS, concerning inbound companies. And 

debt equity is another way of disallowing interest deductions. 

And I also think—Nestle is a very large company, obviously. We 

are big boys, we can handle ourselves with the regulations and the 

IRS. But if you want to attract medium and smaller foreign businesses into the U.S., I think the general complexity, uncertainty, 

and the administration of the law are barriers to inviting mid-sized 

and smaller investments. And I think that’s a very important point 

to make. 

I know in the transfer pricing area, for example, we have been 

to court now three times on our royalties. Our business model is, 

like many U.S.-headquartered companies, to maintain our intellectual property in our home country Switzerland. It is less expensive 

to do, because of the synergistic nature of it. So trademarks, R&D, 

et cetera, and we charge out globally for it, in the form of royalties 

for both trademarks and R&D, although we conduct a lot of R&D 

here. 

So dealing with the IRS on these issues, we have had battles 

with them, we have gone to court three times, went to trial once, 

summary judgment once, and then a settlement once. And trial, 

summary judgment we won 100 percent, settlement we won well 

over 90 percent. So, the bottom line is, even when you are right, 

it is very expensive to deal with transfer pricing issues. 

The same thing on debt. We went to court on debt equity issue 

in trial back in the 1990s. We won 100 percent. But for a large 

company like Nestle, we can do it. We have the resources. It is not 

pleasant. But for medium sized and small companies, it is 

daunting. And once you have that reputation out there as a difficult place to invest in, it is very hard to bring investment in. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
46 

I know the states are out there, encouraging European companies and Asian companies to come in. I don’t think the U.S. does 

anything like that. And maybe the U.S. should do something like 

that. 

Ms. MCLERNON. Mr. Chairman, I will just go ahead and make 

it—get it out onto an even more basic level. I think the rate is an 

impediment. And our companies, just as Nestle explained, sometimes when the congress passes a provision that they expect can 

be helpful, in terms of the rate, like an R&D tax credit, which can 

be very helpful, the way that the IRS administers that is not reliable. 

And I have had one of my CEFOs from one of my companies say, 

‘‘I cannot count on that. We have been litigating it for 10 years,’’ 

even though they do a lot of R&D here. ‘‘So, I think of—when I am 

thinking of investing in the U.S., I think of the rate, and I throw 

that up on the white board, and that is what we look at.’’ 

So, you know, boiling it down to its most simple level, I would 

say that the rate itself was a big impediment. 

Chairman TIBERI. Thank you. I will recognize the ranking member, Mr. Neal. 

Mr. NEAL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. There is very 

little that has been offered by our panel that I would find myself 

in disagreement with. But I think that we use this process to enlighten, as well. 

Mr. Draillard noted that many companies—many countries offer 

incentives to secure investment. But I think it bears noting as well 

that we have got some pretty stubborn problems ahead of us here 

in America, not the least of which is paying for the war in Iraq, 

a VA system that is sure to be stretched for the next 50 to 60 years 

for the 31,000 men and women who have served us with great 

honor over these years, and, let us be candid, not a bad deal for 

our European friends under the umbrella of what we call NATO. 

They have spent about one percent of their GDP since the end of 

World War II on national defense, and the American taxpayer and 

the American soldier has pretty much been in a position to foot the 

bill. That is part of the consideration. 

Now, I want to say to you that corporate tax reform needs to be 

changed, and it certainly does. And the hearings that Chairman 

Camp and others have offered are certainly instructive, and hopefully will take us in a new direction. But not to miss the point that 

there are some serious obligations that America has, going forward. 

And, as part of the process of the hearing, it strikes me that we 

need to note those obligations and understand clearly that, as I indicated a couple of moments ago, I think the American taxpayer 

has been pretty generous with the defense that they have provided 

to the rest of the world, and frequently point out to critics of America that the reason that many of our friends across the globe are 

not speaking a different language, it is because of the American 

taxpayer and the American soldier. We provide that umbrella of 

protection for much of the rest of the world. 

And Secretary Gates, to his credit, has put it forward once again, 

as I did probably 20 years ago, in discussions that, at the same 

time, we are looking at some structural deficits that were significant. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
47 

Now, Ms. McLernon, you indicated—and I would like to hear 

from the other panelists, as well—the R&D credit. That is a big 

deal for Massachusetts. We are, despite the fact, a medium-sized 

state—some might consider it a small state—we rely heavily upon 

that R&D credit, largely because of the technology and, let’s be 

candid, because of the people that we attract in Massachusetts to 

live on cutting edge opportunities. 

So, how might you suggest that we do a better job, one, with predictability, as it relates to the R&D credit, because I think you are 

entirely correct, that you cannot, from year to year, wonder if it is 

going to be around, or wonder what the rate is going to be? And, 

at the same time, how would you suggest that we do a better job 

of administering it beyond just that issue of predictability? 

And we can move to the other panelists, as well, after you. 

Ms. MCLERNON. Okay, thank you. All the points that you just 

stated, I absolutely agree with. And while the intent of Congress 

is to put this in place to encourage more R&D in the U.S., I think 

the IRS has sort of hijacked it. It has become an issue that is always investigated very heavily at the IRS. And companies—pharmaceutical companies, in particular, who—you would think research means research means research; it doesn’t always turn out 

that way. 

And by being able to convey more appropriately what the IRS 

should be doing, and what Congress’s intent—perhaps could be 

helpful, because it is not getting, I think, what you want it to be, 

because of the uncertainty that not only the non-permanent nature 

of it, but how the IRS is looking at it. 

Mr. NEAL. Thank you. Mr. Spitzer, you also owned that very famous company in Massachusetts, Friendly’s, for a period of time. 

Mr. SPITZER. Actually, I think that was Hershey. 

Mr. NEAL. Oh, Hershey. I stand corrected. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. NEAL. But you wanted to. 

Mr. SPITZER. Yes. We have—I know in Massachusetts we have 

a water company, and we just started a new business, Tribe 

Hummus, which is manufactured up in Massachusetts. 

Mr. NEAL. Right. 

Mr. SPITZER. So—and my son was going to school up in Boston. 

So I love Massachusetts. 

But I have a little radical view on some of these things. The U.S. 

Tax Code is so complex and so difficult. And I think one of the reasons is we try to do so many things with it. It is not just a revenue 

raiser. We try to do political things, economic things, incentives. 

And if we could give incentives in a different way that does not involve the Tax Code, then we won’t have the IRS auditing in such 

a way that it becomes so difficult to achieve those incentives. 

If we could give out grants of some sort—I know it is—politically 

difficult, but it does create a real problem in trying to actually take 

advantage of the things that the government wants to give us to 

promote businesses. 

But I just want to add—— 

Mr. NEAL. Please. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
48 

Mr. Spitzer [continuing]. Nestle’s R&D exceeds every other food 

company in the world. I think about 1.3 percent of our sales is the 

amount we devote to R&D. 

Mr. NEAL. Yes. 

Mr. SPITZER. Which is huge. 

Mr. DRAILLARD. As far as R&D tax credit is concerned, our 

main concern is the definition of R&D. And here we need, nonetheless, stability, but more visibility on this definition, more clarity on 

this definition. 

R&D means research and development. And development is not 

fully defined in the U.S. Tax Code. And this hinders us from a 

number of issues—if we could actually—we thought were eligible 

for tax credit, like first of a kind installation. When you install for 

the first time a brand new system on a new airplane that hasn’t 

been installed ever before, and it is actually manufactured in the 

United States and installed for the first time in the United States, 

this is not eligible. And this is troublesome. 

Mr. NEAL. Mr. DeBoer. 

Mr. DEBOER. Mr. Neal, clearly we need to pay for our wars. We 

support—I agree with everything that you said. In the case of real 

estate investment, I guess I would say don’t you find it astounding 

that America, where everyone wants to live and invest, has now 

slipped to third, globally, in terms of the chase for global funds for 

real estate, behind the UK and Germany? I find that astounding. 

And, in terms of revenue—and I think that is where you are 

going on this—who, really, is paying the FIRPTA tax? What kind 

of foreign investor is actually paying a 54 percent exit tax here? 

Not very many. And so, if you lower that—effectively—tariff, you 

are going to bring in more capital, you are going to create more 

jobs, you are going to stabilize communities and ease up on some 

of the problems in our local community banks. So that is sort of 

where we are coming from on this. 

Mr. NEAL. In some of the hearings and discussions that we have 

had, and I have had back home, I still have not been able to get 

clarity from many corporate leaders on the issue of the R&D, however. When I have asked them if they were to get a 28 percent or 

27 percent corporate rate, would they be willing to give up R&D, 

a great deal of uncertainty. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman TIBERI. Thank you. I recognize the gentleman from 

Illinois, Mr. Roskam. 

Mr. ROSKAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for all 

four panelists, for your testimony this morning. It has been helpful 

and instructive. 

You know there is people that are involved in the public debate 

on this issue—I don’t think anybody that is present here today, in 

terms of members—but there is a sub-text, as it relates to foreign 

investment, and that is this, that people think—I would say uninformed people would think—that you are going to invest in the 

U.S., no matter what, that there is the imprimatur of the U.S., and 

sort of the worldwide reputation and so forth, that no matter how 

bad things get here, you are still going to come. I think that is actually a dangerous way of thinking. I don’t think it is true. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
49 

Can you walk us through—you each mentioned different components in your testimony, you know. Ms. McLernon, you said that 

the U.S. share has dramatically declined over the years. Mr. 

Spitzer—and I am paraphrasing, just jotting down notes from your 

testimony—you said the rest of the world is moving to a lower tax 

rate, and the U.S. should, too. Mr. Draillard, you said that the U.S. 

is no longer a growing market, and investors are beginning to question whether this is really where the action is—those are my words 

and not yours, but I think that was your theme—and then, Mr. 

DeBoer, you were basically making the argument, you know, essentially, why should capital come here. 

Can you give us the—a sense of what it is that companies and 

foreign investors are looking out over the global landscape? What 

is attractive? What are the things that you are looking for? You 

mentioned predictability, and so forth, but what are the things that 

you are looking for that the U.S. can emulate? And who are we 

competing against? And what is the nature of that competition 

right now? Let us start with you, Ms. McLernon. 

Ms. MCLERNON. Thank you very much, Congressman. You are 

absolutely right, in terms of the U.S. has always thought that global companies were going to come here because we were the ‘‘it’’ 

country, and this was the place to be. The numbers that are now 

available don’t support that, even though foreign investment from 

2009 to 2010 went up, because it was down so low in 2009. 

As I indicated, our share is really dropping, precipitously. And 

that is for a variety of reasons, some of which outside our country. 

Other countries are aggressively marketing to get this investment. 

I think that is one of the reasons that the Administration announced an effort last week called Select USA, which is going to 

try to actively recruit, among other things, foreign companies to the 

U.S. So, I think that there definitely is some evidence that we are 

losing our ability to do it. 

From my membership perspective, tax policy certainly is a factor 

in determining investment. But I would also add that a skilled 

workforce, as I mentioned earlier, as well as infrastructure investment, is quite important, as well. The ability to move people, product, and information is critically important, and especially when 

companies can really locate their global operations anywhere to 

serve the world. 

They are not only operating them out of their home country. As 

I mentioned before, there are several U.S. or foreign-based multinationals that have their global operations for certain divisions 

here in the United States. But in order to attract that, we need a 

smart, skilled workforce and a strong, sound, state-of-the-art infrastructure system, as well as a transparent, non-discriminatory Tax 

Code with a lower rate. Those are the things that I have heard 

prioritized from my membership. 

Mr. SPITZER. Sure. I think we have a few employees in your 

district in our candy factories there, well over 1,000. 

Mr. ROSKAM. Don’t you dare go to Ohio or Massachusetts and 

shine any apples this morning. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. SPITZER. Well, we have some things in Ohio, as well. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
50 

But if we are going to be in this country, producing products, I 

think the competition, from our perspective, would be Canada and 

Mexico, where we can easily put a plant up in Canada, or put one 

in Mexico, and bring the products in. 

And so, if we have more restrictive problems and ability to deduct our business expenses, either at a federal level or a state 

level—and let me just make a couple comments about the states, 

which I already did—some of the provisions in the states are so 

perverse, that they actually—if you make investments here, then 

they try to bring in your foreign affiliates into the country, which 

is just the opposite of what you are trying to do. You want to encourage investment, not discourage it specifically. So, whatever the 

committee can do to encourage or discourage this kind of behavior 

will be helpful. 

But within Nestle, we have investments all around the world in 

140 or so countries. Nestle in the U.S. competes with these other 

countries for the capital to make investments. So, if the profits look 

better in some other country, a developing country or wherever, we 

are going to put our capital where we think we can make the most 

money. And so, the more restrictions on our ability to earn money 

here will obviously sway the investment decisions to other markets. 

And so we have to be very thoughtful about this. 

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Draillard. 

Mr. DRAILLARD. Mr. Congressman, I think you got my theme 

right. We are going where our customers are. And our customers, 

even our U.S. customers, are going everywhere. 

So, what is attractive was your first—the first part of your question. What is attractive is where can we sell airplanes. What is attractive is where can one find workforce that we can bring in to 

any of our facilities, either in the United States or in France. 

What is attractive is also the protection of our technology. We 

are—hopefully still—number one in the high end of the business jet 

market. And the reason for that is our edge in aviation, in 

aerostructures, basically. And we need skills for that. And we need 

to protect that know-how. And stability of the political structure is 

one of the biggest factors we look at. 

Tax, in that effect, we see tax as part of the stability of political 

structures in the economic environment. And, therefore, even 

though it may not be a deal-killer, the tax rate is something we 

definitely look at. 

Mr. DEBOER. Foreign investors are looking for the same things 

in real estate that domestic investors are looking for. They are 

looking for current income streams, and, more importantly, they 

are looking for capital gain on the outside. So the tax policy, particularly relating to the capital gain—and that is where FIRPTA 

affects things—is very, very important. 

On top of that, I think what was previously mentioned about 

transportation, infrastructure, the ease of these foreign investors to 

come in, see their investments, visit the United States, is very, 

very important. And those are other policies, aside from tax policy, 

that are very important. 

As far as competitors, I mentioned the UK and Germany. But 

also, global capital flows are going tremendously into Brazil, into 

China, into India. It is no surprise. And again, for those investVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:02 Feb 17, 2012 Jkt 072279 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\72279.XXX GPO1 PsN: 72279

ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
51 

ments, it is not for the steady income stream right now, but it is 

for the value add and the capital gain that will come later on. 

Mr. ROSKAM. Thank you. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman TIBERI. The gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Paulsen, 

is recognized. 

Mr. PAULSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I just want to 

follow up a little bit on the discussion about research and development just for a second, because I think you identified how your 

companies, your membership in your companies, as a part of the 

testimony, it is such an important component of jobs here, of economic development. And I just want to expand a bit. 

Can you just share some thoughts about why that is so important? I do understand, working with the med tech industry, in particular, that the incentives to attract research and development are 

much stronger in other countries than they actually are here, in 

the United States. What actually happens when R&D is actually 

conducted here, in the United States? 

What types of jobs are we talking about, whether it is in the food 

industry, whether it is in med tech or other membership companies? But can you maybe just elaborate a little, Ms. McLernon? 

Ms. MCLERNON. Yes, absolutely. Our companies produce about 

14 percent of private sector R&D. So it is an important part of 

what we do here, and we contribute a lot to the U.S. R&D base. 

Much of the reason that our companies do R&D here—I think we 

have talked on—is the quality of the workforce. It is also access to 

universities. But these are high-end jobs. Because we create 14 percent of research and development, it leads back to the fact that our 

companies pay 30 percent higher than average company. And this 

is because it conveys the higher-level, high-skill nature job that 

these companies tend to support, in scientists and engineers. 

And so, I would say that research and development, when it happens here, especially with using American scientists and engineers, 

the U.S. economy benefits. I think many countries around the 

world, including the U.S., are actively trying to recruit that R&D. 

And the U.S. has done a pretty good job, considering other countries are actively working in this area. 

Mr. PAULSEN. Yes. So it is safe to say—Mr. Spitzer and Mr. 

Draillard, please comment, too—but it is safe to say where the innovation starts, where it occurs, is where you are going to have 

sort of the supply chain, if you will, of other follow-up—— 

Ms. MCLERNON. Yes, there is certainly—— 

Mr. PAULSEN [continuing]. progression of other jobs. 

Ms. MCLERNON. There is certainly a multiplier effect, if you 

will, of R&D investment. 

Mr. PAULSEN. Right, right. 

Ms. MCLERNON. Absolutely. 

Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. DeBoer, I am going to just change themes 

here real quick, before my time runs out. But Mr. DeBoer, you 

talked about modifying FIRPTA as a part of your testimony, to encourage greater foreign direct investment in U.S. commercial real 

estate space here in the United States. 

And I think when a lot of people think of commercial real estate, 

they think of Washington, D.C., they think of New York, they think 

of kind of the big, commercial real estate spaces. But how would 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
52 

the modification of some of the proposals you are offering or proposing—how would that help midwestern community banks? 

Because you sort of alluded that—I caught that in your testimony, also. But how does that help Midwestern community 

banks—and Minnesota is an example—give more—get more access 

to credit for small businesses? 

Mr. DEBOER. Thank you for the question, because I think a lot 

of people are confused about how this would benefit markets outside of New York or Washington or San Francisco, which are actually doing reasonably well. 

It goes to what I was talking about before. Investors want capital 

gain. They want to invest in areas where they can see those values 

come back. As you know, there has been some value decline across 

the country. Certain markets are hit more hard than other markets. These are areas that need tremendous amounts of equity. 

These owners have been essentially hanging on now since 2006/ 

2007-time period, they have been funding the debt service out of 

their own pockets, out of their own equity. The jobs have not come 

back, the loans need to be balanced. There is a tremendous amount 

of these loans that are held by community banks. 

Re-balancing these loans will help ease the pressure on the community banks, point number one, which will allow the banks to 

then be able to lend more of their capital, and devote more of their 

attention to providing small business loans to American small businesses to create jobs. So, helping ease that side of the balance sheet 

for community banks would be very, very helpful. 

Then you look at the real estate, itself. A lot of these assets have 

had deferred maintenance on them. In other words, people—they 

are starting to run down. People are running out of capital. They 

cannot, you know, tenant them up and put them in the transaction 

stream and keep their values up. If they can get capital put into 

them, construction workers will go back to work and architectural 

firms will go back to work, and transactions will occur so transfer 

taxes can occur and help communities. 

This—in particular, part two of what I talked about, the notice, 

the IRS notice, this is a situation that would directly help smaller 

communities, as opposed to larger cities, in attracting investment. 

That is where foreign capital wants to partner with local owners 

to recapitalize, reposition these assets. That will be very, very helpful in smaller markets, sir. 

Mr. PAULSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman TIBERI. Thank you, sir. Before I recognize Dr. 

Boustany, I want to just note, Mr. Spitzer, that Mr. Neal and I 

both appreciate the presence that you have of Nestle jobs in our 

states. And now that Mr. Roskam has left, we are willing to work 

with you to divvy up those Illinois jobs to Ohio and Massachusetts. 

So we can talk about that later. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman TIBERI. Dr. Boustany is recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me say Louisiana is open for business, so we can talk about this. 

You know, this is about economic growth and competitiveness. 

And as policy makers, obviously we are very concerned about economic growth as part—a major part of the equation to deal with 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
53 

this high unemployment we have in this country, you know, just 

the sluggishness, all the problems we are seeing in the news, daily. 

And as I reviewed some of the stats that we had in testimony 

in the written binder here, you know, Louisiana, over 48,000 jobs 

from foreign subsidiaries, 5.7 million jobs in the U.S., which is basically 5 percent of our U.S. private workforce. Less than 1 percent 

of U.S. business, yet 17 percent of corporate tax revenue, as Ms. 

McLernon pointed out. And yet, I think all of you said that we are 

underperforming, as a country, when it comes to foreign direct investment. 

So, one question I have—and I think, Mr. Spitzer, you alluded 

to this earlier—and that is the indirect jobs that basically are created and sustained as a result of foreign subsidiary activity, do we 

have actual numbers, or some sort of a sense of the number of indirect jobs here created in the U.S., as a result of direct job growth 

from foreign subs? 

Ms. MCLERNON. As an organization we haven’t done that calculation, but absolutely indirect jobs need to be included. 

I mean sometimes an investment can absolutely transform a 

local economy. When Michelin invested in North Carolina, they 

have transformed that area from a textile industry to one that attracts global investment because of all the different suppliers that 

came to help serve them. And so, you know, absolutely. Indirect 

jobs should be part of this. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. And given that many of your companies are involved in U.S. exports to foreign countries, and the President’s goal 

is to increase U.S. exports, and linking our small and mid-sized 

firms into this global market is critically important in that respect—and so it seems to me that this indirect job growth would 

be something that we would want, from a policy standpoint, but it 

is also a way of linking our small and mid-sized firms into the global supply chain. Is that a fair statement? 

Ms. MCLERNON. Yes. No, I would agree, Congressman. I think 

that by interacting with globally-engaged companies, it can encourage small and mid-sized companies to get globally engaged. 

In addition, sometimes when a company from abroad that has 

suppliers in its area want to come and help serve that company 

when it invests in the U.S., actually are incentivized to come and 

set up shop, employ people here, do a Greenfield investment in 

order to serve that global company here in the United States. 

So, there are a variety of indirect jobs that can come about when 

a global company invests. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. And, Mr. Spitzer, you raised the issue of indirect jobs in the context of what your company does. Do you have 

any numbers, estimates? 

Mr. SPITZER. No, unfortunately, I don’t. But, obviously, in the 

food industry there is third-party packaging, third-party transport, 

resources, et cetera. So it is—the numbers are huge in our industry, but I don’t have the numbers. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. So, as a country, given that we are underperforming in attracting foreign direct investment, we are losing 

ground. It seems to me that, looking at those policies that are having this detrimental impact, and making the kinds of corrections 

that you have all suggested, would help us with our unemployment 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
54 

problem, and help us get this country back on a path of sustained 

and strong economic growth and job creation. 

Mr. SPITZER. Oh, absolutely. Yes, of course. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you. All of you have mentioned the complexity. Mr. Spitzer, you focused on this a good bit, and talked 

about the coordinated effort by the IRS to audit under section 

163(j). And I, as the chairman of the Oversight Subcommittee on 

this full committee, I would be interested in learning more about 

the problems you have with all that. 

Mr. SPITZER. Sure. Actually, it is not 163(j), it is Section 385, 

which is—it is sort of a debt equity question—— 

Mr. BOUSTANY. Okay. 

Mr. Spitzer [continuing]. Looking to see how much debt you have 

versus the equity, and looking to see did you dot all the I’s, cross 

all the T’s on borrowing from your foreign affiliate, foreign parents. 

And you know, as I indicated, there is no—as far as I know, 

there is no sense that there is actual abuse out there, or any documentation there is an abuse. But it is very expensive to deal with 

these issues. And, as I said earlier, we had to go to court many, 

many years ago on this particular issue. 

Since then, 163(j) came in, which is a further restriction on the 

ability to deduct interest. So they still both exist, simultaneously. 

And the IRS seems to be pushing now this Section 385 debt equity 

issue. 

I want to mention one example of the perverseness of 163(j). We, 

Nestle in the U.S., can borrow on its own. We don’t. Because if we 

were to borrow on our own, it would cost us more interest. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. Yes. 

Mr. SPITZER. Which means that we are going to get less back 

on our investment, which means our investments are going to be 

smaller. And if we borrow on our own, and pay a higher interest 

rate, we are going to pay less U.S. taxes. 

So, it is very perverse, especially when you are borrowing from 

third parties with a guarantee of your parent company. So, if I borrow from a U.S. bank, Citibank, and I get a guarantee from our 

U.S. parent so that we can get a lower rate, it does not make any 

sense that this should be some sort of tainted interest expense. 

This is all within the U.S. And we are actually trying to make a 

larger investment, not a smaller one. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you, sir. I see my time has expired. 

But one last comment, Mr. Chairman. You know, we hear a constant refrain about the IRS needing more resources to manage its 

workload. But at the same time, we are hearing from these folks 

that the code is so complex that it creates all this additional need 

for resources, both at the IRS and on the part of these companies, 

just for compliance. And so we have to tackle this problem of complexity in the Tax Code, as we do reform. 

And I yield back. 

Chairman TIBERI. Thank the gentleman. With that, I yield to 

the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Marchant, for five minutes. 

Mr. MARCHANT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What single piece 

of legislation that is pending before this committee, this subcommittee or committee, would you think that we should pass that 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
55 

would have the most immediate positive effect on investment, job 

creation by your clients or your industry or your company? 

Ms. MCLERNON. As of now, I don’t—our organization is not focused on a particular piece of legislation that you are currently considering, other than—I don’t know if the FIRPTA legislation is part 

of what this subcommittee is focused on. 

So, I would say, in terms of global investment, that would certainly be a piece of legislation that we would support. Generally, 

on tax reform, again, it is about the lower rate and pushed in a 

transparent manner that is consistent and non-discriminatory. 

Mr. MARCHANT. Mr. Spitzer. 

Mr. SPITZER. Sure. I was just down in Texas yesterday, in Austin. So—a great state. We have some water businesses down there. 

We own Ozarka Water, which is ours. 

I don’t know all the legislative proposals that are in front of you. 

Obviously, a lower tax rate is very helpful. All the OECD countries, 

except for Japan, have a much lower rate than the U.S. does. And 

Japan is considering lowering its tax rate, as well, below ours. So, 

we are not competitive on a tax-rate-basis with other developed 

countries. 

Obviously, I have talked about 163(j), and any further restrictions in that area would be very difficult for a company like ours 

to deal with. And I certainly think there should be some liberalization there concerning third-party borrowings that are simply guaranteed by our parent companies. It just doesn’t make sense to me. 

A proposal that has been out there is this corporate residency 

proposal. I think it was sort of directed at inverted companies, 

which are pretty limited now, and maybe some hedge funds. It’s a 

baby and the bath water situation, in my mind. As I understood 

the legislation, as proposed here, any decision-making in the U.S., 

whether it is by corporate officers or not, might bring a foreign 

company into the U.S. for federal tax purposes. 

So, for example—I don’t want to pick on Sony, but Sony’s chairman, Howard Stringer, spends time in Tokyo, spends time in London, spends time in New York—I think one-third, one-third. If, all 

of a sudden, under these proposals under corporate residency, Sony 

Japan woke up and found it was a U.S. company, it would be devastating. All their affiliates around the world would be CFCs. Dividends to the Japanese shareholders would be subject to the U.S. 

withholding taxes. 

And, unlike so many other countries—or few countries—that 

have these sort of residency requirements, like the UK and Holland, it is very formalistic. The proposals in the U.S. would be very 

difficult for anybody to deal with. And I think any advisor would 

have to recommend to their clients, ‘‘Get every decision-maker out 

of the U.S. pronto,’’ because the consequences could be so horrific. 

Mr. MARCHANT. Thank you. 

Mr. DRAILLARD. Number one would be absolutely the corporate 

tax rate. Their—simplification is also a big item on our list, just 

for the reason that it is a layer of fixed cost for most companies. 

And the smaller the companies, the bigger that burden is, and that 

hinders them from basically operating and doing business, especially in a state like yours. We have a number of local vendors in 

Texas that work for our Little Rock, Arkansas, facility. And we see 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
56 

the burden of just administering federal and state regulations, tax 

regulations, being so huge. Just complying has become such a huge 

burden that it is a fixed cost that they cannot basically overcome. 

Mr. MARCHANT. Thank you. 

Mr. DEBOER. We understand that Mr. Crowley and Mr. Brady 

are readying legislation to be reintroduced on FIRPTA. We would 

urge that that be immediately passed. It would have tremendous 

salutary benefits. 

The guts of this legislation is legislation that passed the House 

in the last congress with 402 votes in support of it. It died in the 

Senate, but perhaps we can move that—see that action this year. 

Incidentally, there is one thing that could be done immediately 

that would have very, very direct and almost immediate benefits, 

and that is this IRS notice dealing with how liquidating distributions are treated from private domestic REITs back to foreign investors. That could be done by the stroke of a pen, administratively. 

And, again, we understand that some members are looking at 

urging the Treasury Department to look in this area, and we would 

absolutely urge you to do that as quickly as possible, and it would 

have immediate benefits. Thank you. 

Mr. MARCHANT. Thank you. 

Chairman TIBERI. The gentleman from North Dakota, Mr. Berg, 

is recognized. 

Mr. BERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is an important 

hearing; I appreciate all your input. 

Mr. Draillard, I—you have got a great plane. And I mean I just 

think that is unique. If you think about a global business, quite 

frankly, when you are making jets you can make them pretty much 

anywhere. And they are going to sell where the economies are the 

strongest. 

And so, you know, I am very interested in kind of—I was interested in your written testimony. And I just kind of want to—I 

mean, clearly, the number one thing we need to do is have a strong 

economy. That will help the aircraft industry. 

I am a private pilot, so I will never fly a jet, but I am always 

jealous of jet owners and flyers. 

But what are the things that we could do to encourage more jobs 

to come to America in the aircraft industry? I mean what would be 

the one thing, from a policy tax standpoint, where, you know, every 

manufacturer that is not in the United States would say, ‘‘Hey, we 

really need to look at the United States as a manufacturing’’—or 

‘‘a component for our production?’’ 

Mr. DRAILLARD. There are many things we could do. And actually, I am at a loss of where to start, but three main things come 

to mind. 

The first one is federal versus state taxes for structured financing of aircraft. A lot of companies, even very large companies, Fortune 500 companies, finance for different reasons their acquisition 

of the airplane, probably up to 70 or 80 percent. The structure of 

the leases or of the asset-backed mortgage that they take against 

the asset is very cumbersome, from a tax standpoint. And, frankly, 

from an OEM perspective, I think the only people making money 

out of it are the tax lawyers. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
57 

The other thing we can definitely—— 

Mr. BERG. I am also a tax lawyer. Teasing, teasing. 

Mr. DRAILLARD. Good for you, sir. 

Mr. BERG. I am teasing. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. DRAILLARD. But, you know, I am a simple equipment manufacturer, so that is way over my head. 

The second thing we can definitely do is encourage R&D. Research and development is paramount to continue to modernize our 

equipment. There is a fleet of airplanes, of corporate airplanes, that 

are 30 years old in this country. Very soon they are going to fall 

short of any regulation towards green flying. They are going to 

come short of any regulation towards the navigation equipment. So 

we need to encourage R&D and retrofit of airplanes, because this 

is going to be the structure of the next 30 years of flying in this 

country. 

The third thing we can do is increase the number of tax treaties 

with other countries, because aviation is big in this country. This 

country is the birth of aviation, of corporate aviation. However, 

other countries are developing. If we want to keep our jobs—and 

I am not talking only of Dassault Falcon Jet here, but there is a 

number of jobs in Wichita, Kansas, and in Georgia that are related 

to business aviation—if we, as a country, want to save those jobs 

and make sure that we expand those industries and expand those 

areas of the country, we need to have broader, more clear tax treaties with other countries, so we can export airplanes from the 

United States, and not have them built somewhere else. 

Mr. BERG. Thank you. Very good. Mr. DeBoer, on the FIRPTA? 

Mr. DEBOER. FIRPTA. 

Mr. BERG. FIRPTA. 

Mr. DEBOER. FIRPTA. Yes, I know, I—— 

Mr. BERG. There is a lot of acronyms out here, I am trying 

to—— 

Mr. DEBOER. Let’s just get rid of it, then we don’t have to worry 

about it. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BERG. That is pretty clear in your testimony. 

I guess if you could, give just a brief background on why it is 

law. What were the political dynamics that caused it to become 

law? And I know you have some suggestions for changing it, but 

maybe just address that briefly. 

Mr. DEBOER. Sure. You know, I will. Can I just make one comment prior to that? 

I found very interesting what you said about attracting the jet 

manufacturing industry and jobs here. Keep in mind we are talking 

about real estate. Real estate is here. It is not going anywhere. 

These are jobs that are in America, and we should be trying to 

make those assets as healthy and transferable as possible. And I 

just wanted to make that general point. 

FIRPTA itself was put in law in 1980. And I should have said 

to the chairman I appreciate very much being included in this 

hearing today, because since that time there really hasn’t even 

been a hearing on FIRPTA. It was repealed, incidentally, in the 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
58 

1986 tax act by the Senate, but ultimately didn’t survive conference. 

It was put in place at a time when the world was obviously 

much, much different. People were a little bit concerned here that 

foreign entities were coming up into the United States and bidding 

up the value of farmland. In fact, the evidence showed that foreign 

investment was less than two percent in farmland at the time. The 

individual senator who promoted FIRPTA in 1980 was ultimately 

the individual who led the repeal charge in 1986, when he realized 

that this was not what was happening in farmland in America. 

So, not only was the underlying basis at the time somewhat 

flawed, but you look ahead to today and you see what is going on 

globally, as we talk about—and the basis of this hearing is attracting global capital to the United States. Everybody is in competition 

for capital. And so, the United States today, and investors and real 

estate owners today, are much more global in where they look for 

their capital sources to make their properties valuable, and to 

make them productive parts of the community. 

So, a lot has changed. Some of the facts about how it was originally put in place have changed. A number of the tax policy issues 

that underlie somewhat some of this stuff have changed a lot since 

then. And certainly the global competition for capital has significantly changed. 

Mr. BERG. Thank you. I will yield back. 

Chairman TIBERI. Thank you. We are joined today by a gentleman from the full committee who is not a member of this subcommittee, but you are welcome to come any time, the gentleman 

from New York, Mr. Crowley. 

Mr. CROWLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just on a lighter 

note, Mr. Draillard, have you or your company ever hired a tax 

lawyer? 

Mr. DRAILLARD. [No response.] 

Mr. CROWLEY. I rest my case, your honor. Just teasing. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Neal, for holding 

this important hearing today. The U.S. has the most foreign direct 

investment of any nation in the world today, and has been the beneficiary of a growing number of companies with headquarters in 

other countries doing business here in the U.S., as has already 

been mentioned. 

President Obama stated earlier this week that ‘‘at a time where 

we need to use every tool in our toolbox to continue to put Americans back to work and grow the economy here at home, promoting 

foreign direct investment is an important opportunity to accelerate 

our economic recovery.’’ I agree. 

And the White House issued a report earlier this week that 

shows our nation’s open economy and low barriers to foreign investment have helped to make the U.S. an even more attractive investment for abroad. Stating that, there are still some barriers in 

the Tax Code that block the free flow of investment here to the 

United States, and these include, as Mr. DeBoer has mentioned, 

the FIRPTA tax laws. 

I am pleased that the House, in a bipartisan way, passed legislation last year to relax the FIRPTA laws to encourage greater investment in the U.S. commercial real estate market. The bill introVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:02 Feb 17, 2012 Jkt 072279 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\72279.XXX GPO1 PsN: 72279

ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
59 

duced by Representatives Tiberi, Brady, Berkley, and myself 

passed the House last year on a vote—a very lopsided vote—of 402 

to 11. Unfortunately, though, the Senate did not act upon that bill. 

Representative Brady and I plan to reintroduce a similar bill in 

the coming weeks. Additionally, to more immediately break down 

other barriers to foreign investment in the U.S. caused by the 

FIRPTA tax laws, Rep. Brady and I are sending a letter to the 

Treasury and IRS, seeking an administrative solution to a regulation that is choking investment in the real estate sector at a time 

when we need more, not less, investment here. And Mr. DeBoer 

has also expanded upon that. 

That brings me to my question for Mr. DeBoer. Kevin Brady and 

I, as I mentioned, are sending a letter to the Treasury Department 

and IRS later this week, that we are hoping to get a number of 

Members on the Ways and Means committee, our colleagues, to 

sign on to. Our letter seeks the administrative repeal of an IRS 

rule that adds a new layer of taxation on foreign investors in commercial real estate. 

Could you talk about this IRS regulation, and its impact on the 

real estate market here in the U.S.? 

Mr. DEBOER. Sure. The ruling in 2007 reversed the long-standing policy in the tax law, and set, for the first time in the tax law, 

that a liquidating distribution from a corporation would not be 

treated as the sale of the stock of the corporation. This is the only 

part of the tax law where this is so. And, making it even worse, 

it creates a dichotomy, if you will, in the way that domestic investors and foreign investors are treated on liquidating distribution. 

The example might be that you and I engage in a partnership 

in a domestically controlled REIT, where you have 51 percent, as 

the domestic owner, I have 49 percent. We own and operate and 

put money into real estate and make them more productive, and 

so on and so forth, and we ultimately sell them at a capital gain. 

We dispose of our entire investment. The liquidating distributions 

out to the foreign entity would be taxed under FIRPTA. And, as I 

have described, could be taxed as high as 54 percent. 

This is somewhat comical, because, if I wanted to, as a foreign 

investor, I would simply sell my shares if a market existed to sell 

the shares, and I wouldn’t pay any FIRPTA tax on the sale of the 

shares. And so, reversing this 2007 notice would immediately bring 

a substantial number of foreign investors back into the marketplace on these types of properties. 

Mr. CROWLEY. I want to ask you my second question to expand 

upon the benefits, not only to cities like New York, but nationwide, 

in terms of making these changes. You have already answered that 

question. 

So—but I would make a comment about the issue of what 

brought this about in 1980. I think there was also a bit of xenophobia when Japan or some Japanese purchased Rockefeller Center. I do note that Rockefeller Center—I checked, I was there last 

week—it is still in New York City, it never moved to Tokyo. And 

so I think that also—it is now owned by Tishman Speyer, an American company, as well. So, I think that also brought that about. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
60 

We saw the similar events take place during the CFIUS issue 

when Dubai Ports was in negotiation to run a port here in the 

States. And I think we brought about a rational solution to that. 

But, Ms. McLernon, could you take a moment to address the concerns of some that increased foreign investment in U.S. commercial 

and real estate could threaten the nation’s security and the safeguards in place to prevent that from occurring, in light of what 

happened in CFIUS reform, and what could—as we discuss 

FIRPTA, and what is in place to prevent any threat to our national 

security. 

Ms. MCLERNON. Congressman, it is an important question. I 

should remind those that are in the room that the government already has an interagency committee called the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S., known as CFIUS, that reviews all national security implications of foreign acquisitions of U.S. companies. By and large, the vast majority of these M&A deals do not 

involve national security. And, as I mentioned earlier—and I think 

I have in my written testimony—98 percent of foreign direct investment is from the private sector. 

But the law that governs—the rules that govern CFIUS were 

strengthened, as you mentioned, in 2007—now includes the Department of Homeland Security, includes the national—the director 

of national intelligence. And any transaction that involves a foreign 

government now automatically—or foreign government-owned company—automatically gets kicked into a longer, more thorough, second-stage investigation. 

And importantly, even after a deal is completed, if they have not 

gone through the CFIUS process, the government can actually pull 

a company back in for review and unwind the deal. So we have 

very strong safeguards that are in place, thorough, tough, that 

scrub these deals to ensure that there is no implication for national 

security. 

But again, the vast majority of any sort of M&A transactions 

that happen in the U.S. cross border do not at all involve national 

security issues. 

Mr. CROWLEY. Thank you, Ms. McLernon, and thank you, Mr. 

Chairman, for—— 

Chairman TIBERI. I thank the gentleman from New York. And 

this concludes the first panel for today’s hearing. Please be advised 

that Members may submit written questions to the witnesses. 

Those questions, and the witnesses’ answers, will be made part of 

the record. 

I would like to thank the witnesses for their informative testimony from the first panel, and for taking the time to appear today. 

Your input has been very helpful to us, as we continue down the 

road of moving forward on tax reform. Thank you so much. 

We will begin this second hearing and the second panel of this 

hearing in a few minutes. Thanks for coming. 

I would like to thank our second panel of witnesses, and I would 

like to welcome our three witnesses on the second panel, and I 

hope you are as good as the first panel. No pressure, by the way. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman TIBERI. I will introduce our second panel. Mr. Gary 

Hufbauer, the Reginald Jones senior fellow at the Peterson InstiVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:02 Feb 17, 2012 Jkt 072279 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\72279.XXX GPO1 PsN: 72279

ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
61 

tute for International Economics; Mr. Robert Stricof, tax partner at 

Deloitte Tax LLP; and Professor Bret Wells, assistant professor of 

law at the University of Houston. 

Thank you all for joining us today. You will each have five minutes to present your testimony. Your full written testimony will be 

submitted for the record. 

And with that, Mr. Hufbauer, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF GARY HUFBAUER, REGINALD JONES SENIOR 

FELLOW, PETERSON INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL ECONOMICS, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. HUFBAUER. Thank you very much, Chairman Tiberi, and 

Members of the Subcommittee. I wish you well on the endeavor to 

reform the Tax Code. 

Let me make five points. First of all, on tax rates. Among advanced OECD countries, the United States has the second worst 

corporate tax system, from the standpoint of encouraging investment in plant equipment or R&D, or promoting production at home 

for selling in export markets. 

The U.S. corporate tax rate is second highest after Japan. But 

also, the U.S. average effective corporate tax rate is second highest, 

and the marginal effective corporate tax rate may well be the highest. I define all these terms in the testimony. But however you look 

at it, we are high on the tax rate story. 

Credible evidence leads me to believe that the output produced 

by foreign firms operating in the United States would increase by 

about two percent over a period of time if the corporate tax rate 

was reduced by one percentage point. So, if we could actually get 

the corporate tax rate down to 25 percent—a number which has 

been much discussed in recent months—these foreign firms might 

enlarge their payrolls from about 5 million—or, actually, 5.7 million—by another million Americans. 

I am often asked—and I want to turn now to revenue collection— 

if U.S. corporate tax rates are so high, why is the revenue collected 

by the corporate tax system such a modest proportion of gross domestic product. It is about three percent in a good year. I am taking the year 2007, and that compared with the OECD average of 

nearly 4 percent in that year. 

The main reason for the difference is that a very small part of 

the U.S. tax base of the U.S. GDP belongs to the corporate tax 

base. It is about 13 percent, compared to the OECD average of 

about 22 percent. Now, why is the corporate tax base so small? We 

have a dazzling array of pass-through corporations—pass-through 

firms, I should say, which skip the corporate tax system. And that 

doesn’t help, clearly. 

But also, large firms who have a choice—and that is all large, 

multinational firms—when other things are equal, and then the 

choice depends on the tax system, they would rather invest— 

produce elsewhere, than in the United States. So our tax system 

does a good job of encouraging the best and brightest firms to invest abroad. But it also does an even better job at discouraging tomorrow’s global 1,000 corporations from investing—from putting 

their headquarters here in the United States. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
62 

Let me turn to an important point, and that is the connection between tax rates, statutory tax rates, and revenue collection. The 

important point is that there is no connection. And I go into this 

in some detail in a policy brief. But unfortunately, the way the 

CBO scores these matters, whenever the corporate tax rate is cut, 

they say that revenue will be lost. That is a complete fallacy. Unfortunately, it colors the ability of the United States to get the corporate tax rate down to a reasonable level. 

Let me say just a few words on inward direct investment. My 

view is that the United States should put more attention on reducing its own rate and making the tax system here favorable and inviting to foreign companies than putting additional effort in cracking down on abuse. I am not saying there is no abuse; I think the 

tools in the code are adequate, and that is not where the congressional effort should be. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hufbauer follows:] 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
63 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 30 here 72279.030
64 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 31 here 72279.031
65 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 32 here 72279.032
66 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 33 here 72279.033
67 

f 

Chairman TIBERI. Thank you. 

Mr. Stricof, you are recognized for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT STRICOF, TAX PARTNER, DELOITTE 

TAX LLP, NEW YORK, NEW YORK 

Mr. STRICOF. Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss my views on international tax reform as it relates to the U.S. 

operations of foreign multinationals. I am a tax partner with 

Deloitte Tax LLP with over 30 years of experience as a tax accountant. I am the head of Deloitte’s global U.S. investment services 

group, which serves large foreign multinationals making investments into the United States. My practice is largely focused on 

serving industrial companies in service businesses. 

I am honored to have been invited to participate in this hearing; 

my remarks will focus on certain impediments posed by the U.S. 

income tax rules on foreign direct investment in the United States, 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 34 here 72279.034
68 

and technical comments regarding certain legislative proposals that 

affect multinationals investing in the United States. These impediments include: the earnings-stripping provisions; potential U.S. tax 

law changes regarding the determination of corporate residency; 

U.S. income tax treaty override proposals; FIRPTA; and, to add another acronym, FBAR reporting. 

In respect of earnings stripping, as has been said in earlier testimony, I would like to point out that there is no clear-cut data that 

demonstrates that there is a systematic problem with earnings 

stripping. The Treasury Department conducted a study on this 

issue, and concluded that there wasn’t clear evidence of earnings 

stripping by foreign-based multinational companies making direct 

investments into the United States. 

In order to further this study and gather more data, Form 8926 

was issued. This form is defective in many ways. For example, it 

is unclear whether a taxpayer should rely on the proposed regulations issued in 1991 under section 163(j) when answering the various questions on the form. 

Additionally, there is no guidance as to whether the form should 

be filed on an expanded affiliated group basis or on a stand-alone 

affiliated group basis. As a result, similarly situated taxpayers are 

likely filling out the form very differently from one another. This 

means that the data that Treasury gathers from form 8926 is likely 

unreliable, and it is doubtful that an analysis of the information 

provided on the form will accurately provide reasonable conclusions 

as to whether earnings stripping is taking place. 

Moving on to corporate residency, it is important to note that determining where a corporation is a resident is essential to identifying where that corporation will be taxed. The proposed managed 

and controlled test would determine corporate residency based on 

the jurisdiction where substantially all of the executive officers and 

senior management of the corporation who exercise day-to-day responsibility for making decisions involving strategic financial and 

operational policies of the corporation are based. This will raise uncertainty regarding which operations of a multinational would be 

taxed in the United States on such entities’ global income. 

Any uncertainty in this area may cause foreign multinational 

companies to shift U.S.-based management teams outside the U.S., 

which would cause the loss of high-paying jobs in the United 

States. The management and control provision will be extremely 

difficult to administer, and is likely to lead to inconsistent administration that will clog the competent authority process with our 

treaty partners. Given the administrative, technical, and policy 

concerns surrounding the management and control proposal, I 

would urge the retention of the current law rules on determining 

corporate residency. 

In respect to the income tax treaty override proposals, the proposals, as drafted, would override almost all of our income tax treaties, in that the active trader business test for qualifying for treaty 

benefits that is included in almost all of our treaties would be significantly reduced in scope. The active trade or business test is perhaps the most fact-intensive test for determining whether an entity 

qualifies for treaty benefits. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
69 

The test typically requires an entity to show that the business 

in the home country is substantial in relation to the U.S. business, 

and the income receiving treaty benefits is related to that business. 

Arguably, this is the most rigorous test in the limitation on benefits section of our treaties, and is not one that should be overwritten. 

When legislation was originally proposed, the treaties with Iceland, Poland, and Hungary were perceived to be abusive and 

abused by non-treaty ultimate parents. Since that time a new treaty with Iceland has entered into force, a new Hungarian treaty has 

been signed, and the Treasury Department has indicated that negotiations on a new treaty with Poland have been concluded. 

Therefore, what may have been one of the main reasons for the 

proposal is no longer an issue. 

My paper also contains comments on FIRPTA and the so-called 

FBAR provisions. In respect to FIRPTA, my main comments relate 

to the administrative burden the current rule has, as any U.S. corporation is presumed to be a U.S. real property holding company. 

Taxpayers, particularly in controlled group transactions, have often 

missed filings, as they are not thinking about FIRPTA when they 

know that their subsidiary in the United States has very few assets 

that are invested in U.S. real property. Having this presumption 

has required many taxpayers to request relief for missing filings 

related to transactions that are not within the scope of the provisions. A change to this presumption would ease this administrative 

burden. 

In the context of the FBAR provisions, there are unintended consequences that may result from a foreign parent using a foreign 

bank account where a U.S. person has signatory authority to make 

expenditures on behalf of the corporation, but has no personal financial interest in the account. These persons are required to report their signature authority over a corporate bank account in 

which they have no personal interest. These filing requirements 

should be reviewed in order that they would be more targeted at 

the persons that have a direct financial interest in these accounts. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to share with you my 

views on tax reform in the context of foreign direct investment. I 

would be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Stricof follows:] 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
70 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 35 here 72279.035
71 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 36 here 72279.036
72 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 37 here 72279.037
73 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 38 here 72279.038
74 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 39 here 72279.039
75 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 40 here 72279.040
76 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 41 here 72279.041
77 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 42 here 72279.042
78 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 43 here 72279.043
79 

f 

Chairman TIBERI. Thank you. 

Mr. Wells, you are recognized for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF BRET WELLS, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF 

LAW, UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON LAW CENTER, HOUSTON, 

TEXAS 

Mr. WELLS. Thank you, Chairman Tiberi, Ranking Member 

Neal, and distinguished members. In this testimony I would like to 

address the following items: first, the issue of tax competitiveness; 

and second, the issue of tax base erosion. 

Let me start by saying that I believe that tax competitiveness is 

a serious issue. When the U.S. activities of U.S. domestic companies are treated less favorably than the U.S. activities of inbound 

competitors, a serious structural problem is created that deserves 

careful attention by Congress. Tax rules that treat U.S. activities 

of different economic participants differently will cause the tax 

disfavored economic participant to seek to become a foreign-owned 

company. Or else they risk getting forcefully acquired. 

The capital markets demand that this occur, and the recent corporate inversion phenomenon is a wake-up call about the serious 

implications of an unequal playing field. Foreign-owned multiVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:02 Feb 17, 2012 Jkt 072279 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\72279.XXX GPO1 PsN: 72279

ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 44 here 72279.044
80 

nationals have a competitive advantage in the United States exactly because they are foreign owned. Certain U.S. multinationals 

with inbound investment activity share this advantage. But the tax 

advantage afforded to inbound investors arises because of their 

ability to erode the U.S. tax base through base erosion payments. 

Base erosion payments arise from related party transactions 

such as intercompany charges for interest, as Mr. Spitzer so eloquently talked about earlier, rents, royalties, as Mr. Spitzer pointed out earlier, service fees, and from intercompany purchase and 

sales of tangible goods between a U.S. affiliate and a foreign affiliate. Through effective tax planning, these base erosion payments 

can create homeless income. 

The income is homeless in the sense that it is not subject to tax 

in the United States, where it originated, and where the profits 

were derived, nor is it taxed in the offshore country where it is received. The ability to create homeless income affords inbound taxpayers a significant tax advantage and unlevel playing field. 

How did it come to be that base erosion payments could be such 

a powerful tax planning advantage? To answer this question, it is 

helpful to consider the historical context of the United States when 

it formulated its international tax policy. 

In the early years, U.S. multinationals were the dominant source 

of FDI around the world. And so, outbound investment far exceeded U.S. inbound investment. In this setting, the United States Government wanted the residual profits to escape source country taxation so that these profits could be taxed by the country that supplied FDI, meaning the United States in a majority of cases. Residency taxation took preference over source country rights to taxation. 

And so, to further this policy, the U.S., through our treaties, 

sought to require source countries to eliminate withholding on interest, rents, royalties, in deference to the home country’s sole right 

to tax these profits. The United States relinquished its own withholding rights as a reciprocal measure. But again, the trade flows 

were tilted in favor of the United States. 

Today, the trade flows are reversed, with the United States finding itself in the posture of a significant net capital importer. Further, not surprisingly, taxpayers have reacted to these generous inbound tax rules with full advantage. Today, inbound investors can 

use offshore tax favored subsidiaries to transact with their U.S. affiliate, move profits within their affiliated companies without it 

leaving the economic group, and earn thier income in a tax-favored 

way. 

Homeless income is a mistake. U.S. international tax policy was 

formed with the desire to prevent international double-taxation. 

This, gentlemen, is a worthy goal. But the desire to prevent double 

taxation was never intended to have the consequence of creating 

homeless income out of U.S. business profits. 

Income earned in the United States economy should bear one 

level of tax. And the assumption should now be that it won’t be 

taxed anywhere in the world, if not here. And not subjecting profits 

of inbound taxpayers to at least one level of tax creates an unlevel 

playing field with domestic companies. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
81 

Homeless income is a mistake that costs the United States 

Treasury significant revenue. This mistake places inbound participants in a better economic position versus U.S. companies that do 

not have base erosion opportunities. If left unfixed, this state of affairs will cause U.S. companies to become prime takeover candidates, or encourage them to self-help themselves into inverted 

companies. 

Again, the corporate inversion phenomenon is merely telling us 

what we already know. The basic issue is the following: inbound 

companies can utilize multiple avenues to strip earnings from the 

U.S. tax base with the benefit of creating homeless income out of 

a significant portion of their U.S. profits. We need a policy response 

that protects the U.S. tax base against base erosion, not just because we need more revenue, but because we need equal treatment 

between U.S. domestic companies and cross-border inbound participants. 

In my written testimony I provided a proposal that attempts to 

prevent homeless income. But let me conclude by saying that it is 

my belief that Congress cannot allow inbound taxpayers to have 

significant opportunities that do not exist for U.S. domestic corporations. Everyone should pay a similar level of tax for similar 

economic activity in the United States. The ability of inbound taxpayers to create homeless income out of U.S. profits attacks the 

very core of the U.S. tax system, and must be addressed. 

Thank you so much for the opportunity to testify. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wells follows:] 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
82 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 45 here 72279.045
83 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 46 here 72279.046
84 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 47 here 72279.047
85 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 48 here 72279.048
86 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 49 here 72279.049
87 

f 

Chairman TIBERI. Thank the three of you for your great testimony. I have got a question for all three of you, and I will start 

to my left here. 

You have all talked about—in either your written testimony or 

your verbal testimony—that we have the—we have a comparatively 

high U.S. corporate tax rate, compared to our competitors around 

the world. And there are incentives that multinational companies 

doing business in the United States have to transfer their income 

overseas. 

What do you suggest we can do, through tax policy, to change 

that incentive? 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 50 here 72279.050
88 

Mr. HUFBAUER. Thank you, Chairman Tiberi. Here I think 

there is a sharp difference between Professor Wells and myself. We 

used to have a worldwide tax system as our concept of the norm— 

and I wrote about that in my testimony, I didn’t have time to discuss it. The worldwide tax system has long not been the norm. It 

is now only followed by about six countries, none of which have the 

high tax rates which the U.S. imposes. 

We are out of step, it isn’t that the world is out of step. And we 

cannot go back to 1960, when the United States dominated the 

world, not only militarily but economically. We are now in a very 

competitive situation, as you well know. 

So, my answer to your question is we have to get our rates down 

to where other countries are, which is if we are going just talk 

about the OECD countries we need to cut at least 10 percentage 

points, and I would say 15 percentage points, off the statutory corporate rate. If we want to talk about China—and many people do— 

it has to go further. We are way out of step. That is the biggest 

single thing. And I think that is where the attention should be focused, not on trying to, as I put it in my testimony, build a moat 

around a U.S. tax system which is out of step. 

And it is not just out of step with China, it is out of step with 

Canada. Canada has a far more competitive tax system than we do. 

I am just focusing on the rates, but I could extend that to many 

other dimensions, particularly research and development, a favorite 

subject of mine, or expensing of equipment, or whatever. I mean we 

are just a country which does not use its tax system to encourage 

investment, either in physical capital or intellectual capital. Thank 

you. 

Chairman TIBERI. Thank you. 

Mr. STRICOF. It is very difficult for me to address policy issues, 

as a tax technician. I am not a tax lawyer; I am just a tax accountant. But let me give a little bit of my view on this. 

There is a big competition for capital in the world. People have 

choices as to where to deploy their capital, where to earn their 

profits. If you have a choice of employing your capital in a place 

where you can pay a 20 percent tax rate, or a place where the combined federal and state rate is easily 40 percent, where would you 

want to earn your profits? It is a very simple, methodical type of 

analysis, and a number of companies do that type of analysis when 

deciding where they can put their businesses. 

Unlike Nestle, which has to put a lot of its business where the 

consumers are, a lot of other types of activities can be put anywhere in the world. The point made for Falcon Jets. They could be 

manufactured anywhere, and they can fly here to be purchased by 

U.S. consumers. So I think you have to look to see what is going 

to encourage people to invest here. 

I would also like to address a comment that was given to the earlier panel, which was, ‘‘If there was a choice between lowering the 

corporate tax rate and getting rid of the R&D credit, what would 

you do?’’ Here, in this environment, I think you have to look and 

see what other countries, for example the UK, Netherlands, and 

many others have done. What they have done is they have lowered 

their corporate tax rate, and also provided incentives for R&D. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
89 

They have their patent box regimes and other regimes that encourage specific activities, as well as general activities. 

Chairman TIBERI. Thank you. 

Mr. WELLS. It is a very important question, Chairman. Let me 

say that my comment earlier was not to say that I pine for the 

days when residency taxation were better. I just want us to understand why we thought it was good to allow earnings stripping in 

the past, when the U.S. was the dominant source of capital, and 

would be the beneficiary. 

What we find today is our tax rates are high. I agree with Mr. 

Hufbauer on that point. 

But focus on the testimony you heard earlier. Nestle had an effective tax rate less than 10 percent worldwide in their financial 

statements. How can it be that a consumer food company in the domestic economies of the OECD can get less than half the percent 

of the tax rate that this committee is discussing? 

It is because—they have told you already—their ability to strip 

earnings out of the U.S. economy and other countries allows them 

to achieve an effective tax rate that is significantly below the rates 

we are talking about. I don’t disagree with Mr. Hufbauer saying 

that lower rates would be a better system. But it is not going to 

be low enough to cause anyone not to want to earnings strip. 

Now, Mr. Hufbauer said China has a more favorable regime. But 

let’s remember they have withholding taxes on interest and royalties, and have refused to give zero tax treatment to those types of 

payments cross-border. So we can learn from China. There is no 

question that when someone earns profits from the U.S. activity, 

it should not escape total taxation. 

And the other point I would make is this, that if we allow inbound investors to have a significant competitive advantage versus 

their U.S. competitors, the corporate inversion phenomenon is telling us the result. We must treat U.S. companies the same. And if 

they are going to pay a full U.S. tax on U.S. business activity, then 

we must have a system that causes inbound taxpayers not to pay 

more than their fair rate, but at the same time to pay at least the 

same rate. If we don’t, we are rewarding winners and losers unfairly. And the ability to have interest stripping and royalties stripping is a benefit that an inbound company has, that Nestle has, 

that others have, that U.S. companies that are U.S.-based do not 

have. 

Thank you for the opportunity. 

Chairman TIBERI. Thank you. Mr. Wells, I want to follow up. 

Thank you for your thoughts, too. 

You wrote an article about a year ago in Tax Notes—and I want 

to quote from it—regarding our corporate tax rate and our worldwide system. ‘‘Disadvantaged ownership of capital by U.S.-based 

multinationals creates an incentive to shift that ownership away 

from U.S.-based companies to foreign-owned competitors, and the 

recent empirical studies suggest that this possesses a significant 

threat to U.S. domestic job creation.’’ 

And your article goes on to state that the U.S. should move toward a territorial system that exempts active foreign income. Do 

you still believe that, and can you expand on that? 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
90 

Mr. WELLS. Yes. What I was saying in the article is that the 

ability for U.S. companies, or the inability of U.S. companies to be 

able to earn income in the same low-taxed environment that foreign-owned companies have is a competitive disadvantage. And we 

should expect that foreign-based companies would have an opportunity to take those companies over to the extent there are 

synergies for them to acquire them. 

A territorial regime versus our existing regime is—there are pros 

and cons to either approach, okay? And if you had a territorial regime as the premise of what this committee wanted to propose, it 

would be incumbent on this committee to make sure that there 

were base-protecting measures that would protect the U.S. tax base 

from being able to be eroded by all taxpayers. In a territorial regime, the opportunities to erode the U.S. tax base would exist for 

every participant. So, it would be a challenge that this committee 

would be required to take, because everyone would be in the same 

position. 

But the point I think the committee should consider is whether 

it’s a territorial regime or a worldwide regime, certainly how we 

tax inbound activity should try to achieve comparable results for 

each economic participant, whether they are a U.S. company or a 

foreign company. How you treat outbound activities and the disparity between U.S. multinationals and foreign multinationals in 

third countries is a harder question. 

But certainly taxing the inbound activities, we should attempt to 

have a horizontal equity between each of those two companies. 

Chairman TIBERI. Mr. Stricof, can you comment on that issue? 

Mr. STRICOF. Most certainly. Foreign-based companies, the ones 

that invest in the United States, are largely in developed countries. 

As was pointed out by Nancy McLernon in the earlier panel, China 

represents less than one percent of all foreign investment into the 

United States. So, where is this money coming from? 

The money is coming from Germany, from France, from the UK, 

and others. And each of these countries has effectively decided that 

their equivalent of subpart F—because most of them have that— 

do not really need to cover the type of income that is being talked 

about as being earnings-stripped. And, instead, must view that 

money as being more important to come into their local country 

however, and then be redeployed in their local economies. 

And what is that doing? I don’t see where the UK is suffering 

nearly as much as the U.S. or France or Germany or any of a number of these other countries that have these significant rules. I see 

the money coming back to those home countries, and being redeployed in their businesses. 

When it comes to base erosion, what was commented upon was 

two or three different factors of base erosion. There are management service charges, there are rent and royalties, and then there 

is interest expense. When it comes to management charges, I personally do not see management charges coming into the U.S. to the 

same degree as I see management charges going out from the U.S. 

by U.S.-based multinationals. 

When it comes to rent and royalties, IP is usually centrally located in a country where the company is based. It is appropriate 

to charge a rent or royalty for the use of IP, just like U.S. multiVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:02 Feb 17, 2012 Jkt 072279 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\72279.XXX GPO1 PsN: 72279

ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
91 

nationals, if the IP is owned by the U.S. company, charges out for 

the use of IP. While payments for IP are base-eroding, I imagine 

in concept, they are really not base-eroding with the same negative 

connotation that has been given. 

And, as I have already commented, in respect of interest expense 

it is difficult to say whether U.S. companies are eroding their tax 

base any more than anybody else. There is just no empirical evidence of that. Thank you. 

Chairman TIBERI. And finally, Mr. Hufbauer. 

Mr. HUFBAUER. Thank you. I guess the first point that would 

be made is when it comes to base erosion—and I have written 

about this at length—my big concern is the erosion of the personal 

income tax. And quite a bit of legislation has been passed by Congress. Some of it maybe goes too far, but it is in the right direction 

to not have U.S. citizens or residents avoid the U.S. tax system by 

putting their assets abroad. That, to me, is the big concern. 

In terms of base erosion by corporations or business firms, they— 

I think the only area of important concern is interest payments, for 

the reasons that Mr. Stricof said. Royalty—I mean our interest, our 

national interest in royalty, is exactly to keep the rates very low, 

because our royalty income from abroad of all kinds—trademark, 

copyright, intellectual property patents, or whatever—is huge coming in, and rather small going out. So, if you have a system where 

a goose—you know, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander— 

we want to get those rates low. 

In addition, I would commend to the congress to think about the 

kind of patent box system that Netherlands and a few other countries have introduced, not only to keep the rates low, but to tax 

that kind of income at a very highly preferential rate here in the 

United States to encourage R&D. That, to me, is a meaningful 

R&D encouragement which we should have, and we don’t have. 

But turning briefly to interest income, this is a very—you might 

say it is homeless on a worldwide basis. The tax rates are very low, 

and I have written about that extensively. They are low here in the 

United States, they are low abroad. It is a low-tax form of income. 

It has kind of distorted debt equity ratios globally. It has contributed to our financial crisis. I think it is a problem, and I think, if 

you are going to worry about erosion, it really should focus on the 

interest side of the whole picture. 

Finally, let me say that I—Professor Wells and I are in total 

agreement, I believe from the excerpt he read, on the necessity of 

having a territorial system with a view to U.S. outward investment. So we are in very close alignment there. Our current system 

is quite discouraging to U.S. companies, by comparison with companies based in almost any other country. 

Chairman TIBERI. Thank you, all three of you. I will yield to the 

ranking member, Mr. Neal. 

Mr. NEAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let’s go back over a couple points that have been made here. 

Professor Wells, you are pretty blunt in your testimony that foreign owned multinationals have a competitive advantage in the 

United States because they are foreign owned. You go on to say 

that that tax advantage afforded to inbound investors arises beVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:02 Feb 17, 2012 Jkt 072279 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\72279.XXX GPO1 PsN: 72279

ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
92 

cause of their ability to erode the U.S. tax base through base erosion payments. 

What about a specific example, and how prevalent is this? 

Mr. WELLS. I can give you several specific examples. One was 

when I was vice president, treasurer, and chief tax officer of an 

S&P 500 company. I saw half of my peer group invert. And I read 

the public statements. Why did they invert? Why did they want to 

become foreign multinationals, when it was a paper transaction? 

And what they said was is that they needed to get at the same tax 

rate as their other competitors. That was the reason they did it. 

That was their public statement. 

So the first thing I would say, Mr. Neal, is that—the inverted 

companies are telling us why they did it. 

The second thing, in the article that the chairman referred to I 

said, ‘‘Well, let’s test whether what they said was right.’’ So I took 

the five-year average tax rate for the inverted companies in my 

peer group, and I compared it to Schlumberger, the Behemoth in 

the oil field services sector. And I said, ‘‘What do their tax rates 

look like?’’ And they were within half a percent. Imagine that. They 

got to within a half-a-percent. Now, their tax rate dropped from 37 

percent, the average of these companies pre-inversion, down to 20 

percent post-inversion. But the 20 percent post-inversion rate was 

on par with their other foreign competitors. So, I would say that 

subsequent experience helps us understand. 

But then there were other acquisitions that I talked about in the 

article, namely Schneider’s acquisition of Square D, or the Nestle 

transaction that you just heard about, their acquisition where they 

pushed debt into the U.S. target company. The ability to lever their 

acquisition, and to strip interest out of their U.S. affiliates by intercompany transactions, allowed a significant portion of their U.S. 

business profits to leave the U.S. and to go to a low-taxed country. 

And so, I think that we are getting enough anecdotal evidence, 

both from the testimony you have heard today, the subsequent history of what the inverted companies’ tax rates look like compared 

to their other competitors, and just knowing that the tax planning 

tools between inverted companies and foreign-owned companies are 

the same. 

I think that the inverted companies have done this committee a 

great service. They have given us a knowledge about the cause-effect dynamics of why their tax rates went down, and why it went 

down is because they are a foreign company with the same tax 

planning tools as al other foreign companies. 

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Stricof, you—and then Mr. Hufbauer, would you 

like to offer your analysis? 

Mr. STRICOF. Sure, thanks. I think there are some very valid 

points that have been made. I think that when you look at the competitive advantage a foreign company may have, a lot of that has 

to do with capital flows, whether you talk about them as base-eroding payments, or whatever. And one of the major problems the U.S. 

entities have, as compared to their global competitors, would be 

solved effectively by territorial taxation. 

What happens in, say, Nestle—and I am not trying to use Nestle, 

other than everybody else has, so I mean no disparaging remarks. 

What happens; Nestle decides to make an acquisition, or any comVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:02 Feb 17, 2012 Jkt 072279 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\72279.XXX GPO1 PsN: 72279

ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
93 

pany decides to make an acquisition that is based in any country 

in the world except the U.S. How are they going to fund that acquisition? 

They can take money from all the other countries they have in 

the world, repatriate it to their home country at virtually zero taxation; in most of the free world such a repatriation of profits is either tax free or they have a 95 percent exemption of that income 

coming back, which they can redeploy in the acquisition. 

What I find—and I do strategic acquisitions, I don’t do leveraged 

buy-outs or other things like that, I do a lot of strategic work—I 

find that when you are doing acquisition planning, who is going to 

win that acquisition? U.S. companies go after the target; foreign 

companies go after that target. Whoever has the best synergies 

from a true business perspective is who actually wins the deal. It 

has very little to do with the taxes. 

If there are base-eroding type payments in the form of interest 

expense that comes back to the parent country, it just allows the 

foreign multinational to redeploy that cash. And therefore, they 

have more cash available to do the acquisition. I don’t think it is 

really the fact that it is zero-taxed as much as that they can get 

the money back to where they need it to be. 

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Hufbauer. 

Mr. HUFBAUER. Thank you. About 40 years ago, when I was 

in the Treasury, one of my early tax articles was on the theoretical 

possibility of inversion. Well, it was theoretical in the 1970s and, 

as Professor Wells and others have said, it is something of a reality 

now. 

But my recommendation, as I have said more than once, is to improve our own tax system as the major answer, rather than additional moats, as the major answer. I am not saying that we 

shouldn’t have some moats—and we have some which have been 

put in by Congress—but the big issue is not the handful of corporations which invert. Yes, that is an issue. But the big issue are the 

global 1,000 corporations of 2020, and where they will locate. 

I believe there is a very strong synergy between corporate headquarters and R&D and the rest of the economy. We want as many 

of these corporations who are yet to grow and yet to come on the 

scene to locate here, in the United States. And our tax system is 

a disadvantage, for reasons that have been said in more detail than 

I can say. 

And we should think about that, and really concentrate, in terms 

of inversion, on what I would call crystal clear abuses, but not try 

to reinvent, in its erstwhile glory, the worldwide tax system as it 

was conceived by Peggy Richmond, a very distinguished scholar of 

an earlier era, back in the 1960s. We are not going to go back to 

that world. Thank you very much. 

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Wells, there are some who have suggested that 

if we tighten the rules on earnings strippings, it is going to discourage foreign investment. What is your take? 

Mr. WELLS. Okay, I have several comments. The first is that if 

an investor is told that they will pay the same taxes every other 

American, whether they are foreign-owned or domestic-owned, and 

that is a discouragement, well, then we have a fundamental problem, Neal. Because if we will give someone a tax preference in 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
94 

order to be here, then we should expect all of the economic activity 

to be transformed. Mr. Stricof and others in the accounting firms 

will do a fantastic job of reshaping America into the most preferred 

investor into this country. 

So, we have to start with the premise, in my mind, that we do 

not want to discriminate against foreign investment, but we cannot 

allow economic participants to have an unequal playing field. 

Now, on the point earlier about residual profits and royalties, I 

think that is an issue for this committee to think through. We relinquished our source country taxation right to tax residual profits 

because of what was said earlier, because we expected more to 

come back to the U.S. Treasury, and we expected the other home 

countries to tax those earnings. 

But if your committee sees that the other country is not taxing 

those residual profits, that they are escaping taxation and result in 

no taxation, then the fundamental reason we decided to not have 

source-based taxation—namely, to allow the other country the primary right to tax these profits at their normal rate—that assumption is off. It is wrong. 

And so, if we are going to have comparable treatment in a world 

where the other country doesn’t want the deference, then you have 

to think, well, what does today’s world look like? In the post-World 

War I era when we had these treaties coming about, all of the 

World War I victors were wanting to fund their war debt, and they 

would tax the residual profits. But as Mr. Hufbauer has said, residency taxation is now leaving the earth. 

And so, why do we believe that other countries will tax this offshore income? And if it is a competitive disadvantage, then we 

must do something about it. 

So, what I would urge you to think through is not just the question of what we are going to discourage. We need to have comparable treatment. And I don’t think that comparable treatment is 

going to cause anyone to not want to invest in the United States. 

Mr. NEAL. Thank you. Mr. Stricof or Mr. Hufbauer, would you 

care to comment, as well? 

Mr. STRICOF. One has to decide what is the goal. And if the 

goal is to encourage foreign investment into the U.S., to promote 

job creation, to promote capital investment, anything that one does 

that restricts that will prevent that result from occurring. That is 

what I think. 

If you look at the companies that are making the most investments in this country, you look again—just like I said in my earlier 

response to a question, you look at Germany, you look at the UK, 

you look at all these other countries. The capital flows are going 

back to those countries in a tax-efficient a manner. I guess the concept that is being expressed by Mr. Wells is the U.S. should be the 

tax police of the world, which we have heard about before. I don’t 

know what makes the U.S. the tax police of the world. 

If the foreign jurisdictions that are earning the income choose to 

tax that income or not, why are we trying to interfere with that? 

I understand that in treaties, treaties are bilateral, and that they 

are supposed to ensure that there is no double-taxation in the 

world. The U.S. side of the deductions are appropriate levels of deductions. That is what I have testified to already, that is what 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
95 

Treasury effectively had no qualms with in the case of historic investment into the United States. If those other countries choose to 

allow their own country—not to tax that income, why do we care? 

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Hufbauer. 

Mr. HUFBAUER. Thank you. Let me approach the question from 

30,000 feet, starting at the Sierra Nevada between California and 

Nevada. 

I think it is a matter of sovereignty that Nevada has decided not 

to have a corporate tax, and it is a matter of sovereignty that California has, I believe, one of the highest corporate taxes amongst 

the 50 states. 

I don’t regard a low level of corporate taxes as an unfair advantage. It is a matter of what is within the competence of state jurisdiction or national jurisdiction. So, in my view, if Ireland has a 

121⁄2 percent rate, that is not Germany’s problem. And it is not the 

U.S. problem. That is Ireland’s own decision. And I do not think 

it is our job to try to recapture the income which was somehow not 

taxed by Ireland. 

Or, we can go to a more extreme case, the Caymans. They have 

a zero corporate tax. I don’t think it is our job to somehow try to 

claw back or cajole the Cayman Islands into coming up to the U.S. 

corporate tax rate. 

I do feel it is appropriate for the United States to go after money 

laundering, drug money and personal tax evasion. But I am pretty 

strong that the choice of a corporate tax rate between zero and 

whatever is a national sovereign decision, or a state decision. 

And then I back up from that, still staying at 30,000 feet, to say 

that tax competition is healthy for the world, yes healthy for the 

world. Tax competition at the corporate level, I think, is good for 

us because it takes us off the notion that, as Senator Long, whom 

I remember quite well, said, ‘‘Don’t tax you, don’t tax me, tax the 

fellow behind the tree.’’ Well, tax competition takes us away from 

that notion that there is somebody out there who is going to pay 

taxes, but not us. 

So, that is my 30,000 view. Thank you very much. 

Mr. NEAL. Well, let me meet you at 30,000 feet. Would you— 

and I am interested in your comment, obviously—would you argue 

that a $27,000 post office box in the Cayman Islands or another 

foreign jurisdiction is a legitimate corporate address? 

Mr. HUFBAUER. It depends on the kind of activity that is going 

on there. But according to data that I looked at, there are far more 

post box corporations in Delaware than in Cayman. And I believe 

that that is within the appropriate rules of a country. I am not 

fronting for drug lords and money launderers. But if it is open, 

transparent, yes. It is okay in Delaware, it is okay in Cayman, by 

my view. 

Mr. NEAL. So you would suggest that an American corporation 

that decides to set up shop—use the example of Bermuda—with 

simply a post office box and no employees is a legitimate undertaking? 

Mr. HUFBAUER. If that is what the Bermuda law permits, yes, 

I will assume that it is. I am not certain on Bermuda law there. 

But if that is a legitimate corporation under Bermuda law, yes. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
96 

Mr. NEAL. And how am I to respond to those moms and dads 

who have children in Afghanistan and Iraq, that those post office 

boxes are used to evade American taxes? 

Mr. HUFBAUER. Well, if you define it as evasion, which takes 

me back to the money laundering or improper reporting, absence 

of transparency, it is totally inappropriate. 

But the threshold question: Is it evasion? And here we come to 

a related question, the degree of transparency. And as I understand it—I won’t go to Bermuda, but for Cayman, as I understand 

it, they have a very tight relationship with our Justice Department, 

reporting all financial transactions in which the Justice Department is interested, which probably reflects what the Treasury Department is interested in, as well. 

And so, if we are not into that realm of transactions which are 

what I would call evasion, yes. It is all right. 

Mr. NEAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman TIBERI. Gentleman from North Dakota, Mr. Berg, is 

recognized. 

Mr. BERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the panelists. 

Thanks for being here. 

I would like to crank it up to 50,000 feet, though. You know, I 

have been watching tax policy for 30 years. I have just been in congress a few short months but, I mean, I couldn’t—I just want to 

make the point I think there is always unintended consequences. 

I don’t care how much time and effort Congress and staff and people can do to write tax law, you just can’t get it perfect. And whatever you do, you create opportunities—call them loopholes or call 

them whatever—but the code is what it is. 

And again, as we are talking about, you know, interest stripping, 

as we are talking about how, again, people are following the law, 

but they are doing it because we have a law that—saying we are 

not going to tax you if you do these things, and you try and fix 

those, you create other problems. 

And I guess I just wanted to make the point that I think, you 

know, our chairman here and Chairman Camp, our objective is to 

simplify the whole tax structure. If we, in fact, get back to a real 

simple—again, 25 percent, rather than a 35 percent, it makes us 

more competitive. And rather than having chapters and chapters 

and reams and reams of exemptions, maybe we don’t have as many 

exemptions. Maybe it is pretty simple, it is pretty black and white, 

working towards a territorial system. 

And just again, simplifying the tax law—again, for those people 

that make money in tax law and the changes in the regulations, 

that may not be good, short term. But I just believe that that 

would, again, help business focus on making decisions that are 

good for business and good for customers and good for profits, and 

not necessarily having to second guess those business decisions, 

based on taxation. 

So, having said all that, I would like to kind of step back also. 

And I believe in best practices. And so we have talked a lot about 

what we can do to change. But I would like to look at the other 

developed countries around the globe, and say—and I would like 

each of you to kind of respond to this. And I don’t want to look at 

today and I don’t want to look at yesterday, but I want to look to 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
97 

the future and say which countries have the right tax environment 

that we are going to have to compete with in the future, here in 

the United States? 

And so, if we just could—again, if you could say, ‘‘Here is a country that I think is going to be where capital is going to flock to, 

what could we’’—just share that with this committee, and so we 

can say, okay, here is something we ought to look to. 

Mr. HUFBAUER. Thank you. That is a good 50,000-foot question. 

I guess I would say the big missing part of the U.S. system—and 

I understand the unpopularity of it—is a national consumption tax 

coming under various names: a goods and services tax, a valueadded tax. And we are, again, way out of step with the world. I 

think it is quite harmful to our position as an exporter. Also it 

makes it very difficult to collect the revenue which our country apparently needs to run the projects that we want. 

So, what I would look to would be a country such as Canada, 

which has put in a GST. The rate isn’t terribly high, but it is a 

revenue raiser. Canada has reduced its corporate tax. And, importantly, what Canada has done on the corporate tax—and this 

comes from the Canadian constitutional system—is to let about 

half be collected by the provinces. And I think that is quite appropriate, because then provinces can decide, in my model of tax competition, whether they want a high corporate tax, which Ontario 

does, or a low one, which Alberta does. Let them decide. Alberta 

relies more on oil royalties, obviously. 

So, I would put Canada as a model in the business tax area. I 

am not talking about the personal tax, and I will not get into the 

personal tax. I would also name Australia as a model. Australia 

has done a lot of reform over the years, rather similar to Canada. 

I don’t think the U.S. can emulate Ireland. I think Ireland had a 

great model for a small country. I don’t think we can go down there 

probably in the near future. 

I do want to emphasize—and this is possibly in response to Congressman Neal’s question to what Mr. Wells says, I don’t want to 

tolerate what used to be called personal foreign holding companies 

way back in the 1930s, which become incorporated pocketbooks for 

U.S. individuals to take their money abroad. I really want to keep 

the personal tax system here. 

And I also am quite sympathetic to putting withholding taxes on 

interest payments on a negotiated basis under treaties. Thank you. 

Mr. BERG. Thank you. 

Mr. STRICOF. For somebody that could only fly at, what, about 

10,000 feet, you are doing pretty good at getting to 50,000 feet. 

I have to repeat one statement before I continue, and that is that 

I don’t know anything about tax policy, I am not good at tax policy, 

and I am not promoting any specific tax policy. But I can tell you 

what I think is going on as a best practice method in various countries. 

And, again, I go back to the developed world and what are they 

doing? They have all dropped their corporate tax rates, universally. 

Even Japan is talking about, or has already, dropped their corporate tax rate. Everybody with possibly the exception of Japan— 

has instituted, as well, a major R&D incentive. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
98 

I think that one of the things that made this country great and 

allowed us to make so much external investment in the 1960s is 

we owned the intellectual property of the world. We were the most 

innovative, the most creative, best educated, you name it. That was 

the United States. And, therefore, in the 1960s we expanded dramatically around the world. 

So, how do we make that happen? I can’t tell you. That is a policy issue. But I can tell you that whoever wins that, 20 years from 

now will be looking back and be the ones that are saying, ‘‘Yes, I 

did it right.’’ 

Mr. WELLS. Representative Berg, I think dropping the rates is 

probably a good suggestion. Whether territorial is the answer with 

safeguards to the U.S. tax base or a worldwide regime, that is 

something that—I think either regime could work—but the committee needs to be very careful about. 

I think that we don’t want to be the tax police of the world. But 

we are out of the 20th century, and the 20th century thought was 

that we should allow base erosion payments because the other 

country will tax the residual profits on a residency basis, and we 

don’t want double taxation. The world today is double ‘‘no taxation.’’ And to the extent that double ‘‘no taxation’’ is a loss of revenue, that is unfortunate for the congress. 

But what I am most concerned about, and what I hope you leave 

the hearing with is, if one competitor has a no-tax result, and it 

is a significant part of their U.S. business, that is a competitiveness issue. And that is more than just losing revenue that is desperately needed for our country. That is a competitiveness issue. 

So, as you think about designing a system, if we can have everyone pay a single level of tax, and defer or allow profits to be transferred or stripped to an offshore location only when it is a real 

country that is really going to subject those profits to a tax at the 

20 to 30 percent rate that you have been discussing, then that is 

fine. 

But if someone is able to strip profits to create zero taxed income, and they are the competitor that can do it and the next competitor cannot, then I can tell you what the next generation of businesses in America is going to look like. They are going to look like 

the first person. 

And that is what I would urge you to consider, that as we think 

about what corporate reform looks like, that it should attempt to 

get at an equalized tax rate among all economic participants, or we 

would expect to be the one creating the economic participants of 

the next generation. 

Mr. BERG. Thank you. I have one other follow-up question. And 

again, everyone is looking at risk versus return. We could have 

high tax rates, but if every foreign investor was guaranteed a super 

return, we would have all kinds of money. And you know, having 

said that, we are assuming that things are—the return is pretty 

much even among several countries. How do we encourage—and 

other than the rates, regulation, I think, has a place in this, as 

well. 

And I just want to know if there is any—you know, over the 

last—I guess the Obama Administration, if there is any regulatory 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
99 

changes recently that you have seen that would inhibit that investment from coming into the United States. 

Again, if we could just—each of you respond, or any comments 

on that. 

Mr. HUFBAUER. You are right about the risk and return issue. 

And this is one of the great strengths of the United States. We 

have a very stable legal system. Property is highly respected, compared to other countries. Certainly Switzerland would be in the 

same category, but the legal regime of property rights really cuts 

down the risk here, compared to a great many countries in the 

world. So, that is one of our strengths. 

Now, where do we have problems? I am not sure that the Obama 

Administration has done anything out of line in this respect. I 

think that our tort system, which is being corrected, I believe, by 

the Supreme Court—and I applauded the recent Wal-Mart decision—does create a certain amount of risk for class action suits, 

and that sort of thing. I think that risk is actually on the way down 

now. That is not because of the Administration, it is really the 

courts. 

I know there has been a lot of talk about the Dodd-Frank bill, 

and has that made banks less willing to loan, and so forth and so 

on. I regard that law as a work in progress, where I am sure Congress will return to it if, in fact, it does discourage lending to small 

and medium-sized companies. That I have actually looked at. I 

think the lending situation today is more because of the financial 

crisis than because of any new legislation. But that may be an area 

in the future. Let me stop there. Thank you. 

Chairman TIBERI. The gentleman may answer the question. 

Mr. STRICOF. Well, if I can’t talk about policy, I certainly can’t 

talk about regulation. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. STRICOF. But what I can do is applaud the effort towards 

simplification. And I think anything that simplifies our tax laws 

and the enforcement of our tax laws is certainly going to be welcome by the business community, as a whole. It has nothing to do 

with inbound versus outbound. It is just effectively talking myself 

partially out of a job, but I think anything that goes for simplification is very good. 

But I would caution that the last time somebody decided to have 

a tax bill that was labeled ‘‘simplification’’ in it, they took the definition—I think it may have been—I can’t remember if it was gross 

income or taxable income from—it must have been taxable income—from the definition of gross income minus deductions equals 

taxable income to a three-page definition. 

Mr. WELLS. I have three quick points. And, again, I am not an 

economist like Mr. Hufbauer. He is probably the most relevant person to ask. But as a citizen, to me, I think broadening the tax base 

and making it simple is a wonderful goal. Everyone should bear the 

same or as close to the same a tax for similar activity. 

Second, a sustainable fiscal budget. I think that one of the biggest challenges for foreign investors today is knowing the fiscal situation of the U.S. Government. And I think that you are getting 

pulled 100 different directions as to what to do. But I think that 

foreign investors would be overjoyed to believe that the fiscal crisis 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
100 

that may be looming for the country has been dealt with thoughtfully. 

And I think the last point would be to know what tax reform will 

be. And I think that is not to put pressure on this committee. It 

needs to be thoughtful, and you need to take the time to do it exactly right. But I think if companies and other countries knew that 

our fiscal house was in order, and they knew what our tax structure was going to be, and that the tax base was as broad and as 

simple as possible, and we treated everyone comparably, then I 

think that would achieve the best result for the country. 

Mr. BERG. Sounds simple. 

Chairman TIBERI. Great way to end today’s hearing. This concludes today’s hearing. 

Please be advised that Members may submit written questions 

to the witnesses. Those questions and the witnesses’ answers will 

be made part of the record. 

Thank you. Thank you to the three of you for some really, really 

good and educational testimony, a discussion, and I believe it helps 

us, again, get more information as we want to move forward on 

comprehensive tax reform. I appreciate your time. 

This concludes today’s hearing. 

[Whereupon, at 12:37 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Submissions for the Record follow:] 

Prepared Statement of The Honorable Ms. Berkley 

f 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 51 here 72279.051
101 

Prepared Statement of Brian Dooley 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 52 here 72279.052
102 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 53 here 72279.053
103 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 54 here 72279.054
104 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 55 here 72279.055
105 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 56 here 72279.056
106 

f 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 57 here 72279.057
107 

Prepared Statement of Mayer Brown LLP 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 58 here 72279.058
108 

f 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 59 here 72279.059
109 

Prepared Statement of Overseas Shipholding Group 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 60 here 72279.060
110 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 61 here 72279.061
111 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 62 here 72279.062
112 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 63 here 72279.063
113 

Æ 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 64 here 72279.064