Press reports today include a statement from an aide to Ways and Means Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) that Ryan may be considering abandoning the idea of using international tax reform to provide funding for infrastructure projects in a long-term highway bill.
Recall that over the summer, there was considerable talk on Capitol Hill of combining highway funding legislation with a sweeping overhaul of the tax rules affecting multinational businesses. The general concept—which had some bipartisan support—is that revenue raised by a deemed repatriation of untaxed foreign earnings of U.S. companies could be used to fund highway spending, while at the same time modernizing the international tax rules and enhancing incentives for innovation. This limited legislative success could then serve as a step towards more expansive tax reform in the future.
The talk about enacting such “limited scope tax reform” escalated in July 2015, and had been expected to continue when Congress tries (again) to find a multi-year solution to highway funding concerns. The potential link between highway funding and international tax modernization was apparent in negotiations between the House and the Senate on the short-term highway bill that was enacted in July 2015.
With today’s reports in Politico, it appears that Ryan may be reconsidering this plan. Yet, assuming that the reports are confirmed, it is not clear what this means for international tax reform in this session of Congress.
Could international tax reform now be considered separately by the Ways and Means Committee? Or at a minimum, would Ways and Means release an international tax reform discussion draft?
Some have expressed beliefs that enacting even limited scope tax reform in the near future would be difficult and the chances of such reform becoming law this year, while not zero, would appear to be small. The potential implications of the possible tax law changes would be substantial, and some of the changes could affect businesses with solely domestic operations as well as those with multinational operations.
Proposals for international tax reform—and any related incentives such as the innovation box or “patent box” regime, even if unsuccessful, could be building blocks for future legislative efforts.
© 2016 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
The KPMG logo and name are trademarks of KPMG International. KPMG International is a Swiss cooperative that serves as a coordinating entity for a network of independent member firms. KPMG International provides no audit or other client services. Such services are provided solely by member firms in their respective geographic areas. KPMG International and its member firms are legally distinct and separate entities. They are not and nothing contained herein shall be construed to place these entities in the relationship of parents, subsidiaries, agents, partners, or joint venturers. No member firm has any authority (actual, apparent, implied or otherwise) to obligate or bind KPMG International or any member firm in any manner whatsoever. The information contained in herein is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavor to provide accurate and timely information, there can be no guarantee that such information is accurate as of the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. No one should act on such information without appropriate professional advice after a thorough examination of the particular situation. For more information, contact KPMG's Federal Tax Legislative and Regulatory Services Group at: + 1 202 533 4366, 1801 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20006.