The destination-based
border adjustment tax.
I have been reading about it recently.
If you
cannot distinguish it from a value-added tax, a national sales tax, a tariff or
all-you-can eat Wednesdays at Ruby Tuesday, you are in good company.
Let’s talk
about it. We need an example company and exemplary numbers. Here is one. Let’s
call it Mortimer. Mortimer’s most recent (and highly compressed) income
statement numbers are as follows:
Sales
|
10,000,000
|
||
Cost of sales
|
(3,500,000)
|
||
Operating expenses
|
(4,000,000)
|
||
Net profit
|
2,500,000
|
How much federal tax is Mortimer going to pay? Using a 34% federal rate, Mortimer will pay $850,000 ($2,500,000 * 34%).
Cue the
crazy stuff….
A new tax
will bring its own homeboy tax definitions. One is “WTO,” or World Trade
Organization, of which the U.S. is a part and whose purpose is to liberalize
world trade. The WTO is a fan of “indirect taxes,” such as excise taxes and the
Value Added Tax (VAT). The WTO is not so much a fan of “direct taxes,” such as
the U.S. corporate tax. To get some of their ideas to pass WTO muster,
Congressional Republicans and think-tankers have to reconfigure our corporate
income tax to mimic the look and feel of an indirect tax.
One way to
do that is to disallow deductions for Operating Expenses. An example of an
operating expense would be wages.
As a CPA by
training and experience, hearing that wages are not a deductible business
expense strikes me as ludicrous. Let us nonetheless continue.
Our tax base
becomes $6,500,000 (that is, $10,000,000 – 3,500,000) once we leave out
operating expenses.
Not feeling
so good about this development, are we?
Well, to
have a prayer of ever getting out of the Congressional sub-subcommittee dungeon
of everlasting fuhgett-about-it, the tax rate is going to have to come down
substantially. What if the rate drops from 35% to 20%?
I see
$6,500,000 times 20% = $1,300,000.
Well, this
is stinking up the joint.
VATs normally
allow one to deduct capital expenditures. We did not adjust for that. Say that
Mortimer spent $1,500,000 on machinery, equipment and what-not during the year,
What do the numbers now look like?
- Sales 10,000,000
- Cost of Sales 3,500,000
- Operating Expenses 4,000,000
- Capital Additions 1,500,000
I am seeing
$5,000,000 ($10,000,000 – 3,500,000 – 1,500,000) times 20% = $1,000,000 tax.
Still not in
like with this thing.
Let’s jump
on the sofa a bit. What if we not tax the sale if it is an export? We want to
encourage exports, with the goal of improving the trade deficit and diminishing
any incentive for companies to invert or just leave the U.S. altogether.
Here are
some updated numbers:
- Sales 10,000,000 (export $3,000,000)
- Cost of Sales 3,500,000
- Operating Expenses 4,000,000
- Capital Additions 1,500,000
I see a tax
of: (($10,000,000 – 3,000,000) – (3,500,000 + 1,500,000) * 20% = 2,000,000 *
20% = $400,000 federal tax.
Looks like
Mortimer does OK in this scenario.
What if Mortimer
buys some of its products from overseas?
Oh oh.
Here are
some updated, updated numbers:
- Sales 10,000,000
- Cost of Sales 3,500,000 (import $875,000)
- Operating Expenses 4,000,000
- Capital Additions 1,500,000
This border
thing is a two-edged blade. The adjustment likes it when you export, but it
doesn’t like it when you import. It may even dislike it enough to disallow a
deduction for what you import.
I see a tax
of: ($10,000,000 – (3,500,000 - 875,000) – 1,500,000) * 20% = 5,875,000 * 20% =
$1,175,000 federal tax.
Mortimer is not
doing so fine under this scenario. In fact, Mortimer would be happy to just
leave things as they are.
Substitute
“Target” or “Ford” for “Mortimer” and you have a better understanding of recent
headlines. It all depends on whether you import or export, it seems, and to
what degree.
By the way,
the “border adjustment” part means the exclusion of export income and no
deduction for import cost of sales. The “destination” part means dividing
Mortimer’s income statement into imports and exports to begin with.
We’ll be
hearing about this – probably to ad nauseum – in the coming months.
And the
elephant in the room will be clearing any change through the appropriate
international organizations. The idea that business expenses – such as labor,
for example – will be nondeductible will ring very odd to an American audience.