Pfizer Wants To Decrease Its Taxes By Moving To Britain

I am reading the following headline at Bloomberg Businessweek: “Pfizer’s $99 Billion Bid for AstraZeneca Is a Tax Shelter.”

No, it is not. This is a tax shelter the same way I am Floyd Mayweather Jr.’s next opponent.

It is sign of a problem, though.

Pfizer is based in New York City. AstraZeneca is based in London. Pfizer has proposed the deal, but AstraZeneca has not yet accepted. The deal may fall yet fall through. There are any number of reasons why a drug company would buy another drug company, but this one would move one of the largest U.S. multinationals to London. The term for this is “inversion.”

Mind you: the Pfizer executives are not moving. They will remain in New York, and Pfizer research facilities will remain in Connecticut. Pfizer will however go from being a U.S.-based multinational to a U.K.-based one. How? There will be a new parent company, and that parent will be based in London. Voila!

Inversions are more complicated than they used to be. In 2004 Congress passed IRC Section 7874, which denies tax benefits to an inversion unless certain thresholds are met. For example,

·       If the former shareholders of the former U.S. parent own 80% or more of the foreign corporation after the inversion, then the inverted company will continue to be considered – and taxed – as a U.S. company.

You can quickly assume that new – and non-U.S. shareholders – will own more than 20% of the new Pfizer parent.

What if you own Pfizer stock? In addition to owning less than 80% of the new parent, code Section 367 is going to tax you when Pfizer inverts. This is considered an “outbound” transaction, and there is a “toll” tax on the outbound. What does that tell you? It tells you that there has to be cash in the deal, otherwise you are voting against it. There has to be at least enough cash for the U.S. shareholders to pay the toll.

Let’s say the deal happens. Then what?

I cannot speak about the drug pipeline and clinical trials and so forth. I can speak about the tax part of the deal, however.

As a U.S. multinational, Pfizer has to pay taxes on its worldwide income. This means that that it pays U.S. taxes on profits earned in Kansas City, as well as in Bonn, Cairo, Mumbai and Sydney. To the extent that a competitor in Germany, Egypt, India or Australia has lower tax rates, Pfizer is at an immediate disadvantage. In the short term, Pfizer would be less profitable than its overseas competitor. In the long term, Pfizer would move overseas. Congress realized this and allowed tax breaks on these overseas profits. Pfizer doesn’t have to pay taxes until it brings the profits back to the United States, for example. Clever tax planners learned quickly how to bend, pull and stretch that requirement, so Congress passed additional rules saying that certain types of income (referred to as “Subpart F” income) would be immediately taxed, irrespective of whether the income was ever returned to the United States. The planners responded to that, and the IRS to them, and we now have an almost incomprehensible area of tax Code.

Take a moment, though, and consider what Congress did. If you made your bones overseas, you could delay paying taxes until you brought the money back to the U.S. Then you would have to pay tax – but at a higher rate than your competitor in Germany, Egypt, India or Australia. You delayed the pain, but you did not avert it. In the end, your competitor is still better off than you, as he/she got to keep more of his/her profit.

What do you do? Well, one thing you cannot do is ever return the profit to the United States. You will expand your overseas location, establish new markets, perhaps buy another – and foreign – company. What you will not do is ship the money home.

How much money has Pfizer stashed overseas? I have read different amounts, but $70 billion seems to be a common estimate.

When Pfizer inverts, it may be able to repatriate that money to the U.S. without paying the inbound toll. That is a lot of money to free up. I could use it.

The U.S. also has one of the highest – in truth, maybe the highest – corporate tax rate in the world. The U.K. taxes corporate profits at 20%, compared to the U.S. 35%. The U.K. also taxes profits on U.K. patents at 10%, an even lower rate. This is a pharmaceutical company, folks. They have more patents than Reese’s has pieces. And the U.K. taxes only the profits generated in the U.K., which is a 180 degree turn from Washington’s insistence that it can tax profits of an American company anywhere on the planet.

Now, Pfizer does not get to avoid U.S. taxes altogether. It will still pay U.S. tax on profits from its U.S. sales and activities. The difference is that it will not pay U.S. taxes on sales and activities occurring outside the United States.

Since 2012 approximately 15 large U.S. companies have moved or announced plans to move offshore. Granted, there are numerous reasons why, but a significant – and common – reason has to be the benighted policy of U.S. multinational taxation. What has the White House proposed to stem the tide? Increase the ownership threshold from 20% to 50% before the company will be deemed based outside the U.S.

Brilliant.  To think that Washington at one time pulled off the Manhattan Project, Hoover Dam and landing a man on the moon. How far the apple has fallen.

The issue of corporate inversion has been swept up as part of the larger discussion on tax reform. That discussion is all but dead, unfortunately, although perhaps it may resurrect after the Congressional elections. The Camp tax proposal wants to move the U.S. to a territorial tax system rather than the existing worldwide system, which is an acknowledgement of the problem and a very good first step. It will not stop Pfizer, but we may able to stop the next company to follow.

Why Would a 100+ Year-Old Ohio Company Move To Ireland?

Consider the following statements:

• Eaton Corp acquired Cooper Industries for $13 billion, the largest acquisition in the Cleveland manufacturer's 101-year history.
• Cooper Industries is based in Houston and incorporated in Ireland.
• Eaton Corp incorporated a new company in Ireland - Eaton Corp., plc.
• Eaton Corp will wind up as a subsidiary of Eaton Corp. plc.
• The new company will have about 100,000 employees in 150 countries. It will have annual sales in excess of $20 billion.

This transaction is called an inversion. Visualize it this way: the top of the ladder (Eaton Corp) now becomes a subsidiary – that is, it moved down the ladder. It inverted.

 

To a tax planner this is an “outbound” transaction, and it brings onto the pitch one of the most near-incomprehensible areas of the tax code – Section 367. This construct entered the Code in the 1930s in response to the following little trick:

1. A U.S. taxpayer would transfer appreciated assets to a foreign corporation in a tax haven country. Many times these assets were stocks and bonds, as they were easy to sell. Believe it or not, Canada was a popular destination for this.
2. The corporation would sell the assets at little or no tax.
3. The corporation, flush with cash, would merge back into a U.S. company.
4. The U.S. taxpayer thus had cash and had deftly sidestepped U.S. corporate tax.

OBSERVATION: It sounds like it was much easier to be a tax planner back in the 1930s.

The initial concept of Section 367 was relatively easy to follow: what drove the above transactions was the tax planner’s ability to make most or all the transactions tax-free.  To do this, planners primarily used corporations. This in turn allowed the planner to use incorporations, mergers, reorganizations and divisives to peel assets away from the U.S.  Congress in turn passed this little beauty:

            367(a)(1)General rule.—

If, in connection with any exchange described in section 332, 351, 354, 356, or 361, a United States person transfers property to a foreign corporation, such foreign corporation shall not, for purposes of determining the extent to which gain shall be recognized on such transfer, be considered to be a corporation.

Congress said that – if one wanted to play that appreciated-stock-to-a-Canadian-company game again - it would not permit the Canadian company to be treated as a corporation. As the tax-free status required both parties to be corporations, the game was halted. There were exceptions, of course, otherwise legitimate business transactions would grind to a halt. Then there were exceptions to exceptions, which the planners exploited, to which the IRS responded, and so on to the present day.

By 2004 the planners had gotten very good. Congress passed another law – Section 7874 – to address inversions. It introduced the term “surrogate foreign corporation,” which – as initially drafted – could have pulled a foreign corporation owned by foreign investors with no U.S. operations or U.S. history into the orbit of U.S. taxation. How?

Let’s look at this horror show:

7874(a)(2)(B)Surrogate foreign corporation.—

A foreign corporation shall be treated as a surrogate foreign corporation if, pursuant to a plan (or a series of related transactions)—

7874(a)(2)(B)(i) 

the entity completes … the direct or indirect acquisition of substantially all of the properties … held directly or indirectly by a domestic corporation or substantially all of the properties … of a domestic partnership,

7874(a)(2)(B)(ii) 

after the acquisition at least 60 percent of the stock … is held by former shareholders of the domestic corporation by reason of holding stock in the domestic corporation,

7874(a)(2)(B)(iii) 

after the acquisition the …entity does not have substantial business activities in the foreign country … when compared to the total business activities of such expanded affiliated group.

How can this blow up? Let me give you an example:

• Foreign individuals form a domestic U.S. corporation (Hamilton U.S.) under the laws of Delaware.
• Hamilton U.S. makes a ton of money (not relevant but it makes me happy).
• All shareholders of Hamilton U.S. are either nonresident aliens or a foreign corporation (Hamilton International) also owned by the same shareholders.
• The shareholders have never resided nor have any other business interest in the U.S.
• Hamilton International was formed outside the U.S. and has no other business interest in the U.S.
• The shareholders decide to make Hamilton U.S. a subsidiary of Hamilton International.
• The shareholders have a Board meeting in Leeds and transfer their shares in Hamilton U.S. to Hamilton International. They then head to the pub for a pint.

Let’s pace this out:

• Hamilton U.S. would be subject to U.S. taxation on its operations, as the operations occur exclusively within the U.S. This result is not affected by who owns Hamilton U.S.
• We will meet the threshold of 7874(a)(2)(B)(i) as a foreign corporation acquired substantially all (heck, it acquired all) the properties of a domestic corporation.
• We will meet the threshold of 7874(a)(2)(B)(ii) as more than 60% of the shareholders remain the same. In fact, 100% of the shareholders remain the same.
• We will meet the threshold of 7874(a)(2)(B)(iii) as the business activities are in the U.S., not in the foreign country.

We now have the possibility – and absurdity – that Hamilton International is a “surrogate foreign corporation” and taxable in the U.S. Granted, in our example this doesn’t mean much, as Hamilton International’s only asset is stock in Hamilton U.S., which has to pay U.S. tax anyway. Still, it is an example of the swamp of U.S. tax law.

Let’s get back to Eaton.

Why would Eaton make itself a subsidiary of an Irish parent?

It is not moving to Ireland. Eaton will retain its presence in northern Ohio, and Cooper will remain in Houston. Remember that business activities in the United States will be taxable to the U.S., irrespective of the international parent. What then is the point of the inversion? The point is that more than one-half the new company will be outside the U.S., and the international parent keeps that portion away from the IRS. Remember also that Ireland has a 12.5% tax rate, as opposed to the U.S. 35% rate.

There is another consideration. Placing Eaton in Ireland allows the tax planners to move the treasury function outside the U.S. What is a treasury function? It is lingo for the budgeting, management and investment of cash. Considering that this is a $20 billion company, there is a lot of cash flow. Treasury is a candidate for what has been called “stateless” income.

           

There is more. Now the development of patents and intellectual property can now be sitused outside the United States. By the way, this is a key reason why virtually all (if not all) pharmaceutical and technology companies have presence outside of the United States. It is very difficult to create intellectual property in the U.S. and then move it offshore. How does a tax advisor plan for that? By never placing the intellectual property in the U.S.

           

And the point of all this: Eaton has estimated that the combined companies would realize annual tax savings of about $160 million by 2016.

In 2002, Senator Charles Grassley, then the top Republican on the Finance Committee, called inversion transactions “immoral.”  That ironically was also the year that Cooper Industries inverted to Bermuda, and it later moved to Ireland. The Obama administration has proposed disallowing tax deductions for companies moving outside the United States. Nothing has come of that proposal.

The U.S. policy of worldwide taxation goes back to the League of Nations, when the U.S. thought that advanced nations would eventually move to its side. That did not happen, and with time, many nations moved instead to a territorial system. The U.S. is now the outlier. Our tax policy now presumes irrational economics. I am not going to advise a client to pay more tax just because Senator Grassley thinks they should. 

I will take this step further: many tax planners believe that it may be malpractice NOT to consider placing as much activity offshore as reasonably possible. There is more than a snowball’s chance that I could be sued for advising a client as the Senator wants.

I am glad that Eaton kept its jobs in Ohio. It is unfortunate that it had to go through these gymnastics, though.