Temporary Regulations Issued on Foreign Tax Credit Splitting
First Annual Women of NABA Forum: Navigating Through Turbulent Times: Think Impact, Not Output

In Support of the Obama Administration’s Proposal to Reform the Corporate Tax Rules




Laura D’Andrea Tyson, a professor at the Haas School of Business at the University of California, Berkeley, wrote an article that was published on the NY Times online newspaper on March 9, 2012, entitled “The Merits of a Corporate Tax Overhaul”. 


She is open about her potential for bias - she served as chairwoman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Bill Clinton, and was a member of the Economic Recovery Advisory Board where the president recommended reforming the corporate tax code to limit loopholes, deductions, credits and other “tax expenditures. 


However, she presents the policy and rationale behind the Obama Administration’s proposals from the perspective of someone who is informed.  This makes her piece a very valuable read.  


Laura reminds us that “in a world of mobile capital, corporate tax rates matter.”  For this reason, she argues that it is essential for the United States to reduce its corporate tax rates to remain competitive.  The proposal includes a reduction in the corporate tax rate to 28 percent, which Laura identifies as being within the vicinity of the weighted average for statutory rates of the other O.E.C.D. countries, as well as broadening the tax base from which the United States can impose tax and reducing the tax preferences for pass-through businesses. 


Click here to read Laura’s entire article



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Actually, I'm not very familiar with how Swedish holding companies are most beneficial to corporate tax planning. The organizations that I've worked with in the past have typically used Irish, Dutch or Canadian holding companies. Do you have any additional information on this topic that you can share?

corporate tax planning

Swedish holding companies are supposed to be attractive for corporate tax planning purposes; do you know in which exact way they are favorable?

The comments to this entry are closed.