Posts Tagged: "tax"

Transfer pricing refers to the prices charged for goods, services, and intellectual property (IP) between or among legal entities of a corporation, including a parent company and its domestic and foreign subsidiaries and other controlled entities (each entity a “Taxpayer”)… Many transfer pricing analyses are nuanced in nature, relying upon datasets, models, computations, comparisons, assumptions, and interpretations. When controlled entities are domiciled in respective different jurisdictions, multiple transfer pricing systems may apply. Transfer pricing determinations may substantially impact Taxpayers’ tax burden and profitability. In other words, though challenging to perform, transfer pricing analyses offer opportunities to obtain more favorable tax treatment.

More disturbing than the harmful effects the proposed changes would have – this signals a continuing approach toward patent rights as not being a property right, which contradicts the Patent Act and centuries of precedent. Indeed, the government’s destruction of the once great U.S. patent system is built upon a simple, yet scary philosophy: Where it matters, no one in government actually considers a patent to be a property right. If a patent is not a property right, a patent can be treated however the political winds blow (or political money flows). And that is exactly what has happened. So why not tax it more?

The rule treating the transfer of a patent prior to its commercial exploitation as being available for long-term capital gains treatment would be repealed… Obviously, it is disheartening to see Republican leadership move to treat patents in this way, which suggests they do not view patents as a private property right. Not viewing patents as a private property right has become a growing and disturbing trend.

User fees fund our patent system. The patent system turns ideas into assets. Those assets are used to secure financing and gain access to markets. Financing and market access fuel the rise of new industries, businesses, and jobs. Regrettably, however, those user fees are frequently diverted to fund other, unrelated government agencies and programs, which amounts to a tax on innovation.

Some states have decided that they can’t wait for a federal response on the collection of online sales tax, prompting them to enact their own measures. In Utah, where less than one percent of taxpayers actually pay the use tax they owe the state for Internet retail transactions, some state lawmakers have collaborated on crafting a bill that would give the state more power in collecting sales tax from online retailers, with or without a physical presence within the state. In South Carolina, January 1st of this year brought about the end of a tax break offered to Amazon for building a distribution center in that state. The collection of sales tax from Amazon sales to South Carolina consumers is expected to bring in about $13.8 million in additional tax revenue through 2016, according to projected revenues released by South Carolina’s tax department. The distribution centers built by Amazon serve as the physical in-state nexus which requires it to collect sales tax from South Carolina consumers.

Last week in Iowa Hillary Clinton promised to use patents owned by giant technology companies as leverage to get them to pay higher taxes. If you listen to the actual exchange between Clinton and a supporter Clinton agreed that patents should be suspended until companies repatriate foreign profits held in offshore accounts. A rule that tied paying taxes, or repatriation of foreign profits to the United States, to obtaining a patent would almost certainly create an extraordinary disincentive to seek a patent in the United States, which itself would lead to a nearly unimaginable parade of horribles at a time that the U.S. economy is nearly wholly reliant on innovation and technology.

The exact terms of a patent box will vary depending on what the drafter is trying to promote. For example, the tax preference could require that the profits be derived only from a patent secured in that country or that the patented product be the result of domestic R&D. The Boustany-Neal draft legislation is called the “innovation box” and would impose an effective tax rate of 10% on all innovation box profits by creating a deduction equal to 71% of a corporate taxpayer’s innovation box profit.