No Tax Breaks for Outsourcing Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Doggett, Lloyd [D-TX-37]
- Committees
- Ways and Means Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Feb 5, 2025
Bottom line
This bill seeks to increase U.S. tax revenue from multinational corporations by closing perceived loopholes and disincentivizing the shifting of profits and operations abroad.
What it actually does
H.R. 995, the "No Tax Breaks for Outsourcing Act," significantly reforms the taxation of multinational corporations by amending the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. It aims to eliminate tax incentives for companies to shift profits and operations offshore by requiring current year inclusion of net Controlled Foreign Corporation (CFC) tested income (GILTI), applying foreign tax credit limitations on a country-by-country basis, restricting interest deductions for international financial groups, strengthening anti-inversion rules, and treating certain foreign corporations managed in the U.S. as domestic for tax purposes.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that the bill levels the playing field for domestic businesses, prevents large corporations from avoiding U.S. taxes by moving profits overseas, and ensures that multinational corporations pay their fair share. They contend it will reduce outsourcing, strengthen the U.S. tax base, and fund critical domestic investments.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that these changes could make U.S. companies less competitive globally, increase their tax burden, and potentially lead to them relocating headquarters or operations to countries with more favorable tax regimes. They may also contend that the complexity of the new rules could create administrative burdens and uncertainty for businesses.
The bill is highly technical and requires significant expertise to fully understand its implications. The time given for public review, especially for a bill of this complexity, would ideally be substantial to allow for thorough analysis by affected parties and experts.
Sec. 2
Current Year Inclusion of Net CFC Tested Income (GILTI Reform)
This section significantly alters the taxation of Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income (GILTI). It repeals the 10% deemed return on qualified business asset investment (QBAI), meaning all net CFC tested income would be immediately included in a U.S. shareholder's gross income. It also repeals the 50% deduction for GILTI (Section 250), effectively taxing GILTI at the full corporate rate. Furthermore, it increases the deemed paid foreign tax credit for GILTI from 80% to 100% and applies GILTI calculations on a country-by-country basis. It also repeals the high-tax exclusion for foreign base company income and insurance income and eliminates the carryback of foreign tax credits. Finally, it treats foreign base company oil-related income as Subpart F income.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue these changes close significant loopholes that allow multinational corporations to pay little to no U.S. tax on foreign profits, especially those generated from intangible assets. They contend it incentivizes companies to keep profits and operations in the U.S. and ensures a fairer tax system.
Critics contend
Critics would argue that eliminating the QBAI exclusion and the Section 250 deduction makes the U.S. tax system less competitive compared to other countries, potentially driving U.S. companies to invert or relocate operations. They might also argue that the complexity of the new rules could create significant compliance burdens.
Tradeoffs
The tension is between increasing U.S. tax revenue and maintaining the global competitiveness of U.S. multinational corporations. While it aims to prevent profit shifting, it could also disincentivize foreign investment or lead to higher effective tax rates for U.S. companies operating abroad.
Sec. 3
Country-by-Country Foreign Tax Credit Limitation
This section mandates that the foreign tax credit (FTC) limitation be applied separately for each country where a U.S. taxpayer or its foreign subsidiaries (CFCs) have a "taxable unit." A "taxable unit" can be the taxpayer itself, a foreign corporation, an interest in a pass-through entity, or a branch. This prevents companies from averaging high foreign taxes paid in one country with low foreign taxes paid in another to maximize their U.S. foreign tax credits. It also treats U.S. possessions as separate countries for this purpose.
Sec. 4
Interest Deduction Limitation for International Financial Groups
This section limits the interest deduction for U.S. domestic corporations that are part of an "international financial reporting group" (a multinational group with consolidated financial statements and over $100 million in average gross receipts). The deduction is capped based on an "allowable percentage" derived from the corporation's share of the group's global reported net interest expense, relative to its EBITDA (Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation, and Amortization). This aims to prevent multinational groups from disproportionately allocating interest expense to their U.S. entities to reduce U.S. taxable income. Disallowed interest can be carried forward for five years.
Sec. 5
Strengthening Anti-Inversion Rules
This section significantly strengthens the rules designed to prevent corporate inversions (where a U.S. company reincorporates abroad to reduce its U.S. tax burden while maintaining U.S. operations). It lowers the ownership threshold for a foreign corporation to be treated as a domestic corporation from 80% to 60% if former U.S. shareholders retain that much ownership. Crucially, it introduces a new "inverted domestic corporation" definition: if, after an acquisition of a U.S. entity, more than 50% of the foreign entity's stock is held by former U.S. shareholders, OR if the management and control of the expanded affiliated group is primarily in the U.S. AND the group has significant domestic business activities (at least 25% of employees, compensation, assets, or income in the U.S.), then the foreign corporation is treated as domestic. It also applies retroactively to taxable years ending after December 22, 2017.
Sec. 6
U.S. Management and Control Test for Corporate Residency
This section introduces a new rule treating certain foreign corporations as domestic corporations solely for income tax purposes if their "management and control" occurs primarily within the United States. This applies to corporations whose stock is regularly traded on an established securities market or whose aggregate gross assets are $50 million or more. Management and control is considered primarily in the U.S. if substantially all executive officers and senior management making strategic, financial, and operational decisions are located primarily in the U.S. For corporations primarily holding investment assets, management and control is in the U.S. if investment decisions are made in the U.S. This provision has an effective date two years after enactment.
Amends Section 904(c) and 907(f) to eliminate the carryback of foreign tax credits, allowing only a 10-year carryforward.
Sec. 2(i)
Why it matters:This is a technical change to a complex area of tax law. While it has a significant impact, it's often seen as a detail within broader international tax reform rather than a standalone policy. Its placement is standard for conforming amendments or related technical adjustments within a larger section.
Case for: Proponents argue that eliminating carrybacks simplifies the tax code and prevents companies from using past foreign tax credits to offset current U.S. tax liabilities, thereby increasing current year tax collections. It aligns with the overall goal of increasing U.S. tax revenue from foreign earnings.
Case against: Opponents contend that eliminating carrybacks reduces flexibility for companies managing their global tax burden, especially those with volatile foreign income or tax rates. It could lead to more "stranded" foreign tax credits that expire unused, effectively increasing the U.S. tax burden on foreign income.
Estimated impact: Likely increases U.S. tax revenue, particularly for companies with fluctuating foreign tax positions.
If the normal period of limitation on assessment for tax resulting from the anti-inversion amendments (Sec. 5(a)) expires before the end of a 3-year period beginning on the date of enactment, assessment may still be made before the close of that 3-year period.
Sec. 5(d)
Why it matters:This is a standard enforcement mechanism for retroactive tax changes, ensuring the IRS has sufficient time to audit and assess taxes under the new rules. Its placement is typical for such administrative provisions.
Case for: Proponents argue this is necessary to ensure the anti-inversion rules, particularly their retroactive application, can be effectively enforced. Without it, companies that inverted in the past might escape the intended tax consequences due to expiring statutes of limitations.
Case against: Opponents might argue that this further exacerbates the concerns about retroactivity, extending the period of uncertainty and potential liability for past transactions. It could be seen as an aggressive enforcement measure.
Estimated impact: Facilitates collection of potentially significant back taxes from previously inverted corporations.