Repatriation tax avoidance

Last updated February 10, 2023

Repatriation tax avoidance is the legal use of a tax regime within a country in order to repatriate income earned by foreign subsidiaries to a parent corporation while avoiding taxes ordinarily owed to the parent's country on the repatriation of foreign income.^[1] Prior to the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, multinational firms based in the United States owed the U.S. government taxes on worldwide income.^[2] Companies avoided taxes on the repatriation of income earned abroad through a variety of strategies involving the use of mergers and acquisitions.^[1]^[2] Three main types of strategies emerged and were given names—the "Killer B", "Deadly D", and "Outbound F"—each of which took advantage of a different area of the Internal Revenue Code to conduct tax-exempt corporate reorganizations.^[1]

The application of repatriation tax avoidance strategies has drawn public scrutiny. Several large corporate acquisitions have involved significant repatriation tax avoidance strategies, including Merck & Co.'s acquisition of Schering-Plough and Johnson & Johnson's acquisition of Synthes.^[3] The use of repatriation tax avoidance strategies has been compared with the use of Double Irish arrangements to avoid taxes, though the two tax avoidance plans differ in the sorts of taxes that they allow a company to avoid. Double Irish arrangements have allowed multinational companies to avoid taxes owed to countries in which foreign subsidiaries of a U.S.-based multinational corporation are incorporated. Repatriation tax avoidance strategies, however, have allowed U.S.-domiciled companies to avoid owing taxes to the United States.

Background

Until the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, international firms based in the United States owed the federal government taxes on income earned worldwide.^[2] However, rather than collecting taxes during the year the income was earned, the United States only required companies to pay taxes on earnings that had been repatriated to the United States.^[4]^[3] During this time, companies employed strategies to repatriate some of their income from overseas while avoiding tax liabilities ordinarily associated with foreign earnings repatriation. Several strategies to avoid owing repatriation taxes to the United States government involved the creative use of mergers and acquisitions.^[3]^[5] The cost associated with repatriating income is not consistent across firms, and there is an association between the tax cost of repatriating foreign income to the United States and the probability that a firm will choose to make a domestic acquisition.^[3]

Strategies

United States

Numerous strategies have been employed by firms based in the United States in order to reduce their taxes owed through the use of international corporate acquisitions.^[1]^[5] These include acquisition strategies known as the "Killer B", "Deadly D", and "Outbound F".^[1]^[2]^[6]

These three strategies facilitate tax avoidance through careful planning of transactions; a U.S.-based multinational corporation does not technically repatriate foreign profits when the strategies are followed.^[1] Instead, a company performs a set of transactions that are classified as a "reorganization" under Section 368(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code.^[1]^[3] The advantage of performing these transactions is that such "reorganizations" are not taxed.^[3]^[5] However, companies structure these reorganization so as to, from an economic perspective, move cash from foreign subsidiaries into the United States while financing a corporate acquisition, thereby avoiding the tax on repatriated profits that they would ordinarily have to pay if a company were to directly repatriate the profits.^[1]^[3]

Internal Revenue Code Section 368(a)(1)

The phrasing of Section 368(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code, which defines a corporate "reorganization" under U.S. Law, has enabled for multinational corporations to classify certain types of acquisitions as tax-exempt corporate reorganizations.^[1] This allows companies to repatriate income earned abroad tax-free when that income is used creatively to finance an acquisition.^[1] Some of these techniques have been named; those that have are generally named after the particular subsection of the Internal Revenue Code that is exploited when they are used.^[1]

Killer B

The "Killer B" strategy is a tax-avoidance strategy that reduces a firm's taxes owed on the repatriation of foreign cash used in the acquisition of another firm through the classification of an acquisition as a reorganization provided by Section 368(a)(1)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code.^[1]^[7] The use of this strategy requires the creation of an arrangement in which the parent corporation provides stock to a foreign subsidiary in exchange for cash,^[7] with the subsidiary then using the stock to acquire another company.^[1]^[5] This cash transferred from the foreign subsidiary to the parent company would be exempt from taxation.^[1]^[5] According to a 2011 report, the Internal Revenue Service had gained increasing success in disallowing the use of this tax avoidance strategy since 2006.^[8]

Deadly D

The "Deadly D" strategy is a tax-avoidance strategy that utilizes Section 368(a)(1)(D) of the Internal Revenue code in order to reduce a firm's taxes owed on the repatriation of foreign cash used in the acquisition of another firm.^[7]^[9] In order to use this strategy, a parent corporation must first directly acquire a corporation, and then sell the ownership of the newly acquired corporation to a foreign subsidiary in exchange for cash.^[1] This allows for foreign cash to be effectively used to finance the acquisition of the newly acquired company without the parent corporation incurring tax liability on the repatriation of that cash.^[1]^[5]

Outbound F

The "Outbound F" strategy is a tax-avoidance strategy that utilizes Section Section 368(a)(1)(F) of the Internal Revenue code in order to repatriate foreign-earned income without incurring taxes owed.^[1]^[10] This strategy is a multi-step process that begins when the parent company acquires another company by purchasing it with stock and then forces the newly acquired company to post a bond to the parent itself.^[1]^[7] Next, the newly acquired company is transformed into a foreign subsidiary of the parent corporation, which then borrows money from other foreign-owned subsidiaries of the parent company in order to pay off the bond posted.^[1]^[7] This allows for the effective repatriation of cash up to the amount of the sum of the bond's principle and interest to be done without incurring tax liability.^[1]^[3]

Examples

The tax advantages for multinational corporations of financing acquisitions using cash held abroad are widely known and have been utilized by several multinationals to avoid repatriation taxes,^[5] though the frequency of the use of these techniques is not known.^[1] Each of the Big Four accounting firms have created public presentations describing the legal mechanisms that undergird these types of strategies as well as the procedural steps needed to implement them.^[1]

Merck & Co.'s acquisition of Schering-Plough

In 2009, Merck & Co. used a variation of the Outbound F strategy in order to move over $9 billion from overseas into the United States without owing repatriation taxes during its purchase of Schering-Plough, avoiding $3 billion in tax liability.^[1]^[3] As a part of the deal foreign subsidiaries owned by Merck lent money to subsidiaries of Schering-Plough, which in turn used the funds to repay a loan owed by the subsidiaries of Schering-Plough to the parent corporation.^[3]^[5] As the parent corporation of Schering-Plough was acquired by Merck & Co., this amounted to the effective repatriation of overseas cash by Merck & Co. for use in an acquisition without owing repatriation taxes to the United States.^[3]^[5]^[11]

Johnson & Johnson's acquisition of Synthes

In 2012, Johnson & Johnson (J&J) acquired Synthes in a cash-and-stock deal that involved the significant use of repatriation tax avoidance techniques.^[3]^[12]The Wall Street Journal reports that, two days prior to the acquisition closing, "J&J unveiled a complicated new structure for the cash and stock deal. Its Irish subsidiary, Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc., paid for Synthes with J&J's untaxed foreign cash holdings. Then, by transferring Synthes into another of J&J's foreign subsidiaries and dissolving Synthes before the end of the quarter, the pharmaceutical giant escaped the tax hit, according to a person familiar with the deal."^[12] Six weeks after the acquisition closed, the Internal Revenue Service issued an rule described as an "anti-abuse rule" that was designed to make similar tax avoidance techniques more difficult to use going forward.^[3]^[12]

Relationship with Double Irish arrangements

The Double Irish with a Dutch Sandwich constituted a widely used base erosion and profit shifting scheme that allowed United States-based multinational companies to legally avoid paying taxes on income earned abroad.^[7] The arrangement required the creation of three subsidiary companies: an Ireland-registered subsidiary that is a tax resident of Bermuda (IE Co. 1), an Ireland-registered subsidiary that is a tax resident of Ireland (IE Co. 2), and a Netherlands-registered subsidiary (NET Co.).^[1]^[7] The U.S.-based multinational would sell certain intellectual property rights to IE Co. 1, which would in turn license those intellectual property rights to NET Co in exchange for royalty payments proceeding from the use of the intellectual property.^[7] NET Co. would in turn license its intellectual property rights to IE Co. 2 in exchange for royalty payments, allowing to use the intellectual property for its products or services.^[7] In effect, this would allow for almost no taxes to be owed on income generated from the licensed intellectual property; Ireland itself has a low corporate tax rate and the payments royalty payment scheme allows for the profits on the sale of any goods or services related to the intellectual property to appear on the books of IE Co. 1, which is a tax resident of a country that has a 0% corporate tax rate.^[1]^[7]

While the Double Irish arrangement allowed for U.S. multinationals to owe little to no taxes on income earned by its subsidiaries abroad, the arrangement did not allow companies to move cash from foreign subsidiaries into the United States without incurring tax liability; income directly repatriated from a foreign subsidiary historically resulted in taxes being owed on that income.^[7]^[11] In order to avoid owing taxes to the U.S. government when using income earned abroad to finance transactions that involved a U.S. firm, U.S.-based multinational corporations utilized repatriation tax avoidance strategies that included the Killer B, Deadly D, and Outbound F.^[1]^[7]

Related Research Articles

Corporate haven, corporate tax haven, or multinational tax haven is used to describe a jurisdiction that multinational corporations find attractive for establishing subsidiaries or incorporation of regional or main company headquarters, mostly due to favourable tax regimes, and/or favourable secrecy laws, and/or favourable regulatory regimes.

A multinational company (MNC), also referred to as a multinational enterprise (MNE), a transnational enterprise (TNE), a transnational corporation (TNC), an international corporation or a stateless corporation with subtle but contrasting senses, is a corporate organization that owns and controls the production of goods or services in at least one country other than its home country. Control is considered an important aspect of an MNC, to distinguish it from international portfolio investment organizations, such as some international mutual funds that invest in corporations abroad simply to diversify financial risks. Black's Law Dictionary suggests that a company or group should be considered a multinational corporation "if it derives 25% or more of its revenue from out-of-home-country operations".

Tax avoidance is the legal usage of the tax regime in a single territory to one's own advantage to reduce the amount of tax that is payable by means that are within the law. A tax shelter is one type of tax avoidance, and tax havens are jurisdictions that facilitate reduced taxes. Tax avoidance should not be confused with tax evasion, which is illegal.

Ireland's Corporate Tax System is a central component of Ireland's economy. In 2016–17, foreign firms paid 80% of Irish corporate tax, employed 25% of the Irish labour force, and created 57% of Irish OECD non-farm value-add. As of 2017, 25 of the top 50 Irish firms were U.S.–controlled businesses, representing 70% of the revenue of the top 50 Irish firms. By 2018, Ireland had received the most U.S. § Corporate tax inversions in history, and Apple was over one–fifth of Irish GDP. Academics rank Ireland as the largest tax haven; larger than the Caribbean tax haven system.

Taxation in Ireland in 2017 came from Personal Income taxes, and Consumption taxes, being VAT and Excise and Customs duties. Corporation taxes represents most of the balance, but Ireland's Corporate Tax System (CT) is a central part of Ireland's economic model. Ireland summarises its taxation policy using the OECD's Hierarchy of Taxes pyramid, which emphasises high corporate tax rates as the most harmful types of taxes where economic growth is the objective. The balance of Ireland's taxes are Property taxes and Capital taxes.

Tax consolidation, or combined reporting, is a regime adopted in the tax or revenue legislation of a number of countries which treats a group of wholly owned or majority-owned companies and other entities as a single entity for tax purposes. This generally means that the head entity of the group is responsible for all or most of the group's tax obligations. Consolidation is usually an all-or-nothing event: once the decision to consolidate has been made, companies are irrevocably bound. Only by having less than a 100% interest in a subsidiary can that subsidiary be left out of the consolidation.

Corporate tax is imposed in the United States at the federal, most state, and some local levels on the income of entities treated for tax purposes as corporations. Since January 1, 2018, the nominal federal corporate tax rate in the United States of America is a flat 21% following the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. State and local taxes and rules vary by jurisdiction, though many are based on federal concepts and definitions. Taxable income may differ from book income both as to timing of income and tax deductions and as to what is taxable. The corporate Alternative Minimum Tax was also eliminated by the 2017 reform, but some states have alternative taxes. Like individuals, corporations must file tax returns every year. They must make quarterly estimated tax payments. Groups of corporations controlled by the same owners may file a consolidated return.

A tax inversion or corporate tax inversion is a form of tax avoidance where a corporation restructures so that the current parent is replaced by a foreign parent, and the original parent company becomes a subsidiary of the foreign parent, thus moving its tax residence to the foreign country. Executives and operational headquarters can stay in the original country. The US definition requires that the original shareholders remain a majority control of the post-inverted company.

The Double Irish arrangement was a base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) corporate tax avoidance tool used mostly by United States multinationals since the late 1980s to avoid corporate taxation on non-U.S. profits. It was the largest tax avoidance tool in history and by 2010 was shielding US$100 billion annually in US multinational foreign profits from taxation, and was the main tool by which US multinationals built up untaxed offshore reserves of US$1 trillion from 2004 to 2018. Traditionally, it was also used with the Dutch Sandwich BEPS tool; however, 2010 changes to tax laws in Ireland dispensed with this requirement.

Base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) refers to corporate tax planning strategies used by multinationals to "shift" profits from higher-tax jurisdictions to lower-tax jurisdictions or no-tax locations where there is little or no economic activity, thus "eroding" the "tax-base" of the higher-tax jurisdictions using deductible payments such as interest or royalties. For the government, the tax base is a company's income or profit. Tax is levied as a percentage on this income/profit. When that income / profit is transferred to another country or tax haven, the tax base is eroded and the company does not pay taxes to the country that is generating the income. As a result, tax revenues are reduced and the government is detained. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) define BEPS strategies as "exploiting gaps and mismatches in tax rules". While some of the tactics are illegal, the majority are not. Because businesses that operate across borders can utilize BEPS to obtain a competitive edge over domestic businesses, it affects the righteousness and integrity of tax systems. Furthermore, it lessens deliberate compliance, when taxpayers notice multinationals legally avoiding corporate income taxes. Because developing nations rely more heavily on corporate income tax, they are disproportionately affected by BEPS.

Companies of the United States with untaxed profits deals with those U.S. companies whose offshore subsidiaries earn profits which are retained in foreign countries to defer paying U.S. corporate tax. The profits of United States corporations are subject to a federal corporate tax rate of 21%. In principle, the tax is payable on all profits of corporations, whether earned domestically or abroad. However, overseas subsidiaries of U.S. corporations are entitled to a tax deferral of profits on active income until repatriated to the U.S., and are regarded as untaxed. When repatriated, the corporations are entitled to a foreign tax credit for taxes paid in foreign countries.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Dutch Sandwich</span> Dutch withholding tax avoidance tool

Dutch Sandwich is a base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) corporate tax tool, used mostly by U.S. multinationals to avoid incurring EU withholding taxes on untaxed profits as they were being moved to non-EU tax havens. These untaxed profits could have originated from within the EU, or from outside the EU, but in most cases were routed to major EU corporate-focused tax havens, such as Ireland and Luxembourg, by the use of other BEPS tools. The Dutch Sandwich was often used with Irish BEPS tools such as the Double Irish, the Single Malt and the Capital Allowances for Intangible Assets ("CAIA") tools. In 2010, Ireland changed its tax-code to enable Irish BEPS tools to avoid such withholding taxes without needing a Dutch Sandwich.

Bermuda black hole refers to base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) tax avoidance schemes in which untaxed global profits end up in Bermuda, which is considered a tax haven. The term was most associated with US technology multinationals such as Apple and Google who used Bermuda as the "terminus" for their Double Irish arrangement tax structure.

The Tax Attractiveness Index (T.A.X.) indicates the attractiveness of a country's tax environment and the possibilities of tax planning for companies. The T.A.X. is constructed for 100 countries worldwide starting from 2005 on. The index covers 20 equally weighted components of real-world tax systems which are relevant for corporate location decisions. The index ranges between zero and one. The more the index values approaches one, the more attractive is the tax environment of a certain country from a corporate perspective. The 100 countries include 41 European countries, 19 American countries, 6 Caribbean countries, 18 countries that are located in Africa & Middle East, and 16 countries that fall into the Asia-Pacific region.

The OECD G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project is an OECD/G20 project to set up an international framework to combat tax avoidance by multinational enterprises ("MNEs") using base erosion and profit shifting tools. The project, led by the OECD's Committee on Fiscal Affairs, began in 2013 with OECD and G20 countries, in a context of financial crisis and tax affairs. Currently, after the BEPS report has been delivered in 2015, the project is now in its implementation phase, 116 countries are involved including a majority of developing countries. During two years, the package was developed by participating members on an equal footing, as well as widespread consultations with jurisdictions and stakeholders, including business, academics and civil society. And since 2016, the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on BEPS provides for its 140 members a platform to work on an equal footing to tackle BEPS, including through peer review of the BEPS minimum standards, and monitoring of implementation of the BEPS package as a whole.

On 29 August 2016, after a two-year investigation, Margrethe Vestager of the European Commission announced: "Ireland granted illegal tax benefits to Apple". The Commission ordered Apple to pay €13 billion, plus interest, in unpaid Irish taxes from 2004–14 to the Irish state. It was the largest corporate tax "fine" in history. On 7 September 2016, the Irish State secured a majority in Dáil Éireann to reject payment of the back-taxes, which including penalties could reach €20 billion, or 10% of 2014 Irish GDP. In November 2016, the Irish government formally appealed the ruling, claiming there was no violation of Irish tax law, and that the commission's action was "an intrusion into Irish sovereignty", as national tax policy is excluded from EU treaties. In November 2016, Apple CEO Tim Cook, announced Apple would appeal, and in September 2018, Apple lodged €13 billion to an escrow account, pending appeal. In July 2020, the European General Court struck down EU tax decision as illegal, ruling in favor of Apple.

Feargal O'Rourke is an Irish accountant and corporate tax expert, who is the managing partner of PwC in Ireland. He is considered the architect of the Double Irish tax scheme used by U.S. firms such as Apple, Google and Facebook in Ireland, and a leader in the development of corporate tax planning tools, and tax legislation, for U.S. multinationals in Ireland.

Matheson, is an Irish law firm partnership based in the IFSC in Dublin, which specialises in multinational tax schemes, and tax structuring of special purpose vehicles. Matheson is estimated to be Ireland's largest corporate law firm. Matheson state in the International Tax Review that their tax department is: "significantly the largest tax practice group amongst Irish law firms".

Ireland has been labelled as a tax haven or corporate tax haven in multiple financial reports, an allegation which the state has rejected in response. Ireland is on all academic "tax haven lists", including the § Leaders in tax haven research, and tax NGOs. Ireland does not meet the 1998 OECD definition of a tax haven, but no OECD member, including Switzerland, ever met this definition; only Trinidad & Tobago met it in 2017. Similarly, no EU–28 country is amongst the 64 listed in the 2017 EU tax haven blacklist and greylist. In September 2016, Brazil became the first G20 country to "blacklist" Ireland as a tax haven.

Qualifying Investor Alternative Investment Fund or QIAIF is a Central Bank of Ireland regulatory classification established in 2013 for Ireland's five tax-free legal structures for holding assets. The Irish Collective Asset-management Vehicle or ICAV is the most popular of the five Irish QIAIF structures, it is the main tax-free structure for foreign investors holding Irish assets.

References

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Harris, Jeremiah; O'Brien, William (31 August 2021). "Foreign Tax Havens and Domestic Acquisitions". The Financial Review. 57 (1): 95–127. doi:10.1111/fire.12283. S2CID 239665942.
1 2 3 4 Donahoe, Michael P.; McGill, Gary A.; Outslay, Edmund (December 2019). "The Geometry of International Tax Planning After the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act". National Tax Journal . 72 (4): 647–670. doi:10.17310/ntj.2019.4.01. S2CID 211456892. Archived from the original on 2022-03-13. Retrieved 2021-05-08.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Martin, Xiumin; Rabier, MaryJane; Zur, Emanuel. "Dodging Repatriation Tax: Evidence from the Domestic Mergers and Acquisitions Market". Robert H. Smith School Research Paper No. RHS 2556519. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2556519. S2CID 167182031.
↑ Willens, Robert (August 20, 2012). "IRS Moves to Curtail Tax-Free Repatriation of Foreign Earnings". Tax Notes. 136: 847.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Drucker, Jesse (29 December 2010). "Dodging Repatriation Tax Lets U.S. Companies Bring Home Cash". Bloomberg News . Archived from the original on 2021-05-10. Retrieved 2021-05-08.
↑ Solomon, Eric (September 24, 2012). "Corporate Inversions: A Symptom of Larger Tax System Problems". Tax Notes. 136: 1204.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Loomis, Stephen C. (2012). "The Double Irish Sandwich: Reforming Overseas Tax Havens". St. Mary's Law Journal. 43 (4): 825.
↑ Lowder, J. Bryan (14 April 2011). "The Double Irish and the Dutch Sandwich". Slate . Archived from the original on 8 May 2021. Retrieved 8 May 2021.
↑ Hicks, Hal; Sotos, David J. (2008). "The Empire Strikes Back (Again) - Killer Bs, Deadly Ds and Code Sec. 367 as the Death Star against Repatriation Rebels". International Tax Journal. 34: 37.
↑ Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited. United States Tax Alert: Regulations under section 367(a) relating to outbound “F” reorganizations finalized Archived 2021-09-02 at the Wayback Machine . 22 September 2015.
1 2 Ament, Joseph (February 2015). "The Impact of Restoration to U.S. Corporations of Foreign Earnings Through Repatriation/Inversions as an Aid to U.S. Economy and Budget". Proceedings of the American Society of Business and Behavioral Sciences. 22 (1): 8–15.
1 2 3 Linebaugh, Kate; Terlep, Sharon (30 June 2013). "Dell's Cash Overseas Is Needed at Home". The Wall Street Journal . Archived from the original on 24 June 2021. Retrieved 22 June 2021.

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.

[:1-1] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Harris, Jeremiah; O'Brien, William (31 August 2021). "Foreign Tax Havens and Domestic Acquisitions". The Financial Review. 57 (1): 95–127. doi:10.1111/fire.12283. S2CID 239665942.

[:0-2] 1 2 3 4 Donahoe, Michael P.; McGill, Gary A.; Outslay, Edmund (December 2019). "The Geometry of International Tax Planning After the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act". National Tax Journal . 72 (4): 647–670. doi:10.17310/ntj.2019.4.01. S2CID 211456892. Archived from the original on 2022-03-13. Retrieved 2021-05-08.

[:3-3] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Martin, Xiumin; Rabier, MaryJane; Zur, Emanuel. "Dodging Repatriation Tax: Evidence from the Domestic Mergers and Acquisitions Market". Robert H. Smith School Research Paper No. RHS 2556519. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2556519. S2CID 167182031.

[:2-4] Willens, Robert (August 20, 2012). "IRS Moves to Curtail Tax-Free Repatriation of Foreign Earnings". Tax Notes. 136: 847.

[:4-5] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Drucker, Jesse (29 December 2010). "Dodging Repatriation Tax Lets U.S. Companies Bring Home Cash". Bloomberg News . Archived from the original on 2021-05-10. Retrieved 2021-05-08.

[:7-6] Solomon, Eric (September 24, 2012). "Corporate Inversions: A Symptom of Larger Tax System Problems". Tax Notes. 136: 1204.

[:5-7] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Loomis, Stephen C. (2012). "The Double Irish Sandwich: Reforming Overseas Tax Havens". St. Mary's Law Journal. 43 (4): 825.

[:6-8] Lowder, J. Bryan (14 April 2011). "The Double Irish and the Dutch Sandwich". Slate . Archived from the original on 8 May 2021. Retrieved 8 May 2021.

[9] Hicks, Hal; Sotos, David J. (2008). "The Empire Strikes Back (Again) - Killer Bs, Deadly Ds and Code Sec. 367 as the Death Star against Repatriation Rebels". International Tax Journal. 34: 37.

[10] Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited. United States Tax Alert: Regulations under section 367(a) relating to outbound “F” reorganizations finalized Archived 2021-09-02 at the Wayback Machine . 22 September 2015.

[:9-11] 1 2 Ament, Joseph (February 2015). "The Impact of Restoration to U.S. Corporations of Foreign Earnings Through Repatriation/Inversions as an Aid to U.S. Economy and Budget". Proceedings of the American Society of Business and Behavioral Sciences. 22 (1): 8–15.

[:8-12] 1 2 3 Linebaugh, Kate; Terlep, Sharon (30 June 2013). "Dell's Cash Overseas Is Needed at Home". The Wall Street Journal . Archived from the original on 24 June 2021. Retrieved 22 June 2021.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]