|
????一直以來，事關避稅問題，通用電氣（General Electric）、埃克森美孚（Exxon Mobil）、威瑞森通訊（Verizon）和大型跨國銀行這類公司一直是媒體關注的焦點。但某些最聰明、最富創意的避稅方式的實施者，卻是一家通常跟不法金融手段不搭邊的公司——寶潔公司（Procter & Gamble）。 ????在時間跨度近10年的3筆交易中，這家擁有汰漬洗衣粉、Bounty紙巾、吉列剃須產品和其他家喻戶曉品牌的公司設法重新打通了國會在1997年堵上的一個漏洞。據筆者估算，寶潔公司通過這幾筆交易（其中涉及出售該公司打算放棄的品牌），共獲取利潤60億美元左右，而且該公司無需為此繳納稅收，其股東也可延期交稅，或許會永遠延期下去。然而，如果直接售出，將引發一份價值20億美元的聯邦稅單和一筆沉重的州級稅收。所有這3宗案例都涉及所謂的逆向莫里斯信托（Reverse Morris Trust ）交易，關于這類交易稍后將詳細論述。“寶潔公司是這項技術最積極的實踐者，”羅伯特?威倫斯有限公司（Robert Willens LLC）的稅收專家羅伯特?威倫斯說。 ????寶潔公司為什么能躲開稅收部門的雷達？一是因為寶潔一直保持低調，此外，還因為這些交易分散在一個較長的時間段內：出售Jif花生醬和科瑞(Crisco)起酥油的交易發生在2002年，Folgers咖啡是在2008年被售出的，出售品客薯片（Pringles）的交易將于今年晚些時候結束。此外，這些交易非常復雜，恐怕只有稅務專家（或受虐狂）才能搞清楚其中的來龍去脈。 ????在我們繼續討論之前，首先要明白一點：我并不是在指責寶潔公司行為不端。這些交易是完全合法的。跟當前的市場風潮一樣，寶潔公司使股東回報最大化的義務超過了納稅以支持社會的義務?！皩殱嵐具M行這些交易的目標在于為公司股東實現最佳價值，同時也是為正在售出的業務尋求更合適的接手者，”公司發言人詹妮弗?徹璐說。說得沒錯。 ????既然沒有舞弊行為，我為什么還要討論這些交易呢？這是為了證明，稅收體系需要改革，為了表明即使像寶潔這樣的公司也在實踐黑暗的避稅藝術，也是為了彰顯其中的利害關系究竟有多大。 ????2001年，寶潔公司聲稱要做一筆有稅收優惠的交易（把Jif花生醬出售給果凍果醬巨頭J.M. Smucker公司）。此后，我一直在關注該公司的各種交易。這些交易會讓你情不自禁地微笑。誰能抗拒撰寫與花生醬加果凍三明治有關的文章呢？至少我不能。隨后是Folgers咖啡交易，現在是品客薯片（Pringles）。 ????讓我先講一些相關的歷史，再闡述一下這種避稅手段的運作方式。莫里斯信托（Morris Trust）直到1997年都一直是公司進行交易時慣常采用的避稅策略。某公司將其打算剝離的業務注入一家歸其股東所有的新公司，這種交易無需納稅。一眨眼工夫，一位買家又會通過一筆免稅的換股交易收購這家新公司。最終的結果是，公司權益持有者既擁有原公司的股份，又擁有被剝離業務買家的股份。 ????但在幾筆涉及大量現金的交易【最受媒體關注的是，迪斯尼公司（Disney）出售報紙的交易，以及通用汽車公司（General Motors）出售其國防業務的交易。這類交易更像是出售，而不僅僅是為了節稅而實施的公司分拆行為】使得莫里斯信托變成主要的稅收流失渠道之后，國會收緊了相關規則。鉆空子的公司于是轉向逆向莫里斯信托。這種交易要求出售方最終需持有收購方多數股權。這會極大地挫傷買家的積極性。但寶潔公司最終還是如愿找到了這樣做的買家——2002年和2008年的J.M. Smucker公司，以及2011年的戴夢得食品公司（Diamond Foods）。 ????即使當前就“改革”公司稅提出的降低稅率、擴大稅基提案最終成為法律，我們還是可以斷言寶潔公司依然會從事逆向莫里斯信托或類似的交易。即便公司稅率從當前的35%降為25%，寶潔依然可以從上述交易中少向美國國稅局（IRS）上交15億美元。它會盡一切可能使得出售交易免于稅收，除非現存的所有漏洞被結結實實地堵住。但愿如此吧。 ????畢竟，如同蘋果派和花生醬加果凍三明治一樣，公司避稅也是美國的一大特色。 ????譯者：任文科 |
????The tax-avoidance spotlight has been shining brightly, via the media, on companies like General Electric (GE), Exxon Mobil, Verizon (VZ), and big multinational banks. But some of the most clever and innovative tax avoiding is being done by a company not usually associated with financial wheeling and dealing: Procter & Gamble (PG). ????In three deals spread over almost a decade, the owner of Tide detergent, Bounty towels, Gillette shaving products, and many other household names has managed to reopen a loophole that Congress closed in 1997. By my estimate, P&G's profits on the deals, which involve selling brands it no longer wants, total about $6 billion and are tax-free to the company, and are tax-deferred to its shareholders, possibly forever. A straight-up sale would have triggered a $2 billion federal tax bill and a hefty state tax bill (for details, see my calculations at the bottom of the page). All three involve so-called Reverse Morris Trust transactions, of which more later. "P&G is the most active practitioner of this technique," says tax expert Robert Willens of Robert Willens LLC. ????Why isn't P&G on the tax radar? Because it has kept a low profile, and because the deals have been spread out over an extended period: Jif peanut butter and Crisco shortening in a 2002 deal, Folgers coffee in 2008, and Pringles chips in a deal scheduled to close later this year. Besides, the deals are so convoluted that you have to be a tax techie (or a masochist) to make your way through them. ????Before we proceed, let's be clear: I'm not accusing P&G of wrongdoing. The deals are perfectly legal, and under current market mores, P&G's obligation to maximize its owners' returns trumps its obligation to pay taxes to support our society. "P&G's goal in these transactions is to achieve the best value for company shareholders, while also seeking a good fit for the business being sold," says company spokesman Jennifer Chelune. Fair enough. ????If there's no abuse, why am I discussing these sales? To show that the system needs reforming. To demonstrate how even a company like P&G practices the dark tax-avoiding arts. And to show how big the stakes are. ????I've been following P&G's transactions since 2001, when it announced plans to do a tax-advantaged deal to sell Jif to J.M. Smucker, the jam and jelly giant. It made me smile. Who could resist writing about combining PB with J? Not me. Then came the Folgers deal, and now Pringles. ????Let me give you some history, and show you how this works. Until 1997, Morris Trusts were a routine tax-free dealmaking maneuver. A company would stick a business it wanted to unload into a new corporation owned by its shareholders, which is a tax-free transaction. A nanosecond later, a buyer would acquire the new corporation in a tax-free stock-for-stock deal. Company holders would thus end up with shares in both the original company and in the buyer of the business being unloaded. ????But after several deals that involved lots of cash turned Morris Trusts into major tax drains that were more like sales than mere tax-efficient corporate spinoffs -- Disney's (DIS) sale of newspapers and General Motors' (GM) sale of its defense business got the most ink -- Congress tightened the rules. Loophole openers begat Reverse Morrises, which require that shareholders of the selling company end up with a majority stake in the acquiring company -- a big disincentive to buyers. But P&G has managed to find buyers -- Smucker in 2002 and 2008, Diamond Foods in 2011 -- willing to do that. ????Even if current bids to "reform" corporate taxes by lowering the rate and broadening the base are enacted, you can bet that P&G would still be out doing Reverse Morris Trust deals or something similar. At a 25% corporate tax rate rather than the current 35%, P&G would still keep $1.5 billion away from the IRS. It would do whatever it could to make the sales tax-free unless all available loopholes get nailed shut. Good luck getting that done. ????After all, corporate tax avoidance is as American as apple pie and … well, peanut butter and jelly. |
最新文章