logo
How to Avoid a ‘Revenge Tax'

How to Avoid a ‘Revenge Tax'

Now that Congress has your attention, you may be wondering how to escape the supposed new 'revenge tax' lawmakers are writing. The proposal has stirred up considerable, although disingenuous, alarm in some quarters but rejoice: Escaping it is simple.
We speak of Section 899, included in the House version of the budget bill now wending its way across Capitol Hill. It would create a retaliatory surtax with a maximum rate of 20% on nationals (individuals and companies) of countries that impose 'unfair foreign taxes' on U.S. businesses. A recent Wall Street-and-media freakout branded this a protectionist sledgehammer, but it's a narrowly tailored response to specific foreign tax overreaches.
Congress is reacting to taxes other governments want to impose on American firms under the aegis of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Pillar one of the OECD's global corporate-tax project envisions new excess-profits taxes on the world's largest companies, mainly American and largely in tech and pharma. Europe's current crop of digital-services taxes are precursors.
Pillar two imposes a 15% corporate alternative minimum tax globally, and allows other jurisdictions to impose 'top-up taxes' if a company's home country doesn't collect enough tax under the rules.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

How a Supreme Court decision backing the NRA is thwarting Trump's retribution campaign
How a Supreme Court decision backing the NRA is thwarting Trump's retribution campaign

CNN

time21 minutes ago

  • CNN

How a Supreme Court decision backing the NRA is thwarting Trump's retribution campaign

As Harvard University, elite law firms and perceived political enemies of President Donald Trump fight back against his efforts to use government power to punish them, they're winning thanks in part to the National Rifle Association. Last May, the Supreme Court unanimously sided with the gun rights group in a First Amendment case concerning a New York official's alleged efforts to pressure insurance companies in the state to sever ties with the group following the deadly 2018 school shooting in Parkland, Florida. A government official, liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the nine, 'cannot … use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression.' A year later, the court's decision in National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo has been cited repeatedly by federal judges in rulings striking down a series of executive orders that targeted law firms. Lawyers representing Harvard, faculty at Columbia University and others are also leaning on the decision in cases challenging Trump's attacks on them. 'Going into court with a decision that is freshly minted, that clearly reflects the unanimous views of the currently sitting Supreme Court justices, is a very powerful tool,' said Eugene Volokh, a conservative First Amendment expert who represented the NRA in the 2024 case. For free speech advocates, the application of the NRA decision in cases pushing back against Trump's retribution campaign is a welcome sign that lower courts are applying key First Amendment principles equally, particularly in politically fraught disputes. In the NRA case, the group claimed that Maria Vullo, the former superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services, had threatened enforcement actions against the insurance firms if they failed to comply with her demands to help with the campaign against gun groups. The NRA's claims centered around a meeting Vullo had with an insurance market in 2018 in which the group says she offered to not prosecute other violations as long as the company helped with her campaign. 'The great hope of a principled application of the First Amendment is that it protects everybody,' said Alex Abdo, the litigation director of the Knight First Amendment Institute. 'Some people have criticized free speech advocates as being naive for hoping that'll be the case, but hopefully that's what we're seeing now,' he added. 'We're seeing courts apply that principle where the politics are very different than the NRA case.' The impact of Vullo can be seen most clearly in the cases challenging Trump's attempts to use executive power to exact revenge on law firms that have employed his perceived political enemies or represented clients who have challenged his initiatives. A central pillar of Trump's retribution crusade has been to pressure firms to bend to his political will, including through issuing executive orders targeting four major law firms: Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale and Susman Godfrey. Among other things, the orders denied the firms' attorneys access to federal buildings, retaliated against their clients with government contracts and suspended security clearances for lawyers at the firms. (Other firms were hit with similar executive orders but they haven't taken Trump to court over them.) The organizations individually sued the administration over the orders and the three judges overseeing the Perkins Coie, WilmerHale and Jenner & Block suits have all issued rulings permanently blocking enforcement of the edicts. (The Susman case is still pending.) Across more than 200-pages of writing, the judges – all sitting at the federal trial-level court in Washington, DC – cited Vullo 30 times to conclude that the orders were unconstitutional because they sought to punish the firms over their legal work. The judges all lifted Sotomayor's line about using 'the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression,' while also seizing on other language in her opinion to buttress their own decisions. Two of them – US district judges Beryl Howell, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, and Richard Leon, who was named to the bench by former President George W. Bush – incorporated Sotomayor's statement that government discrimination based on a speaker's viewpoint 'is uniquely harmful to a free and democratic society.' The third judge, John Bates, said Vullo and an earlier Supreme Court case dealing with impermissible government coercion 'govern – and defeat' the administration's arguments in defense of a section of the Jenner & Block order that sought to end all contractual relationships that might have allowed taxpayer dollars to flow to the firm. 'Executive Order 14246 does precisely what the Supreme Court said just last year is forbidden: it engages in 'coercion against a third party to achieve the suppression of disfavored speech,'' wrote Bates, who was also appointed by Bush, in his May 23 ruling. For its part, the Justice Department has tried to draw a distinction between what the executive orders called for and the conduct rejected by the high court in Vullo. They told the three judges in written arguments that the orders at issue did not carry the 'force of the powers exhibited in Vullo' by the New York official. Will Creeley, the legal director at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, said the rulings underscore how 'Vullo has proved its utility almost immediately.' 'It is extremely useful to remind judges and government actors alike that just last year, the court warned against the kind of shakedowns and turns of the screw that we're now seeing from the administration,' he said. Justice Department lawyers have not yet appealed any of the three rulings issued last month. CNN has reached out to the department for comment. In separate cases brought in the DC courthouse and elsewhere, Trump's foes have leaned on Vullo as they've pressed judges to intervene in high-stakes disputes with the president. Among them is Mark Zaid, a prominent national security lawyer who has drawn Trump's ire for his representation of whistleblowers. Earlier this year, Trump yanked Zaid's security clearance, a decision, the attorney said in a lawsuit, that undermines his ability to 'zealously advocate on (his clients') behalf in the national security arena.' In court papers, Zaid's attorneys argued that the president's decision was a 'retaliatory directive,' invoking language from the Vullo decision to argue that the move violated his First Amendment rights. ''Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors,'' they wrote, quoting from the 2024 ruling. 'And yet that is exactly what Defendants do here.' Timothy Zick, a constitutional law professor at William & Mary Law School, said the executive orders targeting private entities or individuals 'have relied heavily on pressure, intimidation, and the threat of adverse action to punish or suppress speakers' views and discourage others from engaging with regulated targets.' 'The unanimous holding in Vullo is tailor-made for litigants seeking to push back against the administration's coercive strategy,' Zick added. That notion was not lost on lawyers representing Harvard and faculty at Columbia University in several cases challenging Trump's attacks on the elite schools, including one brought by Harvard challenging Trump's efforts to ban the school from hosting international students. A federal judge has so far halted those efforts. In a separate case brought by Harvard over the administration's decision to freeze billions of dollars in federal funding for the nation's oldest university, the school's attorneys on Monday told a judge that Trump's decision to target it because of 'alleged antisemitism and ideological bias at Harvard' clearly ran afoul of the high court's decision last year. 'Although any governmental retaliation based on protected speech is an affront to the First Amendment, the retaliation here was especially unconstitutional because it was based on Harvard's 'particular views' – the balance of speech on its campus and its refusal to accede to the Government's unlawful demands,' the attorneys wrote.

2 Reasons AMC Stock Is Soaring in June
2 Reasons AMC Stock Is Soaring in June

Yahoo

time22 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

2 Reasons AMC Stock Is Soaring in June

Memorial Day weekend set moviegoing records, and a lot of the sales went to AMC as the largest theater chain. With many expected hit movies slated for release, management thinks it's turned a corner. AMC stock is still down year to date and the company has a lot to prove. 10 stocks we like better than AMC Entertainment › AMC (NYSE: AMC) is the largest movie theater operator in the world, but being the leader in a troubled industry hasn't done much for the company over the past few years. With the advent of streaming and residual fears from the pandemic, moviegoing just isn't what it once was and AMC continues to struggle. However, Memorial Day weekend was a boon for the company and AMC stock has been climbing. Let's see why and what it means for the future. Streaming from home has taken a toll on the box office, but there is still life left in theaters. Four of the top 10 highest-grossing films ever were released since the pandemic started, including Avatar: The Way of Water in the No. 3 spot and last year's Inside Out 2. People are still going to the movies. That fact was reinforced with a record Memorial Day weekend in May. Disney's live-action remake of Lilo & Stitch had the highest-ever four-day Memorial Day opening, and it was buttressed by a strong showing for Paramount's Mission: Impossible -- The Final Reckoning. Altogether, these two topped a blowout weekend with $326.7 million in domestic ticket sales, and Lilo & Stitch is already the second-highest-grossing domestic film of the year. Of course, that success trickled down to generate incredible financial results for AMC. Management said it set an all-time record for admissions revenue, food and beverage revenue, and total revenue for a weekend Memorial Day opening, and that the five-day stretch was the third-highest revenue for any five-day slot in more than 10 years. As for attendance, this was the highest-attended weekend and highest-attended five-day period of the year, both domestically and globally. Management didn't provide specific financial metrics for the weekend, so investors aren't likely to hear the nitty-gritty details until the second-quarter earnings release sometime in July or August. But management's update and optimism are boosting investor confidence. It's nice for the company to have a solid, record-breaking opening, but can it last? Management thinks so, and the market may be pricing that in. CEO Adam Aron said that after this weekend, AMC has turned a corner. "With many more potentially huge movies coming in June all the way through the end of 2025, and beyond that deeply into 2026 as well," he said, "we firmly expect to be enjoying a robust theatrical box office as we look ahead." Here's what to be excited about. Disney has a full slate of films coming out over the next few years, including the third film in the Avatar series. The first two are the highest-grossing and third-highest-grossing films ever, and the next film is slated for release this coming December. It also has the next Frozen film and other top franchises coming out soon. Warner Bros. has its own expected hits coming out, including a new Superman, and Comcast's Universal Studios has the next installment of Wicked and a new Shrek. Sequels to popular franchises can be big business. But the company is still reporting revenue declines and losses as of the 2025 first quarter. It will take some time to see if AMC has indeed turned a corner. As the price has increased in June, so has the short interest in AMC, hitting almost 15% of all outstanding shares. These investors are betting on this being a short-term boost and that the price will fall from this surge. Even though AMC stock is up 29% over the past month, it's still down 15% year-to-date. Unless the company releases incredibly strong earnings for the second quarter and keeps up its performance, the price jump may not last. Part of what's frustrating about that for investors is that many variables are beyond the company's control. It's up to film producers to create hit movies that bring viewers into theaters and to make the decision to keep them there long enough before they hit streaming services. That can be quite lumpy. You need to have real confidence in the future of the film industry and the resilience of theaters as a beckoning call for die-hard fans to want to invest in AMC's future, and for most investors, that time isn't now. Before you buy stock in AMC Entertainment, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and AMC Entertainment wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $674,395!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $858,011!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 997% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 172% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join . See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of June 2, 2025 Jennifer Saibil has positions in Walt Disney. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Walt Disney. The Motley Fool recommends Comcast. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. 2 Reasons AMC Stock Is Soaring in June was originally published by The Motley Fool Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store