logo
Wall Street, Main Street push for foreign tax rethink in US budget bill

Wall Street, Main Street push for foreign tax rethink in US budget bill

Mint2 days ago

Concerns over potential negative impact on U.S. investments and jobs
Senate Republicans may clarify impact on Treasuries to mitigate risks
Multinationals may shut U.S. operations, risking 8.4 million jobs, says association
By Carolina Mandl, Bo Erickson
NEW YORK/WASHINGTON, - Industry groups representing sectors including real estate, finance and multinational companies are pushing for the reduction or exclusion of a retaliatory tax targeting foreign investors in the U.S. in the Republican tax bill, as they see it as a threat to their businesses and to the broader markets and economy. The proposed tax, known as Section 899, applies a progressive tax burden of up to 20% on foreign investors' U.S. income as pushback against countries that impose taxes the U.S. considers unfair, such as digital service taxes. It could raise $116 billion in taxes over 10 years.
Some individual companies are also pushing for action, according to two lawyers familiar with their clients' plans, who did not name specific companies due to client confidentiality.
'Lobbying surrounding Section 899 is at peak levels,' said Jeff Paravano, a former Treasury Department official who is now chair of law firm BakerHostetler's tax group. The move comes as Senate Finance Committee Chairman Mike Crapo, the Republican in charge of the chamber's tax writing provisions, and other Republicans are in close coordination with President Donald Trump on the tax bill, having met on Wednesday.
The White House declined to comment. Crapo said he would not comment on ongoing discussions about the bill.
Global investors hold almost $40 trillion in U.S. assets, such as securities, loans and deposits, according to the U.S. Treasury International Capital Reporting System. This raises concerns about the ripple impact of the bill.
"It has the potential to be a very negative impact on the free flow of capital from the U.S. and through businesses that are multinational," said Gabriel Grossman, a U.S. tax partner at Linklaters, adding he has seen some clients put planned investments in the U.S. on pause until they have more clarity on the new levies. The broader bill itself is also creating much debate as it is forecast to add about $2.4 trillion to the U.S. debt and has sparked an explosive feud between Trump and his erstwhile key ally Elon Musk, the billionaire CEO of Tesla.
Industries across different sectors are on high alert.
The new levy could increase taxes from rents and real estate investment trusts, gains from property sales and securitized products.
"There is a legitimate fear among investors that, if this goes through, it could impact investments, and that it would create higher costs for real estate in terms of getting financing," said David McCarthy, managing director at the CRE Finance Council, a nonpartisan trade group. "It could depress the value of real estate if you don't have as much money to finance property purchases."
The asset management industry is concerned about outflows.
"We encourage the Senate to make this provision more targeted to respond to unfair foreign taxes and other concerning measures rather than disincentivizing beneficial foreign investment in the U.S.," a spokesperson for the Investment Company Institute said.
The investment community is also working to clarify whether Treasuries and corporate bonds will remain exempt as they are currently subject to a portfolio interest exception that applies no taxation, lawyers and industry sources said.
"There's reason to believe that fixed-income assets wouldn't be in scope, but there's still considerable uncertainty about this point," Morgan Stanley strategist Michael Zezas said in a note to clients.
A footnote part of the Budget Committee report, which provides direction to taxpayers, courts and the Treasury in interpreting the statute, says that Section 899 "does not apply to portfolio interest."
Foreigners' equity investments, however, do not count with the portfolio interest protection and could be taxed, lawyers and banks said.
Multinational companies could face a new tax burden on dividends and inter-company loans, potentially reducing profit, according to Section 899.
Jonathan Samford, president of the Global Business Alliance, a lobbying group for international companies in the U.S., said many multinationals could decide to shut down operations in the U.S., risking 8.4 million jobs in the country.
"Those companies will not be paying U.S. tax whatsoever because they will not be able to operate in that punitive, high-tax environment," he said.
Morgan Stanley said in a note to clients a repatriation of profits out of the U.S. and pressure on the U.S. dollar.
Corporate loans could also become more expensive, as loans extended by foreign banks might be subject to the new tax burden if section 899 overrides current treaties, lawyers said, adding that companies could end up paying more for the debt to make up for the tax increase.
Investors are hoping for some changes in the Senate.
Senator Steve Daines, a Montana Republican on the Finance Committee, said it may be necessary to clarify the language in Section 899.
'We want to make sure we don't have tax policies that in some way would diminish the fact that we are the gold standard in the world,' Daines said.
Morgan Stanley said in a note that it expects "sufficient Senate Republicans to take notice and clarify the policy to mitigate this risk" of increasing the cost of capital for the U.S.
"It actually is pretty much of a nuclear bomb," said Pascal Saint-Amans, partner at Brunswick Group, who is also the former tax chief of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, who led the 2021 global tax treaty. "The coverage seems extremely broad and the terms are not extremely well-defined."
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

DoubleLine's Gundlach Says ‘Reckoning Is Coming' for US Debt
DoubleLine's Gundlach Says ‘Reckoning Is Coming' for US Debt

Mint

time38 minutes ago

  • Mint

DoubleLine's Gundlach Says ‘Reckoning Is Coming' for US Debt

America's debt burden and interest expense have become 'untenable,' a situation that may lead investors to move out of dollar-based assets, according to DoubleLine Capital's Jeffrey Gundlach. 'There's an awareness now that the long-term Treasury bond is not a legitimate flight-to-quality asset,' the veteran bond manager said Wednesday in an interview at the Bloomberg Global Credit Forum in Los Angeles. A 'reckoning is coming.' In a wide-ranging discussion that also touched on gold's attractiveness, stretched market valuations, the state of private credit, artificial intelligence and long-term investment opportunities in India, Gundlach said investors should be considering non-dollar-based holdings, adding that his firm was starting to introduce foreign currencies into its funds. Gundlach, 65, likened today's market to the environment in 1999, just before the dot-com bust, as well as 2006 and 2007 before the global financial crisis. Going further, he said the booming private credit sector is analogous to the market for collateralized debt obligations,or CDOs, in the mid-2000s, 'where there's just tremendous issuance, there's tremendous acceptance.' The investor noted that public credit markets have outperformed their private counterparts in recent months, and sees 'overinvestment' — and a risk of forced selling — in the latter. 'I just don't think the excess reward is anything close to what it used to be,' Gundlach said. He cited possible selling of private assets by US institutions such as Harvard University, which has explored offloading part of its endowment's private equity holdings as the Trump administration cuts off grants and funding. Gundlach founded DoubleLine in 2009 after a contentious exit from TCW, where he'd become a star bond manager. DoubleLine managed $93 billion in assets and had more than 250 employees as of March. The firm and its founder haven't shied away from bold takes. Gundlach, who called Donald Trump's first presidential win in 2016, gave the Federal Reserve an F grade in September for its response to the economy as he correctly predicted a half-point rate cut, and earlier this year the firm posed an open question of whether Microsoft Corp. debt was safer than Treasuries. As for Treasury debt, Gundlach said yields on long-term bonds could continue to rise as the economy starts to weaken. If yields reached 6%, that could prompt the Federal Reserve to step in and start quantitative easing, buying long-term Treasuries to rein in borrowing costs. DoubleLine and peers including Pacific Investment Management Co. and TCW Group Inc. have been avoiding the longest-dated US government bonds in favor of shorter maturities that carry less interest-rate risk in the face of spiraling federal debt and deficits. US 30-year yields touched a near two-decade high of 5.15% last month, and traded at 4.91% as of Wednesday. In a telling sign, yields on the long-term benchmark are higher year to date, even as rates on shorter-term Treasuries have fallen. While known for his fixed-income calls, Gundlach has grown more bullish on gold, doubling down on its status as a 'real asset class' and one that is 'no longer for lunatic survivalists' and speculators. 'We have a tremendous paradigm shift where money is not coming into the United States, and gold is suddenly the flight to quality asset,' he said. Gundlach previously predicted that the price of gold would shatter records, as happened this year, and in May, he told CNBC that the precious metal could swell to $4,000 per ounce, up from about $3,350 now. He also pointed to India as one of the 'most bankable' long-term investment opportunities. 'The way to invest in periods like this is to go with long-term themes,' Gundlach said. 'It might take 30 years, but you should invest in India because it has a similar profile today that China had 35 years ago.' With assistance from Elizabeth Campbell, Loukia Gyftopoulou and Michael Mackenzie. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.

Senate GOP Seeks to Scale Back Food Aid Cuts in Trump Tax Bill
Senate GOP Seeks to Scale Back Food Aid Cuts in Trump Tax Bill

Mint

time39 minutes ago

  • Mint

Senate GOP Seeks to Scale Back Food Aid Cuts in Trump Tax Bill

Bloomberg Updated 12 Jun 2025, 02:52 AM IST Senate Republicans plan to scale back cuts to federal food aid for the poor that their counterparts in the House used to help pay for Donald Trump's massive tax and spending package, a key senator said Wednesday. The Senate version of the tax legislation would exempt states that keep their food stamp payment error rates low from a new cost-shifting provision House Republican imposed requiring state governments to cover as much as a quarter of the cost of federal food stamps received by their residents, Senate Agriculture Chairman John Boozman said. Boozman, whose committee has jurisdiction over portions of the legislation covering federal food aid and farm subsidies, said the Senate version also would exempt parents of children younger than 10 years old from work requirements for food assistance. The House version of the tax bill imposes work requirements on parents once their children turn 7 years old. The House version of the legislation would require states to pay between 5% and 25% of the cost of benefits their residents receive through federal food stamps, formally known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SN. States with lower payment error rates would pay a smaller share of food stamp costs. The new requirements for SN will be delayed to 2028 to give states time to adjust, Boozman said. The Senate version would exempt states with a payment error rate below 6% from the cost-sharing requirement, Boozman said. Republicans on the Senate Agriculture Committee considered the House version too burdensome on states, the Arkansas senator said. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.

What the Harvard investigation means for the future of diversity in US higher education
What the Harvard investigation means for the future of diversity in US higher education

Time of India

timean hour ago

  • Time of India

What the Harvard investigation means for the future of diversity in US higher education

A new congressional investigation into Harvard University's faculty hiring practices is drawing national attention—and raising questions about the future of diversity efforts in US higher education. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now With President Donald Trump leading a broader political campaign against diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies, the Harvard case could be a turning point for how universities approach hiring across the country. Recently, nine Republican members of the US House Committee on Education and the Workforce sent a letter to Harvard President Alan M. Garber, alleging that the university may be violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act by considering race and gender in its hiring decisions. As reported by the Harvard Crimson , lawmakers demanded documents and internal policies that relate to hiring practices, with a deadline of June 25, 2025. Focus on race and gender in hiring under legal scrutiny The investigation was triggered in part by leaked internal documents, published by conservative activist Christopher F. Rufo. These materials included a 2023 Harvard guide that encouraged faculty search committees to "consider reading the applications of women and minorities first" and give such candidates a "second look," especially when placement goals were in place. As noted by the Harvard Crimson , the guide also recommended monitoring racial and gender diversity in applicant pools. The letter also cited interview prompts reportedly used by Harvard since 2021. Candidates were asked to define diversity, explain its role in their careers, and describe challenges in diverse environments. As quoted by the Harvard Crimson , lawmakers said these practices raise serious concerns under Title VII, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race or sex. A national precedent for other universities Higher education experts believe the investigation could set a precedent that pressures other US universities to revise or roll back DEI-related hiring practices. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Following a Title VII complaint filed by Andrea R. Lucas, acting chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Harvard Medical School removed several diversity-focused programs and quietly deleted a public pledge on inclusive hiring. The timing of the probe also follows the US Supreme Court's 2023 decision ending race-based affirmative action in college admissions. While that ruling focused on Title VI, the Republican lawmakers argued—according to the Harvard Crimson —that "the principle of equal treatment under the law certainly applies to Title VII as well." More scrutiny likely as politics meets policy With multiple investigations already underway into Harvard's conduct, including probes into campus antisemitism and research ties with China, lawmakers appear poised to increase pressure on elite institutions. As the Harvard Crimson noted, this marks the reemergence of the House Education and the Workforce Committee as a powerful force in congressional oversight. For many in academia, the Harvard investigation is not just about one university—it may be a signal of shifting legal standards and political realities for higher education across the US.

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