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

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Hindu
29 minutes ago
- The Hindu
U.S., China begin key trade talks in London
China and the United States began a new round of trade talks in London on Monday (June 9, 2025), Beijing's state media reported, as the world's two biggest economies seek to shore up a shaky truce after bruising tit-for-tat tariffs. The two sides are meeting in the historic Lancaster House, run by the U.K. Foreign Office, following a first round of talks in Geneva last month. Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng was again heading the team in London. Chinese state news agency Xinhua reported the start of the talks. Also read | Trump calls China's Xi tough, 'hard to make a deal with' Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and Trade Representative Jamieson Greer are leading the U.S. delegation, President Donald Trump said Friday. "The meeting should go very well," Mr. Trump said on his Truth Social platform. His press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, told Fox News on Sunday: "We want China and the United States to continue moving forward with the agreement that was struck in Geneva." While the U.K. government reiterated that it was not involved in the discussions, a spokesperson said: "We are a nation that champions free trade." U.K. authorities "have always been clear that a trade war is in nobody's interests, so we welcome these talks", the spokesperson added. Rare earths The talks in London come just a few days after Mr. Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping finally held their first publicly announced telephone talks since the Republican returned to the White House. Mr. Trump said Thursday's call reached a "very positive conclusion". Mr. Xi was quoted by Xinhua as saying "correcting the course of the big ship of Sino-U.S. relations requires us to steer well and set the direction". Tensions between the two nations have soared, with Mr. Trump accusing Beijing of violating a tariff de-escalation deal reached in Geneva in mid-May. "We need China to comply with their side of the deal. And so that's what the trade team will be discussing tomorrow," Ms. Leavitt said Sunday. A key issue will be Beijing's shipments of rare earths — crucial to a range of goods including electric vehicle batteries and which have been a bone of contention for some time. "Rare earth shipments from China to the US have slowed since President Trump's 'Liberation Day' tariffs in April," said Kathleen Brooks, research director at trading group XTB. "The US wants these shipments to be reinstated, while China wants the US to rethink immigration curbs on students, restrictions on access to advanced technology including microchips, and to make it easier for Chinese tech providers to access US consumers," she added. In April, Trump introduced sweeping worldwide tariffs that targeted China most heavily. At one point, Washington hit Beijing with additional levies of 145 percent on its goods, prompting China to respond with tariffs reaching 125% on US goods. After two days of talks in Switzerland, both sides agreed to slash the eye-watering tariffs for 90 days, but key differences remain -- especially over China's rare earth export restrictions. The impact was reflected in the latest official export data released Monday in Beijing. Exports to the United States fell 12.7%in May from the previous month, with China shipping $28.8 billion worth of goods. This was down from $33 billion in April, according to Beijing's General Administration of Customs. 'Green channel' Throughout its talks with Washington, China has also launched discussions with other trading partners — including Japan and South Korea — to try to build a united front to counter Trump's tariffs. On Thursday, Beijing and Canada agreed to regularise their channels of communication after strained ties. Beijing has also proposed establishing a "green channel" to ease exports of rare earths to the European Union, and fast-tracking approval of some export licenses. China is expected to host a summit with the EU in July, marking 50 years since Beijing and Brussels established diplomatic ties. According to a spokesperson for Starmer, Britain's finance minister Rachel Reeves took advantage of the talks in London to meet with her US counterpart Scott Bessent and Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng on Sunday.


Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Kamala Harris won the U.S elections: Bombshell report claims voting machines were tampered with before 2024
Kamala Harris won the U.S. elections: Bombshell report claims voting machines were tampered with before 2024: A new report is stirring fresh debate about the outcome of the 2024 U.S. presidential election, claiming that voting machines were secretly altered before ballots were even cast. The bombshell allegation raises a serious question: Did Kamala Harris actually win the 2024 election ? According to the investigative piece from Daily Boulder, a private lab quietly implemented sweeping changes to voting machines used in over 40% of U.S. counties ahead of the 2024 race. Those changes, the report claims, were made with no public notice, no formal testing, and no third-party oversight. What changes were made to voting machines before the 2024 election? The report centers around Pro V&V, a federally accredited lab responsible for certifying voting machines in key states like Pennsylvania, Florida, New Jersey, and California. In early 2024, the lab reportedly approved updates to ES&S voting systems, which included: New ballot scanners Printer reconfigurations Firmware upgrades A new Electionware reporting system Instead of labeling these as major changes, Pro V&V classified them as 'de minimis,' a term typically reserved for insignificant tweaks. This classification allowed them to bypass public scrutiny and avoid triggering full-scale testing or certification processes. But watchdog group SMART Elections wasn't convinced. In their words: Live Events 'This wasn't just a glitch in some sleepy county. It was a stress test of our entire system.' Soon after the machines went live, complaints began to surface. Were votes miscounted or ignored in key counties? In Rockland County, New York, several voters testified under oath that their ballots didn't match the official results. Senate candidate Diane Sare reportedly lost votes in precinct after precinct: In one district, 9 voters claimed they voted for Sare, but only 5 votes were recorded. In another, 5 voters swore they supported her, but only 3 votes appeared. It wasn't just third-party candidates who saw odd results. In multiple Democratic-leaning areas, Kamala Harris's name was reportedly missing from the top of the ballot entirely. Voters said they couldn't even find her name to select. These same areas had high support for Democrats like Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, yet Harris received zero votes—a statistical anomaly that defies traditional voting patterns. Even more shocking: Donald Trump received 750,000 more votes than Republican Senate candidates in these districts. As reported by Dissent in Bloom, a political Substack, 'That's not split-ticket voting. That's a mathematical anomaly.' Who is behind Pro V&V, and why is there no oversight? At the center of the controversy is Jack Cobb, the director of Pro V&V. While he doesn't appear in the headlines, his lab certifies the machines that millions of Americans use to vote. According to the report, once the controversy began to gain traction, Pro V&V's website went dark, leaving only a phone number and a generic email address. No public logs. No documentation. No comment. Pro V&V is certified by the Election Assistance Commission (EAC). However, once accredited, labs like Pro V&V face no real public oversight. There is no hotline, no review board, and no formal process for the public to challenge or remove them. The EAC itself has four commissioners, two of whom—Benjamin Hovland and Donald Palmer—were appointed by Donald Trump during his first presidency. Even if wrongdoing were discovered, the process to revoke a lab's accreditation is slow, murky, and entirely internal. There are no public hearings and no outside investigations. As of June 2025, Pro V&V remains fully accredited and uninvestigated. Could Kamala Harris have actually won the election? The question is no longer whispered in political corners—it's being asked outright. In May 2025, Judge Rachel Tanguay ruled that allegations raised by SMART Elections were credible enough to move forward. The case, SMART Legislation et al. v. Rockland County Board of Elections , is scheduled for hearing this fall. While the lawsuit won't change the outcome of the election—Congress already certified Trump's victory—it could set off wider probes, from state investigations to federal criminal inquiries. Political writer John Pavlovitz openly questioned the result, writing: 'Kamala Harris may have won.' During the campaign, Harris reportedly drew massive crowds, high early voting numbers, and strong poll performances in swing states. Her debate showing against Trump was widely viewed as dominant—Trump even skipped the second debate. And yet, despite that momentum, Trump won. Adding fuel to the fire, Elon Musk, who vocally supported Trump, posted cryptic tweets during the 2024 cycle, including: 'Anything can be hacked.' Later, Musk stated: 'Without me, Trump would have lost the election.' Trump himself added to the speculation, telling supporters: 'He [Musk] knows those computers better than anybody. All those computers. Those vote-counting computers. And we ended up winning Pennsylvania like in a landslide.' The upcoming court case could become a pivotal moment in election security history. The lawsuit claims that a private company quietly changed voting machines in over 40% of U.S. counties—and no one knew until after the votes were counted. The implications are serious: Could future elections be altered without oversight? Should the EAC change how it certifies and monitors voting labs? Is the public being kept in the dark about the technology behind their vote? SMART Elections warns this isn't just about one race: 'If one underfunded watchdog group can dig up this much from a quiet New York suburb, what else is rotting in the shadows of this country's ballots?'


Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Is Trump's approval slipping after his recent feud with Elon Musk? Here's what a new poll reveals about rising backlash, party tensions, and Musk's third-party push
Trump approval rating drops to 47% after feud with Elon Musk over spending bill, new poll shows- President Donald Trump's approval rating has slipped to 47% following his recent public clash with Elon Musk over a proposed spending bill, according to a new Daily Mail/J.L. Partners poll conducted on June 6, 2025. The dip marks a 3-point decline from May, when his approval stood at 50%. The poll surveyed 1,006 registered voters and carries a margin of error of 3.1%. More Americans now disapprove of Trump's job performance, with 53% expressing disapproval compared to 47% who still approve. The fallout from the feud appears to be affecting both Trump and Musk in the eyes of the public—but not equally. Is Elon Musk losing public favor after his fallout with Trump? According to the poll, Elon Musk's popularity has taken a hit, with 56% of Americans now viewing him unfavorably, while only 34% see him in a positive light. A remaining 10% remain undecided about the Tesla and SpaceX founder. Despite the feud, a larger share of Americans still side with Trump in this standoff. The survey shows 31% support Trump in the ongoing feud, while just 23% side with Musk. However, nearly half—46%—are undecided, reflecting potential volatility in public opinion. How are Republicans, Democrats, and independents reacting? The partisan divide is clear in this conflict. Among Republicans, 59% back Trump while just 12% support Musk. Interestingly, 28% of Republicans remain unsure, signaling that even within his base, the feud may be causing some hesitation. Live Events Among Democrats, 35% now support Musk, compared to only 10% who support Trump. Yet, a majority—54%—say they're undecided, indicating neither figure has fully captured their loyalty. Independents also lean toward Trump but with less certainty: 26% support him, while 20% back Musk. Again, a majority of 54% are undecided, leaving room for both figures to gain or lose support. Does anyone support Elon Musk's third-party idea? On Thursday, Elon Musk hinted at forming a new political third-party, but interest appears minimal so far. Only 4% of voters say they'd support a Musk party. Meanwhile, 42% remain aligned with the Democratic Party, and 35% back Republicans. The idea gained some attention after hardcore Trump supporters called for Musk to be deported, but the public seems largely opposed to such rhetoric. Only 30% support deporting Musk, while 35% oppose it, and the rest remain neutral or unsure. What happened to Musk's DOGE initiative in the White House? Elon Musk's stint as a special advisor to President Trump ended in late May. His major role involved leading a cost-cutting initiative—referred to as the DOGE team, aimed at reducing government waste, fraud, and abuse. However, public sentiment around DOGE is increasingly skeptical. According to the poll, 41% view DOGE as a failure, compared to 33% who see it as a success. The remaining 25% are unsure, reflecting mixed perceptions about the initiative's impact. The divide is again political: 57% of Republicans believe DOGE was successful, while 60% of Democrats see it as a failed effort. Could this feud impact Trump's chances in the 2026 midterms? With his approval rating slipping and internal tensions growing, Trump may face growing challenges ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. Although he maintains strong support among Republicans, the overall 47% approval rating shows a narrowing base. Meanwhile, Musk's sharp decline in favorability may limit his influence outside tech circles. Whether Musk will follow through with a political party or whether Trump can bounce back from the drop in public sentiment remains to be seen. FAQs: Q1: What is Trump's latest approval rating after the Elon Musk feud? Trump's approval rating has dropped to 47% after the clash with Musk. Q2: How do voters view Elon Musk's third-party idea? Only 4% of voters support Musk starting a new political party.