Obama Seeks Tax Changes for U.S. Firms Overseas

[Hissyspit]

Source: Reuters

Obama seeks tax changes for U.S. firms overseas
Mon May 4, 2009 6:06am EDT

By Kim Dixon and Caren Bohan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama on Monday will propose changing provisions in the tax code that he says encourage U.S. companies to move jobs overseas, as part of a broader package aimed at saving $210 billion over 10 years.

U.S. officials said that in an announcement planned for 11:05 EDT (1505 GMT), Obama will seek to follow through on a campaign promise to change the tax treatment of American firms with overseas operations. That portion of his plan -- opposed by such firms as Pfizer Inc and Oracle Corp -- would raise more than $100 billion in revenue over the next decade.

In an echo of a line he used often on the campaign trail last year, Obama vowed in a February address to the U.S. Congress to make the tax code more fair by "finally ending the tax breaks for corporations that ship our jobs overseas."

Currently, U.S. firms are allowed to defer paying taxes on profits earned overseas if they plow those profits back into their foreign subsidiaries. Critics say those rules encourage businesses to bolster their foreign operations instead of creating jobs at home. But an array of firms signed onto a letter to congressional leaders in March opposing changes to the so-called deferral provision, saying they would make U.S. businesses less competitive. The letter was signed by 200 companies and trade associations, including Pfizer, Oracle, Microsoft Corp Johnson & Johnson and General Electric Co as well as the Business Roundtable and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN0334332620090504

[Jeep789]

1. Go Obama!

This may be the most important step he has taken yet.

[Owl]

2. Yes, yes, go Obama!

[groundloop]

3. Obama just shattered my dream

I'd always dreamed of being wealthy enough to have a secret Swiss bank account and not pay taxes.

[Vidar]

30. LOL

[Deja Q]

85. I dreamed about having wild sex with Miss California too.

Don't worry, the nightmare didn't last too long... I'm more likely to make it rich and then sleaze as much as possible because, like the execs, it's about ME ME ME and not US ALL US ALL US ALL (which happens to include ME ME ME, but THEY THEY THEY can't see THAT THAT THAT.)

:D

[Demeter]

4. We'll See If This Administration Follows Through

Gonna need to use some political capital and Administration muscle.

[Kittycat]

17. If it fails, it will be because of Congress & the Senate.

Not because of Obama.

[Skittles]

73. depends on how hard he fights for it

we will see how it all unfolds

[Cass]

5. Excellent news!

Let's hope the Dems in Congress back him up and vote for this legislation.

Any Dem who votes against this will be showing their true colors.

[Auggie]

6. I'm all for it, though pessimistic given corporate ownership of Congress

[Boxerfan]

7. Rope a dope...& the Pewbicans are taking a major sucker punch

Gawd he's had 'em so bad they don't even realize it...

Imagine the "debate" America gets to see played out on the talking heads...
"Republicans are fighting this bill because we believe the American public supports corporations!. By keeping thier proffits offshore & avoiding taxes we are preventing Obama from turning the country into a socialist nation!.

Yeah-the publics gonns swoon over that one.


I just love how he leads them to thier own demise by making them defend the indefenseable-Brilliant!

[louis-t]

57. Actually the main talking point will be...

"It'll make us less competitive." Watch for Fooo News to hammer that one home.

[Mari333]

75. Its already started

and you were right. they are saying they will be less competitive, the assholes.
everyone needs to send letters and contact their congresspersons a LOT..they need to know this MUST be implemented.

[goclark]

58. He is a master political Chess player

His moves are amazing and he knows how to set up the pieces so smoothly, they don't even know they are being played.

:bounce:

[Triana]

8. ...and the US Chamber of Commerce. The bully-bouncer for big business profit

cry me a river fatsos!

GOBAMA!

[mopinko]

15. a particularly insidious organization.

we had a clown that ran for alderman in my ward, which is full of old hippies, recent immigrants, and group homes. he kept saying we need a chamber of commerce. neither he nor anyone else understood what he was asking for. i spent a lot of time trying to get that through people's heads.

[Triana]

25. like poison ivy. n/t

[w4rma]

37. There needs to be a progressive version of the chamber of commerce.

Many people join it, not for politics, but to make connections. And then the leadership uses that money to help screw over small business owners and help the very wealthy with.

Where does a progressive in the business community go to connect with other business owners? How does one not join that despicable organization?

[Ghost Dog]

47. A sort of "Small Business Union", you mean?

... organised at each local level, then sending delegates, bottom-up to further 'con/federated' eg. state levels and on to the national level ... with overseas representations?

I'd like to see that. One way of representing the "go local, do your business locally" theme. And to other countries: Avoid the crooks: Do your international business with our local businesses.

Utopian, but why not?

Personally, I'd like to see any essential industry that absolutely needs to be big, such as Steel, say, or High Finance nationalised. edit: And if they don't need to be big they should be broken up.

[w4rma]

66. Yes. Exactly. A Small Business Union. Small businesses can use their own union. (nt)

[mopinko]

70. that would be a great idea.

you could have a credit union, maybe some insurance. plus the networking.
you could get it started on meetup. go.

[myrna minx]

42. The ads they ran against Al Franken were so incredibly despicable. It was stunning.

They are a nasty bunch.

[WriteDown]

9. This is good, BUT,,,

Its a half measure at best, He needs to also impose greater taxes on foreign firms that work in the US like Toyota.

[InfiniteThoughts]

12. not going to happen ...

that would be contested by these countries in the WTO as protectionism measures. I don't that will fly and rightly-so. Why should foreign companies pay taxes at a higher rate than domestic companies.

[Qutzupalotl]

61. Because they ship profits overseas.

I'm all for canceling NAFTA and getting out of WTO. They are job-suckers.

[Jim Sagle]

65. Because they're foreign and we're American.

Our government works for us, not for them. Got it, genius?

[imdjh]

29. Why would you want to hurt Toyota?

Toyota employs over 60,000 Americans the last I read. They make good cars. Their dealerships give good service at COMPETITIVE prices. I can get my oil changed on Sunday by well paid mechanics who have health insurance while I sit in a nice lounge with wi-fi. I have no complaints with Toyota.

[WriteDown]

45. Not paying union wages allows them to do that....

Either tax them or require that all autoworkers be UAW.

[imdjh]

49. Around here it's one of the better paying jobs.

I'm all for union if the employees want it, but when they are making double the average income per capita, it's hard to imagine that they feel like they are not doing well. On the other hand, I wouldn't be a salesman at the same place I was bragging about. They all seem to hate working there and turnover is high.

[Ghost Dog]

53. Adopt the German model: Workers' reps on the board,

participating in (and therefore understanding the ins and outs of) every top-level decision.

[muryan]

59. Unions fill the need of representing exploited workers

When workers are already making above market wages plus benefits, its hard to call them exploited. Half of the males in my family are UAW but it should be a choice, not mandatory.

[DatManFromNawlins]

78. How about no?

Not having the UAW down here is called a "competitive advantage." The workers get paid better than they probably deserve for the amount of skill it takes to do their jobs, they take the money to build up their communities, and send their kids to college instead of trade school.

Why the fuck would they give that up? And why should the government be taxing companies simply because they have found a cheaper place to employ US FUCKING CITIZENS? Repeat: you want the government to add a penalty tax to companies BECAUSE THEY HIRE US CITIZENS.

Now, let's get to the heart of the matter: you don't hate it that Toyota is building plants and running them with non-union labor. You hate it that Toyota is building plants in the South instead of building them in a Democratic stronghold. Boo-hoo for you.

You will NEVER turn the South blue as long as you sit on your high horses and plot against them. These factory workers are going to send their kids to college, some for maybe the first time ever in their families' history, and all you can do is bitch about them not being unionized. These kids are going to get educated, start businesses, become educated about the world around them, and be more open to progressive ideals.

You plot against my brother and my neighbor and you are my enemy, I don't give a crap how many times you vote (D) in elections.

[mzmolly]

68. If they're creating jobs here

I'm not sure we want to make that unappealing?

[harmonicon]

10. I would be interested to know how other countries handle this same situation

While I'm all for taxing the rich into the ground, I think it would be better to not isolate the US from the international community, to the point where such companies pull out of the US entirely.

[Baby Snooks]

11. How about just taxing them?

More and more of these corporations are moving their "headquarters" to post office boxes in other countries to avoid taxation altogether.

The head of Halliburton, for instance, now commutes to work each day. He lives in Houston and works in Dubai.

[Catshrink]

22. This was my first thought also.

These corporations have no loyalty to America or American workers -- it's all about the bottom line.

[Ghost Dog]

54. What about "Delaware Corporations", anyone?

... such as eg. Goldman Sachs.

[Xithras]

33. WTO treaty obligations

That would qualify as a tax on "trade" which is banned under the WTO. If Obama did that, the WTO would hit us with fines and you'd see prices spike almost overnight as the WTO ordered all member countries to apply punitive tarriffs. Imagine the cost of gas and imported food spiking by 50% or more overnight, and you'll start to see the problem.

Removing tax breaks penalizes these companies without running afoul of WTO rules.

[jazzjunkysue]

13. (Rubbing hands together, waiting for Pfizer stock to plummett....)

:popcorn:

[happygoluckytoyou]

14. BOUT TIME...GOBAMA.... level the GOP and the Playing Field at the same time

[Sgent]

16. What would stop

a firm from incorporating overseas and just having a US subsidiary?

[Javaman]

26. You mean like Haliburton setting up an "office" in the grand caymans and

running their corp out of Dubai?

[twitomy]

43. Yep, its a free country..

Nothing like the law of unintended consequences...My brother who does corp taxes says the CEO
of his company wondered why not just up and move altogether...

I think Obama needs to use the stick when necessary, but he also needs to use the carrot.

Wether we like it or not, we are in a global economy and the US should be doing all it can to encourage companies to come HERE instead of leaving here...

Here's an idea..

How about eliminating all corporate taxes on goods and services produced in the US, but tax revenue from good and services created overseas. Would that not encourage companies to STAY, and other foriegn companies to locate here?

[SOS]

48. The CEO is free to up and move altogether

Renounce US citizenship, move company and employees to the Cayman Islands and do business from there.
He can then live tax-free.

[whathehell]

60. We used to have something like this in the form of tariffs...You could

take your company overseas but when you tried to sell the goods back to Americans, those goods were heavily taxed -- As they should be.

Obama's got the right idea.

[Xithras]

46. Not a thing.

The upside is that existing resources of existing corporations are already chartered in the U.S., and transferring those resources to a newly incorporated overseas "parent" company would be registered as a "sale" of those resources and be subject to taxation. It's a hard conversion for a company to make once they already exist, and it's an expensive move for a brand-new company to make when it doesn't yet know how successful it will be.

[Ghost Dog]

55. Oh yes? And did that happen in Halliburton's case? n/t

[Xithras]

62. Yes, it did, but the impact on companies like Halliburton is much less.

A services company, by definition, doesn't sell a tangible product, they sell manpower and management. In their case, the transfer of the U.S. company to subsidiary status really just involved paperwork on a few buildings (which they did pay taxes on) and little else. The tax savings for them outweighed the minor one time tax hit.

It's a very different story for companies with multibillion dollar manufacturing plants and corporate office buildings across the nation. The "gains" involved in "selling" those properties to a foreign company could run into the hundreds of millions of dollars.

The other part of the equation is the percentage of offshore sales the company has. For companies based in the U.S. who mostly sell in the U.S., a move like this makes no sense at all (since the U.S. subsidiary would pay the same taxes as the original corporation). The move ONLY makes sense for companies that do MOST of their sales overseas, and who own relatively few tangible assets that would be subject to taxation.

[Ghost Dog]

63. Then such tax such be applied to intangible things like 'goodwill', 'trade name',

and indeed 'intellectual assets' equally involved in such transfers of service industries... at least on paper? If the Us Gov. wants to get tough, that is.

And, wouldn't some sort of tax on job cuts also be acceptable under WTO rules?

[Xithras]

69. A tax on job cuts wouldn't fly...

...unless you were taxing all job cuts equally, both domestic and off-shored, equally. Otherwise, the WTO rules against discriminatory taxes suppressing trade would kick in.

[Ghost Dog]

81. I don't see how taxing taxing domestic job cuts suppresses trade:

the trade is not in jobs. According to current market theory a 'slimming' company is a more efficient and therefore presumably more effective company, resulting in improved trading conditions. Job cuts on either side or both should on those terms be considered positive for trade, surely.

[AlbertCat]

18. saying they would make U.S. businesses less competitive

Uh...please explain how paying your taxes here at home makes one less competitive overseas. Besides, we here at home already buy foreign cars and run up to Canada for our meds, so.... explain how this hurts Americans, in America, y'know....the country that these Companies are supposed to be a part of. Surely there are other ways these huge corporations can be competitive other than fleecing American tax payers. Y'all are supposed to be so smart. Think of something else besides not paying your taxes. The rest of us have to.


And tax the churches and their businesses while you're at it Obama.

[joeglow3]

24. I covered some of it in post #23. nt

[lib2DaBone]

19. Yipee..It's about time. Go Obama..

:bounce:


(snip)
"But an array of firms signed onto a letter to congressional leaders in March opposing changes to the so-called deferral provision, saying they would make U.S. businesses less competitive"

----------------------------------------------------

Of course the Corporations are going to scream bloody murder. They have been screwing American workers for so long.. they thought it would go on forever.

And of course Faux News and Limbaugh will weigh in on how Ombam is ruining corporations.... blah... blah...blah...

[Zenlitened]

20. Nice! K&R

[LynneSin]

21. Obama may not have been perfect but this one scores a 10 in my book

and btw, he's about near perfection as I can find in any president!

[joeglow3]

23. This will most likely be revenue neutral

A few months ago, our VP asked me to look at the impact a number of the proposed tax changes would have (I work in the tax department). Since I do not work on international taxes (I do primarily Federal), I went to the international group to talk to them. For those who do not know, the provision Obama is talking about is the deferral of taxes on un-patriated income. Here is a quick summary of how it works:

If I manufacture a good in the US and sell it to China, I will most likely have a Chinese company set up that will be able to employ salespeople in China, familiar to their customs. I have to do what is called a transfer pricing study that is an outside study showing what I would have to sell this product for if my sub. In China were not related to me. This then tells me the revenue that the US company must recognize. The Chinese company then sells the product in China and the remaining revenue is taxed in China. The US company does not pay any taxes on the Chinese company’s profits until the money is sent back to the US. Thus, if the money is reinvested in the Chinese company, a company is able defer paying US taxes until said time it is sent back to the US
They raised a couple interesting points:
1. Is this the reason companies are shipping jobs overseas? Most likely it is due to rock bottom wages and absolutely NO environmental laws.
2. Most all other countries in the world have the same provision in their tax codes. Thus, there would be the risk that in the long term, companies would begin to move their headquarters overseas.
The belief of many international experts (per one person I was talking to) was that Obama would decrease the corporate tax rate as an offset to this. This would allow the companies to be in essentially the same competitive position they are currently in as it relates to the global market.

Thus, those companies with a higher percentage of their income coming from overseas would see their taxes go up, while those that do the majority of the business in US would see theirs go down.

Anyway, this is my 2 cents that I have learned about this.

[Triana]

27. thanks JoeGlow3

for explaining this in more detail!

[droidamus2]

28. Don't understand

In a lot of ways this just sounds like some kind of 'legal money laundering' system. Put it there, hide it there, report it over here. If you want to tax it find what cup it is under first. At some point the USA has to do what is good for the USA. Globalization that leads to a race to the bottom for wage earners, a race to the lowest taxes for Corporations, no national loyalty for corporations and the least environmental protects will in my opinion eventually collapse.

[joeglow3]

32. Think of it like a separate legal entity

Lets say I own a C Corporation and it makes $1,000,000. Assuming a 35% corporate tax rate, I would pay $350,000 in taxes, leaving $650,000. Now, IF I distribute that money to myself, I would pay $97,500 in taxes, as an individual ($650,000 x 15%). However, if I don't not distribute that income and instead invest it back into the company, I do not pay any taxes. Taxes are only paid when I either take a distibution or sell the company.

Same thing with this. The company pays taxes in China, but defers taxes in the US until it either distributes the money or sells the company. Also, keep in mind that the company gets a tax credit for the taxes paid to China, thereby preventing the income at Chinese PLUS US rates.

[madmom]

34. I think I understand what you are saying but, these companies can't be

investing all their profits back into the companies. How are their CEOs getting such obscene bonuses and such. They have secret bank accounts, where is that money coming from?

[droidamus2]

44. Okay

Who's in charge of oversight on this foreign 'businesses'. Can they set up PO box companies and funnel money into these bogus businesses so as to appear to be funneling money back into a foreign business. It just seems to me that with global companies with businesses in large numbers of countries it would be easy for a good accountant to show that all the profits were being reinvested while at the same time skimming off the top. As you might be able to tell I don't have a very good opinion of corporations. The only difference between them and something like the drug cartels is the 'legitimate' businesses find legal ways around the tax, regulatory and other business laws. Not not every corporation should be criticized but many should be.

[InfiniteThoughts]

35. great summary ...

i have a few points to ponder:

1. Taking the China-US example, there is a agreed transfer rate between China & US. Typically, China will have rules on transfer rate so that the organization doesn't declare spurious losses in China. Hence let's assume that a product is sold for $10 in China. It was manufactured in US for $2 and sold to the China facility by the US facility for $5. So, technically, the profit in China books is $5.

However reality is much complex that this. Reason - China might have strict corporate tax laws. So, what happens in reality is that US will sub-lease the product patent to a corporate in a tax haven, let's say Macau/Cayman Island for $2.5, thus earning a $0.5 profit in US. The Cayman Island company will then charge the China company $9.5, thus profiting $7. The China company will then sell to it's local market for $10, thus profiting $0.5. In summary, the profits stay in tax-havens rather than in countries like US or China

2. My $0.02 is that tax-breaks & offshoring of jobs are not related. Their relationship is at best a stretch. Reason - Low cost locations act as COST CENTERS retaining minimal federal defined profits and repatriate the profits to either Home HQs or tax-havens. For eg: When American Express has a call-center in India, the Indian operation is paid cost+20%OHs as defined by the transfer pricing mechanism of the Indian govt. The actual profit (or reduction in cost) is realized in US or some tax-haven.

3. Fleeing of companies away from US is a serious problem. however, US can create differentiation in benefits for US HQ-ed companies and non-US HQ-ed companies. For eg: Non-US HQ-ed companies cannot compete for govt projects at any level. I remember a case few years ago when Accenture won a $10 bn+ contract from Dept of Homeland Security. There was a hue & cry that Accenture wasn't HQ-ed in US. So, Obama admin can ensure that non-US HQ-ed companies cannot compete for state, federal or defense programs. That's a lot of money that the companies cannot wish away.

Sorry for the long post!

[Thickasabrick]

77. I work for a global manufacturing company and the products we manufacture

in other countries we sell in those countries. How would this affect my company? Would companies get to write off the taxes they pay on those sales to other countries? Seems like double taxation a little bit but I'm not very clear on this.

[Vidar]

31. A hopeful start.

[OhioChick]

36. About damn time. It's a start. n/t

[jeff30997]

38. Totally amazing !!!

Barely over 100 days in his Presidency and he accomplished so much ! 10 thumbs up!

[ChromeFoundry]

39. Good. We'll see if this pans out.

All of our so-called "green jobs" (that were supposed to be our safety net) are already being done in India and China.

[lsewpershad]

40. This is a no -brainer

This should have been done a long time ago. Of course the conglomerates would oppose this because it will cut into their profits. They must be reminded however that Obama was elected overwhelmingly to represent all the people and not only to protect the rich. About time. GOBAMA

[blm]

41. Kerry made this a key part of his platform in 04. So glad Obama is moving on this.

,

[kpete]

50. Obama announces plan to close tax loopholes

Source: Associated Press

Obama announces plan to close tax loopholes

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama vowed to "detect and pursue" American tax evaders Monday as he announced a plan to close tax loopholes and clamp down on overseas shelters.

The president said he wants to prevent U.S. companies from deferring tax payments by keeping profits in foreign countries rather than recording them at home. He also called for more transparency in bank accounts held by Americans in tax havens such as the Cayman Islands.

"If financial institutions won't cooperate with us, we will assume that they are sheltering money in tax havens and act accordingly," Obama said.

The president, who hammered on this issue during his long campaign for the White House, said at a White House event that his plan would generate $210 billion in new taxes over 10 years and "make it easier" for companies to create jobs at home. Over a decade, $210 billion would make a modest dent in a federal deficit expected to swell to $1.2 trillion in 2010.

Read more: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBAMA_TAXES?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

[phantom power]

51. Theoretically, the Republicans should be totally on board with this...

since they're always bitching about simplifying the tax code.

Oh wait, what did I just say?
:rofl:

[TheCoxwain]

52. This is how you implement the James Carville phisolosopy.

Obama is throwing the Repukes an anvil ....

[dbackjon]

56. Very good news - about time this was done.

[mvd]

64. Big K&R

Good change here!

[Mari333]

67. THANK YOU OBAMA

Woooooooooooo I have been waiting to hear this!!!! get the phone calls going to the CONGRESSCRITTERS..they have to approve it....dont let them slide!!

[Quantess]

71. Great news.

[Skittles]

72. FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT FOR THIS OBAMA

:thumbsup:

[pleah]

74. K&R!

[Thickasabrick]

76. This will never happen but what great Campaign Ad fodder for 2010....

"this senator voted against legislation that would put a halt to companies hiding assets overseas to avoid paying taxes"
I can just hear them now.

Either way - it's all good.

[leveymg]

79. If this ends the practice of "assets stripping", it will be a major change in global biz

Previously, multinational companies didn't even have to report moving their U.S. profits offshore:

leveymg (1000+ posts) Fri Nov-30-07 01:26 PM
Original message

Treasury Dept. Report: Foreign Companies Stripping U.S. Assets

* Bush IRS Helps Hedge Funds Strip U.S. Assets, Evade Taxes

* Wealthy Tax Exiles Hail IRS as It Generously Extends Deadline For Offshore Corporations to Report "Assets Stripping" Until After Bush-Cheney Leaves Office

Put this is the category of things only your tax attorney knows that might kill your job and cost middle-class Americans billions in additional taxes. In a little noticed IRS ruling on August 31st, the Bush Administration gave offshore companies doing business in the U.S. until December 14, 2008 to report assets moved overseas.

Read this another way: foreign-owned companies, and those that only pretend to be, now have a 13-month window of opportunity to move assets in the U.S. into offshore accounts and hedge funds, but they don’t have to tell anyone about it until after Bush-Cheney leaves Washington. That puts the burden of chasing down international tax cheats squarely on the incoming Democratic Administration and Congress, and shifts the tax burden away from global equity funds such as Carlyle Group and foreign-based companies, such as Dick Cheney’s Halliburton.

Thanks, Dubya, for making capital flight cheap and easy, and all you’re doing for America.

SNIP

[stlsaxman]

80. "He shoots... HE SCORES!!!!"

"yes yes yes yes yes"- :bounce:

[Joanne98]

82. Coca-Cola, Oracle, Intel Use Cayman Islands to Avoid U.S. Taxes

Source: Bloomberg


May 5 (Bloomberg) -- Seagate Technology, the world’s largest maker of hard disk drives, is headquartered in Scotts Valley, California. Yet the documents it files with the Securities and Exchange Commission list its address on South Church Street in George Town, the capital of the Cayman Islands.

Seagate is just one of the companies that may be affected by President Barack Obama’s proposal yesterday to raise about $190 billion over the next decade by outlawing techniques used by U.S. companies in offshore locations to avoid paying taxes. While the U.S. corporate tax rate is 35 percent, Seagate paid an effective tax rate of 5 percent in the year ended June 2008, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

The Caymans have no corporate income tax for companies incorporated there. The Caribbean island has helped scores of U.S. companies, including Coca-Cola Co. and Oracle Corp., to legally avoid billions in tax payments to the U.S. government, says U.S. Senator Byron Dorgan.

“Our Main Street businesses are working hard during this economic downturn to pay their fair share of taxes,” says Dorgan, 66, a North Dakota Democrat. “Some of the country’s largest corporations are using these loopholes to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. It is my hope that the Congress will quickly take action to pull the plug on tax breaks that subsidize runaway plants that move U.S. jobs overseas.”

Largest Companies

One quarter of the 100 largest contractors with the U.S. federal government, including Altria Group Inc. and Tyco International Ltd have had subsidiaries in the Caymans, according to a study by the Government Accountability Office. At least 10 of the 30 companies listed in the Dow Jones Industrial Average have had units with addresses in the Caymans.

As of November 2007, 378 U.S. publicly traded companies had at least one significant subsidiary in the Cayman Islands, a GAO study found. Altria, Tyco, Coke and Oracle still have subsidiaries in the Caymans, according to their most recent SEC filings. Seagate lists its headquarters in Grand Cayman.


Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aWoQkk2WY1oc&refer=home

[Captain Hilts]

83. Thanks for this. nt

[OhioChick]

84. I was watching some program on television last night

That stated that out of the 100 most powerful U.S. corporations, 83 of them use the Cayman Islands. :wtf: is wrong with that picture?