How trade deficits reduce their nation’s annual GDPs and numbers of jobs.

[Toddsterpatriot]

There is no reason for foreign labor to qualify US firms for a tax break;

IBM, for example, hires foreign labor in India to manage a data center in India.

IBM cannot deduct those wages from their US taxes.

You're complaining about something that does not occur.

In other words, You are claiming US firms overseas are not eligible to deduct the labor cost of foreign labor they employ, in foreign States?

Us firms pay US taxes on US earnings. They can't deduct foreign labor from US earnings.

Why would they not take that relatively standard deduction for labor costs?

Foreign employees aren't deductible from US earnings.

Are labor costs deductible for firms?

Yup.

 

[Supposn]

ibm in india - Google Search

IBM India Private Limited is the Indian subsidiary of IBM. It has facilities in Bengaluru, Ahmedabad, Delhi, Kolkata, Mumbai, Chennai, Pune, Gurgaon, Noida, Chandigarh, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Visakhapatnam and Hyderabad. Wikipedia

CEO: Vanitha Narayanan (Jan 2013–)

Motto: "On Demand Business", "What makes you special?"

Number of employees: ~ 150,000

Headquarters: Bengaluru, India

Founded: 1992

Parent organization: IBM

Daniel Palos, if you question what others are posting, why don’t you take the trouble to google it?

Just as foreign enterprises find it more convenient and feasible to operate in the USA with USA associate or subsidiary enterprises, firms headquartered in the USA generally do the same when they function within nations beyond our borders.

The IRS has no jurisdiction over those subsidiary firms and other than their activities within the USA. The IRS cannot demand to see those foreign enterprises account books except to any extent that they're doing business within the USA.

Respectfully, Supposn
/////////////////////////////////////

Sunday at 12:02 AM

DanielPalos, you refer to expatriated enterprises as if that’s consequential to this discussion; it is not of significance.

An expatriated enterprise is not a USA enterprise. They’re a separate entity headquarted beyond USA borders and not subject to federal jurisdiction.
I suppose it’s conceivable to do business in the USA and not be a USA enterprise, but there are difficulties to doing so.
Foreign enterprises doing business in the USA generally operate through an associated USA enterprise or they establish their own USA subsidiary enterprise. That’s the enterprise that’s under federal jurisdiction.

To the extent that any entity operates or earns income in the USA, regardless of nationality, their operations, incomes or revenues may, and generally are subject to federal jurisdiction.

Respectfully, Supposn
//////////////////////////////////////

Thursday at 5:35 PM

Daniel Palos, as I explained, I have doubts of destination based taxing in the manner proposed would be enforceable. If the IRS cannot enforce them, the proposal’s of no worth.

Expatriate enterprises legally move their headquarters beyond federal jurisdiction. They may, and I suppose usually do keep a USA subsidiary corporation here or have some arrangement with a USA associated enterprise. As ToddsterPatrio’s 1:10 PM post implied, they do so to legally reduce their federal tax exposures; additionally, they may also illegally reduce their taxes.

Respectfully, Supposn
////////////////////////////////////

 

[danielpalos]

Your point is irrelevant since Firms have an incentive to provide documentation to support their tax deduction.

 

[Supposn]

Daniel Palos, possibly you’ve never had other than straight, “plain vanilla” circumstances to document or explain when filling out bureaucratic forms or answering their inquiries?

When you referred to a “relatively standard deduction for labor costs”, I assumed that you were referring to what percentage or amount of declared expenditure would not “raise IRS eyebrows” and lead them to inquire further and deeper into your tax filings. It’s not rare that a taxpayer has excellent documentation to support false deduction items or less adequate documentation to support truthful items.

Tax professional advisement services are often complex and expensive (for both the taxpayer and the government). When there’s enough money involved, their cost to the taxpayers are fully justified. Many taxpayers and enterprises paid dearly due to lesser capable advisors.

I repeat, I would support “destination based” income taxes, (which is what you’re advocating), if a creditable U.S. Treasury Department or other IRS civil service executive would testify to the U.S. congress that the draft of what they’re considering is reasonably enforceable.
I would expect but not be satisfied with just the word of an elected or politically appointed federal official.

I’m not a tax professional. My admittingly limited experience and general knowledge in these matters lead me to believe that the IRS would find “destination based” income taxes very expensive and difficult to enforce. Such comparatively unenforceable laws and regulations are contra-productive. They undermine our government and our entire society. The “noble experiment” of prohibition had devastating effects upon our nation that were far beyond the costs only to our governments’ budgets.

Your posts seem to be ‘telling” of your personal naivety with bureaucracy and bureaucrats.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[danielpalos]

There is no, "destination", it is about, national origin. Only US labor should qualify US firms for a US tax preference on labor costs.

 

[Supposn]

There is no, "destination", it is about, national origin. Only US labor should qualify US firms for a US tax preference on labor costs.

Daniel Palos, you continue ‘HARPING” upon an item that may or may not currently be a legal reducer of corporate income taxes.

IF the item’s legally deductible:
The item is scarcely, or rarely, or never an item within an enterprise’s tax returns because there are too many other better reasons for an enterprise to handle such matters through their subsidiary foreign corporations or associated enterprises.
In such cases the costs for foreign labor would be imbedded within the enterprises gross expenditures for foreign goods or service products and to the extent that they ARE tax deductible, (if there’s no reason to doubt the expenditures authenticity), those items will not be challenged by the IRS.

In aggregate, cases such as this do not materially affect their enterprises’ tax liabilities or our nation’s federal tax revenues. I refuse any further to discuss tax deductibility of labor performed by foreigners within foreign jurisdictions. You’re “beating a dead horse”.

Respectfully Supposn

 

[danielpalos]

There is no, "destination", it is about, national origin. Only US labor should qualify US firms for a US tax preference on labor costs.

Daniel Palos, you continue ‘HARPING” upon an item that may or may not currently be a legal reducer of corporate income taxes.

IF the item’s legally deductible:
The item is scarcely, or rarely, or never an item within an enterprise’s tax returns because there are too many other better reasons for an enterprise to handle such matters through their subsidiary foreign corporations or associated enterprises.
In such cases the costs for foreign labor would be imbedded within the enterprises gross expenditures for foreign goods or service products and to the extent that they ARE tax deductible, (if there’s no reason to doubt the expenditures authenticity), those items will not be challenged by the IRS.

In aggregate, cases such as this do not materially affect their enterprises’ tax liabilities or our nation’s federal tax revenues. I refuse any further to discuss tax deductibility of labor performed by foreigners within foreign jurisdictions. You’re “beating a dead horse”.

Respectfully Supposn

Not sure why you believe what you do. Jobs moving overseas is the issue that can be addressed, with that type of socialism, on a national basis.