Home  |  Newsletter | Feedback | Advertise - Online  | Help

Google
Web dqindia.com
Search by issue  | Sitemap

• Visit pcquest.com to know all about the business benefits of IT infrastructure outsourcing • Ad : Play and Plug ERP by IBM

 
Home > Columns

Is it Good for America, Mr President?
An American company can make profit overseas by doing any business, not just by offshoring
Shyamanuja Das
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Print Comment Email DiggDigg DeliciousDel.icio.us RedittReddit TwitterTwitter

President Barack Obamas statement on May 4 about his proposed changes in US tax rules has once again brought his stance on the issue to limelight. The question is: what is the issue? He said he intends to change the tax rule that says you should pay lower taxes if you create a job in Bangalore, India than you create one in Buffalo, New York.

Expectedly, the Indian IT industry as well as all the outsourcing community in general (the buyers of such services as well as the huge community of sourcing advisers, brokers, tax and legal advisers) have reacted to it, though some are more direct in their criticism and some are being optimistic on the interpretation of what he meant.

Let us, address the question at different levels.

First and foremost among the questions to ask is: what was Obama trying to address? In that speech, it was clearly tax maximization and not job creation. The rule in question was the tax referral rule. American tax rules allows US-headquartered multinational companies to deduct expenses for overseas operations, but defer paying income tax on the profits from those operations. That gets paid if and when companies bring that money back to the US. The companies sometimes use that as a loophole to reinvest in businesses in one geography directly from the profits of another geography and do not get that money back to the US, thus saving taxes on those profit. President Obama wants to change that. Even before we get into the actual debate of whether it is enforceable, whether it will make US companies less competitive, and whether it is some form of trade barriersthe real issueswe must make one thing clear.

An American company can make profit overseas by doing any business, not just by offshoring. So, the first thing to clarify is that this is not about offshoring. So, why has it been so widely interpreted that way? It is obviously because of the Bangalore reference.

But why did he refer to Bangalore? Because it sounds nicer to a large section of people. Job creation is a populist issue, tax collection or any fiscal measures are not. And Mr Obama, at the end of the day, is a politician, in a democracy.

The second question to ask is: will it impact those companies that do offshoring? To an extent, yes. Based on our understanding, if the policy change is implemented, it will impact US-headquartered companies that have captive operations in India such as Ford, Delphi, etc, as well as US-headquartered outsourcing service providers (IBM, HP, CSC, et al). Today, the profit earned in Indiatheir cost-plus margincan be retained in India and even be moved to other destinations for investment, without taking it back to the US, and thus avoiding US taxes. If the rules are changed, companies will be forced to take it back to the US and pay taxes on that.

So, will it impact offshoring per se? Not really, as few do offshoring primarily for saving taxes. Even without those extra profits, offshoring is still hugely profitable. Add to that the availability of talent. And these small changes may not affect offshoring much.

The next question to ask is: will it make US companies uncompetitive. I feel it is only the service providers based out of US that may become a little uncompetitive. The enterprises that offshore may just change from a captive model to an outsourcing model and it will no longer be considered profit in India. While the expenditure will remain, it would be on buying a service. This may actually result in more companies looking at outsourcing rather than running a captive.

The big question, however, is: Is it good for America? Anything that creates artificial barriers is never good in the long run. There is no logic to show that it will save jobs. That reduces the question to: whether he can collect some more taxes in the short run at least? Even if he can, it is still a worthwhile tactical move in these bad times. But that is a question I am not qualified to comment on.

But before that, a question remains: can he actually get it done? My guess is as good as yours.

Shyamanuja Das
The author is Editor of Dataquest. shyamanujad@cybermedia.co.in

Page(s)   1  

Print Comment Email DiggDigg DeliciousDel.icio.us RedittReddit TwitterTwitter



ZTE:Leading CDMA Technology


Extraordinary Networks:Freedom of Choice






Collective Intelligence @ Work

Analysts: Guiding Stars or Shepherds?

How's the 'pitch' looking?

What's your Everest?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Magazine Subscription | Sitemap | Contact Us | About Us | Advertising Print | Mediakit Print | jobs@cybermedia

Other CyberMedia web sites
  [Voice&Data]  [CIOL]  [PCQuest]  [Living Digital]  [IDC India]
  [CIOL Shop]  [DQ Channels]  [DQweek]  [CyberMedia Events]
  [Cybermedia Digital]  [CyberMedia India]   [Cyber Astro
  [Global Services Media ]  [BioSpectrum]  [BioSpectrum Asia]