International Business Law Advisor : International Business Lawyer & Attorney : Santiago Cueto Law Firm : Global Business Litigation & Finance Commentary

And Why Relocating to Switzerland May be the Best Corporate Strategy

There’s nothing more annoying than finding hidden fees buried deep inside obtuse and mangled contract language. The only thing worse than finding hidden fees is learning about these punishing provisions from someone else—after you’ve signed the agreement. 

If you thought hidden fees provisions were the exclusive craft of credit card and cable companies, I’ve got bad news. The biggest offender just might be the drafters of the proposed federal budget making its way through Congress.

International Tax Increase Buried in Proposed Bill

Thanks to the keen eyes of the Wall Street Journal’s Matthew Slaughter, U.S. based Multinationals have a chance to lobby against what may be the largest hidden fee--an obscure tax provision--ever levied against them. Matthew writes in the article “How to Destroy American Jobs:”

Deep in the president's budget released Monday—in Table S-8 on page 161—appear a set of proposals headed "Reform U.S. International Tax System." If these proposals are enacted, U.S.-based multinational firms will face $122.2 billion in tax increases over the next decade. This is a natural follow-up to President Obama's sweeping plan announced last May entitled "Leveling the Playing Field: Curbing Tax Havens and Removing Tax Incentives for Shifting Jobs Overseas."

A proposed $122 Billion international tax burden? Placed on pg. 161? On a chart? Apart from the obvious lesson to carefully scrutinize the details of everything, and I do mean e.v.e.r.y.t.h.i.n.g., that comes across your desk, the substantive point of the article is absolutely correct—the proposed tax hike on U.S. based MNCs will bankrupt those that earn a significant amount of their revenue overseas.

Proposed Tax Will Force US-based MNCs to Relocate Overseas

As one commenter noted, it is the fiduciary responsibility of the board of a company to protect the investors in that company, and to provide them with the maximum safe return on their investment. In the new tax and regulatory environment the U.S. is in the process of imposing, any company that earns a large percentage of their revenues outside of the US simply cannot remain U.S. based.

Under the proposed tax hike on U.S. based MNCs, what incentive is there for Coca-Cola to remain a US based multinational? Why not move the corporation to Switzerland, where the favorable corporate tax structure has long been lured the operations of large MNCs such as Johnson & Johnson and Burger King Holdings Inc.

Switzerland Offers Optimal Tax Environment for MNCs

The timing could not be better for companies looking to relocate their operations overseas-- and to Switzerland in particular.  The Wall Street Journal recently reported on an emerging trend among Swiss cantons to compete for the business of MNCs by lowering their corporate tax rates. In the article Switzerland’s States Compete on Tax Cuts, the cantons of Zug, Schaffhausen (just north of Zurich) and Lucerne have all cut their tax rates in a heated battle to lure more MNCs.

For U.S.-based MNC’s looking to dodge the proposed international tax bullet, Switzerland provides the most favorable corporate tax environment in which to relocate U.S. based operations.

Conclusion

According to KPMG’s Corporate and Indirect Tax Survey 2009, the current effective U.S. Corporate tax rate is 40%, while in Switzerland the effective tax rate is 21.2%--and considerably less in some cantons. Under the proposed bill, the tax gulf will only grow wider.

It will be interesting to see what happens with the proposed tax. Until then, MNCs should take a look at Switzerland.

Trend to Watch: If the Proposed International Tax is Enacted Look for an Exodus of U.S.-based MNCs to Switzerland and to Other Favorable Tax Climates.

       --Santiago

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

on my visit to Switzerland with my wife and daughter this past April, there was a palpable sense of uneasiness in the unusually damp alpine air. As we made our way down Zurich’s Bahnhofstrasse---the main artery running through the city’s financial district, I could not help but notice the sheer number of jaw-clenched bankers passing us by. Given the current regulatory climate, the bankers' uneasiness is understandable. As Mark Scott of Business Week’s Europe Insight blog explained in his post U.S. May Target Other Swiss Banks in Tax Probe, Swiss bankers are coming under intense scrutiny concerning the portfolios of their  wealthy U.S. clients:

Swiss banks also are becoming more reticent towards U.S. clients. Several bankers, who declined to give their names due to the sensitivity of the topic, say the extra oversight involved in managing American money -- coupled with the bad publicity associated with the UBS case -- has taken the shine off providing wealth management services to U.S. high-earners. Despite the sizeable American market, many would prefer to tap the growing wealth from Asian economies, instead of dealing with the added pressure associated with U.S. clients.”

Although I touched on this topic in an earlier post, it remains to be seen whether Swiss banks will continue to limit or even eliminate private wealth services to U.S. clients.  Due to the ongoing saga between the IRS and UBS, many Swiss banks have chosen to shut out U.S. clients entirely.  At present, it's mostly the smaller Swiss banks that have announced their intent to limit their services to non-U.S. clients. Wegelin & Co., Switzerland's oldest bank,  for example, has instructed wealthy clients to sell their U.S. assets, or switch banks, because of concerns that new rules will burden investors with tax obligations in the U.S. At least two of the major Swiss banks -- Julius Baer (JBHGF) and Credit Suisse Group (CS) -- have yet to publicly announced whether or not they will change their procedures for handling U.S. clients. 

As this banking saga continues to unfold, it will be up to Switzerland to draw the line on banking reform. Swiss foreign minister MichelineCalmy-Rey put it succinctly when she told Reuters, "For us this is not primarily about UBS. It is about Switzerland's sovereignty. We want our laws to be respected. It is also about our financial center and about jobs. A solution in the UBS case must fall within Swiss laws."

 Trend to Watch: Look for increased tension between Switzerland and other nations as France and Germany step up their efforts to further erode Swiss bank secrecy laws.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On August 3, 2009, UBS reached a deal with U.S. authorities to turn over the names of 5,000 U.S clients holding secret Swiss bank accounts. Although this amounts to a mere 10 percent of the names Washington was after, the controversy surrounding Switzerland and UBS will continue to swell. The pressure on Switzerland and UBS to stop shielding the wealthy from paying their dues will likely increase as U.S. authorities step up their efforts to stem the tide of illicit capital flight entering the offshore banking world.

Swiss officials have downplayed the deal, asserting that the settlement plan would do nothing to impart Swiss banking secrecy.  From this Washington Post article:

“The proposed resolution to a U.S. government demand for information about thousands of Americans suspected of using Swiss accounts to evade taxes would leave Swiss bank secrecy intact, a top Swiss official has said.”

Notwithstanding this assertion, Swiss banks will be subject to much greater scrutiny now – at least as far as their Swiss operations go. Many Swiss institutions are setting up operations in Singapore, which is growing quickly as a rival to Switzerland as a banking haven. By cutting personal income taxes to 20% and tightening account privacy, Singapore is quickly becoming a go-to haven for Asia’s growing number of millionaires.

In advising a client on the placement of funds offshore, Singapore may hold more sway in comparison to Switzerland. The deal reached between UBS and the U.S. all but eviscerates the competitive advantage long held by Swiss banks. If it is no longer possible for U.S. citizens  around the world privately to stash cash in Switzerland, then why not bank at the local branch of Bank of America?

There are a number of reason why Switzerland is still a viable option as a banking safe haven.  Apart from the controversy threatening its secrecy laws, Switzerland still has its advantages in safeguarding funds against such uncertainties as coup de main, coup d’etat, revolution and hyperinflation. Moreover, a host of multinational corporations have recently moved their European headquarters to the Swiss power centers of Zurich and Geneva. The resultant surge in international activity is sure to buoy Swiss banks until the UBS controversy subsides.

Trend to Watch: While Singapore Banks may bode well in the short term, the Swiss banking industry will remain a strong contender in the pageant of offshore banking havens.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link