Why tech shrugged off the new 15% corporate minimum tax

The corporate minimum tax law passed, but the battle of some key provisions is just getting started.

Why tech shrugged off the new 15% corporate minimum tax

The long-awaited corporate tax reform should in theory be a big deal, but markets hardly flinched after it became clear the Inflation Reduction Act would pass.

Photo illustration: Christopher T. Fong/Protocol; Unsplash

When President Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act into law on Wednesday, he put in place a 15% minimum tax rate for all large U.S. corporations.

The long-awaited corporate tax reform should in theory be a big deal, but markets hardly flinched after it became clear the legislation would pass. And tech companies — which pulled out all the stops to hinder Sen. Amy Klobuchar’s antitrust bill — hardly resisted the measure, even if their interest groups dutifully issued statements of opposition. Tim Cook didn’t swing by D.C., there were no mass fly-ins and no casting calls went out for the part of Joe America in stilted political attack ads.

So why didn't the tech sector fight harder against a law that Democrats say hits them where it hurts? Mitchell Kane, a tax professor at New York University Law School, gave Protocol three possible explanations: First, the deal came together too quickly for corporations to react. Second, the incremental tax cost could be little to nothing. And third, corporations may have preferred the 15% plan to something worse.

The deal did indeed come together quickly, as Sens. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema decided at the last minute to support a bill that many had already written off as dead. This timing played in corporations’ favor in some ways, since it forced progressives to give up on more ambitious plans to raise the corporate tax rate to 28%.

It’s also true that many tech companies will feel no impact from the new minimum. An analysis from the Joint Committee on Taxation found that only around 30% of the Fortune 500 will be impacted by the new minimum tax, and those companies are concentrated in industries such as manufacturing. Meta, Microsoft and Apple all paid more than 15% cash effective tax rates last year, according to a Washington Post analysis. Overall, the new minimum is expected to raise corporate tax revenue by less than 5% within the next decade.

Companies make two calculations under the new minimum tax system. The first is the standard taxable income calculation that allows for all the existing deductions. The second calculation, which sets the new minimum, starts with the financial statement income — what a company reports to the SEC and investors — and allows for adjustments including research and development costs, accelerated depreciation and climate investments. If 15% of the second calculation isn’t larger than the original tax calculation, then corporations must pay a top-up tax to ensure they’re meeting the minimum threshold.

Even tech companies currently paying tax rates below 15% could be in the clear. The allowances have the potential to give considerable offsets to tech companies, especially for R&D. Companies such as Nvidia and Intel both paid estimated cash effective tax rates below 15% in recent years, but their businesses also require exceptionally high R&D costs. Those costs can still be deducted under the new plan.

R&D deductions are particularly beneficial for companies since the benefits last a long time and the resulting intellectual property can often be transferred offshore to avoid U.S. taxes. It is precisely this upside that many critics say is unfair: To put it simply, the U.S. tax policy allows companies to deduct R&D expenses and also later to shield much of the subsequent revenue.

Nixing the R&D deduction was never under consideration, according to Reuven S. Avi-Yonah, a law professor at the University of Michigan who advised Sen. Elizabeth Warren on the Real Corporate Profits Tax Act introduced last year.

“It’s the international part that I find interesting,” Avi-Yonah told Protocol. “What we have here is essentially a tax on their global profits at 15% because for book [accounting] purposes you include all their foreign operations in one big pile with their domestic ones.”

The biggest open question for tech companies is whether stock-based compensation will be allowed as an offset for the minimum tax calculation. In 2021, for example, Amazon paid out $12.8 billion in stock-based compensation, allowing the company to reap $2.7 billion in tax benefits.

“The biggest difference for many tech companies between their taxable income and their book income is stock option gain,” Peter Barnes, counsel to D.C. law firm Caplin & Drysdale, told Protocol. The stock option gain can be deducted from taxable income, Barnes explained, even as it doesn’t count against book income. Corporations have long argued that the government should support the deduction because it encourages good corporate behavior, aligning the interests of employees and owners.

The Inflation Reduction Act contains no mention of stock-based compensation, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it won’t be included. The IRS and Department of Treasury’s Office of Tax Policy will likely spend several years translating the legislation written by Congress into the tax code.

“They changed the law significantly in 2017, and it took the IRS three [or] four years to come out with the detailed regulations on most of these things,” Avi-Yonah told Protocol. “For this one, I think it will take at least as long because, conceptually, it’s a really different kind of tax.”

This lengthy process gives tech companies ample opportunity to make their voices heard. There will likely even be several rounds of solicitation periods in which the IRS will ask for public comment, present drafts and then solicit more comments. By the time this process gets into full swing, companies may very well be dealing with a Republican-led House and Senate, in turn creating an easier path for winning additional concessions. At the end of the day, though, the new rules only set the minimum — the old rules still matter.


This carbon capture startup wants to clean up the worst polluters

The founder and CEO of point-source carbon capture company Carbon Clean discusses what the startup has learned, the future of carbon capture technology, as well as the role of companies like his in battling the climate crisis.

Carbon Clean CEO Aniruddha Sharma told Protocol that fossil fuels are necessary, at least in the near term, to lift the living standards of those who don’t have access to cars and electricity.

Photo: Carbon Clean

Carbon capture and storage has taken on increasing importance as companies with stubborn emissions look for new ways to meet their net zero goals. For hard-to-abate industries like cement and steel production, it’s one of the few options that exist to help them get there.

Yet it’s proven incredibly challenging to scale the technology, which captures carbon pollution at the source. U.K.-based company Carbon Clean is leading the charge to bring down costs. This year, it raised a $150 million series C round, which the startup said is the largest-ever funding round for a point-source carbon capture company.

Keep Reading Show less
Michelle Ma

Michelle Ma (@himichellema) is a reporter at Protocol covering climate. Previously, she was a news editor of live journalism and special coverage for The Wall Street Journal. Prior to that, she worked as a staff writer at Wirecutter. She can be reached at mma@protocol.com.

Sponsored Content

Great products are built on strong patents

Experts say robust intellectual property protection is essential to ensure the long-term R&D required to innovate and maintain America's technology leadership.

Every great tech product that you rely on each day, from the smartphone in your pocket to your music streaming service and navigational system in the car, shares one important thing: part of its innovative design is protected by intellectual property (IP) laws.

From 5G to artificial intelligence, IP protection offers a powerful incentive for researchers to create ground-breaking products, and governmental leaders say its protection is an essential part of maintaining US technology leadership. To quote Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo: "intellectual property protection is vital for American innovation and entrepreneurship.”

Keep Reading Show less
James Daly
James Daly has a deep knowledge of creating brand voice identity, including understanding various audiences and targeting messaging accordingly. He enjoys commissioning, editing, writing, and business development, particularly in launching new ventures and building passionate audiences. Daly has led teams large and small to multiple awards and quantifiable success through a strategy built on teamwork, passion, fact-checking, intelligence, analytics, and audience growth while meeting budget goals and production deadlines in fast-paced environments. Daly is the Editorial Director of 2030 Media and a contributor at Wired.

Why companies cut staff after raising millions

Are tech firms blowing millions in funding just weeks after getting it? Experts say it's more complicated than that.

Bolt, Trade Republic, HomeLight, and Stord all drew attention from funding announcements that happened just weeks or days before layoffs.

Photo: Pulp Photography/Getty Images

Fintech startup Bolt was one of the first tech companies to slash jobs, cutting 250 employees, or a third of its staff, in May. For some workers, the pain of layoffs was a shock not only because they were the first, but also because the cuts came just four months after Bolt had announced a $355 million series E funding round and achieved a peak valuation of $11 billion.

“Bolt employees were blind sided because the CEO was saying just weeks ago how everything is fine,” an anonymous user wrote on the message board Blind. “It has been an extremely rough day for 1/3 of Bolt employees,” another user posted. “Sadly, I was one of them who was let go after getting a pay-raise just a couple of weeks ago.”

Keep Reading Show less
Nat Rubio-Licht

Nat Rubio-Licht is a Los Angeles-based news writer at Protocol. They graduated from Syracuse University with a degree in newspaper and online journalism in May 2020. Prior to joining the team, they worked at the Los Angeles Business Journal as a technology and aerospace reporter.


The fight to define the carbon offset market's future

The world’s largest carbon offset issuer is fighting a voluntary effort to standardize the industry. And the fate of the climate could hang in the balance.

It has become increasingly clear that scaling the credit market will first require clear standards and transparency.

Kevin Frayer/Getty Images

There’s a major fight brewing over what kind of standards will govern the carbon offset market.

A group of independent experts looking to clean up the market’s checkered record and the biggest carbon credit issuer on the voluntary market is trying to influence efforts to define what counts as a quality credit. The outcome could make or break an industry increasingly central to tech companies meeting their net zero goals.

Keep Reading Show less
Lisa Martine Jenkins

Lisa Martine Jenkins is a senior reporter at Protocol covering climate. Lisa previously wrote for Morning Consult, Chemical Watch and the Associated Press. Lisa is currently based in Brooklyn, and is originally from the Bay Area. Find her on Twitter ( @l_m_j_) or reach out via email (ljenkins@protocol.com).


White House AI Bill of Rights lacks specific guidance for AI rules

The document unveiled today by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy is long on tech guidance, but short on restrictions for AI.

While the document provides extensive suggestions for how to incorporate AI rights in technical design, it does not include any recommendations for restrictions on the use of controversial forms of AI.

Photo: Ana Lanza/Unsplash

It was a year in the making, but people eagerly anticipating the White House Bill of Rights for AI will have to continue waiting for concrete recommendations for future AI policy or restrictions.

Instead, the document unveiled today by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy is legally non-binding and intended to be used as a handbook and a “guide for society” that could someday inform government AI legislation or regulations.

Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights features a list of five guidelines for protecting people in relation to AI use:

Keep Reading Show less
Kate Kaye

Kate Kaye is an award-winning multimedia reporter digging deep and telling print, digital and audio stories. She covers AI and data for Protocol. Her reporting on AI and tech ethics issues has been published in OneZero, Fast Company, MIT Technology Review, CityLab, Ad Age and Digiday and heard on NPR. Kate is the creator of RedTailMedia.org and is the author of "Campaign '08: A Turning Point for Digital Media," a book about how the 2008 presidential campaigns used digital media and data.

Latest Stories