Portfolio Adjustment and Repatriation of Foreign Cash Holdings: Responses to the 2018 US Corporate Tax Reform
This paper finds that the 2018 US Tax Cuts and Jobs Act triggered a significant short-term decline in FDI outflows to tax havens driven by reduced earnings reinvestment and balance-sheet adjustments among service-sector affiliates, while having minimal impact on real economic activities like employment and compensation.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
For decades, the United States operated under a tax system that treated money earned by American companies anywhere in the world as if it were earned at home. If a company kept its profits in a foreign bank account rather than bringing them back to the United States, it could often delay paying American taxes on that money. This rule created a powerful incentive for large corporations to park their earnings in countries with very low tax rates, known as tax havens. These jurisdictions, often small islands or specific financial centers, offered a place where companies could store vast amounts of cash without triggering a tax bill. In 2017, Congress passed a major law called the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which fundamentally changed this system. The new law lowered the overall tax rate for businesses and, crucially, offered a one-time, reduced tax rate for companies to bring their foreign cash back home. The big question for economists and policymakers was whether this change would cause companies to move their actual factories, offices, and workers back to the United States, or if it would simply result in a reshuffling of numbers on a balance sheet.
A team of researchers set out to answer this question by looking at the actual movement of money and people across borders. They analyzed data from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, tracking how American companies invested in 56 different countries across 16 different industries between 2011 and 2022. Their goal was to see what happened immediately after the new tax law took effect in 2018. They compared countries that were considered tax havens, such as Ireland, Luxembourg, and Bermuda, with countries that were not. By looking at the specific types of investments—money reinvested in foreign operations, new equity purchases, and loans between companies—they could distinguish between a company simply moving cash around and a company actually building new real-world capacity.
The researchers found a sharp and immediate reaction from American corporations, but it was almost entirely financial. In the year following the tax reform, the flow of new money into tax havens dropped significantly. This decline was not caused by a reduction in loans or the sale of shares, but specifically by a sudden stop in the reinvestment of earnings. Before the law changed, companies had been accumulating profits in these low-tax countries and leaving them there. The new law offered a chance to bring that money home at a lower cost, so companies did exactly that. They stopped adding new profits to their foreign accounts and instead distributed those earnings, effectively liquidating the cash they had been holding offshore. The data showed that this drop in reinvestment was massive, with flows to tax havens falling by billions of dollars in the short term.
However, the story changed when the researchers looked at what happened to real business activity. They examined employment numbers and the wages paid to workers in foreign countries owned by American companies. Despite the huge movement of cash, there was no corresponding drop in jobs or pay. The factories did not close, and the offices did not shrink. The companies that were most affected by the tax change were not the ones running manufacturing plants or selling physical goods; they were service-sector companies, particularly those that were not banks and did not hold other companies as subsidiaries. These entities often manage intellectual property, trademarks, and internal financing. The tax reform prompted them to adjust their financial portfolios, but it did not cause them to pull their actual operations out of those countries.
The study suggests that the tax reform achieved its goal of repatriating foreign cash, but it did not achieve a broader reallocation of economic activity. The companies responded to the one-time incentive by moving money, not by moving people or machines. The drop in investment flows was temporary; after the initial surge of bringing money home, the levels of investment began to bounce back in subsequent years. This indicates that the reform triggered a short-term financial adjustment rather than a permanent shift in where companies choose to do business. The findings highlight a distinction that is often overlooked in public debates about tax policy: changing the rules for how profits are taxed can successfully move cash, but it does not necessarily change where companies build their future. The real economy, with its workers and production, remained largely untouched by the financial maneuvering that took place in the tax havens.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.