Recent from talks
Nothing was collected or created yet.
Corporate tax in the United States
View on Wikipedia
| This article is part of a series on |
| Taxation in the United States |
|---|
|
|


Corporate tax is imposed in the United States at the federal, most state, and some local levels on the income of entities treated for tax purposes as corporations. Since January 1, 2018, the nominal federal corporate tax rate in the United States is a flat 21% following the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. State and local taxes and rules vary by jurisdiction, though many are based on federal concepts and definitions. Taxable income may differ from book income both as to timing of income and tax deductions and as to what is taxable. The corporate alternative minimum tax (AMT) was also eliminated by the 2017 reform, but some states have alternative taxes. Like individuals, corporations must file tax returns every year. They must make quarterly estimated tax payments. Groups of corporations controlled by the same owners may file a consolidated return.
Some corporate transactions are not taxable. These include most formations and some types of mergers, acquisitions, and liquidations. Shareholders of a corporation are taxed on dividends distributed by the corporation. Corporations may be subject to foreign income taxes, and may be granted a foreign tax credit for such taxes. Shareholders of most corporations are not taxed directly on corporate income, but must pay tax on dividends paid by the corporation. However, shareholders of S corporations and mutual funds are taxed currently on corporate income, and do not pay tax on dividends.
Almost half of all private employment in the United States is within businesses that do not pay a corporate tax, but which rather pass the business income through to the owners’ individual income taxes.[1]
Overview
[edit]
Corporate income tax is imposed at the federal level[2] on all entities treated as corporations (see Entity classification below), and by 47 states and the District of Columbia. Certain localities also impose corporate income tax. Corporate income tax is imposed on all domestic corporations and on foreign corporations having income or activities within the jurisdiction. For federal purposes, an entity treated as a corporation and organized under the laws of any state is a domestic corporation.[3] For state purposes, entities organized in that state are treated as domestic, and entities organized outside that state are treated as foreign.[4]
Some types of corporations (S corporations, mutual funds, etc.) are not taxed at the corporate level, and their shareholders are taxed on the corporation's income as it is recognized.[5] Corporations which are not S Corporations are known as C corporations.
The US tax reform legislation enacted on December 22, 2017 (Public Law (P.L.) 115–97) changed the law of 'worldwide' to 'territorial' taxation in the US. The changed law includes the imposing of tax only on income derived within its borders, irrespective of the residence of the taxpayer. this system aimed at eliminating the need for complicated rules such as the controlled foreign corporation (CFC or Subpart F) rules and the passive foreign investment company (PFIC) rules that subject foreign earnings to current U.S. taxation in certain situations. Hence, P.L. (115-97) permanently reduced the 35% CIT rate on resident corporations to a flat 21% rate for tax years beginning after December 31, 2017.[6] Corporate income tax is based on net taxable income as defined under federal or state law. Generally, taxable income for a corporation is gross income (business and possibly non-business receipts less cost of goods sold) less allowable tax deductions. Certain income, and some corporations, are subject to a tax exemption. Also, tax deductions for interest and certain other expenses paid to related parties are subject to limitations.
Corporations may choose their tax year. Generally, a tax year must be 12 months or 52/53 weeks long. The tax year need not conform to the financial reporting year, and need not coincide with the calendar year, provided books are kept for the selected tax year.[7] Corporations may change their tax year, which may require Internal Revenue Service consent.[8] Most state income taxes are determined on the same tax year as the federal tax year.
| Table of corporate income taxes as a percentage of GDP for the US and OECD countries, 2008[9][10] | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Country | Tax/GDP | Country | Tax/GDP |
| Norway | 12.4 | Switzerland | 3.3 |
| Australia | 5.9 | Netherlands | 3.2 |
| Luxembourg | 5.1 | Slovakia | 3.1 |
| New Zealand | 4.4 | Sweden | 3.0 |
| Czechia | 4.2 | France | 2.9 |
| South Korea | 4.2 | Ireland | 2.8 |
| Japan | 3.9 | Spain | 2.8 |
| Italy | 3.7 | Poland | 2.7 |
| Portugal | 3.7 | Hungary | 2.6 |
| Britain | 3.6 | Austria | 2.5 |
| Finland | 3.5 | Greece | 2.5 |
| Israel | 3.5 | Slovenia | 2.5 |
| OECD avg. | 3.5 | United States | 2.0 |
| Belgium | 3.4 | Germany | 1.9 |
| Canada | 3.4 | Iceland | 1.9 |
| Denmark | 3.3 | Turkey | 1.8 |
Groups of companies are permitted to file single returns for the members of a controlled group or unitary group, known as consolidated returns, at the federal level, and are allowed or required to do so by certain states. The consolidated return reports the members' combined taxable incomes and computes a combined tax. Where related parties do not file a consolidated return in a jurisdiction, they are subject to transfer pricing rules. Under these rules, tax authorities may adjust prices charged between related parties.

Shareholders of corporations are taxed separately upon the distribution of corporate earnings and profits as a dividend. Tax rates on dividends are at present lower than on ordinary income for both corporate and individual shareholders. To ensure that shareholders pay tax on dividends, two withholding tax provisions may apply: withholding tax on foreign shareholders, and "backup withholding" on certain domestic shareholders.
Corporations must file tax returns in all U.S. jurisdictions imposing an income tax. Such returns are a self-assessment of tax. Corporate income tax is payable in advance installments, or estimated payments, at the federal level and for many states.
Corporations may be subject to withholding tax obligations upon making certain varieties of payments to others, including wages and distributions treated as dividends. These obligations are generally not the tax of the corporation, but the system may impose penalties on the corporation or its officers or employees for failing to withhold and pay over such taxes.
In the United States, the company number used by the tax administration is known as the Employer Identification Number (EIN).
State and local income taxes
[edit]
Nearly all of the states and some localities impose a tax on corporation income. The rules for determining this tax vary widely from state to state. Many of the states compute taxable income with reference to federal taxable income, with specific modifications. The states do not allow a tax deduction for income taxes, whether federal or state. Further, most states deny tax exemption for interest income that is tax exempt at the federal level. CIT rates range from 1% to 12%, varying for every state. The most common federal taxable income is based on apportionment formulae. State and municipal taxes are deductible expenses for federal income tax purposes.[12]
Most states tax domestic and foreign corporations on taxable income derived from business activities apportioned to the state on a formulary basis. Many states apply a "throw back" concept to tax domestic corporations on income not taxed by other states. Tax treaties do not apply to state taxes.
Under the U.S. Constitution, states are prohibited from taxing the income of a resident of another state unless the connection with the taxing state reaches a certain level (called "nexus").[13] Most states do not tax non-business income of out-of-state corporations. Since the tax must be fairly apportioned, states and localities compute how much income earned by out-of-state corporations (including those in foreign countries) is taxable in the state by applying formulary apportionment to the total business taxable income of the corporation. Many states use a formula based on ratios of property, payroll, and sales within the state compared to those items outside the state.
In June 2025, the Puerto Rican Senate approved House Bill 505, which imposes a 4% tax on new individual beneficiaries under Law 60-2019, known as the Puerto Rican Incentives Code. The bill is part of a broader review of the tax incentive system, amid a public debate on the law's real benefits for the local economy.[14]
History
[edit]


The first federal income tax was enacted in 1861, and expired in 1872, amid constitutional challenges. A corporate income tax was enacted in 1894, but a key aspect of it was shortly held unconstitutional. In 1909, Congress enacted an excise tax on corporations based on income. After ratification of the Sixteenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution, this became the corporate provisions of the federal income tax.[15] Amendments to various provisions affecting corporations have been in most or all revenue acts since. Corporate tax provisions are incorporated in Title 26 of the United States Code, known as the Internal Revenue Code. The present rate of tax on corporate income was adopted in the Tax Reform Act of 1986.[16]
In 2010, corporate tax revenue constituted about 9% of all federal revenues or 1.3% of GDP.[17] The corporate income tax raised $230.2 billion in fiscal 2019 which accounted for 6.6 percent of total federal revenue and had seen a change from 9 percent in 2017. [18]
In 2021 President Biden proposed that Congress raise the corporate rate from 21% to 28%.[19]
Entity classification
[edit]Business entities may elect to be treated as corporations taxed at the entity and member levels or as "flow through" entities taxed only at the member level. However, entities organized as corporations under U.S. state laws and certain foreign entities are treated, per se, as corporations, with no optional election. The Internal Revenue Service issued the so-called "check-the-box" regulations in 1997 under which entities may make such choice by filing Form 8832.[20] Absent such election, default classifications for domestic and foreign business entities, combined with voluntary entity elections to opt out of the default classifications (except in the case of "per se corporations" (as defined below)).[21] If an entity not treated as a corporation has more than one equity owner and at least one equity owner does not have limited liability (e.g., a general partner), it will be classified as a partnership (i.e., a pass-through), and if the entity has a single equity owner and the single owner does not have limited liability protection, it will be treated as a disregarded entity (i.e., a pass-through).
Some entities treated as corporations may make other elections that enable corporate income to be taxed only at the shareholder level, and not at the corporate level. Such entities are treated similarly to partnerships. The income of the entity is not taxed at the corporate level, and the members must pay tax on their share of the entity's income. These include:
- S Corporations, all of whose shareholders must be U.S. citizens or resident individuals; other restrictions apply. The election requires the consent of all shareholders. If a corporation is not an S corporation from its formation, special rules apply to the taxation of income earned (or gains accrued) before the election.
- Regulated investment companies (RICs), commonly referred to as mutual funds.
- Real estate investment trusts (REITs).
Taxable income
[edit]
Determinations of what is taxable and at what rate are made at the federal level based on U.S. tax law. Many but not all states incorporate federal law principles in their tax laws to some extent. Federal taxable income equals gross income[22] (gross receipts and other income less cost of goods sold) less tax deductions.[23] Gross income of a corporation and business deductions are determined in much the same manner as for individuals.[24] All income of a corporation is subject to the same federal tax rate. However, corporations may reduce other federal taxable income by a net capital loss[25] and certain deductions are more limited.[26] Certain deductions are available only to corporations. These include deductions for dividends received[27] and amortization of organization expenses.[28] Some states tax business income of a corporation differently than nonbusiness income.[29]
Principles for recognizing income and deductions may differ from financial accounting principles. Key areas of difference include differences in the timing of income or deduction, tax exemption for certain income, and disallowance or limitation of certain tax deductions.[30] IRS rules require that these differences be disclosed in considerable detail for non-small corporations on Schedule M-3[31] to Form 1120.[32]
Corporate tax rates
[edit]Federal tax rates
[edit]The top corporate tax rate in the U.S. fell from a high of 53% in 1942 to a maximum of 38% in 1993, which remained in effect until 2018, although corporations in the top bracket were taxed at a rate of 35% between 1993 and 2017.[33]
After the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, on December 20, 2017, the corporate tax rate changed to a flat 21%, starting January 1, 2018.[34]
| Taxable income ($) | Tax rate[35] |
|---|---|
| $1 and beyond | 21% |
State income tax rates
[edit]| State corporate income tax rates in the United States in 2010[36] | ||
|---|---|---|
| State | Tax rate(s) | Tax bracket(s) |
| Alabama[a] | 6.5% | $0 |
| Alaska | 1% 2% |
$0
$10K |
| Arizona | 6.968% | $0 |
| Arkansas[b] | 1% 2% |
$0
$3K |
| California[c] | 8.84% | $0 |
| Colorado | 4.63% | $0 |
| Connecticut | 7.5% | $0 |
| Delaware | 8.7% | $0 |
| Florida[c] | 5.5% | $0 |
| Georgia | 6% | $0 |
| Hawaii | 4.4% 5.4% |
$0
$25K |
| Idaho | 7.6% | $0 |
| Illinois | 7.3% | $0 |
| Indiana | 8.5% | $0 |
| Iowa | 6% 8% 10% 12% |
$0
$25K |
| Kansas[37] | 3% | $0 |
| Kentucky | 4% 5% 6% |
$0
$50K |
| Louisiana | 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% |
$0
$25K |
| Maine[c] | 3.5% 7.93% 8.33% 8.93% |
$0
$25K |
| Maryland | 8.25% | $0 |
| Massachusetts | 8.8% | $0 |
| Michigan[d][e][c] | 4.95% | $0 |
| Minnesota[c] | 9.8% | $0 |
| Mississippi | 3% 4% 5% |
$0
$5K |
| Missouri[f] | 6.25% | $0 |
| Montana[g] | 6.75% | $0 |
| Nebraska | 5.58% 7.81% |
$0
$100k |
| Nevada | None | None |
| New Hampshire[h] | 8.5% | $0 |
| New Jersey[i][c] | 9% | $0 |
| New Mexico | 4.8% 6.4% 7.6% |
$0
$500K |
| New York[a][e][c][b] | 7.1% | $0 |
| North Carolina | 6.9% | $0 |
| North Dakota[g] (j) | 2.1% 5.3% 6.4% |
$0
$25K |
| Ohio[j][e] | 0.26% | $0 |
| Oklahoma | 6% | $0 |
| Oregon[k] | 6.6% 7.9% |
$0
$250K |
| Pennsylvania[e][c] | 9.99% | $0 |
| Rhode Island | 9% | $0 |
| South Carolina | 5% | $0 |
| South Dakota | None | None |
| Tennessee | 6.5% | $0 |
| Texas[l] | Franchise Tax rate | Franchise Tax rate |
| Utah[c] | 5% | $0 |
| Vermont | 6% 7% 8.5% |
$0
$10K |
| Virginia | 6% | $0 |
| Washington[c] | None | None |
| West Virginia | 8.5% | $0 |
| Wisconsin | 7.9% | 0 |
| Wyoming | None | None |
| District of Columbia | 9.975% | $0 |
|
Notes: The rates above are for regular corporate taxes based on income (including those called franchise taxes) and exclude the effect of alternative taxes and minimum taxes. Most states have a minimum income or franchise tax. The above rates generally apply to entities treated as corporations other than S Corporations and financial institutions, which may be subject to different rates of tax. Tax rates are before credits and reductions for corporations operating in certain parts of the state.
| ||
The adjacent table lists the tax rates on corporate income applied by each state, but not by local governments within states. Because state and local taxes are deductible expenses for federal income tax purposes, the effective tax rate in each state is not a simple addition of federal and state tax rates.
Although a state may not levy a corporate income tax, they may impose other taxes that are similar. For example, Washington state does not have an income tax but levies a B&O (business and occupation tax) which is arguably a larger burden because the B&O tax is calculated as a percentage of revenue rather than a percentage of net income, like the corporate income tax. This means even loss-making enterprises are required to pay the tax.
Tax credits
[edit]Corporations, like other businesses, may be eligible for various tax credits which reduce federal, state or local income tax.[38] The largest of these by dollar volume is the federal foreign tax credit.[39][40] This credit is allowed to all taxpayers for income taxes paid to foreign countries. The credit is limited to that part of federal income tax before other credits generated by foreign source taxable income. The credit is intended to mitigate taxation of the same income to the same taxpayer by two or more countries, and has been a feature of the U.S. system since 1918. Other credits include credits for certain wage payments, credits for investments in certain types of assets including certain motor vehicles, credits for use of alternative fuels and off-highway vehicle use, natural resource related credits, and others. See, e.g., the Research & Experimentation Tax Credit.
Tax deferral
[edit]
Deferral is one of the main features of the worldwide tax system that allows U.S. multinational companies to delay paying taxes on foreign profits. Under U.S. tax law, companies are not required to pay U.S. tax on their foreign subsidiaries’ profits for many years, even indefinitely until the earnings are returned to U.S. Therefore, it was one of the main reasons that U.S. corporations paid low taxes, even though the corporate tax rate in the U.S. was one of the highest rates (35%) in the world. Although, since January 1, 2018, the corporate tax rate has been changed to a flat 21%.
Deferral is beneficial for U.S. companies to raise the cost of capital relatively to their foreign-based competitors. Their foreign subsidiaries can reinvest their earnings without incurring additional tax that allows them to grow faster. It is also valuable to U.S. corporations with global operations, especially for corporations with income in low-tax countries. Some of the largest and most profitable U.S. corporations pay exceedingly low tax rates[41] through their use of subsidiaries in so-called tax haven countries.[42] Eighty-three of the United States's 100 biggest public companies have subsidiaries in countries that are listed as tax havens or financial privacy jurisdictions, according to the Government Accountability Office.[43][44]
| United States companies with deferred foreign cash balances that are greater than $5 billion, 2012[45] | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Company ($ Billions) |
Total Cash |
Foreign Cash |
Foreign Cash % Total Cash |
| Apple | 110.2 | 74.0 | 67% |
| Microsoft | 59.5 | 50.0 | 89% |
| General Electric | 83.7 | >41.9 | >50% |
| Cisco | 46.7 | 41.7 | 89% |
| 49.3 | 25.7 | 48% | |
| Oracle | 29.7 | 25.1 | 84% |
| Johnson & Johnson | 24.5 | 24.5 | 100% |
| Pfizer | 24.0 | ~19.2 | ~80% |
| Amgen | 19.4 | 16.6 | 82% |
| Qualcomm | 26.6 | 16.5 | 62% |
| Coca-Cola | 15.8 | >13.9 | >88% |
| Dell | 13.9 | ~11.8 | ~85% |
| Merck | 19.5 | >9.2 | >47.2% |
| Medtronic | 8.9 | 8.3 | 93% |
| Hewlett-Packard | 8.1 | ~8.1 | ~100% |
| eBay | 8.0 | 7.0 | 88% |
| Wal-Mart | 6.6 | 5.6 | 85% |
However, tax deferral encourages U.S. companies to make job-creating investments offshore even if similar investments in the United States can be more profitable, absent tax considerations. Furthermore, companies try to use accounting techniques to record profits offshore by any way, even if they keep actual investment and jobs in the United States. This explains why U.S. corporations report their largest profits in low-tax countries like the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Bermuda, though clearly that is not where most real economic activity occurs.[44][dead link]
Interest deduction limitations
[edit]A tax deduction is allowed at the federal, state and local levels for interest expense incurred by a corporation in carrying out its business activities. Where such interest is paid to related parties, such deduction may be limited.[46] The classification of instruments as debt on which interest is deductible or as equity with respect to which distributions are not deductible is highly complex and based on court-developed law. The courts have considered 26 factors in deciding whether an instrument is debt or equity, and no single factor predominates.[47]
Federal tax rules also limit the deduction of interest expense paid by corporations to foreign shareholders based on a complex calculation designed to limit the deduction to 50% of cash flow.[48] Some states have other limitations on related party payments of interest and royalties.
| Largest tax deductions, credits, and deferrals for corporations 2005–2009[49] |
Total amount (2005–2009) (billions of dollars) |
|---|---|
| Depreciation of equipment in excess of alternative depreciation system | 71.3 |
| Exclusion of interest on public purpose state and local government debt | 38.3 |
| Inventory property sales source rule exception | 30.9 |
| Expensing of research and experimental expenditures | 28.5 |
| Deferral of active income of controlled foreign corporations | 25.8 |
| Reduced rates for first $10,000,000 of corporate taxable income | 23.7 |
| Deduction for income attributable to domestic production activities | 19.8 |
| Tax credit for low-income housing | 17.5 |
| Exclusion of investment income on life insurance and annuity contracts | 12.8 |
| Tax credit for qualified research expenditures | 10.7 |
Corporate tax avoidance and corruption
[edit]Corporate tax avoidance refers to the use of legal means to reduce the income tax payable by a firm. One of the many possible ways to take advantage of this method is by claiming as many credits and deductions as possible.[50]
An empirical study shows that state-level corruption and corporate tax avoidance in the United States are positively related. According to the average effect of an increase in the number of corporate corruption convictions, it is observed that state-level corruption reduces Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) tax expense.[51]
The main occurrence of corruption and corporate tax avoidance was in states that had the lowest level of litigation risk despite their ranking in social capital, money laundering and corporate governance. Hence, strengthening law enforcement would definitely control the level of corruption caused by tax avoidance. Corruption is distinct from earnings management predictions, disclosure of accounting restatements as proof of fraudulent accounting and tax accruals quality. Corruption metrics show that firms with their headquarters in a state with a high level of corruption are more likely to participate in tax evasion.[52]
According to research on culture and tax evasion, corruption can be caused by increased organizational, financial and legal complexity and the same factors can influence a firm's chance of engaging in corporate tax avoidance.[53]
Other corporate events
[edit]U.S. rules provide that certain corporate events are not taxable to corporations or shareholders. Significant restrictions and special rules often apply. The rules related to such transactions are quite complex, and exist primarily at the federal level. Many of the states follow federal tax treatment for such events.
Formation
[edit]The formation of a corporation by controlling corporate or non-corporate shareholder(s) is generally a nontaxable event.[54] Generally, in tax free formations the tax attributes of assets and liabilities are transferred to the new corporation along with such assets and liabilities.
Example: John and Mary are United States residents who operate a business. They decide to incorporate for business reasons. They transfer assets of the business to Newco, a newly formed Delaware corporation of which they are the sole shareholders, subject to accrued liabilities of the business, solely in exchange for common shares of Newco. This transfer should not generally cause gain or loss recognition for John, Mary, or Newco.[55] Newco assumes John and Mary's tax basis in the assets it acquires.[56] If on the other hand Newco also assumes a bank loan in excess of the basis of the assets transferred less the accrued liabilities, John and Mary will recognize taxable gain for such excess.[57]
Acquisitions
[edit]Corporations may merge or acquire other corporations in a manner treated as nontaxable to either of the corporations and/or to their shareholders.[58] Generally, significant restrictions apply if tax free treatment is to be obtained. For example, Bigco acquires all of the shares of Smallco from Smallco shareholders in exchange solely for Bigco shares. This acquisition is not taxable to Smallco or its shareholders under U.S. tax law if certain requirements are met,[59] even if Smallco is then liquidated into or merged with Bigco.[60]
Reorganizations
[edit]In addition, corporations may change key aspects of their legal identity, capitalization, or structure in a tax free manner. Examples of reorganizations that may be tax free include mergers, liquidations of subsidiaries, share for share exchanges, exchanges of shares for assets, changes in form or place of organization, and recapitalizations.[61]
Advance tax planning might mitigate tax risks resulting from a business reorganization or potentially enhance tax savings.[62]
Distribution of earnings
[edit]

Stock buyback
Dividends
Shareholders of corporations are subject to corporate or individual income tax when corporate earnings are distributed.[63] Such distribution of earnings is generally referred to as a dividend.
Dividends received by other corporations may be taxed at reduced rates, or exempt from taxation, if the dividends received deduction applies. Dividends received by individuals (if the dividend is a "qualified dividend") are taxed at reduced rates.[64] Exceptions to shareholder taxation apply to certain nonroutine distributions, including distributions in liquidation of an 80% subsidiary[65] or in complete termination of a shareholder's interest.[66]
If a corporation makes a distribution in a non-cash form, it must pay tax on any gain in value of the property distributed.[67]
The United States does not generally require withholding tax on the payment of dividends to shareholders. However, withholding tax is required if the shareholder is not a U.S. citizen or resident or U.S. corporation, or in some other circumstances (see Tax withholding in the United States).
Earnings and profits
[edit]U.S. corporations are permitted to distribute amounts in excess of earnings under the laws of most states under which they may be organized. A distribution by a corporation to shareholders is treated as a dividend to the extent of earnings and profits (E&P), a tax concept similar to retained earnings.[68] E&P is current taxable income, with significant adjustments, plus prior E&P reduced by distributions of E&P. Adjustments include depreciation differences under MACRS, add-back of most tax exempt income, and deduction of many non-deductible expenses (e.g., 50% of meals and entertainment).[69] Corporate distributions in excess of E&P are generally treated as a return of capital to the shareholders.[70]
Liquidation
[edit]The liquidation of a corporation is generally treated as an exchange of a capital asset under the Internal Revenue Code. If a shareholder bought stock for $300 and receives $500 worth of property from a corporation in a liquidation, that shareholder would recognize a capital gain of $200. An exception is when a parent corporation liquidates a subsidiary, which is tax-free so long as the parent owns more than 80% of the subsidiary. There are certain anti-abuse rules to avoid the engineering of losses in corporate liquidations.[71]
Foreign corporation branches
[edit]The United States taxes foreign (i.e., non-U.S.) corporations differently than domestic corporations.[72] Foreign corporations generally are taxed only on business income when the income is effectively connected with the conduct of a U.S. trade or business (i.e., in a branch). This tax is imposed at the same rate as the tax on business income of a resident corporation.[73]
The U.S. also imposes a branch profits tax on foreign corporations with a U.S. branch, to mimic the dividend withholding tax which would be payable if the business was conducted in a U.S. subsidiary corporation and profits were remitted to the foreign parent as dividends. The branch profits tax is imposed at the time profits are remitted or deemed remitted outside the U.S.[74]
In addition, foreign corporations are subject to withholding tax at 30% on dividends, interest, royalties, and certain other income. Tax treaties may reduce or eliminate this tax. This tax applies to a "dividend equivalent amount," which is the corporation's effectively connected earnings and profits for the year, less investments the corporation makes in its U.S. assets (money and adjusted bases of property connected with the conduct of a U.S. trade or business). The tax is imposed even if there is no distribution.
Consolidated returns
[edit]Corporations 80% or more owned by a common parent corporation may file a consolidated return for federal and some state income taxes.[75] These returns include all income, deductions, and credits of all members of the controlled group, generally expressed without intercompany eliminations. Some states allow or require a combined or consolidated return for U.S. members of a "unitary" group under common control and in related businesses. Certain transactions between group members may not be recognized until the occurrence of events for other members. For example, if Company A sells goods to sister Company B, the profit on the sale is deferred until Company B uses or sells the goods. All members of a consolidated group must use the same tax year.
Transfer pricing
[edit]The principles and procedures of pricing transactions within and between firms under shared ownership or control is referred to as transfer pricing. Transactions between a corporation and related parties are subject to potential adjustment by tax authorities.[76] These adjustments may be applied to both U.S. and foreign related parties, and to individuals, corporations, partnerships, estates, and trusts.
The U.S. has a set of rules and regulations in place to protect the tax base by preventing income from being moved among related parties due to improper pricing of party transactions. It also aims to ensure that goods and services provided by connected firms are transferred at arm's length and priced according to market circumstances, allowing earning to be reflected in the appropriate tax jurisdiction.[77]
Transfer pricing in the U.S. is governed by section 482 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) and applies when two or more organizations are owned or managed by the same interests. Section 482 applies to all transactions between related parties and commonly controlled parties, regardless of taxpayer intent, according to regulatory guidance. To avoid tax evasion or to clearly reflect their income, the IRS may change the income, deductions, credits, or allowances of frequently managed taxpayers under Section 482 of the Code.[78]
Alternative taxes
[edit]The United States federal Alternative Minimum Tax was eliminated in 2018.
Corporations may also be subject to additional taxes in certain circumstances. These include taxes on excess accumulated undistributed earnings and personal holding companies[79] and restrictions on graduated rates for personal service corporations.[80][needs update]
Some states, such as New Jersey, impose alternative taxes based on measures other than taxable income. Among such measures are gross income, pipeline revenues, gross receipts, and various asset or capital measures. In addition, some states impose a tax on capital of corporations or on shares issued and outstanding. The U. S. state of Michigan previously taxed businesses on an alternative base that did not allow compensation of employees as a tax deduction and allowed full deduction of the cost of production assets upon acquisition.
Tax returns
[edit]
Corporations subject to U.S. tax must file federal and state income tax returns.[82] Different tax returns are required at the federal and some state levels for different types of corporations or corporations engaged in specialized businesses. The United States has 13 variations on the basic Form 1120[32] for S corporations, insurance companies, Domestic International Sales Corporations, foreign corporations, and other entities. The structure of the forms and the imbedded schedules vary by type of form.
United States federal corporate tax returns require both computation of taxable income from components thereof and reconciliation of taxable income to financial statement income. Corporations with assets exceeding $10 million must complete a detailed 3 page reconciliation on Schedule M-3[31] indicating which differences are permanent (i.e., do not reverse, such as disallowed expenses or tax exempt interest) and which are temporary (e.g., differences in when income or expense is recognized for book and tax purposes).
Some state corporate tax returns have significant imbedded or attached schedules related to features of the state's tax system that differ from the federal system.[83]
Preparation of non-simple corporate tax returns can be time-consuming. For example, the U.S. Internal Revenue Service states that the average time needed to complete Form 1120-S, for privately held companies electing flow through status, is over 56 hours, not including recordkeeping time.[84]
Federal corporate tax returns for most types of corporations are due by the 15th day of the third month following the tax year (March 15 for calendar year).[85] State corporate tax return due dates vary, but most are due either on the same date or one month after the federal due date. Extensions of time to file are routinely granted.[86]
Penalties may be imposed at the federal and state levels for late filing or non-filing of corporate income tax returns.[87] In addition, other substantial penalties may apply with respect to failures related to returns and tax return computations.[88] Intentional failure to file or intentional filing of incorrect returns may result in criminal penalties to those involved.[89]
See also
[edit]References
[edit]- ^ Dyrda, Sebastian; Pugsley, Benjamin (2024). "The Rise of Pass-Throughs: an Empirical Investigation". The Economic Journal. 135 (665): 387–403. doi:10.1093/ej/ueae062. ISSN 0013-0133.
- ^ Subtitle A of Title 26 of the United States Code, in particular 26 U.S.C. § 11, § 881, and § 882. For a thorough overview of federal income taxation of corporations, see Internal Revenue Service Publication 542, Corporations. See also Willis|Hoffman chapters 17-20, Pratt & Kulsrud chapters 19–21, Fox chapter 30 (each fully cited under Further reading). For purely corporate tax matters, the Bittker & Eustice treatise cited fully under Treatises is authoritative and has been cited by the Supreme Court.
- ^ 26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(4). Note that a sham entity may be ignored. See Pratt & Kulsrud 2005 p. 19-4.
- ^ See, e.g., New York State Publication 20, Tax Guide for Business, page 8.
- ^ For 2006, the Internal Revenue Service reported that approximately 6 million corporate returns were filed, of which more than 4 million were S corporations. See 2006 Statistics on Income, Corporation Income Tax Returns.
- ^ "tax reports"
- ^ 26 U.S.C. § 441. Also see IRS Publication 538 Accounting Methods and Periods.
- ^ 26 U.S.C. § 442.
- ^ Bartlett, Bruce (May 31, 2011). "Are Taxes in the U.S. High or Low?". New York Times. Retrieved September 19, 2012.
- ^ OECD. "Revenue Statistics - OECD countries: Comparative tables". stats.oecd.org.
- ^ "Treasury Conference on Business Taxation and Global Competitiveness" (PDF). US Treasury. July 23, 2007. p. 42.
- ^ "worldwide tax"(5th june 2020)
- ^ The Supreme Court enunciated four tests for a state tax in Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady. Under that case, the out-of-state taxpayer must have a substantial connection (nexus) with the state, the tax must not discriminate against interstate commerce, the tax must be fairly apportioned, and there must be a fair relationship of the tax to services provided.
- ^ "Senado da paso a impuesto de 4% a nuevos beneficiarios de la Ley 60". El Vocero. June 26, 2025. Retrieved June 26, 2025.
- ^ Bittker & Eustice section 1.01, Pratt & Hulsrud 2005 p.1-4, Willis|Hoffman p. 1-2 and 1-3.
- ^ For a more complete history, see Seidman's Legislative History of Income Tax Laws, 1938, reprinted 2003 as ISBN 1-58477-336-7.
- ^ David Kocieniewski (May 2, 2011), "U.S. Business Has High Tax Rates but Pays Less" The New York Times
- ^ Tax Policy Center(5th June 2020)
- ^ Garrett Watson and William McBride, "Evaluating Proposals to Increase the Corporate Tax Rate and Levy a Minimum Tax on Corporate Book Income," FISCAL FACT (Tax Foundation, No. 751 Feb. 2021)
- ^ https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f8832.pdf [bare URL PDF]
- ^ 26 CFR 301.7701-2 Archived June 12, 2011, at the Wayback Machine, 301.7701-3 Archived June 12, 2011, at the Wayback Machine, Bittker & Eustice chapter 2, and Fox chapter 31.
- ^ 26 USC 61.
- ^ 26 USC 63.
- ^ Willis|Hoffman 2009, p. 17-8 and -9.
- ^ "26 U.S. Code § 1211 - Limitation on capital losses". LII / Legal Information Institute.
- ^ For example, charitable contributions of a corporation are limited to 10% of taxable income under 26 USC 170(b)(2). For a comparison of how individuals and corporations are taxed, see Willis|Hoffman 2009 p. 17–36, 37.
- ^ 26 USC 243 and 26 USC 246, Bittker & Eustice section 5.05.
- ^ 26 USC 248, Bittker & Eustice section 5.06.
- ^ See, e.g., New York, supra, which bases taxable income on federal taxable income, with minor modification, but separately taxes 'income from subsidiary capital.'
- ^ Willis|Hoffman 2009 p. 4–5 et seq, Pratt & Kulsrud p. 5–13 et seq.
- ^ a b https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1120sm3.pdf [bare URL PDF]
- ^ a b https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1120.pdf [bare URL PDF]
- ^ "Historical U.S. Federal Corporate Income Tax Rates & Brackets, 1909-2020". The Tax Foundation. August 24, 2021.
- ^ Bryan, Bob (December 14, 2017). "Republicans have a final deal on their tax bill — here's what's in it". Business Insider. Retrieved February 5, 2018.
- ^ Form 1120 Instructions for 2016 page 17
- ^ "The Tax Foundation - State Corporate Income Tax Rates, 2000-2011". Archived from the original on May 1, 2011. Retrieved November 29, 2010.
- ^ Kansas Department of Revenue. "Tax Expenditure Report - Calendar Year 2009" (PDF). p. 8. Archived from the original (PDF) on July 16, 2011. Retrieved June 12, 2011.
- ^ Pratt & Kulsrud 2005 p. 15-26 et seq, Willis|Hoffman 2009 chapter 12.
- ^ 26 USC 901, et seq.
- ^ For statistics related to federal taxes, see IRS Statistics on Income, available in .pdf and Excel formats for many years. Note that some statistics are based on counts of returns, and some are based on samples. For 2006 for all corporations, the total foreign tax credit for corporations was $78 billion, the general business credit $16 billion, and prior year AMT credit $7 billion, on total pre-credit taxes of $463 billion.
- ^ Jesse Drucker (October 21, 2010). "Google 2.4% Rate Shows How $60 Billion Lost to Tax Loopholes". Bloomberg L.P. Retrieved March 15, 2013.
- ^ . August 20, 2013 https://web.archive.org/web/20130820114017/http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/R40623_20100903.pdf. Archived from the original (PDF) on August 20, 2013.
{{cite web}}: Missing or empty|title=(help) - ^ http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09157.pdf [bare URL PDF]
- ^ a b "Offshore Tax Deferral - Center for American Progress". March 16, 2011.
- ^ Levin, Carl (September 20, 2012). "PSI Memo on Offshore Profit Shifting and the U.S. Tax Code". United States Senate Subcommittee on Investigations. p. 6. Archived from the original on September 24, 2012. Retrieved September 22, 2012.
- ^ Some limitations apply to all corporations, while some apply only to corporate payments to foreign related parties. See, e.g., 26 USC 163(j), 267, 385. Without such limitation, owners could structure financing of the corporation in a manner that would provide for a tax deduction for much of the profits, potentially without changing the tax on shareholders. For example, assume a corporation earns profits of 100 before interest and would normally distribute 50 to shareholder individuals. If the corporation is structured so that deductible interest of 50 is payable to the shareholders, it will cut its tax to half the amount due if it merely paid a dividend. Absent the recently enacted rate differential on dividends, the shareholders' tax would be the same in either case.
- ^ [citation needed] for [Tax Notes] article circa 1986.
- ^ 26 USC 163(j) and long-proposed regulations thereunder. See Bittker & Eustice section 4.04[8] for a brief outline.
- ^ "JCX-49-11". www.jct.gov.
- ^ Desai, Mihir A; Dharmapala, Dhammika (August 1, 2009). "Corporate Tax Avoidance and Firm Value". The Review of Economics and Statistics. 91 (3): 537–546. doi:10.1162/rest.91.3.537. ISSN 0034-6535.
- ^ Al-Hadi, Ahmed; Taylor, Grantley; Richardson, Grant (March 1, 2022). "Are corruption and corporate tax avoidance in the United States related?". Review of Accounting Studies. 27 (1): 344–389. doi:10.1007/s11142-021-09587-8. ISSN 1573-7136. S2CID 236551872.
- ^ DeBacker, Jason; Heim, Bradley T.; Tran, Anh (July 2015). "Importing corruption culture from overseas: Evidence from corporate tax evasion in the United States". Journal of Financial Economics. 117 (1): 122–138. doi:10.1016/j.jfineco.2012.11.009.
- ^ Stock, James H; Wright, Jonathan H; Yogo, Motohiro (October 2002). "A Survey of Weak Instruments and Weak Identification in Generalized Method of Moments". Journal of Business & Economic Statistics. 20 (4): 518–529. doi:10.1198/073500102288618658. ISSN 0735-0015. S2CID 14793271.
- ^ 26 USC 351. Bittker & Eustice chapter 3, Willis|Hoffman 2009 chapter 17, Pratt & Kulsrud 2005 pp.19–30 et seq.
- ^ 26 USC 351.
- ^ 26 USC 362.
- ^ 26 USC 357 and 26 CFR 1.367-1(b) Example Archived June 12, 2011, at the Wayback Machine.
- ^ 26 USC 354-358 and 361-362.
- ^ See 26 USC 368(a)(1)(B) 26 USC 368
- ^ See generally USC 368(a)(1)(D) 26 USC 368
- ^ See, e.g., 26 USC 368 defining events qualifying for reorganization treatment, including certain acquisitions. Bittker & Eustice chapter 12. Willis|Hoffman p. 20-14 et seq.
- ^ Davis, Bruce; Bast, Donald; Sellers, Tracey. "Sales Taxes and Business Reorganizations: A Primer". Transaction Advisors. ISSN 2329-9134.
- ^ See 26 USC 61(a)(7). See Bittker & Eustice chapter 8, Willis|Hoffman 2009 chapter 19, and Pratt & Kulsrud 2005 chapter 20 for a thorough discussion of non-liquidating distributions, including earnings and profits, and Bittker & eustice chapters 9 and 10 and Pratt & Kulsrud pp. 20–14 et seq for a discussion of redemptions and liquidating distributions.
- ^ See 26 USC 1(h)(11) for the reduced rate of tax for individuals, and 26 USC 243(a)(1)
- ^ "26 U.S. Code § 332 - Complete liquidations of subsidiaries". LII / Legal Information Institute.
- ^ 26 USC 302.
- ^ 26 US 311.
- ^ 26 USC 301. Dividend is defined at 26 USC 316. Bittker & Eustice section 8.03.
- ^ 26 USC 312.
- ^ 26 USC 301(c).
- ^ Taxation of corporate liquidations.
- ^ Contrast tax on domestic corporations under 26 USC 11 and 26 USC 63 with tax on foreign corporations under 26 USC 881-885. See Bittker & Eustice sections 15.01 to 15.04, Willis|Hoffman pp. 25–35.
- ^ See, e.g., 26 USC 882.
- ^ 26 USC 884. Bittker & Eustice section 15.04[2].
- ^ 26 USC 1501-1505 and extensive extensive regulations under 1.1502-1 et seq[permanent dead link]. See Crestol, et al cited below.
- ^ 26 USC 482 and extensive regulations[permanent dead link] thereunder.
- ^ "Transfer pricing in the United States: overview". Practical Law. Retrieved April 24, 2022.
- ^ "Transfer Pricing | Internal Revenue Service". www.irs.gov. Retrieved April 24, 2022.
- ^ 26 USC 531-565. See Bittker & Eustice, chapter 7.
- ^ 26 USC 11(b).
- ^ "U.S. Corporation Income Tax Return" (PDF). Internal Revenue Service. Retrieved October 6, 2012.
- ^ 26 USC 6012(a)(2). See individual states for requirements.
- ^ See, e.g., New Jersey's 17+ page Form CBT100Archived November 22, 2009, at the Wayback Machine that incorporates limitations on related party interest and royalties, an alternative tax, 3 factor apportionment, depreciation adjustments, special taxes for professional corporations, and other features.
- ^ See page 38f Instructions for Form 1120-S.
- ^ "26 U.S. Code § 6072 - Time for filing income tax returns". LII / Legal Information Institute.
- ^ See, e.g., instructions to IRS Form 7004.
- ^ 26 USC 6651-6665.
- ^ See, e.g., 26 USC 6662 for penalties up to 40% of tax related to transfer pricing or valuation adjustments.
- ^ 26 USC 7201 et seq.
Further reading
[edit]- Watson, Garrett and William McBride, "Evaluating Proposals to Increase the Corporate Tax Rate and Levy a Minimum Tax on Corporate Book Income," FISCAL FACT (Tax Foundation, No. 751 Feb. 2021)
Standard tax texts
- IRS Publication 542, online for corporations.
- Willis, Eugene; Hoffman, William H. Jr., et al: South-Western Federal Taxation, published annually. 2013 edition (cited above as Willis|Hoffman) ISBN 978-1-133-18955-8.
- Pratt, James W.; Kulsrud, William N., et al: Federal Taxation, updated periodically. 2013 edition ISBN 978-1-133-49623-6 (cited above as Pratt & Kulsrud).
- Fox, Stephen C., Income Tax in the USA, published annually. 2013 edition ISBN 978-0-985-18231-1
Treatises
- Bittker, Boris I. and Eustice, James S.: Federal Income Taxation of Corporations and Shareholders: abridged paperback ISBN 978-0-7913-4101-8 or as a subscription service. Cited above as Bittker & Eustice.
- Crestol, Jack; Hennessey, Kevin M.; and Yates, Richard F.: Consolidated Tax Return : Principles, Practice, Planning, 1998 ISBN 978-0-7913-1629-0
- Kahn & Lehman. Corporate Income Taxation
- Healy, John C. and Schadewald, Michael S.: Multistate Corporate Tax Course 2010, CCH, ISBN 978-0-8080-2173-5 (also available as a multi-volume guide, ISBN 978-0-8080-2015-8)
- Hoffman, et al.: Corporations, Partnerships, Estates and Trusts, ISBN 978-0-324-66021-0
- Momburn, et al.: Mastering Corporate Tax, Carolina Academic Press, ISBN 978-1-59460-368-6
- Keightley, Mark P. and Molly F. Sherlock: The Corporate Income Tax System: Overview and Options for Reform, Congressional Research Service, 2014.
Corporate tax in the United States
View on GrokipediaOverview
Core Principles and Scope
The federal corporate income tax in the United States imposes a levy on the net taxable income—defined as gross receipts minus cost of goods sold, allowable business deductions, and other adjustments—of domestic C corporations, which are legally distinct entities from their shareholders. Enacted under the Internal Revenue Code (Subchapter C), this tax operates on a flat rate of 21%, applicable to worldwide income for U.S.-incorporated corporations and to effectively connected U.S.-source income for foreign corporations engaged in trade or business within the country.[7][1] The principle of entity-level taxation treats the corporation as the primary taxpayer, with income computed annually via Form 1120 or equivalents, regardless of distributions to owners.[12] Central to the system's design is the double taxation mechanism, whereby corporate profits face entity-level tax, followed by shareholder-level taxation on dividends and capital gains from stock sales, incentivizing retention of earnings or alternative compensation structures like debt financing.[13][6] This contrasts with pass-through entities—such as S corporations (limited to 100 qualifying shareholders), partnerships, and limited liability companies electing partnership treatment—which bypass corporate tax, allocating income directly to owners for individual or pass-through taxation at graduated rates up to 37%.[1][12] The tax's scope excludes sole proprietorships, disregarded entities, and certain cooperatives or nonprofits unless engaged in unrelated taxable activities, while extending to associations, joint-stock companies, and business trusts classified as corporations under IRS check-the-box regulations.[12] Federal applicability focuses on income-producing activities, with deductions limited to ordinary and necessary business expenses, though states generally mirror federal computations with variations, adding their own levies that can range from 0% (e.g., Wyoming) to over 9% (e.g., Iowa as of 2023).[1] Exemptions and special rules apply to regulated investment companies, real estate investment trusts, and foreign sales corporations, reflecting policy aims to encourage specific investments without undermining the core profit-tax framework.[12]Revenue Significance and Economic Incentives
Corporate income taxes represent a modest but fluctuating portion of total federal revenue, comprising approximately 9% in fiscal year 2023 with receipts of $420 billion out of $4.4 trillion overall.[14] This share has declined from peaks exceeding 20% in the post-World War II era to an average of around 10% in recent decades, overshadowed by individual income taxes (about 50%) and payroll taxes (around 30%).[15] The relative importance waned as statutory rates fell and deductions proliferated, though receipts hit records post-2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) due to repatriated earnings and profit growth, reaching $491.7 billion in 2024.[16] As a share of gross domestic product (GDP), corporate tax revenues have trended downward from 3.9% in 1966 to 1.6% in 2023, oscillating between 1% and 3% since the 1970s amid globalization and base erosion.[17] This metric underscores the tax's limited macroeconomic footprint compared to broader levies, with international comparisons showing U.S. collections at 1.3% of GDP in 2022—below the OECD average.[5] Projections from the Congressional Budget Office anticipate stabilization around 1.5-2% of GDP through the decade, barring major reforms, reflecting resilience despite rate cuts via expanded taxable bases from anti-avoidance measures.[18] High corporate tax burdens distort economic incentives by reducing after-tax returns on investment, favoring debt over equity financing since interest payments are deductible while dividends are not. This leverage bias heightens firm vulnerability to downturns and contributes to observed increases in corporate debt post-tax hikes.[19] Relative to global competitors, elevated U.S. rates prior to the TCJA spurred profit shifting and offshoring, with empirical evidence linking a 1 percentage point rate increase to 0.2-0.5% drops in domestic investment.[10] The 2017 rate reduction to 21% correlated with repatriation of over $1 trillion in foreign earnings and subsequent investment upticks, though studies debate the magnitude—some attribute 0.2% annual GDP gains to reduced distortions, while others find muted growth effects amid confounding factors like fiscal deficits.[20][21] Causally, such taxes incidence falls partly on workers via lower wages, as mobile capital seeks higher returns abroad, evidenced by cross-state variations where tax hikes reduce employment by 1-3%.[22] Lower rates thus promote capital deepening and productivity, though base-broadening reforms are needed to sustain revenue without reinstating disincentives.Historical Development
Origins and Early Federal Imposition (Pre-1913 to 1920s)
Prior to the early 20th century, the U.S. Constitution's requirement under Article I, Section 9 that direct taxes be apportioned among the states according to population prevented the imposition of a federal income tax on corporations, as affirmed by the Supreme Court in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. (1895), which struck down parts of the Income Tax Act of 1894.[23] Instead, federal revenue relied primarily on tariffs, excise taxes, and customs duties.[24] The first federal levy specifically targeting corporate earnings emerged with the Payne-Aldrich Tariff Act of 1909, which imposed a 1 percent excise tax on the net income of domestic corporations exceeding $5,000, framed not as a direct property tax but as an indirect tax on the privilege of incorporating and doing business in the corporate form.[25] This measure, effective for fiscal years beginning on or after September 8, 1909, was upheld by the Supreme Court in cases such as United States v. Whitridge (1913), distinguishing it from unconstitutional direct taxes by measuring the privilege via income.[26] The 1909 tax applied to a narrow base, exempting income below the threshold and certain entities like banks, and generated modest revenue while serving partly as a regulatory tool to curb corporate abuses amid Progressive Era concerns over monopolies.[27] The ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment on February 3, 1913, by 36 states explicitly granted Congress the power to "lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration," overturning the Pollock barrier and enabling a true federal income tax on corporations as entities separate from shareholders.[28] The subsequent Revenue Act of 1913, signed October 3, retained the 1 percent corporate rate on net income over $5,000 but integrated it into a broader income tax framework that also taxed individuals, with deductions for ordinary business expenses and exemptions for certain dividends.[24] This act marked the shift from the excise characterization to a direct income tax, though the rate remained unchanged initially, applying to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1912.[25] World War I prompted sharp escalations in corporate rates to finance military expenditures. The Revenue Act of 1916 raised the rate to 2 percent on income over $5,000.[2] The War Revenue Act of 1917 increased it to 6 percent, while the Revenue Act of 1918 peaked it at 12 percent for 1918 income, with additional wartime excess profits taxes layering on top for high earners.[2] Post-armistice reductions followed: the rate fell to 10 percent in 1919-1921 under the Revenue Act of 1918 provisions, then stabilized at 12.5 percent from 1922 through 1925 via the Revenue Acts of 1921 and 1924, before dropping to 12 percent in 1926.[25] These adjustments reflected fiscal pressures from war debt—federal spending surged from $742 million in 1916 to over $18 billion in 1919—while maintaining the principle of taxing corporate net income after deductions for costs like depreciation and interest.[2] Throughout the 1920s, the system emphasized entity-level taxation to capture business profits amid economic expansion, though enforcement challenges and narrow compliance persisted due to limited IRS resources.[24]Expansion During Wars and Mid-20th Century Reforms (1930s-1970s)
In the 1930s, amid the Great Depression, the Revenue Act of 1932 raised the top corporate income tax rate from 13.75 percent to 15 percent as part of broader efforts to balance the federal budget and increase revenue.[29] Subsequent adjustments under the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 and the Revenue Act of 1935 introduced undistributed profits taxes aimed at discouraging corporate retention of earnings, with rates reaching up to 4 percent on undistributed income by 1936-1937, though these were repealed in 1939 due to administrative complexities and economic criticisms.[2] These measures reflected fiscal pressures but yielded limited revenue relative to expenditures, contributing to ongoing deficits.[30] World War II prompted significant expansions, with the Revenue Act of 1940 increasing the normal corporate tax rate to 31 percent and introducing an excess profits tax of up to 27 percent on earnings above pre-war averages, later raised to 90 percent on excess profits by the Revenue Act of 1941 to finance military mobilization.[31] By 1942, combined effective rates on corporations often exceeded 80 percent for high earners under these wartime levies, though base rates stabilized around 40 percent post-war; these hikes substantially boosted federal revenue, which rose from under 5 percent of GDP pre-1941 to over 20 percent by 1945, driven primarily by corporate and individual income taxes.[31] The excess profits tax was repealed in 1945 as wartime needs subsided, but the higher baseline corporate rate of 38 percent persisted into the 1950s, supporting post-war infrastructure and defense spending.[32] Post-war reforms codified many wartime changes in the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, which reorganized tax provisions without major rate reductions, maintaining top corporate rates at 52 percent through the 1950s and 1960s to fund Cold War commitments and domestic programs.[2] The Korean War (1950-1953) saw temporary increases via the Revenue Act of 1950, adding a 5 percent surtax to the corporate rate and reinstating an excess profits tax of 30 percent, pushing combined rates above 80 percent for affected firms and contributing to revenue growth averaging 5.8 percent of GDP during the conflict.[33] These measures were phased out by 1954, yet statutory rates remained elevated at 52 percent, reflecting a policy consensus on corporate taxation as a stable revenue source amid expanding government roles.[30] In the 1960s, the Vietnam War escalation led to the Revenue and Expenditure Control Act of 1968, imposing a 10 percent surtax on corporate income to offset rising deficits, briefly elevating the effective top rate to 52.8 percent before its expiration in 1970.[34] The Tax Reform Act of 1969 introduced the corporate alternative minimum tax precursor and closed some loopholes, such as percentage depletion excesses, but preserved the high 48 percent rate into the 1970s, with corporate taxes comprising about 4-5 percent of GDP.[2] Throughout this era, statutory rates above 50 percent coexisted with effective rates lowered by deductions, yet they underscored a reliance on corporate levies for fiscal expansion, though critics noted disincentives to investment amid economic shifts like stagflation by the late 1970s.[32]1986 Tax Reform Act and Subsequent Adjustments (1980s-2000s)
The Tax Reform Act of 1986 (TRA 1986), signed into law by President Ronald Reagan on October 22, 1986, represented a comprehensive overhaul of the U.S. tax code, including significant modifications to corporate taxation. It reduced the top marginal corporate income tax rate from 46 percent to 34 percent, effective for tax years beginning in 1988, while introducing a graduated rate structure: 15 percent on the first $50,000 of taxable income, 25 percent on income between $50,000 and $75,000, and 34 percent on amounts exceeding $75,000, with a surtax mechanism to phase out lower brackets for higher-income corporations.[2] To offset revenue losses from the rate reduction, the Act broadened the corporate tax base by repealing the investment tax credit, limiting deductions for business meals and entertainment to 80 percent, curtailing net operating loss carrybacks, and imposing new restrictions on tax shelters and accelerated depreciation methods.[35] It also established a corporate alternative minimum tax (AMT) at a 20 percent rate on alternative minimum taxable income, aimed at ensuring profitable corporations paid a minimum level of tax despite deductions.[36] TRA 1986 inverted the traditional relationship between individual and corporate top rates, with the new individual maximum of 28 percent falling below the corporate 34 percent for the first time since the early 20th century, a shift intended to reduce incentives for income shifting to corporate entities.[35] The Act's corporate provisions were projected to initially increase federal corporate tax collections as a share of GDP from about 2.5 percent to 3.0 percent by closing loopholes, though actual collections fluctuated due to economic conditions and behavioral responses.[37] For the transitional tax year 1987, temporary rates applied, including a 40 percent top rate with phase-downs, to bridge the pre- and post-reform systems.[2] Subsequent legislation in the late 1980s and early 1990s made targeted adjustments rather than wholesale reforms. The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (OBRA 1990), enacted under President George H.W. Bush, preserved the 34 percent rate but modified depreciation rules under the Modified Accelerated Cost Recovery System (MACRS) and expanded certain credits, such as for low-income housing, while tightening AMT exemptions to boost revenues amid fiscal deficits.[2] The Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1993 (OBRA 1993), signed by President Bill Clinton, raised the top corporate rate to 35 percent on taxable income over $10 million, effective 1993, while maintaining lower brackets and introducing a phase-in for mid-sized firms; this adjustment aimed to reduce the federal deficit and generated an estimated $25 billion in additional corporate tax revenue over five years.[2] In the late 1990s and early 2000s, further refinements focused on incentives and international aspects. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 expanded research and development tax credits and introduced new incentives for capital investments, but did not alter headline rates. The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA), under President George W. Bush, indirectly affected corporate taxation by reducing individual rates on qualified dividends and capital gains to 15 percent, mitigating double taxation on corporate distributions without changing the corporate rate structure.[2] The American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 (AJCA) provided a temporary 85 percent dividends-received deduction for repatriated foreign earnings, leading to a one-time surge in remittances estimated at $300 billion, though critics noted it encouraged profit shifting rather than long-term investment.[38] These measures maintained the 35 percent top rate through the 2000s, with effective rates varying due to deductions and credits, averaging around 25-30 percent for profitable firms amid growing globalization and base erosion concerns.[32]Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), enacted as Public Law 115-97, was signed into law by President Donald Trump on December 22, 2017.[39] Its corporate tax provisions generally applied to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017.[40] The legislation represented the most significant overhaul of the U.S. corporate tax code since the Tax Reform Act of 1986, shifting from a high-rate, worldwide system to a lower-rate, largely territorial framework.[41] A centerpiece of the TCJA was the permanent reduction of the federal corporate income tax rate from a graduated scale topping at 35 percent to a flat 21 percent.[42] This adjustment aligned the U.S. statutory rate more closely with the OECD average, which stood at approximately 22.5 percent prior to the change, aiming to curb profit shifting and encourage domestic investment.[43] The lower rate immediately lowered the effective federal corporate tax burden, with post-enactment effective rates averaging around 11 percent for profitable C corporations in 2018, compared to 22 percent in 2017, per IRS data.[44] The TCJA transitioned the U.S. to a territorial tax system by exempting dividends received from controlled foreign corporations from U.S. taxation, provided the earnings were subject to foreign tax.[42] To mitigate base erosion, it introduced the Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income (GILTI) regime, taxing foreign income exceeding a 10 percent return on tangible assets at an effective rate of 10.5 percent (after foreign tax credits); the Base Erosion and Anti-Abuse Tax (BEAT), imposing a 10 percent minimum tax (rising to 12.5 percent) on certain cross-border payments to foreign affiliates; and the Foreign-Derived Intangible Income (FDII) deduction, allowing a 37.5 percent deduction on export-related intangible income, yielding an effective rate of 13.125 percent.[40] These measures sought to balance incentives for domestic activity while taxing low-taxed foreign earnings, though critics argued they favored multinationals with intangible assets.[43] Additional corporate provisions included 100 percent bonus depreciation for qualified property acquired after September 27, 2017, enabling immediate expensing rather than depreciation over time; limitations on net operating loss (NOL) carryforwards to 80 percent of taxable income without carrybacks; and a cap on business interest deductions at 30 percent of adjusted taxable income (initially based on EBITDA).[42] These changes facilitated capital investment but constrained debt financing, reflecting a policy tilt toward equity-financed growth.[45] The TCJA's corporate elements reduced federal revenues substantially, with the Joint Committee on Taxation estimating a $619 billion loss from the rate cut alone over 2018–2027, contributing to a total business tax revenue shortfall of about $919 billion.[46] Corporate income tax receipts fell from $297 billion in fiscal year 2017 to $205 billion in 2018, reflecting the rate reduction amid stable pre-tax profits.[47] However, dynamic effects included over $1 trillion in repatriated foreign earnings in 2018, boosting domestic liquidity, and a temporary surge in investment, though empirical studies vary on long-term GDP impacts, with Congressional Budget Office projections estimating a 0.7 percent average annual real GDP increase over 2018–2028 offset partially by higher deficits.[48] [49] Proponents, including the Tax Foundation, contended the reforms enhanced competitiveness and wage growth via capital deepening, while skeptics from institutions like the Brookings Institution highlighted limited investment responses and persistent revenue shortfalls relative to pre-TCJA baselines.[50] [51]Post-TCJA Changes and Ongoing Debates (2018-2025)
The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 introduced a 15% corporate alternative minimum tax (CAMT) applicable to corporations with average annual adjusted financial statement income exceeding $1 billion over a three-year period, calculated on book income rather than taxable income to address perceived discrepancies in effective rates.[52] This provision, effective for tax years beginning after December 31, 2022, aims to ensure large corporations pay a minimum tax on reported earnings, with credits allowed for foreign tax payments under certain conditions.[53] The Act also imposed a 1% excise tax on net stock repurchases by publicly traded corporations exceeding $1 million annually, effective for buybacks after December 31, 2022, intended to discourage capital returns viewed as substitutes for dividends amid low headline rates.[54] Implementation of TCJA's international provisions, such as the global intangible low-taxed income (GILTI) regime and base erosion and anti-abuse tax (BEAT), continued through regulatory guidance from the IRS, including proposed regulations in 2020 and 2023 refining foreign tax credit calculations and expense allocations to mitigate double taxation while curbing profit shifting.[40] These adjustments responded to criticisms that initial rules disadvantaged U.S.-based multinationals compared to peers in lower-tax jurisdictions, with effective GILTI rates averaging around 10.5% after deductions.[55] Regarding global tax coordination, the United States participated in OECD/G20 Pillar Two discussions but has not enacted full alignment with the 15% global minimum tax framework, instead relying on domestic measures like GILTI and CAMT; U.S. multinationals benefit from "side-by-side" exemptions under income inclusion rules, preserving higher effective domestic taxation above the global floor.[56] The incoming Trump administration in 2025 explicitly disavowed prior U.S. commitments to the OECD deal, citing sovereignty concerns and extraterritorial overreach that could limit unilateral U.S. policy flexibility.[57] Ongoing debates center on the 21% statutory rate's permanence amid fiscal pressures, with proposals from Democrats in 2021-2024 to raise it to 28% to fund social spending rejected by Congress, contrasted by Republican arguments that hikes would erode post-TCJA investment gains estimated at 20% in domestic capital stock.[46] President-elect Trump advocated reducing the rate to 15-20% in 2025 campaign rhetoric, emphasizing manufacturing incentives to enhance competitiveness against OECD averages near 23%.[58] Critics from progressive outlets contend low effective rates—averaging 13-15% for profitable firms—exacerbate deficits projected to rise without offsets, while free-market analyses highlight revenue buoyancy from base broadening and economic growth post-TCJA, with corporate receipts reaching $420 billion in fiscal 2022.[59][55] These tensions, intertwined with expiring individual TCJA elements, fuel 2025 legislative battles over pass-through deductions and bonus depreciation extensions, prioritizing empirical impacts on wages and GDP over redistributive goals.[60]Federal Corporate Tax Mechanics
Eligible Taxpayers and Entity Classification
The federal corporate income tax under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 11 is imposed on the taxable income of every corporation for each taxable year. For federal tax purposes, the term "corporation" encompasses not only entities incorporated under state law but also associations, joint-stock companies, and certain other business entities classified as corporations pursuant to Treasury Regulations. Specifically, Treasury Regulation § 301.7701-2(a) defines a corporation as any per se corporation—such as federal or state chartered corporations, certain foreign entities (e.g., those from Canada or the United Kingdom listed in the regulations), or business entities with features resembling corporate characteristics like limited liability, centralized management, continuity of life, and free transferability of interests—or an eligible entity that elects corporate classification.[61] Business entities not per se classified as corporations are termed "eligible entities" and may elect their federal tax classification under the "check-the-box" regulations in Treasury Regulation § 301.7701-3, effective since January 1, 1997.[62] A single-member eligible entity, such as a limited liability company (LLC) without a corporate election, is disregarded as an entity separate from its owner, with income reported on the owner's return; however, it may elect to be classified as an association taxable as a corporation by filing Form 8832 with the IRS.[63] An eligible entity with two or more members defaults to partnership classification but may elect association (corporate) status via Form 8832, subjecting it to the entity-level corporate tax.[62] This election binds the entity for federal tax purposes unless changed with IRS approval, allowing flexibility but requiring consideration of double taxation risks for corporate elections versus pass-through treatment.[64] Domestic corporations electing S corporation status under IRC Section 1362 are generally exempt from the corporate income tax imposed by Section 11. S corporations, limited to 100 or fewer shareholders who must be U.S. citizens or residents (with certain exceptions like estates), pass income, losses, deductions, and credits through to shareholders' individual returns, avoiding entity-level taxation except for built-in gains tax on appreciated assets sold within five years of S election or excess net passive income tax in specific cases. In contrast, C corporations— the default classification for non-S electing domestic corporations—face entity-level taxation at the flat 21% rate (post-2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act), with potential double taxation on dividends to shareholders. Foreign corporations are subject to the corporate tax only on income effectively connected with a U.S. trade or business or fixed/determinable annual/periodical income sourced in the U.S. Capital gains from the sale of U.S.-listed stocks are generally not subject to U.S. tax unless such gains are effectively connected with a U.S. trade or business or the corporation is a United States real property holding corporation; no withholding tax applies to the sale proceeds. Classification rules apply similarly to determine corporate status.[65][66] Entity classification elections impact not only tax liability but also reporting requirements, with C corporations filing Form 1120 and S corporations filing Form 1120-S to report pass-through items.[67] Mismatches between state law formation and federal tax classification can arise, as federal treatment overrides state corporate status for income tax purposes.[64]Calculation of Taxable Income
Taxable income for U.S. corporations is computed as gross income minus allowable deductions, with further adjustments for net operating loss (NOL) deductions and special deductions, as reported on Form 1120, U.S. Corporation Income Tax Return.[68][12] Gross income starts with gross receipts or sales (Line 1a), reduced by returns and allowances (Line 1b) and cost of goods sold (Line 2, detailed on Form 1125-A), yielding gross profit (Line 3).[69] This is supplemented by other income sources, including dividends (Line 4, eligible for later special deductions under sections 243–245), interest (Line 5, excluding tax-exempt interest reported separately), gross rents (Line 6), other rentals on business property (Line 7), net capital gains (Line 8, after limitations), and other income such as section 481(a) adjustments for accounting method changes (Line 10).[69][12] Total income is the sum of these amounts (Line 11).[68] Deductions are subtracted from total income to reach taxable income before NOL and special deductions (Line 28), encompassing ordinary and necessary business expenses under section 162.[12] Key categories include compensation of officers (Line 12, subject to reasonable compensation rules), other salaries and wages (Line 13), repairs and maintenance (Line 14), bad debts (Line 15, using specific charge-off method or reserve for certain financial institutions), rents (Line 16), taxes and licenses (Line 17, excluding federal income taxes), interest (Line 18, limited by section 163(j) business interest expense rules requiring Form 8990), charitable contributions (Line 19, generally capped at 10% of taxable income computed without this deduction, NOL, or special deductions; excess carried forward up to 5 years), depreciation and amortization (Line 20, via Form 4562), depletion (Line 21), employee benefit programs (Line 23, including pensions under section 404), and other deductions (Line 26, such as advertising, research expenses, or domestic production activities deduction if applicable pre-TCJA).[69][12] Non-deductible items include fines, penalties (section 162(f)), lobbying expenses (section 162(e)), and excess executive compensation over $1 million for certain public companies (section 162(m)).[12] Losses from passive activities and those exceeding at-risk amounts (sections 469 and 465, reported on Forms 8582 and 6198) are limited.[69] From Line 28, the NOL deduction (Line 29a) is subtracted, allowing carryforwards or carrybacks of prior losses; post-2017 NOLs are carried forward indefinitely but limited to 80% of taxable income (computed without the NOL deduction), while pre-2018 NOLs may be carried back 2 years and forward 20 years without the percentage limit.[12] Ownership changes under section 382 may further restrict NOL usage based on equity value and long-term tax rate.[12] Special deductions (Line 29b, from Schedule C) primarily include the dividends-received deduction: 50% for less-than-20%-owned domestic corporations, 65% for 20% or more owned, and 100% for certain affiliated groups or qualifying shipping activities under section 1354.[69] The resulting amount (Line 30) is taxable income, subject to minimums for items like inversion gains (section 7874) or excess inclusions from residual interests in REMICs (section 860E).[68] This computation aligns with Internal Revenue Code section 63, defining taxable income as gross income less deductions, with corporate-specific rules under subchapter C.[12]Applicable Rates and Progressive Elements
The federal corporate income tax under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 11(a) is levied at a flat rate of 21% on the taxable income of every domestic C corporation, a structure enacted by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) of 2017 and effective for tax years beginning after December 31, 2017.[1] This single-rate regime replaced the prior graduated schedule, which applied rates from 15% on taxable income up to $50,000 to 35% on income exceeding $10 million (with a 39% bubble rate on income between $100,000 and $335,000 to phase out the lower brackets). The flat rate applies without brackets or phase-outs, treating all levels of corporate taxable income equally under the statutory framework.[12] Certain entities, such as regulated investment companies (RICs), real estate investment trusts (REITs), and insurance companies, are exempt from this tax or subject to alternative regimes specified in other IRC sections. While the base rate lacks inherent progressivity through marginal brackets, targeted surtaxes introduce elements that escalate effective taxation for specific behaviors associated with higher accumulations or passive income concentrations. The accumulated earnings tax under IRC Section 531 imposes a 20% surtax on a corporation's accumulated taxable income exceeding reasonable business needs, calculated after the 21% base tax, to discourage retention of earnings solely to defer shareholder-level taxation on dividends. This applies to domestic corporations with accumulated earnings and profits over $250,000 (or $150,000 for certain service corporations), absent a demonstrated need for reinvestment, with the base period generally being three prior tax years.[12] Similarly, the personal holding company (PHC) tax under IRC Section 541 levies a 20% surtax on undistributed PHC income for corporations where at least 60% of adjusted ordinary gross income derives from passive sources (e.g., dividends, interest) and five or fewer individuals own more than 50% of stock by value. These penalties, which do not apply to S corporations or publicly traded firms meeting distribution thresholds, function as anti-avoidance measures, effectively raising marginal rates above 21% (to approximately 39.8% combining base and surtax) for qualifying accumulations or passive holdings.[12] The repeal of the corporate alternative minimum tax (AMT) by the TCJA further simplified the rate structure by eliminating a parallel progressive computation that previously ensured a minimum 15% effective rate on alternative minimum taxable income for certain large corporations. As of 2025, no legislative changes have reinstated brackets or altered the 21% flat rate, though effective rates vary empirically due to deductions, credits, and base erosion rules rather than statutory progressivity.[1] The incidence of the corporate tax—primarily borne by shareholders via reduced returns on capital—exhibits progressivity in economic analyses, as capital income accrues disproportionately to higher-wealth individuals, but this derives from distributional incidence models rather than the flat statutory design.[70]Key Deductions, Exclusions, and Limitations
Ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred in carrying on a trade or business, such as salaries, wages, rents, advertising, and supplies, are deductible under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 162.[71] These deductions require substantiation and must directly relate to the business activity, excluding personal or capital expenditures.[72] Depreciation and amortization deductions allow recovery of the cost of tangible and intangible assets used in business. Under IRC Section 168, corporations use the Modified Accelerated Cost Recovery System (MACRS) for most property, with bonus depreciation permitting immediate expensing of up to 100% for qualified assets placed in service through 2022, phasing down thereafter.[73] Amortization applies to intangibles like goodwill over 15 years per Section 197.[74] The dividends-received deduction (DRD) under IRC Section 243 mitigates multiple layers of taxation on intercorporate dividends by allowing a deduction for a percentage of dividends from domestic corporations subject to tax:| Ownership Percentage in Paying Corporation | Deduction Percentage |
|---|---|
| Less than 20% | 50% |
| 20% or more but less than 80% | 65% |
| 80% or more (affiliated group) | 100% |
Available Tax Credits and Incentives
The United States federal tax code provides corporations with various credits that directly reduce tax liability on a dollar-for-dollar basis, distinct from deductions which merely reduce taxable income. These credits, claimed primarily via IRS Form 3800 (General Business Credit), aim to encourage activities such as innovation, energy production, and hiring from targeted groups, though their effectiveness depends on compliance with strict eligibility rules and often requires substantial documentation. Excess credits may be carried back or forward, subject to limitations under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 39.[83] The Research and Development (R&D) Tax Credit, codified in IRC Section 41, offers one of the largest incentives, providing up to 20% of qualified research expenses exceeding a base amount calculated from historical spending and gross receipts. Enacted in 1981 and made permanent in 2015, it targets expenditures on domestic technological improvements to products, processes, or software that involve uncertainty and experimentation, excluding routine testing or market research. For startups and small businesses, up to $500,000 of the credit can offset payroll taxes, broadening accessibility. In fiscal year 2023, corporations claimed approximately $15 billion in R&D credits, reflecting its role in spurring innovation amid global competition.[84][85][86] Energy-related credits, expanded significantly by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA), include the Clean Electricity Investment Tax Credit (ITC) under IRC Section 48E and Production Tax Credit (PTC) under Section 45Y, each offering up to 30% of qualified costs for solar, wind, and other zero-emission facilities, with bonuses for domestic content, wage requirements, or location in low-income areas. The Advanced Manufacturing Production Credit (Section 45X) provides per-unit credits for producing clean energy components like solar panels or batteries, claimed by eligible manufacturers starting in 2023; for instance, credits for eligible solar cells reached $0.04 per watt in 2023, escalating annually. These incentives, projected to cost over $300 billion through 2032, prioritize verifiable emissions reductions but face scrutiny for subsidizing intermittent sources without addressing grid reliability constraints. Transferability allows monetization by selling credits to unrelated parties, enabling cash-strapped developers to attract corporate buyers with tax appetite.[87][88][89] Other notable credits include the Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC) under IRC Section 51, reimbursing up to $9,600 per hire from groups like veterans or ex-felons, certified by state workforce agencies, and the Fuel Tax Credit for off-highway business use of diesel or aviation fuel, refunding excise taxes at rates like $0.183 per gallon for undyed diesel as of 2025. The New Markets Tax Credit, though sunsetting in 2025, supports investments in low-income communities via equity allocations. Corporations must substantiate claims amid IRS audits, as improper use can trigger penalties under IRC Section 6662.[83][90][91]State and Local Corporate Taxation
State-Level Income Tax Structures
Forty-four states and the District of Columbia impose corporate income taxes on the net taxable income of C corporations apportioned to in-state activities, with rates applied after state-specific adjustments to the federal taxable income base.[3] The remaining six states—Nevada, Ohio, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming—eschew traditional corporate income taxes in favor of gross receipts taxes, franchise taxes based on capital or net worth, or business and occupation taxes, which apply to gross revenues rather than net profits and thus avoid losses offsetting income.[3] These alternative structures aim to broaden the tax base and stabilize revenue but can disproportionately burden low-margin businesses.[3] Most state corporate income taxes feature flat rates applied uniformly to apportioned taxable income exceeding exemptions or minimum thresholds, ranging from North Carolina's 2.25% flat rate to New Jersey's 11.5% top rate (including a 2.5% surtax on income over $1 million).[3] Flat-rate structures predominate, with 39 states using a single rate as of 2025, promoting simplicity and predictability in compliance.[3] Graduated or tiered rates appear in fewer jurisdictions, such as Iowa (brackets from 5.5% to 10%, scheduled for phase-out) and New Jersey (effective progression via surtax), where higher brackets target larger corporations to capture more revenue from profitable entities without altering the base rate for smaller ones.[3] These progressive elements remain limited, as empirical analyses indicate flat rates correlate with higher economic mobility for firms compared to bracketed systems that may distort investment decisions.[92] State-specific modifications to the federal base further diversify structures, including add-backs for federal deductions like bonus depreciation (e.g., in California) or subtractions for dividends received (e.g., in Utah), which can effectively alter marginal rates.[1] Some states, like Minnesota, impose alternative minimum taxes to limit aggressive deductions, ensuring a floor on liability for high-income firms.[3] Exemptions often apply to income below $100,000–$250,000, shielding smaller corporations, while fixed minimum taxes (e.g., $100–$1,000 annually) apply regardless of profitability in states like Delaware and Pennsylvania.[3] Recent reforms, such as North Carolina's rate cut to 2.25% effective January 1, 2025, reflect competitive pressures to attract business investment, reducing the top rate from 2.5%.[3]Apportionment Formulas and Nexus Rules
States impose corporate income taxes on businesses with sufficient nexus, defined as a connection that provides the state with jurisdiction to tax a portion of the corporation's income. Under federal Public Law 86-272 (1959), nexus for income tax purposes is generally limited to physical presence involving solicitation of sales, protecting out-of-state sellers from taxation if activities are confined to soliciting orders fulfilled from outside the state; however, this protection does not apply to broader activities like owning property, maintaining offices, or having employees within the state. Physical nexus arises from tangible connections such as employees, agents, inventory, or real property in the state, while economic nexus—often based on exceeding thresholds like $100,000 in sales or 200 transactions—has expanded post-2018 South Dakota v. Wayfair Supreme Court decision, which overturned physical presence requirements for sales tax and influenced states to adopt similar standards for income tax to capture revenue from remote sellers and service providers. [93] As of 2024, over 20 states apply economic nexus for corporate income tax, typically combining sales volume with payroll or property factors, though thresholds vary (e.g., California's $500,000 sales threshold or New York's $1 million sales with activity factors).[94] Apportionment formulas determine the share of a multistate corporation's taxable income attributable to a specific state, aiming to reflect the portion of business activity conducted there and prevent double taxation. The Multistate Tax Compact, adopted by 20+ states as of 2023, recommends the Uniform Division of Income for Tax Purposes Act (UDITPA), which classifies income as business (apportioned) or nonbusiness (allocated directly), with business income apportioned using factors like property, payroll, and sales.[95] Traditional three-factor formulas equally weight the ratios of in-state to total property, payroll, and sales, but many states have shifted to double-weighted sales or, increasingly, single sales factor (SSF) apportionment, which uses only the sales ratio to emphasize market presence over production inputs.[96] By 2022, approximately two-thirds of states with corporate income taxes had adopted SSF, up from fewer than half a decade earlier, driven by incentives to attract manufacturing and R&D by reducing tax burdens on capital-intensive firms while exporting tax liability to out-of-state customers. For example, California fully implemented SSF in 2013 for most taxpayers, sourcing sales of tangible goods to destination and services/intangibles via market-based rules (cost-of-performance phased out by 2011).[97] Sales sourcing under SSF has trended toward market-based methods, where receipts from services and intangibles are assigned to the customer's location rather than the seller's performance site, affecting digital economy firms; as of 2025, 30+ states use market-based sourcing for at least some receipts, per Multistate Tax Commission guidelines.[98] Special rules apply to industries like transportation (mileage-based) or financial institutions (receipts or loan factors), and combined reporting for unitary groups—where affiliated entities form a single business—amplifies apportionment effects by aggregating factors across the group.[99] Nexus and apportionment interact through "factor presence" standards in states like Minnesota and Tennessee, where nexus is triggered if any single factor (e.g., sales over $500,000) exceeds a de minimis threshold, even without physical presence, reflecting post-Wayfair expansions to ensure taxation aligns with economic activity.[100] Challenges arise from non-uniformity, prompting alternative apportionment petitions under state laws or MTC dispute resolution, though adoption of MTC's recommended SSF with market sourcing remains voluntary and incomplete.[101]Local Business Taxes and Variations
In addition to state-level impositions, local governments such as cities, counties, and municipalities levy various business taxes on corporations and other entities operating within their boundaries, often to fund local services like infrastructure and public safety. These taxes typically apply based on nexus established through physical presence, economic activity, or payroll, and they vary widely by jurisdiction, with no national uniformity. Unlike federal and most state corporate income taxes, which target net profits after deductions, local business taxes frequently use gross receipts, fixed fees, or other proxies for activity, imposing burdens irrespective of profitability and potentially distorting business location decisions.[102] Common types include gross receipts taxes, business license or privilege taxes, and occupational taxes. Gross receipts taxes, levied on total revenue without subtracting costs of goods sold or expenses, are permitted at the local level in states like Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia, though adoption remains limited to specific municipalities.[102] Business license taxes often function as flat annual fees scaled by factors such as employee count, gross receipts thresholds, or business square footage, serving both as revenue sources and regulatory tools. Occupational or payroll-based taxes may target specific industries or wages paid locally. Direct local corporate income taxes are rare, with most jurisdictions avoiding them due to administrative complexity and competition with neighboring areas; instead, local taxes on business earnings, where present, often apply to pass-through entities or unincorporated businesses rather than C-corporations.[103][104] Variations across localities reflect fiscal needs, political priorities, and economic bases, leading to a patchwork that increases compliance costs for multistate firms. For instance, Philadelphia's Business Income and Receipts Tax (BIRT) combines a net income rate of 5.71% with a gross receipts rate of 1.410 mills (0.1410%) for tax year 2025, applicable to businesses with nexus in the city; the prior $100,000 receipts exemption was eliminated effective 2025 following legal challenges, requiring filings from all qualifying entities by April 2026.[105] In San Francisco, the Gross Receipts Tax imposes tiered rates by industry and receipts volume, with 2025 adjustments under Proposition M setting rates from 0.100% (e.g., for administrative services up to $1 million in receipts) to 1.500% (e.g., for certain finance activities in higher tiers), using a two-factor apportionment formula weighting payroll (25%) and sales destination (75%).[106] Los Angeles applies a Business Tax with rates varying by classification, such as $153 annually for the first $60,000 of gross receipts for contractors or $4.25 per $1,000 for auto parks, determined by business type and location.[107] Portland, Oregon, enacted a local gross receipts tax in recent years, adding to options like San Francisco's model for revenue diversification.[108] These structures can exacerbate effective tax burdens in high-tax urban areas, where cumulative local levies—combined with property, sales, and utility taxes—may approach or exceed state rates for certain firms. Empirical analyses indicate local business taxes, including gross receipts variants, comprise about 2.6% of total state and local business tax revenue as of fiscal year 2023, underscoring their supplementary role amid reliance on property and sales taxes for local funding. Businesses must separately register, compute apportionment (often simpler than state formulas, e.g., single sales factor locally), and remit payments, with penalties for noncompliance varying by jurisdiction.[109]| Locality | Tax Type | Key Rates/Details (2025) | Apportionment Basis |
|---|---|---|---|
| Philadelphia, PA | Business Income & Receipts Tax (BIRT) | 5.71% on net income; 0.1410% on gross receipts | Local activity/receipts; no exemption threshold[105] |
| San Francisco, CA | Gross Receipts Tax | 0.100%–1.500% tiered by industry/receipts (e.g., 0.100% admin services <$1M; 1.000% retail $1M–$2.5M) | 25% payroll, 75% sales destination[106] |
| Los Angeles, CA | Business Tax | Varies (e.g., $153 base for contractors on first $60k receipts; 1k child care) | Gross receipts or fixed by classification[107] |
International Corporate Taxation
Transition from Worldwide to Territorial System
Prior to the enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) on December 22, 2017, the United States operated a worldwide corporate tax system under which U.S. corporations were subject to tax on their worldwide income, including earnings from foreign operations.[110] However, taxation of foreign income earned by controlled foreign corporations (CFCs) was generally deferred until such earnings were repatriated to the U.S. parent as dividends, subject to foreign tax credits for taxes paid abroad.[111] This deferral mechanism incentivized corporations to retain earnings offshore, resulting in a substantial buildup of untaxed foreign profits estimated at approximately $2.6 trillion by the end of 2017.[112] The TCJA fundamentally reformed this regime by shifting toward a territorial system of taxation, effective for tax years beginning after December 31, 2017, under which foreign-source income is generally exempt from U.S. taxation upon repatriation.[1] Central to this transition was the introduction of a 100 percent dividends-received deduction for the foreign-source portion of dividends paid by specified 10-percent-owned foreign corporations to U.S. corporate shareholders, codified in new Internal Revenue Code Section 245A.[113] This participation exemption effectively eliminates U.S. tax on repatriated dividends from foreign subsidiaries, aligning the U.S. more closely with the territorial approaches adopted by most other OECD countries.[114] To address the stockpile of pre-transition deferred earnings, the TCJA imposed a one-time transition tax under Section 965, treating accumulated post-1986 foreign earnings and profits as deemed repatriated.[112] This mandatory inclusion was taxed at reduced rates of 15.5 percent on cash and equivalents and 8 percent on other assets, with allowances for foreign tax credits, generating an estimated $340 billion in revenue over the subsequent decade.[110] The transition tax applied regardless of actual repatriation, providing a fiscal bridge from the prior deferral-based system while encouraging the flow of overseas funds back to the U.S. economy without double taxation.[113] This shift was accompanied by a permanent reduction in the U.S. corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent, which mitigated competitive disadvantages for U.S.-based multinationals operating abroad and supported the viability of the territorial framework by lowering the residual U.S. tax burden on remaining taxable foreign income.[43] While the new system exempts most active foreign business income from U.S. tax, it retains elements of worldwide taxation for certain low-taxed or base-eroding activities through complementary provisions enacted concurrently.[115]Anti-Deferral Regimes: Subpart F, GILTI, and BEAT
Anti-deferral regimes in the U.S. corporate tax system target the accumulation of untaxed foreign earnings in controlled foreign corporations (CFCs) to prevent indefinite postponement of U.S. taxation, particularly in low-tax jurisdictions. These rules require certain U.S. shareholders—generally those owning at least 10% of a CFC—to include specific categories of foreign income in their current-year U.S. taxable income, regardless of whether distributions occur. Subpart F, enacted in 1962, focuses on mobile, passive income streams, while the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) of 2017 introduced GILTI to capture low-taxed active income exceeding a routine return on tangible assets and BEAT to curb base erosion through outbound payments.[116][117] Subpart F, codified in Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Sections 951–965, mandates inclusion of "Subpart F income" by U.S. shareholders of CFCs, defined as foreign corporations where U.S. shareholders own more than 50% of the vote or value. Introduced under the Revenue Act of 1962, its purpose was to eliminate deferral benefits for passive and base company income earned abroad, which U.S. multinationals had exploited in tax havens to avoid the then-prevailing 52% corporate rate.[118][119] Subpart F income primarily encompasses foreign base company income (e.g., dividends, interest, rents, royalties, and certain sales or services income from related parties), insurance income, and international boycott factor income, but excludes active business income unless it meets specific mobility criteria.[120][121] U.S. shareholders compute their pro rata share based on ownership and include it as a deemed dividend, eligible for foreign tax credits on a limitation-by-limitation basis, though high U.S. rates historically limited relief. Exceptions apply for high-taxed income and certain active rents/royalties, with reporting via Form 5471. Over time, amendments like the 1975 Tax Reduction Act lowered de minimis thresholds, expanding scope, but Subpart F remains narrower than GILTI, taxing only about 20–30% of CFC income pre-TCJA.[122] Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income (GILTI), under IRC Section 951A, effective for CFC tax years beginning after December 31, 2017, broadens anti-deferral by taxing excess foreign net CFC tested income above a 10% return on qualified business asset investment (QBAI), net of allocable interest expense. This regime approximates taxation of income from intangibles and other high-return activities in low-tax jurisdictions, calculated as the excess of aggregate tested income over net deemed tangible income return, allocated pro rata to U.S. shareholders.[123][124] Corporate U.S. shareholders deduct 50% of GILTI under Section 250 through 2025, yielding an effective U.S. rate of 10.5% (21% corporate rate applied to 50% inclusion), with foreign tax credits limited to 80% of foreign taxes paid, often resulting in residual U.S. tax on low-taxed earnings.[125] After 2025, the deduction drops to 37.5%, raising the effective rate to 13.125%, though no country-by-country minimum applies, leading critics to note it incentivizes tangible investments abroad over U.S. repatriation. Reporting occurs via Form 8992, with exclusions for Subpart F income, high-taxed income—where tested income subject to an effective foreign tax rate above 18.9% (90% of the U.S. corporate rate) qualifies for exclusion if the high-tax exception election is made—and certain oil/gas income; for subsidiaries in jurisdictions like India with corporate tax rates of 25-30%, this often defers U.S. taxation until profits are distributed.[126][127] Individuals face higher effective rates up to 37% without full Section 250 benefits.[128] The Base Erosion and Anti-Abuse Tax (BEAT), under IRC Section 59A, also effective post-2017, imposes a minimum tax on certain large U.S. corporations to deter profit-shifting via deductible "base erosion payments" (e.g., interest, royalties, service fees) to foreign related parties exceeding arm's-length standards. Applicable taxpayers include corporations (excluding RICs, REITs, S corps) with average annual gross receipts of at least $500 million over three years and a base erosion percentage of 3% or more (2% for banks/securities dealers), where the percentage equals base erosion payments divided by total deductions.[129][130] BEAT equals the excess of 10% (for 2019–2025) applied to modified taxable income—regular taxable income recomputed without base erosion deductions or NOLs from base erosion—over the regular U.S. tax liability, reduced by certain credits; services cost method payments and qualified derivative payments are partially exempted.[131] The rate rises to 12.5% after 2025, with banks facing a 1% surcharge, aiming to ensure a residual tax on U.S.-source income eroded outbound, though it applies only to domestic filers and ignores transfer pricing adjustments unless BEAT exceeds regular tax.[117] Compliance involves Form 8991, with aggregation rules for groups.[132]Transfer Pricing and Arm's-Length Standards
Transfer pricing in the United States refers to the pricing of goods, services, intangibles, and financial transactions between related entities, known as controlled taxpayers, to ensure that such transactions reflect an arm's-length result comparable to dealings between unrelated parties.[133] This framework is primarily governed by Section 482 of the Internal Revenue Code, which authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to allocate gross income, deductions, credits, or allowances among commonly controlled organizations, trades, or businesses to prevent evasion of taxes or to clearly reflect the taxable income of each.[134] Common control exists when more than 50% of stock ownership or voting power is held directly or indirectly by the same interests, encompassing domestic and foreign affiliates of multinational corporations.[135] The provision aims to place controlled taxpayers on parity with uncontrolled ones by countering artificial profit shifting to low-tax jurisdictions.[136] The arm's-length standard, codified in Treasury Regulations under Section 482, requires that the terms and prices of controlled transactions approximate those that independent enterprises would agree to under comparable circumstances, thereby ensuring taxable income accurately attributes economic activity to U.S. sources.[137] This standard evaluates comparability based on factors such as functions performed, risks assumed, contractual terms, economic conditions, and property or services involved, with adjustments made for material differences.[138] U.S. rules align broadly with OECD guidelines but emphasize a "best method" rule, selecting the most reliable method for determining the arm's-length result rather than a strict hierarchy.[139] Controlled transactions include sales of tangible property, provision of services, licensing of intangibles, and intercompany loans, with specific regulations addressing each category to mitigate base erosion.[140] For tangible property transfers, permissible methods include the comparable uncontrolled price (CUP) method, which directly compares prices in uncontrolled transactions; the resale price method, subtracting a gross profit margin from resale price to the controlled party; the cost-plus method, adding an appropriate markup to costs; the comparable profits method (CPM), assessing profitability against similar uncontrolled firms; and the profit split method, dividing combined profits based on relative contributions. Intangible property transfers employ methods such as CUP for royalties, CPM, profit split, or the unspecified method when others fail to yield reliable results, with heightened scrutiny on hard-to-value intangibles to prevent income stripping.[141] Services cost method applies to low-value-adding routine services, reimbursing costs plus a modest markup, while financial transactions use comparable uncontrolled price or profit-based approaches adjusted for credit ratings and terms.[142] The IRS prioritizes the method providing the greatest weight to objective, verifiable data over subjective estimates.[143] Compliance requires contemporaneous documentation demonstrating arm's-length pricing, including functional analyses, economic studies, and comparability data, to avoid penalties under Section 6662, which impose 20% or 40% accuracy-related adjustments for substantial or gross valuation misstatements if documentation is inadequate.[138] Taxpayers may seek advance pricing agreements (APAs) with the IRS for prospective certainty, covering unilateral, bilateral, or multilateral terms, with 2024 statistics showing increased APA filings amid heightened enforcement.[144] Audits under the IRS Large Business and International Division focus on high-risk transactions, with recent guidance introducing a Simplified and Streamlined Approach (SSA) for certain tangible goods distributions effective for tax years beginning after December 31, 2024, simplifying compliance for routine activities while preserving arm's-length integrity.[145] As of 2025, proposed regulations aim to further align with OECD Pillar One and Two reforms, though domestic priorities emphasize empirical comparability over formulary apportionment to uphold causal links between value creation and taxation.[146]Foreign Tax Credits, Withholding, and Repatriation
The foreign tax credit mechanism under section 901 of the Internal Revenue Code permits U.S. corporations to offset their U.S. federal income tax liability dollar-for-dollar with qualifying foreign income taxes paid or accrued on foreign-source income, thereby alleviating double taxation.[147] Qualifying taxes must be actual income taxes imposed by foreign governments on net or gross income, compulsory in nature, and not imposed in exchange for specific economic benefits or services provided by the foreign government.[148] U.S. corporations can claim direct credits for taxes paid on their own foreign operations and indirect (deemed-paid) credits under sections 902 and 960 for taxes borne by foreign subsidiaries or controlled foreign corporations (CFCs) when income is included in the U.S. parent's taxable income.[149] The credit is constrained by the overall limitation in section 904, which restricts the allowable credit to the portion of the U.S. corporation's tentative U.S. tax liability attributable to its foreign-source taxable income, calculated separately for different income "baskets" such as general category income (e.g., active business profits) and passive category income (e.g., interest or dividends).[150] Excess credits beyond the limitation may be carried back one year or forward up to ten years.[86] These rules ensure foreign taxes do not subsidize U.S. tax on domestic-source income, though complexities arise in allocating expenses and determining foreign-source income under sourcing rules in sections 861–865. U.S. withholding taxes apply to outbound cross-border payments, imposing a statutory 30% tax on U.S.-source fixed, determinable, annual, or periodical (FDAP) income—such as dividends, interest, and royalties—paid by U.S. corporations to foreign recipients, unless reduced by treaty provisions.[151] Withholding agents, typically the U.S. payor, must remit the tax and report it via Forms 1042 and 1042-S.[152] Bilateral income tax treaties with over 60 countries often lower these rates; for instance, dividends to qualifying foreign corporate shareholders may face 5% or 15% rates, while interest and royalties are frequently exempt or reduced to 0–10%, subject to limitations like the limitation on benefits (LOB) articles to prevent treaty shopping.[153] Foreign withholding taxes on inbound payments to U.S. corporations, such as those on repatriated dividends from foreign subsidiaries, may qualify for FTC relief if they meet section 901 criteria.[152] Repatriation of earnings from foreign subsidiaries historically triggered U.S. taxation under the pre-2018 worldwide system with deferral, where undistributed CFC earnings were deferred until dividend distributions, at which point U.S. tax applied net of FTCs for foreign withholding or corporate-level taxes.[154] The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA), effective for tax years beginning after December 31, 2017, imposed a transitional one-time deemed repatriation tax under section 965 on untaxed accumulated post-1986 earnings and profits of CFCs and other specified foreign corporations as of November 2, 2017 (with participation exemption elections), at effective rates of 15.5% on cash and equivalents and 8% on illiquid assets, payable in up to eight annual installments without interest.[155] This tax applied to U.S. shareholders owning 10% or more, regardless of actual cash movement.[156] Under the post-TCJA territorial regime, ongoing repatriations via dividends from CFCs to U.S. corporate parents generally qualify for a 100% dividends-received deduction under section 245A if the parent owns at least 10% of the subsidiary's stock for the requisite period, rendering such dividends exempt from U.S. tax, though foreign withholding taxes on the distribution remain creditable via FTC.[156] Repatriation may still incur foreign withholding, often 5–15% under treaties, and interacts with anti-deferral rules like GILTI, which deems certain foreign income currently taxable but eligible for FTCs limited to 80% of foreign taxes paid.[157] Actual cash repatriation post-transition avoids additional U.S. tax but requires compliance with transfer pricing and earnings and profits tracking to prevent recharacterization.[154]Tax Planning, Compliance, and Enforcement
Strategies for Deferral, Integration, and Optimization
Prior to the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), U.S. corporations deferred U.S. taxation on foreign earnings by retaining profits in controlled foreign corporations (CFCs), subjecting them to tax only upon repatriation as dividends, which amassed significant unrepatriated amounts reported by over 5,600 corporations in 2017.[155] The TCJA's shift toward a territorial system curtailed traditional deferral through provisions like global intangible low-taxed income (GILTI), which imposes current U.S. tax on certain foreign earnings exceeding a routine return.[43] However, the GILTI high-tax exception enables U.S. shareholders to elect exclusion of CFC gross tested income taxed abroad at an effective rate above 18.9% (90% of the 21% U.S. corporate rate), effectively avoiding immediate U.S. inclusion for high-taxed foreign operations and preserving some deferral benefits.[158] This elective mechanism, finalized in 2020 regulations, applies on a tested unit basis and requires annual elections in some cases, allowing targeted application to jurisdictions with robust foreign taxes.[159] Corporate tax integration strategies mitigate double taxation of corporate earnings distributed as dividends. The dividends-received deduction (DRD) under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) §243 permits a domestic corporation to deduct 50% of dividends from unaffiliated domestic corporations, rising to 65% for ownership of at least 20% in the distributing corporation, thereby reducing the effective intercorporate tax rate to approximately 10.5% at the 21% federal rate.[160] For certain affiliated groups filing consolidated returns, a 100% DRD applies under §243(b), achieving full integration within the group.[75] Post-TCJA, IRC §245A extends 100% deduction to the foreign-source portion of dividends from specified 10%-owned foreign corporations, provided no hybrid dividend taint, integrating foreign subsidiary earnings repatriated after the transition and aligning with the territorial regime.[161] Optimization techniques encompass legal structuring to minimize effective tax rates through deductions, credits, and timing. Favoring debt financing over equity exploits the deductibility of interest expenses under IRC §163, which lowers taxable income without similar treatment for dividends, though post-TCJA business interest limitations cap deductions at 30% of adjusted taxable income plus floor plan financing interest.[162] Capitalizing interest in certain projects can unlock trapped deductions by reallocating expenses.[163] Bonus depreciation under §168(k) allows immediate expensing of qualified property costs—40% in 2025 following TCJA phase-down—accelerating deductions and improving cash flow for capital-intensive firms.[164] Additional optimizations include net operating loss carryforwards to offset future income and research and development credits under §41, though R&D expenses now require amortization over five years domestically post-2021. Year-end planning may involve reviewing opportunities to incur qualified expenditures for credits such as R&D or energy-efficient improvements, which generally require completion by the tax year's end; paying employee bonuses deductible in the current year if disbursed within 2.5 months after year-end for accrual-basis taxpayers under Treas. Reg. §1.404(b)-1T; and prepaying allowable business expenses like maintenance or insurance, subject to the 12-month rule limiting immediate deductions to benefits not extending beyond the earlier of 12 months or the end of the next tax year.[165][166] These methods, when combined, enable corporations to align economic substance with tax-efficient forms while complying with arm's-length standards and anti-abuse rules.Distinction Between Avoidance, Evasion, and Illicit Practices
Tax avoidance refers to the legal use of the Internal Revenue Code's provisions to minimize corporate tax liability, such as through deductions, credits, deferrals, or entity structuring that aligns with statutory allowances.[167] For instance, corporations may legally accelerate depreciation under Section 168 or utilize foreign tax credits under Section 901 to offset U.S. taxes on repatriated earnings, provided these strategies adhere to explicit rules without misrepresentation.[168] The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld avoidance as permissible in cases like Gregory v. Helvering (1935), affirming that taxpayers may organize affairs to secure favorable tax treatment if the form adopted has a legitimate business purpose beyond mere tax savings, though the substance-over-form doctrine allows the IRS to recharacterize transactions lacking economic reality.[169] In contrast, tax evasion constitutes a criminal offense under 26 U.S.C. § 7201, involving willful attempts to evade taxes through fraudulent means, such as understating income, inflating deductions with falsified records, or concealing assets in unreported offshore accounts.[170] Corporate examples include Enron's use of special purpose entities to hide debt and overstate profits, leading to evasion charges alongside accounting fraud, or KPMG's facilitation of abusive shelters in the early 2000s that promised fictitious losses, resulting in IRS disallowance and penalties.[171] Evasion carries severe consequences, including fines up to $100,000 per individual or $500,000 per corporation, imprisonment for up to five years, and potential civil fraud penalties of 75% of underpaid tax, with the IRS prioritizing enforcement against large corporations via its Large Business and International Division.[172] Illicit practices extend beyond evasion to encompass broader criminal activities intertwined with tax non-compliance, such as money laundering through sham corporate structures or bribery to obtain undue tax benefits, often prosecuted under additional statutes like the Bank Secrecy Act or 18 U.S.C. § 1956.[170] These differ from pure evasion by involving collateral felonies; for example, corporations using blocker entities in tax havens not merely to defer but to launder illicit funds from unrelated crimes, concealing ownership to evade reporting under FATCA (Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act).[173] The IRS collaborates with the Department of Justice to pursue such schemes, as seen in cases where abusive promoter networks market "distressed asset/debt" strategies promising illegal deductions, leading to injunctions and promoter bans under IRC Section 6700.[172] While avoidance remains unchallenged if substantiated, the IRS challenges borderline cases via economic substance rules under Section 7701(o), enacted in 2010, requiring transactions to have a substantial non-tax purpose and effect to avoid reclassification as evasion or illicit.[169]Consolidated Returns, Elections, and Group Filings
Under section 1501 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), an affiliated group of domestic corporations may elect to file a single consolidated federal income tax return, combining the taxable income, deductions, credits, and other items of its members to compute a unified group-level tax liability.[174] This election treats the group as a single taxable entity for federal corporate income tax purposes, subject to Treasury Regulations under section 1.1502, which govern adjustments, eliminations, and deferrals to prevent distortion from intra-group activities.[175] Eligibility requires formation of an affiliated group as defined in IRC section 1504(a), comprising a common parent corporation and one or more chains of includible corporations connected through stock ownership, where the parent directly owns at least 80 percent of the total voting power of all classes of stock entitled to vote and at least 80 percent of the total value of shares of all other classes of stock in each includible corporation.[176] Includible corporations are generally domestic entities taxable as C corporations under subchapter C, excluding S corporations, regulated investment companies, real estate investment trusts, insurance companies, and certain foreign corporations; de minimis ownership thresholds apply, and constructive ownership rules under section 1563(e) may attribute stock for affiliation tests.[175] Membership is determined as of the end of the taxable year, with rules for short taxable years and acquisitions ensuring continuity unless a member exits the group.[177] The election is made affirmatively for the first taxable year by filing a consolidated Form 1120 (U.S. Corporation Income Tax Return), attaching Form 851 (Affiliations Schedule) listing all members, and including subsidiary consents via Form 1122 (Authorization and Consent of Subsidiary Corporation to be Included in a Consolidated Income Tax Return) signed by authorized officers.[178] No separate statement of election is required beyond the filing itself, but all members must consent to the consolidated basis and any regulations thereunder as a condition of the privilege.[174] Once elected, the status automatically continues for all subsequent taxable years unless the group obtains IRS consent to revoke or discontinue, which requires filing a request under Treasury Regulation section 1.1502-75(a) no later than the 90th day before the due date (including extensions) of the consolidated return, demonstrating good cause such as substantial business changes or administrative burden.[179] Revocations are granted sparingly, with the IRS evaluating factors like the group's size, compliance history, and potential revenue impact; blanket relief has been provided in limited cases, such as post-1986 revenue procedures for specific groups transitioning tax years.[180] Computation of consolidated taxable income under Treasury Regulation section 1.1502-11 aggregates each member's separate taxable income—computed as if filing separately but with modifications for group unity—then applies eliminations for dividends received from group members (under section 1502(a)(something? wait, 1.1502-14), intercompany transactions, and investment adjustments tracking basis changes in subsidiary stock.[175] Intercompany transactions, defined as direct or indirect sales, exchanges, or distributions of property or services between members, are deferred under section 1.1502-13's matching rule until the item affects the consolidated return through an external event (e.g., sale to a non-member) or acceleration trigger (e.g., deconsolidation), preserving arm's-length character, source, and treatment while preventing immediate intra-group gain recognition.[181] The common parent files the return, assumes primary liability for the tax (with joint and several liability for all members under section 1502(d)), and handles payments, refunds, and audits on behalf of the group; net operating losses, credits, and excess loss accounts carry over subject to limitations like section 382 ownership change rules or separate return limitation year (SRLY) restrictions that curb imported losses.[182] This structure facilitates loss offsetting across profitable and unprofitable members, simplifies compliance via one return, and defers tax on internal restructurings, but imposes drawbacks including disallowed duplicate deductions, accelerated inclusions on member dispositions, and heightened scrutiny for abuse under unified base principles; groups weigh these against separate filing, where losses remain trapped at the entity level without offsets.[183] Recent Treasury updates as of December 2024 modernized certain investment adjustment and intercompany rules to align with post-TCJA provisions like GILTI inclusions, but the core elective framework under sections 1501–1504 remains unchanged since its origins in the 1920s, with ongoing IRS guidance addressing basis conformity in section 351/361 exchanges.[184]Audit Processes, Penalties, and Reporting Obligations
Domestic C corporations are required to file Form 1120, U.S. Corporation Income Tax Return, annually to report income, gains, losses, deductions, credits, and compute federal income tax liability, regardless of whether taxable income exists, unless exempt from filing.[67][185] The return is due on the 15th day of the fourth month following the close of the tax year for calendar-year corporations (typically April 15), with a six-month extension available via Form 7004, extending the due date to the 15th day of the tenth month.[69] Corporations with total assets of $10 million or more, or those required to file at least 10 returns during the year, must electronically file Form 1120.[69] Additional schedules, such as Schedule M-3 for reconciliation of book-to-tax differences, are mandatory for corporations with $10 million or more in assets or meeting other thresholds, ensuring detailed reporting of financial statement adjustments.[186] Quarterly estimated tax payments are required via Form 1120-W if the corporation expects to owe $500 or more in tax, with payments due on the 15th day of the fourth, sixth, ninth, and 12th months of the tax year to avoid underpayment penalties.[187] The IRS selects corporate returns for examination using methods such as the Discriminant Inventory Function (DIF) system, which scores returns based on historical data to identify high-noncompliance risk, along with random sampling, referrals from other IRS functions, and targeted campaigns for specific issues like transfer pricing or research credits.[188] Examinations, also known as audits, occur primarily through the Large Business and International (LB&I) division for corporations with $10 million or more in assets or other complexity indicators, involving field audits at the taxpayer's location, office audits, or correspondence audits for simpler issues.[189][190] During an audit, the IRS examiner reviews supporting records for claimed income, deductions, and credits, often requesting documents via Form 4564 and employing Audit Technique Guides tailored to industries like construction or credit unions for consistent application of tax law.[191][192] For large corporate taxpayers seeking proactive compliance, the Compliance Assurance Process (CAP) allows real-time issue resolution with IRS specialists before filing, reducing post-filing disputes.[193] The statute of limitations for assessment is generally three years from the filing date, extending to six years for substantial understatements of income (25% or more) and indefinitely for fraud or non-filing.[194] Penalties for noncompliance incentivize accurate reporting and timely payments. The failure-to-file penalty is 5% of unpaid tax for each month or partial month the return is late, up to 25%, reduced by any failure-to-pay penalty for overlapping months.[195] The failure-to-pay penalty accrues at 0.5% per month on unpaid tax after the due date, up to 25%, with interest compounding daily on both penalties and underpayments.[196] Accuracy-related penalties apply at 20% of the underpayment attributable to negligence, disregard of rules, substantial understatement, or valuation misstatements, escalating to 40% for gross valuation misstatements or undisclosed foreign financial assets.[197][198] Corporations face an underpayment of estimated tax penalty if payments fall short of 100% (or 110% for larger corporations) of the prior year's tax or 100% of current year's tax, calculated quarterly using annualized income or safe harbor methods.[187] Relief from penalties is available for reasonable cause, such as unavoidable circumstances, if the corporation exercised ordinary business care, though willful neglect or repeated failures typically disqualify abatement.[199] Information return penalties, like those for late or incomplete Forms 1099, range from $50 to $310 per failure depending on timing and intent, capped annually for unintentional errors.[200]Economic and Fiscal Impacts
Influence on Capital Investment and Economic Growth
Higher corporate tax rates elevate the cost of capital for firms, thereby discouraging investment in productive assets such as machinery, equipment, and structures, as the after-tax return on such investments diminishes.[10] Empirical analyses indicate that a one percentage point increase in the corporate tax rate correlates with a reduction in capital investment, with elasticities ranging from -0.2 to -0.5 in U.S. firm-level data, reflecting firms' responsiveness to tax-induced changes in financing costs.[22] This distortion arises because corporate taxes apply to the normal return on capital alongside risk premiums, inefficiently allocating resources away from high-return projects toward tax-favored alternatives like debt financing or offshore relocation.[19] The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) of December 22, 2017, which lowered the statutory federal corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%, provides a natural experiment illustrating these dynamics. Firm-level studies estimate that the TCJA induced a short-run increase in domestic tangible investment of approximately 11% to 20% for affected corporations, driven primarily by the permanent rate reduction and temporary full expensing of qualified investments.[201] [202] This uptick in capital expenditures contributed to a modest expansion in the capital stock, with nonresidential fixed investment growing by about 6.6% in 2018 compared to pre-TCJA trends.[49] However, the investment response tapered after the initial surge, partly due to the expiration of expensing provisions and broader economic cycles, underscoring that sustained incentives are necessary for persistent effects.[203] On economic growth, the investment channel implies that lower corporate taxes enhance productivity through capital deepening, though aggregate GDP effects are smaller and more debated. Dynamic scoring models projected a 0.3% to 0.7% long-run GDP increase from the TCJA's corporate provisions, reflecting higher labor productivity from augmented capital per worker.[21] Post-enactment data show real GDP growth accelerating to 2.9% in 2018 from 2.4% in 2017, with contributions from business investment, though subsequent moderation to around 2% annually suggests limited lasting acceleration beyond demand-side stimulus.[204] Cross-state variation in effective tax changes post-TCJA reveals localized boosts in employment and output, equivalent to 0.2% to 0.5% higher annual growth in high-tax jurisdictions, but some econometric corrections for endogeneity yield insignificant net growth impacts, highlighting confounding factors like monetary policy.[205] [10] Broader evidence from historical U.S. rate variations and international comparisons reinforces the negative link between high corporate taxes and growth. Pre-TCJA, the U.S. 35% combined federal-state rate exceeded OECD averages, correlating with subdued foreign direct investment inflows and domestic capital flight; post-TCJA alignment with global norms around 25% improved competitiveness, evidenced by repatriation of over $1 trillion in overseas earnings by 2019.[55] While labor incidence debates persist— with some estimates attributing up to 50% of the tax burden to wages via reduced bargaining power— the primary channel for growth remains investment distortion, as capital's mobility amplifies relocation responses over labor's.[206] Reforms targeting base broadening alongside rate cuts could mitigate deadweight losses without proportionally eroding revenue, though empirical consensus favors lower marginal rates for fostering innovation and entrepreneurship.[207][208]Government Revenue Generation and Budgetary Role
Corporate income taxes constitute a significant but secondary source of federal revenue in the United States, typically accounting for around 8 to 10 percent of total receipts in recent years. In fiscal year 2023, corporate income tax collections amounted to approximately 8.2 percent of total federal revenue, which reached $4.4 trillion overall, with individual income taxes comprising the largest share at over 50 percent.[209][210] This revenue stream supports the general fund, funding a broad array of government expenditures including defense, social programs, and infrastructure without specific earmarking to particular categories.[211] Historically, the corporate tax's budgetary contribution has diminished markedly from its mid-20th-century prominence. During World War II and the postwar era, corporate taxes peaked at over 30 percent of federal receipts in some years, driven by high statutory rates exceeding 50 percent and wartime economic conditions; by contrast, their share fell to about 1.6 percent of GDP in 2023 from a high of 7.1 percent in 1945.[212] The decline reflects base erosion through deductions, international profit shifting, and shifts in the tax mix toward individual and payroll taxes, which now dominate due to expanding social insurance programs.[15][213] The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, which reduced the statutory rate from 35 percent to 21 percent, initially lowered corporate revenues as a share of GDP but led to a rebound through economic growth and base broadening effects, with the tax base expanding 63 percent in 2018 and collections returning to pre-reform levels by around 2021.[47][55] In fiscal year 2024, receipts rose 26 percent to 1.8 percent of GDP, aligning with historical averages amid strong corporate profits.[214] This volatility underscores the tax's procyclical nature, rising with profits during expansions and aiding deficit mitigation, though its smaller role limits its influence on overall budgetary stability compared to more stable sources like payroll taxes.[215]| Fiscal Year | Corporate Tax Share of Total Revenue (%) | Approximate Collections ($ billions) |
|---|---|---|
| 1945 | ~30 | High wartime peak |
| 1960 | 23 | Pre-decline level |
| 2023 | 8.2 | ~361 |
| 2024 | ~10 | Increased post-TCJA recovery |