logo
The ‘revenge tax' is dead before it even started

The ‘revenge tax' is dead before it even started

CNN20 hours ago

The Treasury Department and Congress on Thursday moved to kill a so-called revenge tax that was set to raise taxes on foreign investment and had spooked Wall Street and global business leaders.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Thursday announced a deal with G7 partners that will exclude US companies from some global taxes in exchange for the US dropping Section 899 from Republican's 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act.'
Bessent said in a post on X that he would ask Congress to remove Section 899 from the budget bill. Senator Mike Crapo and Rep. Jason Smith, who co-chair the joint committee on taxation, said in a statement Thursday that following Bessent's request, they would remove Section 899 from the bill.
Section 899 was a tax code tucked in to President Donald Trump's budget bill that would have raised taxes on the income earned from US assets held by individuals or businesses in other countries with taxes the US perceived as unfair for American businesses.
The provision would 'facilitate penalty taxes on foreign companies operating in the US if their home country is deemed to have a 'discriminatory' tax system,' analysts at Citi said in a note.
The tax code was considered a 'revenge' tax because it was designed to retaliate against a global tax framework agreed upon in 2021 by the Biden administration and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, according to Mark Luscombe, principal federal tax analyst at Wolters Kluwer.
Former Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen had negotiated a tax agreement with other OECD countries that included setting a global minimum tax rate of 15%. Republicans had opposed the agreement and thought it was unfair, arguing it ceded authority on taxation, Luscombe said.
The 'revenge tax' also was set to retaliate against digital services taxes, or taxes on US tech companies that provide services to users in other countries. Digital services taxes were perceived as 'discriminatory' by the Trump administration, said James Knightley, chief international economist at ING.
Trump had previously signed an executive order on his first day in office announcing that tax deals agreed upon between the Biden administration and the OECD were null. Bessent's announcement leaves room for how the United States and other countries might negotiate on taxes.
'The Trump Administration remains vigilant against all discriminatory and extraterritorial foreign taxes applied against Americans,' Bessent said in his post on X. 'We will defend our tax sovereignty and resist efforts to create an unlevel playing field for our citizens and companies.'
The so-called revenge tax, which had stirred debates on Wall Street and law firms across the Atlantic, is moot before it even went into effect.
There had been back-and-forth debates in recent weeks about the implications of Section 899 and whether it would push global investors away from the United States.
The provision had sent shivers up Wall Street's spine as it appeared to be another protectionist policy that would penalize global investors who put their money in the United States.
'Great concern had been expressed by Wall Street and affected stakeholders about the enactment of Section 899 and its impact on foreign investment in the United States, particularly in view of its complexity, potential scope of application and compliance obligations,' attorneys at law firm Holland & Knight said in a note. 'Those concerns have been alleviated for now.'
International business groups were in Wasington in recent weeks negotiating with lawmakers. Jonathan Samford, CEO of the Global Business Alliance, which opposed Section 899, told CNN the provision would have 'squandered opportunity and more investment' and contributed to 'further isolation.'
'We're very pleased that President Trump and the administration have pursued this negotiation, and as a result, called for withdrawal of this punitive and discriminatory provision,' he said. 'I commend Chairman Smith and Chairman Crapo for focusing on making the United States the most competitive it can be.'
Republicans this week had begun hinting that Section 899 might be negotiable. Director of the National Economic Council Kevin Hassett said in an interview with Fox Business on Wednesday that Section 899 might not be included in the final budget bill.
'You can try to retaliate, but it's probably better to work out an agreement than just have a tax fight, just like we're having tariff fights,' Luscombe said.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Donald Trump Suffers Legal Blow: ‘Grave Constitutional Violations'
Donald Trump Suffers Legal Blow: ‘Grave Constitutional Violations'

Miami Herald

time43 minutes ago

  • Miami Herald

Donald Trump Suffers Legal Blow: ‘Grave Constitutional Violations'

On Friday, a federal judge blocked President Donald Trump's executive order targeting legal firm Susman Godfrey, ruling it was "unconstitutional from beginning to end." This is the fourth defeat in court Trump has suffered since imposing punitive measures on a number of law firms that either were involved in legal cases against him or represented his political rivals. Newsweek contacted the White House and Susman Godfrey for comment on Saturday outside of regular office hours via email and telephone respectively. In March, Trump issued a slew of executive orders targeting law firms resulting in a number taking legal action, though others struck deals with the White House which saw them agree to do unpaid work on behalf of causes the president supports. Critics argued Trump's move was unconstitutional and an assault on free expression, whilst the White House said it was needed to combat what it termed "dishonest" activity. The executive orders Trump imposed on various law firms, including Susman Godfrey, featured a number of punitive measures such as blocking their employees access to government buildings, terminating government contracts and suspending security clearance. Friday saw District Judge Loren AliKhan conclude that in the case of Susman Godfrey, Trump's order was "unconstitutional from beginning to end." She said: "Every court to have considered a challenge to one of these orders has found grave constitutional violations and permanently enjoined enforcement of the order in full. "Today, this court follows suit, concluding that the order targeting Susman violates the U.S. Constitution and must be permanently enjoined." Trump's executive order targeting Susman Godfrey was already the subject of a temporary restraining order issued by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on April 15. Susman Godfrey is the fourth law firm targeted by Trump's executive orders that has successfully fought to get them blocked in court, following Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block and WilmerHale. The rulings were issued by judges appointed by both Democratic and Republican presidents. In a statement, Susman Godfrey said: "The Court's ruling is a resounding victory for the rule of law and the right of every American to be represented by legal counsel without fear of retaliation. "We applaud the Court for declaring the administration's order unconstitutional. Our firm is committed to the rule of law and to protecting the rights of our clients without regard to their political or other beliefs. Susman Godfrey's lawyers and staff live these values every day." In his ruling on WilmerHale's case, Judge Richard Leon, a George W. Bush appointee, said: "The cornerstone of the American system of justice is an independent judiciary and an independent bar willing to tackle unpopular cases, however daunting. "The Founding Fathers knew this! Accordingly, they took pains to enshrine in the Constitution certain rights that would serve as the foundation for that independence." Friday's judgement means the executive order targeting Susman Godfrey will not go into effect. The Trump administration has not said whether it plans to appeal. Related Articles Exclusive: Democrat on How Trump's Tariffs Could Reshape Key Iowa RaceRepublican to Retire as Democrats Eye Potential House Seat: ReportsElon Musk Staffer 'Big Balls' Joining Social Security AdministrationHarvard Finds International Student Lifeline Amid Trump Visa Showdown 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.

Donald Trump Scores Iran War Powers Win
Donald Trump Scores Iran War Powers Win

Miami Herald

time43 minutes ago

  • Miami Herald

Donald Trump Scores Iran War Powers Win

The Republican-controlled U.S. Senate on Friday rejected a Democratic effort to limit President Donald Trump's authority to launch further military action against Iran-just hours after Trump said he was weighing additional airstrikes. The chamber voted 53–47 against the war powers resolution, which would have required the president to seek congressional approval for any new hostilities against Iran. Every senator cast a vote, but the tally remained open late into the evening. In a notable split, Democrat John Fetterman broke with his party to vote "no," while RepublicanRand Paul crossed the aisle to vote "yes." The vote came days after Trump ordered airstrikes on three major Iranian nuclear sites over the weekend, escalating tensions amid Iran's conflict with Israel. Iran retaliated by firing missiles at a U.S. military base in Qatar on Monday. Although Tehran and Tel Aviv agreed to a ceasefire on Monday, the Israel Defense Forces have since accused Iran of breaching that agreement and have threatened strikes on Tehran in response-an accusation Iran's military denies. The Senate's decision marks a clear victory for the White House and shows how much latitude both Republicans and some Democrats are willing to give Trump to take unilateral military action against Iran. The measure, sponsored by Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, would have invoked the War Powers Act-the 1973 law designed to limit a president's authority to enter armed conflicts without congressional consent. It would have required the White House to notify lawmakers and secure approval from both the House and Senate before U.S. forces could take any additional military action against Iran. Many Democrats, and even some Republicans, argued that the White House should have sought congressional approval before authorizing last weekend's strike. They point out that the Constitution gives Congress-not the president-the power to declare war, and say the War Powers Act exists to stop presidents from sidestepping that responsibility. Under the Constitution, war powers are divided but not always clearly defined. Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power "to declare war," "raise and support armies," "provide and maintain a navy," and "make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces." This means Congress has the explicit authority to decide when the U.S. goes to war. But the last time Congress formally declared war was World War II. Since then, military actions-from Korea and Vietnam to Iraq, Libya, and Syria-have typically been carried out under broad authorizations, U.N. resolutions, or purely at the president's discretion. At the same time, Article II, Section 2 names the president as "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States." This gives the president broad authority to direct the military once it is in action. In 1973, after the Vietnam War, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution to rein in presidential war-making. It requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying troops and limits such deployments to 60 days-with a 30-day withdrawal period-unless Congress explicitly approves or declares war. Still, presidents of both parties have often argued that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional, or they've simply ignored its requirements. During his first term, Trump twice vetoed measures passed under the War Powers Act, including one aimed specifically at restricting his ability to strike Iran. Congress wrestled with similar questions in 2011, when President Barack Obama ordered airstrikes on Libya without explicit approval, drawing criticism that he had exceeded his authority. This time, the Trump administration has enjoyed strong backing from Republican leaders on Capitol Hill. House Speaker Mike Johnson has gone so far as to argue that the War Powers Act itself is unconstitutional. Meanwhile, Republican leaders have accused Democrats of using the issue for political gain and say the president needs flexibility to respond to threats quickly. "Democrats, of course, rushed to turn this successful strike into a political fight," said Senator John Barrasso, the chamber's No. 2 Republican, insisting that "national security moves fast" and that requiring consultation with Congress could "prevent the president from protecting us in the future." But some Republicans disagree. Senator Rand Paul cited the framers' original intent to keep war-making powers in the hands of Congress. "Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers that the executive is the branch most prone to war. Therefore, the Constitution, with studied care, vested that power in the legislature," Paul said, explaining his rare break with his party. For its part, the Trump administration argues the president already has all the authority he needs. In a letter to Congress this week, Trump cited his constitutional powers as commander in chief and his responsibility for foreign policy, framing the Iran strike as an act of "collective self-defense of our ally, Israel." Republican Senator John Barrasso said on the Senate floor: "Democrats, of course, rushed to turn this successful strike into a political fight. National security moves fast. That's why our Constitution says: 'Give the commander in chief real authority.'" Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen said: "What would we have said if Iran or any other country had flown bombers over our country and struck our facilities? We would rightly call it what it was: an act of war." Democratic Senator Tim Kaine said: "War is too big an issue to leave to the moods and the whims and the daily vibes of any one person." Efforts to rein in Trump's military powers are also underway in the House, where similar measures have been introduced, but they face uncertain prospects in a Republican-led chamber unlikely to defy the White House. Related Articles Donald Trump Suffers Major Legal Blow: 'Grave Constitutional Violations'Exclusive: Democrat on How Trump's Tariffs Could Reshape Key Iowa RaceRepublican to Retire as Democrats Eye Potential House Seat: ReportsElon Musk Staffer 'Big Balls' Joining Social Security Administration 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store