Corporate tax residence is fundamental to our federal income tax system. Whether a corporation is classified as “domestic” or “foreign” for U.S. federal income tax purposes determines the extent of tax jurisdiction the United States has over the corporation and its affiliates. Unfortunately, tax scholars seem to agree that the concept of corporate tax residence is “meaningless.” Underlying this perception are the ideas that corporations cannot have “real” residence because they are imaginary entities and because taxpayers can easily manipulate corporate tax residence tests. Commentators try to deal with the perceived meaninglessness by either trying to identify a normative basis to guide corporate tax residence determination, or by minimizing the relevance of corporate tax residence to the calculation of tax liabilities. This Article argues that both of these approaches are misguided. Instead, this Article suggests a functional approach, under which corporate tax residence models are designed to support the policy purposes of corporate taxation. This Article concludes that the U.S. should reform the way it defines “domestic” corporations for tax purposes by adopting a two-pronged tax residence test: the place where the corporation’s securities are listed for public trading, or the place of the corporation’s central management and control.
BCLR Releases Vol. LIV No. 2
Boston College Law Review is pleased to announce the publication of our March 2013 issue. • Jeremy Waldron, Separation of […]
BCLR Elects New Board of Editors
On March 22, 2013, the membership of the Boston College Law Review elected a new Board of Editors for the […]
BCLR Editors Win Student Writing Competitions
Two members of the Boston College Law Review‘s Executive Board, Laura Kaplan and Michael Palmisciano, recently won national writing competitions […]