Daniel Bunn is President and CEO of the Tax Foundation. Daniel has been with the organization since 2018 and, prior to becoming President, successfully built its Center for Global Tax Policy, expanding the Tax Foundation’s reach and impact around the world.
Prior to joining the Tax Foundation, Daniel worked in the United States Senate at the Joint Economic Committee as part of Senator Mike Lee’s (R-UT) Social Capital Project and on the policy staff for both Senator Lee and Senator Tim Scott (R-SC). In his time in the Senate, Daniel developed legislative initiatives on tax, trade, regulatory, and budget policy.
He has a master’s degree in Economic Policy from Central European University in Budapest, Hungary, and a bachelor’s degree in Business Administration from North Greenville University in South Carolina.
Daniel lives in Halethorpe, Maryland, with his wife and their three children.
The OECD consultation is in the context of the Inclusive Framework on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting which is made up of delegates from more than 135 countries and is focused on policies that reduce opportunities for tax avoidance by multinational companies. The current proposals being considered would change both where and how much companies pay in corporate taxes.
The first session was focused on Pillar 1 of the OECD proposal. The pieces in Pillar 1 would change tax rules so that companies would be paying more taxes in countries based on the location of customers. This approach would move more tax revenues into so-called “market countries.”
The Tax Foundation response to the OECD public consultation document on the reports on the OECD Pillar 1 and OECD Pillar 2 blueprints.
It’s important for Poland to understand the main lesson of the Estonian approach: taxes should be designed with an overarching approach to maximize neutrality and minimize complexity and distortions. Instead of simply adopting a preference for small businesses, the Polish government should instead overhaul its corporate tax rules and truly adopt the Estonian approach to taxation.
Patent box regimes (also referred to as intellectual property, or IP, regimes) provide lower effective tax rates on income derived from IP.
Our new guide identifies key areas for improvement in UK tax policy and provides recommendations that would support long-term growth without putting a dent in government revenues.
The UN tax committee will be considering a change to the UN’s model tax treaty that, if adopted and implemented, could result in digital companies paying more taxes in countries where their customers are located even if those companies do not have physical locations there.
The difference that the OECD presents between the potential impact in the context of agreement compared to a harmful tax and trade war should show policymakers the value of continuing multilateral discussions.
While the Biden campaign is certainly focused on increasing taxes on U.S. businesses and high-income earners, it is important that policymakers also understand what that reversal might do to U.S. competitiveness, and the competitive global environment in which U.S. companies and U.S. workers operate.
Our International Index compares OECD countries on over 40 variables that measure how well each country’s tax system promotes sustainable economic growth and investment.
The OECD released blueprints for proposals on changing international tax rules alongside an impact assessment based on the overall design of the proposals. While the blueprints cover proposals both for changing where large multinationals owe corporate tax and designing a global minimum tax, there are still many unanswered questions. In the meantime, other digital tax proposals are moving forward and have the potential to result in a harmful tax and trade war.
The design and implementation of a global minimum tax is not simple and straightforward. There are dozens of challenging issues that policymakers will need to consider. So, when it comes to the way the minimum tax treats new investment, it seems clear that incorporating full expensing into the design would have significant benefits.
Even during a crisis when budgets are squeezed, policymakers should put their efforts into serious reforms of existing income and consumption taxes rather than leaving good tax policy behind for an excise state of mind.
If the goal of the Biden campaign is to bring new investment and jobs to the U.S., it is doubtful that these new tax rules will contribute to that goal.
The fiscal response to the COVID-19 pandemic will require policymakers to consider what revenue resources should be used to fill budget gaps. Tax policy experts have proposed wealth taxes, (global) corporate minimum taxes, excess profits taxes, and digital taxes as opportunities for governments to raise new revenues.
When developing tax policy, lawmakers often ignore the incidence of a tax, or who actually pays the tax. Many times, this is different from who is legally required to pay the tax. Just because a 2 percent revenue tax applies to large digital companies does not mean that the companies will bear the entire cost of the tax.
The European Council recently agreed on a new multiannual budget and a recovery program, which sets EU budget levels for 2021-2027 totals €1 trillion (US $1.2 trillion). The lack of details on the various tax proposals and the eventual need for revenue sources to finance new EU debt mean there is a lot of work left for policymakers in Brussels to do.
The USTR announced new tariffs in response to the French digital services tax of 25% on $1.3 billion worth of goods. The tariffs would apply to several make-up products, handbags, and assorted soaps.
Digital services taxes effectively ring-fence the digital economy by limiting the tax to certain revenue streams of digital businesses, discriminating in favor of more traditional sectors of the economy.