来源：《华尔街日报》
原文见报日期：2021年6月9日
We keep hearing that the corporate tax code is riddled with “loopholes” and that large corporations are tax cheats for using them and not paying their “fair share.” Is it true? No, most large corporations pay the amount in taxes they do because Congress expressly wrote the tax code to allow them to pay that amount.
我们不断听说，企业税法充满了“漏洞”，大企业利用这些漏洞，没有缴纳“公平份额”是骗税行为。是真的吗？不，大多数大公司都缴纳了他们需要缴纳的税款，因为国会明确制定了税法，允许他们支付这样的数额。
Corporations do game the system. Recent academic evidence shows America’s losses from corporate profit shifting in 2017—in large part a response to the uncompetitive U.S. tax system before the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act—at $26 billion. The uncollected income tax owed by corporations was estimated most recently by the Internal Revenue Service at $32 billion in 2013.
企业确实在操纵税收制度。最近的学术证据显示，2017年美国企业利润转移造成的税收损失总额为260亿美元，这在很大程度上是对《减税与就业法案》出台前缺乏竞争力的美国税收体系的回应。据美国国税局最新估计，2013年企业未缴纳的所得税为320亿美元。
The more significant revenue loss, however, is from exceptions to the tax code. When it comes to lost corporate tax revenue, exceptions are the rule, and not following the rules is the exception.
然而，更重要的税收损失来自税法的例外情况。当涉及到企业税收流失时，税法例外是规则，不遵守例外规则是例外。
Many provisions allow taxpayers to pay less tax. Some are clearly wasteful and pointless, while others achieve a social good. For instance, the use of net operating losses to encourage businesses to try ideas that may not always work out, and tax credits that stimulate innovation generally or in specific pursuits, such as curing rare diseases. These all decrease the revenue generated by the corporate tax. But they were instituted to accomplish a goal, not because of some evil plot by Big Business.
许多条款允许纳税人少交税。有些条款显然是浪费和无意义的，而另一些实现了社会公益。例如，使用净经营亏损来鼓励企业尝试可能并不总是有效的想法，以及税收抵免来刺激一般或特定领域的创新，如治疗罕见疾病。这些都减少了公司税产生的税收。但这些条款的制定是为了实现某个目标，而不是因为一些大企业的邪恶阴谋。
It isn’t useful to speak of loopholes. In many cases, corporations are doing exactly what Congress intended them to do. Take the Clean Energy for America Act, which the Senate Finance Committee marked up in May. Hoping to influence corporate behavior, supporters of the bill are rewriting the tax code to reward renewable-energy firms, even though many are doing fine already.
说漏洞是没有用的。在很多情况下，企业做的正是国会希望它们做的。以美国清洁能源法案为例，参议院财政委员会在5月份已对该议案做了最后修改。其支持者希望能影响企业行为，他们正在修改税法以奖励可再生能源公司，尽管许多公司在这一领域已经做得很好了。
The bill would also help wealthy individuals purchase a luxury electric vehicle with a tax credit—paid for by many American taxpayers who could never afford such a car themselves. Democrats in the Senate Finance Committee rejected the Cassidy amendment, which would have limited the proposed electric vehicle tax-credit expansion to nonluxury vehicles, defined as those costing less than $47,500.
该议案还将帮助富人购买豪华电动汽车，其税收抵免由众多美国纳税人支付，而这些纳税人根本买不起这样的汽车。参议院财政委员会的民主党人否决了卡西迪修正案，该修正案将拟议中的电动汽车税收抵免范围限制在非豪华汽车，即价格低于4.75万美元的汽车。
Were the bill to become law, the green corporations picked by Democrats would pay less taxes. Then, after the fact, lawmakers will likely point to the corporations’ lower effective tax rates and complain they are taking advantage of a loophole. Politicians criticize with one hand and give handouts with the other.
如果该议案成为法律，由民主党挑选的绿色公司将缴纳更少的税。之后，议员们可能会指出这些企业的实际税率较低，并抱怨企业在利用税收漏洞。政客们一只手批评，另一只手施舍。
Once policy makers admit that corporations largely respond to the tax code that Congress created, they’ll have to face the real trade-offs. That means thinking about what the country gets from each tax policy and deciding whether it is worth the lost revenue. If lawmakers can do that, America will be on the path to a rational tax policy that yields a more competitive economy.
一旦政策制定者承认企业在很大程度上响应了国会制定的税法，他们将不得不面对真正的权衡。这意味着要考虑国家从每项税收政策中得到了什么，并判断损失的税收是否值得。如果议员们能够做到这一点，美国将走上理性税收政策的道路，从而产生更有竞争力的经济。