SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
");background-position:center;background-size:19px 19px;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-color:var(--button-bg-color);padding:0;width:var(--form-elem-height);height:var(--form-elem-height);font-size:0;}:is(.js-newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter_bar.newsletter-wrapper) .widget__body:has(.response:not(:empty)) :is(.widget__headline, .widget__subheadline, #mc_embed_signup .mc-field-group, #mc_embed_signup input[type="submit"]){display:none;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) #mce-responses:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-row:1 / -1;grid-column:1 / -1;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget__body > .snark-line:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-column:1 / -1;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) :is(.newsletter-campaign:has(.response:not(:empty)), .newsletter-and-social:has(.response:not(:empty))){width:100%;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col{display:flex;flex-wrap:wrap;justify-content:center;align-items:center;gap:8px 20px;margin:0 auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .text-element{display:flex;color:var(--shares-color);margin:0 !important;font-weight:400 !important;font-size:16px !important;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .whitebar_social{display:flex;gap:12px;width:auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col a{margin:0;background-color:#0000;padding:0;width:32px;height:32px;}.newsletter-wrapper .social_icon:after{display:none;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget article:before, .newsletter-wrapper .widget article:after{display:none;}#sFollow_Block_0_0_1_0_0_0_1{margin:0;}.donation_banner{position:relative;background:#000;}.donation_banner .posts-custom *, .donation_banner .posts-custom :after, .donation_banner .posts-custom :before{margin:0;}.donation_banner .posts-custom .widget{position:absolute;inset:0;}.donation_banner__wrapper{position:relative;z-index:2;pointer-events:none;}.donation_banner .donate_btn{position:relative;z-index:2;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_0{color:#fff;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_1{font-weight:normal;}.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper.sidebar{background:linear-gradient(91deg, #005dc7 28%, #1d63b2 65%, #0353ae 85%);}
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Lobbyists want Congress to restore a policy that allowed companies to immediately deduct the expenses characterized as research and development in the year they are incurred.
New financial reports indicate five of America’s biggest corporations—Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Meta, and Tesla—could win $75 billion in tax breaks if U.S. Congress and the president satisfy demands from corporate lobbyists to reinstate a provision repealed under the 2017 Trump tax law.
The CEOs of these companies may have hoped to gain any number of benefits from attending the second inauguration of President Donald Trump in January, and this tax break is just one possible example.
The tax break allowed companies to immediately deduct the expenses characterized as research and development in the year they are incurred rather than deducting those expenses over several years like other investments. Repeal of this tax break was one of the few revenue-raising provisions in the Trump tax law, and it was supposed to slightly offset the costs of the law’s corporate tax cuts.
Restoring the R&D provision would reduce the collective effective tax rate paid by these five companies for this three-year period by almost two-thirds, from 20% to 7%.
The Trump tax law repealed the R&D expensing break starting in 2022, replacing it with a less generous rule requiring R&D expenses to be deducted over five years. In the previous Congress, the House of Representatives passed a bill reinstating the break retroactive to 2022. That bill did not advance in the Senate, but now that Republicans control the House, Senate, and White House, there is every reason to believe the proposal will be considered again.
Proponents of the tax break make a very questionable argument that it encourages companies to engage in research that benefits society. But reinstating this tax break retroactively obviously cannot accomplish this because it would merely reward companies for research and development investments they already made. The $75 billion saved by these companies would be a pure windfall that does not require them to do anything going forward.
The 2024 House-passed bill that would have reinstated this tax break was controversial, but that legislation at least offset the costs by shutting down a different tax break that was being fraudulently claimed by unscrupulous accountants on behalf of businesses that were not actually eligible for it. That legislation also included a badly needed expansion in the Child Tax Credit. Republicans in the Senate blocked that bill because they hoped they could later enact tax legislation that would be even more generous to corporations—as they are now trying to do.
The five tech companies profiled here have disclosed that in the three years the R&D tax increase has been in place, their federal income tax bills increased by at least $75 billion as a result of this provision.
These companies have reaped huge windfalls from Donald Trump’s 2017 tax law, which included a reduction in the statutory corporate tax rate from 35 to 21%. They also benefit from special breaks and loopholes allowing them to pay effective tax rates that are even lower than the statutory rate of 21%. And they will pay even lower effective tax rates if President Trump and Congress reinstate the R&D tax break.
For example, the federal corporate income taxes that Apple reports it paid over the past three years come to 18% of its reported income during that period. That is another way of saying Apple paid an effective tax rate of 18% during the previous three years. If Congress retroactively repeals the R&D tax change, the company’s three-year tax rate would be cut in half, to 9%.
Meta’s three-year tax rate on $133 billion of U.S. income would drop from 15% to just 4%. And the three-year tax rate of Elon Musk’s Tesla would drop from the 0% the company currently reports to negative 22%.
Restoring the R&D provision would reduce the collective effective tax rate paid by these five companies for this three-year period by almost two-thirds, from 20% to 7%.
The research and development provision at stake in this year’s tax debate was one of the few revenue-raisers embedded in the 2017 law and served to make the plan overall appear somewhat less costly. Repealing this tax change is a stealthy way to make the corporate tax cuts even bigger than they were when enacted in 2017, and it would allow the five companies profiled here to shelter two-thirds of their U.S. income from federal income tax.
"The record-shattering abuses of the 2025 Trump-Vance Presidential Inaugural Committee, Inc. should signal the immediate need for legislation to prevent this influence peddling," said one ethics expert.
With Inauguration Day less than a week away, a watchdog group on Tuesday published research shining light on the unprecedented level of financial support President-elect Donald Trump's inaugural fund has received from corporations and executives seeking to court favor with the incoming administration.
The new research from Public Citizen includes a tracker that lists known corporate donations or pledged contributions to Trump's inaugural committee, which is tax-exempt and not subject to contribution limits.
Amazon, Apple, Chevron, Citigroup, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, Google, Meta, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, the pharmaceutical lobby, Pfizer, Microsoft, and Coinbase are among those that have pumped money into Trump's inaugural fund, which has raked in a record-shattering $150 million since Election Day—and could bring in over $200 million by January 20.
"These million-dollar donors come from a small class of very wealthy industries in Big Tech, cryptocurrency, government contractors, and others with lucrative contracts or business pending before the federal government," Public Citizen found. "Some of the biggest donors had long been critics of Trump, especially following the January 6 Insurrection by Trump supporters, and who are now fearful of retributions by a vengeful president."
Some of the companies that have donated to the inaugural fund are also facing federal investigations, amplifying suspicions that the contributions were made with the goal of receiving favorable treatment from the next administration.
"The record-breaking cesspool of special interest financing for the Trump-Vance Inaugural Committee raises serious concerns about the ability of corporations and wealthy special interests to purchase influence over public policy or lucrative government contracts," Craig Holman, a government ethics expert at Public Citizen, said in a statement Tuesday."The record-shattering abuses of the 2025 Trump-Vance Presidential Inaugural Committee, Inc. should signal the immediate need for legislation to prevent this influence peddling."
"The possibility for corruption exists any time an officeholder accepts large donations from those who have business pending before the official."
Trump's inaugural fund has easily surpassed the then-record-setting $107 million he raised for his inauguration in 2017, The New York Timesreported earlier this month. On Monday, the Timesreported that "Harold G. Hamm, the billionaire oil and gas executive who helped bankroll Donald J. Trump's campaign and stands to profit from his energy policies, is hosting an exclusive fossil fuel industry celebration on Inauguration Day."
"Among the invited guests to Mr. Hamm's celebration is Doug Burgum, Mr. Trump's pick to run the Interior Department," according to the newspaper.
The president-elect has openly boasted that prominent figures in corporate America—from Amazon founder Jeff Bezos to Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg—have lined up to show support for his second administration, which is set to be packed with billionaires and others with close business ties. Trump is reportedly keeping close track of major companies that have yet to donate to his inaugural fund.
Public Citizen noted Tuesday that "while the self-serving motivations of inaugural donors has a long and troubling precedent, the scope of donations and, in many cases, the fear of retribution driving the donations to the Trump-Vance Inaugural Committee represents a worrying shift."
"Buying access to the president and the president's inner circle is the name of the game," the group says in its new research brief. "For corporations and wealthy special interests attempting to influence public policy or secure lucrative government contracts, writing big checks to Trump's inaugural committee—or any presidential inaugural committee—provides a bonanza of access to leading government officials and influence over public policy. This is a level of influence peddling only available to those who can afford to pay the price and is denied to those who are not wealthy."
To "ensure that undue influence-peddling through Inaugural donations is mitigated," Public Citizen called on lawmakers to pass legislation banning corporate and lobbyist donations to inaugural funds, implementing contribution limits, and strengthening disclosure requirements, among other reforms.
"The possibility for corruption exists any time an officeholder accepts large donations from those who have business pending before the official," Public Citizen said. "Congress should end the double standard for presidential inauguration fundraising. The celebration of an election victory should be viewed as part and parcel of the process of selecting our president."
"This ruling exposes E.U. tax havens' love affair with multinationals."
The European Union's highest court on Tuesday ruled that Apple must pay €13 billion in back taxes to Ireland, determining that the country gave the company illegal tax benefits in the past, in what campaigners called a victory for tax justice.
The E.U. Court of Justice ruling brought to a close a landmark case that began in 2016 when the European Commission ordered Apple to pay the €13 billion ($14.4 billion) based on an unfair tax arrangement the company had with Ireland from 1991 until 2014. A lower court overturned the commission's order in 2020, but Tuesday's ruling, which is final, restores it.
Observers viewed the case as among the most important brought by E.U. Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager, an antitrust official who's been in office since 2014.
"It's important to show European taxpayers that once in a while, tax justice can be done," Vestager, who leaves office in two weeks, said following Tuesday's ruling.
Chiara Putaturo, a tax policy adviser at Oxfam EU, said in a statement that "this ruling exposes E.U. tax havens' love affair with multinationals. It delivers long-overdue justice after over a decade of Ireland standing by and allowing Apple to dodge taxes."
Today is a huge win for European citizens and tax justice.
👉In its final judgment, @EUCourtPress confirms @EU_Commission 2016 decision: Ireland granted illegal aid to @Apple.
Ireland now has to release up to 13 billion euros of unpaid taxes.
— Margrethe Vestager (@vestager) September 10, 2024
The European Commission argued that the selective tax benefits that Ireland had offered to two Apple subsidiaries amounted to illegal state aid that hindered competition. The company's tax burden in Ireland, where its European operations have been based since 1980, was as low as 0.005% of its profits in 2014.
In November of last year, Giovanni Pitruzzella, the advocate general of the E.U. Court of Justice, issued an opinion in favor of the commission's position and against the lower court ruling, in a setback for the tech giant. The high court, which is based in Luxembourg, generally agrees with its advocate general following such recommendations, as it ultimately did on Tuesday.
The €13 billion, plus interest, has been held in an escrow account since 2018 and will be released to Ireland, even though the country fought against the commission's order. Ireland said it would respect the court ruling.
Ireland is often characterized a tax haven within the E.U. and hosts the European headquarters for many multinational firms, with critics charging that its tax system drives up inequality.
Tax justice campaigners said Tuesday's ruling should just be a start and that more fundamental reforms are needed at the international and E.U. level.
"Our tax problem is more than just one rotten apple," Tove Maria Ryding, a policy manager at the European Network on Debt and Development, said in a statement.
"The international system for taxing multinational corporations continues to be deeply complex, unpredictable and unfair," she added, arguing that a company's economic activity across many countries, including in the Global South, shouldn't mean tax revenues only for one country such as Ireland.
Ryding praised the United Nations' efforts to establish a global tax convention, calling the proposal a "beacon of hope for a fairer future."
Putaturo of Oxfam likewise called for a fairer tax system in Europe.
"While this ruling will force the tech giant to pay its debt, the root of the issue is far from solved," she said. "E.U. tax havens can still make sweetheart tax deals with big multinationals. The duty to stop this rests on the shoulders of E.U. policymakers. Yet, they have turned a blind eye to tax havens within their borders and the harmful race to the bottom that countries like Ireland are instigating."
Oxfam EU also called for the closing of tax loopholes and the establishment of a wealth tax.
The Apple case was not the only victory for Vestager, the antitrust chief, on Tuesday: The E.U. Court of Justice also ruled that Google had illegally used its search engine dominance to favor its own shopping service, fining the company €2.4 billion ($2.65 billion).
Bloomberg on Tuesday called it a "double boost to the European Union’s crackdown on Big Tech," and said that Vestager's past work had "paved the way" for the U.S. and the U.K. to take action against Google.