Senator Marco Rubio sent an
early valentine to the populist policy crowd
Tuesday with his “new proposal that tackles one of Democrats' favorite talking
points: stock buybacks.” According to CNBC,
“The plan, unveiled Tuesday, would eliminate the preferential tax treatment of
share repurchases as a way to discourage that behavior. Instead of falling
under the capital gains rate, they would be taxed as dividends, which are
subject to a wide range of rates.”
The plan is laid out in just two sentences in a report by
the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship that say,
“Finally, share repurchases are tax-advantaged over dividends, due to the
structure of capital gains taxes. Tax policy changes to end this preference
might, on their own, increase investment by shifting shareholder appetite for
capital return. To the extent structural incentives remain for capital return,
an increased tax rate on repurchases might raise revenue to finance other
incentives for capital investment like full expensing.” These have been
interpreted to mean that the cash used for share repurchases would be treated
as a dividend distribution. That's a terrible idea.
First, it is unfair. Suppose that a firm has 200,000 shares outstanding,
each valued at $10 per share. To make things simpler imagine I own 100,000 and
you own 100,000. It can buy back 100,000 of those shares for $1 million. If it
does so, this is a dividend distribution of $5 per share taxable for both of
us. But I could choose to sell my shares and you choose to hold yours. You
have done nothing and received nothing, but the tax bill is in the
mail. I have sold, received a million dollars, and the tax bill for half
of that is in the mail. It is an unfair tax imposed randomly on some
shareholders.
Second, it is a tax in part on the value of the original investment and not the
return on that investment. To see this, imagine that each of us had originally
contributed $750,000 ($7.50 per share) for an original capitalization of $1.5
million. The “dividend” of $5 per share represents $2.50 of actual return and
$2.50 of original capital contribution. The tax is an unfair random tax on
wealth and not income.
Third, it is unclear as to whether the tax will be imposed on net buybacks. It
would be strange to impose a tax if a firm bought back shares and later in the
year offset those bought shares with new share issues. Would the
tax, for example, pretend that a 2-for-1 stock split was an entire buyback
followed by new issuance?
Of course, it could be the case that the real intent is to instead simply tax
any capital gain from buybacks as ordinary income instead of at the
preferential capital gains rate. But this raises the question of
what is “capital gain from buybacks.” As I’ve explained previously,
buybacks per se have
no effect on share prices, so there is no capital gain.
Changing the tax rate on capital gains for any year in which a firm bought back
shares makes no sense whatsoever.
The real issue, of course, is that there is no problem to
be solved, so any proposal would simply create new ones. My mentor Alan Blinder
once wrote a book whose title I love: Hard Heads, Soft Hearts. In the spirit
of Valentine’s Day, the problem is not that one has a soft heart toward
issues of fairness, distribution, or poverty. The problem is the absence of
hard-headed analysis about actual problems and real solutions.
No comments:
Post a Comment