Apple executives were called in to testify before members of Congress yesterday. They were accused of “shifting” profits abroad to avoid paying taxes.

The fact of the matter, though, as Heritage Foundation tax expert Curtis Dubay told Fox Business yesterday, is that the money hasn’t been shifted at all because it wasn’t earned in the U.S. “I can’t go down to the Apple store here in Washington, buy an iPad, and have Apple then ‘shift’ that income abroad,” he said.

The U.S. corporate tax rate is the highest rate in the world. As long as it remains so exorbitant, successful businesses like Apple are going to keep their foreign income abroad.

Heritage’s Amy Payne has more:

The reason the Senate feigned indignation over an issue that had nothing to do with the U.S. is that some Members want Apple to pay more U.S. tax on all that foreign cash. They want Apple to bring all of that profit back into the U.S. and pay the U.S. corporate tax rate—the world’s highest—on it. But as long as we keep the U.S. rate the highest in the world, Apple and other multinational businesses are going to keep their foreign income abroad.

Apple has not done anything illegal by minimizing its tax liability. Because of America’s extremely high corporate tax rate, many companies don’t return to the U.S. what money they earn abroad. While other countries have been making efforts to cut their corporate tax rates, the U.S. has been making it more and more difficult for U.S. businesses.

Do you think Apple should pay more in taxes? Or should we fix the tax code to stop punishing successful firms?

He didn't know? Photo: Jewel Samad/AFP/Getty Images

President Obama says he didn’t know about the multiple scandals involving his administration, including the IRS harassment of conservative groups. But as the chief executive, shouldn’t President Obama be held responsible for these scandals?

If this were the business world, the answer would be “yes,” The Heritage Foundation’s Daniel Dew explains: Continue Reading »

On Friday the IRS admitted to targeting conservative groups for extra scrutiny in their applications for tax-exempt status. The agency claimed the practice was initiated by low-level workers and did not result from political bias.

Then over the weekend, it was revealed that the IRS targeted “groups focused on government spending, government debt, taxes, and education on ways to ‘make America a better place to live.’”

Heritage Foundation expert Hans von Spakovsky says that any explanation other than political bias would be hard to believe, because “the only relevant or substantive thing these organizations have in common is that they are all conservative politically.”

In fact, it’s fully permissible for organizations to advance conservative principles, he explains in a separate post:

Whether or not you agree with the Administration’s policies or whether you criticize the expansion of government or its excessive debt are not a consideration under the Revenue Code to qualify for tax-exempt status. Apparently, the IRS finally realized that, because according to The Washington Post, it changed its tactics in May 2012 to focus on “organizations with indicators of significant amounts of political campaign intervention.” Despite that change, dozens of conservative organizations are still waiting to receive their tax exemptions.

So why did the practice go on for so long without interference from the higher-ups? There should be a thorough investigation, von Spakovsky argues:

It’s unclear who in the IRS or elsewhere supported or condoned the wrongful conduct at issue, but it is important for the rule of law and the interests of justice that Congress aggressively pursue its oversight function to get to the bottom of this scandal and, most importantly, who instigated and authorized it.

Do you think targeting conservative groups was political?

The Senate immigration bill contains language that would provide substantial federal funding for special interest groups and expose the government to legal fights — at taxpayers’ expense.

Heritage Foundation expert Hans von Spakovsky explains that in addition to costing American taxpayers, by granting funding to immigrant advocacy groups these provisions “could expose the government to costly litigation going forward.”

The legislation establishes a $50 million grant program for nonprofit organizations to assist applicants for legal residence. “These grants can be used for legal assistance and effectively commit the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to providing grants for lawsuits against itself,” von Spakovsky explains.

In addition to these grants, the proposed bill includes very broad language granting legal services to aliens: Continue Reading »

Sens. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY). Photo: NewsCom

The “Gang of Eight” immigration plan introduced this week in the Senate is contrary to the rule of law and costly to taxpayers, Heritage Foundation President Jim DeMint writes in today’s Morning Bell. Continue Reading »

After debating Piers Morgan and Suze Orman on CNN earlier this week, The Heritage Foundation’s Ryan Anderson is by now accustomed to hostile interviews about traditional marriage. Last night, though, Anderson had a much more civil debate about marriage on “Real News from the Blaze.”

Anderson explained how supporting traditional marriage advances the cause of limited government: Continue Reading »

David Addington

When considering proposals for immigration reform, Congress must reject any form of amnesty for aliens unlawfully in the United States, Heritage Foundation legal scholar David Addington writes.

“Amnesty comes in many forms, but in all its variations, it discourages respect for the law, treats law-breaking aliens better than law-following aliens, and encourages future unlawful immigration into the United States,” Addington explains.

Many different policies amount to amnesty, he argues: Continue Reading »

“We cannot hope to limit government if we do not stand up for marriage,” Heritage Foundation President-Elect Jim DeMint writes in USA Today.

Redefining marriage would be a step backward for those who favor a government of limited powers, he explains:

There seems to be much confusion in the current debate over marriage. Hopefully it’s not being done on purpose to cloud the issue. Let’s make one thing very clear: those of us who support marriage as it has been since the dawn of time respect the liberty of others to live their lives as they choose. But governmental redefinition of marriage is a power grab that attacks civil society. . .

Without strong families grounded in marriage, we cannot hold back the ever-expanding power of government. As the marriage culture weakens, Big Government grows. Just look how the welfare state has expanded as the unwed childbearing rate has grown from single digits in the 1960s to more than 40% today.

Read the USA Today article in its entirety.

What do you think? Tell us in the comments.

The Supreme Court this week heard oral arguments in Alabama v. Holder, the constitutional challenge to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act heard this week in the Supreme Court. Heritage Foundation legal expert Hans von Spakovsky racaps the arguments, gives us background on the case and explains the law’s shaky legal grounding.

Section 5, von Spakovsky explains, is ”an emergency provision passed by Congress in 1965 that was originally supposed to terminate after five years. It was renewed for a fourth time in 2006 for another 25 years.”

Section 5 requires certain covered jurisdictions (nine states and parts of seven others) to get the preapproval of the federal government before they can make any changes in their voting laws. The main provision of the Voting Rights Act, Section 2, which is a nationwide, permanent ban on racial discrimination in voting, is not at issue in the case.

The difference between Section 2 and Section 5, he explains, is that the latter’s restrictions apply only to jurisdictions which “had voter registration or turnout below 50 percent in the 1964, 1968, and 1972 presidential elections.” Continue Reading »

Hans von Spakovsky

Liberal efforts to reduce waiting times at the polls are part of a partisan plan to advance their cause at the polls, The Heritage Foundation’s Hans von Spakovsky explains in the Wall Street Journal this weekend.

Von Spakovsky, the subject of the Journal’s “Weekend Interview,” tells the Journal’s James Taranto that the so-called Voter Empowerment Act of 2013 is the latest push: Continue Reading »