Incorporation of a company for testing residency—if applied uniformly—is likely the best and most accurate way to reflect corporate residency for tax purposes. However, it does not always reflect economic reality. There is not a consensus on what the best approach is. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (“OECD”) countries overwhelmingly use three tests for residency: incorporation, central management and control, and domicile. Indeed, a court in the United States or other jurisdictions may often ask if tax-avoidance motives exist when incorporation occurs in one jurisdiction and central management and control occurs in another.
This Article follows the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act on many international tax provisions that caused a shift in thinking at both the U.S. level, and at the international level in terms of deciding what formulations would be the best way to ensure proper taxation while promoting horizontal and vertical equity.
The genesis of this Article is a response and critique of an article on the same subject by the same author: Charles Edward Andrew Lincoln IV, Is Incorporation Really Better Than Central Management and Control for Testing Corporate Residency? An Answer to Corporate Tax Evasion and Inversion, 43 Ohio N.U. L. Rev. 359 (2017). The author now critiques the point of that article and comes to a different conclusion based on different criteria: specifically, new case law, Musgrave’s economic theory of accretion of wealth, and the importance of substance-over-form doctrines.
Charles E. Lincoln IV,
Is Incorporation the Solution to the Enigma of Corporate Tax Residency for International Tax Purposes?,
Tex. A&M L. Rev.
Available at: https://doi.org/10.37419/LR.V7.Arg.3