Exhibit 675

Tax Cuts on Repatriation Earnings as Economic Stimulus: An Economic Analysis (R40178, 21 December 2012 version)

Exhibit 675 · CRS report

Tax Cuts on Repatriation Earnings as Economic Stimulus: An Economic Analysis (R40178, 21 December 2012 version)

While empirical evidence is clear that this provision resulted in a significant increase in repatriated earnings, empirical evidence is unable to show a corresponding increase in domestic investment or employment.

Describes the 85 percent deduction (5.25 percent effective rate) and surveys empirical studies: repatriations rose sharply but did not raise investment or employment, and much went to stock repurchases. Notes Faulkender and Petersen found investment effects at capital-constrained firms (about 20 percent of repatriations), an industry-commissioned Sinai simulation of 614,000 jobs for a 2009 holiday, and that fungibility means buybacks may not violate the law.

Source: Congressional Research Service (Marples and Gravelle)
Date: 21 December 2012
Quoted from: Summary, second paragraph
Grade: Primary record
Document: https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/20121221_R40178_32bec8a2b17deaf51debbd5755e2bf89790c1f5c.html
Accessed: 2026-11-10
Cited by: Findings citing this exhibit

Cited by

Finding POL-1.2: Primary record The 2004 repatriation provision taxed repatriated foreign dividends at an effective rate of 5.25 percent, and corporations repatriated $312 billion under it.
Finding POL-1.6: Peer-reviewed Firms that repatriated under the 2004 provision did not increase domestic investment, employment or research and development, including the firms that lobbied for it.
Finding POL-1.7: Primary record CRS reports that studies generally find the repatriated funds went to shareholders through stock repurchases. Dharmapala, Foley and Forbes estimate $0.91 of repurchases per $1 repatriated in their working paper.