Dean A. Pinkert is a partner in Hughes Hubbard’s International Trade practice. He is a former Commissioner of the U.S. International Trade Commission. Pinkert was nominated by President Bush and confirmed by the Senate in 2007, and was designated Vice Chairman by President Obama in 2014.
As a commissioner, Pinkert participated in numerous anti-dumping, countervailing duty, and safeguard investigations, including the special safeguard investigation of passenger tires that resulted in import relief for the domestic tire industry and was upheld by the World Trade Organization. He participated in an unprecedented number of final determinations in Section 337 investigations during his tenure, notably dissenting in an electronic devices case that went to President for policy review. President Obama, relying on many of the factors cited in the dissent, overruled the commission for the first time since 1987.
Pinkert spoke with MetalMiner Editor Jeff Yoders by phone about several issues facing metals producers and manufacturers, including global steel and aluminum overcapacity and how the new Trump administration can approach trade and overcapacity issues. This is the final post in our three-part series that covers border-adjustment and tax policy.
JY: The reason you might want to avoid a VAT is that it would apply to all transactions, right? It would be on individuals and not companies.
DP: Think of it as the difference between a sales tax in the United States and an income tax. They are completely different. A VAT is essentially a national sales tax. We have sales taxes but the issue we’re talking about is the corporate income tax. If the U.S. adopted a VAT it would be a huge change so the idea here is to stay within the corporate income tax concept, but make some tweaks so that U.S. companies aren’t disadvantaged relative to foreign companies. Because we’re not talking about a VAT, though, you might get a different outcome at the World Trade Organization when it’s challenged by another country.
A VAT would be a big change. We are getting into some areas of policy that I’m not an expert on here, but there are all sorts of other issues that go way beyond the issue, but from a trade perspective the idea of a border adjustment is supposed to neutralize the advantage that VAT tax countries might have in international trade. The WTO may come to the conclusion that, even though a border-adjustment does have some features of a VAT, it’s still not acceptable because it might be viewed as an export subsidy. Read more