Video & Transcript : 'multinational corporations' :

Page 1 of 363
LA

Louisiana 2026 Regular Session

Revenue and Fiscal Affairs May 11th, 2026

Revenue & Fiscal Affairs

Transcript Highlights:
  • When we do it for corporations all the time, The goal here is to give the locals an opportunity to address
  • their blight problem through a process that we already use for corporations, and we have been for years
Bills: HB214 , HB217 , HB514 , HB593 , HB618 , HB732 , HB908 , HB961 , HB1010
AZ

Arizona 2026 Regular Session

02/02/2026 - House Land, Agriculture & Rural Affairs

Land, Agriculture & Rural Affairs

Transcript Highlights:
  • I'm telling my farmers that are next to this, if they can do this to a large corporation under nuisance
  • This is about corporations whose irresponsible actions ruin the lives of entire communities.
  • Somehow this bill assumes that the reputations of these multinational corporations need to be protected
  • So what I just finished hearing was: are you opposed to large corporations coming into Arizona? Mr.
  • Chairman, I am not opposed to large corporations coming into Arizona if they're bringing capital and
MN

Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session

House Commerce Finance and Policy Committee 4/2/25

Commerce Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:
  • regarding what to do when there's a defective corporate act.
  • And not coincidentally, corporations.
  • It's a ploy by the corporate<01:15:06.000><c> by</c><01:15:06.320><c> corporate</c><01:15:06.640><c>
  • cannabis</c><01:15:07.040><c> to</c> corporate by corporate cannabis to corporate by corporate cannabis
  • </c><01:39:27.199><c> Thank</c> people and not the corporations.
Bills: HF1545 , HF2426 , HF1615 , HF2403
LA

Louisiana 2026 Regular Session

House and Governmental Affairs Mar 25th, 2026

House and Governmental Affairs

Transcript Highlights:
  • Amendment number 17 is deleting the words Board of Directors, so it clarifies that the whole corporation
  • Again, just clarifying that the whole corporation is being repealed.
  • This corporation dissolved as of such-and-such date.
Bills: HR9 , HR15 , HB202 , HB206 , HB338 , HB379 , HB547 , HB691 , HB843 , HB861 , HB908
OK
Transcript Highlights:
  • Senate Bill 1319 requires the Corporation Commission to establish a process to alleviate new and ongoing
  • homeowners whose residences have become contaminated by brine, oil, or other substances within the Corporation
  • They got the maps for the Corporation Commission.
  • And so right now, the Corporation Commission doesn't have the authority in statute to actually address
  • And honestly, until the Corporation Commission can get to the issue, they're going to have to pretty
AZ

Arizona 2026 Regular Session

02/03/2026 - House Natural Resources, Energy & Water

Natural Resources, Energy & Water

Transcript Highlights:
  • The amendment outlines duties of the Arizona Corporation Commission in enforcing this act.
  • 2026 at 11:31 a.m. replaces the term electric distribution utility with electric public service corporation
  • They had to admit to the Corporation Commission.
  • This calls for the Arizona Corporation Commission and requires utilities to get 85% of their power from
  • And then it just gives the Corporation Commission more knowledge and more information so they can vote
MN

Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session

House Elections Finance and Government Operations Committee 3/25/26

Elections Finance and Government Operations

Transcript Highlights:
  • </c><00:46:00.640><c> are</c> the United States uh corporations are the United States uh corporations
  • </c> please don't listen to the corporate please don't listen to the corporate spending<00:46:13.680>
  • corporations deal with government corporations deal with government obstruction<00:47:58.400><c> to</
  • Corporations are not.
  • Corporations are people. They're not ants. Uh, they're people who make up corporations.
MN

Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session

House Housing Finance and Policy Committee 4/1/25

Housing Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:
  • Anthony Neighborhood Development Corporation, and I am a proud historic Rondo descendant.
  • Please stand with your constituents and not with corporate greed. Vote yes on this bill.
  • Please stand with your constituents and not with corporate greed. Vote yes on this bill.
  • We try really hard not to speak for corporate guys that do what they're doing, but this bill affects
  • guys that do what they're for corporate guys that do what they're doing<01:15:27.040><c> but</c><01:
TX

Texas 89th Regular

Trade, Workforce & Economic Development Apr 9th, 2025

Trade, Workforce & Economic Development

Transcript Highlights:
  • We have a breeder relations department at corporate.
  • I work for the corporate office, and we have one individual who is in Missouri, travels all over the
  • Twenty of them are run by our corporate office, while the rest are individually owned and operated.
  • So I've never worked for the corporate office. I don't know how they operate.
  • And I do remember corporate saying, "Do it like that"—that was the end of the discussion.
TX

Texas 89th Regular

Trade, Workforce & Economic Development Apr 9th, 2025

Trade, Workforce & Economic Development

Transcript Highlights:
  • However, in 2023, there was a Texas Attorney General's opinion that found a corporate entity qualifies
  • uncertainties. by affirming that a trustee or a substitute trustee may not only be an individual. but a corporation
  • some confusion arise about whether a person acting as a substitute trustee may be a legal entity. corporation
  • members you remember this bill by representative Paul relating to the authority of a development corporation
  • shares and hold those shares for at least 676 with a meaningful long-term financial interest in the corporation
CA
Transcript Highlights:
  • And although multinationals are a small fraction of corporate taxpayers, they represent a relatively
  • So multinational corporations are firms that operate through multiple legal entities across countries
  • And so because a substantial share of corporate tax comes from a relatively small number of multinational
  • It is IRS data asking U.S. multinational corporations where they earned income.”
  • Massive multinational corporations.
Summary: The joint informational hearing examined California’s taxation of multinational corporations, especially the Water’s Edge election versus worldwide combined reporting. Chairs opened by framing the issue as a review of whether current rules fairly and sufficiently tax foreign subsidiary income, given profit shifting concerns, budget pressures, and the long history since Water’s Edge was adopted in the 1980s. The first panel from the Legislative Analyst’s Office and Franchise Tax Board explained the mechanics of unitary taxation, apportionment, and the Water’s Edge election, and provided filing data showing Water’s Edge filers are a small share of returns but account for a large share of corporate tax liability. FTB witnesses said the agency already administers both methods and could handle a shift to mandatory worldwide reporting with education and outreach, though revenue estimates are difficult because foreign affiliate information is not directly available. Committee members asked about foreign government pushback, administrative burden, industries with more profit shifting, revenue uncertainty, and whether companies would leave California. LAO and FTB witnesses said pushback from foreign governments was plausible, but they did not expect major business flight because California’s tax is largely based on sales rather than physical presence. They also said worldwide reporting could reduce profit shifting but might increase revenue volatility and litigation risk. A second panel of academic and tax policy witnesses argued that Water’s Edge is a loophole that rewards aggressive tax planning, that worldwide combined reporting would better capture income tied to California, and that modern federal and international rules such as NCTI/GILTI, CAMT, and Pillar Two reduce compliance concerns and make a return to worldwide reporting more feasible. They also said California’s current system can create selection effects and may under-tax large multinationals. In the next panel, a California Budget and Policy Center witness urged eliminating the Water’s Edge election, calling it a costly loophole that benefits large global corporations over smaller domestic businesses and deprives the state of billions in revenue that could support health care and other services. A Silicon Valley Leadership Group witness gave historical context for why Water’s Edge was adopted and began outlining concerns about compliance, double taxation, and the risk of overreaching beyond income truly connected to California. No bill was voted on or advanced; the hearing was informational only, with members using the testimony to weigh the policy trade-offs and possible transition periods if the Legislature were to change the current rules.
CA
Transcript Highlights:
  • And although multinationals are a small fraction of corporate taxpayers, they represent a relatively
  • Multinational corporations are firms that operate through multiple legal entities across countries.
  • And although multinationals are a small fraction of corporate taxpayers, they represent a relatively
  • It is IRS data asking U.S. multinational corporations where they earned income.
  • Massive multinational corporations.
Summary: The joint informational hearing examined California’s taxation of multinational corporations, especially the state’s water’s-edge election versus worldwide combined reporting. The LAO and Franchise Tax Board explained the basic mechanics of unitary taxation, apportionment, and how water’s-edge generally excludes most foreign subsidiaries while worldwide reporting includes the full unitary group. FTB officials said water’s-edge filers are a small share of corporate filers but account for a large share of tax liability, and they described filing trends, industry mix, and the administrative steps needed to administer either system. Members and witnesses debated the policy trade-offs. Supporters of moving away from water’s-edge argued that it enables profit shifting, especially for large multinational and IP-heavy firms, and that eliminating it could raise significant revenue and improve fairness for smaller domestic businesses. They cited estimates of billions in potential revenue and said California already has the audit and reporting infrastructure to handle worldwide reporting, though some transition time would be needed. Opponents argued that worldwide reporting would tax foreign activity unrelated to California, create double taxation, increase compliance burdens and litigation, and could be difficult for foreign-based multinationals to document. They also warned that some of the revenue estimates are highly uncertain because foreign affiliate income is not directly observable. Committee members asked about foreign government pushback, the risk of companies leaving California, the effect on intellectual property shifting, and whether federal or Supreme Court action could block a change. Witnesses generally said major firms would be unlikely to leave because California taxes sales rather than physical presence, but some costs could be passed on to consumers. The panel also discussed alternatives such as conforming to federal international tax rules like NCTI/GILTI and adding anti-abuse rules. No vote or bill action was taken; the hearing was informational only.
CA
Transcript Highlights:
  • And although multinationals are a small fraction of corporate taxpayers, they represent a relatively
  • So multinational corporations are firms that operate through multiple legal entities across countries
  • And so, because a substantial share of corporate tax comes from a relatively small number of multinational
  • It is IRS data asking U.S. multinational corporations where they earned income.
  • As you'll see, several U.S. or many multinational corporations report income in countries that are many
CA
Transcript Highlights:
  • And although multinationals are a small fraction of corporate taxpayers, they represent a relatively
  • So multinational corporations are firms that operate through multiple legal entities across countries
  • And so because a substantial share of corporate tax comes from a relatively small number of multinational
  • It is IRS data asking U.S. multinational corporations where they earned income.”
  • Massive multinational corporations.
Summary: The joint informational hearing focused on California’s taxation of foreign subsidiaries of U.S. corporations, especially the state’s water’s-edge election versus worldwide combined reporting. Committee members and witnesses discussed how unitary taxation and sales-factor apportionment work, why multinational corporations are a small share of filers but a large share of tax liability, and how foreign income, profit shifting, and double taxation concerns affect policy choices. The Franchise Tax Board explained current filing rules, the seven-year water’s-edge election, and recent filing statistics showing about 21,562 water’s-edge returns in 2023, roughly 6% of C corporation filers but about half of corporate tax liability. The Legislative Analyst’s Office and FTB staff emphasized that revenue effects from eliminating water’s edge are uncertain because foreign affiliate income is not directly observable, and they noted possible revenue volatility and administrative complexity. Several committee members asked about foreign government pushback, the burden on FTB, whether certain industries are more likely to shift profits, and whether companies would leave California; witnesses generally said there was no strong evidence that firms would exit the state because tax liability is driven mainly by California sales. They also discussed how California already administers both methods, how the election can be advantageous or disadvantageous depending on a firm’s facts, and how federal reforms like GILTI/NCTI, CAMT, and OECD Pillar Two may affect the issue. The second panel presented sharply contrasting views. One professor and a tax policy advocate argued that water’s edge creates unfairness, encourages profit shifting, and leaves California with billions in lost revenue, while a Tax Foundation witness argued that mandatory worldwide reporting would tax the wrong income, create double taxation and litigation risk, and impose heavy compliance burdens, especially for foreign-based multinationals. A later panel from the California Budget and Policy Center supported closing the “water’s-edge loophole,” saying it would raise needed revenue for public services and level the playing field between large multinationals and smaller domestic businesses. No vote or formal action was taken; the hearing was informational only.