{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0499194847020934, 'fraction_numerical': 0.040257648953301126, 'mean_word_length': 4.5, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
States Should Conform to GILTI, Part 3: Elevator Pitch and Q&A

This essay argues that the states should conform to the post-2017 federal tax law's provision for Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income (or “GILTI”). This essay is directed at state legislators and their staffs and presents the argument as succinctly as possible. 
 
Our argument can be summarized in three sentences. First, states should conform to GILTI because there is significant evidence that profit shifting is substantially eroding their corporate tax bases. Second, GILTI is a tool for identifying shifted profits. Third, there are many legally and analytically sound ways to apportion GILTI income to a state. 
 
We also - briefly - counter the standard objections to state conformity with GILTI. 
 
For those wanting more policy analysis, please see this essay: Shanske, Darien and Gamage, David, Why States Should Tax the GILTI (March 4, 2019). 91 State Tax Notes 751 (2019). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=3374987 
 
For those wanting more legal analysis, please see this essay: Shanske, Darien and Gamage, David, Why States Can Tax the GILTI (March 18, 2019). 91 State Tax Notes, March 18, 2019, p.967. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=3374991