{
  "id": "RS20746",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORT",
  "number": "RS20746",
  "active": false,
  "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
      "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc818309/",
      "id": "RS20746_2007Apr24",
      "date": "2007-04-24",
      "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26",
      "title": "Export Tax Benefits and the WTO: The Extraterritorial Income Exclusion and Foreign Sales Corporations",
      "summary": null,
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORT",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "filename": "files/20070424_RS20746_1e272820a905f6f9b4919bcac1a64ade3789fd7d.pdf"
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20070424_RS20746_1e272820a905f6f9b4919bcac1a64ade3789fd7d.html",
          "source": "pymupdf"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    },
    {
      "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
      "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc820172/",
      "id": "RS20746_2005Apr04",
      "date": "2005-04-04",
      "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26",
      "title": "Export Tax Benefits and the WTO: The Extraterritorial Income Exclusion and Foreign Sales Corporations",
      "summary": null,
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORT",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "filename": "files/20050404_RS20746_a7d89c3185dc39e392871b6f95415f9747cafda0.pdf"
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20050404_RS20746_a7d89c3185dc39e392871b6f95415f9747cafda0.html",
          "source": "pymupdf"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    },
    {
      "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
      "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs5594/",
      "id": "RS20746 2003-09-25",
      "date": "2003-09-25",
      "retrieved": "2005-06-12T12:48:42",
      "title": "Export Tax Benefits and the WTO: Foreign Sales Corporations and the Extraterritorial Replacement Provisions",
      "summary": "The U.S. tax code\u2019s Foreign Sales Corporation (FSC) provisions provided a tax benefit for U.S. exporters. However, the European Union (EU) in 1997 charged that the provision was an export subsidy and thus contravened the World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements. A WTO ruling upheld the EU complaint, and to avoid WTO sanctioned retaliatory tariffs, U.S. legislation in November 2000 replaced FSC with the \u201cextraterritorial income\u201d (ETI) provisions, consisting of a redesigned export tax benefit of the same magnitude as FSC. The EU maintained that the new provisions are also not WTO-compliant and asked the WTO to rule on the matter.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORT",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "filename": "files/20030925_RS20746_2cb5d6bdb5ee0fee611c2742986dfe258ee12060.pdf"
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20030925_RS20746_2cb5d6bdb5ee0fee611c2742986dfe258ee12060.html",
          "source": "pymupdf"
        }
      ],
      "topics": [
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Trade",
          "name": "Trade"
        },
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Tax exemption",
          "name": "Tax exemption"
        },
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Trade agreements",
          "name": "Trade agreements"
        },
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Taxation",
          "name": "Taxation"
        },
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "International affairs",
          "name": "International affairs"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
      "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs5593/",
      "id": "RS20746 2003-05-15",
      "date": "2003-05-15",
      "retrieved": "2005-06-12T12:47:54",
      "title": "Export Tax Benefits and the WTO: Foreign Sales Corporations and the Extraterritorial Replacement Provisions",
      "summary": "The U.S. tax code\u2019s Foreign Sales Corporation (FSC) provisions provided a tax benefit for U.S. exporters. However, the European Union (EU) in 1997 charged that the provision was an export subsidy and thus contravened the World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements. A WTO ruling upheld the EU complaint, and to avoid WTO sanctioned retaliatory tariffs, U.S. legislation in November 2000 replaced FSC with the \u201cextraterritorial income\u201d (ETI) provisions, consisting of a redesigned export tax benefit of the same magnitude as FSC. The EU maintained that the new provisions are also not WTO-compliant and asked the WTO to rule on the matter.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORT",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "filename": "files/20030515_RS20746_81173f9192de73c57399c31c38f8dd0ca2095d97.pdf"
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20030515_RS20746_81173f9192de73c57399c31c38f8dd0ca2095d97.html",
          "source": "pymupdf"
        }
      ],
      "topics": [
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Trade",
          "name": "Trade"
        },
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Tax exemption",
          "name": "Tax exemption"
        },
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Trade agreements",
          "name": "Trade agreements"
        },
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Taxation",
          "name": "Taxation"
        },
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "International affairs",
          "name": "International affairs"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
      "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc806098/",
      "id": "RS20746_2003Apr22",
      "date": "2003-04-22",
      "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26",
      "title": "Export Tax Benefits and the WTO: Foreign Sales Corporations and the Extraterritorial Replacement Provisions",
      "summary": null,
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORT",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "filename": "files/20030422_RS20746_5aaab54f721e0fa16d41e38e78aad5453c770109.pdf"
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20030422_RS20746_5aaab54f721e0fa16d41e38e78aad5453c770109.html",
          "source": "pymupdf"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    },
    {
      "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
      "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs5592/",
      "id": "RS20746 2003-01-30",
      "date": "2003-01-30",
      "retrieved": "2005-06-12T12:47:03",
      "title": "Export Tax Benefits and the WTO: Foreign Sales Corporations and the Extraterritorial Replacement Provisions",
      "summary": "The U.S. tax code\u2019s Foreign Sales Corporation (FSC) provisions provided a tax benefit for U.S. exporters. However, the European Union (EU) in 1997 charged that the provision was an export subsidy and thus contravened the World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements. A WTO ruling upheld the EU complaint, and to avoid WTO sanctioned retaliatory tariffs, U.S. legislation in November 2000 replaced FSC with the \u201cextraterritorial income\u201d (ETI) provisions, consisting of a redesigned export tax benefit of the same magnitude as FSC. The EU maintained that the new provisions are also not WTO-compliant and asked the WTO to rule on the matter.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORT",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "filename": "files/20030130_RS20746_becc12f8f30ec8a4b4f822944971bb7ec1c89173.pdf"
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20030130_RS20746_becc12f8f30ec8a4b4f822944971bb7ec1c89173.html",
          "source": "pymupdf"
        }
      ],
      "topics": [
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Trade",
          "name": "Trade"
        },
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Tax exemption",
          "name": "Tax exemption"
        },
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Trade agreements",
          "name": "Trade agreements"
        },
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Taxation",
          "name": "Taxation"
        },
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "International affairs",
          "name": "International affairs"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
      "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs3562/",
      "id": "RS20746 2002-09-03",
      "date": "2002-09-03",
      "retrieved": "2005-06-12T12:46:13",
      "title": "Export Tax Benefits and the WTO: Foreign Sales Corporations and the Extraterritorial Replacement Provisions",
      "summary": "The U.S. tax code\u2019s Foreign Sales Corporation (FSC) provisions provided a tax benefit for U.S. exporters. However, the European Union (EU) in 1997 charged that the provision was an export subsidy and thus contravened the World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements. A WTO ruling upheld the EU complaint, and to avoid WTO sanctioned retaliatory tariffs, U.S. legislation in November 2000 replaced FSC with the \u201cextraterritorial income\u201d (ETI) provisions, consisting of a redesigned export tax benefit of the same magnitude as FSC. The EU maintained that the new provisions are also not WTO-compliant and asked the WTO to rule on the matter.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORT",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "filename": "files/20020903_RS20746_d661c72e50b057cd58bd7aaca2a7f7b166098787.pdf"
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20020903_RS20746_d661c72e50b057cd58bd7aaca2a7f7b166098787.html",
          "source": "pymupdf"
        }
      ],
      "topics": [
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Trade",
          "name": "Trade"
        },
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Tax exemption",
          "name": "Tax exemption"
        },
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Trade agreements",
          "name": "Trade agreements"
        },
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Taxation",
          "name": "Taxation"
        },
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "International affairs",
          "name": "International affairs"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
      "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs3561/",
      "id": "RS20746 2002-06-25",
      "date": "2002-06-25",
      "retrieved": "2005-06-12T12:45:25",
      "title": "Export Tax Benefits and the WTO: Foreign Sales Corporations and the Extraterritorial Replacement Provisions",
      "summary": "The U.S. tax code\u2019s Foreign Sales Corporation (FSC) provisions provided a tax benefit for U.S. exporters. However, the European Union (EU) in 1997 charged that the provision was an export subsidy and thus contravened the World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements. A WTO ruling upheld the EU complaint, and to avoid WTO sanctioned retaliatory tariffs, U.S. legislation in November 2000 replaced FSC with the \u201cextraterritorial income\u201d (ETI) provisions, consisting of a redesigned export tax benefit of the same magnitude as FSC. The EU maintained that the new provisions are also not WTO-compliant and asked the WTO to rule on the matter.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORT",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "filename": "files/20020625_RS20746_83838670856357a07968c090035d6b74c30220d5.pdf"
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20020625_RS20746_83838670856357a07968c090035d6b74c30220d5.html",
          "source": "pymupdf"
        }
      ],
      "topics": [
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Trade",
          "name": "Trade"
        },
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Tax exemption",
          "name": "Tax exemption"
        },
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Trade agreements",
          "name": "Trade agreements"
        },
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Taxation",
          "name": "Taxation"
        },
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "International affairs",
          "name": "International affairs"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
      "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs3560/",
      "id": "RS20746 2002-01-24",
      "date": "2002-01-24",
      "retrieved": "2005-06-12T12:44:34",
      "title": "Export Tax Benefits and the WTO: Foreign Sales Corporations and the Extraterritorial Replacement Provisions",
      "summary": "The U.S. tax code\u2019s Foreign Sales Corporation (FSC) provisions provided a tax benefit for U.S. exporters. However, the European Union (EU) in 1997 charged that the provision was an export subsidy and thus contravened the World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements. A WTO ruling upheld the EU complaint, and to avoid WTO sanctioned retaliatory tariffs, U.S. legislation in November 2000 replaced FSC with the \u201cextraterritorial income\u201d (ETI) provisions, consisting of a redesigned export tax benefit of the same magnitude as FSC. The EU maintained that the new provisions are also not WTO-compliant and asked the WTO to rule on the matter.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORT",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "filename": "files/20020124_RS20746_7f1605899897d3e66285f887ba9c2bdf605f81c9.pdf"
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20020124_RS20746_7f1605899897d3e66285f887ba9c2bdf605f81c9.html",
          "source": "pymupdf"
        }
      ],
      "topics": [
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Trade",
          "name": "Trade"
        },
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Tax exemption",
          "name": "Tax exemption"
        },
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Trade agreements",
          "name": "Trade agreements"
        },
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Taxation",
          "name": "Taxation"
        },
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "International affairs",
          "name": "International affairs"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
      "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs2028/",
      "id": "RS20746 2001-07-25",
      "date": "2001-07-25",
      "retrieved": "2005-06-12T12:43:46",
      "title": "Export Tax Benefits and the WTO: Foreign Sales Corporations (FSCs) and the Extraterritorial (ETI) Replacement Provisions",
      "summary": "The U.S. tax code\u2019s Foreign Sales Corporation (FSC) provisions provided a tax benefit for U.S. exporters. However, the European Union (EU) in 1997 charged that the provision was an export subsidy and thus contravened the World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements. A WTO ruling upheld the EU complaint, and to avoid WTO sanctioned retaliatory tariffs, U.S. legislation in November 2000 replaced FSC with the \u201cextraterritorial income\u201d (ETI) provisions, consisting of a redesigned export tax benefit of the same magnitude as FSC. The EU maintained that the new provisions are also not WTO-compliant and asked the WTO to rule on the matter.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORT",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "filename": "files/20010725_RS20746_05575c6ae48fd330e1047b1d5c08d1603eda4ec6.pdf"
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20010725_RS20746_05575c6ae48fd330e1047b1d5c08d1603eda4ec6.html",
          "source": "pymupdf"
        }
      ],
      "topics": [
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Trade",
          "name": "Trade"
        },
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Tax exemption",
          "name": "Tax exemption"
        },
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Trade agreements",
          "name": "Trade agreements"
        },
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Taxation",
          "name": "Taxation"
        },
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "International affairs",
          "name": "International affairs"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Economic Policy"
  ]
}