retail news in context, analysis with attitude

• The Food Marketing Institute (FMI) yesterday "submitted a statement for the record to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Ways and Means hearing on Increasing U.S. Competitiveness and Preventing American Jobs from Moving Overseas: How Border Adjustment and Other Policies Will Boost Jobs, Investment, and Growth in the U.S."

This is the same hearing where, as MNB noted yesterday, Target CEO Brian Cornell testified, arguing against a Republican-backed proposal that would create a border adjustment tax on imported products (and also offering tax credit on exports). The Cornell position is that such a tax would result in increased prices and thus hurt consumers.

We also reported yesterday that other executives scheduled to testify in favor of a border adjustment tax included Juan Luciana, president and CEO of agribusiness Archer Daniels Midland, and former Walmart CEO William Simon.

The FMI statement read, in part:

"Although the industry is generally supportive of efforts to move to a territorial system, there is no room for border adjustments in tax reform and the approach should not be considered. The type of border adjustment being discussed would inevitably lead to higher consumer prices. In an industry that operates on such a narrow profit margin anyway, grocers do not have the ability to absorb cost increases. "Border adjustment is, even under a best case scenario, a gamble. The wager, unfortunately, is a bigger tax bill for many food retailers and/or higher prices for consumers. There is no reason to make this bet; tax reform can and should proceed without a border adjustment."
KC's View: