Category Archives: China

Cyber Conflict, Chaos and Calamity

Posted on by

There have been several Congressional hearings on cyber-terrorism, yet with such an emergency and threat, no solution is forthcoming.

From AEI: “America’s intelligence leaders have made clear the biggest threat today is cyber and counterintelligence. Who are the largest perpetrators of these types of attacks? The intelligence report singles out Russia and China as first examples. These nations have “highly sophisticated cyber programs” and are regularly conducting “politically motivated” attacks. What are they up to exactly? Countries such as China are “reconnoitering and developing access to US critical infrastructure systems, which might be quickly exploited for disruption if an adversary’s intent became hostile.” Back in 2013, Verizon released a report detailing Chinese hackers lurking around inside American industrial control systems—the cyber equivalent to casing a robbery target. In 2014 alone, the FBI investigated a likely Russian hacking campaign against American banking backbone JP Morgan, while two cybersecurity firms blamed Iran for a major campaign against US critical infrastructure like major airliners, medical universities, and energy companies. As the year ended, the US government publicly accused North Korea of a devastating cyberattack against Sony.”

When of Office of National Intelligence produced a report, the first chapter is on cyber threats.

“Risk. Despite ever-improving network defenses, the diverse possibilities for remote hacking intrusions, supply chain operations to insert compromised hardware or software, and malevolent activities by human insiders will hold nearly all ICT systems at risk for years to come. In short, the cyber threat cannot be eliminated; rather, cyber risk must be managed. Moreover, the risk calculus employed by some private sector entities does not adequately account for foreign cyber threats or the systemic interdependencies between different critical infrastructure sectors.

Costs. During 2014, we saw an increase in the scale and scope of reporting on malevolent cyber activity that can be measured by the amount of corporate data stolen or deleted, personally identifiable information (PII) compromised, or remediation costs incurred by US victims. “

The stakes are higher than anyone will admit, most of all the White House. The Office of Personnel Management hack of personnel files now appears to exceed 18 million individuals. “FBI Director James Comey gave the 18 million estimate in a closed-door briefing to Senators in recent weeks, using the OPM’s own internal data, according to U.S. officials briefed on the matter. Those affected could include people who applied for government jobs, but never actually ended up working for the government.”

Just announced as a possible additional agency falling victim to hacking is the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). What is chilling about this probability is all government reports, records and communications are by law to be maintained by NARA., even classified material.

EXCLUSIVE: Signs of OPM Hack Turn Up at Another Federal Agency

The National Archives and Records Administration recently detected unauthorized activity on three desktops indicative of the same hack that extracted sensitive details on millions of current and former federal employees, government officials said Monday. The revelation suggests the breadth of one of the most damaging cyber assaults known is wider than officials have disclosed.

The National Archives’ own intrusion-prevention technology successfully spotted the so-called indicators of compromise during a scan this spring, said a source involved in the investigation, who was not authorized to speak publicly about the incident. The discovery was made soon after the Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. Computer Emergency Readiness Team published signs of the wider attack — which targeted the Office of Personnel Management — to look for at agencies, according to NARA.

It is unclear when NARA computers were breached. Suspected Chinese-sponsored cyberspies reportedly had been inside OPM’s networks for a year before the agency discovered what happened in April. Subsequently, the government uncovered a related attack against OPM that mined biographical information on individuals who have filed background investigation forms to access classified secrets.

The National Archives has found no evidence intruders obtained “administrative access,” or took control, of systems, but files were found in places they did not belong, the investigator said.

NARA “systems” and “applications” were not compromised, National Archives spokeswoman Laura Diachenko emphasized to Nextgov,  “but we detected IOCs,” indicators of compromise, “on three workstations, which were cleaned and re-imaged,” or reinstalled.

“Other files found seemed to be legitimate,” such as those from a Microsoft website, she said. “We have requested further guidance from US-CERT on how to deal with these” and are still awaiting guidance on how to proceed.

It will take additional forensics assessments to determine whether attackers ever “owned” the National Archives computers, the investigator said.

Diachenko said, “Continued analysis with our monitoring and forensic tools has not detected any activity associated with a hack,” including alerts from the latest version of a governmentwide network-monitoring tool called EINSTEIN 3A.

EINSTEIN, like NARA’s own intrusion-prevention tool, is now configured to detect the tell-tale signs of the OPM attack.

“OPM isn’t the only agency getting probed by this group,” said John Prisco, president of security provider Triumphant, the company that developed the National Archives’ tool. “It could be happening in lots of other agencies.”

Prisco said he learned of the incident at a security industry conference June 9, from an agency official the company has worked with for years.

“They told us that they were really happy because we stopped the OPM attack in their agency,” Prisco said.

The malicious operation tries to open up ports to the Internet, so it can excise information, Prisco said.

“It’s doing exploration work laterally throughout the network and then it’s looking for a way to communicate what it finds back to its server,” he added.

Homeland Security officials on Monday would not confirm or deny the situation at the National Archives. DHS spokesman S.Y. Lee referred to the department’s earlier statement about the OPM hack: “DHS has shared information regarding the potential incident with all federal chief information officers to ensure that all agencies have the knowledge they need to defend against this cybersecurity incident.”

The assault on OPM represents the seventh raid on national security-sensitive or federal personnel information over the past year.

Well-funded hackers penetrated systems at the State Department, the White House, U.S. Postal Service and, previously in March 2014, OPM. Intruders also broke into networks twice at KeyPoint Government Solutions, an OPM background check provider, and once at USIS, which conducted most of OPM’s employee investigations until last summer.

On Wednesday, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is scheduled to hold a hearing on the OPM incident that, among other things, will examine the possibility that hackers got into the agency’s systems by using details taken from the contractors.

Chinese Intelligence at Center of OPM Hack

Posted on by

First reported there was Anthem, one of the largest healthcare providers that was hacked. 80 million personal records were compromised. What is notable is Anthem is part of the Blue Cross Blue Shield health coverage network and even more concerning is BCBS provides coverage to more that half of the federal government workforce.

Take note of the following fro Threatconnect.com:

“Anthem Themed Infrastructure & Signed Malware:
In September 2014, the ThreatConnect Intelligence Research Team (TCIRT) observed a variant of the Derusbi APT malware family, MD5: 0A9545F9FC7A6D8596CF07A59F400FD3, which was signed by a valid digital signature from the Korean company DTOPTOOLZ Co. Derusbi is a family of malware used by multiple actor groups but associated exclusively with Chinese APT. TCIRT began tracking the DTOPTOOLZ signature for additional signed malware samples and memorialized them within our Threat Intelligence Platform over time.
Analyst Comment: The DTOPTOOLZ signature has also been observed in association with Korean Adware that is affiliated with the actual DTOPTOOLZ Co. This adware should not be confused with the APT malware that is abusing the same digital signature.
Later, in mid-November we discovered another implant that was digitally signed with the DTOPTOOLZ signature. This implant, MD5: 98721c78dfbf8a45d152a888c804427c, was from the “Sakula” (aka. Sakurel) family of malware, a known variant of the Derusbi backdoor, and was configured to communicate with the malicious command and control (C2) domains extcitrix.we11point[.]com and www.we11point[.]com. Through our Farsight  Security passive DNS integration, we uncovered that this malicious infrastructure was likely named in such a way to impersonate the legitimate Wellpoint IT infrastructure.”

This brings us to the hack or rather simply sign-on as a root user of the 14 million personnel records of Office of Personnel Management (OPM) located in Colorado.

From Reuters:

U.S. employee data breach tied to Chinese intelligence

The Chinese hacking group suspected of stealing sensitive information about millions of current and former U.S. government employees has a different mission and organizational structure than the military hackers who have been accused of other U.S. data breaches, according to people familiar with the matter.

While the Chinese People’s Liberation Army typically goes after defense and trade secrets, this hacking group has repeatedly accessed data that could be useful to Chinese counter-intelligence and internal stability, said two people close to the U.S. investigation.

Washington has not publicly accused Beijing of orchestrating the data breach at the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM), and China has dismissed as “irresponsible and unscientific” any suggestion that it was behind the attack.

Sources told Reuters that the hackers employed a rare tool to take remote control of computers, dubbed Sakula, that was also used in the data breach at U.S. health insurer Anthem Inc last year.

The Anthem attack, in turn, has been tied to a group that security researchers said is affiliated with China’s Ministry of State Security, which is focused on government stability, counter-intelligence and dissidents. The ministry could not immediately be reached for comment.

In addition, U.S. investigators believe the hackers registered the deceptively named OPM-Learning.org website to try to capture employee names and passwords, in the same way that Anthem, formerly known as Wellpoint, was subverted with spurious websites such as We11point.com, which used the number “1” instead of the letter “l”.

Both the Anthem and OPM breaches used malicious software electronically signed as safe with a certificate stolen from DTOPTOOLZ Co, a Korean software company, the people close to the inquiry said. DTOPTOOLZ said it had no involvement in the data breaches.

The FBI did not respond to requests for comment. People familiar with its investigation said Sakula had only been seen in use by a small number of Chinese hacking teams.

“Chinese law prohibits hacking attacks and other such behaviors which damage Internet security,” China’s Foreign Ministry said in a statement. “The Chinese government takes resolute strong measures against any kind of hacking attack. We oppose baseless insinuations against China.”

MANY UNKNOWNS

Most of the biggest U.S. cyber attacks blamed on China have been attributed, with varying degrees of certitude, to elements of the Chinese army. In the most dramatic case two years ago, the U.S. Justice Department indicted five PLA officers for alleged economic espionage.

Far less is known about the OPM hackers, and security researchers have differing views about the size of the group and what other attacks it is responsible for.

People close to the OPM investigation said the same group was behind Anthem and other insurance breaches. But they are not yet sure which part of the Chinese government is responsible.

“We are seeing a group that is only targeting personal information,” said Laura Gigante, manager of threat intelligence at FireEye Inc, which has worked on a number of the high-profile network intrusions.

CrowdStrike and other security companies, however, say the Anthem hackers also engaged in stealing defense and industry trade secrets. CrowdStrike calls the group “Deep Panda,” EMC Corp’s RSA security division dubs it “Shell Crew,” and other firms have picked different names.

The OPM breach gave hackers access to U.S. government job applicants’ security clearance forms detailing past drug use, love affairs, and foreign contacts that officials fear could be used for blackmail or recruiting.

In contrast to hacking outfits associated with the Chinese army, “Deep Panda” appears to be affiliated with the Ministry of State Security, said CrowdStrike co-founder Dmitri Alperovitch.

Information about U.S. spies in China would logically be a top priority for the ministry, Alperovitch said, adding that “Deep Panda’s” tools and techniques have also been used to monitor democracy protesters in Hong Kong.

An executive at one of the first companies to connect the Anthem and OPM compromises, ThreatConnect, said the disagreements about the boundaries of “Deep Panda” could reflect a different structure than that in top-down military units.

“We think it’s likely a cohort of Chinese actors, a bunch of mini-groups that are handled by one main benefactor,” said Rich Barger, co-founder of ThreatConnect, adding that the group could get software tools and other resources from a common supplier.

“We think this series of activity over time is a little more distributed, and that is why there is not a broad consensus as to the beginning and end of this group.”

America Recovery Reinvestment Act, NOT SO Much

Posted on by

When one visits the government website www.recovery.gov, these description reads that the board is a non-partisan, non-political agency and then in bold letter in a heading it also reads ‘The Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board’.

Additionally the site mission statement reads: “To promote accountability by coordinating and conducting oversight of Recovery funds to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse and to foster transparency on Recovery spending by providing the public with accurate, user-friendly information.”

Sheesh note the one particular case below and then ask yourself if there is a violation.

From Watchdog.org:

Company that got millions from U.S. taxpayers now profits Chinese owners

The good news is electric car battery maker A123 Systems is finally on track to turn a profit.

The bad news is taxpayers don’t figure to see any of the $133 million the federal government spent and the estimated $141 million in tax credits and subsidies secured from Michigan to help the company take off in 2009, only to see A123 Systems crash, declare bankruptcy in 2012 and then get purchased by a privately held Chinese conglomerate.

“In the case of A123, they created some jobs and a year or two later those jobs were gone, so taxpayers weren’t getting that money back,” said Jarret Skorup, a policy analyst at Michigan’s Mackinac Center, a free-market think tank .

Earlier this month, CEO Jason Forcier announced that A123 Systems’ parent company, the China-based Wanxiang Group, will spend $200 million to double the capacity of three lithium-ion battery plants, including two in suburban Detroit.

Forcier told Crain’s Detroit Business that A123 Systems is expected to generate $300 million in revenue this year and plans to double that amount by 2018. The company, Forcier said, will turn a profit for the first time in its history in 2015.

“The strength of A123 has never been greater and we are honored to be expanding our existing customer relationships and establishing new ones at the same time,” Forcier said in a company news release.

It would mark a dramatic turnaround for the company that was on the verge of collapse when Wanxiang bought it a little more than two years ago at a stripped-down price of $256.6 million. 

But finding out if taxpayers will ever see any of their money back is another matter.

Watchdog.org sent an email and left two voicemail messages with A123 Systems, asking whether any refunds are coming or if — under the terms of the bankruptcy — Wanxiang is under no financial obligation to do so.

The one-sentence response from Paulette Spagnuolo, A123’s marketing and communications manager: “A123 continues to meet and exceed all of the terms of the state and federal grants including all job creation, repayment and investment requirements.”

Spagnuolo did not respond to inquiries asking her to elaborate.

Skorup says the money is gone for good.

“There are a lot of local and state rebates and they are largely upfront costs, so yes, taxpayers are sunk on those,” Skorup told Watchdog.org in a telephone interview. “They’re not going to be getting money back from them … Michigan doesn’t require (A123 Systems) to pay them back anyway.”

How much money?

On the federal level, A123 Systems was originally slated to receive $249 million in grants from the U.S. Department of Energy in 2009 to build production facilities in the towns of Romulus and Livonia, Michigan — just $7.6 million less than Wanxiang eventually bought the entire company for four years later.

But A123 Systems ran into trouble early on. After some of its batteries were involved in a recall for the company’s biggest customer, the electric car company Fisker Automotive, the company’s federal grant was cut off after A123 received $133 million. 

Figuring out how much Michigan passed out has been more difficult.

The Detroit Free Press and the Mackinac Center have been rebuffed in attempts to see how much of an investment the state made in A123 Systems because the Michigan Economic Development Corporation will not disclose specifics.

Skorup estimates Michigan approved A123 Systems for $100 million in a tax credit program and another $41 million in subsidies.

“How much they actually cashed in those we don’t know,” Skorup said. “We’ve tried to find out, but the state won’t give it to us … they say it’s a private contract.”

The federal money was part of the stimulus package and a green-tech initiative the Obama administration touted would spur economic success.

A123 Systems was one of a number of Michigan battery companies that received a surge of tax credits from the state in 2009, but the incentives did not spur the jobs and dollars that were promised.

Detroit Free Press estimated $861 million in Obama administration grants were awarded in the fledgling Michigan battery industry and another $543 million in state tax credits were awarded during the administration of then-Gov. Jennifer Granholm, a Democrat.

Most of the Michigan business tax credit program was eliminated by current Gov. Rick Snyder, a Republican. However, companies that had already secured the tax incentives were allowed to keep them.

“The general lesson for policy makers is that they make very poor venture capitalists because they’re not spending their own money,” said Skorup. “They’re spending other people’s money and those politicians weren’t putting their own stock portfolios into A123 Systems. They were putting taxpayer money into them.

“And the lesson for taxpayers should be, when politicians are making these claims about job projections they should be extremely skeptical. In Michigan, almost none of those — we’ve done multiple studies, other news organizations have done multiple studies — reach the actual projections that they promise.”

“Just because the jobs haven’t happened ‘yet,’ it doesn’t mean that cracking the code to vehicle batteries was the wrong strategy,” Granholm told the Free Press in March 2014.

President Obama appeared by remote broadcast for the grand opening of the A123 Systems Livonia plant in the fall of 2010, an event hosted by Granholm.

“Thanks to the Recovery Act, you guys are the first American factory to start high-volume production of advanced vehicle batteries,” Obama said at the time.

Skorup told Watchdog.org  the video of the event was taken down by the Michigan Economic Development Corporation, but the Mackinac Center, a sharp critic of the battery plan from the start, retained a copy of it:

 

China did Not Hack OPM, Operative Just Signed In

Posted on by

Per ARS Technica: Not only were the database records of POM not encrypted, it simply did not matter. At least 14 million personnel files have been compromised and protecting social security numbers by encryption did not mater.

But even if the systems had been encrypted, it likely wouldn’t have mattered. Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary for Cybersecurity Dr. Andy Ozment testified that encryption would “not have helped in this case” because the attackers had gained valid user credentials to the systems that they attacked—likely through social engineering. And because of the lack of multifactor authentication on these systems, the attackers would have been able to use those credentials at will to access systems from within and potentially even from outside the network.

House Oversight Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) told Archuleta and OPM Chief Information Officer Donna Seymour, “You failed utterly and totally.” He referred to OPM’s own inspector general reports and hammered Seymour in particular for the 11 major systems out of 47 that had not been properly certified as secure—which were not contractor systems but systems operated by OPM’s own IT department. “They were in your office, which is a horrible example to be setting,” Chaffetz told Seymour. In total, 65 percent of OPM’s data was stored on those uncertified systems.’

Even more chilling, a person or team just found a way to sign in as a root user.

Some of the contractors that have helped OPM with managing internal data have had security issues of their own—including potentially giving foreign governments direct access to data long before the recent reported breaches. A consultant who did some work with a company contracted by OPM to manage personnel records for a number of agencies told Ars that he found the Unix systems administrator for the project “was in Argentina and his co-worker was physically located in the [People’s Republic of China]. Both had direct access to every row of data in every database: they were root. Another team that worked with these databases had at its head two team members with PRC passports. I know that because I challenged them personally and revoked their privileges. From my perspective, OPM compromised this information more than three years ago and my take on the current breach is ‘so what’s new?'”

Given the scope and duration of the data breaches, it may be impossible for the US government to get a handle on the exact extent of the damage done just by the latest attack on OPM’s systems. If anything is clear, it is that the aging infrastructure of many civilian agencies in Washington magnify the problems the government faces in securing its networks, and OPM’s data breach may just be the biggest one that the government knows about to date.

Future consequences of lack of security of data systems is blackmail

Reuters: The same hackers breached several health insurance companies last summer and made off with the medical records of 11 million people, including members of Blue Cross/Blue Shield’s District of Columbia affiliate CareFirst.

Media pundits spent all week talking about how Deep Panda could compile all this information to craft a potential blackmail database on U.S. operatives for its patron, presumably China. But that’s ridiculous. Beijing is smarter than that.

Espionage is a long game, not a race, and countries are patient. Blackmail is a quick, brutal method of acquiring information in the short term.

It typically begins when foreign agents play on a target’s existing weakness — a penchant for gambling, for example, or deviant sexual behavior — enticing the target to indulge in it and then threatening exposure.

That’s a lot of work for a short-term gain. Blackmail targets are almost always found out, or turn on their blackmailers or end their lives. No, a better use for that database is as a reference to create the background for the perfect mole. Many additional details found here.

An additional security concern of real proporations is this cyber intrusion has affected Hill and Congressional staff.

In Part from the Hill: Officials had initially said the breach only encompassed 4.2 million federal employees, all within the executive branch. But the discovery of a second breach that compromised security clearance data has many expecting the breach to eventually expose up to 14 million people.

According to an email sent to House staff members shortly before midnight Tuesday and obtained by The Hill, many of them are at risk.

“It now appears likely that the service records of current House employees employed previously by ANY federal government entity (including the House, if an individual left the House and later returned to a House position) may have been compromised,” said the email said, sent by House Chief Administrative Officer Ed Cassidy.

When staffers leave Capitol Hill, or any federal agency, their retirement records are forwarded to the OPM.

“In addition, the background investigation files of individuals holding security clearances (whether currently active or not) may have been exposed,” the email added.

Senate staffers received a similar email from the Senate Sergeant at Arms several hours earlier on Tuesday, according to multiple reports.

 

 

WalMart has a Secret Global Operation

Posted on by

In 2013, WalMart announced an ‘All American’ objective….yet there are other truths.

Wal-Mart Stores Inc will buy an additional $50 billion in U.S.-made goods over the next decade in areas like sporting goods and high-end appliances in what the world’s largest retailer called a bid to help boost the U.S. economy. Wal-Mart, the largest private employer in the United States, also said on Tuesday it plans to hire 100,000 newly discharged veterans over the next five years, at a time when the U.S. unemployment rate is at 7.8 percent.

The moves are likely to receive a cool reception from critics, who claim Wal-Mart does not pay its workers enough and slam the retailer for selling too many goods made in lower-cost countries like China. The company is also under pressure over its sourcing practices, particularly after a deadly fire at a Bangladesh factory that made Wal-Mart clothes.

Then Walmart went all in with China.

But WalMart is fully offshore hiding monies for tax purposes…what would Barack Obama say?

Wal-Mart Has $76 Billion in Undisclosed Overseas Tax Havens

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. owns more than $76 billion of assets through a web of units in offshore tax havens around the world, though you wouldn’t know it from reading the giant retailer’s annual report. A new study has found Wal-Mart has at least 78 offshore subsidiaries and branches, more than 30 created since 2009 and none mentioned in U.S. securities filings. Overseas operations have helped the company cut more than $3.5 billion off its income tax bills in the past six years, its annual reports show. The study, researched by the United Food & Commercial Workers International Union and published Wednesday in a report by Americans for Tax Fairness, found 90 percent of Wal-Mart’s overseas assets are owned by subsidiaries in Luxembourg and the Netherlands, two of the most popular corporate tax havens.

Units in Luxembourg — where the company has no stores — reported $1.3 billion in profits between 2010 and 2013 and paid tax at a rate of less than 1 percent, according to the report. All of Wal-Mart’s roughly 3,500 stores in China, Central America, the U.K., Brazil, Japan, South Africa and Chile appear to be owned through units in tax havens such as the British Virgin Islands, Curacao and Luxembourg, according to the report from the advocacy group. The union conducted its research using publicly available documents filed in various countries by Wal-Mart and its subsidiaries. Randy Hargrove, a Wal-Mart spokesman, called the report incomplete and “designed to mislead” by its union authors. He said the company has “processes in place to comply with applicable SEC and IRS rules, as well as the tax laws of each country where we operate.”

Mailbox Subsidiaries

The union behind the study backs the Organization United for Respect at Wal-Mart, a group that campaigns for wage increases and more predictable schedules. Wal-Mart has historically resisted unions and discourages employees from joining them. The report comes a week after the Group of Twenty nations unveiled its latest effort to combat multinational corporate tax avoidance. The body wants companies to disclose to regulators where they book profits, employees and sales, so tax authorities can be aware of discrepancies between where corporations report income and where they have operations. Hargrove, the Wal-Mart spokesman, pointed to guidance issued by the SEC that permits companies to avoid disclosure of subsidiaries with significant “intercompany transactions.” He said Wal-Mart’s tax savings overseas was driven by lower rates in markets including Canada and the U.K.

‘Continuing Evidence’

Companies such as Google Inc., Apple Inc. and Starbucks Corp. have come under fire for avoiding billions of dollars of income taxes by attributing profits to mailbox subsidiaries in low-tax jurisdictions like Bermuda. The Group of Twenty has directed the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development to develop plans to crack down on such strategies. The new Wal-Mart disclosures could expand the scope of international tax reform, which has often focused on technology companies that move profits offshore by assigning valuable patent rights to mailbox units. Bloomberg News reported last year that Inditex SA, the parent of Zara, the world’s biggest fashion retailer, cut its taxes by shifting billions of dollars of profits to a tiny Dutch unit. “This report is continuing evidence that everybody has been engaging in cross-border tax avoidance,” said Stephen E. Shay, a professor at Harvard Law School and former deputy assistant secretary for international tax affairs for the Obama Treasury Department.

Hybrid-Loan Strategy

Nearly a decade ago, Wal-Mart ran into trouble over strategies to avoid U.S. state income taxes. It used a real estate investment trust to effectively pay rent to itself, generating big tax deductions, even though the rent payments never left the company. At least six states changed their tax laws after publicity about the tactics. Since then, Wal-Mart has stepped up its use of offshore tax havens. It has created 20 new subsidiaries in Luxembourg alone since 2009, according to the report. Wal-Mart employs a popular legal strategy in that country called a hybrid loan. It permits companies’ offshore units to take tax deductions for interest paid — typically on paper only — to their parents in the U.S. The parent, however, doesn’t include that interest as taxable income in the U.S. The OECD has called for an end to the tax benefits of such loans. Luxembourg generated headlines last year after the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists revealed its role in cutting the tax bills of hundreds of multinationals.

Union Funding

U.S. companies owe tax at a rate of 35 percent but can defer indefinitely the income taxes on profits attributed to overseas units. In 2011, Wal-Mart’s then-chief executive officer, Mike Duke, called in testimony before Congress for a system that would exempt from U.S. income tax the earnings that multinationals generate overseas. Wal-Mart’s accumulated offshore earnings have doubled to $23.3 billion in 2015 from $10.7 billion 2008. The company operates about 6,300 stores in 27 countries outside the U.S. and last fiscal year reported 28 percent of its sales abroad, or about $137 billion. Wal-Mart paid $6.2 billion in U.S. income tax last year, Hargrove, the company spokesman, said, or “nearly 2 percent of all corporate income tax collected by the U.S. Treasury.” Americans for Tax Fairness called on the European Union to open investigations into whether the Luxembourg tax benefits constitute illegal state aid. The EU has issued preliminary findings that this was indeed the case with companies using similar strategies in various countries, including as Starbucks in the Netherlands, Apple in Ireland and Fiat SpA in Luxembourg. The tax group receives most of its funding from foundations, including the Ford Foundation, Open Society Foundations, Bauman Foundations and Stoneman Family Foundation. It’s also funded by public-sector unions, including the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees and the National Education Association.