Halliburton Moves CEO and Corporate Headquarters to Dubai for Tax Advantages and Distance from Iraq War Scandals, Weeks Before Completing KBR Spin-Off

Halliburton announced on March 12, 2007, that it was relocating its corporate headquarters and CEO David Lesar from Houston, Texas, to Dubai in the United Arab Emirates, citing business opportunities in the Middle East where 38% of its $13 billion in oil field services revenue originated and 16,000 of its 45,000 employees worked. The announcement came just weeks before Halliburton would complete its spin-off of scandal-plagued subsidiary KBR on April 5, 2007, revealing a coordinated corporate strategy to distance Halliburton from Iraq War controversies while repositioning in a jurisdiction with minimal taxation and regulatory oversight. Dubai’s friendly tax laws offered substantial financial advantages, with analysts noting the move “could eventually save the firm a fortune in U.S. taxes”—allowing Halliburton to profit from Middle East operations while reducing obligations to the American government that had generated its Iraq War revenues through multi-billion dollar contracts.

Senator Patrick Leahy condemned the headquarters relocation as “corporate greed at its worst,” highlighting how Halliburton had profited enormously from U.S. government contracts in Iraq while now seeking to minimize its American tax burden and regulatory exposure. The move came amid intensifying congressional investigations into Halliburton’s Iraq operations: just one month earlier in February 2007, Congress had been informed that $2.7 billion paid to Halliburton and its subsidiaries was either excessive or unsupported by documentation. By relocating to Dubai—a jurisdiction with no corporate income tax, minimal financial transparency requirements, and limited cooperation with U.S. oversight bodies—Halliburton positioned itself to reduce both tax obligations and regulatory scrutiny while maintaining access to lucrative U.S. government contracts through its maintained legal U.S. incorporation.

Vice President Dick Cheney, who served as Halliburton CEO from 1995-2000 and maintained financial ties through deferred compensation and stock options, declined to comment on his former company’s departure from the United States. The timing demonstrated systematic corporate accountability evasion: Halliburton would spin off KBR to shed the subsidiary responsible for Iraq War fraud and scandals, then relocate headquarters to Dubai to minimize tax exposure and regulatory oversight, while claiming to still be subject to American law through maintained legal incorporation in Delaware. This structure created maximum flexibility: Halliburton could access U.S. government contracts as a legally American company while conducting operations from Dubai’s tax-friendly, regulation-light environment and avoiding the congressional scrutiny that Houston headquarters would face.

Halliburton’s public statements emphasized operational efficiency, with company spokespersons claiming “we are not leaving Houston” despite CEO Lesar relocating to Dubai, and arguing that the Middle East’s oil reserves justified executive presence in the region. A tax attorney quoted in coverage stated that “if a U.S. company moves its corporate headquarters to a foreign country for U.S. tax purposes, nothing has happened”—suggesting the move would not reduce tax obligations. However, this framing ignored the practical advantages of Dubai headquarters: reduced congressional access to executives for testimony and oversight, physical distance from Iraq War victims and whistleblowers pursuing legal claims, operations in a jurisdiction with minimal financial transparency requirements, and positioning to route profits through Middle East structures with favorable tax treatment. The maintained Delaware legal incorporation provided access to U.S. government contracts while Dubai operations offered regulatory arbitrage benefits.

The Dubai relocation represented systematic use of corporate structure and geographic positioning to evade accountability while maintaining profitability. Halliburton had profited from American taxpayer-funded Iraq War contracts, faced investigations for systematic fraud and overbilling, then responded by spinning off the responsible subsidiary and relocating executives to a foreign jurisdiction with minimal taxation and oversight. This pattern demonstrated how privatized government functions combined with corporate flexibility to create accountability-free zones: companies could profit from government contracts while using restructuring and relocation to minimize consequences for documented fraud, maintain access to future contracts despite ongoing investigations, and operate from jurisdictions designed to shield corporate activities from the oversight and legal exposure that would automatically apply to government agencies performing identical functions. The March 2007 Dubai announcement and April 2007 KBR spin-off completion represented coordinated corporate accountability evasion more sophisticated than simple rebranding, using both subsidiary separation and geographic relocation to eliminate consequences for systematic Iraq War profiteering and fraud.