IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/cesifo/v53y2007i2p294-328.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

ACE versus CBIT: Which is Better for Investment and Welfare?

Author

Listed:
  • Doina Maria Radulescu
  • Michael Stimmelmayr

Abstract

This article analyses the switch to an Allowance for Corporate Equity (ACE) or to a Comprehensive Business Income Tax (CBIT) type of tax system starting from the present German tax system. We show that in case an ACE type of reform is financed by an increase in the VAT and not in the profit tax, it might be preferred to a CBIT even in the context of an open economy. Moreover, the required exogenous increase in the profit tax rate cannot ensure revenue neutrality on its own due to the negative general equilibrium effects it triggers on the whole economy. For a CBIT, the exogenous reduction in the tax rates on corporate and non-corporate profits leads to better results than when we allow for an endogenous change in the VAT. The best results arise when the CBIT is accompanied by a provision for immediate write-off and a lower profit tax or when the ACE with no additional capital gains taxation on household side is financed by an increase in the VAT. (JEL-Classification: C68, D58, D92, E62, H25.) Copyright , Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Doina Maria Radulescu & Michael Stimmelmayr, 2007. "ACE versus CBIT: Which is Better for Investment and Welfare?," CESifo Economic Studies, CESifo Group, vol. 53(2), pages 294-328, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:cesifo:v:53:y:2007:i:2:p:294-328
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/cesifo/ifm011
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Marko Köthenbürger & Michael Stimmelmayr, 2009. "Corporate Taxation and Corporate Governance," CESifo Working Paper Series 2881, CESifo.
    2. Devereux, Michael P., 2012. "Issues in the Design of Taxes on Corporate Profit," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 65(3), pages 709-730, September.
    3. Karpavičius, Sigitas & Yu, Fan, 2016. "Should interest expenses be tax deductible?," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 100-116.
    4. Márcio Telles Portal & Luís Laureano, 2015. "Rebound Effect of Allowance for Corporate Equity on Debt Bias," Working Papers Series 2 15-06, ISCTE-IUL, Business Research Unit (BRU-IUL).
    5. Keuschnigg, Christian & Keuschnigg, Mirela, 2012. "Transition Strategies in Enacting Fundamental Tax Reform," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 65(2), pages 357-385, June.
    6. Portal, Márcio Telles & Laureano, Luis, 2017. "Does Brazilian allowance for corporate equity reduce the debt bias? Evidences of rebound effect and ownership-induced ACE clientele," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 480-495.
    7. Brekke, Kurt R. & Garcia Pires, Armando J. & Schindler, Dirk & Schjelderup, Guttorm, 2017. "Capital taxation and imperfect competition: ACE vs. CBIT," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 1-15.
    8. Christian Keuschnigg & Mirela Keuschnigg, 2010. "Transition Strategies in Fundamental Tax Reform," University of St. Gallen Department of Economics working paper series 2010 2010-10, Department of Economics, University of St. Gallen.
    9. Finke, Katharina & Heckemeyer, Jost H. & Spengel, Christoph, 2014. "Assessing the impact of introducing an ACE regime: A behavioural corporate microsimulation analysis for Germany," ZEW Discussion Papers 14-033, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    10. Berger, Johannes & Strohner, Ludwig, 2020. "Documentation of the PUblic Policy Model for Austria and other European countries (PUMA)," Research Papers 11, EcoAustria – Institute for Economic Research.
    11. Kayis-Kumar, Ann, 2015. "Thin capitalisation rules: A second-best solution to the cross-border debt bias?," MPRA Paper 72031, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Lourdes Jerez Barroso & Fidel Picos Sánchez, 2012. "La neutralidad financiera en el Impuesto sobre Sociedades: Microsimulación de las opciones de reforma para España," Hacienda Pública Española / Review of Public Economics, IEF, vol. 203(4), pages 23-56, December.
    13. Ruud de Mooij & Michael P. Devereux, 2008. "Alternative Systems of Business Tax in Europe: An applied analysis of ACE and CBIT Reforms," Taxation Studies 0023, Directorate General Taxation and Customs Union, European Commission.
    14. Radulescu, Doina & Stimmelmayr, Michael, 2010. "The impact of the 2008 German corporate tax reform: A dynamic CGE analysis," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 454-467, January.
    15. Ruud Mooij & Michael Devereux, 2011. "An applied analysis of ACE and CBIT reforms in the EU," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 18(1), pages 93-120, February.
    16. Sijbren Cnossen, 2016. "Tackling Spillovers by Taxing Corporate Income in the European Union at Source," CPB Discussion Paper 324, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    17. Sijbren Cnossen, 2016. "Tackling Spillovers by Taxing Corporate Income in the European Union at Source," CPB Discussion Paper 324.rdf, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C68 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Mathematical Methods; Programming Models; Mathematical and Simulation Modeling - - - Computable General Equilibrium Models
    • D58 - Microeconomics - - General Equilibrium and Disequilibrium - - - Computable and Other Applied General Equilibrium Models
    • D92 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - Intertemporal Firm Choice, Investment, Capacity, and Financing
    • E62 - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics - - Macroeconomic Policy, Macroeconomic Aspects of Public Finance, and General Outlook - - - Fiscal Policy; Modern Monetary Theory
    • H25 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue - - - Business Taxes and Subsidies

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:cesifo:v:53:y:2007:i:2:p:294-328. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cesifde.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.