IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/pubfin/v34y2006i5p483-504.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Economic Effects of Apportionment Formula Changes

Author

Listed:
  • Kelly D. Edmiston

    (Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City)

  • F. Javier Arze del Granado

    (World Bank)

Abstract

Empirical studies of the economic effects of changes in state corporate income tax apportionment policies generally have used highly aggregated state-level data. This study uses individual firm-level data, from 1992 to 2002 State of Georgia corporate income tax returns, to evaluate economic development and revenue aspects of increasing the sales factor weight (and uniformly lowering weights on payroll and property) in state corporate income tax apportionment formulae. The authors find elasticities indicative of a substantial impact on local sales (-6.5 percent), payroll (2.0 percent), and property (2.1 percent) following a move to double-weighted sales. For the average firm, increases in Georgia payroll and property were $37,110 and $190,829, respectively, while the decrease in Georgia sales was $634,367. Using 1994 figures (the year prior to double-weighting), this amounts to statewide payroll and property increases of $0.6 billion and $3.1 billion, respectively, and a gross receipts decrease of approximately $10.4 billion.

Suggested Citation

  • Kelly D. Edmiston & F. Javier Arze del Granado, 2006. "Economic Effects of Apportionment Formula Changes," Public Finance Review, , vol. 34(5), pages 483-504, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:pubfin:v:34:y:2006:i:5:p:483-504
    DOI: 10.1177/1091142106289016
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1091142106289016
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1091142106289016?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cornia, Gary & Edmiston, Kelly D. & Sjoquist, David L. & Wallace, Sally, 2005. "The Disappearing State Corporate Income Tax," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 58(1), pages 115-138, March.
    2. Goolsbee, Austan & Maydew, Edward L., 2000. "Coveting thy neighbor's manufacturing: the dilemma of state income apportionment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 125-143, January.
    3. Charles E. McLure, Jr., 1981. "The Elusive Incidence of the Corporate Income Tax: The State Case," NBER Working Papers 0616, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Klassen, Kenneth J. & Shackelford, Douglas A., 1998. "State and provincial corporate tax planning: income shifting and sales apportionment factor management," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 385-406, June.
    5. Gordon, Roger H & Wilson, John Douglas, 1986. "An Examination of Multijurisdictional Corporate Income Taxation under Formula Apportionment," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 54(6), pages 1357-1373, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. John Deskins & Brian Hill, 2023. "What Factors Entice States to Manipulate Corporate Income Tax Apportionment Formulas?," Public Finance Review, , vol. 51(5), pages 669-687, September.
    2. Jan Thomas Martini & Rainer Niemann & Dirk Simons, 2014. "Management Incentives under Formula Apportionment - Tax-Induced Distortions of Effort and Compensation in a Principal-Agent Setting -," CESifo Working Paper Series 4908, CESifo.
    3. Claudia Keser & Gerrit Kimpel & Andreas Oestreicher, 2016. "Would a CCCTB mitigate profit shifting?," CIRANO Working Papers 2016s-29, CIRANO.
    4. Keser, Claudia & Kimpel, Gerrit & Oestreicher, Andreas, 2014. "The CCCTB option: An experimental study," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 199, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
    5. David Merriman, 2015. "A Replication of “Coveting Thy Neighbor’s Manufacturing," Public Finance Review, , vol. 43(2), pages 185-205, March.
    6. Martini, Jan-Thomas & Niemann, Rainer & Simons, Dirk, 2014. "Management incentives under formula apportionment: Tax-induced distortions of effort and compensation in a principal-agent setting," arqus Discussion Papers in Quantitative Tax Research 168, arqus - Arbeitskreis Quantitative Steuerlehre.
    7. Welsch, Anthony, 2023. "The effect of market-based sourcing on labor outcomes," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 225(C).
    8. Hansjörg Blöchliger & José Maria Pinero Campos, 2011. "Tax Competition Between Sub-Central Governments," OECD Economics Department Working Papers 872, OECD Publishing.
    9. Stephen J. Lusch & James Stekelberg, 2020. "State Tax Haven Legislation and Corporate Income Tax Revenues," Public Finance Review, , vol. 48(3), pages 354-383, May.
    10. Claudia Keser & Gerrit Kimpel & Andreas Oestreicher, 2014. "The CCCTB option – an experimental study," CIRANO Working Papers 2014s-24, CIRANO.
    11. MIYOSHI Yoshiyuki, 2017. "Does Sales Factor Apportionment Benefit the Welfare of State?," Discussion papers 17124, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    12. Keser, Claudia & Kimpel, Gerrit & Oestreicher, Andreas, 2014. "The CCCTB option an experimental study," VfS Annual Conference 2014 (Hamburg): Evidence-based Economic Policy 100490, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. F. Javier Arze del Granado & Kelly D. Edmiston, 2004. "Economic effects of apportionment formula changes : results from a panel of corporate income tax returns," Community Affairs Research Working Paper 2005-03, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.
    2. Martini, Jan-Thomas & Niemann, Rainer & Simons, Dirk, 2014. "Management incentives under formula apportionment: Tax-induced distortions of effort and compensation in a principal-agent setting," arqus Discussion Papers in Quantitative Tax Research 168, arqus - Arbeitskreis Quantitative Steuerlehre.
    3. Eichfelder, Sebastian & Hechtner, Frank & Hundsdoerfer, Jochen, 2015. "Formula apportionment: Factor allocation and tax avoidance," Discussion Papers 2015/30, Free University Berlin, School of Business & Economics.
    4. Martini, Jan Thomas & Niemann, Rainer & Simons, Dirk, 2016. "Tax-induced distortions of effort and compensation in a principal-agent setting," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 26-39.
    5. William F. Fox & LeAnn Luna, 2005. "Do Limited Liability Companies Explain Declining State Corporate Tax Revenues?," Public Finance Review, , vol. 33(6), pages 690-720, November.
    6. Jan Thomas Martini & Rainer Niemann & Dirk Simons, 2014. "Management Incentives under Formula Apportionment - Tax-Induced Distortions of Effort and Compensation in a Principal-Agent Setting -," CESifo Working Paper Series 4908, CESifo.
    7. Jochen Hundsdoerfer & Julia Wagner, 2020. "How accurately does the CCCTB apportionment formula allocate profits? An evaluation of the European Commission proposal," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 90(4), pages 495-536, May.
    8. Ana Agundez-Garcia, 2006. "The Delineation and Apportionment of an EU Consolidated Tax Base for Multi-jurisdictional Corporate Income Taxation: a Review of Issues and Options," Taxation Papers 9, Directorate General Taxation and Customs Union, European Commission, revised Oct 2006.
    9. Eichfelder, Sebastian & Hechtner, Frank & Hundsdoerfer, Jochen, 2015. "Formula apportionment: Factor allocation and tax avoidance," arqus Discussion Papers in Quantitative Tax Research 199, arqus - Arbeitskreis Quantitative Steuerlehre.
    10. Santiago Pinto, 2005. "Formula Apportionment, Tax Competition, and the Provision of Local Goods," Working Papers Working Paper 2005-03, Regional Research Institute, West Virginia University.
    11. Juan Carlos Suárez Serrato & Owen Zidar, 2016. "Who Benefits from State Corporate Tax Cuts? A Local Labor Markets Approach with Heterogeneous Firms," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(9), pages 2582-2624, September.
    12. Anand, Bharat N. & Sansing, Richard, 2000. "The Weighting Game: Formula Apportionment as an Instrument of Public Policy," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 53(2), pages 183-200, June.
    13. Albert van der Horst & Leon Bettendorf & Hugo Rojas-Romagosa, 2007. "Will corporate tax consolidation improve efficiency in the EU?," CPB Document 141, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    14. Rainer Niemann & Ulrich Schreiber, 2020. "Herausforderungen und Entwicklungsperspektiven des Steuersystems [Challenges and Development Perspectives of the Tax System]," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 72(1), pages 1-48, March.
    15. Claudia Keser & Gerrit Kimpel & Andreas Oestreicher, 2016. "Would a CCCTB mitigate profit shifting?," CIRANO Working Papers 2016s-29, CIRANO.
    16. Pinto, Santiago M., 2007. "Corporate profit tax, capital mobility, and formula apportionment," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 76-102, July.
    17. Michael P. Devereux & Simon Loretz, 2008. "The Effects of EU Formula Apportionment on Corporate Tax Revenues," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 29(1), pages 1-33, March.
    18. Martini, Jan Thomas & Niemann, Rainer & Simons, Dirk, 2007. "Transfer pricing or formula apportionment? Tax-induced distortions of multinationals' investment and production decisions," arqus Discussion Papers in Quantitative Tax Research 27, arqus - Arbeitskreis Quantitative Steuerlehre.
    19. R. Alison Felix & James R. Hines, 2022. "Corporate taxes and union wages in the United States," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 29(6), pages 1450-1494, December.
    20. Anand, Bharat N. & Sansing, Richard, 2000. "The Weighting Game: Formula Apportionment as an Instrument of Public Policy," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association, vol. 53(n. 2), pages 183-200, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    apportionment; state corporate income tax;

    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:sae:pubfin:v:34:y:2006:i:5:p:483-504. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.