IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/vrs/notajo/v2018y2018i1p1-17n4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Growth-Enhancing Corporate Tax Reform in Belgium

Author

Listed:
  • Mooij Ruud De
  • Hebous Shafik

    (International Monetary Fund, Olympia, United States)

  • Hrdinkova Milena

    (Ministry of Finance in the Czech Republic, Prague, Czech Republic)

Abstract

Until 2018, Belgium had a unique corporate income tax system due to its notional interest deduction, also known in public finance literature as the allowance for corporate equity. At the same time, it had one of the highest corporate tax rates in Europe at 34 percent. The latter came under severe pressure to reform and, as of 2018, the government has started to reduce the rate, gradually to reach 25 percent in 2020. The reduction is accompanied by other measures, including a limitation of the notional interest deduction. This paper argues that the lower CIT rate is likely to be conducive to economic growth. Yet, the effects on growth would have been more favorable if the notional interest deduction would have been strengthened, rather than diminished.

Suggested Citation

  • Mooij Ruud De & Hebous Shafik & Hrdinkova Milena, 2018. "Growth-Enhancing Corporate Tax Reform in Belgium," Nordic Tax Journal, Sciendo, vol. 2018(1), pages 1-17, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:vrs:notajo:v:2018:y:2018:i:1:p:1-17:n:4
    DOI: 10.1515/ntaxj-2018-0004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/ntaxj-2018-0004
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/ntaxj-2018-0004?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. Savina Princen, 2012. "Taxes do Affect Corporate Financing Decisions: The Case of Belgian ACE," CESifo Working Paper Series 3713, CESifo.
    2. (IFS), Institute for Fiscal Studies & Mirrlees, James (ed.), 2011. "Tax By Design: The Mirrlees Review," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199553747, Decembrie.
    3. Boadway, Robin & Bruce, Neil, 1984. "A general proposition on the design of a neutral business tax," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 231-239, July.
    4. Hebous, Shafik & Ruf, Martin, 2017. "Evaluating the effects of ACE systems on multinational debt financing and investment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 131-149.
    5. Keen, Michael, 2001. "Preferential Regimes Can Make Tax Competition Less Harmful," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 54(4), pages 757-762, December.
    6. 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.
    7. Fuest, Clemens & Peichl, Andreas & Siegloch, Sebastian, 2015. "Do Higher Corporate Taxes Reduce Wages?," IZA Discussion Papers 9606, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    8. Ruud Mooij & Gaëtan Nicodème, 2008. "Corporate tax policy and incorporation in the EU," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 15(4), pages 478-498, August.
    9. Keen, Michael, 2001. "Preferential Regimes Can Make Tax Competition Less Harmful," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association, vol. 54(n. 4), pages 757-62, December.
    10. Dhammika Dharmapala, 2014. "What Do We Know about Base Erosion and Profit Shifting? A Review of the Empirical Literature," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 35, pages 421-448, December.
    11. 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.
    12. Daniel Dreßler & Michael Overesch, 2013. "Investment impact of tax loss treatment—empirical insights from a panel of multinationals," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 20(3), pages 513-543, June.
    13. Heckemeyer, Jost H. & Overesch, Michael, 2013. "Multinationals' profit response to tax differentials: Effect size and shifting channels," ZEW Discussion Papers 13-045, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    14. Ernesto Zangari, 2014. "Addressing the Debt Bias: A Comparison between the Belgian and the Italian ACE Systems," Taxation Papers 44, Directorate General Taxation and Customs Union, European Commission.
    15. Schepens, Glenn, 2016. "Taxes and bank capital structure," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(3), pages 585-600.
    16. Paul Johnson & Gareth Myles, 2011. "The Mirrlees Review," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 32(3), pages 319-329, September.
    17. Ruud A. de Mooij & Ikuo Saito, 2014. "Japan’s Corporate Income Tax: Facts, Issues and Reform Options," IMF Working Papers 2014/138, International Monetary Fund.
    18. Bonds, Stephen R. & Devereux, Michael P., 1995. "On the design of a neutral business tax under uncertainty," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(1), pages 57-71, September.
    19. aus dem Moore, Nils, 2014. "Corporate Taxation and Investment: Evidence from the Belgian ACE Reform," Ruhr Economic Papers 534, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
    20. Katrien Kestens & Philippe Van Cauwenberge & Johan Christiaens, 2012. "The Effect of the Notional Interest Deduction on the Capital Structure of Belgian SMEs," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 30(2), pages 228-247, April.
    21. repec:dgr:uvatin:20070030 is not listed on IDEAS
    22. Abadie, Alberto & Diamond, Alexis & Hainmueller, Jens, 2010. "Synthetic Control Methods for Comparative Case Studies: Estimating the Effect of California’s Tobacco Control Program," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 105(490), pages 493-505.
    23. European Commission, 2016. "Taxation trends in the European Union: 2016 edition," Taxation trends 2016, Directorate General Taxation and Customs Union, European Commission.
    24. C. Duprez & Ch. Van Nieuwenhuyze, 2016. "Belgium’s inward and outward foreign direct investment," Economic Review, National Bank of Belgium, issue ii, pages 45-62, september.
    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. Shafik Hebous & Alexander Klemm, 2020. "A destination-based allowance for corporate equity," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 27(3), pages 753-777, June.
    2. Luca, Oana & Tieman, Alexander F., 2019. "Financial sector debt bias," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 1-1.
    3. Magdalena Correa Henao & Wilfredo Robayo Galvis, 2020. "Los desafíos de los derechos humanos en América Latina : homenaje a Antonio Gomes Moreira Maués," Books, Universidad Externado de Colombia, Facultad de Derecho, number 1277, October.
    4. F. De Sloover & Y. Saks, 2018. "Is job polarisation accompanied by wage polarisation?," Economic Review, National Bank of Belgium, issue iii, pages 79-90, september.

    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. Hebous, Shafik & Ruf, Martin, 2017. "Evaluating the effects of ACE systems on multinational debt financing and investment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 131-149.
    2. Bofinger, Peter & Schnabel, Isabel & Feld, Lars P. & Schmidt, Christoph M. & Wieland, Volker, 2015. "Zukunftsfähigkeit in den Mittelpunkt. Jahresgutachten 2015/16 [Focus on Future Viability. Annual Report 2015/16]," Annual Economic Reports / Jahresgutachten, German Council of Economic Experts / Sachverständigenrat zur Begutachtung der gesamtwirtschaftlichen Entwicklung, volume 127, number 201516.
    3. 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.
    4. Hebous, Shafik & Ruf, Martin, 2017. "Evaluating the effects of ACE systems on multinational debt financing and investment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 131-149.
    5. Carmen Bachmann & Martin Baumann & Konrad Richter, 2018. "The effects on investment incentives of an allowance for corporate equity tax system: the Belgian case as an example," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 51(4), pages 943-965, November.
    6. Kari Seppo, 2015. "Corporate tax in an international environment – Problems and possible remedies," Nordic Tax Journal, Sciendo, vol. 2015(1), pages 1-16, September.
    7. Petutschnig, Matthias & Rünger, Silke, 2017. "The effects of a tax allowance for growth and investment: Empirical evidence from a firm-level analysis," arqus Discussion Papers in Quantitative Tax Research 221, arqus - Arbeitskreis Quantitative Steuerlehre.
    8. Meki, Muhammad, 2023. "Levelling the debt–equity playing field: Evidence from Belgium," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    9. 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.
    10. Florian Chatagny & Marko Koethenbuerger & Michael Stimmelmayr, 2017. "Introducing an IP license box in Switzerland: quantifying the effects," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 24(6), pages 927-961, December.
    11. Alessandro Zeli, 2018. "The impact of ACE on investment: the Italian case," Economia Politica: Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, Springer;Fondazione Edison, vol. 35(3), pages 741-762, December.
    12. F. De Sloover & Y. Saks, 2018. "Is job polarisation accompanied by wage polarisation?," Economic Review, National Bank of Belgium, issue iii, pages 79-90, september.
    13. Shafik Hebous & Alfons J. Weichenrieder & Alfons Weichenrieder, 2015. "What Do We Know about the Tax Planning of German-based Multinational Firms?," ifo DICE Report, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 12(04), pages 15-21, January.
    14. Sijbren Cnossen, 2018. "Corporation taxes in the European Union: Slowly moving toward comprehensive business income taxation?," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 25(3), pages 808-840, June.
    15. Ruf Martin & Schindler Dirk, 2015. "Debt Shifting and Thin-Capitalization Rules – German Experience and Alternative Approaches," Nordic Tax Journal, Sciendo, vol. 2015(1), pages 17-33, September.
    16. European Commission, 2013. "Tax reforms in EU Member States - Tax policy challenges for economic growth and fiscal sustainability – 2013 Report," Taxation Papers 38, Directorate General Taxation and Customs Union, European Commission.
    17. Langenmayr, Dominika & Haufler, Andreas & Bauer, Christian J., 2015. "Should tax policy favor high- or low-productivity firms?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 18-34.
    18. Robin Boadway & Motohiro Sato & Jean-Francois Tremblay, 2015. "Cash-flow business taxation revisited: bankruptcy, risk aversion and asymmetric information," Working Papers 1531, Oxford University Centre for Business Taxation.
    19. Nils aus dem Moore, 2014. "Taxes and Corporate Financing Decisions – Evidence from the Belgian ACE Reform," Ruhr Economic Papers 0533, Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Universität Dortmund, Universität Duisburg-Essen.
    20. Mihir A. Desai & Dhammika Dharmapala, 2015. "Interest Deductions in a Multijurisdictional World," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 68(3), pages 653-680, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    H25; H32; H71;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • H25 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue - - - Business Taxes and Subsidies
    • H32 - Public Economics - - Fiscal Policies and Behavior of Economic Agents - - - Firm
    • H71 - Public Economics - - State and Local Government; Intergovernmental Relations - - - State and Local Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue

    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:vrs:notajo:v:2018:y:2018:i:1:p:1-17:n:4. 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: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.sciendo.com .

    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.