IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wfo/monber/y2019i1p61-71.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Der EU-Vorschlag zur Harmonisierung der Körperschaftsteuer. Auswirkungen für Österreich

Author

Listed:
  • Simon Loretz
  • Margit Schratzenstaller

Abstract

Das bestehende System der getrennten Gewinnbesteuerung in jedem Land der Tätigkeit bringt hohe Verwaltungskosten für Unternehmen und Steuerbehörden und die Möglichkeit von internationaler Gewinnverlagerung mit sich. Um diesen Nachteilen entgegenzuwirken, präsentierte die Europäische Kommission nun eine Neuauflage des Richtlinienvorschlages für eine gemeinsame konsolidierte Körperschaftsteuer-Bemessungsgrundlage (GKKB). Demnach sollen multinationale Konzerne innerhalb der EU die Bemessungsgrundlage für die Körperschaftsteuer einheitlich berechnen. In einem zweiten Schritt soll die unternehmensweite Bemessungsgrundlage konsolidiert und anhand eines Verteilungsschlüssels (Formelzerlegung) auf die Mitgliedsländer aufgeteilt werden. Wie der Vergleich der harmonisierten Bemessungsgrundlage mit der aktuellen Regelung in Österreich vermuten lässt, wären die statischen fiskalischen Auswirkungen der Einführung einer einheitlichen Bemessungsgrundlage gering. Die Konsolidierung und Formelzerlegung würde einen mäßigen Rückgang der Steuereinnahmen in Österreich bewirken. Längerfristig würde die Einführung der GKKB den Steuerwettbewerb nicht vollständig eliminieren, sondern vielmehr dessen Natur wesentlich verändern. Der Wettbewerb innerhalb des Geltungsbereiches verlagert sich von Gewinnen zu Aufteilungsfaktoren.

Suggested Citation

  • Simon Loretz & Margit Schratzenstaller, 2019. "Der EU-Vorschlag zur Harmonisierung der Körperschaftsteuer. Auswirkungen für Österreich," WIFO Monatsberichte (monthly reports), WIFO, vol. 92(1), pages 61-71, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:wfo:monber:y:2019:i:1:p:61-71
    Note: With English abstract.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.wifo.ac.at/wwa/pubid/61627
    File Function: abstract
    Download Restriction: Payment required
    ---><---

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rüdiger Pethig & Andreas Wagener, 2007. "Profit tax competition and formula apportionment," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 14(6), pages 631-655, December.
    2. Sebastian Beer & Ruud de Mooij & Li Liu, 2020. "International Corporate Tax Avoidance: A Review Of The Channels, Magnitudes, And Blind Spots," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(3), pages 660-688, July.
    3. Thomas Tørsløv & Ludvig Wier & Gabriel Zucman, 2023. "The Missing Profits of Nations," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 90(3), pages 1499-1534.
    4. Leon Bettendorf & Michael P. Devereux & Albert Van Der Horst & Simon Loretz & Ruud A. de Mooij, 2010. "Corporate tax harmonization in the EU [Taxing corporate income]," Economic Policy, CEPR, CESifo, Sciences Po;CES;MSH, vol. 25(63), pages 537-590.
    5. 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.
    6. Egger, Peter & Eggert, Wolfgang & Winner, Hannes, 2010. "Saving taxes through foreign plant ownership," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 81(1), pages 99-108, May.
    7. Michael P. Devereux & Simon Loretz, 2013. "What Do We Know About Corporate Tax Competition?," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 66(3), pages 745-774, September.
    8. Joann Martens Weiner, 2005. "Formulary Apportionment and Group Taxation in the European Union: Insights from the United States and Canada," Taxation Papers 8, Directorate General Taxation and Customs Union, European Commission, revised Mar 2005.
    9. 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.
    10. Clemens Fuest & Thomas Hemmelgarn & Fred Ramb, 2007. "How would the introduction of an EU-wide formula apportionment affect the distribution and size of the corporate tax base? An analysis based on German multinationals," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 14(5), pages 605-626, October.
    11. Simon Loretz, 2008. "Corporate taxation in the OECD in a wider context," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 24(4), pages 639-660, winter.
    12. 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.
    13. Markus Leibrecht & Claudia Hochgatterer, 2012. "Tax Competition As A Cause Of Falling Corporate Income Tax Rates: A Survey Of Empirical Literature," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(4), pages 616-648, September.
    14. Andreas Oestreicher & Reinald Koch, 2011. "The Revenue Consequences of Using a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base to Determine Taxable Income in the EU Member States," FinanzArchiv: Public Finance Analysis, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 67(1), pages 64-102, March.
    15. Dietmar Wellisch, 2004. "Taxation under Formula Apportionment - Tax Competition, Tax Incidence, and the Choice of Apportionment Factors," FinanzArchiv: Public Finance Analysis, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 60(1), pages 24-41, April.
    16. Ernesto Crivelli & Ruud De Mooij & Michael Keen, 2016. "Base Erosion, Profit Shifting and Developing Countries," FinanzArchiv: Public Finance Analysis, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 72(3), pages 268-301, September.
    17. Marcel Gérard & Joann Weiner, 2003. "Cross-Border Loss Offset and Formulary Apportionment: How do they affect multijurisdictional firm investment spending and interjurisdictional tax competition ?," CESifo Working Paper Series 1004, CESifo.
    18. Jost H. Heckemeyer & Michael Overesch, 2017. "Multinationals profit response to tax differentials: Effect size and shifting channels," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 50(4), pages 965-994, November.
    19. Riedel, Nadine & Runkel, Marco, 2007. "Company tax reform with a water's edge," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(7-8), pages 1533-1554, August.
    20. Picciotto, Sol, 2017. "Taxing Multinational Enterprises as Unitary Firms," Working Papers 12851, Institute of Development Studies, International Centre for Tax and Development.
    21. Michael P. Devereux & Rachel Griffith & Alexander Klemm, 2002. "Corporate income tax reforms and international tax competition [‘Do domestic firms benefit from direct foreign investment? Evidence from Venezuela’]," Economic Policy, CEPR, CESifo, Sciences Po;CES;MSH, vol. 17(35), pages 449-495.
    22. Joanna Piotrowska & Werner Vanborren, 2008. "The corporate income tax rate-revenue paradox: Evidence in the EU," Taxation Papers 12, Directorate General Taxation and Customs Union, European Commission, revised Oct 2008.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. N. N., 2019. "WIFO-Monatsberichte, Heft 1/2019," WIFO Monatsberichte (monthly reports), WIFO, vol. 92(1), January.
    2. Dirk Kiesewetter & Tobias Steigenberger & Matthias Stier, 2018. "Can formula apportionment really prevent multinational enterprises from profit shifting? The role of asset valuation, intragroup debt, and leases," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 88(9), pages 1029-1060, December.
    3. 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.
    4. Marcel Gerard, 2006. "Reforming the taxation of Multijurisdictional Enterprises in Europe, "Coopetition" in a Bottom-up Federation," Working Papers 2006-10, University of Kentucky, Institute for Federalism and Intergovernmental Relations.
    5. 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.
    6. Buettner, Thiess & Riedel, Nadine & Runkel, Marco, 2011. "Strategic Consolidation Under Formula Apportionment," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 64(2), pages 225-254, June.
    7. Mardan, Mohammed & Stimmelmayr, Michael, 2018. "Tax revenue losses through cross-border loss offset: An insurmountable hurdle for formula apportionment?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 188-210.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Clemens Fuest & Thomas Hemmelgarn & Fred Ramb, 2007. "How would the introduction of an EU-wide formula apportionment affect the distribution and size of the corporate tax base? An analysis based on German multinationals," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 14(5), pages 605-626, October.
    11. Ortmann, Regina & Sureth, Caren, 2014. "Can the CCCTB alleviate tax discrimination against loss-making European multinational groups?," arqus Discussion Papers in Quantitative Tax Research 165, arqus - Arbeitskreis Quantitative Steuerlehre.
    12. Hines Jr., James R., 2010. "Income misattribution under formula apportionment," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 54(1), pages 108-120, January.
    13. Regina Ortmann & Caren Sureth-Sloane, 2016. "Can the CCCTB alleviate tax discrimination against loss-making European multinational groups?," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 86(5), pages 441-475, July.
    14. 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.
    15. Dietrich, Maik, 2009. "Entscheidungswirkungen einer europaweit harmonisierten Konzernbesteuerung [Impacts of European Group Taxation]," MPRA Paper 59870, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Marcel Gérard, 2006. "Reforming the Taxation of Multijurisdictional Enterprises in Europe, a Tentative Appraisal," CESifo Working Paper Series 1795, CESifo.
    17. Matthias Wrede, 2014. "Asymmetric tax competition with formula apportionment," Letters in Spatial and Resource Sciences, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 47-60, March.
    18. 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.
    19. Clemens Fuest, 2008. "The European Commission's proposal for a common consolidated corporate tax base," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 24(4), pages 720-739, winter.
    20. Eichner, Thomas & Runkel, Marco, 2009. "Corporate income taxation of multinationals and unemployment," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(5), pages 610-620, September.

    More about this item

    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:wfo:monber:y:2019:i:1:p:61-71. 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: Florian Mayr (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/wifooat.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.