IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/arqudp/171.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Wieso Deutschland (fast) keine BEPS-Bekämpfung braucht

Author

Listed:
  • Schanz, Deborah
  • Feller, Anna

Abstract

[Einführung] In den Medien und der Öffentlichkeit werden internationale Steuervermeidung von Konzernen und Steuerhinterziehung im Allgemeinen lautstark diskutiert und durch prominente Einzelbeispiele von vorwiegend US-amerikanischen Konzernen 'anekdotisch' bewiesen. Dabei kann sogar ein Gefühl entstehen, dass 'die großen Konzerne' keine oder kaum Steuern zahlen, während 'der kleine Mann' stark besteuert würde. Unter dem Schlagwort 'Base Erosion and Profit Shifting' (BEPS) beleuchtet die OECD in ihrem aktuellen Bericht und zugehörigem Aktionsplan Ursachen und Entstehungsmöglichkeiten für internationale Gewinnverlagerung und schlägt einen ersten Maßnahmenkatalog zur Bekämpfung dieses Phänomens vor. Die EU-Kommission unterbreitet ihrerseits Vorschläge, wie gegen Steuerbetrug und Steuerhinterziehung vorzugehen ist Befasst man sich näher mit den Fakten, bleibt - zumindest in Deutschland - von dem 'Problem' BEPS wenig übrig. Anhand der folgenden sechs Thesen werden wir argumentieren, weshalb Deutschland sich nicht (stark) in der Bekämpfung der angeblichen Steuervermeidung durch Verlagerung der Bemessungsgrundlagen von Unternehmen zu engagieren braucht. Weltweit besteht allerdings noch Uneinigkeit, welche Folgen, insbesondere in der Quantifizierung von Steuerausfällen, durch Gewinnverlagerung entstehen. (1) International bestehende 'Lücken' in Steuerbemessungsgrundlagen sind oft von den betroffenen Staaten/Staatenverbünden gewollt. (2) Das deutsche (Unternehmens-)Steueraufkommen im Jahr 2013 ist auf einem neuen Höchststand seit 2007. (3) Deutsche Konzerne zahlen i.d.R. (hohe) Steuern in Deutschland; deutsche Konzerne mit niedrigen Steuerzahlungen haben i.d.R. hohe Verlustvorträge. (4) Deutschland hat bereits detaillierte Regeln zur Verhinderung der Verlagerung von Bemessungsgrundlagen. (5) Deutschland wäre Verlierer bei einer Verlagerung zur Quellenbesteuerung. (6) Deutschland kann kein Interesse an einer Verlagerung der realen Investitionen anstelle von einer Verlagerung der Steuerbemessungsgrundlagen haben.

Suggested Citation

  • Schanz, Deborah & Feller, Anna, 2014. "Wieso Deutschland (fast) keine BEPS-Bekämpfung braucht," arqus Discussion Papers in Quantitative Tax Research 171, arqus - Arbeitskreis Quantitative Steuerlehre.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:arqudp:171
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/98837/1/790606178.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Voget, Johannes, 2011. "Relocation of headquarters and international taxation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(9), pages 1067-1081.
    2. Martin Ruf & Alfons J. Weichenrieder, 2012. "The taxation of passive foreign investment: lessons from German experience," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 45(4), pages 1504-1528, November.
    3. Kevin S. Markle & Douglas A. Shackelford, 2011. "Cross-Country Comparisons of Corporate Income Taxes," NBER Working Papers 16839, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Thiess Buettner & Martin Ruf, 2007. "Tax incentives and the location of FDI: Evidence from a panel of German multinationals," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 14(2), pages 151-164, April.
    5. Clemens Fuest, 2013. "Besteuerung multinationaler Unternehmen: keine Alleingänge!," Wirtschaftsdienst, Springer;ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 93(3), pages 138-139, March.
    6. Buettner, Thiess & Wamser, Georg, 2013. "Internal Debt and Multinational Profit Shifting: Empirical Evidence From Firm-Level Panel Data," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 66(1), pages 63-95, March.
    7. Jost H. Heckemeyer & Christoph Spengel, 2008. "Ausmaß der Gewinnverlagerung multinationaler Unternehmen – empirische Evidenz und Implikationen für die deutsche Steuerpolitik," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 9(1), pages 37-61, February.
    8. Stefan Bach, 2013. "Unternehmensbesteuerung: hohe Gewinne - mäßige Steuereinnahmen," DIW Wochenbericht, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 80(22/23), pages 3-12.
    9. Alfons Weichenrieder, 2009. "Profit shifting in the EU: evidence from Germany," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 16(3), pages 281-297, June.
    10. Voget, Johannes, 2011. "Relocation of headquarters and international taxation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(9-10), pages 1067-1081, October.
    11. Markle, Kevin S. & Shackelford, Douglas A., 2012. "Cross-Country Comparisons of Corporate Income Taxes," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 65(3), pages 493-527, September.
    12. Michael Overesch & Georg Wamser, 2010. "Corporate tax planning and thin-capitalization rules: evidence from a quasi-experiment," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(5), pages 563-573.
    13. Keller, Sara & Schanz, Deborah, 2013. "Measuring tax attractiveness across countries," arqus Discussion Papers in Quantitative Tax Research 143, arqus - Arbeitskreis Quantitative Steuerlehre.
    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. Overesch Michael, 2016. "Steuervermeidung multinationaler Unternehmen," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, De Gruyter, vol. 17(2), pages 129-143, July.
    2. Bofinger, Peter & Schnabel, Isabel & Feld, Lars P. & Schmidt, Christoph M. & Wieland, Volker, 2014. "Mehr Vertrauen in Marktprozesse. Jahresgutachten 2014/15 [More confidence in market processes. Annual Report 2014/15]," Annual Economic Reports / Jahresgutachten, German Council of Economic Experts / Sachverständigenrat zur Begutachtung der gesamtwirtschaftlichen Entwicklung, volume 127, number 201415.
    3. 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.
    4. Stefan Bach, 2013. "Has German Business Income Taxation Raised too Little Revenue over the Last Decades?," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 1303, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    5. von Hagen, Dominik & Harendt, Christoph, 2017. "Impact of controlled foreign corporation rules on post-acquisition investment and profit shifting in targets," ZEW Discussion Papers 17-062, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    6. von Hagen, Dominik & Pönnighaus, Fabian Nicolas, 2017. "International taxation and M&A prices," ZEW Discussion Papers 17-040, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    7. Ulrich Schreiber, 2015. "Investitionseffekte des BEPS Aktionsplans der OECD," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 67(1), pages 102-127, February.
    8. Sarah Clifford, 2017. "Taxing multinationals beyond borders: financial and locational responses to CFC rules," EPRU Working Paper Series 17-02, Economic Policy Research Unit (EPRU), University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics.
    9. Keller, Sara & Schanz, Deborah, 2013. "Tax attractiveness and the location of German-controlled subsidiaries," arqus Discussion Papers in Quantitative Tax Research 142, arqus - Arbeitskreis Quantitative Steuerlehre.
    10. Langenmayr, Dominika & Liu, Li, 2020. "Where Does Multinational Profit Go with Territorial Taxation? Evidence from the UK," VfS Annual Conference 2020 (Virtual Conference): Gender Economics 224516, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    11. 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.
    12. Huber, Hans-Peter & Maiterth, Ralf, 2019. "Steuerbelastung deutscher Kapitalgesellschaften von lediglich 20 % - Fakt oder Fake News?," arqus Discussion Papers in Quantitative Tax Research 246, arqus - Arbeitskreis Quantitative Steuerlehre.
    13. Keller, Sara & Schanz, Deborah, 2013. "Measuring tax attractiveness across countries," arqus Discussion Papers in Quantitative Tax Research 143, arqus - Arbeitskreis Quantitative Steuerlehre.
    14. Cooper, Maggie & Nguyen, Quyen T.K., 2020. "Multinational enterprises and corporate tax planning: A review of literature and suggestions for a future research agenda," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 29(3).
    15. Axel Prettl & Dominik Hagen, 2023. "Multinational ownership patterns and anti-tax avoidance legislation," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 30(3), pages 565-634, June.
    16. Clifford, Sarah, 2019. "Taxing multinationals beyond borders: Financial and locational responses to CFC rules," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 173(C), pages 44-71.
    17. repec:ces:ifodic:v:12:y:2015:i:4:p:19149984 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Arulampalam, Wiji & Devereux, Michael P. & Liberini, Federica, 2019. "Taxes and the location of targets," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 161-178.
    19. Egger, Peter H. & Wamser, Georg, 2015. "The impact of controlled foreign company legislation on real investments abroad. A multi-dimensional regression discontinuity design," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 77-91.
    20. Hoppe, Thomas & Schanz, Deborah & Sturm, Susann & Sureth, Caren & Voget, Johannes, 2020. "The relation between tax complexity and foreign direct investment: Evidence across countries," arqus Discussion Papers in Quantitative Tax Research 250, arqus - Arbeitskreis Quantitative Steuerlehre.
    21. Deborah Schanz & Andreas Dinkel & Sara Keller, 2017. "Tax attractiveness and the location of German-controlled subsidiaries," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 11(1), pages 251-297, January.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:zbw:arqudp:171. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.arqus.info/ .

    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.