IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cdh/commen/379.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Improving the Tax Treatment of Intellectual Property Income in Canada

Author

Listed:
  • Nick Pantaleo

    (Rogers Communications Inc.)

  • Finn Poschmann

    (C.D. Howe Institute)

  • Scott Wilkie

    (Blake Cassels & Graydon LLP)

Abstract

Policymakers are concerned that Canadian businesses invest too little in innovative processes, on the view that this inhibits productivity, growth, and incomes. The evidence can be found in Canada’s low rate of growth in patent registrations and low rates of commercialization of new products and services vis-à-vis other member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and developing economies such as Brazil, China, and India. Some observers express concern over a presumed “innovation gap,” and the share of Canadian patents that are held abroad. Canada’s apparently lagging performance presents a puzzle with respect to research and development, because its federal and provincial tax systems treat business R&D spending quite generously, as compared with international peers. In this report, we address one policy aspect of these issues: the taxation of the fruits of innovation. In discussing the preferential treatment of income associated with business investment in research and development (R&D) and its commercialization and adoption, we pursue what are sometimes referred to as “pull” factors, which encourage firms to adopt innovative processes. In contrast, “push” factors encourage firms to invest in R&D irrespective of its link to innovation or the adoption of new technologies or processes, as is the current case in Canada. We present an option for modifying – by way of a new incentive model, known as a “patent box” or “innovation box” – Canada’s current tax treatment of the income derived from exploiting the fruits of R&D. This would complement and in part refocus the tax preferences that business expenditures on R&D now receive. Under our suggestion, businesses possibly would receive less tax relief for conducting R&D, and more for adopting, commercializing, or otherwise exploiting the output of the R&D process – in short, a pull, rather than a push, into R&D activity.

Suggested Citation

  • Nick Pantaleo & Finn Poschmann & Scott Wilkie, 2013. "Improving the Tax Treatment of Intellectual Property Income in Canada," C.D. Howe Institute Commentary, C.D. Howe Institute, issue 379, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:cdh:commen:379
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cdhowe.org/improving-tax-treatment-intellectual-property-income-canada
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fabrice Defever, 2012. "The spatial organization of multinational firms," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 45(2), pages 672-697, May.
    2. Christof Ernst & Katharina Richter & Nadine Riedel, 2014. "Corporate taxation and the quality of research and development," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 21(4), pages 694-719, August.
    3. Christoph Ernst & Katharina Richter & Nadine Riedel, 2013. "Corporate taxation and the quality of research & development," Working Papers 1301, Oxford University Centre for Business Taxation.
    4. Diego A. Comin & Mikhail Dmitriev & Esteban Rossi-Hansberg, 2012. "The Spatial Diffusion of Technology," NBER Working Papers 18534, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Pierre Azoulay & Joshua S. Graff Zivin & Bhaven N. Sampat, 2011. "The Diffusion of Scientific Knowledge across Time and Space: Evidence from Professional Transitions for the Superstars of Medicine," NBER Chapters, in: The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity Revisited, pages 107-155, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    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. William B. P. Robson & Alexandre Laurin & Rosalie Wyonch, 2017. "Getting Real: A Shadow Federal Budget for 2017," C.D. Howe Institute Commentary, C.D. Howe Institute, issue 470, February.
    2. Ben Dachis & Robbie Brydon & Nicholas Chesterley, 2014. "Measuring Innovation in Canada: The Tale Told by Patent Applications," e-briefs 191, C.D. Howe Institute.
    3. Benjamin Dachis & William B.P. Robson & Nicholas Chesterley, 2014. "Capital Needed: Canada Needs More Robust Business Investment," e-briefs 179, C.D. Howe Institute.
    4. Robin W. Boadway & Jean-François Tremblay, 2016. "Modernizing Business Taxation," C.D. Howe Institute Commentary, C.D. Howe Institute, issue 452, May.
    5. Alex Laurin & William B.P. Robson, 2014. "Equipping Canadians for Success: A Shadow Budget for 2014," C.D. Howe Institute Commentary, C.D. Howe Institute, issue 399, January.
    6. Benjamin Dachis, 2018. "Fiscal Soundness and Economic Growth: An Economic Program for Ontario," C.D. Howe Institute Commentary, C.D. Howe Institute, issue 505, March.

    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. Leila Agha & David Molitor, 2018. "The Local Influence of Pioneer Investigators on Technology Adoption: Evidence from New Cancer Drugs," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 100(1), pages 29-44, March.
    2. Gilles Saint‐Paul & Davide Ticchi & Andrea Vindigni, 2021. "Engineering crises: Favoritism and strategic fiscal indiscipline," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(3), pages 583-610, November.
    3. Lisa Evers & Helen Miller & Christoph Spengel, 2015. "Intellectual property box regimes: effective tax rates and tax policy considerations," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 22(3), pages 502-530, June.
    4. Christof Ernst & Katharina Richter & Nadine Riedel, 2014. "Corporate taxation and the quality of research and development," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 21(4), pages 694-719, August.
    5. Mohammad Hoseini, 2020. "Value‐Added Tax, Input–Output Linkages and Informality," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 87(347), pages 813-843, July.
    6. Guo, Jang-Ting & Hung, Fu-Sheng, 2020. "Tax evasion and financial development under asymmetric information in credit markets," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    7. Jamil Nasir, 2020. "The Tariff Tripod of Pakistan: Protection, Export Promotion, and Revenue Generation," The Pakistan Development Review, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, vol. 59(3), pages 517-551.
    8. Ishak, Phoebe W. & Farzanegan, Mohammad Reza, 2020. "The impact of declining oil rents on tax revenues: Does the shadow economy matter?," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    9. Griffith, Rachel & Miller, Helen & O'Connell, Martin, 2014. "Ownership of intellectual property and corporate taxation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 12-23.
    10. Mascagni, Giulia & Mengistu, Andualem T. & Woldeyes, Firew B., 2021. "Can ICTs increase tax compliance? Evidence on taxpayer responses to technological innovation in Ethiopia," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 172-193.
    11. Mascagni, Giulia & Santoro, Fabrizio & Mukama, Denis & Karangwa, John & Hakizimana, Napthal, 2022. "Active Ghosts: Nil-filing in Rwanda," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    12. Andersson, Martin & Julia, Juan P. & Palcio Ch., Andrés F., 2021. "Resilience to economic shrinking as the key to economic catch-up: A social capability approach," Lund Papers in Economic History 231, Lund University, Department of Economic History.
    13. Mick Moore, 2021. "Glimpses of fiscal states in sub-Saharan Africa," WIDER Working Paper Series wp-2021-151, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    14. Ouattara, B. & Standaert, S., 2020. "Property rights revisited," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    15. Axelsson, Tobias & Martins, Igor, 2022. "Resilience to shrinking as a catch-up strategy: a comparison of Brazil and Indonesia, 1964–2010," Lund Papers in Economic History 233, Lund University, Department of Economic History.
    16. Wier, Ludvig, 2020. "Tax-motivated transfer mispricing in South Africa: Direct evidence using transaction data," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    17. Jamil Nasir, 2020. "The Tariff Tripod of Pakistan: Protection, Export Promotion, and Revenue Generation," PIDE-Working Papers 2020:6, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics.
    18. James Cust, 2017. "The role of governance and international norms in managing natural resources," WIDER Working Paper Series wp-2017-203, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    19. Carrillo, Paul E. & Castro, Edgar & Scartascini, Carlos, 2021. "Public good provision and property tax compliance: Evidence from a natural experiment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    20. Arvin, Mak B. & Pradhan, Rudra P. & Nair, Mahendhiran S., 2021. "Are there links between institutional quality, government expenditure, tax revenue and economic growth? Evidence from low-income and lower middle-income countries," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 468-489.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Fiscal Policy and Tax Competitiveness;

    JEL classification:

    • O30 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - General
    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • O38 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Government Policy

    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:cdh:commen:379. 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: Kristine Gray (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cdhowca.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.