IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/clh/resear/v11y2018i13.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An International Comparison of Tax Assistance for R&D: 2017 Update and Extension to Patent Boxes

Author

Listed:
  • John Lester
  • Jacek Warda

    (JPW Innovation Associates Inc.)

Abstract

Business investment in research and development (R&D) is widely recognized as providing benefits to the broader economy that exceed the benefits to the firms that perform the R&D. As a result of this externality or spillover, most governments provide support for R&D in order to encourage more of it. In 2017, 29 of the 35 members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) provided tax incentives for spending on R&D. That’s up slightly since 2014, when we last prepared an international comparison of tax assistance for R&D. On the other hand, average support levels edged down from 2014 to 2017. In addition to these expenditure-based measures, 15 OECD countries provide preferential tax treatment for the income generated by commercializing R&D and other innovative activities. These income-based measures are often described as patent boxes, since they first applied to income realized from patented products and processes. In most cases, the qualifying patents did not have to be based on R&D performed in the country offering the incentive, so patent boxes were criticized for creating an incentive to shift taxable income without encouraging additional R&D. Recently, however, most countries have accepted the OECD recommendation that both the R&D and the income from its commercialization must be located in the same jurisdiction before an income-based incentive can be provided. With this linkage, income-based incentives can be a useful policy tool, particularly for large firms. Income- and expenditure-based incentives are likely to have similar impacts on the amount of R&D undertaken by large firms, but income-based measures have the advantage of providing a greater incentive to commercialize R&D in the implementing jurisdiction. They also blunt the incentive to shift the taxable income generated by commercializing R&D to lower-tax jurisdictions. However, smaller firms, who are more likely to be cashflow constrained, will respond less strongly to income-based measures since the subsidy is available with a delay. Further, small firms have limited opportunities to shift taxable income across international borders. Should the federal government implement an income-based tax incentive for R&D performed by large firms? A key consideration is what happens to tax revenue on income from commercialization of R&D. If a lower tax rate results in higher revenue as a result of tax base shifting effects, income-based measures have a clear advantage over their expenditure-based counterparts. Some competing jurisdictions have very low corporate income tax rates, so feasible reductions in federal tax rates may not generate tax base shifting effects large enough to make the policy a success. More information on how multi-national enterprises shift intellectual-property income out of Canada is required before proceeding with income-based tax incentives for R&D.

Suggested Citation

  • John Lester & Jacek Warda, 2018. "An International Comparison of Tax Assistance for R&D: 2017 Update and Extension to Patent Boxes," SPP Research Papers, The School of Public Policy, University of Calgary, vol. 11(13), April.
  • Handle: RePEc:clh:resear:v:11:y:2018:i:13
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.policyschool.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Tax-Assistance-Lester-Warda.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Annette Alstadsæter & Salvador Barrios & Gaetan Nicodeme & Agnieszka Maria Skonieczna & Antonio Vezzani, 2018. "Patent boxes design, patents location, and local R&D," Economic Policy, CEPR, CESifo, Sciences Po;CES;MSH, vol. 33(93), pages 131-177.
    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. Lars P. Feld & Jost H. Heckemeyer, 2011. "Fdi And Taxation: A Meta‐Study," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(2), pages 233-272, April.
    4. Fontana, Roberto & Nuvolari, Alessandro & Shimizu, Hiroshi & Vezzulli, Andrea, 2013. "Reassessing patent propensity: Evidence from a dataset of R&D awards, 1977–2004," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(10), pages 1780-1792.
    5. 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.
    6. Wesley M. Cohen & Richard R. Nelson & John P. Walsh, 2000. "Protecting Their Intellectual Assets: Appropriability Conditions and Why U.S. Manufacturing Firms Patent (or Not)," NBER Working Papers 7552, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. 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.
    8. Albert De Luca & Joanne Hausch, 2017. "Policy Forum: Patent Box Regimes--A Vehicle for Innovation and Sustainable Economic Growth," Canadian Tax Journal, Canadian Tax Foundation, vol. 65(1), pages 39-60.
    9. John Lester & Jacek Warda, 2014. "An International Comparison of Tax Assistance for Research and Development: Estimates and Policy Implications," SPP Research Papers, The School of Public Policy, University of Calgary, vol. 7(36), November.
    10. Arundel, Anthony & Kabla, Isabelle, 1998. "What percentage of innovations are patented? empirical estimates for European firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 127-141, June.
    11. Ariel Pakes & Mark Schankerman, 1984. "The Rate of Obsolescence of Patents, Research Gestation Lags, and the Private Rate of Return to Research Resources," NBER Chapters, in: R&D, Patents, and Productivity, pages 73-88, 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. Bronwyn H. Hall, 2020. "Tax Policy for Innovation," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation and Public Policy, pages 151-188, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Pierre Lortie, 2019. "Nurturing Global Growth Companies: Time For A New Policy Toolkit," SPP Research Papers, The School of Public Policy, University of Calgary, vol. 12(27), September.
    3. Gaessler, Fabian & Hall, Bronwyn H. & Harhoff, Dietmar, 2021. "Should there be lower taxes on patent income?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(1).
    4. Myeongwan Kim, John Lester, 2019. "R&D Spillovers in Canadian Industry: Results from a New Micro Database," CSLS Research Reports 2019-02, Centre for the Study of Living Standards.
    5. Myeongwan Kim, John Lester, 2019. "R&D Spillovers in Canadian Industry: Results from a New Micro Database," CSLS Research Reports 2019-02, Centre for the Study of Living Standards.
    6. John Lester, 2021. "Benefit-Cost Analysis of Federal and Provincial SR&ED Investment Tax Credits," SPP Research Papers, The School of Public Policy, University of Calgary, vol. 14(1), January.

    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. Ronald B. Davies & Dieter Franz Kogler & Ryan M. Hynes, 2020. "Patent Boxes and the Success Rate of Applications," Working Papers 202018, School of Economics, University College Dublin.
    2. Hötte, Kerstin, 2023. "Demand-pull, technology-push, and the direction of technological change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(5).
    3. Schwab, Thomas & Todtenhaupt, Maximilian, 2016. "Spillover from the haven: Cross-border externalities of patent box regimes within multinational firms," ZEW Discussion Papers 16-073, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    4. Bofinger, Peter & Feld, Lars P. & Schmidt, Christoph M. & Schnabel, Isabel & Wieland, Volker, 2018. "Vor wichtigen wirtschaftspolitischen Weichenstellungen. Jahresgutachten 2018/19 [Setting the Right Course for Economic Policy. Annual Report 2018/19]," Annual Economic Reports / Jahresgutachten, German Council of Economic Experts / Sachverständigenrat zur Begutachtung der gesamtwirtschaftlichen Entwicklung, volume 127, number 201819.
    5. Bradley, Sebastien & Robinson, Leslie & Ruf, Martin, 2021. "The impact of IP box regimes on the M&A market," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(2).
    6. Pfeiffer, Olena & Spengel, Christoph, 2017. "Tax incentives for research and development and their use in tax planning," ZEW Discussion Papers 17-046, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    7. Daniel P. Gross, 2023. "The Hidden Costs of Securing Innovation: The Manifold Impacts of Compulsory Invention Secrecy," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(4), pages 2318-2338, April.
    8. Salvador Barrios & Diego d'Andria, 2020. "Profit Shifting and Industrial Heterogeneity," CESifo Economic Studies, CESifo Group, vol. 66(2), pages 134-156.
    9. 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.
    10. Wolfram F. Richter, 2017. "Taxing Intellectual Property in the Global Economy: A Plea for Regulated and Internationally Coordinated Profit Splitting," CESifo Working Paper Series 6564, CESifo.
    11. Josef Taalbi & Mikhail Martynovich, 2024. "On the urban bias of patents and the scaling of innovation," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 2422, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Jul 2024.
    12. Dudar, Olena & Voget, Johannes, 2016. "Corporate taxation and location of intangible assets: Patents vs. trademarks," ZEW Discussion Papers 16-015, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    13. Richter, Wolfram F. & Breuer, Markus, 2016. "Pricing the Transfer of Intellectual Property: A Plea for Regulated and Internationally Coordinated Profit Splitting," VfS Annual Conference 2016 (Augsburg): Demographic Change 145621, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    14. Bornemann, Tobias & Laplante, Stacie K. & Osswald, Benjamin, 2018. "The effect of intellectual property boxes on innovative activity & effective tax rates," arqus Discussion Papers in Quantitative Tax Research 234, arqus - Arbeitskreis Quantitative Steuerlehre.
    15. Crass, Dirk & Garcia Valero, Francisco & Pitton, Francesco & Rammer, Christian, 2016. "Protecting innovation through patents and trade secrets: Determinants and performance impacts for firms with a single innovation," ZEW Discussion Papers 16-061, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    16. Gundert Hannah & Nicolay Katharina & Steinbrenner Daniela & Wickel Sophia, 2024. "The Tax Attractiveness of EU Locations for Corporate Investments: A Stocktaking of Past Developments and Recent Reforms," The Economists' Voice, De Gruyter, vol. 21(1), pages 97-132.
    17. Fuest, Clemens & Spengel, Christoph & Finke, Katharina & Heckemeyer, Jost H. & Nusser, Hannah, 2013. "Profit shifting and 'aggressive' tax planning by multinational firms: Issues and options for reform," ZEW Discussion Papers 13-078, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    18. Fontana, Roberto & Nuvolari, Alessandro & Shimizu, Hiroshi & Vezzulli, Andrea, 2013. "Reassessing patent propensity: Evidence from a dataset of R&D awards, 1977–2004," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(10), pages 1780-1792.
    19. Sternitzke, Christian, 2013. "An exploratory analysis of patent fencing in pharmaceuticals: The case of PDE5 inhibitors," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 542-551.
    20. Horst Feldmann, 2013. "Technological unemployment in industrial countries," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 23(5), pages 1099-1126, November.

    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:clh:resear:v:11:y:2018:i:13. 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: Bev Dahlby (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/spcalca.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.