IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/clh/resear/v11y2018i7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

2017 Tax Competitiveness Report: The Calm Before the Storm

Author

Listed:
  • Philip Bazel

    (University of Calgary)

  • Jack Mintz

    (The School of Public Policy, University of Calgary)

  • Austin Thompson

    (Federal Department of Finance)

Abstract

Canada stands to lose a major competitive edge unless it responds to the challenges of the 2018 U.S. tax reforms by instituting reforms of its own. At 20.9 per cent, Canada’s tax burden on new investment (measured by the marginal effective tax rate or METR), is competitive when compared to countries in the Americas and Asia-Oceania, and it’s the second lowest among the G7 countries. However, the rules of the game are about to change with U.S. tax reform. Among the reforms the U.S. is bringing in are a drop in the federal corporate income tax rate from 35 per cent to 21 per cent, a ten-year window for full and partial expensing machinery and equipment, and other various rules that will incent companies to push profits into the U.S. and interest and other expenses into foreign jurisdictions. The result of this and other reforms will be a sharp drop in the U.S. METR by almost half – from 34. 6 per cent to 18.8 per cent. This means Canada will have a higher tax burden on capital than the U.S. Put simply, Canada and other countries will face a drop in revenue while the U.S. gains revenue. Alarm bells should be ringing among public policy-makers in Canada and elsewhere, since research shows that taxes are a significant factor in multinationals’ decisions on where to invest globally and how to finance it. The dramatic U.S. reforms will put Canada at a distinct disadvantage, dragged down further by its small market size, energy levies and regulatory burden. This paper examines the corporate tax-rate situation in 92 countries, with many either having reduced their rates recently or are planning to in the next few years. In Canada, the only movement has been in several provinces, entailing a small increase in British Columbia and small decreases in Saskatchewan and Quebec. And while the average METR among OECD countries has dropped in the past few years, Canada’s in 2017 was approximately the same as it was in 2010, climbing upward from a nadir in 2012 on the backs of provincial corporate tax hikes. Reforms in the U.S. are going to make that country a much more attractive place for investment than Canada because of the new tax advantages. However, Canada doesn’t have to accept this diminished status. Federal and provincial governments can do a number of things to offset the U.S. reforms. Corporate tax rates should be reduced so as to achieve a more neutral corporate tax structure. By doing things like scaling back the small business deduction and accelerated depreciation, Canada can reduce its corporate tax rate to 23 per cent, which would be just a bit below the U.S.’s combined federal-state figure without losing revenue. Sales taxes on capital purchases could be eliminated in some provinces, reforms could be made to the taxation of international income and incentives for debt financing reduced. Carbon revenues could be used to provide an offset for higher energy taxes businesses face in Canada. The U.S.’s tax reforms are going to affect the economies of all 92 countries studied in this report. Global policy-makers will likely respond with lower corporate rates putting even more pressure on Canada to respond if it wishes to continue to attract investment and remain competitive.

Suggested Citation

  • Philip Bazel & Jack Mintz & Austin Thompson, 2018. "2017 Tax Competitiveness Report: The Calm Before the Storm," SPP Research Papers, The School of Public Policy, University of Calgary, vol. 11(7), February.
  • Handle: RePEc:clh:resear:v:11:y:2018:i:7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.policyschool.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/2017-Tax-Competitiveness-Bazel-Mintz-Thompson-final.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Büttner, Thiess, 2017. "Welfare Cost of the Real Estate Transfer Tax," VfS Annual Conference 2017 (Vienna): Alternative Structures for Money and Banking 168308, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    4. Kenneth J. McKenzie & Jack M. Mintz & Kimberly A. Scharf, 1997. "Measuring Effective Tax Rates in the Presence of Multiple Inputs: A Production Based Approach," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 4(3), pages 337-359, July.
    5. Liangyue Cao & Amanda Hosking & Michael Kouparitsas & Damian Mullaly & Xavier Rimmer & Qun Shi & Wallace Stark & Sebastian Wende, 2015. "Understanding the economy-wide efficiency and incidence of major Australian taxes," Treasury Working Papers 2015-01, The Treasury, Australian Government, revised Apr 2015.
    6. Jack Mintz, 1995. "Corporation tax: a survey," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 16(4), pages 23-68, November.
    7. Ben Dachis & Gilles Duranton & Matthew A. Turner, 2012. "The effects of land transfer taxes on real estate markets: evidence from a natural experiment in Toronto," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 12(2), pages 327-354, March.
    8. Jack M. Mintz & V. Balaji Venkatachalam, 2017. "Tax Policy Trends: Small Business Tax Cut not Enough – U.S. Tax Reforms will make U.S. more Attractive for Start-Ups," SPP Communique, The School of Public Policy, University of Calgary, vol. 9(PT9), October.
    9. Philip Bazel & Jack Mintz, 2016. "2015 Tax-Competitveness Report: Canada is losing its Attractiveness," SPP Research Papers, The School of Public Policy, University of Calgary, vol. 9(37), November.
    10. Kenneth J. McKenzie & Ergete Ferede, 2017. "Who Pays the Corporate Tax?: Insights from the Literature and Evidence for Canadian Provinces," SPP Research Papers, The School of Public Policy, University of Calgary, vol. 10(6), April.
    11. Mintz, Jack M. & Weichenrieder, Alfons J., 2010. "The Indirect Side of Direct Investment: Multinational Company Finance and Taxation," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262014491, December.
    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. Ernesto Zangari & Elena Pisano, 2019. "Forward-looking effective tax rates in the banking sector," Temi di discussione (Economic working papers) 1236, Bank of Italy, Economic Research and International Relations Area.
    2. Elias Steinmüller & Georg U. Thunecke & Georg Wamser, 2019. "Corporate income taxes around the world: a survey on forward-looking tax measures and two applications," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 26(2), pages 418-456, April.
    3. Bruno Casella & Baptiste Souillard, . "A new framework to assess the fiscal impact of a global minimum tax on FDI," UNCTAD Transnational Corporations Journal, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.
    4. David Leung & Markus Poschke, 2022. "Le Québec devrait-il augmenter les taxes à la consommation?," CIRANO Project Reports 2021rp-30, CIRANO.
    5. Estian Calitz & Eva Muwanga-Zake & Alexius Sithole & Wynnona Steyn, 2021. "Depreciation allowances in South Africa," Studies in Economics and Econometrics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(1), pages 1-22, 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. Jack Mintz, 2018. "Global Implications of U.S. Tax Reform," ifo Schnelldienst, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 71(07), pages 22-35, April.
    2. Keser, Claudia & Kimpel, Gerrit & Oestreicher, Andreas, 2014. "The CCCTB option an experimental study," VfS Annual Conference 2014 (Hamburg): Evidence-based Economic Policy 100490, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    3. Claudia Keser & Gerrit Kimpel & Andreas Oestreicher, 2014. "The CCCTB option – an experimental study," CIRANO Working Papers 2014s-24, CIRANO.
    4. Keser, Claudia & Kimpel, Gerrit & Oestreicher, Andreas, 2014. "The CCCTB option: An experimental study," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 199, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
    5. Thiess Buettner & Michael Overesch & Georg Wamser, 2018. "Anti profit-shifting rules and foreign direct investment," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 25(3), pages 553-580, June.
    6. 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.
    7. Keuschnigg, Christian & Loretz, Simon & Winner, Hannes, 2014. "Tax Competition and Tax Coordination in the European Union: A Survey," Economics Working Paper Series 1427, University of St. Gallen, School of Economics and Political Science.
    8. Fritzsche, Carolin & Vandrei, Lars, 2019. "The German real estate transfer tax: Evidence for single-family home transactions," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 131-143.
    9. Jack Mintz & Philip Bazel, 2020. "The 2019 Tax Competitiveness Report: Canada’s Investment and Growth Challenge," SPP Research Papers, The School of Public Policy, University of Calgary, vol. 13(1), March.
    10. Bev Dahlby & Kevin Milligan, 2017. "From theory to practice: Canadian economists’ contributions to public finance," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 50(5), pages 1324-1347, December.
    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. Petkova, Kunka & Weichenrieder, Alfons, 2017. "Price and Quantity Effects of the German Real Estate Transfer Tax," VfS Annual Conference 2017 (Vienna): Alternative Structures for Money and Banking 168305, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    13. Margaret K. McKeehan & George R. Zodrow, 2019. "Balancing Act: Weighing the Factors Affecting the Taxation of Capital Income in a Small Open Economy," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: George R Zodrow (ed.), TAXATION IN THEORY AND PRACTICE Selected Essays of George R. Zodrow, chapter 12, pages 347-396, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    14. Kayis-Kumar, Ann, 2016. "International tax planning by multinationals: Simulating a tax-minimising intercompany response to the OECD's recommendation on BEPS Action 4," MPRA Paper 72828, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Feld, Lars P. & Heckemeyer, Jost H. & Overesch, Michael, 2013. "Capital structure choice and company taxation: A meta-study," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 2850-2866.
    16. Dreßler, Daniel, 2012. "The impact of corporate taxes on investment: An explanatory empirical analysis for interested practitioners," ZEW Discussion Papers 12-040, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    17. Bräutigam, Rainer & Spengel, Christoph & Stutzenberger, Kathrin, 2017. "The development of corporate tax structures in the European Union from 1998 to 2015 - Qualitative and quantitative analysis," ZEW Discussion Papers 17-034, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    18. repec:ces:ifodic:v:12:y:2015:i:4:p:19149984 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Kayis-Kumar, Ann, 2015. "Taxing cross-border intercompany transactions: are financing activities fungible?," MPRA Paper 71615, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Fabian J. Baier, 2020. "Foreign Direct Investment and Tax: OECD Gravity Modelling in a World with International Financial Institutions," Athens Journal of Business & Economics, Athens Institute for Education and Research (ATINER), vol. 6(1), pages 45-72, October.
    21. Maarten ‘t Riet & Arjan Lejour, 2018. "Optimal tax routing: network analysis of FDI diversion," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 25(5), pages 1321-1371, October.

    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:7. 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.