IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/clh/resear/v15y2022i7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Proposal for a "Big Bang" Corporate Tax Reform

Author

Listed:
  • Jack Mintz

    (University of Calgary)

Abstract

To put it in simple terms, Canada’s corporate income tax is a mess. It discourages capital investment most heavily in many service sectors, is highly distortionary and overwhelmingly complex, impeding economic growth. With current inflation rates, these distortions are even larger. With so many tax preferences, the combined federal-provincial corporate income tax with a headline tax rate of 26 percent raises revenue little more than 19 percent of corporate profits. To build up productive capacity in a post-COVID world, a big-bang approach is needed to put Canada into a better position to attract investment and reduce distortions in the business tax system. There are some major revenue- neutral reforms that could improve neutrality and simplify the overly complex corporate tax. Here, we particularly explore a corporate tax on distributed profits without a reduction in corporate tax revenues. A distributed profits approach means profits from investment activities would only be taxed when they are distributed to investors. This allows profits reinvested in capital to be exempt from taxation. A good example of this design is Estonia’s corporate profit tax on distributions, introduced in 2000. This reform resulted in the elimination of the corporate tax on reinvested profits — these profits are only taxed when the profits are distributed. In 1999, prior to the reform, corporate taxes, as a share of taxes, made up 0.9 per cent of GDP. In 2019, they made up 1.7 per cent of GDP. Estonia has also had remarkable investment performance since with fixed capital formation equal to 27 percent of GDP compared to 23 percent in Canada since 2015. Taxes generally distort economic activity — production of the taxed good or service is reduced when effective tax rates are increased. The value of the lost production is greater than the value of the tax added to government revenue. This results in several distortions: intertemporal, inter-industry, inter-asset, international, risk-taking, financing and business organization. The corporate tax on distributed profits, while still having some disadvantages, does have several advantages in reducing these distortions. The proposal considered here would tax deemed distributions of profits including share buybacks and certain deemed payments to prevent erosion of the tax base. Passive income and capital gains earned by the corporation would remain taxed similar to existing rules. The revenue-neutral corporate tax on distributed profits would be an estimated 16 per cent at the federal level and 11.2 per cent on a provincial average tax rate, when brought forward to the 2022/23 fiscal year results in the same corporate tax revenues collected as in 2022 ($37 billion). While it seems that a distributed tax that exempts reinvested profits would lower the corporate taxable income, it actually doesn’t lower it much. Due to tax incentives, taxable corporate income ($370 billion for 2022/23) is significantly below corporate operating profits ($515 billion). The distributed tax removes the need for tax incentives, no longer providing those tax savings. This proposed model is not perfect, but it is better than the current system, which is distortionary, with high economic, compliance and administrative costs. A distributed profits design would make the corporate income tax fairer and simpler, reducing administrative and compliance costs, while not significantly eroding corporate tax revenues.Taxes generally distort economic activity — production of the taxed good or service is reduced when effective tax rates are increased. The value of the lost production is greater than the value of the tax added to government revenue. This results in several distortions: intertemporal, inter-industry, inter-asset, international, risk-taking, financing and business organization. The corporate tax on distributed profits, while still having some disadvantages, does have several advantages in reducing these distortions. The proposal considered here would tax deemed distributions of profits including share buybacks and certain deemed payments to prevent erosion of the tax base. Passive income and capital gains earned by the corporation would remain taxed similar to existing rules. The revenue-neutral corporate tax on distributed profits would be an estimated 16 per cent at the federal level and 11.2 per cent on a provincial average tax rate, when brought forward to the 2022/23 fiscal year results in the same corporate tax revenues collected as in 2022 ($37 billion). While it seems that a distributed tax that exempts reinvested profits would lower the corporate taxable income, it actually doesn’t lower it much. Due to tax incentives, taxable corporate income ($370 billion for 2022/23) is significantly below corporate operating profits ($515 billion). The distributed tax removes the need for tax incentives, no longer providing those tax savings. This proposed model is not perfect, but it is better than the current system, which is distortionary, with high economic, compliance and administrative costs. A distributed profits design would make the corporate income tax fairer and simpler, reducing administrative and compliance costs, while not significantly eroding corporate tax revenues.

Suggested Citation

  • Jack Mintz, 2022. "A Proposal for a "Big Bang" Corporate Tax Reform," SPP Research Papers, The School of Public Policy, University of Calgary, vol. 15(7), February.
  • Handle: RePEc:clh:resear:v:15:y:2022:i:7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.policyschool.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/FMK3_Big-Bang-Corporate-Tax_Mintz.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jack M. Mintz, 1988. "An Empirical Estimate of Corporate Tax Refundability and Effective Tax Rates," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 103(1), pages 225-231.
    2. Da-Rocha, José-María & Restuccia, Diego & Tavares, Marina M., 2023. "Policy distortions and aggregate productivity with endogenous establishment-level productivity," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    3. (IFS), Institute for Fiscal Studies & Mirrlees, James (ed.), 2011. "Tax By Design: The Mirrlees Review," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199553747.
    4. Scott R. Baker & Stephen Teng Sun & Constantine Yannelis, 2020. "Corporate Taxes and Retail Prices," NBER Working Papers 27058, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Bev Dahlby & Ergete Ferede, 2018. "The Marginal Cost of Public Funds and the Laffer Curve: Evidence from the Canadian Provinces," FinanzArchiv: Public Finance Analysis, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 74(2), pages 173-199, June.
    6. Duanjie Chen & Jack Mintz, 2012. "Capturing Economic Rents from Resources through Royalties and Taxes," SPP Research Papers, The School of Public Policy, University of Calgary, vol. 5(30), October.
    7. Jaan Masso & Jaanika Merikull & Priit Vahter, 2011. "Gross profit taxation versus distributed profit taxation and firm perfomance : effects of Estonia,s corporate income tax reform," Bank of Estonia Working Papers wp2011-02, Bank of Estonia, revised 27 Apr 2011.
    8. Kenneth McKenzie & Michael Smart, 2019. "Tax Policy Next to the Elephant: Business Tax Reform in the Wake of the US Tax Cuts and Jobs Act," C.D. Howe Institute Commentary, C.D. Howe Institute, issue 537, March.
    9. Austan Goolsbee, 1998. "Investment Tax Incentives, Prices, and the Supply of Capital Goods," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 113(1), pages 121-148.
    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. Philip Bazel & Jack Mintz, 2021. "2020 Tax Competitiveness Report: Canada’S Investment Challenge," SPP Research Papers, The School of Public Policy, University of Calgary, vol. 14(21), September.
    2. Chirinko, Robert S., 2002. "Corporate Taxation, Capital Formation,and the Substitution Elasticity Between Labor and Capital," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 55(2), pages 339-355, June.
    3. Duanjie Chen & Guillermo Perry, 2010. "Mining Taxation in Colombia," Documentos CEDE 12562, Universidad de los Andes, Facultad de Economía, CEDE.
    4. Hines, James R. & Park, Jongsang, 2019. "Investment ramifications of distortionary tax subsidies," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 172(C), pages 36-51.
    5. Tabakovic, Haris & Wollmann, Thomas G., 2019. "The impact of money on science: Evidence from unexpected NCAA football outcomes," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    6. Dichev, Ilia D. & Qian, Jingyi, 2022. "The benefits of transaction-level data: The case of NielsenIQ scanner data," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(1).
    7. Bermperoglou, Dimitrios & Deli, Yota & Kalyvitis, Sarantis, 2019. "Investment tax incentives and their big time-to-build fiscal multiplier," Kiel Working Papers 2143, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    8. Puspa Kandel Ph.D., 2001. "Corporate Tax in Nepal: Effective Burden (1975-2000)," NRB Economic Review, Nepal Rastra Bank, Research Department, vol. 13, pages 66-81, April.
    9. Joel M. David & Venky Venkateswaran, 2019. "The Sources of Capital Misallocation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(7), pages 2531-2567, July.
    10. Glen Loutzenhiser & Elizabeth Mann, 2021. "Liquidity issues: solutions for the asset rich, cash poor," Fiscal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(3-4), pages 651-675, September.
    11. Robert S. Chirinko & Daniel J. Wilson, 2010. "State business taxes and investment: state-by-state simulations," Economic Review, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, pages 13-28.
    12. European Commission, 2013. "Tax reforms in EU Member States - Tax policy challenges for economic growth and fiscal sustainability – 2013 Report," Taxation Papers 38, Directorate General Taxation and Customs Union, European Commission.
    13. repec:esr:wpaper:bp2016/1 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. repec:zbw:bofitp:2020_023 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Langenmayr, Dominika & Haufler, Andreas & Bauer, Christian J., 2015. "Should tax policy favor high- or low-productivity firms?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 18-34.
    16. Pierce O’Reilly, 2018. "Tax policies for inclusive growth in a changing world," OECD Taxation Working Papers 40, OECD Publishing.
    17. Bento, Pedro & Restuccia, Diego, 2021. "On average establishment size across sectors and countries," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 220-242.
    18. Robin Boadway & Pierre Pestieau, 2018. "The Dubious Case for Annual Wealth Taxation," ifo DICE Report, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 16(02), pages 03-07, August.
    19. José Mª Durán-Cabré & Alejandro Esteller-Moré, 2014. "Tax professionals' view of the Spanish tax system: efficiency, equity and tax planning," Working Papers 2014/5, Institut d'Economia de Barcelona (IEB).
    20. Fischer, Leonie & Heckemeyer, Jost H. & Spengel, Christoph & Steinbrenner, Daniela, 2021. "Tax policies in a transition to a knowledge-based economy: The effective tax burden of companies and highly skilled labour," ZEW Discussion Papers 21-096, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    21. Kathleen Andries & Martine Cools & Steve Van Uytbergen, 2017. "To Shift or Not To Shift? Intertemporal Income Shifting as a Response to the Risk Capital Allowance Introduction in Belgium," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(3), pages 531-559, July.
    22. Goolsbee, Austan, 2004. "Taxes and the quality of capital," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(3-4), pages 519-543, March.

    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:15:y:2022: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.