IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ifs/fistud/v29y2008i1p1-33.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Effects of EU Formula Apportionment on Corporate Tax Revenues

Author

Listed:
  • Michael P. Devereux
  • Simon Loretz

Abstract

The European Commission proposes to replace the current system of taxing corporate income using separate accounting by a two-step 'consolidation and apportionment' procedure. This paper uses a large set of unconsolidated firm-level data to assess the likely impact on corporate tax revenues in each member state. Taking pre-tax profit as given, overall tax revenues would be likely to drop by 2.5 per cent if companies could choose whether to participate. By contrast, if they were forced to participate, total tax revenues would be likely to increase by more than 2 per cent, leaving some European countries - most notably, Spain, Sweden and the UK - better off. We investigate how sensitive these results are to the apportionment factors used. Copyright (c) 2008 The Authors.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael P. Devereux & Simon Loretz, 2008. "The Effects of EU Formula Apportionment on Corporate Tax Revenues," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 29(1), pages 1-33, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:ifs:fistud:v:29:y:2008:i:1:p:1-33
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1475-5890.2008.00067.x
    File Function: link to full text
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rüdiger Pethig & Andreas Wagener, 2007. "Profit tax competition and formula apportionment," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 14(6), pages 631-655, December.
    2. Anand, Bharat N. & Sansing, Richard, 2000. "The Weighting Game: Formula Apportionment as an Instrument of Public Policy," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association, vol. 53(n. 2), pages 183-200, June.
    3. Goolsbee, Austan & Maydew, Edward L., 2000. "Coveting thy neighbor's manufacturing: the dilemma of state income apportionment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 125-143, January.
    4. Michael Devereux, 2004. "Debating Proposed Reforms of the Taxation of Corporate Income in the European Union," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 11(1), pages 71-89, January.
    5. Douglas Shackelford & Joel Slemrod, 1998. "The Revenue Consequences of Using Formula Apportionment to Calculate U.S. and Foreign-Source Income: A Firm-Level Analysis," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 5(1), pages 41-59, February.
    6. Albert van der Horst & Leon Bettendorf & Hugo Rojas-Romagosa, 2007. "Will corporate tax consolidation improve efficiency in the EU?," CPB Document 141, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    7. Gordon, Roger H & Wilson, John Douglas, 1986. "An Examination of Multijurisdictional Corporate Income Taxation under Formula Apportionment," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 54(6), pages 1357-1373, November.
    8. Clemens Fuest & Thomas Hemmelgarn & Fred Ramb, 2007. "How would the introduction of an EU-wide formula apportionment affect the distribution and size of the corporate tax base? An analysis based on German multinationals," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 14(5), pages 605-626, October.
    9. Joann Weiner, 2002. "Formula Apportionment in the European Union: A Dream Come True or the EU’s Worst Nightmare?," CESifo Working Paper Series 667, CESifo Group Munich.
    10. Mintz, Jack & Weiner, Joann Martens, 2003. "Exploring Formula Allocation for the European Union," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 10(6), pages 695-711, November.
    11. Marcel Gérard & Joann Weiner, 2003. "Cross-Border Loss Offset and Formulary Apportionment: How do they affect multijurisdictional firm investment spending and interjurisdictional tax competition ?," CESifo Working Paper Series 1004, CESifo Group Munich.
    12. Nicodeme, Gaetan, 2006. "Corporate Tax Competition and Coordination in the European Union: What do we know? Where do we stand?," MPRA Paper 107, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Musgrave, Peggy B, 1972. "International Tax Base Division and the Multinational Corporation," Public Finance = Finances publiques, , vol. 27(4), pages 394-413.
    14. Riedel, Nadine & Runkel, Marco, 2007. "Company tax reform with a water's edge," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(7-8), pages 1533-1554, August.
    15. Wolfgang Eggert & Guttorm Schjelderup, 2003. "Symmetric Tax Competition under Formula Apportionment," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 5(2), pages 439-446, April.
    16. Anand, Bharat N. & Sansing, Richard, 2000. "The Weighting Game: Formula Apportionment as an Instrument of Public Policy," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association, vol. 53(2), pages 183-200, June.
    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. Juan Carlos Suárez Serrato & Owen Zidar, 2016. "Who Benefits from State Corporate Tax Cuts? A Local Labor Markets Approach with Heterogeneous Firms," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(9), pages 2582-2624, September.
    2. Evers, Maria Theresia & Finke, Katharina & Köstler, Melanie & Meier, Ina & Scheffler, Wolfram & Spengel, Christoph, 2014. "Gemeinsame Körperschaftsteuer-Bemessungsgrundlage in der EU: Konkretisierung der Gewinnermittlungsprinzipien und Weiterentwicklungen," ZEW Discussion Papers 14-112, ZEW - Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung / Center for European Economic Research.
    3. Albert van der Horst & Leon Bettendorf & Hugo Rojas-Romagosa, 2007. "Will corporate tax consolidation improve efficiency in the EU?," CPB Document 141, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    4. Martini, Jan-Thomas & Niemann, Rainer & Simons, Dirk, 2014. "Management incentives under formula apportionment: Tax-induced distortions of effort and compensation in a principal-agent setting," arqus Discussion Papers in Quantitative Tax Research 168, arqus - Arbeitskreis Quantitative Steuerlehre.
    5. Hines Jr., James R., 2010. "Income misattribution under formula apportionment," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 54(1), pages 108-120, January.
    6. Daniela PÎRVU, 2013. "Twhy Ccctb Disadvantages Less Developed Countries Of The European Union," SEA - Practical Application of Science, Fundația Română pentru Inteligența Afacerii, Editorial Department, issue 1, pages 317-332, June.
    7. Charles McLure Jr., 2008. "Harmonizing Corporate Income Taxes in the US and the EU: Legislative, Judicial, Soft Law and Cooperative Approaches," CESifo Forum, Ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 9(2), pages 46-52, July.
    8. Michael P Devereux & Simon Loretz, 2008. "Increased efficiency through consolidation and formula apportionment in the European Union?," Working Papers 0812, Oxford University Centre for Business Taxation.
    9. repec:cmj:journl:y:2013:i:28:pirvud is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Melle Marco C., 2014. "Eine europäische Bemessungsgrundlage für die Körperschaftsteuer? Konzeption und ordnungsökonomische Analyse / Conceptual design and constitutional economics analysis of a European tax base for corpora," ORDO. Jahrbuch für die Ordnung von Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, De Gruyter, vol. 65(1), pages 133-156, January.
    11. Kazuki Onji, 2013. "Who participates in corporate income tax consolidation? Evidence from Japan," AJRC Working Papers 1303, Australia-Japan Research Centre, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
    12. Ruud de Mooij & Michael P. Devereux, 2008. "Alternative Systems of Business Tax in Europe: An applied analysis of ACE and CBIT Reforms," Taxation Studies 0023, Directorate General Taxation and Customs Union, European Commission.
    13. repec:prg:jnlefa:v:2017:y:2017:i:3:id:185:p:17-32 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Buettner, Thiess & Riedel, Nadine & Runkel, Marco, 2011. "Strategic Consolidation Under Formula Apportionment," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association, vol. 64(2), pages 225-254, June.
    15. Matthias Wrede, 2014. "Asymmetric tax competition with formula apportionment," Letters in Spatial and Resource Sciences, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 47-60, March.
    16. Daniela Pirvu & Logica Banica & Alina Hagiu, 2011. "Implications of the introduction of the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base for tax revenues in Romania," Financial Theory and Practice, Institute of Public Finance, vol. 35(2), pages 197-215.
    17. Ortmann, Regina & Sureth, Caren, 2014. "Can the CCCTB alleviate tax discrimination against loss-making European multinational groups?," arqus Discussion Papers in Quantitative Tax Research 165, arqus - Arbeitskreis Quantitative Steuerlehre.
    18. Eichfelder, Sebastian & Hechtner, Frank & Hundsdoerfer, Jochen, 2015. "Formula apportionment: Factor allocation and tax avoidance," arqus Discussion Papers in Quantitative Tax Research 199, arqus - Arbeitskreis Quantitative Steuerlehre.
    19. Eichfelder, Sebastian & Hechtner, Frank & Hundsdoerfer, Jochen, 2015. "Formula apportionment: Factor allocation and tax avoidance," Discussion Papers 2015/30, Free University Berlin, School of Business & Economics.
    20. Clemens Fuest, 2008. "The European Commission's proposal for a common consolidated corporate tax base," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 24(4), pages 720-739, winter.
    21. Becker, Johannes & Runkel, Marco, 2013. "Corporate tax regime and international allocation of ownership," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 8-15.
    22. Jan Thomas Martini & Rainer Niemann & Dirk Simons, 2014. "Management Incentives under Formula Apportionment - Tax-Induced Distortions of Effort and Compensation in a Principal-Agent Setting -," CESifo Working Paper Series 4908, CESifo Group Munich.
    23. Jack M Mintz, 2007. "Europe Slowly Lurches to a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base: Issues at Stake," Working Papers 0714, Oxford University Centre for Business Taxation.
    24. Anna Leszczyłowska, 2015. "Deductibility of Provisions under the CCCTB Proposal and Its Effects on Companies: The Case of Poland," European Financial and Accounting Journal, University of Economics, Prague, vol. 2015(4), pages 19-32.
    25. Regina Ortmann & Caren Sureth-Sloane, 2016. "Can the CCCTB alleviate tax discrimination against loss-making European multinational groups?," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 86(5), pages 441-475, July.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • H25 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue - - - Business Taxes and Subsidies
    • H87 - Public Economics - - Miscellaneous Issues - - - International Fiscal Issues; International Public Goods

    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:ifs:fistud:v:29:y:2008:i:1:p:1-33. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Emma Hyman). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/ifsssuk.html .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.