The Weighting Game: Formula Apportionment as an Instrument of Public Policy
We propose an explanation for why states choose different apportionment formulas for corporate income tax purposes. Based on a two-state equilibrium model of location choice by firms, we show that aggregate social welfare is maximized when both states use the same formula, regardless of which formula is chosen. However, at least one of the states can increase its welfare by deviating from this coordinated solution; thus, the Nash equilibrium features the states choosing different formulas. Importing states have incentives to increase the sales factor, whereas exporting states will tend to increase the input factors. An empirical test of which states have deviated from the traditionally equally-weighted three factor formula supports the predictions of the model.
Volume (Year): 53 (2000)
Issue (Month): n. 2 (June)
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Fax: (202) 737-7308
Web page: http://www.ntanet.org/Email:
More information through EDIRC
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Gordon, Roger H & Wilson, John Douglas, 1986. "An Examination of Multijurisdictional Corporate Income Taxation under Formula Apportionment," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 54(6), pages 1357-73, November.
- 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.
- Austan Goolsbee & Edward L Maydew, 1998. "Coveting Thy Neighbor's Manuafacturing: The Dilemma of State Income Apportionment," NBER Working Papers 6614, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Klassen, Kenneth J. & Shackelford, Douglas A., 1998. "State and provincial corporate tax planning: income shifting and sales apportionment factor management," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 385-406, June.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ntj:journl:v:53:y:2000:i:n._2:p:183-200. 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: (Charmaine Wright)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.