IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ntj/journl/v56y2003i2p355-71.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does Disconformity in State Corporate Income Tax Systems Affect Compliance Cost Burdens?

Author

Listed:
  • Gupta, Sanjay
  • Mills, Lillian F.

Abstract

Prior multistate tax research on differences in state tax rules, while investigating the effects on revenue, investment, and tax burden, is silent regarding the effect on compliance costs. We investigate factors that explain state income tax compliance costs for large firms. We find that state compliance costs increase in the number of filing states and entities (or in the number of state tax returns), firm size, and variables proxying for state tax complexity. Our evidence that multistate disconformity increases compliance cost burdens informs the debate about the costs of tax competition.

Suggested Citation

  • Gupta, Sanjay & Mills, Lillian F., 2003. "Does Disconformity in State Corporate Income Tax Systems Affect Compliance Cost Burdens?," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 56(2), pages 355-371, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:ntj:journl:v:56:y:2003:i:2:p:355-71
    DOI: 10.17310/ntj.2003.2.04
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.17310/ntj.2003.2.04
    Download Restriction: Access is restricted to subscribers and members of the National Tax Association.
    File URL: https://doi.org/10.17310/ntj.2003.2.04
    Download Restriction: Access is restricted to subscribers and members of the National Tax Association.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.17310/ntj.2003.2.04?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Anand, Bharat N. & Sansing, Richard, 2000. "The Weighting Game: Formula Apportionment as an Instrument of Public Policy," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, 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. Sebastian Eichfelder, 2011. "Steuerkomplexität als Markteintrittsbarriere?: Entscheidungswirkungen steuerlicher Planungs-und Vollzugskosten," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 63(8), pages 810-831, December.
    2. Sebastian Eichfelder & François Vaillancourt, 2014. "Tax Compliance Costs: A Review of Cost Burdens and Cost Structures," Hacienda Pública Española / Review of Public Economics, IEF, vol. 210(3), pages 111-148, September.
    3. Joann Martens Weiner, 2005. "Formulary Apportionment and Group Taxation in the European Union: Insights from the United States and Canada," Taxation Papers 8, Directorate General Taxation and Customs Union, European Commission, revised Mar 2005.
    4. Rick Weber, 2015. "The Effect of Tax Code Complexity on Entrepreneurship," Journal of Private Enterprise, The Association of Private Enterprise Education, vol. 30(Summer 20), pages 83-102.

    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. repec:rri:wpaper:200503 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Santiago Pinto, 2005. "Formula Apportionment, Tax Competition, and the Provision of Local Goods," Working Papers Working Paper 2005-03, Regional Research Institute, West Virginia University.
    3. Anja De Waegenaere & Richard C. Sansing & Jacco L. Wielhouwer, 2006. "Who Benefits from Inconsistent Multinational Tax Transfer†Pricing Rules?," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(1), pages 103-131, March.
    4. Kelly D. Edmiston, 2004. "Nexus, throwbacks, and the weighting game," Community Affairs Research Working Paper 2005-02, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.
    5. Fatih Guvenen & Raymond J. Mataloni Jr. & Dylan G. Rassier & Kim J. Ruhl, 2022. "Offshore Profit Shifting and Aggregate Measurement: Balance of Payments, Foreign Investment, Productivity, and the Labor Share," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 112(6), pages 1848-1884, June.
    6. Francis Bloch & Gabrielle Demange, 2021. "Profit-splitting rules and the taxation of multinational digital platforms," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 28(4), pages 855-889, August.
    7. Hines Jr., James R., 2010. "Income misattribution under formula apportionment," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 54(1), pages 108-120, January.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Dietrich, Maik, 2009. "Entscheidungswirkungen einer europaweit harmonisierten Konzernbesteuerung [Impacts of European Group Taxation]," MPRA Paper 59870, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. MIYOSHI Yoshiyuki, 2017. "Does Sales Factor Apportionment Benefit the Welfare of State?," Discussion papers 17124, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    12. Raymond Mataloni & Kim Ruhl & Dylan Rassier & Fatih Guvenen, 2016. "Offshore Profit Shifting and Domestic Productivity Measurement," 2016 Meeting Papers 1382, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    13. Kind, Hans Jarle & Midelfart, Karen Helene & Schjelderup, Guttorm, 2005. "Corporate tax systems, multinational enterprises, and economic integration," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 507-521, March.
    14. repec:prg:jnlpep:v:preprint:id:660:p:1-22 is not listed on IDEAS
    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. Buettner, Thiess & Riedel, Nadine & Runkel, Marco, 2011. "Strategic Consolidation Under Formula Apportionment," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 64(2), pages 225-254, June.
    17. Joann Martens Weiner, 2005. "Formulary Apportionment and Group Taxation in the European Union: Insights from the United States and Canada," Taxation Papers 8, Directorate General Taxation and Customs Union, European Commission, revised Mar 2005.
    18. Doina Radulescu & Doina Maria Radulescu, 2002. "Taxing corporations in the European Single Market - the reform proposals of the European Commission," ifo Schnelldienst, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 55(02), pages 12-18, January.
    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. Alison Felix & James R. Hines, 2009. "Corporate taxes and union wages in the United States," Regional Research Working Paper RRWP 09-02, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.
    21. Martin Kolmar & Andreas Wagener, 2007. "Tax Competition with Formula Apportionment: The Interaction between Tax Base and Sharing Mechanism," CESifo Working Paper Series 2097, CESifo.
    22. Mardan, Mohammed & Stimmelmayr, Michael, 2018. "Tax revenue losses through cross-border loss offset: An insurmountable hurdle for formula apportionment?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 188-210.

    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:ntj:journl:v:56:y:2003:i:2:p:355-71. 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: The University of Chicago Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.ntanet.org/ .

    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.