IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Lifestyle Taxes in the Presence of Profit Shifting


  • Rosella Levaggi
  • Carmen Marchiori
  • Paolo Panteghini


Non-communicable diseases (NCDs) cause about 71% of all deaths globally and a considerable increase in health care costs. To tackle this problem, several Governments have designed “sin taxes”, i.e, extra payments related to the quantity of unhealthy contents of specific goods. However, unhealthy food and soda drinks are often produced by multinational companies for which also profit shifting is a serious issue. The international dimension of these markets may have a dramatic impact on the actual implementation of sin taxes. This article contributes to the literature by analysing the effectiveness of sin taxes levied on a good produced by a multinational company. Our analysis shows that a trade off between profit shifting and lifestyle taxes may exist. In general, the First Best sin tax cannot be levied if Governments are also interested in corporate tax revenue. This is a quite interesting policy issue: countries that today benefit from profit shifting may find it harder to impose significant lifestyle taxes. We also provide some insights about the effects that the international effort to fight profit shifting may have on lifestyle taxes.

Suggested Citation

  • Rosella Levaggi & Carmen Marchiori & Paolo Panteghini, 2020. "Lifestyle Taxes in the Presence of Profit Shifting," CESifo Working Paper Series 8138, CESifo.
  • Handle: RePEc:ces:ceswps:_8138

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Martin O'Connell & Kate Smith, 2021. "Optimal sin taxation and market power," IFS Working Papers W21/30, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    2. Michael P. Devereux & Peter Birch Sørensen, 2006. "The Corporate Income Tax: international trends and options for fundamental reform," European Economy - Economic Papers 2008 - 2015 264, Directorate General Economic and Financial Affairs (DG ECFIN), European Commission.
    3. Ruud De Mooij & Li Liu & Dinar Prihardini, 2021. "An Assessment of Global Formula Apportionment," National Tax Journal, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 431-465.
    4. Hunt Allcott & Benjamin B Lockwood & Dmitry Taubinsky, 2019. "Regressive Sin Taxes, with an Application to the Optimal Soda Tax," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 134(3), pages 1557-1626.
    5. Cawley, John & Frisvold, David & Hill, Anna & Jones, David, 2020. "Oakland’s sugar-sweetened beverage tax: Impacts on prices, purchases and consumption by adults and children," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 37(C).
    6. John Cawley & David Frisvold & David Jones, "undated". "The Impact of Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Taxes on Purchases: Evidence from Four City-Level Taxes in the U.S," Mathematica Policy Research Reports c082eda4528243fba6be6c99f, Mathematica Policy Research.
    7. Peter A. Diamond, 1973. "Consumption Externalities and Imperfect Corrective Pricing," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 4(2), pages 526-538, Autumn.
    8. Jacob Goldin & Tatiana Homonoff, 2013. "Smoke Gets in Your Eyes: Cigarette Tax Salience and Regressivity," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 302-336, February.
    9. Lozachmeur, Jean-Marie & Cremer, Helmuth & Goulão, Catarina, 2019. "Soda tax incidence and design under monopoly," TSE Working Papers 19-992, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE), revised Jul 2020.
    10. Hunt Allcott & Benjamin B. Lockwood & Dmitry Taubinsky, 2019. "Should We Tax Sugar-Sweetened Beverages? An Overview of Theory and Evidence," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 33(3), pages 202-227, Summer.
    11. Franco Sassi & Annalisa Belloni & Chiara Capobianco, 2013. "The Role of Fiscal Policies in Health Promotion," OECD Health Working Papers 66, OECD Publishing.
    12. Falbe, J. & Thompson, H.R. & Becker, C.M. & Rojas, N. & McCulloch, C.E. & Madsen, K.A., 2016. "Impact of the Berkeley excise tax on sugar-sweetened beverage consumption," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 106(10), pages 1865-1871.
    13. James R. Hines & Eric M. Rice, 1994. "Fiscal Paradise: Foreign Tax Havens and American Business," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 109(1), pages 149-182.
    14. Griffith, Rachel & O’Connell, Martin & Smith, Kate, 2019. "Tax design in the alcohol market," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 172(C), pages 20-35.
    15. Cornelsen, Laura & Smith, Richard D., 2018. "Viewpoint: Soda taxes – Four questions economists need to address," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 138-142.
    16. Pomeranz, J.L. & Wilde, P. & Huang, Y. & Micha, R. & Mozaffarian, D., 2018. "Legal and Administrative Feasibility of a Federal Junk Food and Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Tax to Improve Diet," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 108(2), pages 203-209.
    17. Hunt Allcott & Christopher Knittel & Dmitry Taubinsky, 2015. "Tagging and Targeting of Energy Efficiency Subsidies," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(5), pages 187-191, May.
    18. Tommaso Faccio & Valpy Fitzgerald, . "Sharing the corporate tax base: equitable taxing of multinationals and the choice of formulary apportionment," UNCTAD Transnational Corporations Journal, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.
    19. Jonathan Gruber & Botond Köszegi, 2001. "Is Addiction "Rational"? Theory and Evidence," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 116(4), pages 1261-1303.
    20. Thomas Eichner & Marco Runkel, 2008. "Why the European Union Should Adopt Formula Apportionment with a Sales Factor," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 110(3), pages 567-589, September.
    21. Rachel Griffith & Martin O’Connell & Kate Smith, 2018. "Corrective Taxation and Internalities from Food Consumption," CESifo Economic Studies, CESifo, vol. 64(1), pages 1-14.
    22. Ryota Nakamura & Andrew J Mirelman & Cristóbal Cuadrado & Nicolas Silva-Illanes & Jocelyn Dunstan & Marc Suhrcke, 2018. "Evaluating the 2014 sugar-sweetened beverage tax in Chile: An observational study in urban areas," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-22, July.
    23. Jou, Judy & Techakehakij, Win, 2012. "International application of sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) taxation in obesity reduction: Factors that may influence policy effectiveness in country-specific contexts," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(1), pages 83-90.
    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. Haeck, Catherine & Lawson, Nicholas & Poirier, Krystel, 2022. "Estimating consumer preferences for different beverages using the BLP approach," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 46(C).
    2. Catherine Haeck & Nicholas Lawson & Krystel Poirier, 2022. "Estimating consumer preferences for different beverages using the BLP approach," Working Papers 22-01, Research Group on Human Capital, University of Quebec in Montreal's School of Management.
    3. Gonçalves, Judite & Pereira dos Santos, João, 2020. "Brown sugar, how come you taste so good? The impact of a soda tax on prices and consumption," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 264(C).
    4. Maria Alessandra Antonelli & Valeria De Bonis & Angelo Castaldo & Alessandrao Gandolfo, 2022. "Sin goods taxation: an encompassing model," Public Finance Research Papers 52, Istituto di Economia e Finanza, DSGE, Sapienza University of Rome.
    5. Goncalves, Judite & Merenda, Roxanne & dos Santos, João Pereira, 2022. "Not so sweet: The impact of the Portuguese soda tax on producers," Ruhr Economic Papers 938, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
    6. Daniel John Zizzo & Melanie Parravano & Ryota Nakamura & Suzanna Forwood & Marc Suhrcke, 2021. "The impact of taxation and signposting on diet: an online field study with breakfast cereals and soft drinks," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(4), pages 1294-1324, December.
    7. Goncalves, Judite & Merenda, Roxanne & Pereira dos Santos, João, 2023. "Not So Sweet: Impacts of a Soda Tax on Producers," IZA Discussion Papers 15968, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    8. Le Bodo, Yann & Etilé, Fabrice & Julia, Chantal & Friant-Perrot, Marine & Breton, Eric & Lecocq, Sébastien & Boizot-Szantai, Christine & Bergeran, Céline & Jabot, Françoise, 2022. "Public health lessons from the French 2012 soda tax and insights on the modifications enacted in 2018," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(7), pages 585-591.
    9. Hagenaars, Luc Louis & Jeurissen, Patrick Paulus Theodoor & Klazinga, Niek Sieds, 2017. "The taxation of unhealthy energy-dense foods (EDFs) and sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs): An overview of patterns observed in the policy content and policy context of 13 case studies," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(8), pages 887-894.
    10. Marco Francesconi & Jonathan James, 2022. "Alcohol Price Floors and Externalities: The Case of Fatal Road Crashes," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 41(4), pages 1118-1156, September.
    11. James Flynn, 2023. "Do sugar‐sweetened beverage taxes improve public health for high school aged adolescents?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(1), pages 47-64, January.
    12. Sunjin Ahn & Jayson L. Lusk, 2021. "Non‐Pecuniary Effects of Sugar‐Sweetened Beverage Policies," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 103(1), pages 53-69, January.
    13. Griffith, Rachel & O'Connell, Martin & Smith, Kate, 2020. "Price floors and externality correction," CEPR Discussion Papers 15476, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    14. Giovanni Immordino & Anna Maria C. Menichini & Maria Grazia Romano, 2022. "Education, taxation and the perceived effects of sin good consumption," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 29(4), pages 985-1013, August.
    15. Selina Gangl, 2021. "Do soda taxes affect the consumption and health of school-aged children? Evidence from France and Hungary," Papers 2111.14521,
    16. Pourya Valizadeh & Shu Wen Ng, 2021. "Would A National Sugar‐Sweetened Beverage Tax in the United States Be Well Targeted?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 103(3), pages 961-986, May.
    17. John Cawley & Michael Daly & Rebecca Thornton, 2022. "The effect of beverage taxes on youth consumption and body mass index: Evidence from Mauritius," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(6), pages 1033-1045, June.
    18. Di Cosmo, Valeria & Tiezzi, Silvia, 2023. "Let them Eat Cake? The Net Consumer Welfare Impact of Sin Taxes," MPRA Paper 116214, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Zhen, Chen & Chen, Yu & Lin, Biing-Hwan & Karns, Shawn & Mancino, Lisa & Ver Ploeg, Michele, 2021. "Do Obese and Nonobese Consumers Respond Differently to Price Changes? Implications of Preference Heterogeneity for Using Food Taxes and Subsidies to Reduce Obesity," MPRA Paper 112697, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Brandon J. Restrepo & Jonathan H. Cantor, 2020. "The effects of soda taxes on adolescent sugar intake and blood sugar," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(11), pages 1422-1434, November.

    More about this item


    optimal lifestyle tax; multinational industry; profit shifting; health care costs; tax competition;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • H21 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue - - - Efficiency; Optimal Taxation
    • H32 - Public Economics - - Fiscal Policies and Behavior of Economic Agents - - - Firm
    • D11 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Theory
    • D62 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Externalities
    • I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    Access and download statistics


    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:ces:ceswps:_8138. 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: . General contact details of provider: .

    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: Klaus Wohlrabe (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.