Author
Listed:
- Athiphat Muthitacharoen
- Archawa Paweenawat
- Krislert Samphantharak
- Chanont Banternghansa
Abstract
While most research on profit shifting focuses on multinational corporations, this study highlights how domestic corporate groups can exploit governance gaps in tax policy. Specifically, we use administrative data from Thailand to show how SME tax incentives inadvertently encourage intra-group profit relocation, revealing critical vulnerabilities in the design of size-based tax systems. We construct a comprehensive panel dataset covering all registered Thai firms from 2004 to 2017 by linking firm-level financial statements with ownership information to identify corporate group structures. Our empirical analysis exploits a 2011 reform that introduced a revenue-based eligibility threshold for SME tax incentives, creating differential tax treatment among affiliated firms within the same corporate group. The difference‑in‑differences analysis indicates strong evidence of tax-motivated profit shifting: profitability among tax-eligible SMEs within corporate groups increased by 75.8% from their pre-policy level when compared to ineligible affiliates. Our findings further suggest that corporate groups primarily engage in transfer pricing rather than strategic debt allocation as a means of maximizing total profits. We also find that these responses are significantly stronger among smaller corporate groups, groups with weaker governance structures, and those with lower industry diversification, suggesting that internal oversight and organizational complexity constrain opportunistic behavior. These findings demonstrate that profit shifting is not exclusive to multinational firms and underscore the importance of incorporating corporate group structures and governance realities into the design of domestic tax policy.
Suggested Citation
Athiphat Muthitacharoen & Archawa Paweenawat & Krislert Samphantharak & Chanont Banternghansa, 2026.
"Gaming the Threshold: Size-Dependent Tax Policy and Domestic Profit Shifting,"
PIER Discussion Papers
248, Puey Ungphakorn Institute for Economic Research.
Handle:
RePEc:pui:dpaper:248
Download full text from publisher
More about this item
Keywords
;
;
;
;
;
JEL classification:
- H25 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue - - - Business Taxes and Subsidies
- H26 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue - - - Tax Evasion and Avoidance
- K34 - Law and Economics - - Other Substantive Areas of Law - - - Tax Law
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:pui:dpaper:248. 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.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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 person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/pierbth.html .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.