IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

Tax Shelter Finance: How Efficient Is It?

Listed author(s):
  • Glenn Jenkins


    (Queen's University, Kingston, On, Canada)

Of the various types of financing instruments generally used because of the particular tax treatment they receive two of the more popular are limited partnerships and flow-through shares. This article attempts to evaluate their efficiency- that is, to determine the present value of tax revenues given up by the government per additional present –value dollar received by the developer of the real estate or mining project as a result of the tax shelter financing instrument. An analytical framework is developed for each type of financing instrument. The outcomes using tax shelter financing are compared with the situation using normal equity financing. The framework is then used to examine nine actual cases of limited partnerships dealing with real estate investments in Canada and seven actual flow-through share funds. The developer’s expectations of the future value of the property are a key variable determining the efficiency of a limited partnership. Even if the developer expects the real value of the property to fall to about half its current cost, the Canadian government will lose about $2.50 in tax revenues for every $1.00 gained by the developer. In the case of flow-through shares the average cost to the government in lost revenues is between $1.83 and $2.68 per $1.00 of net benefit received by the resource company. These results indicate that such tax shelter finance instruments are not efficient vehicles for allowing companies to utilize tax losses. Instead of continuing such tax shelter, the authorities should consider designing more efficient after-tax financing instruments, introducing a greater degree of direct refundability of losses, or eliminating the tax incentives that create the tax losses.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL:
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by JDI Executive Programs in its series Development Discussion Papers with number 1990-02.

in new window

Length: 18 pages
Date of creation: Mar 1990
Handle: RePEc:qed:dpaper:83
Contact details of provider: Postal:
Kingston, Ontario, K7L 3N6

Phone: (613) 533-2250
Fax: (613) 533-6668
Web page:

More information through EDIRC

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:qed:dpaper:83. 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: (Bahman Kashi)

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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.