IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/tax/taxpap/0008.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Formulary Apportionment and Group Taxation in the European Union: Insights from the United States and Canada

Author

Listed:
  • Joann Martens Weiner

    () (George Washington University)

Abstract

In 2001, the European Commission endorsed a future company tax strategy that would allow EU companies the option of calculating their EU profits on a common consolidated tax base and allow Member States to tax their share of that base at national rates. Implementing this strategy requires developing a formula to distribute the common tax base across the Member States. Although EU Member States currently do not use formulary methods to distribute a common consolidate tax base across national boundaries, Canada and the United States have extensive experience using formulary methods to distribute income across sub-national boundaries. Thus, the European Union can turn to North America to gain valuable insights into the design of a formulary apportionment system with common base taxation. This paper evaluates key issues that may arise when implementing common consolidated base taxation with formulary apportionment in the EU. These issues include the formula design, the definition of the company group and the definition and scope of the tax base. The paper also discusses potential economic consequences that may arise and suggests a potential apportionment system for the European Union.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:tax:taxpap:0008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/sites/taxation/files/resources/documents/taxation/gen_info/economic_analysis/tax_papers/2004_2073_en_web_final_version.pdf
    File Function: final version, 2005
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Peter Birch Sørensen, 2003. "Company Tax Reform in the European Union," EPRU Working Paper Series 03-08, Economic Policy Research Unit (EPRU), University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics.
    2. Mintz, Jack & Weiner, Joann Martens, 2003. "Exploring Formula Allocation for the European Union," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 10(6), pages 695-711, November.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Marcel Gérard & Joann Weiner, 2003. "Cross-Border Loss Offset and Formulary Apportionment: How do they affect multijurisdictional firm investment spending and interjurisdictional tax competition ?," CESifo Working Paper Series 1004, CESifo Group Munich.
    6. Søren Bo Nielsen & Pascalis Raimondos-Møller & Guttorm Schjelderup, "undated". "Tax Spillovers under Separate Accounting and Formula Apportionment," EPRU Working Paper Series 01-07, Economic Policy Research Unit (EPRU), University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics.
    7. Daly, Michael & Weiner, Joann M., 1993. "Corporate Tax Harmonization and Competition in Federal Countries: Some Lessons for the European Community?," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 46(4), pages 441-461, December.
    8. 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.
    9. Charles E. McLure Jr., 1981. "The Elusive Incidence of the Corporate Income Tax: The State Case," Public Finance Review, , vol. 9(4), pages 395-413, October.
    10. Daly, Michael & Weiner, Joann M., 1993. "Corporate Tax Harmonization and Competition in Federal Countries: Some Lessons for the European Community?," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association, vol. 46(4), pages 441-61, December.
    11. 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.
    12. Charles McLure Jr. & Walter Hellerstein, 2002. "Does sales-only apportionment of corporate income violate international trade rules?," CESifo Forum, Ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 3(4), pages 23-30, March.
    13. McLure, Charles E. Jr., 2000. "Implementing State Corporate Income Taxes in the Digital Age," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association, vol. 53(n.4), pages 1287-1305, December.
    14. 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.
    15. McLure, Charles E. Jr., 2000. "Implementing State Corporate Income Taxes in the Digital Age," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 53(4), pages 1287-1305, December.
    16. Gordon, Roger H & Wilson, John Douglas, 1986. "An Examination of Multijurisdictional Corporate Income Taxation under Formula Apportionment," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 54(6), pages 1357-1373, November.
    17. Fox, William F. & Luna, LeAnn, 2002. "State Corporate Tax Revenue Trends: Causes and Possible Solutions," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 55(3), pages 491-508, September.
    18. Peter Sørensen, 2004. "Company Tax Reform in the European Union," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 11(1), pages 91-115, January.
    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. Ortmann, Regina, 2015. "Uncertainty in weighting formulary apportionment factors and its impact on after-tax income of multinational groups," arqus Discussion Papers in Quantitative Tax Research 184, arqus - Arbeitskreis Quantitative Steuerlehre.
    2. Ortmann, Regina & Sureth, Caren, 2014. "Can the CCCTB alleviate tax discrimination against loss-making European multinational groups?," arqus Discussion Papers in Quantitative Tax Research 165, arqus - Arbeitskreis Quantitative Steuerlehre.
    3. Spengel, Christoph & Heckemeyer, Jost Henrich & Bräutigam, Rainer & Nicolay, Katharina & Klar, Oliver & Stutzenberger, Kathrin, 2016. "The effects of tax reforms to address the debt-equity bias on the cost of capital and on effective tax rates," ZEW Expertises, ZEW - Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung / Center for European Economic Research, volume 65, number 148156.
    4. 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.
    5. Clemens Fuest & Thomas Hemmegarn & Fred Ramb, 2007. "How would the introduction of an EU-wide formula apportionment affect the distribution and size of the corporate tax base? An analysis based on German multinationals," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 14(5), pages 627-629, October.
    6. Marcel Gérard, 2006. "Reforming the taxation of multijurisdictional enterprises in Europe: a tentative appraisal," European Economy - Economic Papers 2008 - 2015 265, Directorate General Economic and Financial Affairs (DG ECFIN), European Commission.
    7. Marco Runkel & Guttorm Schjelderup, 2011. "The Choice Of Apportionment Factors Under Formula Apportionment," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 52(3), pages 913-934, August.
    8. Marcel Gérard, 2006. "Reforming the Taxation of Multijurisdictional Enterprises in Europe, “Coopetition” in a Bottom-up Federation," CESifo Working Paper Series 1860, CESifo Group Munich.
    9. Annelies Roggeman & Isabelle Verleyen & Philippe Van Cauwenberge & Carine Coppens, 2013. "The EU apportionment formula: insights from a business case," Journal of Business Economics and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(2), pages 235-251, April.
    10. Kiesewetter, Dirk & Steigenberger, Tobias & Stier, Matthias, 2014. "Can formula apportionment really prevent multinational enterprises from profit shifting? The role of asset valuation, intragroup debt, and leases," arqus Discussion Papers in Quantitative Tax Research 175, arqus - Arbeitskreis Quantitative Steuerlehre.
    11. Michael Keen & Kai A. Konrad, 2012. "International Tax Competition and Coordination," Working Papers international_tax_competi, Max Planck Institute for Tax Law and Public Finance.
    12. repec:prg:jnlpep:v:preprint:id:514:p:1-17 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Patricia-Sabina Macelaru, 2013. "Transfer Pricing and FDI," Acta Universitatis Danubius. OEconomica, Danubius University of Galati, issue 9(4), pages 355-366, August.
    14. Danuše Nerudová & Veronika Solilová, 2015. "The Impact of the CCCTB Introduction on the Distribution of the Group Tax Bases Across the EU: The Study for the Czech Republic," Prague Economic Papers, University of Economics, Prague, vol. 2015(6), pages 621-637.
    15. Ana Agundez-Garcia, 2006. "The Delineation and Apportionment of an EU Consolidated Tax Base for Multi-jurisdictional Corporate Income Taxation: a Review of Issues and Options," Taxation Papers 9, Directorate General Taxation and Customs Union, European Commission, revised Oct 2006.
    16. repec:eee:jiaata:v:27:y:2016:i:c:p:26-39 is not listed on IDEAS

    More about this item

    Keywords

    European Union; Corporate Taxation; Formulary apportionment; common consolidated base taxation; EU company tax reform;

    JEL classification:

    • F23 - International Economics - - International Factor Movements and International Business - - - Multinational Firms; International Business
    • H25 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue - - - Business Taxes and Subsidies
    • H73 - Public Economics - - State and Local Government; Intergovernmental Relations - - - Interjurisdictional Differentials and Their Effects
    • H87 - Public Economics - - Miscellaneous Issues - - - International Fiscal Issues; International Public Goods

    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:tax:taxpap:0008. 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: (Gaetan Nicodeme) or (Valeska Gronert) or (Astrid Van Mierlo) or (Gaelle Garnier). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/dtcecbe.html .

    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 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.

    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.