The Revenue Consequences of Using Formula Apportionment to Calculate U.S. and Foreign-Source Income: A Firm-Level Analysis

This paper examines the 1989–1993 publicly available financial reports of 46 U.S.-based multinationals to estimate the revenue implications of implementing a U.S. federal formula apportionment system. Ignoring behavioral responses, we estimate shifting to an equal-weighted, three-factor formula would have increased their U.S. tax liabilities by 38 percent, with an 81 percent increase for oil and gas firms. We find the firms report a lower percentage of their worldwide profits as American profits than their American share of assets, sales, or payroll. The results may be attributed to more profitable foreign operations, tax-motivated income shifting, or measurement error.     

Where do firms manage earnings?

Despite decades of research on how, why, and when companies manage earnings, there is a paucity of evidence about the geographic location of earnings management within multinational firms. In this study, we examine where companies manage earnings using a sample of 2,067 U.S. multinational firms from 1994 to 2009. We predict and find that firms with extensive foreign operations in weak rule of law countries have more foreign earnings management than companies with subsidiaries in locations where the rule of law is strong. We also find some evidence that profitable firms with extensive tax haven subsidiaries manage earnings more than other firms and that the earnings management is concentrated in foreign income. Apart from these results, we find that most earnings management takes place in domestic income, not foreign income.     

Statement of the Financial Economists Roundtable: Corporate Tax Reform

Corporate tax reform has been a controversial issue in the U.S. for several years, particularly as U.S. companies have accumulated cash in lower‐tax overseas subsidiaries, while some have used “inversions” to establish overseas corporate domiciles. Two features of U.S. corporate taxation stand out: 1. U.S. corporate income tax rates are the highest in the industrialized world. The federal rate is 35%; and, when combined with state taxes, it averages 39%, as compared to an OECD average of 24%. 2. U.S. corporations pay U.S. tax on their worldwide income, but can choose to avoid indefinitely corporate tax on foreign profits by not repatriating them. Neither feature is present in most other Western countries, where the norm is a “territorial” system that taxes companies only on their domestic profits. The Trump administration has proposed to cut U.S. corporate tax rates to 20%, thereby bringing them down to the OECD average, and to adopt a territorial tax regime like those found in most other Western nations. In this statement signed by 31 senior financial economists, the authors recommend cutting U.S. corporate tax rates, but retaining the current system of taxing the worldwide profits of U.S. companies (while giving them credit for taxes paid in overseas jurisdictions). Once U.S. rates drop to the international average, the economists point out, U.S. companies would have much less incentive under the worldwide system to use transfer pricing schemes to shift their profits to low‐tax jurisdictions than under the proposed territorial alternative. Indeed, under the current system, if the lower rates under consideration are enacted, the location of a company's business activity (including the firm's underlying intellectual property) would not affect its taxation. Along with lower corporate tax rates, the economists also recommend that Congress limit or remove the corporate option to defer the taxation of offshore profits and provide a schedule for repatriating off‐shore funds, using the inducement of the now lower rates as well as the possibility of a “tax holiday.”     

Exploring the role Delaware plays as a domestic tax haven

We examine whether Delaware is a domestic tax haven. We find that taxes play an economically important role in determining whether U.S. firms locate subsidiaries in Delaware and that a Delaware-based state tax avoidance strategy lowers state effective tax rates by between 0.7 and 1.1 percentage points, on average. The tax savings represent a 15–24% decrease in the state income tax burden and translate to an increase in net income of 1.04–1.47%. However, we find that the tax benefits of Delaware tax strategies are diminishing over time in response to initiatives by state governments to limit multistate tax avoidance.     

Are Multinational Corporate Tax Rules as Important as Tax Rates?

Previous research has documented the influence of statutory tax rates on international firms' effective tax rates, or ETRs. We add to this body of research by examining common factors of the income tax base, which affects ETRs. Specifically, this study examines the determinants of effective tax rates for publicly traded companies based in European Union (EU) countries. The time period examined is after 2004, when all EU firms were required to use standardized accounting principles under International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). We find that, across EU countries, such factors are relatively consistent with factors found in studies of U.S. companies' effective tax rates, which include inventory, leverage, depreciation tax shield, and R&D intensity. We also find that the presence of country book-tax conformity rules increases effective rates. Importantly, our finding that such tax base (or rule) effects are at least as important as rate effects adds to the international debate about uneven tax structures around the globe.     

International Corporate Tax Avoidance Practices: Evidence from Australian Firms

This paper examines the international corporate tax avoidance practices of publicly listed Australian firms. Based on a hand-collected sample of 203 publicly listed Australian firms over the 2006–2009 period (812 firm-years), our regression results indicate that there are several practices Australian firms use to aggressively reduce their tax liabilities. Specifically, we find that thin capitalization, transfer pricing, income shifting, multinationality, and tax haven utilization are significantly associated with tax avoidance. In fact, based on the magnitude and significance levels of the regression coefficients in our study, thin capitalization and transfer pricing represent the primary drivers of tax avoidance, whereas income shifting and tax haven utilization are less important. Finally, our additional regression results show that tax havens are likely to be used together with thin capitalization and transfer pricing to maximize international tax avoidance opportunities via the increased complexity of transactions carried out through tax havens.     

Transparency and Tax Evasion: Evidence from the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA)

We examine how U.S. individuals respond to regulation intended to reduce offshore tax evasion. The Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) requires foreign financial institutions to report information to the U.S. government regarding U.S. account holders. We first document an average $7.8 billion to $15.3 billion decrease in equity foreign portfolio investment to the United States from tax-haven countries after FATCA implementation, consistent with a decrease in “round-tripping” investments attributable to U.S. investors’ offshore tax evasion. When testing total worldwide investment out of financial accounts in tax havens post-FATCA, we find an average decline of $56.6 billion to $78.0 billion. We next provide evidence of other important consequences of this regulation, including increased expatriations of U.S. citizens and greater investment in alternative assets not subject to FATCA reporting, such as residential real estate and artwork. Our study contributes to both the academic literature and policy analysis on regulation, tax evasion, and crime.     

Analyzing the Tax Benefits from Employee Stock Options

Employees tend to exercise stock options when corporate taxable income is high, shifting corporate tax deductions to years with higher tax rates. If firms paid employees the same dollar value in wages instead of stock options, the average annual tax bill for large U.S. companies would increase by $12.6 million, or 9.8%. These direct tax benefits of options increase in the convexity of the tax function. In addition, profitable firms can realize indirect tax benefits because stock options increase debt capacity. Although tax minimization is probably not the main motive for option grants, firms with larger potential tax benefits grant more options.     

Corporate tax payments under formulary apportionment: Evidence from the financial reports of 50 major U.S. multinational firms

Under a formulary apportionment system of taxing multinational corporate income, U.S. tax liabilities would be based on the product of a multinational firm's worldwide income and the fraction of their real activities that occur in the United States – typically, an average of asset, payroll, and sales shares. This analysis utilizes financial reporting data for 50 large U.S. multinational firms to analyze how tax payments would change under a possible formulary system, updating Shackelford and Slemrod (1998). Our time period is 2005–2007 instead of 1989–1993. We find that tax payments under formulary apportionment would increase modestly overall but by a lower magnitude than found by Shackelford and Slemrod. Given the changes in the international tax environment since the earlier time period, this is a puzzling finding; we speculate regarding possible explanations.     

Impact of foreign operations on reported effective tax rates: interplay of foreign taxes, U.S. taxes and U.S. GAAP

Effective tax rates can have a significant effect on a firm’s cash flows and reported earnings. As the operations of U.S. companies become increasingly global in scope, an important issue is how their foreign operations impact their effective tax rates, and, in turn, their reported earnings. This study describes how foreign taxes, U.S. taxes, and U.S. accounting principles interact to determine the impact of foreign operations on a firm’s effective tax rate. This analysis will assist users of financial statements in assessing the quality of earnings, making interfirm comparisons, evaluating the performance of management, judging the risks of additional tax assessments, and predicting future effective tax rates.     

One-Way Treaty with the World: The U.S. Withholding Tax and the Netherlands Antilles

This paper chronicles the experiences of the U.S. withholding tax on interest income. In 1984, the U.S. repealed its 30 percent withholding tax on interest income paid to foreign persons or corporations. While the tax raised little revenue, it had imposed substantial implicit costs on U.S. corporate borrowers. Since, prior to repeal, domestically issued bonds were subject either to withholding or strict information requirements, many U.S. multinationals raised funds through foreign finance subsidiaries, primarily in the Netherlands Antilles, to avoid the tax. Although the withholding tax rate was effectively reduced to zero in the U.S., this paper demonstrates that interest flows were highly sensitive to their after-tax cost.     

Are U.S. Multinational Corporations Becoming More Aggressive Income Shifters?

This paper examines income shifting of U.S. multinational companies over the past two decades. Domestic and foreign policy makers are increasingly concerned with the effect of income shifting on dwindling tax revenues, however, extant research on income shifting by U.S. multinational enterprises is mixed. We address the disconnect between the academic literature and the policy maker's perceptions by examining the extent of multijurisdictional income shifting by U.S. multinational companies. We directly address conflicting results in extant literature and show that using either multiperiod proxies or instrumental variables overcomes weaknesses of annual proxies in this setting. Our tests show that U.S. companies have become more active at shifting income out of the United States as the regulatory costs of shifting have changed. Holding tax rate differences between U.S. and foreign jurisdictions constant, our empirical estimates suggest that our sample of 380 corporations with low average foreign tax rates collectively shifts approximately $10 billion of additional income out of the United States annually during 2005–2009 relative to 1998–2002 due to varying regulatory costs of shifting.     

Tax Aggressiveness and Accounting Fraud

There are competing arguments and mixed prior evidence on whether firms that are aggressive in their financial reporting exhibit more or less tax aggressiveness. Our research contributes to resolving this issue by examining the association between aggressive tax reporting and the incidence of alleged accounting fraud. Relying on several proxies for tax aggressiveness to triangulate our evidence, we generally find that tax aggressive U.S. public firms are less likely to commit accounting fraud. However, we caution that our results are sensitive to how tax aggressiveness is measured. More specifically, four (two) of the five (three) proxies for firms’ effective tax rates (book‐tax differences) load positively (negatively) during the 1981–2001 period, implying that fraud firms are less tax aggressiveness. Our inferences persist when we isolate the 1995–2001 period in which accounting impropriety steeply rose and corporate tax compliance steeply fell. Moreover, we continue to find that tax aggressive firms are less apt to fraudulently manipulate their financial statements when we apply factor analysis to identify tax avoidance with a common factor extracted from the underlying proxies and match on propensity scores to ensure that the fraud and nonfraud samples have very similar nontax characteristics.     

Foreign Exchange Risk,Hedging, and Tax-Motivated Outbound Income Shifting

Although outbound income shifting to low-tax jurisdictions provides tax savings, it is often accompanied by nontax costs. In this study, I examine whether foreign exchange (FX) risk constrains tax-motivated outbound income shifting by U.S. multinational corporations. My findings indicate that exposure to greater currency volatility is associated with less outbound income shifting, and this effect is stronger for firms with foreign affiliates using foreign functional currencies. I also investigate whether hedging facilitates outbound income shifting. Consistent with hedging lowering costs associated with exchange rate volatility, I find that U.S. firms that use more currency derivatives tend to shift more income to low-tax foreign jurisdictions. Overall, these findings suggest that FX risk is an important cost of outbound income shifting.     

The Effect of Volume of Intrafirm Transfers on Market Metrics

In this paper, we examine the relationship between international intrafirm area transfers and market metrics as measured by market-to-book value and systematic risk. Intrafirm transfers – the amount that multinational corporations charge one another for the transfer of goods, intellectual property, and services – have become an increasingly important issue for policymaking, managerial, financial, and tax purposes. This paper also examines whether international intrafirm intergeographic area transfers are attributed to corporate tax. We find that firms with a sizable volume of international intrafirm transfers have higher systematic risk than comparable firms without these transfers. We show cross-sectionally that firms engage in international transfers have a higher market-to-book ratio, suggesting that transfers add value through their effect on earnings and taxes. Consistent with Mills and Newberry (2003) and Collins, Kemsley, and Lang (1998), we document that U.S. (global) income tax is positively (negatively) related to intrafirm transfers, implying that U.S. multinational firms shifted taxable income to the United States from 1995 to 1999.     

An Empirical Study of the Consequences of U.S. Tax Rules for International Acquisitions by U.S. Firms

This article examines the effect of tax factors on the equity values of U.S. multinational corporations making foreign acquisitions. Abnormal stock returns are found to be related to a tax variable that captures differences in the international tax status of acquiring firms but not related to a naive tax variable that captures differences between tax rates in target countries and the United States. Our evidence suggests that aggregate intercountry differentials in after-tax returns are competed away, while firm-specific, tax-related advantages (or disadvantages) are reflected in abnormal returns around the announcement date of the acquisition.     

Made in the U.S.A.? A Study of Firm Responses to Domestic Production Incentives

How do U.S. companies respond to incentives intended to encourage domestic manufacturing? I study the Domestic Production Activities Deduction (DPAD), which was enacted in the American Jobs Creation Act (AJCA) of 2004 and was the third largest U.S. corporate tax expenditure as of 2017. Using confidential data from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, I find greater average domestic investment spending of $95.5–$143.6 million, but only within the sample of domestic‐only firms and not until 2010, when the greatest statutory DPAD benefits were available. Additional evidence suggests that U.S. multinational claimants invest abroad rather than in the United States and that the increased investment by DPAD firms is accompanied by a reduction in the domestic workforce, consistent with a substitution of capital for labor. I also show that the delayed investment response is due to firms engaging in other responses first, such as changing corporate reporting to shift income across time and borders. Quantifying the extent of these effects contributes to the literature that studies this tax deduction and informs policy makers as to the effectiveness of both manufacturing incentives and U.S. corporate income tax rate reductions in stimulating real domestic activity.     

Shareholders’ tax incentives and changes in the organizational form of foreign operations

This study examines whether the tax incentives of home-country shareholders influence the organizational form changes of foreign operations. While a corporation and a limited company (LC) in South Korea are treated the same for Korean tax purposes, an LC can be treated as a pass-through entity for U.S. tax purposes. This tax treatment of LCs can create incentives for U.S. owners to convert their Korean corporations to LCs. We find that private corporations owned by U.S. shareholders are more likely to convert to LCs than those owned by non-U.S. shareholders. We also find that the tax costs and benefits of conversion affect the likelihood of LC conversion for U.S.-owned firms. Overall, our results suggest that multinational corporations use organizational form changes as a tool for international tax strategies.     

Public Pressure and Corporate Tax Behavior

We use a shock to the public scrutiny of firm subsidiary locations to investigate whether that scrutiny leads to changes in firms’ disclosure and corporate tax avoidance behavior. ActionAid International, a nonprofit activist group, levied public pressure on noncompliant U.K. firms in the FTSE 100 to comply with a rule requiring U.K. firms to disclose the location of all of their subsidiaries. We use this setting to examine whether the public pressure led scrutinized firms to increase their subsidiary disclosure, decrease tax avoidance, and reduce the use of subsidiaries in tax haven countries compared to other firms in the FTSE 100 not affected by the public pressure. The evidence suggests that the public scrutiny sufficiently changed the costs and benefits of tax avoidance such that tax expense increased for scrutinized firms. The results suggest that public pressure from outside activist groups can exert a significant influence on the behavior of large, publicly traded firms. Our findings extend prior research that has had little success documenting an empirical relation between public scrutiny of tax avoidance and firm behavior.     

一个有远见的税收制度应当关注未来的税基——特朗普新税法的成本分析及政策建议

20世纪50年代以来,美国企业所得税税率持续下降,政府税收收入也处于较低水平。2017年,特朗普新税法的实施大幅度降低了企业所得税税率,导致政府税收损失远超预期。然而,新税法实施后,美国企业投资和长期经济增长并没有明显改善。本文认为,一个国家经济效率主要取决于税基而非税率,美国政府应通过税收制度改革,增加对企业投资和研发投入的激励,从而扩大税基,实现经济的长期改善。