Asymmetric capital tax competition and choice of tax rate

This article provides an alternative mechanism that explains differences in capital tax rates, which applies to small jurisdictions. In the framework of standard capital tax competition models, regions have to be large, in the sense of having market power, otherwise they will tax capital, a mobile factor, at the same rate. In this paper, we consider a second mobile factor, labor, which is mobile only within metropolitan areas. We will show that this spatially limited mobile factor may explain the capital tax rate differences levied on the global mobile factor as long as no source-based wage tax is available. In addition to the theoretical treatment, numerical simulations also confirm this result and show a significant tax differential.     

Labor markets and capital tax competition

Ogawa et al. (J. Urban Econ. 60:350, 2006) analyze capital tax competition in a fixed-wage approach and show that the original results of Zodrow and Mieszkowski (J. Urban Econ. 19:356, 1986) are not preserved in the presence of unemployment. In the present paper, we challenge this view and investigate capital tax competition for some arbitrary institutional setting of the labor market. We find that if the labor market is characterized by some efficient bargaining solution, the results of Zodrow and Mieszkowski (J. Urban Econ. 19:356, 1986) are preserved.     

Equilibrium leadership in tax competition models with capital ownership: a rejoinder

This paper reconciles two opposite results in the tax competition literature. Kempf and Rota-Graziosi (J Public Econ 94(9–10):768–776, 2010) and Hindriks and Nishimura (J Public Econ 121:66–68, 2015) have shown that the two Stackelberg outcomes prevail as the subgame perfect equilibria when capital is entirely owned by nonresidents. However, Ogawa (Int Tax Public Finance 20(3):474–484, 2013) has shown that the simultaneous-move outcome prevails when capital is entirely owned by residents. We develop a model in which capital ownership can vary freely between these two polar cases. We show that there exists a unique degree of residential capital ownership such that the equilibrium switches from the Stackelberg to the simultaneous-move outcomes. The chance for the simultaneous-move outcome to prevail increases with the extent of production asymmetry between regions. Partial ownership also induces a novel effect of tax leadership that we call the preference reversion effect.     

Further analysis on leadership in tax competition: the role of capital ownership

This paper extends the work of Kempf and Rota-Graziosi (J. Pub. Econ. 94:768–776, 2010), which argues that under capital tax competition the sub-game perfect equilibria (SPEs) correspond to two Stackelberg outcomes. The findings show that the Kempf and Rota-Graziosi result depends on the form of capital ownership. By generalizing the form of capital ownership, this paper shows that the simultaneous-move outcome prevails as an SPE if the capital is owned by residents in the countries, whereas the Kempf and Rota-Graziosi argument holds if the capital is owned by nonresidents.     

Corporate tax competition between firms

Firms’ tax planning decisions, similar to their other operational decisions, are made in a competitive environment. Various stakeholders observe the tax payments and evaluate these against the relevant peer group. This implies firms might not simply minimise their tax burden, but also consider their competitors behaviour when deciding about tax planning. Empirically this creates interdependencies in the tax planning activities of firms. Introducing the concept of a reputational loss we show the positive interdependence in a theoretical model and test it in a spatial econometric model. Empirical evidence suggests that benchmarking takes place both within countries and within industries, however for the latter it is important to include firms in large non-EU OECD countries.     

The classical tax system,imputation tax and capital budgeting

Differences in the taxation systems in Britain, France, and some other European countries (which use the imputation system) compared with the USA and the Netherlands, among others (which use the classical tax system), mean that the cost of equity capital should be specified, using a capital asset pricing model methodology, in different ways. Under the imputation system its value should be net of personal taxes; under the classical tax system, it should be gross of personal taxes. Similarly the value of the tax shield on debt for input into adjusted present value calculations differs, being significantly greater under the classical tax system. Formulae are set out to enable the calculation of the magnitude of the tax shield readily to be undertaken.     

Profit tax competition and formula apportionment

We analyze corporate income tax competition with international capital mobility when the common tax base is allocated to governments according to an apportionment formula. Labor can be either internationally mobile or immobile. We compare the Nash equilibria for different apportionment methods. Tax competition produces lower tax rates the more elastically the formula share responds to tax rate changes. More specifically, equilibrium tax rates are typically lowest when apportionment is based on property-shares, followed by payroll- and sales-shares apportionment. Compared to their cooperative levels, equilibrium tax rates are too low for property-share apportionment but tend to be too high for the other formulas. JEL Classification H77 · H25 · F23     

International tax competition with endogenous sequencing

This paper examines endogenous timing in an international tax competition model. Unlike existing studies, governments are assumed to decide not only tax rates but also whether they are set early or late. The Nash equilibrium provides four conclusions for alternative double tax allowances. First, tax deductions cause simultaneous tax competition, whereas tax credits yield sequential tax competition. Second, any double taxation relief would generate capital trade. Third, a credit system could maximize one country’s economic welfare but would lower another country’s economic welfare more than a deduction regime. Fourth, a home country’s government would choose credit regimes under a maximax rule, but select deduction methods under minimax and maximin rules, while all double tax allowances are indifferent to a host country. The findings resolve the question raised by Bond and Samuelson (Economic Journal 99:1099–1111, 1989) of why governments choose tax credits when tax deductions are clearly better. Namely, this paper shows that one country is better off but another is worse off with credits rather than deductions. Accordingly, we cannot clearly specify whether governments choose credit systems or deduction regimes. The possible double tax allowances employed by the governments depend on their own decision criterion.     

Minimum taxes and repeated tax competition

An agreement about a lower bound for admissible tax rates can reduce the equilibrium tax rate (and thus welfare) in tax competition among fully symmetric countries. This is shown in an infinitely repeated game where the stage game describes the standard tax competition model with source-based taxes and symmetric countries. Repeated interaction may allow countries to sustain cooperation through implicit contracts. Lower bounds on tax rates (‘minimum taxes’) restrict the ability of countries to punish deviators. This makes cooperation harder to sustain. The introduction of a lower bound on feasible tax rates may thus harm all countries.     

Capital tax competition and social security

The classic capital tax policy externality is studied in the presence of a social security program where both the benefits and taxes depend on wages in an overlapping generations economy with many countries and mobile capital. We study the response and welfare implications of a coordinated capital tax rate increase across countries competing for the mobile tax base on the initial generations, the transition, and the steady state. The tax increase is initially completely capitalized, but some of the burden is shifted to labor on the transition path and in the steady state. Several new welfare effects are uncovered including an effect involving the parameters of the social security program. Sufficient conditions are provided so that all current and future generations are better off from the reform. However, social security may reduce the gain to capital tax reform.     

Endogenous choice on tax instruments in a tax competition model: unit tax versus ad valorem tax

This paper analyzes an endogenous choice problem with regard to tax instruments in a capital tax competition model. Using a symmetric and two-region model of tax competition, where each region is allowed to choose either a unit or an ad valorem tax, we show that selecting a unit tax as a policy instrument is the dominant strategy.     

An empirical investigation of whether Australian capital gains tax reforms influence individual investor behaviour

This paper examines whether an asset's qualification for discounted tax treatment is associated with positive abnormal trading volumes and negative abnormal returns, as would be predicted if investors modified their behaviour to reduce their tax liability. Our examination of 152 initial public offerings (IPOs) documents that there is an incremental increase in abnormal trading volume for those IPOs that have experienced a significant increase in price since listing over those IPOs that have increased only marginally. Although we provide only limited evidence to suggest that this increase in trading volume is accompanied by a decrease in returns, this is not unexpected in a market that has anticipated this type of behaviour by the relatively small proportion of individual investors able to benefit from the discounted tax treatment.     

Entry in tax competition: a note

This paper extends the tax competition analysis of public inputs to the case where the number of regions that compete for business investment is endogenous. To determine the number of competing regions, a fixed cost of regional development is introduced into the Zodrow–Mieszkowski model of public-input provision. It is shown that allowing for region entry does not affect the analytical results of inefficient public-input provision under tax competition. This paper also shows that the equilibrium number of competing regions is inefficient.     

Tax competition and tax base equalization in the presence of multiple tax instruments

The literature on tax competition has argued that tax base equalization, which reduces regional disparities in tax bases, can serve as a means of internalizing horizontal and vertical fiscal externalities. This argument assumes that each government relies on a single tax base (a regional tax on mobile capital and a federal tax on savings). This paper considers the case in which a distortionary labor tax is also available. Internalizing fiscal externalities requires that while the regional capital tax base is fully equalized, a region’s equalization entitlement for the labor tax is positive when its tax base is “larger” than the average tax base of all regions. This efficient tax base equalization system is incompatible with the primary objective of fiscal equalization.

     

Asymmetric tax competition in the presence of lobbying

This paper incorporates the influence of interest groups into the asymmetric tax competition model to explain the phenomenon that small countries do not necessarily set lower capital tax rates than large countries. In addition to the efficiency effect considered by the standard model, which leads the smaller country to set a lower capital tax rate, this present paper also takes account of the political effect arising from lobbying. We show that the smaller country may face less downward political pressure. If the political effect outweighs the efficiency effect, then the smaller country sets a higher tax rate than the larger country. This result has several welfare implications, which are in contrast to the conventional consequences.     

An analysis of the tradeoff between tax deferred earnings in iras and preferential capital gains

This paper extends prior research in evaluating the decision of whether to invest in a mutual fund either outright or through one of the three available IRAs: the deductible IRA, the Roth IRA, and the nondeductible IRA. We provide mathematical models for after-tax accumulations for each of the investments that are a function of return, the percentage of the return currently taxable to the investor, the time horizon of the investment, the capital gain tax rate, and the ordinary income tax rate. The Roth IRA and the deductible IRA always dominate investments in the nondeductible IRA or through outright investment. However, in comparing the nondeductible IRA and outright investments, the outcome is dependent on the investment goals of the mutual fund and whether it generates substantial dividend distributions or capital gain distributions. Mutual funds with small dividend and capital gain distributions may accumulate larger amounts if held outright while mutual funds that pay substantial dividends or make substantial capital gain distributions accumulate larger after-tax amounts when invested in a nondeductible IRA.