Asymmetric Capital Tax Competition with Profit Shifting

This paper analyses capital tax competition between jurisdictions of different size when multinational firms can shift some fraction of their tax base between them. For the case of revenue maximizing governments, we show that introducing profit shifting will not generally increase downward pressure on tax rates. We find that profit shifting decreases the tax-base sensitivity of the low tax jurisdiction while increasing the sensitivity of the high tax jurisdiction. Tax rates will converge as a result of additional profit shifting opportunities. This will be the case even though in general equilibrium tax rates in both jurisdictions may decrease or increase.     

A Test of Strategic Trade Policy in the Semiconductor Industry: The Impact of Japanese Policy on U.S. Firms

This paper analyzes a multinational corporation that may use tax evasion and profit shifting as a means to minimize tax liabilities. Our main finding is that profit shifting may occur even when tax rates are the same across countries. This will be the case whenever there is a tax differential in effective tax rates resulting from differences in tax enforcement. In this context, profit shifting occurs to enable tax evasion in a country where tax enforcement is less harsh. Moreover, for a given differential in tax rates, differences in tax enforcement may either accentuate or dampen profit shifting. Importantly, the predictions regarding the direction of profit shifting that would result in our set-up may contrast sharply with those of the preceding literature.     

Does eliminating international profit shifting increase tax revenue in high-tax countries?

We analyze under what conditions initiatives intended to eliminate profit shifting (such as the OECD BEPS action plan and the more recent European implementation of the ATAD) can be successful, given that these actions may induce multinational companies to relocate activities to low-tax countries. We demonstrate that removing tax-motivated profit shifting increases tax revenue in the onshore region if the low-tax jurisdiction is not too efficient in providing attractive infrastructure. This outcome is more easily achieved when the high-tax country is able to counter the shifting of international activity using infrastructure investment to compete with the tax haven rather than being passive. International regulations aimed at combating aggressive tax avoidance should anticipate the adverse effects induced by the resulting emergence of other forms of base erosion.     

Tax Rate Harmonization,Renegotiation, and Asymmetric Tax Competition for Profits with Repeated Interaction

This paper analyzes a model of corporate tax competition with repeated interaction and with strategic use of profit shifting within multinationals. We show that international tax coordination is more likely to prevail if the degree of asymmetry in terms of productivity differences between countries is smaller, or if concealment costs of profit shifting are larger when the tax authorities adopt grim‐trigger strategies. Allowing for renegotiation in the tax harmonization process requires more patient tax authorities to implement tax harmonization as a weakly renegotiation‐proof equilibrium. In this case, we find somewhat paradoxical situations where higher costs of profit shifting make tax harmonization less sustainable.     

Lobbying and the international fight against tax havens

Despite a variety of measures taken by high‐tax countries, the international fight against tax havens so far remains rather ineffective. This paper introduces offshore lobbying as a possible explanation for this observation. The author analyzes the international fight against tax havens in a two‐country model, in which the onshore country exerts pressure on domestic profit‐shifting firms and the tax haven's government lobbies against this measure. In this framework, he finds that pressure and lobbying are strategic substitutes and that there is an extensive margin incentive for offshore lobbying. Furthermore, when starting at initially high costs for profit shifting, a reduction in these costs leads to fewer profit‐shifting firms. Finally, when allowing for a second low‐tax jurisdiction, the overall level of lobbying increases, but less than proportionally.     

Multinationals’ profit response to tax differentials: Effect size and shifting channels

This paper provides a quantitative review of the empirical literature on profit‐shifting behaviour of multinational firms. We synthesize the evidence from 27 studies and find a substantial response of profit measures to international tax rate differentials. Accounting for confounding factors by means of meta‐regressions, we predict a tax semi‐elasticity of subsidiary pre‐tax profits of about 0.8. Moreover, we disentangle the tax response by means of financial planning from the transfer pricing and licensing channel. Back‐of‐the‐envelope calculations suggest that transfer pricing and licensing are the dominant profit‐shifting channels.     

THE POTENTIAL FOR SHORT‐RUN SHIFTING OF A CORPORATE PROFITS TAX

Can the owners of a firm shift a corporate profits tax to consumers? Not in the short run if the tax is stated as a proportion of profits and the firm is a profit maximizer. But what if the firm wishes to pursue a strategy other than profit maximization, say revenue maximization subject to a profit constraint? Under such a condition the firm's reaction to a tax or tax increase might be a price rise that captures part of the foregone profits. We show that firms which operate at a point on their demand curve that differs from profit maximization have an incentive to raise price in response to the tax – and that high cost firms have a greater incentive to raise price than do low cost firms. Our empirical analysis of the US beer industry confirms this finding, and sheds light on the Krzyzaniak–Musgrave analysis of the 1960s which suggested that the corporation income tax produced significant short‐run shifting.     

How much profit shifting do European banks do?

This paper studies whether and to what extent the largest and systemically relevant European multinational banks engage in profit shifting to lower their tax burden. We exploit unique data on bank operations reported on a country-by-country basis since 2015 in compliance with European legislation. The dataset contains information on profits, turnover, taxes paid and employment of bank affiliates worldwide, including tax and regulatory havens. In our empirical model, profits shifting incentives are captured through a weighted average of international tax rate differences between all countries where the bank is active. We find that international tax differences trigger the geographical distribution of profits within multinational banks, and that low tax jurisdictions, notably tax havens, attract disproportionately high profits. Our results suggest that, overall, 21% of profits is shifted. Moreover, profits in tax havens are 51% higher than they would be without tax-motivated profit shifting, pointing to a significant reduction of tax bases in high-tax countries.     

Wages and International Tax Competition

We introduce wage bargaining and private information into a model of profit shifting and tax competition between a large and a small country. Shifting profits to the small country not only reduces a firm's tax bill but also creates private information on profitability, altering the wage bargaining in favor of the firm. This additional shifting incentive makes the tax base of the large country more elastic and leads to higher outflows, lower wages, higher firm profits and lower equilibrium tax rates. Tax rates are no longer the only determinant of the direction and extent of profit shifting.     

Taxing multinationals: The scope for enforcement cooperation

Policymakers seeking to raise more tax revenues from multinational enterprises have two alternatives: to raise tax rates or to devote more resources to improve tax compliance. Tougher tax enforcement increases the cost of profit shifting, and thus mitigates tax competition. We present a tax-competition model with two policy instruments (the corporate tax rate and the tightness of tax enforcement). In line with the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development's Base Erosion and Profit Shifting project, we analyze the scope for enforcement cooperation among asymmetric countries, considering that taxes are set noncooperatively. We show that the low-tax country may fail to cooperate if asymmetry is large enough and that tax havens would never agree to cooperate. Then we identify two drivers for enforcement cooperation. The first driver of cooperation is the complementarity of enforcement actions across countries. This is because the efficiency loss from enforcement dispersion is greater under complementarity. The second driver of cooperation is tax leadership by the high-tax country, which acts as a level-playing field in the tax competition and reduces the extent of disagreement on enforcement.     

Formula apportionment vs. separate accounting: A private information perspective

In 2002, the European Commission recommended that member countries use formula apportionment procedures to tax multinational companies. This departure from the standard separate accounting (transfer pricing) approach is an attempt to reduce the costs and distortions associated with auditing transfer prices. Unfortunately, apportionment formulas create their own economic distortions and, contrary to popular belief, they do not eliminate distortions due to asymmetric information between the multinational and the national tax authorities. In this paper, I explicitly model the role of private information in two tax competition games: one in which tax liabilities are calculated under formula apportionment and one in which tax liabilities are calculated under separate accounting and transfer prices are audited. Switching to a formula apportionment system affects the after-tax profit of multinationals and the tax revenues paid by both domestic and foreign firms. The direction and magnitude of the changes depend on the accuracy of the auditing technology and non-monotonically on multinational costs. The switch will have different effects on the tax receipts from domestic and foreign firms.     

Tax competition for foreign direct investments and the nature of the incumbent firm

We investigate tax/subsidy competition for foreign direct investments (FDI) between countries of different size when a domestic firm is the incumbent in the largest market and we study how the nature (public or private) of the incumbent firm affects policy competition. We show that, differently from the case of a private firm, the country hosting the incumbent always benefits from FDI if the domestic firm is a public welfare‐maximizing firm. We also show that the public firm acts as a disciplinary device for the foreign multinational that will always choose the efficient welfare‐maximizing location. An efficiency‐enhancing role of policy competition may then arise only when the domestic incumbent is a private firm, whereas tax competition is always wasteful in the presence of a public firm.     

The impact of thin‐capitalization rules on the location of multinational firms’ foreign affiliates

This paper examines how restrictions on the tax deductibility of interest cost affect location choices of multinational corporations (MNCs). Many countries have introduced so‐called thin‐capitalization rules (TCRs) to prevent MNCs from shifting their tax base to countries with lower tax rates. As of 2012, in our sample of 172 countries, 61 countries have implemented a TCR. Using information on nearly all new foreign investments of German MNCs, we provide a number of new and interesting insights in how TCRs affect the decision of where to locate foreign entities. In particular, stricter TCRs are found to negatively affect location choices of MNCs. Our results include estimates of own‐ and cross‐elasticities of location choice and also novel results on the relative importance of tax base vs. tax rate effects. We finally provide estimates for different uncoordinated as well as coordinated policy scenarios.     

Tax Policy When Countries Compete for Third Market Exports

We examine the welfare and other consequences of tax policy in a third market export model where duopolists located in two countries compete in prices. With tax competition between governments, we allow for welfare‐maximizing governments in the two countries to delegate tax setting responsibility to policy‐makers who have different objectives than the governments. The unique equilibrium in the tax competition environment involves both governments delegating tax setting responsibility to tax revenue‐maximizing policy‐makers. This equilibrium yields higher welfare for both countries than the outcome when the governments delegate to welfare‐maximizing policy‐makers. The paper also compares tax competition with tax harmonization and shows that when the entire export market is served, tax harmonization improves the welfare of the country that houses the low cost firm, while the other country may be immiserized.     

Cross-border tax effects on affiliate investment—Evidence from European multinationals

Recent studies suggest that multinational firm activities at home and abroad are positively correlated which may be due to the use of common inputs (like marketing, patents, etc.). Then, a cost shock at one location may lead to reduced activity in all other locations within the firm. In this paper, we theoretically and empirically analyze national corporate tax policy in such a setting. Our main hypothesis is that corporate taxation at the parent location not only reduces the parent's capital stock but also lowers capital stocks at affiliates abroad. Using micro data on European multinational firms, we confirm the hypothesis showing that a 10 percentage point increase in corporate tax rates is associated with a 5.6% decrease in the affiliate's capital stock. From a welfare point of view, this cross-border tax effect on the capital stock gives rise to a negative fiscal externality of corporate taxation which is empirically shown to compensate a substantial fraction of the well-known positive externality due to profit shifting.     

Transfer Pricing Rules,OECD Guidelines,and Market Distortions

We study the impact of transfer pricing rules on prices, firms' organizational structure, and consumers' utility in a two‐country monopolistic competition model with source‐based profit taxes. Firms can either be multinationals and serve the foreign market through a fully controlled affiliate, or be exporters and serve the foreign market by contracting with an independent distributor. The use of the OECD's comparable uncontrolled transfer price (CUP) rule distorts firms' output and pricing decisions, because the comparable arm's length transactions between exporters and distributors—which serve as the benchmark—are not efficient. We show that the CUP rule is detrimental to consumers in the low‐tax country, yet benefits consumers in the high‐tax country when compared to the benchmark of unconstrained profit shifting. Using the OECD rule increases tax revenue at the expense of consumer surplus. Those results also hold under the alternative cost‐plus transfer pricing rule.     

WHY FOREIGN OWNERSHIP MAY BE GOOD FOR YOU*

We develop a two‐country model with heterogeneous producers and rent‐sharing at the firm level. We identify two sources of a multinational wage premium: A composition effect because multinational firms are more productive, make higher profits, and pay higher wages, and a firm‐level wage effect, because a firm makes higher global profits and thus pays higher wages in its home market when becoming multinational. With two identical countries, the wage premium is fully explained by firm characteristics. Allowing for technology differences between countries, a residual wage premium exists in the technologically backward country but not in the advanced country.     

Multinational taxation and international emissions trading

Many studies have shown that the activities of multinational corporations are quite sensitive to differences in income tax rates across countries. In this paper I explore the interaction between multinational taxation and abatement activities under an international emissions permit trading scheme. Four types of plans are considered: (1) a single domestic permit system with international offsets; (2) separate national permit systems without trade; (3) separate national permit systems with limited offsets; and (4) an international permit trading system. For each plan, I model the incentives for the multinational firm to choose abatement activities at home and abroad and to transfer emissions credits between parent and subsidiary. Limits on trading across countries restrict efficiency gains from abatement, as is well known. But if available offset opportunities are limited to actual abatement activities, those activities are also more susceptible to distortions from incentives to shift taxable income. Transfer-pricing rules can limit but not always eliminate these distortions. In a system of unlimited international trading, abatement is efficiently allocated across countries, but tax shifting can still be achieved through intra-firm transfer pricing. From the basis of efficiency for both environmental and tax policies, the best design is an international permit trading system with transparent, enforceable transfer-pricing rules.     

Strategic Foreign Direct Investment and Exchange‐Rate Uncertainty

We investigate how exchange‐rate uncertainty affects the foreign direct investment decision of a risk‐neutral multinational firm (MNF). We assume the firm can open plants, each with decreasing average costs, in two different countries. Under certainty, the MNF would open only one plant. We demonstrate that with sufficient exchange‐rate volatility, the firm can increase expected profits by opening several plants. We also show that if the MNF faces a competitor in the foreign market, the exchange risk, by inducing the MNF to open plants in both markets, may prevent entry by the local competitor.     

Company tax reform with a water's edge

This paper analyzes the effects of switching from a corporate tax system based on separate accounting (SA) towards a system in which two countries form a formula apportionment (FA) union while a third country sticks to SA (water's edge). Our analysis draws a positive picture on the water's edge regulation. In the short-run, for given tax rates, the transition from SA to FA is likely to reduce profit shifting from the FA union to non-FA tax havens. In a long-run tax competition analysis, we find a negative water's edge externality under FA that tends to be less detrimental than the profit shifting externality under SA and may offset other externalities under FA.