Skip to main content
Log in

Participation exemption and tax arbitrage: Italy’s case

  • Published:
European Journal of Law and Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper studies how participation exemption (PEX) tax rules for stocks owned by companies, which are frequent in EU countries, introduce tax arbitrage opportunities. The focus is on Italy’s PEX rules. PEX enables companies to make manufactured loans that generate tax exempt interest income by combining stocks with forwards or options. Borrowing through similar manufactured loans allows companies to bypass restrictions to deducting the cost of borrowing. PEX induced arbitrage exploitable through stock and options portfolios is available even when put-call parity holds for European options. Derivatives that hedge a stock can “inherit” the PEX regime of the stock they hedge. PEX gives companies that own a stock a tax timing option, which can be exploited through stock straddle strategies, i.e. long-short positions in the same stock, and which can generate valuable tax savings.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Collins, J. H., & Kemsley, D. (2000). Capital gains and dividend taxes in firm valuation: Evidence of triple taxation. Accounting Review, 75(4), 405–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Constantinides, G. (1983). Capital market equilibrium with personal tax. Econometrica, 51, 611–636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Constantinides, G. (1984). Optimal stock trading with personal taxes: Implications for pricing and abnormal January returns. Journal of Financial Economics, 13, 65–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Constantinides, G., & Ingersoll, J. (1984). Optimal bond trading with personal taxes: Implications for bond prices and estimated tax brackets and yield curves. Journal of Financial Economics, 13, 299–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dammon, R., Dunn, K., & Spatt, C. (1989). A reexamination of the value of tax options. Review of Financial Studies, 2, 341–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dammon, R., & Spatt, C. (1996). The optimal trading and pricing of securities with asymmetric capital gains taxes and transaction costs. Review of Financial Studies, 9, 921–952.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, S., Qi, H., & Wu, C. (2006). Personal taxes, endogenous default, and corporate bond yield spreads. Management Science, 52, 939–954.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, S., Shi, J., Wang, J., & Wu, C. (2007). How much of the corporate bond spread is due to personal taxes? Journal of Financial Economics, 85, 599–636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, S., & Wu, C. (2004). Taxes, default risk and credit spreads. Journal of Fixed Income, 14, 71–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scholes, M. (1976). Taxes and the pricing of options. Journal of Finance, 31(2), 319–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scholes, M., & Constantinides, G. (1980). Optimal liquidation of assets in the presence of personal taxes: Implications for asset pricing. Journal of Finance, 35(2), 439–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marco Realdon.

Appendix: the present value of the arbitrage profit as per strategy B

Appendix: the present value of the arbitrage profit as per strategy B

We notice that under the assumptions of Eqs. 13 and 15, and again assuming that \( S_{T} \simeq S_{{T^{ - } }} \) and \( T \simeq T^{ - } , \) and under the assumptions of Eqs. 12 and 14, the time t present value of \( \tau \cdot \max \left( {S_{{T^{ - } }} - S_{t} ,0} \right), \) i.e. the arbitrage profit as per strategy B in the text, is

$$ \tau \cdot S_{t} e^{{r\tau \left( {T - t} \right)}} \cdot N\left( {{\frac{{\left( {r + {\tfrac{1}{2}}\sigma^{2} } \right)\left( {T - t} \right)}}{{\sigma \sqrt {T - t} }}}} \right) - \tau \cdot e^{{ - r\left( {1 - \tau } \right)\left( {T - t} \right)}} \cdot S_{t} \cdot N\left( {{\frac{{\left( {r - {\tfrac{1}{2}}\sigma^{2} } \right)\left( {T - t} \right)}}{{\sigma \sqrt {T - t} }}}} \right) $$
(29)

with \( N(x) = \int_{ - \infty }^{x} {{\tfrac{1}{{\sqrt {2\pi } }}}e^{{ - {\tfrac{{u^{2} }}{2}}}} du} . \)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Realdon, M. Participation exemption and tax arbitrage: Italy’s case. Eur J Law Econ 36, 77–93 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10657-010-9207-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10657-010-9207-6

Keywords

JEL classifications

Navigation