Advertisement

Empirica

pp 1–32 | Cite as

The relevance of depreciation allowances as a fiscal policy instrument: A hybrid approach to CCCTB?

  • Kunka Petkova
  • Alfons J. WeichenriederEmail author
Original Paper
  • 9 Downloads

Abstract

A major goal of the EU Commission in the area of direct taxation is the introduction of a common consolidated corporate tax base in Europe. While hardly discussed in the literature, such a system would limit national discretion over tax depreciation. In a sample of up to 47 countries, we find that the probability of a tax reform that improves the depreciation allowances increases, if the macroeconomic situation is weak. This suggests that changes in depreciation allowances are used as a fiscal instrument for stabilization. A common consolidated tax base deprives national governments from implementing investment incentives via accelerated depreciation. This paper discusses the possible implementation of a hybrid system that combines features of formula apportionment and separate accounting. Such a hybrid system may substantially mitigate transfer pricing problems and other tax planning issues, whilst preserving national discretion over depreciation allowances.

Keywords

CCCTB Corporate taxation Investment incentives Macro fiscal policy 

JEL Classification

H2 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Kunka Petkova: Financial support by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF): W1235-G16 is gratefully acknowledged. Alfons J. Weichenrieder: This research is also part of the research program of the LOEWE Center SAFE. Research assistance by Eren Gürer and help with our data inquiry (CBT Tax Base) by Michael Devereux are highly appreciated. We would also like to thank an anonymous referee for very helpful remarks and suggestions, as well as Marko Koethenbuerger, Steeve Mongrain, Leslie Robinson, Martin Zagler, Eva Eberhartinger, the participants of the workshop on Macroeconomic Policy in the Eurozone, the participants of the 74th Annual Congress of the International Institute of Public Finance, the participants of the 2018 ZEW Public Finance Conference, and the participants of the DIBT research seminar for their helpful comments.

References

  1. Alesina A, Favero C, Giavazzi F (2015) The output effect of fiscal consolidation plans. J Int Econ 96(Supplement 1):19–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Angrist J, Pischke JS (2009) Mostly harmless econometrics an empiricist’s companion. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  3. Bettendorf L, Devereux MP, van der Horst A, Loretz S, de Mooij RA (2010) Corporate tax harmonization in the EU. Econ Policy 63:537–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Clausing KA (2003) Tax-motivated transfer pricing and US intrafirm trade prices. J Public Econ 87(9):2207–2223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Egger P, Raff H (2015) Tax rate and tax base competition for foreign direct investment. Int Tax Public Finance 22(5):777–810CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. EU Commission (2011) Proposal for a council directive on a common consolidated corporate tax base, COM 121/4, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  7. EU Commission (2016) Proposal for a council directive on a common corporate tax, COM 685 final, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  8. Gammie M, Giannini S, Klemm A, Oestreicher A, Parascandolo P, Spengel C (2005) Achieving a common consolidated corporate tax base in the EU. Centre for European Policy Studies, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  9. Hines JR (1999) Lessons from behavioral responses to international taxation. Natl Tax J 52(2):305–322Google Scholar
  10. Hines JR (2010) Income misattribution under formula apportionment. Eur Econ Rev 54(1):108–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kari S, Laitila J, Ropponen O (2018) Investment incentives and tax competition under allowance for growth and investment (AGI), working paper, VATT Institute for Economic ResearchGoogle Scholar
  12. Kiesewetter D, Steigenberger T, Matthias S (2014) Can formula apportionment really prevent multinational enterprises from profit shifting?—The role of asset valuation. Intragroup Debt, and Leases, arqus Discussion Paper No. 175, SSRN 2512174Google Scholar
  13. Kremer J, Ruf M (2008) Belastung der Kapitalgesellschaften nach der Unternehmensteuerreform 2008. Wirtschaftsdienst 88(1):64–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mintz J, Weichenrieder AJ (2010) the indirect side of direct investment: multionational company finance and taxation. MIT Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mintz J, Weiner J (2003) Exploring formula allocation for the European union. Int Tax Public Finance 10:695–711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ohrn E (2015) Investment and employment responses to state adoption of federal accelerated depreciation policies. Department of Economics, Grinnell College, GrinnellGoogle Scholar
  17. Pethig R, Wagener A (2007) Profit tax competition and formula apportionment. Int Tax Public Finance 14:631–655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. PwC (2017) Worldwide tax corporate taxes 2016/17. www.PWC.com
  19. Sinn HW (1987) Capital income taxation and resource allocation. Eslevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  20. Vascega M, van Thiel S (2011) The CCCTB proposal: the next step towards corporate tax harmonization in the European union? Eur Tax 51:374Google Scholar
  21. Wissenschaftlicher Beirat beim Bundesfinanzministerium (2017) Steuervergünstigungen und EU-Beihilfenaufsicht: Problematik und Ansätze zur Lösung des Kompetenzkonflikts mit der Steuerautonomie, BerlinGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Doctoral Program in International Business Taxation (DIBT)Vienna University of Economics and BusinessViennaAustria
  2. 2.Faculty of Economics and Business AdministrationGoethe University Frankfurt, Vienna University of Economics and Business & CESifoFrankfurt am MainGermany

Personalised recommendations