International Tax and Public Finance

, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 236–258 | Cite as

The downside of formula apportionment: evidence on factor demand distortions

  • Nadine RiedelEmail author


This paper investigates the impact of corporate taxes on the input factor choice of multi-jurisdictional entities (MJEs) under a formula apportionment (FA) regime. Our testing ground is the German local business tax that applies FA regulations with income apportionment according to the relative payroll share. Using unique data on the population of German firms, we find that MJEs distort their employment and payroll costs in favor of low-tax locations. On average, a 1-percentage-point-increase in the tax rate differential between an affiliate and foreign group members is found to lower the affiliate’s payroll to capital ratio by 1.9%.


Corporate taxation Formula apportionment Micro data 

JEL Classification

H32 H73 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Becker, J., & Riedel, N. (2008). Cross-border tax effects on affiliate investment: evidence from European multinationals (Oxford University Centre for Business Taxation Working Paper 08/16). Google Scholar
  2. Büttner, T. (2003). Tax base effects and fiscal externalities of local capital taxation: evidence from a panel of German jurisdictions. Journal of Urban Economics, 54, 110–128. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Clausing, K. A. (2003). Tax-motivated transfer pricing and US intrafirm trade prices. Journal of Public Economics, 87, 2207–2223. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Devereux, M. P., & Loretz, S. (2008). The effects of EU formula apportionment on corporate tax revenues. Fiscal Studies, 29(1), 1–33. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Devereux, M. P., & Maffini, G. (2007). The impact of taxation on the location of capital, firms and profit: a survey of empirical evidence (Centre for Business Taxation Working Paper 07/02). Google Scholar
  6. Eggert, W., & Haufler, A. (2006). Company tax coordination cum tax rate competition in the European Union. Finanzarchiv, 62(4), 579–601. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. European Commission (2001). Towards an internal market without tax obstacles: a strategy for providing companies with a consolidated corporate tax base for their EU-wide activities. COM(2001), 582 final (October 23). Google Scholar
  8. Fuest, C., Hemmelgarn, T., & Ramb, F. (2007). How would the introduction of an EU-wide formula apportionment affect the distribution and size of the corporate tax base? An analysis based on German multinationals. International Tax and Public Finance, 14(5), 605–626. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Goolsbee, A., & Maydew, E. L. (2000). Coveting thy neighbor’s manufacturing: the dilemma of state income apportionment. Journal of Public Economics, 75, 125–143. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gordon, R., & Wilson, J. D. (1986). An examination of multijurisdictional corporate income taxation under formula apportionment. Econometrica, 54, 1357–1373. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hellerstein, W., & McLure, C. (2004). The European Commission’s report on company income taxation: what the EU can learn from the experience of the US states? International Tax and Public Finance, 11, 199–220. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Huizinga, H. P., & Laeven, L. (2008). International profit-shifting multinationals: a multi-country perspective. Journal of Public Economics, 92(5–6), 1164–1182. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kind, J. K., Midelfart, K. H., & Schjelderup, G. (2005). Corporate tax systems, multinational enterprises, and economic integration. Journal of International Economics, 65, 507–521. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Klassen, K. J., & Shackelford, D. A. (1998). State and provincial corporate tax planning: income shifting and sales apportionment factor management. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 25, 385–406. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mintz, J., & Smart, M. (2004). Income shifting, investment, and tax competition: theory and evidence from provincial taxation in Canada. Journal of Public Economics, 88, 1149–1168. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Navaretti, G. B., Checci, D., & Turrini, A. (2003). Adjusting labour demand: multinational versus national firms: a cross-European analysis. Journal of the European Economic Association, 1(2–3), 708–719. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Nielsen, S. B., Raimondos-Møller, P., & Schjelderup, G. (2002). Tax spillovers under separate accounting and formula apportionment (Mimeo). Google Scholar
  18. Riedel, N., & Runkel, M. (2007). Company tax reform with a water’s edge. Journal of Public Economics, 91, 1533–1554. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Statistisches Bundesamt (2005). Qualitätsbericht Gewerbesteuerstatistik. Wiesbaden. Google Scholar
  20. Weiner, J. M. (1994). Company taxation for the European community. How subnational tax variation affects business investment in the United States and Canada. Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University. Google Scholar
  21. Zwick, M. (2007). Alternative Modelle zur Ausgestaltung von Gemeindesteuern—Mikroanalytische Quantifizierung der Einnahme-, der Einkommens- und Verteilungseffekte. Statistik und Wissenschaft, 8, Statistisches Bundesamt. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Oxford University Centre for Business TaxationOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations