Advertisement

International Tax and Public Finance

, Volume 20, Issue 6, pp 910–937 | Cite as

Tax treaty shopping: structural determinants of Foreign Direct Investment routed through the Netherlands

  • Francis Weyzig
Article

Abstract

Many multinationals divert Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) through conduit countries that have a favorable tax treaty network, to avoid host country withholding taxes. This is referred to as tax treaty shopping. The Netherlands is the world’s largest conduit country; in 2009, multinationals held approximately €1,600 billion of FDI via the Netherlands. This paper uses microdata from Dutch Special Purpose Entities to analyze geographical patterns and structural determinants of FDI diversion. Regression analysis confirms that tax treaties are a key determinant of FDI routed through the Netherlands. The effect of tax treaties on FDI diversion partly arises from the reduction of dividend withholding tax rates, which provides strong evidence for tax treaty shopping.

Keywords

Treaty shopping Tax treaties Foreign direct investment Withholding tax Special purpose entities 

JEL Classification

G32 H25 H32 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author thanks Ruerd Ruben and various others for valuable comments and Eric Neumayer for sharing data on tax and investment treaties. The author acknowledges financial support from SOMO (Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations).

References

  1. Avi-Yonah, R. S. (2009). Double tax treaties: an introduction. In K. P. Sauvant & L. E. Sachs (Eds.), The effect of treaties on foreign direct investment (pp. 99–107). Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baistrocchi, E. A. (2008). The use and interpretation of tax treaties in the emerging world: theory and implications. British Tax Review, 4, 352–391. Google Scholar
  3. Barthel, F., Busse, M., Krever, R., & Neumayer, E. (2010a). The relationship between double taxation treaties and foreign direct investment. In M. Lang et al. (Eds.), Tax treaties: building bridges between law and economics, Amsterdam: IBFD (pp. 3–18). Google Scholar
  4. Barthel, F., Busse, M., & Neumayer, E. (2010b). The impact of double taxation treaties on foreign direct investment: evidence from large dyadic panel data. Contemporary Economic Policy, 28(3), 366–377. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blonigen, B. A., & Davies, R. B. (2008). Do bilateral tax treaties promote foreign direct investment? In J. Hartigan (Ed.), Handbook of international trade (pp. 526–546). Boston: Blackwell Publishers. Google Scholar
  6. Collins, J. H., & Shackelford, D. A. (1998). Global organizations and taxes: an analysis of the dividend, interest, royalty, and management fee payments between U.S. multinationals’ foreign affiliates. Journal of Accounting & Economics, 24(2), 151–173. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Coupé, T., Orlova, I., & Skiba, A. (2008). The effect of tax and investment treaties on bilateral FDI flows to transition countries. In 9th annual global development conference, Brisbane, 29 Jan 2008. Google Scholar
  8. Desai, M. A., Foley, C. F., & Hines, J. R. Jr. (2003). Chains of ownership, regional tax competition, and foreign direct investment. In H. Herrmann & R. Lipsey (Eds.), Foreign direct investment in the real and financial sector of industrial countries (pp. 61–98). Heidelberg: Springer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. DNB (2009). Stagnation at bank SFIs, growth in activities of other SFIs. DNB Statistical Bulletin, 14–19 Sept. 2009. Google Scholar
  10. DNB (2010). EUR 90 billion in income channeled through dutch SFIs. DNB Statistical Bulletin, 25–28 Dec. 2010. Google Scholar
  11. Dolan, D. K., & Walsh Weil, M. F. (1995). Use of holding companies in international tax planning. Taxes, 73, 873–888. Google Scholar
  12. Egger, P., Larch, M., Pfaffermayr, M., & Winner, H. (2006). The impact of endogenous tax treaties on foreign direct investment: theory and evidence. Canadian Journal of Economics, 39(3), 901–931. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fortanier, F., & Van Tulder, R. (2007). Bilateral investment treaties and foreign direct investment. Paper presented at AIB Conference, Indianapolis, IN, June 2007. Google Scholar
  14. Grubert, H., & Slemrod, J. (1998). The effect of taxes on investment and income shifting to Puerto Rico. Review of Economics and Statistics, 80(3), 365–373. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kandev, M. (2009). Treaty shopping after prevost car: what does the future hold? Toronto: International Fiscal Association (Canadian branch). Google Scholar
  16. Kingson, C. I. (1981). The coherence of international taxation. Columbia Law Review, 81(6), 1151–1289. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lee, K. G. (2009). Improper use of tax treaties. UN Committee of Experts on International Cooperation in Tax Matters, New York. Google Scholar
  18. Mutti, J., & Grubert, H. (2009). The effect of taxes on royalties and the migration of intangible assets abroad. In M. Reinsdorf & M. J. Slaughter (Eds.), International trade in services and intangibles in the era of globalization (pp. 111–137). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Neumayer, E. (2007). Do double taxation treaties increase foreign direct investment to developing countries? Journal of Development Studies, 43(8), 1501–1520. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. OECD (1986). Double taxation conventions and the use of conduit companies. Paris: OECD. Google Scholar
  21. OECD (2008). OECD benchmark definition of foreign direct investment (4th edn.). Paris: OECD. Google Scholar
  22. Pistone, P. (2010). Tax treaties with developing countries: a plea for new allocation rules and a combined legal and economic approach. In M. Lang et al. (Eds.), Tax treaties: building bridges between law and economics (pp. 413–440). Amsterdam: IBFD. Google Scholar
  23. Siegmann, T. (2007). The impact of bilateral investment treaties and double taxation treaties on foreign direct investments. (Working Paper No. 2008-22) University of St. Gallen Law Economics. Google Scholar
  24. Thuronyi, V. (2010). Tax treaties with developing countries. In M. Lang et al. (Eds.), Tax treaties: building bridges between law and economics, Amsterdam: IBFD (pp. 441–456). Google Scholar
  25. Van Os, R., & Knottnerus, R. (2011). Dutch bilateral investment treaties: a gateway to ‘treaty shopping’ for investment protection by multinational companies. SOMO, Amsterdam. Google Scholar
  26. Wacker, R. (1993). Anti-treaty shopping restrictions in the new U.S.–Netherlands tax treaty. The Tax Executive, 45, 383–390. Google Scholar
  27. Weichenrieder, A. J., & Mintz, J. (2008). What determines the use of holding companies and ownership chains? (Working Paper Series No. 803). Oxford University Centre for Business Taxation. Google Scholar
  28. Weyzig, F., & Van Dijk, M. (2009). Incoherence between tax and development policies: the case of the Netherlands. Third World Quarterly, 30(7), 1259–1277. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wilkie, K. (2010). Business monitor MA4: foreign direct investment 2008. London: Office for National Statistics. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Utrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations