Advertisement

Business Research

, Volume 5, Issue 1, pp 8–23 | Cite as

Tax-optimal step-up and imperfect loss offset

  • Markus Diller
Open Access
Article
First Online:
  • 360 Downloads

Abstract

In the field of mergers and acquisitions, German and international tax law allow for several opportunities to step up a firm’s assets, i.e., to revaluate the assets at fair market values. When a step-up is performed the taxpayer recognizes a taxable gain, but also obtains tax benefits in the form of higher future depreciation allowances associated with stepping up the tax base of the assets. This tax-planning problem is well known in taxation literature and can also be applied to firm valuation in the presence of taxation. However, the known models usually assume a perfect loss offset. If this assumption is abandoned, the depreciation allowances may lose value as they become tax effective at a later point in time, or even never if there are not enough cash flows to be offset against. This aspect is especially relevant if future cash flows are assumed to be uncertain. This paper shows that a step-up may be disadvantageous or a firm overvalued if these aspects are not integrated into the basic calculus. Compared to the standard approach, assets should be stepped up only in a few cases and — under specific conditions — ata later point in time. Firm values may be considerably lower under imperfect loss offset.

JEL classifiation

H25 M41 

Keywords

business taxation hidden reserves step-up 
Download to read the full article text

References

  1. Brähler, Gernot, Max Göttsche, and Bernhard Rauch (2009): Verlustnutzung von Kapitalgesellschaften bei Umwandlungen- Eine ökonomische Vorteilhaftigkeitsanalyse, Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft, 79 (10): 1175–1191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chapeau-Blondeau, Fran¢ois and Abdelilah Monir (2002): Numerical Evaluation of the Lambert W Function and Application to Generation of Generalized Gaussian Noise With Exponent 1/2, IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, 50 (9): 2160–2165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Corless, Robert M., Gaston H. Gonnet, D. E. G. Hare, David J. Jeffrey, and Donald E. Knuth (1996): On the Lambert W Function, Advances in Computational Mathematics, 5 (1): 329–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. DeAngelo, Harry and Ronald W. Masulis (1980): Optimal Capital Structure Under Corporate and Personal Taxation, Jounal of Financial Economics, 8 (1): 3–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Diller, Markus (2008): Effektive Seuerbelastungen bei unvollständigem Verlustausgleich und unsicheren Erwartungen, Die Betriebswirtschaft, 68 (4): 404–417.Google Scholar
  6. Dixit, Avinash K. and Robert S. Pindyck (1994), Investment Under Uncertainty, Princeton Univ. Press: Princeton.Google Scholar
  7. Erickson, Merle (1998): The Effect of Taxes on the Structure of Corporate Acquisitions, Journal of Accounting Research, 36 (2): 279–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Erickson, Merle and Shiing-Wu Wang (2000): The Effect of Transaction Structure on Price: Evidence from Subsidiary Sales, Journal of Accounting and Economics, 30 (1): 59–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Erickson, Merle and Shiing-Wu Wang (2007): Tax Benefits as a Source of Merger Premiums In Acquisitions of Private Corporations, Accounting Review, 82 (2): 359–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gryglewicz, Sebastian, Kuno J. M. Huisman, and Peter M. Kort (2008): Finite Project Life and Uncertainty Effects on Investment, Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 32 (7): 2191–2213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. MacKie-Mason, Jeffrey K. (1990): Do Taxes Affect Corporate Financing Decisions?, Journal of Finance, 45 (5): 1471–1493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. McDonald, Robert L. and Daniel R. Siegel (1986): The Value of Waiting to Invest, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 101 (4): 707–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Müller, Heiko and Birk Semmler (2003a): Das Entscheidungsproblem der Wahl des steuerlichen Wertansatzes bei einer Einbringung in eine Kapitalgesellschaft nach § 20 UmwStG, Steuer & Studium, 24 (4): 203–213.Google Scholar
  14. Müller, Heiko and Birk Semmler (2003b): Steuerbedingter Kaufpreisabschlag bei Anteilen an einer Kapitalgesellschaft, Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft, 73 (6): 583–599.Google Scholar
  15. Müller, Heiko, Dirk Langkau, and Thomas-Patrick Schmidt (2011): Etragsteueroptimale Alternativen zur Umwandlung einer Kapitalgesellschaft in ein Personenunternehmen, Zeitschrift für betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung, 63 (2): 90–117.Google Scholar
  16. PwC (2006): Mergers and Acquisitions: A Global Tax Guide with a Country-by-Country Guide, Wiley & Sons: New Jersey.Google Scholar
  17. Schipper, Katherine and Abbie Smith (1991): Effects of Management Buyouts on Corporate Interest and Depreciation Tax Deductions, Journal of Law and Economics, 34 (2): 295–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Scholes, Myron S., Mark A. Wolfson, Merle Erickson, Edward L. Maydew, and Terry Shevlin (2009): Taxes and Business Strategy — A Planning Approach, 4th ed., Pearson: New Jersey.Google Scholar
  19. Schreiber, Ulrich (2008): Besteuerung der Unternehmen, 2th ed., Springer: Berlin, Heidelberg.Google Scholar
  20. Trezevant, Robert (1992): Debt Financing and Tax Status: Tests of the Substitution Effect and the Tax Exhaustion Hypothesis Using Firms’ Responses to the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, Journal of Finance, 47 (4): 1557–1568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Business Administration and EconomicsUniversity of PassauGermany

Personalised recommendations