Skip to main content

International business taxation and the business cash flow tax

Abstract

Investments and business profits are internationally mobile. Countries respond by tackling international profit shifting. As a result, the international allocation of taxable profits becomes an increasingly complex and costly issue. Reform proposals either address the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development approach to international profit allocation or target tax bases that are less mobile than profits. This paper investigates cash flow as a tax base. A business cash flow tax abolishes current accrual accounting and has the potential to block international profit shifting. Financing vanishes to become a tax-planning tool because the investments’ market return is tax free under a cash flow tax. Profit shifting via intra-group transactions is eliminated if the business cash flow tax is based on the country of destination principle. However, a destination-based business cash flow tax might distort the investment decisions of international groups.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    A tax on shareholder net cash flow, i.e., dividends and repayments of capital minus capital contributions, was already discussed in the seventies by The Institute for Fiscal Studies (1978).

  2. 2.

    See Auerbach and Devereux (2010).

  3. 3.

    See Bond and Devereux (2002).

  4. 4.

    Many countries (including most continental European countries) exempt the profits of (legally not separated) foreign permanent establishments from domestic income taxation. Profits earned by (legally separated) foreign corporations are not included in the taxable income of the domestic shareholder, and domestic income taxes on distributed foreign profits can thus be deferred.

  5. 5.

    Restrictions on internal debt financing are common (Jacobs 2011), and CFC rules recapture low-taxed interest income (Lang et al. 2004). Documentation requirements are increasingly demanding (Ernst and Young 2011), and compliance costs are substantial. The European Commission (2004) estimates the ratio of compliance costs to taxes paid in 2004 as 30.9 % for small- and medium-sized companies and 1.9 % for large-sized companies. Compliance costs increase with the number of foreign business locations.

  6. 6.

    In addition to real cash flow (R cash flow), the tax base could include all payments related to debt (R + F cash flow), which necessitates the differentiation between equity and debt. This differentiation reintroduces financing issues to the tax base.

  7. 7.

    See Bond and Devereux (2002), Auerbach and Devereux (2010).

  8. 8.

    Within the European Union, the value added tax and the European Commission’s proposal of a common consolidated corporate tax base leave the tax rates to the discretion of the member states.

  9. 9.

    Intra-group financing is neglected. Intra-group cash distributions and internal debt do not affect the tax base of the companies or the group’s total cash flow.

  10. 10.

    From \( V = I_{S}^{*} \cdot (1 - \tau_{S} ) - O_{P} \cdot (1 - \tau_{P} ) \cdot q = 0, \) it follows that \( I_{S}^{*} = q \cdot O_{P} \cdot {{(1 - \tau_{P} )} \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{(1 - \tau_{P} )} {(1 - \tau_{S} )}}} \right. \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {(1 - \tau_{S} )}} \) and that \( p^{*} = {{I_{S}^{*} } \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{I_{S}^{*} } {O_{P} }}} \right. \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {O_{P} }} - 1. \)

  11. 11.

    Adjustments of pre-tax cash flows reflecting the tax rate differential in both countries have the same effect. Either the received pre-tax cash flow of S Company must adjust to \( I_{S}^{ + } = I_{S} \cdot {{(1 - \tau_{P} )} \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{(1 - \tau_{P} )} {(1 - \tau_{S} )}}} \right. \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {(1 - \tau_{S} )}} \) to achieve the group’s after-tax terminal value of \( V = I_{S} \cdot (1 - \tau_{P} ) - O_{P} \cdot (1 - \tau_{P} ) \cdot q, \) or the pre-tax cash disbursements of P Company must adjust to \( O_{P}^{ + } = O_{P} \cdot {{(1 - \tau_{S} )} \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{(1 - \tau_{S} )} {(1 - \tau_{P} )}}} \right. \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {(1 - \tau_{P} )}} \) to achieve the group’s after-tax terminal value \( V = I_{S} \cdot \left( {1 - \tau_{S} } \right) - O_{P} \cdot \left( {1 - \tau_{S} } \right) \cdot q. \)

  12. 12.

    Analogous results are obtained if S Company owns the group’s financial resources, E, invests only in country S (E = O S , O P  = 0), delivers the goods produced to P Company; P Company pays amount T for this intra-group transaction and sells the purchased goods exclusively to consumers in country P (I P  > 0, I S  = 0).

  13. 13.

    The equivalence of an origin based BCFT and a destination based BCFT conforms to the well-known fact that a uniform indirect tax with flexible factor prices and exchange rates does not distort international trade patterns (irrespective of the application of the country of origin principle or the country of destination principle). For a comparable result, see Auerbach AJ and Devereux MP (2010) Consumption Taxes in an International Setting. Discussion Paper. Berkely, Oxford.

  14. 14.

    See Ewert and Wagenhofer (2008, p. 576).

  15. 15.

    Personal taxes are neglected in country P. Intra-group dividends distributed by S Company to P Company are tax free (affiliation privilege). In contrast, intra-group interest payments do influence the profit tax of P Company. Nevertheless, intra-group debt financing is again not considered to ensure that the uncoordinated and the coordinated taxation can be compared. In the model, intra-group debt financing and intra-group trading have the same tax effects.

  16. 16.

    If the investment is located in country P, and if goods are sold in the same country, the group’s after-tax terminal value amounts to \( V = I_{P} - O_{P} \cdot q - \tau_{P} \cdot (I_{P} - O_{P} ) \). Because profits are taxed and personal taxes are neglected, \( p^{*} = {r \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {r {(1 - \tau_{P} )}}} \right. \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {(1 - \tau_{P} )}} \) results.

  17. 17.

    The transfer payment of \( T = O_{P} \cdot [1 - ({{\tau_{S} } \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{\tau_{S} } {\tau_{P} }}} \right. \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {\tau_{P} }}) \cdot q] \) ensures that \( p^{*} = r \). Depending on the tax rate differential, T can be negative.

  18. 18.

    The same cost of capital is obtained if P Company’s pre-tax cash disbursement decreases to \( O_{P}^{ + } = O_{P} \cdot \left( {1 - \tau_{S} } \right) \). The group’s after-tax terminal value is then \( V = I_{S} \cdot (1 - \tau_{S} ) - O_{P} \cdot (1 - \tau_{S} ) \cdot q - \tau_{P} \cdot [T - O_{P} \cdot (1 - \tau_{S} )] \), and the cost of capital is derived by substituting O P with \( O_{P} \cdot (1 - \tau_{S} ) \) in Eq. (3).

  19. 19.

    When the pre-tax cash flow is adjusted in country P, the tax-neutral transfer payment is \( T = O_{P} \cdot (1 - \tau_{S} ). \)

  20. 20.

    The domestic investment’s cost of capital \( p^{*} = {r \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {r {(1 - \tau_{P} )}}} \right. \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {(1 - \tau_{P} )}} \) exceeds the cross-border investment’s cost of capital \( p^{*} = r \cdot (1 + \tau_{P} ). \)

  21. 21.

    Intra-group dividends distributed by S Company to P Company are tax free (affiliation privilege).

  22. 22.

    The same cost of capital is obtained if pre-tax cash receipts of P Company adjust to \( I_{P}^{ + } = I_{P} \cdot (1 - \tau_{S} ) \). The group’s after-tax terminal value is \( V = I_{P} \cdot (1 - \tau_{S} ) - O_{S} \cdot (1 - \tau_{S} ) \cdot q - \tau_{P} \cdot [I_{P} \cdot (1 - \tau_{S} ) - T] \), and the respective cost of capital is derived by substituting O S with \( O_{S} \cdot (1 - \tau_{S} ) \) in the brackets in Eq. (5).

  23. 23.

    When the pre-tax cash flow is adjusted in country P, the tax-neutral intra-group transfer payment is \( T = O_{S} \cdot (1 - \tau_{S} ) \cdot q \).

  24. 24.

    The US Congressional Budget Offices estimated that a switch from profit taxation to cash flow taxation reduced the compliance cost of companies from 40 bn to approximately 4–7 bn in 1988; see US Department of the Treasury (2007, p. 36).

  25. 25.

    Under a cash flow tax with tax rate τ, the tax burden of company 1 that receives payment C1 is \( \tau \cdot C1 \). Company 2 that is supplied by company 1 and receives payment C2 pays a tax of \( \tau \cdot (C2 - C1) \). The total tax payment is \( \tau \cdot C2 - \tau \cdot C1 + \tau \cdot C1 = \tau \cdot C2. \) For diverging tax rates τ1 < τ2 = τ, the total tax burden decreases to \( \tau_{2} \cdot C2 - \tau_{2} \cdot C1 + \tau_{1} \cdot C1 < \tau \cdot C2 \). Because inputs are tax deductible, the cash flow tax is similar to the value added tax. However, the value added tax uses the input tax credit method and may operate with more than one tax rate (e.g., a zero tax rate and a reduced tax rate for certain types of consumptions) because taxes not collected early are collected later.

  26. 26.

    The current criteria (Art. 5 OECD Model Treaty) do not capture cross-border trading; see Schön (2009, p. 100).

  27. 27.

    See Crawford et al. (2010, p. 313), for comparable problems under the current value added tax.

  28. 28.

    The President’s Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform (2005, p. 171), assumes the same position on the legal nature of a destination-based BCFT.

  29. 29.

    See Grabitz et al. (2011, Art. 110, para. 15, Art. 111, para. 2).

References

  1. Auerbach AJ (1997) The future of fundamental tax reform. AER 87:143–146

    Google Scholar 

  2. Auerbach AJ, Devereux MP (2010) Consumption taxes in an international setting. Discussion paper. Berkely, Oxford

  3. Auerbach AJ, Devereux MP, Simpson H (2010) Taxing corporate income. In: Adam S et al (eds) Dimensions of tax design, the Mirlees review. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 837–893

  4. Bond SR, Devereux MP (2002) Cash flow taxes in an open economy. CEPR discussion paper 3401

  5. Bradford DF (1986) Untangling the income tax. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  6. Brown EC (1948) Business-income taxation and investment incentives. In: Metzler LA et al. (eds) Income, employment and public policy. Norton, New York, pp 300–316

  7. Coase RH (1937) The nature of the firm. Economica 4:386–405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Council of Economic Advisors to the Federal Ministry of Finance (2008) Flat Tax oder Duale Einkommensteuer? In: Bundesministerium der Finanzen (ed) Der Wissenschaftliche Beirat beim Bundesministerium der Finanzen, Gutachten und Stellungnahmen 1999–2008. Federal Ministry of Finance, Berlin

  9. Crawford I, Keen M, Smith S (2010) Value-added tax and excises. In: Adam S et al (eds) Dimensions of tax design, the Mirlees review. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 275–362

  10. Desai MA, Foley CF, Hines JR (2004) A multinational perspective on capital structure choice and internal capital markets. J Finance 59:2451–2487

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Devereux MP (2008) Business taxation in a globalized world. Oxf Rev Econ Policy 24:625–638

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Devereux MP, Sørensen PB (2006) The corporate income tax: international trends and options for fundamental reform. Economic papers. Brussels

  13. Ernst & Young (2011) 2010 Global Transfer Pricing Survey, Addressing the challenges of globalization

  14. European Commission (2004) European tax survey. Commission staff working paper, sec (2004) 1128/2. Brussels

  15. European Commission (2011) Proposal for a council directive on a common consolidated corporate tax base (CCCTB), COM(2011) 121/4. Brussels

  16. European Court of Justice (2004) De Lasteyrie du Saillant, C-9-02, ECR I-2004. pp 2409–2460

  17. European Court of Justice (2011) National Grid Indus, C-371-10, http://curia.europa.eu

  18. Ewert R, Wagenhofer A (2008) Interne Unternehmensrechnung, 7th edn. Springer, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  19. Grabitz E, Hilf M, Nettesheim M (2011) Das Recht der Europäischen Union. Beck, München

  20. Grubert H (2003) Intangible income, intercompany transactions, income shifting, and the choice of location. Natl Tax J56:221–242

    Google Scholar 

  21. Grubert H, Newlon TS (1995) The international implications of consumption tax proposals. Natl Tax J 48:619–647

    Google Scholar 

  22. Grubert H, Newlon TS (1997) Taxing consumption in a global economy. American Enterprise Institute, AEI Press, Washington

  23. Hiller M (2003) Cash flow Steuer und Umsatzsteuer. Gabler, Wiesbaden

    Book  Google Scholar 

  24. Hines JR, Rice EM (1994) Fiscal paradise: foreign tax havens and American business. Q J Econ 109:149–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Hirschler K, Zagler M (2010) Investigating the shift toward a value-added-type destination-based cash flow capital income tax (VADCIT). In: Zagler M (ed) International tax coordination, an interdisciplinary perspective on virtues and pitfalls. Routledge, New York, pp 134–147

  26. Huizinga H, Laeven L, Nicodeme G (2008) Capital structure and international debt shifting. J Financial Econ 88:80–118

    Google Scholar 

  27. Jacobs OH (2011) Internationale Unternehmensbesteuerung, 6th edn. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  28. Knirsch D, Niemann R (2008) Deferred shareholder taxation—implementing a neutral business tax in the European Union. Account Eur 5:101–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. König RJ (1997) Ungelöste Probleme einer investitionsneutralen Besteuerung—Gemeinsame Wurzel unterschiedlicher neutraler Steuersysteme und die Berücksichtigung unsicherer Erwartungen. zfbf 49:42–63

    Google Scholar 

  30. Lang M, Aigner HJ, Scheuerle U, Stefaner M (2004) CFC legislation, tax treaties and EC law. Linde, Wien

    Google Scholar 

  31. McLure ChE (1992) Substituting consumption-based direct taxation for income taxes as the international standard. Natl Tax J 45:145–154

    Google Scholar 

  32. McLure CE (1993) Economic, administrative, and political factors in choosing a general consumption tax. Natl TAX J 43:345–358

    Google Scholar 

  33. McLure CE, Zodrow GR (1996) A hybrid consumption-based- direct tax proposal for Bolivia. Int Tax Public Finance 3:97–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. OECD (2010a) Review of comparability and of profit methods—revision of chapters I–III of the transfer pricing guidelines. Centre for Tax Policy and Administration, Paris

  35. OECD (2010b) Report on the attribution of profits to permanent establishments. Centre for Tax Policy and Administration, Paris

  36. Overesch M, Wamser G (2009) Who cares about corporate taxation? Asymmetric tax effects on outbound FDI. World Econ 32:1657–1684

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Rose M (1990) Heidelberg congress on taxing consumption. Springer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  38. Sandmo A (1979) A note on the cash–flow corporation tax. Econ Lett 4:173–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Schön W (2009) International tax coordination for a second-best world (part I). World Tax J 1:67–114

    Google Scholar 

  40. Schön W, Schreiber U, Spengel C, Wiegard W (2008) Dual income tax, a proposal for reforming corporate and personal income tax in Germany. ZEW Econ Stud 39. Physica, Heidelberg

  41. Sørensen PB (1998) Recent innovations in Nordic tax policy: from the global income tax to the dual income tax. In: Sørensen PB (ed) Tax policy in the Nordic countries. Macmillan, London, pp 1–27

  42. The Institute for Fiscal Studies (1978) The structure and reform of direct taxation, report of a committee chaired by Professor J. E. Meade. George Allen & Unwin, London, pp 233–235

  43. The President’s Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform (2005) Simple, fair and pro-growth. Washington

  44. US Department of Treasury—Office of Tax Policy (2007) Approaches to improve the competitiveness of the U.S. business tax system for the 21st century

  45. Wagner FW, Wenger E (1996) Theoretische Konzeption und legislative Transformation eines marktwirtschaftlichen Steuersystems in der Republik Kroatien. In: Sadowski D, Czap H, Wächter H (eds) Regulierung und Unternehmenspolitik. Gabler, Wiesbaden, pp 399–415

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  46. Wenger E (1983) Gleichmäßigkeit der Besteuerung von Arbeits–und Vermögenseinkünften. Finanzarchiv 41:207–252

    Google Scholar 

  47. Williamson OE (1985) Economic institutions of capitalism: firms, markets, relational contracting. The Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ulrich Schreiber.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schreiber, U. International business taxation and the business cash flow tax. Rev Manag Sci 7, 309–326 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-012-0089-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • Business cash flow tax
  • Consumption tax
  • International profit shifting
  • Cost of capital
  • Country of destination principle
  • Country of origin principle

JEL Classification

  • H25
  • L2
  • K34