Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Tax attractiveness and the location of German-controlled subsidiaries

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Review of Managerial Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper analyzes whether taxation has an influence on the location decisions of multinational enterprises. We employ a novel set of 22 tax variables, such as the taxation of dividends and capital gains, withholding taxes, the existence of a group taxation regime, and thin capitalization rules. Furthermore, we use the Tax Attractiveness Index, a new aggregate measure containing the 22 tax variables. Our count data regression analysis is based on a novel hand-collected dataset consisting of the subsidiaries of German DAX30 companies in 97 countries. Controlling for non-tax effects, we find that a country’s tax environment has a significantly positive effect on the number of German-controlled subsidiaries and, therefore, on the location decisions of German multinational enterprises. Specifically, our analysis reveals that German multinational firms place affiliates in countries that offer favorable statutory tax rates, withholding taxes, double tax treaty networks, and holding incentives. Additionally, we find that the Tax Attractiveness Index has explanatory power in subsidiary location decisions and, therefore, it can be used as alternative composite measure, for example, when 22 single tax variables are not at disposal.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The stock of German companies’ investment abroad has increased by more than 40 % over the 5 years from 2004 to 2009 and has grown from approximately 30 to 40 % of the size of the German GDP (Deutsche Bundesbank 2007, 2013).

  2. Economic theory distinguishes between two main driving forces for becoming a multinational firm. According to the vertical model, differences in factor prices across countries lead to the emergence of multinational companies (Helpman 1984, 1985). According to the horizontal model, the internationalization decision is motivated by market access (Markusen 1984, 2002).

  3. Simmons (2003) constructed a composite index for seven countries for the year 1999.

  4. In other contexts, the application of indices is widely accepted. A famous example is the creditor rights index introduced by La Porta et al. (1998) that has been applied in many subsequent articles (Djankov et al. 2007; Spamann 2010). In the sense of Hung (2000), Jacob and Goncharov (2014) construct a tax accrual index that counts accrual norms codified in tax law.

  5. We include all legally independent entities held by a parent company. We use the terms “subsidiary” and “affiliate” interchangeably.

  6. DAX30 is the major German stock market index (Deutscher Aktien Index) and comprises the 30 largest listed companies based on order book volume and market capitalization.

  7. According to Section 8b of the German corporate income tax code (Körperschaftsteuergesetz), dividends distributed by national or foreign affiliates can be received free of tax. Only 5 % of dividends are taxed as non-deductible operating expenditures.

  8. We use model-based effective tax rates based on the methodology of Devereux and Griffith (2003), which are widely used in tax research, as an alternative measure of tax attractiveness, and calculated by Endres et al. (2014) for 35 countries and the years 1998–2014.

  9. Hines (1997) and Devereux (2007) provide comprehensive reviews of the existing literature. Based on previous studies, De Mooij and Ederveen (2003, 2006) and Feld and Heckemeyer (2011) conduct meta-analyses. Early contributions in the field of taxation and FDI are based on aggregate FDI flows (see Hartman 1984 for pioneering work). Other analyses use aggregated firm-level data on property, plant, and equipment to investigate real economic activity more accurately than FDI in its broad definition (Hines and Rice 1994; Grubert and Mutti 1991, 2000; Altshuler et al. 2001). However, due to the underlying data structure, they are not capable of disentangling the discrete location choice and the subsequent continuous choice of the investment level. With the availability of firm-level data, the number of studies examining international location decisions has increased (see the framework developed by Devereux (2007).

  10. There are two kinds of effective tax rates. The effective marginal tax rate refers to the influence of taxation on an investment that only earns the cost of capital, while the effective average tax rate represents the impact of taxes, assuming a higher profitability of the underlying investment project. A different type of effective tax rate is analyzed by Markle and Shackelford (2012). They empirically investigate accounting effective tax rates based on financial statement information. These accounting effective tax rates are often in the focus of investors, but optimization of accounting effective tax rates can lead to sub-optimal investment decisions (Müller and Sureth 2010).

  11. Papke (1991) is the only exception and uses simulation-based effective tax rates.

  12. The aforementioned Gumpert et al. (2012) is a recent exception.

  13. Due to multicollinearity reasons, we only include 20 tax variables in our disaggregated regression analyses.

  14. The set of tax variables composing the Tax Attractiveness Index described in Keller and Schanz (2013) has been slightly adjusted to reflect the research question and the perspective of German multinational companies in this study. We include depreciation rules, R&D incentives, amount limitations for loss carry forward and loss carry back rules, withholding taxes on dividends, interest and royalties paid to a German parent, and exclude the EU dummy.

  15. Since we use the maximum value observed among all countries within a year to scale our variables in some instances, we cannot infer absolute improvements of these countries’ tax systems over time. If, for example, a country’s value increases, it has improved its position relative to the most attractive country, but that does not necessarily mean that it has made its tax code more attractive. It could well be that the formerly most attractive country became less attractive. Given that we observe only limited within-country variance of countries’ tax rules over time in our sample and since it can well be argued that companies take a relative rather than an absolute perspective when making their location decision, we argue that this is only a minor problem.

  16. We use the TAX as our primary measure since is that it is the more universal measure. While the TAX_sig is tailored to specific subsidiary location decisions, the TAX contains more tax variables and therefore (potentially) is relevant for other types of corporate location decisions (e.g. location of assets such as patents).

  17. In its original version, the Tax Attractiveness Index contains a dummy variable indicating whether the respective country is part of the European Union and, therefore, benefits from the EU directives (Keller and Schanz 2013). However, in this study, we replace the dummy variable with the specific withholding tax rates to Germany, making our analysis more precise for our Germany-related research question.

  18. There are existing measures of R&D incentives (Warda 2001; Lohse et al. 2012). However, these measures also abstract from many of the above mentioned details and are available only for a limited time horizon and set of countries.

  19. Instead of 7.1 %, as assumed by Endres et al. (2014), we assume a nominal interest rate of 3.76 %, the average yield of 10-year German government bonds over the sample horizon (2005–2009). We chose commercial property as a representative asset class, since it is relevant for a broad variety of companies from different industries, and its depreciation rules are best documented for a large number of countries (source: Ernst & Young Worldwide Corporate Tax Guide). A cross-check with depreciation rates on machinery for countries with available data reveals a correlation of approx. +0.5.

  20. With 0.689, countries identified as tax havens by Hines and Rice (1994) having a significantly higher average index value than non-haven countries (0.480). 12 out of the most attractive 20 countries are identified as tax havens. However, there are several tax havens, such as Lebanon and Panama, which do not appear among the highest ranking peers according to the Tax Attractiveness Index. A similar result is found, if the tax haven definition by the OECD is used (OECD 2000, 2009).

  21. See Section 26 of the Foreign Trade and Payments Act (Außenwirtschaftsgesetz) in connection with the Foreign Trade and Payments Regulation (Außenwirtschaftsverordnung).

  22. For further information about MiDi, see Lipponer (2009).

  23. Furthermore, we do not include Fresenius Medical Care AG & Co. KGaA (FMC), since it is owned and consolidated by Fresenius SE. An inclusion of both members of the DAX30 would lead to double-counting the subsidiaries of FMC.

  24. We are able to differentiate between consolidated affiliates, non-consolidated affiliates, associated companies, and joint ventures. However, about 70 % of the subsidiaries included in our initial sample are consolidated affiliates.

  25. The following example illustrates our approach: if parent company 1 operates five affiliates in Spain in year 2006, then Number Subsidiaries equals five. The five Spanish subsidiaries count as one observation.

  26. We add € 1 to the sum before calculating the natural logarithm in order not to eliminate observations with € 0 equity.

  27. The R2 for the disaggregate non-logarithmic regression of 0.07 compares to 0.47 for the logarithmic regression.

  28. If we exclude Rule of Law and Voice & Accountability, the two control variables for which we do not have data for the British Virgin Islands and Jersey, and rerun our main regressions including the two countries, the results do not change materially (not reported).

  29. Thus, we finally capture 51,075 of the initial 74,396 subsidiaries.

  30. The likelihood-ratio test of the overdispersion parameter (alpha) in the zero-inflated negative binomial model reveals that it is significantly different from zero and therefore, that data are overdispersed. Furthermore, the Chi square test of a Poisson model rejects the hypothesis that it fits well at the one percent level.

  31. Likelihood-ratio tests of the overdispersion parameters (alpha) reveal that it is significantly different from zero at the one percent level. Therefore, the negative binomial model is preferred over the Poisson model.

  32. Becker et al. (2012) and Overesch and Wamser (2009) also opt for this version of the negative binomial model.

  33. The Vuong test statistic (z = 21.13) based on our main model specification is significant at the one percent level.

  34. The within-country variance of the Tax Attractiveness Index (0.025) is substantially lower than the between-country variance (0.145). We would expect to see more variables to show significant effects if a longer time horizon is observed over which the tax variables exhibit more variation.

  35. The clustering by country-year results in lower standard errors. To apply the most conservative specification, we therefore cluster standard errors by country. Moreover, standard errors allow for heteroskedasticity.

  36. The corresponding formula can be written as: 1-(abs[GDP per capita it  − GDP per capita DEU t ]/max[GDP per capita it , GDP per capita DEU t ]) (Buch et al. 2005). GDP per capita is measured in constant U.S. dollars based on the year 2000, respectively.

  37. This is in line with the gravity approach that explains international activity by a combination of mass variables (e.g., GDP and population) and distance variables (Bellak et al. 2009).

  38. Since the parameters are highly correlated with each other, we are not able to include all six indicators.

  39. Note that the Tax Attractiveness Index value for Germany excludes the withholding tax rates on dividends, interest, and royalties paid to a German parent. Therefore, comparisons of this value with other countries are only approximations.

  40. A 10 % point higher statutory tax rate translates into a 0.250 index point lower value of the corresponding scaled tax variable (2009), which is used in our regressions.

  41. To prevent the extensive use of debt financing, some countries enforce thin capitalization rules.

  42. Mintz (2004) suggests that financial structures involving an intermediate entity in a low-tax country are used to achieve a double dip of interest deductions. In such cases, the parent company borrows capital and passes it on to the intermediate company in the form of equity. The intermediate company, in turn, lends the capital to another subsidiary located in a high-tax country. Hence, interest can be deducted twice, once at the level of the high-tax affiliate and again at the level of the parent company. Interest is taxed at the level of the intermediate group unit. The overall group tax burden can be decreased if the local tax rate of the interposed company is comparably low or if interest income is subject to a reduced tax rate.

  43. A notional interest deduction applies, for instance, in Belgium. It allows the deduction of a fictitious interest on equity.

  44. Before calculating the natural logarithm, we add € 1 to the sum in order not to drop observations with € 0 equity.

  45. Zero is not a frequent observation for Number Subsidiaries (all). Therefore, we refrain from using a zero-inflated negative binomial model.

  46. When running regressions for each year separately, our results for the aggregate regression hold. When including the individual tax variables separately, our model does not converge for the year 2007. When looking at the remaining years, we find significant evidence for the four tax variables that show significant coefficients in the main regression (Table 3) in single years. In addition, we find significantly positive coefficients for withholding tax rates on dividends (no treaty), group relief provisions, as well as (unexpected) significantly negative coefficients for thin capitalization rules, the personal income tax rate and loss carry forward amount limitations in single years (results not reported).

  47. The correlation between TAX_sig_EW and TAX_sig is 0.99. Regression results for TAX_sig_EW are almost identical to those for TAX_sig.

  48. As indicated in the previous section, we use all components of the Tax Attractiveness Index except for withholding taxes on royalties paid to a German parent and loss carry back amount limitations due to multicollinearity concerns. Rule of Law, the other factor excluded from the regression, is not part of the index.

  49. Permanyer (2011) also finds two indices, the Gender Empowerment Measure (GEM) and the Gender Relative Status (GRS), which are not fully robust against the choice of alternating weighting schemes.

  50. We use the mean effective average tax rates at the corporate level shown in section C of Endres et al. (2014).

  51. Overesch and Wamser (2009, 2010) calculate effective tax rates based on a methodology similar to Endres et al. (2014); therefore, we can compare our results to theirs.

  52. Furthermore, Overesch and Wamser (2010) can distinguish between industries and types of FDI which is not possible with our data at hand.

  53. The AIC assumes a value of 19,611 for specification (1) and 19,647 for specification (2).

References

  • Alberternst S, Sureth C (2015) The effect of taxes on corporate financing decisions: evidence from the German interest barrier. WU international taxation research paper series No. 2015-09

  • Altshuler R, Grubert H, Newlon TS (2001) Has U.S. investment abroad become more sensitive to tax rates? In: Hines JR (ed) International taxation and multinational activity. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 9–32

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Antoniou A, Yilmaz G, Paudyal K (2008) The determinants of capital structure: capital market oriented versus bank oriented institutions. J Financ Quant Anal 43:59–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barclay MJ, Smith CW (1995) The priority structure of corporate liabilities. J Financ 50:899–916

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrios S, Huizinga H, Laeven L, Nicodème G (2012) International taxation and multinational firm location decisions. J Public Econ 96:946–958

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker SO, Egger PH, Merlo V (2012) How low business tax rates attract MNE activity: municipality-level evidence from Germany. J Public Econ 96:698–711

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beer S, Loeprick J (2015) Profit shifting: drivers of transfer (mis)pricing and the potential countermeasures. Int Tax Public Finance 22:426–451

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bellak C, Leibrecht M, Damijan JP (2009) Infrastructure endowment and corporate income taxes as determinants of foreign direct investment in Central and Eastern European countries. World Econ 32:267–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blonigen BA, Davies RB (2004) The effects of bilateral tax treaties on U.S. FDI activity. Int Tax Public Finance 11:601–622

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blonigen BA, Oldenski L, Sly N (2011) Separating the opposing effects of bilateral tax treaties. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series No. 17480

  • Booysen F (2002) An overview and evaluation of composite indices of development. Soc Indic Res 59:115–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buch CM, Kleinert J, Lipponer A, Toubal F (2005) Determinants and effects of foreign direct investment: evidence from German firm-level data. Econ Policy 20:53–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buettner T, Ruf M (2007) Tax incentives and the location of FDI: evidence from a panel of German multinationals. Int Tax Public Finance 14:151–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buettner T, Overesch M, Schreiber U, Wamser G (2009) Taxation and capital structure choice—evidence from a panel of German multinationals. Econ Lett 105:309–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buettner T, Overesch M, Schreiber U, Wamser G (2012) The impact of thin-capitalization rules on the capital structure of multinational firms. J Public Econ 96:930–938

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cameron AC, Trivedi PK (1998) Regression analysis of count data. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cameron AC, Trivedi PK (2010) Microeconometrics using Stata—revised edition. Stata Press, Texas

    Google Scholar 

  • Carr DL, Markusen JR, Maskus KE (2001) Estimating the knowledge-capital model of the multinational enterprise. Am Econ Rev 91:693–708

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins C (2011) iHate corporate tax dodgers: How apple avoids paying its fair share. http://www.alternet.org/story/151140/ihate_corporate_tax_dodgers%3A_how_apple_avoids_paying_its_fair_share. Accessed 22 Sept 2013

  • De Mooij RA, Ederveen S (2003) Taxation and foreign direct investment: a synthesis of empirical research. Int Tax Public Finance 10:673–693

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Mooij RA, Ederveen S (2006) What a difference does it make? Understanding the empirical literature on taxation and international capital flows. European Commission Economic Papers No. 261

  • 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 

  • Desai MA, Foley CF, Hines JR (2006) The demand for tax haven operations. J Public Econ 90:513–531

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deutsche Bundesbank (2007) Foreign direct investment stock statistics. Special Statistical Publication 10

  • Deutsche Bundesbank (2013) Foreign direct investment stock statistics. Special Statistical Publication 10

  • Devereux MP (2007) The impact of taxation on the location of capital, firms and profit: a survey of empirical evidence. Working Paper, Oxford University Centre for Business Taxation No. 702

  • Devereux MP, Griffith R (1998) Taxes and the location of production: evidence from a panel of US multinationals. J Public Econ 68:335–367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devereux MP, Griffith R (1999) The taxation of discrete investment choices. IFS Working Paper No. W98/16

  • Devereux MP, Griffith R (2003) Evaluating tax policy for location decisions. Int Tax Public Finance 10:107–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devereux MP, Griffith R, Klemm A (2002) Corporate income tax reforms and international tax competition. Econ Policy 17:449–495

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Djankov S, McLiesh C, Shleifer A (2007) Private credit in 129 countries. J Finance Econ 84:299–329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dreßler D, Overesch M (2013) Investment impact of tax loss treatment—empirical insights from a panel of multinationals. Int Tax Public Finance 20:513–543

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drucker J (2010) Google 2.4 % rate shows how $60 billion lost to tax loopholes. Bloomberg. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-21/google-2-4-rate-shows-how-60-billion-u-s-revenue-lost-to-tax-loopholes.html. Accessed 22 Sept 2013

  • Elschner C, Heckenmeyer J, Richter K, Scheuering U, Beatrice Wichmann (2014) Die Methoden des BAK Taxation Index. BAKBASEL, Basel

    Google Scholar 

  • Endres D, Finke K, Heckenmeyer J, Spengel C (2014) Effective tax levels using the Devereux/Griffith methodology. EU Commission Final Report TAXUD/2013/CC/120

  • Feld LP, Heckemeyer JH (2011) FDI and taxation: a meta-study. J Econ Surv 25:233–272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham JR (1996) Debt and the marginal tax rate. J Finance Econ 41:41–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green RC, Talmor E (1985) The structure and incentive effects of corporate tax liabilities. J Finance 40:1095–1114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grubert H, Mutti J (1991) Taxes, tariffs and transfer pricing in multinational corporate decision making. Rev Econ Stat 73:285–293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grubert H, Mutti J (2000) Do taxes influence where U.S. corporations invest? Natl Tax J 53:825–839

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grubert H, Slemrod J (1998) The effect of taxes on investment and income shifting to Puerto Rico. Rev Econ Stat 80:365–373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gumpert A, Hines JR, Schnitzer M (2012) The use of tax havens in exemption regimes. CEPR Discussion Papers

  • Hartman DG (1984) Tax policy and foreign direct investment in the United States. Natl Tax J 37:475–487

    Google Scholar 

  • Haufler A, Wooton I (1999) Country size and tax competition for foreign direct investment. J Public Econ 71:121–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hebous S, Ruf M, Weichenrieder AJ (2011) The effects of taxation on the location decision of multinational firms: M&A versus greenfield investments. Natl Tax J 64:817–838

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helpman E (1984) A simple theory of international trade with multinational corporations. J of Polit Econ 92:451–471

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helpman E (1985) Multinational corporations and trade structure. Rev Econ Stud 52:443–457

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hines JR (1997) Tax policy and the activities of multinational corporations. In: Auerbach AJ (ed) Fiscal policy: lessons from economic research. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 401–445

    Google Scholar 

  • Hines JR (2005) Do tax havens flourish? Tax Policy Econ 19:65–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang R, Ritter JR (2009) Testing theories of capital structure and estimating the speed of adjustment. J Finance Quant Anal 44:237–271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huizinga H, Laeven L, Nicodème G (2008) Capital structure and international debt shifting. J Financ Econ 88:80–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hung M (2000) Accounting standards and value relevance of financial statements: an international analysis. J Account Econ 30:401–420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacob M, Goncharov I (2014) Why do countries mandate accrual accounting for tax purposes? J Account Res 52:1127–1163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jan C, Ou J (2012) Negative-book-value firms and their valuation. Account Horiz 26:91–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaufmann D, Kraay A, Mastruzzi M (2010) The worldwide governance indicators: methodology and analytical issues. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 5430

  • Keller S, Schanz D (2013) Measuring tax attractiveness across countries. Arqus-Working Paper No. 143

  • King MA, Fullerton D (1984) The taxation of income from capital. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • La Porta R, Lopez de Silanes F, Shleifer A, Vishny RW (1998) Law and finance. J Polit Econ 106:1113–1155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipponer A (2009) Microdatabase direct investment—MiDi. A brief guide. Bundesbank Working Paper, Frankfurt

  • Lohse T, Riedel N, Spengel C (2012) The increasing importance of transfer pricing regulations—a worldwide overview. Oxford University Centre for Business Taxation Working Paper 12/27

  • Markle KS, Shackelford DA (2012) Cross-country comparisons of corporate income taxes. Natl Tax J 65:493–527

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markusen JR (1984) Multinationals, multi-plant economies, and the gains from trade. J Int Econ 16:205–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markusen JR (2002) Multinational firms and the theory of international trade. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Massbaum A, Sureth C (2009) Thin capitalization rules and entrepreneurial capital structure decisions. Bus Res 2:147–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Massbaum A, Klotzkowski T, Sureth C (2012) Der Einfluss der Zinsschranke auf unternehmerische Kapitalstrukturentscheidungen. ZfB 82:1389–1425

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer T, Zignago S (2011) Notes on CEPII’s distances measures: the GeoDist database. CEPII Working Paper 2011-25

  • McGranahan D (1995) Measurement of development: research at the United Nations Research Institute for Social development. Int Soc Sci J 47:39–59

    Google Scholar 

  • Mintz JM (2004) Conduit entities: implications of indirect tax-efficient financing structures for real investment. Int Tax Public Finance 11:419–434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mintz JM, Weichenrieder AJ (2010) Holding companies and ownership chains. In: Mintz JM, Weichenrieder AJ (eds) The indirect side of direct investment: multinational company finance and taxation. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 77–120

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Müller J, Sureth C (2010) The impact of tax optimized investment projects on the effective group tax rate. Die Betriebswirtschaft 70:331–348

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2000) Towards global tax co-operation: progress in identifying and eliminating harmful tax practices. OECD, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2009) A progress report on the jurisdictions surveyed by the OECD Global Forum in implementing the internationally agreed tax standard. OECD, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2013) Addressing base erosion and profit shifting. OECD Publishing, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Oestreicher A, Reister T, Spengel C (2009) Common Corporate Tax Base (CCTB) and effective tax burdens in the EU member states. ZEW Discussion Paper No. 09-026, Mannheim

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Overesch M, Wamser G (2010) The effects of company taxation in EU accession countries on German FDI. Econ Transit 18:429–457

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papke LE (1991) Interstate business tax differentials and new firm location: evidence from panel data. J Public Econ 45:47–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Permanyer I (2011) Assessing the robustness of composite indices rankings. Rev Income Wealth 57:306–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramb F, Weichenrieder AJ (2005) Taxes and the financial structure of German inward FDI. Rev World Econ 141:670–692

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruf A, Weichenrieder AJ (2012) The taxation of passive foreign investment: lessons from German experience. Can J Econ 45:1504–1528

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simmons RS (2003) An empirical study of the impact of corporate taxation on the global allocation of foreign direct investment: a broad tax attractiveness index approach. J Int Account Audit Tax 12:105–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slottje DJ (1991) Measuring the quality of life across countries. Rev Econ Stat 73:684

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spamann H (2010) The “Antidirector Rights Index” revisited. Rev Financ Stud 23:467–486

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stöwhase S (2002) Profit shifting opportunities, multinationals, and the determinants of FDI. Munich Discussion Paper No. 2002-11

  • Voget J (2010) Relocation of headquarters and international taxation. J Public Econ 95:1067–1081

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wamser G (2011) Foreign (in)direct investment and corporate taxation. Can J Econ 44:1497–1524

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warda J (2001) Measuring the value of R&D tax treatment in OECD countries. OECD STI Review 27

  • Weyzig F (2013) Tax treaty shopping: structural determinants of Foreign Direct Investment routed through the Netherlands. Int Tax Public Finance 20:910–937

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winkelmann R, Zimmermann KF (1995) Recent developments in count data modelling: theory and application. J Econ Surv 9:1–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Martin Jacob, Igor Goncharov, Martin Ruf, Michael Overesch, Maximilian André Müller, Caspar David Peter, Holger Theßeling, Robert Risse, Wolfgang Schön, Kai Konrad, Pia Kortebusch, Caren Sureth, Sebastian Schanz and delegates from the European Accounting Association conference in Paris 2013, the German Academic Association for Business Research conference in Würzburg 2013, the Quantitative Research in Taxation conference (arqus.info) in Bochum 2013, workshop participants at WHU—Otto Beisheim School of Management, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, and the Max Planck Institute for Tax Law and Public Finance, Munich, as well as two anonymous referees for their helpful comments and suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Munich School of Management, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Ludwigstraße 28/RG IV, 80539, Munich, Germany

    Deborah Schanz & Andreas Dinkel

  2. WHU – Otto Beisheim School of Management, Burgplatz 2, 56179, Vallendar, Germany

    Sara Keller

Authors
  1. Deborah Schanz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andreas Dinkel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sara Keller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Deborah Schanz.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Variable definitions

Tax Attractiveness Index

Index covering 22 different tax factors. For Germany, TAX consists of 19 components excluding withholding tax rates to Germany on dividends, interest, and royalties. The index represents host country i’s tax attractiveness and is constrained to values between zero and one. The more the index approaches one, the more attractive the tax environment that host country i offers. The index is measured on an annual basis (2005–2009). Data sources: the Global Corporate Tax Handbook and the European Tax Handbook published by the International Bureau of Fiscal Documentation (IBFD), PricewaterhouseCoopers’ Corporate Taxes—Worldwide Summaries and Individual Taxes—Worldwide Summaries, Ernst & Young’s Worldwide Corporate Tax Guide, Deloitte’s Taxation and Investment Guides, KPMG’s Corporate Tax Rate Survey and Individual Income Tax Rate Survey, and the OECD tax database

GDP

Logarithm of host country i’s gross domestic product measured in constant U.S. dollars based on the year 2000. GDP is measured on an annual basis. Data sources: World Development Indicators of the World Bank. For Taiwan, we source data from the National Statistics of China (Taiwan) (http://eng.stat.gov.tw/) and the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics, Executive Yuan, R.O.C. Taiwan (http://eng.dgbas.gov.tw/). For the Netherlands Antilles, we source data from the Central Bureau of Statistics Curaçao (http://www.cbs.cw/) and Statistics Netherlands (http://www.cbs.nl/). For the Cayman Islands, we source data from the Economics and Statistics Office, Government of the Cayman Islands (http://www.eso.ky/). For Guernsey, we source data from the States of Guernsey (http://www.gov.gg/)

Similarity

An index reflecting the difference between Germany’s gross domestic product per capita and the gross domestic product per capita of host country i. The index is defined as one minus the ratio of the absolute value of host country i’s gross domestic product per capita minus Germany’s gross domestic product per capita to the higher of both gross domestic products per capita. Gross domestic product per capita is measured in constant U.S. dollars based on the year 2000, respectively. The index uses values between one and zero; a higher score indicates that countries are more similar. Similarity is measured on an annual basis. Data source: World Development Indicators of the World Bank. For Taiwan, we source data from the National Statistics of China (Taiwan) (http://eng.stat.gov.tw/) and the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics, Executive Yuan, R.O.C. Taiwan (http://eng.dgbas.gov.tw/). For the Netherlands Antilles, we source data from the Central Bureau of Statistics Curaçao (http://www.cbs.cw/) and Statistics Netherlands (http://www.cbs.nl/). For the Cayman Islands, we source data from the Economics and Statistics Office, Government of the Cayman Islands (http://www.eso.ky/). For Guernsey, we source data from the States of Guernsey (http://www.gov.gg/)

Distance

The great circle distance between Germany’s main agglomeration and host country i’s main agglomeration, weighted by the share of the agglomeration in the overall country’s population, respectively. Data source: Centre d’Etudes Prospectives et d’Informations Internationales (CEPII). For Liechtenstein, we take the Swiss value (Zurich). For Montenegro, we take the Serbian value (Belgrade). For Guernsey, we take the value of Great Britain (London)

Adjacency

A dummy variable obtaining the value of one if host country i shares a border with Germany

Rule of Law

Reflecting the level to which negotiators have confidence in and adhere to the rules of society. It captures particularly the qualities of contract enforcement, property rights, the police, as well as the probability of crime and violence in host country i. Rule of Law may range between −2.5 and 2.5 and is measured on an annual basis. Data source: World Governance Indicators of the World Bank. For Guernsey, we take the value of Great Britain

Voice & Accountability

Indicating the degree to which citizens of host country i are given the possibility to elect their government. In addition, it represents the extent to which the freedom of expression, the freedom of association, and a free media are established in host country i. Voice & Accountability may range between −2.5 and 2.5, and is measured on an annual basis. Data source: World Governance Indicators of the World Bank. For Guernsey, we take the value of Great Britain

Appendix 2: Additional analysis

See Tables 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11.

Table 7 Measurement of tax variables
Full size table
Table 8 Tax attractiveness index per country
Full size table
Table 9 Sample Selection
Full size table
Table 10 Correlation between different dependent variables and country-level controls
Full size table
Table 11 Robustness test—change in number of subsidiaries
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schanz, D., Dinkel, A. & Keller, S. Tax attractiveness and the location of German-controlled subsidiaries. Rev Manag Sci 11, 251–297 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-016-0190-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-016-0190-3

Keywords

JEL classification

Search

Navigation