International Tax and Public Finance

, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp 91–115 | Cite as

Company Tax Reform in the European Union

  • Peter Birch Sørensen
Article

Abstract

The European Commission recently proposed to move towards a consolidated tax base for European multinational companies, to be allocated across EU member states through a system of formula apportionment. This paper argues that while the Commission's blueprints for company tax reform may reduce existing problems of transfer pricing, they will also create new distortions as long as existing tax rate differentials are maintained. The paper also investigates the changes in international tax spillovers which will occur as a result of a switch from the current system of separate accounting to formula apportionment. The final part of the paper discusses whether more conventional corporate tax harmonization should still be a long term policy goal for the EU and presents quantitative estimates of the efficiency gains from harmonization.

corporate tax reform in the EU formula apportionment tax harmonization 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baldwin R. and P. Krugman. (2002). “Agglomeration, Integration and Tax Harmonization. ” NBERWorking Paper 9290 (forthcoming in European Economic Review).Google Scholar
  2. Cnossen, S. (2001). “Tax Policy in the European Union—A Review of Issues and Options, ” FinanzArchiv58, 466–558.Google Scholar
  3. Devereux, M. (2003). “Debating Proposed Reforms of the Taxation of Corporate Income in the European Union, ” International Tax and Public Finance11(1), 71–89.Google Scholar
  4. Edwards J. and M. Keen. (1996). “Tax Competition and Leviathan, ” European Economic Review40, 113–134.Google Scholar
  5. Eggert, W. and G. Schjelderup. (2003). “Symmetric Tax Competition Under Formula Apportionment, ” Journal of Public Economic Theory5, 439–446.Google Scholar
  6. European Commission. (1990). “One Market, One Money, ” European Economy44.Google Scholar
  7. European Commission. (1997). “Towards Tax Coordination in the European Union: A Package to Tackle Harmful Tax Competition, ” Communication from the European Commission COM(97), 495 final.Google Scholar
  8. European Commission. (2001a). “Company Taxation in the Internal Market, ” Commission Staff. Working PaperSEC (2001) 1681, Brussels.Google Scholar
  9. European Commission. (2001b). “Towards an Internal Market Without Tax Obstacles. ” COM (2001) 582 final, Brussels.Google Scholar
  10. European Commission. (2001c). “Future Priorities for EU Tax Policy. ” Working Document Prepared for the Fourteenth Meeting of the Taxation Policy Group, 16 March 2001, Doc. TPG\010316.Google Scholar
  11. Gerard, M. (2002). “Further Research Needed on Comprehensive Approaches, ” CESifo ForumSpring, 38–40.Google Scholar
  12. Gerard, M. and J. Weiner. (2003). “Cross-Border Loss Offset and Apportionment: How Do They Affect Multijurisdictional Firm Investment Policy and Interjurisdictional Tax Competition?” Paper presented at the CESifo Area Conference on Public Sector Economics, Munich, 9–11 May 2003.Google Scholar
  13. Giannini, S. (2002). “Home State Taxation versus Common Base Taxation, ” CESifo ForumSpring, 24–30.Google Scholar
  14. Gordon, R. and J. D. Wilson. (1986). “An Examination of Multijurisdictional Corporate Income Taxation Under Formula Apportionment, ” Econometrica54, 1357–1373.Google Scholar
  15. Hellerstein, W. and C. E. McLure. (2004). “The European Commission's Report on Company Income Taxation: What the EU Can Learn from the Experience of the United States, ” International Tax and Public Finance(forthcoming).Google Scholar
  16. Keen, M. (1999). “EMU and Tax Competition. ” Mimeo, Fiscal Affairs Department, IMF, July 1999.Google Scholar
  17. Krogstrup, S. (2002). “Tax Competition and Public Debt Asymmetries in the EU. ” Ph.D. thesis, Graduate Institute of International Studies, Geneva, Oct. 2002.Google Scholar
  18. McLure, C. E. (1980). “The State Corporate Income Tax: Lambs in Wolves' Clothing. ” In H. Aaron and M. Boskin (eds.), The Economics of Taxation. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  19. McLure, C. E. and J. M. Weiner. (2000). “Deciding Whether the European Union Should Adopt Formula Apportionment of Company Income. ” In S. Cnossen (ed.), Taxing Capital Income in the European Union: Issues and Options for Reform. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Mintz, J. M. (2002). “European Company Tax Reform: Prospects for the Future, ” CESifo ForumSpring, 3–9.Google Scholar
  21. Mintz, J. M. and J. M. Weiner. (2001). “Exploring Formula Apportionment for the European Union. ” Paper Presented at the Conference on Tax Policy in the European Union, OCFEB, Erasmus University Rotterdam, 17–19 Oct. 2001.Google Scholar
  22. Nielsen, S. B., P. Raimondos-Møller, and G. Schjelderup. (2001). “Tax Spillovers Under Separate Accounting and Formula Apportionment. ” EPRU Working Paper 2001-07, Institute of Economics, University of Copenhagen.Google Scholar
  23. Nielsen, S. B., P. Raimondos-Møller, and G. Schjelderup. (2003). “Formula Apportionment and Transfer Pricing Under Oligopolistic Competition, ” Journal of Public Economic Theory5, 419–437.Google Scholar
  24. Ruding Committee. (1992). “Report of the Committee of Independent Experts on Company Taxation. ” European Commission.Google Scholar
  25. Schjelderup, G. and L. Sørgard. (1997). “Transfer Pricing as a Strategic Device for Decentralized Multinationals, ” International Tax and Public Finance4, 277–290.Google Scholar
  26. Slemrod, J. B. (2001). “Are Corporate Tax Rates, or Countries, Converging?” Paper Presented at the Conference on World Tax Competition, IFS, London, 24–25 May 200Google Scholar
  27. Sørensen, P. B. (2000). “The Case for International Tax Coordination Reconsidered, ” Economic Policy31(Oct.) 431–472.Google Scholar
  28. Sørensen, P. B. (2001a). “International Tax Coordination: Regionalism Versus Globalism. ” CESifoWorking Paper No. 483 (forthcoming in the Journal of Public Economics).Google Scholar
  29. Sørensen, P. B. (2001b). “Tax Coordination in the European Union: What are the Issues?” Swedish Economic Policy Review8, 143–195.Google Scholar
  30. Sørensen, P. B. (2001c). “OECDTAX—AModel of Tax Policy in the OECD Economy. ”Working Paper, Economic Policy Research Unit, University of Copenhagen.Google Scholar
  31. Sørensen, P. B. (2002a). “To Harmonize or Not to Harmonize?” CESifo ForumSpring, 31–36.Google Scholar
  32. Sørensen, P. B. (2002b). “The German Business Tax Reform of 2000: A General Equilibrium Analysis, ” German Economic Review3, 347–378.Google Scholar
  33. Sørensen, P. B. (2003a). “Company Tax Reform in the European Union. ” EPRUWorking Paper, Economic Policy Research Unit, University of Copenhagen.Google Scholar
  34. Sørensen, P. B. (2003b). “International Tax Competition: A New Framework for Analysis, ” Economic Analysis and Policy(forthcoming).Google Scholar
  35. Sunley, E. (2002). “The Pros and Cons of Formulary Apportionment, ” CESifo ForumSpring, 36–37.Google Scholar
  36. Weiner, J. M. (2001). “The European Union and Formula Apportionment: Caveat Emptor, ” European TaxationOct. 380–388.Google Scholar
  37. Weiner, J. M. (2002a). “Formulary Apportionment and the Future of Company Taxation in the European Union, ” CESifo ForumSpring, 10–20.Google Scholar
  38. Weiner, J. M. (2002b). “Would Introducing Formula Apportionment in the European Union Be a Dream Come True or the EU's Worst Nightmare?” Ifo-Studien48, 519–532.Google Scholar
  39. Weiner, J. M. (2002c). “EU Commission, Member States Commit to EU-Wide Company Taxation, Formulary Apportionment, ” Tax Notes International26, 515–520.Google Scholar
  40. Zodrow, G. R. (2003). “Tax Competition and Tax Coordination in the European Union, ” International Tax and Public Finance10(6), 651–671.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Birch Sørensen
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of Economics and EPRUUniversity of CopenhagenDenmark
  2. 2.CESifoMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations