We estimate the revenue implications of a destination-based cash-flow tax (DBCFT) for 80 countries. On a global average, DBCFT revenues under unchanged tax rates would remain similar to the existing corporate income tax (CIT) revenue, but with sizable redistribution of revenue across countries. Countries are more likely to gain revenue if they have trade deficits, are not reliant on the resource sector, and/or—perhaps surprisingly—are developing economies. DBCFT revenues tend to be more volatile than CIT revenues. Moreover, we consider the revenue losses resulting from spillovers in case of unilateral implementation of a DBCFT. Results suggest that these spillover effects are sizeable if the adopting country is large and globally integrated. These spillovers generate strong revenue-based incentives for many—but not all—other countries to follow the DBCFT adoption.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
See: A Better Way Forward—Our Vision for a Confident America, Tax, June 24, 2016.
There are other forms of a destination-based business profit tax. For example, Hebous and Klemm (2020) discuss a destination-based allowance for corporate equity (DBACE), including its revenue implications and how they deviate from those of a DBCFT in the short (greater revenue for the DBACE) and long run (no difference in present discounted value terms, but less volatility in case of a DBACE).
This point is made in several papers. For a particularly clear exposition, see, e.g., Auerbach (2017a).
Barbiero et al. (2018), for example, argue that the dynamics of adjustment are complex and, depending on anticipation and the exact implementation of the reform, can be incomplete.
Except if the currency is used as foreign reserve currency. Moreover, even under a balanced current account, trade imbalances can be financed from the income account, which also has tax consequences as will be discussed.
We assume introduction of a pure DBCFT. The US proposal did not include this feature.
See Ueda (2018) for a discussion of the relationship between national accounts concepts and CIT bases.
Carryforward, even with interest, would not be effective, because some firms, notably exporters, are likely to be in a systematic tax loss position and would not benefit from it.
In principle, Eq. (1) should add deposit and transaction fees and other non-interest income since these would remain taxable under a DBCFT, whereas cost of employment in the financial sector should be deducted. However, for most countries, as both effects are in opposite directions, they would likely (to a large extent) offset making a potential bias rather negligible (possibly except for a few financial centers). Internationally comparable data on the subcategories of financial fees and cost of employment in the financial sector are not available for most countries.
See Carton et al. (2019) for an analysis of the impact on investment using a multi-region forward-looking DSGE model.
See Klemm and Liu (2019) for a discussion and further references.
Despite the theoretically compelling argument by Auerbach (2017b), if data on the gross operating surplus are collected differently from trade data, then changes in profit shifting could affect measures of both items differently. As a robustness check, we therefore repeat the analysis in this paper, with data published by Tørsløv et al. (2018) that correct for profit shifting. While there is an active and so far unsettled debate about the magnitude of recent profit-shifting estimates (Blouin and Robinson 2020) and hence these adjusted data, we have used them as a robustness check and obtained very similar results from those on unadjusted data.
United Nations Statistics Division: National Accounts Official Country Data: Non-financial corporations.
See Danie et al. (2010) for options on efficient resource-sector taxes.
Some confusion may occur because the terms pro and countercyclicality can be used to describe association with the cycle or the policy impact. Hence, a procyclical income tax (whose revenues rise with greater amplitude than GDP) has a counter-cyclical impact.
See Appendix in Klemm (2014) for a table summarizing the specifications used in the literature.
The covariance between profit shifting and real investment can be of either sign. There can be a colocation of real assets and paper profits (e.g., because the presence of capital makes profit shifting easier) and/or a decoupling (as raising tax rates discourages investment less strongly when profits can be shifted). See Klemm and Liu (2019) for a discussion of the interaction between investment and profit shifting.
Abbas, A., and A. Klemm. 2013. A Partial Race to the Bottom: Corporate Tax Developments in Emerging and Developing Economies. International Tax and Public Finance 20(4): 596–617.
Alesina, Alberto, Filipe Campante, and Guido Tabellini. 2008. Why is Fiscal Policy Often Procyclical? Journal of the European Economic Association 6(5): 1006–1036.
Auerbach, A., 2017a, “Border Adjustment and the Dollar,” AEI Economic Perspectives, February 2017.
Auerbach, A., 2017b, “Demystifying the Destination-Based Cash-Flow Tax,” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Fall 2017, pp. 409-432.
Auerbach, A., M.P. Devereux, M. Keen, and J. Vella, 2017a, “Destination-Based Cash Flow Taxation,” Oxford University Centre for Business Taxation Working Papers, No. 17/01.
Auerbach, A., M.P. Devereux, M. Keen, and J. Vella. 2017. International Tax Planning Under the Destination-Based Cash Flow Tax. National Tax Journal 70: 783–801.
Avi-Yonah, R.S., and K. Clausing. 2017. Problems with Destination-Based Corporate Taxes and the Ryan Blueprint. Columbia Journal of Tax Law 8(2): 229–255.
Barbiero, O., E. Farhi, G. Gopinath, and O. Itskhoki, 2018, “The Macroeconomics of Border Taxes,” NBER Working Papers, No. 24702.
Bohn, H. 2007. Are Stationary and Cointegration Restrictions Really Necessary for the Intertemporal Budget Constraint? Journal of Monetary Economics 54: 1837–1847.
Beer, S., R. De Mooij, and L. Liu, 2019, “International Corporate Tax Avoidance: A Review of the Channels, Effect Sizes, and Blind Spots”, Journal of Economic Surveys.
Beer, S., A. Klemm, and T. Matheson, 2018, “Tax Spillovers from U.S. Corporate Income Tax Reform,” IMF Working Papers, No. 18/166, 2018.
Blouin, J., and L. Robinson, 2020, “Double Counting Accounting: How Much Profit of Multinational Enterprises Is Really in Tax Havens?”, Mimeo.
Bond, S. and M.P. Devereux, 2002, “Cash Flow Taxes in an Open Economy,” CEPR Discussion Papers, No. 3401.
Carton, B., E. Fernandez-Corugedo, and B. Hunt, 2019, “Corporate Tax Reform: From Income to Cash Flow Taxes,” IMF Working Papers, No. 19/13.
Daniel, P., M. Keen, and C. McPherson. 2010. The Taxation of Petroleum and Minerals: Principles, Problems and Practice. London: Routledge.
De Mooij, R.A., and S. Ederveen. 2008. Corporate Tax Elasticities: A Reader’s Guide to Empirical Findings. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 24: 680–697.
Durdu, B., E. Mendoza, and M. Terrones. 2013. On the Solvency of Nations: Cross-Country Evidence on the Dynamics of External Adjustment. Journal of International Money and Finance 32: 762–780.
Gavin, M., and R. Perotti. 1997. Fiscal Policy in Latin America. NBER Macroeconomics Annual 12: 11–72.
Hebous, S. and N. Johannesen, 2020, “At Your Service! The Role of Tax Havens in International Trade with Services,” Mimeo.
Hebous, S., and A. Klemm. 2020. A Destination-Based Allowance for Corporate Equity. International Tax and Public Finance 27(3): 753–777.
Hines, J., and E. Rice. 1994. Fiscal Paradise: Foreign Tax havens and American Business. Quarterly Journal of Economics 109(1): 149–182.
Huizinga, H., and L. Laeven. 2008. International Profit Shifting Within Multinationals: A Multi-country Perspective. Journal of Public Economics 92: 1164–1182.
Klemm, A., 2014, “Fiscal Policy in Latin America over the Cycle,” IMF Working Papers, No. 14/59.
Klemm, A. and L. Liu, 2019, “The Impact of Profit Shifting on Economic Activity and Tax Competition,” IMF Working Papers, No. 19/287.
Leibrecht, M., and C. Hochgatterer. 2012. Tax Competition as a Cause of Falling Corporate Income Tax Rates: A Survey of Empirical Literature. Journal of Economic Surveys 26(4): 616–648.
Nickell, S. 1981. Biases in Dynamic Models with Fixed Effects. Econometrica 49(6): 1417–1426.
Patel, E., and J. McClelland, 2017, “What Would a Cash Flow Tax Look Like for U.S. Companies? Lessons from a Historical Panel,” Office of Tax Analysis Working Papers, No. 116, United States Department of Treasury.
Tørsløv, T., L. Wier, and G. Zucman, 2018, “The Missing Profits of Nations,” NBER Working Papers, No. 24701.
Ueda, J., 2018, “Estimating the Corporate Income Tax Gap,” IMF Technical Notes and Manuals, No. 18/02.
We are grateful for comments by participants at the IMF Seminar, the Cnossen Forum in Rotterdam, the annual conference of the Oxford Center for Business Taxation, Alan Auerbach, Benjamin Carton, Ruud de Mooij, Michael Keen, Aiko Mineshima, Jiri Podpiera, Rafael Portillo, Dinar Prihardini, two anonymous referees, and the editor Linda Tesar. The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the IMF, its Executive Board, or IMF management.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
About this article
Cite this article
Hebous, S., Klemm, A. & Stausholm, S. Revenue Implications of Destination-Based Cash-Flow Taxation. IMF Econ Rev 68, 848–874 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41308-020-00122-4
- Tax revenue
- Destination-based cash flow tax
- Border adjustment tax