Abstract
Firm models are relatively rare in spite of the large number of models for households presented in the literature. The aim of this chapter is twofold. First, we illustrate the new microeconometric model on corporations currently used by Istat for revenue forecasting and policy analysis. Second, we discuss the advantages of combining microsimulation and computable general equilibrium models in simulating of corporate tax reforms.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
The sources involved in the integration process are the company accounts database, the ISTAT archive on national business groups, the statistical register of Italian active enterprises (acronym ASIA), information on spin-offs and mergers, and business structural surveys, in particular the survey on foreign trade (COE), the survey on Italian enterprises controlled by foreign firms (Fatsinward) and the survey on resident firms with foreign subsidiaries (Fats-outward).
- 3.
For example, interest deduction add-backs (carry forwards), losses carry forwards and tax allowances carry forwards.
- 4.
The ACE regime is a potential reform option that was originally proposed for the U.K by the Institute of Fiscal Studies (IFS 1991).
- 5.
A first scenario is obtained reproducing the legislation implemented in 2011 onwards over some consecutive periods (first year of simulation 2008). An alternative scenario (‘Long-run ACE’) is based on the assumption that ever since 2011 the ACE allowance were applied to the entire stock of equity. This simulation exercise (counterfactual scenario) allows investigating the impact of the incremental ACE in the long run, when companies would have accomplished a process of capitalization such that they will be granted a deduction against the taxable base for the entire stock of equity.
- 6.
In this exercise, the ATR for year 2012 is computed directly from the tax returns data filed by corporations and fiscal groups (“UnicoSC” form and “CNM” form). The MATIS model was used to estimate the two alternative scenarios as described in footnote 4.
References
Ahmed, S. (2006). Corporate Tax Models: A Review. SBP Working Paper Series, (13).
Bhattarai, K., Haughton, J., Head, M., & Tuerck, D. G. (2017). Simulating corporate income tax reform proposals with a dynamic CGE model. International Journal of Economics and Finance, 9(5), 20–35.
Branzoli, N., & Caiumi, A. (2017). Tax incentives and firm capital structure: evidence from the Italian ACE regime. Taxation Papers, European Commission, forthcoming.
Buslei, H., Bach, S., & Simmler, M. (2014). Firm level models. Handbook of microsimulation modelling, Contributions to Economic Analysis (Vol. 293, pp. 479–503). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Caiumi, A., & Di Biagio, L. (2014). The redistributive effects of an ACE Tax: The case of Italy, Paper presented at the 70th Annual Congress of the International Institute of Public Finance, August 20–23, 2014. Lugano, Switzerland. www.iipf.org.
Caiumi, A., & Di Biagio, L. (2015). Corporate effective taxation in Italy using a new microsimulation model (Istat–MATIS). Istat Working Papers, 13.
Chetty, R. (2009). Sufficient statistics for welfare analysis: a bridge between structural and reduced-form methods. Annual Review of Economics, 1, 451–488.
De Mooij, R., & Devereux, M. P. (2011). An applied analysis of ACE and CBIY reforms in the EU. International Tax and Public Finance, 18, 93–120.
Devereux, M. P., & Loretz, S. (2008). The Effects of EU Formula Apportionment on Corporate Tax Revenues. Fiscal Studies, 29(1), 1–33.
Eeger, P., Loretz, S., Pfaffermayr, M., & Winner, H. (2009). Bilateral effective tax rates and foreign direct investment. International Tax and Public Finance, 16, 822–849.
Finke, K., Heckemeyer, J., Reister, T., & Spengel, C. (2013). Impact of tax-rate cut cum base-broadening reforms on heterogeneous firms: Learning from the German tax reform of 2008. Finanzarchiv: Public Finance Analysis, 69(1), 72–114.
Finke, K., Heckemeyer, J., & Spengel, C. (2014). Assessing the impact of introducing an ACE regime (pp. 14–033). ZEW Discussion Paper: A Behavioural Corporate Microsimulation Analysis for Germany.
Fuest, C., Hemmelgarn, T., & Ramb, F. (2007). How would the introduction of an eu-wide formula apportionment affect the distribution and size of the corporate tax base? an analysis based on german multinationals. International Tax and Public Finance, 14(5), 605–626.
Institute for Fiscal Studies (1991). Equity for Companies: A corporation tax for the 1990’s. A report of the IFS capital taxes group. London: The Institute for Fiscal Studies. Commentary 26.
ISTAT (2014), “The state of the nation, Annual report, Chapter 5, Rome.
Keuschnigg, C., & Diez, M. D. (2007). A growth oriented dual income tax. International Tax and Public Finance, 14(2), 191–221.
Radulescu, D. M., & Stimmerlmayr, M. (2007). ACE versus CBIT: Which is better for investment and welfare? CESifo Economic Studies, 53, 294–328.
Roggeman, A., Verleyen, I., Van Cauwenberge, P., & Coppens, C. (2014). Impact of a common corporate tax base on the effective tax burden in Belgium. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 15(3), 530–543.
Spengel, C. (1995). Europäische Steuerbelastungsvergleiche, Düsseldorf.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Caiumi, A. (2018). Micro-Macro Simulation of Corporate Tax Reforms. In: Perali, F., Scandizzo, P. (eds) The New Generation of Computable General Equilibrium Models. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58533-8_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58533-8_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-58532-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-58533-8
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)