Skip to main content

Corporation Tax Games: An Application of Linear Cost Games to Managerial Cost Accounting

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Game Theory in Management Accounting

Part of the book series: Contributions to Management Science ((MANAGEMENT SC.))

  • 1894 Accesses

Abstract

Everybody knows that any Government, as a social institution, is concerned to provide and ensure a stable legal framework within which the investors can perform their capital investment in an environment of legal certainty that allows them to reduce their costs. Its primary function is to secure some form of cooperative benefit. Motivated by the Spanish Tax system, in this paper, we present an application of linear cost games to a corporate tax reduction system: corporation tax games. We prove that the grand coalition is always stable in the sense of the core.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Article 8 of the Law 27/1999 concerning cooperations; Boletin Oficial de Estado (BOE) No. 170, 17. July 1999, pp. 27027–27062.

  2. 2.

    Article 5 of the Law 35/2003, concerning cooperative investment institutions; BOE No. 265, 5. November 2003. Article 6 of the Royal Decree 1082/2012, 13. July 2012, approving the regulation of the development of the Law 35/2003, 4. November, concerning cooperative investment institutions; BOE No. 173, 20. July 2012.

  3. 3.

    Article 80 of the Royal Decree 1082/2012, 13. July, approving the regulation of the law 35/2003, from 4. November, concerning cooperative investment institutions, BOE No. 173, 20. July 2012.

  4. 4.

    Article 31.1. of the Spain Constitution; BOE No. 311, from 29. December 1978: “Todos contribuirán al sostenimiento de los gastos públicos de acuerdo con su capacidad económica mediante un sistema tributario justo inspirado en los principios de igualdad y progresividad que, en ningún caso, tendrá alcance confiscatorio.” [Everybody has to contribute to finance the public expenditures according to his/her economic capacity based on a tax system which respects the principles of equality and progressive taxation, but which will under no circumstances implies confiscatory effects.]

  5. 5.

    For more information see the Spanish legislation, especially: Law 58/2003, General Taxation Law; BOE No. 302, from 18. December 2003. Royal Decree 2063/2004, from 15. October, approving the Regulation BOE No. 260, from 28. October 2004, pp. 35598–35612.

  6. 6.

    The Government sanctioning powers is under Title IV of Ley 58/2003, de 17 de diciembre, General Tributaria. BOE núm. 302, de 18/12/2003.

  7. 7.

    In our case, we could simplify the concept assuming that the penalty basis \(\mathbb{B}\) always be the amount no entered by commission of the offense \(\mathbb{B} =\alpha ^{I} \cdot B_{i}\), thus the injury will always be the 100%.

  8. 8.

    It is understood that there has been backsliding, when the offender had been penalized for an infringement of the same nature, by a final administrative decision within four years prior to the commission of the offense.

References

  • Bernstein F, Kok G, Meca A (2015) Cooperation in assembly systems: the role of knowledge sharing networks. EJOR 240(1):160–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bondareva O (1963) Nekotorjye primeneniya metodov linynogo programmorovaniya k teorii kooperativnikh igr. In: Problemi Kibernetiki 10, pp 119–139 (Some applications of linear programming methods to the theory of cooperative games. In: Morgenstern O (ed) Selected Russian papers on game theory 1959–1965). Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 79–114

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillies DB (1959) Solutions to general non-zero-sum-games. In: Tucker AW, Luce RD (eds) Contributions to the theory of games, vol IV. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 47–87

    Google Scholar 

  • Heath J (2006) The benefits of cooperation. Philos Public Aff 34(4):359–374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meca A (2007) A core-allocation family for generalized holding cost games. MMOR 65(3):499–517

    Google Scholar 

  • Meca A, Sošić G (2014) Benefactors and beneficiaries: the effects of giving and receiving on cost-coalitional problems. POM 23(9):1549–1560

    Google Scholar 

  • Meca A, Sošić G (2016) On supremum-norm cost games. ORL 44(1):54–58

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls J (1999) A theory of justice. 2nd edn. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaarsberg MG, Borm P, Hamers H, Reijnierse JH (2013) Game theoretic analysis of maximum cooperative purchasing situations. NRL 60(8):607–624

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapley LS (1967) On balanced sets and cores. NRLQ 14(4):453–460

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ana Meca .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Appendix

Appendix

As we pointed out in Section 4, if an investor decides not to cooperate with the Government, he takes a chance to receive a financial penalty,Footnote 6 whose amount depends on several factors and calculation can be relatively complicated. To show how the amount of the penalty would be obtained, without incurring excessive artificiality, we’ll stick to the simplified situation most suited to our situation. To do this we consider the concepts that we define next.

Let \(\mathbb{B}\) be “penalty basis”, consisting of the amount not entered for committing infringement and P HP the damage to Public Finances, a variable that is obtained by dividing the basis of the penalty among the defrauded amount.Footnote 7

The base rates to consider are ξ G , ξ CR y ξ per . The first, ξ G , reflects the degree of infringement, and so it starts with a minimum value and increases with the severity of the offense.

$$\displaystyle{ \xi _{G} = \left \{\begin{array}{ccc} 0.50, && \mbox{ minor infringement} \\ 0.01 \cdot \left (50 +\xi _{CR} +\xi _{per}\right ), && \mbox{ mayor infringement} \\ 0.01 \cdot \left (100 +\xi _{CR} +\xi _{per}\right ),&&\mbox{ very serious infringement} \end{array} \right. }$$
(24)

The second, ξ CR has to be added only in case of recidivism.Footnote 8

$$\displaystyle{ \xi _{CR} = \left \{\begin{array}{ccc} 5, && \mbox{ minor infringement} \\ 15,&& \mbox{ mayor infringement} \\ 25,&&\mbox{ very serious infringement} \end{array} \right. }$$
(25)

The latter, ξ per , reflects the damage caused to Public Finances.

$$\displaystyle{ \xi _{per} = \left \{\begin{array}{ccc} 10,&& 10 <P_{HP} \leq 25 \\ 15,&& 25 <P_{HP} \leq 50 \\ 20,&& 50 <P_{HP} \leq 75 \\ 25,&&75 <P_{HP} \leq 100 \end{array} \right.\qquad with\;P_{HP} = \frac{\mathbb{B}} {B_{i}}\cdot 100 }$$
(26)

To simplify ξ per , we define the following unit step function, \(a \in \mathbb{R}\),

$$\displaystyle{ u\left (t - a\right ) = \left \{\begin{array}{ccc} 0,&&0 <t \leq a\\ 1, & & t> a \end{array} \right. }$$
(27)

and then,

$$\displaystyle{ \xi _{per} = 10 \cdot u\left (P_{HP} - 10\right ) + 5 \cdot \left [u\left (P_{HP} - 25\right ) + u\left (P_{HP} - 50\right ) + u\left (P_{HP} - 75\right )\right ] }$$
(28)

We analyse next how to encourage the offender to accept the sanction.

Let t a be the time allowed to pay the penalty fee, and t the time actually paid, both measured in days. The variable γ reflects some reductions by acceptance of the sanction. The amount to be paid will be reduced by a percentage γ 1 if the fraudster agree with the penalty.

$$\displaystyle{ \gamma _{1} = \left \{\begin{array}{ccc} 30&& \mbox{ agreement} \\ 50&&\mbox{ records with agreement} \\ 0 && \mbox{ another case} \end{array} \right. }$$
(29)

Besides this amount it is still reduced by 25% if the total income of the remaining amount of the penalty in time, and also waiving the application for review or appeal against the sanction is made.

$$\displaystyle{ \gamma _{2} = 25\cdot u\left (t - t_{a}\right )\cdot \delta \qquad with\;\delta = \left \{\begin{array}{ccc} 0,&& \mbox{ sanction is claimed}\\ 1, & &\mbox{ sanction not claimed} \end{array} \right. }$$
(30)

Hence,

$$\displaystyle{ \gamma = \left (1 - \frac{\gamma _{1}} {100}\right ) \cdot \left (1 - \frac{\gamma _{2}} {100}\right ) }$$
(31)

and finally, we obtain the penalty (or interest charge) coefficient

$$\displaystyle{ \alpha ^{{\ast}} =\xi _{ G} \cdot \gamma. }$$
(32)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Meca, A., Varela-Peña, J.C. (2018). Corporation Tax Games: An Application of Linear Cost Games to Managerial Cost Accounting. In: Mueller, D., Trost, R. (eds) Game Theory in Management Accounting. Contributions to Management Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61603-2_17

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics