Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of Business Economics 4/2020

26-11-2019 | Original Paper

How accurately does the CCCTB apportionment formula allocate profits? An evaluation of the European Commission proposal

Authors: Jochen Hundsdoerfer, Julia Wagner

Published in: Journal of Business Economics | Issue 4/2020

Log in

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

The European Commission has been setting the course for an EU-wide reform of the traditional corporate tax system of separate accounting (SA) to a unitary taxation with formula apportionment (FA). The underlying claim of this formula is that it allocates profits more precisely than SA to the country where the value is created, as SA can be distorted by intra-group profit shifting. We analyze and evaluate the proposed CCCTB apportionment formula in terms of how well FA approximates the “undistorted” profit. After identifying potential determinants of misapportionment in the CCCTB formula, we test the formula empirically by randomly grouping pairs of European groups to fictitious metagroups. We allocate profits to the metagroup members according to the formula and compare the apportioned FA profit with the observed SA profit (our proxy for “undistorted” profit). We find huge profit misallocations under FA. Restricting the sample to metagroup years with positive profit of each metagroup member, the mean negative (positive) profit deviation is − 4.2% (6.2%) of total assets. Compared to the mean return on assets of the sample, this results in an average error of − 49.5% or + 74.1%, respectively. The deviation caused by FA is systematic. The main drivers for profit misallocations are the profitability of a firm as well as the within-group heterogeneity in firm size and in profitability. The inclusion of loss years shows that loss firms would suffer from considerable additional tax payments under FA. An adjustment of the apportionment weights would slightly increase the performance of the formula. All in all, the CCCTB apportionment formula performs remarkably badly.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Journal of Business Economics

From January 2013, the Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft (ZfB) is published in English under the title Journal of Business Economics (JBE). The Journal of Business Economics (JBE) aims at encouraging theoretical and applied research in the field of business economics and business administration, promoting the exchange of ideas between science and practice.

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Footnotes
1
See the detailed information and documentation of the European Parliament Legislative Observatory on common consolidated corporate tax base (CCCTB), 2016/0336(CNS), https://​oeil.​secure.​europarl.​europa.​eu/​oeil/​popups/​ficheprocedure.​do?​reference=​2016/​0336(CNS), last accessed Mai 12, 2019.
 
2
A macro-based approach and two micro-based approaches (Value Added and FA) were discussed (European Commission 2007a, pp. 3 ff.; European Commission 2007b, pp. 5 f.). See Agúndez-García (2006) for a detailed evaluation of these different apportioning mechanisms based on equity and efficiency criteria.
 
3
Nevertheless, even if the conditions are violated, the deviation may coincidentally equal zero because multiple differences balance each other out. For each group there exist at least three vectors of factor weights that balance out differences, but factor weights in these vectors are not restricted to the interval [0;1]: When two of the three factor weights are set to arbitrary numbers between 0 and 1, there is always a factor weight for the third factor that equals out the differences. If the sum of factor endowments is equal for each group firm and each group firm earns the same profit, then the vector of factor weights proposed by the EC (1/3; 1/3; 1/3) balances out differences.
 
4
The decomposition of profits into factor returns and firm-specific characteristics is somehow arbitrary.
 
5
All three studies associate this approach with an equal-weighted three-factor formula, which we cannot agree with. In our opinion, the coefficients represent the estimated factor productivities (see condition 1), so that this approach with assumed identical coefficients equates the productivities between the factors.
 
6
The variables used in the analysis are defined by the Bureau van Dijk’s database as follows: Profit/loss before tax means operating profit plus financial profit. Sales are defined as net sales. Tangible fixed assets are the total amount (after depreciation) of all tangible assets such as buildings, machinery, etc. Number of employees contains the total number of employees included in the company’s payroll. Costs of employees are defined as detail of all the employees’ costs of the company (including pension costs).
 
7
We additionally collect data from 2011 to have 2012 beginning of year data on tangible fixed assets as well as 2011 data on profit/loss before tax to determine a loss carry-forward.
 
8
In Sect. 6.3, a sensitivity analysis is carried out based on the Dafne database of Bureau van Dijk, which provides more detailed data.
 
9
Tangible fixed assets based on the average value at the beginning and at the end of the year (see Article 36 CCCTB-PD2016).
 
10
Tangible fixed assets are used as the average value at the beginning and at the end of the year (see Article 36 CCCTB-PD2016 and Sect. 4.1).
 
11
We divide the sample into quantiles for each year when we carry out a value comparison between quantiles.
 
12
Return on assets (RoA) is defined as the ratio of profit/loss before tax to lagged total assets.
 
13
In linear predictions, the predicted dependent variable can change its sign. However, this conflicts with our group categorization. Therefore, we set the predicted values with sign change to zero.
 
14
According to the Directive, amounts receivable from sub-rentals or sub-leases have to be excluded. However, the available data (including the Dafne database) do not allow to separate sub-rentals and sub-leases from other lease revenues.
 
Literature
go back to reference Agúndez-García A (2006) The delineation and apportionment of an EU consolidated tax base for multi-jurisdictional corporate income taxation: a review of issues and options. European Commission Taxation Working Paper No. 9/2006. Luxembourg 2006 Agúndez-García A (2006) The delineation and apportionment of an EU consolidated tax base for multi-jurisdictional corporate income taxation: a review of issues and options. European Commission Taxation Working Paper No. 9/2006. Luxembourg 2006
go back to reference Altshuler R, Grubert H (2010) Formula apportionment: is it better than the current system and are there better alternatives? Natl Tax J 63:1145–1184CrossRef Altshuler R, Grubert H (2010) Formula apportionment: is it better than the current system and are there better alternatives? Natl Tax J 63:1145–1184CrossRef
go back to reference Álvarez-Martinez MT, Barrios S, d’Andria D, Gesualdo M, Pontikakis D, Pycroft J (2016) Modelling corporate tax reform in the EU: New simulations with the CORTAX model. JRC working papers on taxation and structural Reforms No 8/2016. Seville 2016 Álvarez-Martinez MT, Barrios S, d’Andria D, Gesualdo M, Pontikakis D, Pycroft J (2016) Modelling corporate tax reform in the EU: New simulations with the CORTAX model. JRC working papers on taxation and structural Reforms No 8/2016. Seville 2016
go back to reference Anand BN, Sansing R (2000) The weighting game: formula apportionment as an instrument of public policy. Natl Tax J 53:183–200CrossRef Anand BN, Sansing R (2000) The weighting game: formula apportionment as an instrument of public policy. Natl Tax J 53:183–200CrossRef
go back to reference Becker J, Fuest C (2010) Tax enforcement and tax havens under formula apportionment. Int Tax Public Financ 17:217–235CrossRef Becker J, Fuest C (2010) Tax enforcement and tax havens under formula apportionment. Int Tax Public Financ 17:217–235CrossRef
go back to reference Clausing KA (2016) The U.S. state experience under formulary apportionment: are there lessons for international reform? Natl Tax J 69:353–386CrossRef Clausing KA (2016) The U.S. state experience under formulary apportionment: are there lessons for international reform? Natl Tax J 69:353–386CrossRef
go back to reference Cobham A, Loretz S (2014) International distribution of the corporate tax base: implications of different apportionment factors under unitary taxation. ICTD Working Paper 27. Brighton 2014 Cobham A, Loretz S (2014) International distribution of the corporate tax base: implications of different apportionment factors under unitary taxation. ICTD Working Paper 27. Brighton 2014
go back to reference Devereux MP, Loretz S (2008) The effects of EU formula apportionment on corporate tax revenues. Fiscal Stud 29:1–33CrossRef Devereux MP, Loretz S (2008) The effects of EU formula apportionment on corporate tax revenues. Fiscal Stud 29:1–33CrossRef
go back to reference Eichfelder S, Hechtner F, Hundsdoerfer J (2018) Formula apportionment: factor allocation and tax avoidance. Eur Account Rev 27:649–681CrossRef Eichfelder S, Hechtner F, Hundsdoerfer J (2018) Formula apportionment: factor allocation and tax avoidance. Eur Account Rev 27:649–681CrossRef
go back to reference European Commission (2007a) An overview of the main issues that emerged during the discussion on the mechanism for sharing the CCCTB. CCCTB/WP052\doc\en. Brussels 2007 European Commission (2007a) An overview of the main issues that emerged during the discussion on the mechanism for sharing the CCCTB. CCCTB/WP052\doc\en. Brussels 2007
go back to reference European Commission (2007b) CCCTB: possible elements of the sharing mechanism. CCCTB/WP060\doc\en. Brussels 2007 European Commission (2007b) CCCTB: possible elements of the sharing mechanism. CCCTB/WP060\doc\en. Brussels 2007
go back to reference European Commission (2011) Proposal for a council directive on a common consolidated corporate tax base (CCCTB). COM (2011) 121 final. Brussels 2011 European Commission (2011) Proposal for a council directive on a common consolidated corporate tax base (CCCTB). COM (2011) 121 final. Brussels 2011
go back to reference European Commission (2015) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council—A Fair and Efficient Corporate Tax System in the European Union: 5 Key Areas for Action. COM (2015) 302 final. Brussels 2015 European Commission (2015) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council—A Fair and Efficient Corporate Tax System in the European Union: 5 Key Areas for Action. COM (2015) 302 final. Brussels 2015
go back to reference European Commission (2016) Proposal for a council directive on a common consolidated corporate tax base (CCCTB). COM (2016) 683 final. Strasbourg 2016 European Commission (2016) Proposal for a council directive on a common consolidated corporate tax base (CCCTB). COM (2016) 683 final. Strasbourg 2016
go back to reference Fuest C (2008) The European Commission’s proposal for a common consolidated corporate tax base. Oxf Rev Econ Policy 24:720–739CrossRef Fuest C (2008) The European Commission’s proposal for a common consolidated corporate tax base. Oxf Rev Econ Policy 24:720–739CrossRef
go back to reference 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. Int Tax Public Financ 14:605–626CrossRef 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. Int Tax Public Financ 14:605–626CrossRef
go back to reference Goolsbee A, Maydew EL (2000) Coveting thy neighbor’s manufacturing: the dilemma of state income apportionment. J Public Econ 75:125–143CrossRef Goolsbee A, Maydew EL (2000) Coveting thy neighbor’s manufacturing: the dilemma of state income apportionment. J Public Econ 75:125–143CrossRef
go back to reference Gordon R, Wilson JD (1986) An examination of multijurisdictional corporate income taxation under formula apportionment. Econometrica 54:1357–1373CrossRef Gordon R, Wilson JD (1986) An examination of multijurisdictional corporate income taxation under formula apportionment. Econometrica 54:1357–1373CrossRef
go back to reference Grazzi M, Piccardo C, Vergari C (2017) Building a firm level dataset for the analysis of industrial dynamics and demography. Università di Bologna Department of Economics Quaderni—Working Paper DSE N°2003/2017 Grazzi M, Piccardo C, Vergari C (2017) Building a firm level dataset for the analysis of industrial dynamics and demography. Università di Bologna Department of Economics Quaderni—Working Paper DSE N°2003/2017
go back to reference Griliches Z, Mairesse J (1999) Production functions: the search for identication. In: Steiner S (ed) Econometrics and economic theory in the twentieth century: the Ragner Frisch Centennial Symposium. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Griliches Z, Mairesse J (1999) Production functions: the search for identication. In: Steiner S (ed) Econometrics and economic theory in the twentieth century: the Ragner Frisch Centennial Symposium. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
go back to reference Gupta S, Hofmann MA (2003) The effect of state income tax apportionment and tax incentives on new capital expenditures. J Am Tax Assoc 25:1–25CrossRef Gupta S, Hofmann MA (2003) The effect of state income tax apportionment and tax incentives on new capital expenditures. J Am Tax Assoc 25:1–25CrossRef
go back to reference Heckemeyer JH, Overesch M (2017) Multinationals’ profit response to tax differentials: effect size and shifting channels. Can J Econ 50:965–994CrossRef Heckemeyer JH, Overesch M (2017) Multinationals’ profit response to tax differentials: effect size and shifting channels. Can J Econ 50:965–994CrossRef
go back to reference Hines JR Jr (2010) Income misattribution under formula apportionment. Eur Econ Rev 54:108–120CrossRef Hines JR Jr (2010) Income misattribution under formula apportionment. Eur Econ Rev 54:108–120CrossRef
go back to reference Kiesewetter D, Steigenberger T, Stier M (2018) Can formula apportionment really prevent multinational enterprises from profit shifting? The role of asset valuation, intragroup debt, and leases. J Bus Econ 88:1029–1060 Kiesewetter D, Steigenberger T, Stier M (2018) Can formula apportionment really prevent multinational enterprises from profit shifting? The role of asset valuation, intragroup debt, and leases. J Bus Econ 88:1029–1060
go back to reference Klassen KJ, Shackelford DA (1998) State and provincial corporate tax planning: income shifting and sales apportionment factor management. J Account Econ 25:385–406CrossRef Klassen KJ, Shackelford DA (1998) State and provincial corporate tax planning: income shifting and sales apportionment factor management. J Account Econ 25:385–406CrossRef
go back to reference Krchnivá K (2015) The Czech evidence for the explanatory power of formula factors on profitability. In: Ekonomická revue – Central European Review of Economic Issues 18:131–138 Krchnivá K (2015) The Czech evidence for the explanatory power of formula factors on profitability. In: Ekonomická revue – Central European Review of Economic Issues 18:131–138
go back to reference McLure CE Jr (1981) The elusive incidence of the corporate income tax: the state case. Public Financ Q 9:395–413CrossRef McLure CE Jr (1981) The elusive incidence of the corporate income tax: the state case. Public Financ Q 9:395–413CrossRef
go back to reference Mintz J, Smart M (2004) Income shifting, investment, and tax competition: theory and evidence from provincial taxation in Canada. J Public Econ 88:1149–1168CrossRef Mintz J, Smart M (2004) Income shifting, investment, and tax competition: theory and evidence from provincial taxation in Canada. J Public Econ 88:1149–1168CrossRef
go back to reference OECD (2015) Measuring and monitoring BEPS—action 11–2015 final report. OECD Publishing, Paris OECD (2015) Measuring and monitoring BEPS—action 11–2015 final report. OECD Publishing, Paris
go back to reference Oestreicher A, Koch R (2011) The revenue consequences of using a common consolidated corporate tax base to determine taxable income in the EU member states. In: FinanzArchiv/Public Finance Analysis, 67(1):64–102 Oestreicher A, Koch R (2011) The revenue consequences of using a common consolidated corporate tax base to determine taxable income in the EU member states. In: FinanzArchiv/Public Finance Analysis, 67(1):64–102
go back to reference Ortmann R, Pummerer E (2015) Formula apportionment or separate accounting? Tax-induced distortions of multinationals’ location investment decisions. WU International Taxation Research Paper Series No. 2015—28. Vienna 2015 Ortmann R, Pummerer E (2015) Formula apportionment or separate accounting? Tax-induced distortions of multinationals’ location investment decisions. WU International Taxation Research Paper Series No. 2015—28. Vienna 2015
go back to reference Ortmann R, Sureth-Sloane C (2016) Can the CCCTB alleviate tax discrimination against loss-making European multinational groups? J Bus Econ 86:441–475 Ortmann R, Sureth-Sloane C (2016) Can the CCCTB alleviate tax discrimination against loss-making European multinational groups? J Bus Econ 86:441–475
go back to reference Riedel N (2010) The downside of formula apportionment: evidence on factor demand distortions. Int Tax Public Financ 17:236–258CrossRef Riedel N (2010) The downside of formula apportionment: evidence on factor demand distortions. Int Tax Public Financ 17:236–258CrossRef
go back to reference Riedel N, Runkel M (2007) Company tax reform with a water’s edge. J Public Econ 91:1533–1554CrossRef Riedel N, Runkel M (2007) Company tax reform with a water’s edge. J Public Econ 91:1533–1554CrossRef
go back to reference Roggeman A, Verleyen I, Van Cauwenberge P, Coppens C (2012) An empirical investigation into the design of an EU apportionment formula related to profit generating factors. In: Transformations in business and economics, Vol 11, No 3(27):36–56 Roggeman A, Verleyen I, Van Cauwenberge P, Coppens C (2012) An empirical investigation into the design of an EU apportionment formula related to profit generating factors. In: Transformations in business and economics, Vol 11, No 3(27):36–56
go back to reference Weiner JM (2005) Formulary apportionment and group taxation in the European Union: insights from the United States and Canada. In: European Commission Taxation Working Paper No. 8/2005. Luxembourg 2005 Weiner JM (2005) Formulary apportionment and group taxation in the European Union: insights from the United States and Canada. In: European Commission Taxation Working Paper No. 8/2005. Luxembourg 2005
Metadata
Title
How accurately does the CCCTB apportionment formula allocate profits? An evaluation of the European Commission proposal
Authors
Jochen Hundsdoerfer
Julia Wagner
Publication date
26-11-2019
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Journal of Business Economics / Issue 4/2020
Print ISSN: 0044-2372
Electronic ISSN: 1861-8928
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-019-00962-1

Other articles of this Issue 4/2020

Journal of Business Economics 4/2020 Go to the issue