This paper analyses the development of taxes on corporate income in EU and G7 countries over the last two decades. We establish a number of stylised facts about their development. Tax-cutting and base-broadening reforms have had the effect that, on average across EU and G7 countries, effective tax rates on marginal investment have remained fairly stable, but those on more profitable investments have fallen. We discuss two possible explanations of these stylised facts arising from alternative forms of tax competition. First, governments may be responding to a fall in the cost of income shifting, which puts downward pressure on the statutory tax rate. Second, reforms are consistent with competition for more profitable projects, in particular those earned by multinational firms.

This Working Paper should not be reported as representing the views of the IMF.The views expressed in this Working Paper are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent those of the IMF or IMF policy. Working Papers describe research in progress by the author(s) and are published to elicit comments and to further debate. This paper considers two empirical questions about tax incentives: (1) are incentives used as tools of tax competition and (2) how effective are incentives in attracting investment? To answer these, we prepared a new dataset of tax incentives in over 40 Latin American, Caribbean and African countries for the period 1985-2004. Using spatial econometrics techniques for panel data to answer the first question, we find evidence for strategic interaction in tax holidays, in addition to the well-known competition over the corporate income tax rate. We find no evidence, however, for competition over investment allowances and tax credits. Using dynamic panel data econometrics to answer the second question, we find evidence that lower corporate income tax rates and longer tax holidays are effective in attracting FDI, but not in boosting gross private fixed capital formation or growth. JEL Classification Numbers: H25, H87

We use data on publicly traded U.K. firms to investigate whether financing choices differ systematically with R&D intensity. As well as looking at a balance sheet measure of the debt/assets ratio, we also consider the probability of raising finance by issuing new equity, and the shares of bank debt and secured debt in total debt. We find a nonlinear relationship with the debt/assets ratio: firms that report positive but low R&D use more debt finance than firms that report no R&D, but the use of debt finance falls with R&D intensity among those firms that report R&D. We find a simpler relationship with the probability of issuing new equity: Firms that report R&D are more likely to raise funds by issuing shares than firms that report no R&D, and this probability increases with R&D intensity. The shares of bank debt and secured debt in total debt are both lower for firms that report R&D compared to those that do not, and tend to fall as R&D intensity rises. We discuss possible explanations for these patterns. (JEL: G32, O31, D21)

No abstract