This study examines the flexibility of multinational firms to adjust their income-shifting strategies—whether using transfer pricing or internal debt—during the tax year to react to affiliates' operating losses. We develop the concept that under flexibility, multinationals can adjust their inter-affiliate payments ex post (i.e., after financial outcomes are revealed, but before the end of the tax year) to minimize worldwide tax payments. Without flexibility, multinationals must commit to their affiliates' income-shifting strategies ex ante (i.e., before financial outcomes are revealed). Our central prediction is that under ex post income shifting, loss affiliates report lower transfer prices and internal leverage than profitable affiliates; under ex ante income shifting, affiliates report the same transfer prices and internal capital structure, regardless of making losses. Using novel data on direct transfer payments and internal debt of Norwegian affiliates, we find empirical evidence that transfer pricing, particularly related to user fees, but not internal debt, provides flexibility to adjust income shifting ex post. In additional tests, we confirm that our results reflect flexibility rather than loss affiliates' poor performance. Our study should interest tax policymakers and researchers by identifying how various mechanisms allow multinational firms to shift income when they face losses. JEL Classifications: F23; H25; H87.

Abstract. Many subsidiaries can deduct interest payments on internal debt from their taxable income. By issuing internal debt from a tax haven, multinationals can shift income out of host countries through the interest rates they charge and the amount of internal debt they issue. We show that, from a welfare perspective, thin-capitalization rules that restrict the amount of debt for which interest is tax deductible (safe harbor rules) are inferior to rules that limit the ratio of debt interest to pre-tax earnings (earnings stripping rules), even if a safe harbor rule is used in conjunction with an earnings stripping rule.

The digital economy is characterized by the use of intellectual property such as software, patents, and trademarks. The pricing of such intangibles is widely used to shift profits to low‐tax countries. We analyze the implications of different OECD methods to regulate transfer pricing and the role of a source tax on royalty payments for abusive transfer pricing. First, we show that under the traditional transfer pricing methods mispricing of royalty payments does not affect investment behavior. In contrast, the Transactional Profit Split Method that is promoted by the OECD for evaluating firms in the digital economy triggers higher investment in order to facilitate higher profit shifting. Second, royalty taxation is effective in reducing (such) abusive profit shifting, but always reduces investment. Third, a royalty tax rate below the corporate tax rate leads to overinvestment in a tax system with allowance for corporate equity (ACE).

No abstract

In a two‐period life‐cycle model with ex ante homogeneous households, earnings risk, and a general earnings function, we derive the optimal linear labor tax rate and optimal linear education subsidies. The optimal income tax trades off social insurance against incentives to work. Education subsidies are not used for social insurance, but they are only targeted at offsetting the distortions of the labor tax and internalizing a fiscal externality. Both optimal education subsidies and tax rates increase if labor and education are more complementary, because education subsidies indirectly lower labor tax distortions by stimulating labor supply. Optimal education subsidies (taxes) also correct non‐tax distortions arising from missing insurance markets. Education subsidies internalize a positive (negative) fiscal externality if there is underinvestment (overinvestment) in education because of risk. Education policy unambiguously allows for more social insurance if education is a risky activity. However, if education hedges against labor‐market risk, optimal tax rates could be lower than in the case without education subsidies.