Ownership of intellectual property and corporate taxation

Griffith, Rachel; Miller, Helen; O’Connell, Martin

doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2014.01.009

Cited by 243 publications

(190 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

170

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Evidence suggests that the location of firms' intangible assets is negatively affected by corporate taxes (Dischinger and Riedel (2011);Karkinsky and Riedel (2012)). In a simulation exercise, Griffith et al (2014) find that IP Boxes work to attract patents, and that those with a high expected value are particularly responsive to tax.…”

Section: Incentives Over the Location Of Investmentmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…2 Grubert (2003) formalises how intangible assets can be used to shift income to lower tax countries and provides empirical evidence that about half of the income shifted from high-tax to low-tax countries by US manufacturing firms can be accounted for by income from intangibles linked to research & development (R&D). Recent empirical results show that European firms' intangible assets are more likely to be held in low-tax subsidiaries than tangible assets (Dischinger and Riedel (2011)) and that the location of patents is responsive to corporate income tax (Griffith et al (2014)). Huizinga and Laeven (2008) estimate that profit shifting leads to significant revenue losses for high-tax countries.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Intellectual property box regimes: effective tax rates and tax policy considerations

Evers

Miller

Spengel³

2014

Int Tax Public Finance

Self Cite

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2014, 12 European countries are operating Intellectual Property (IP) Box regimes that provide substantially reduced rates of corporate tax for income derived from important forms of intellectual property. We describe the key features of the policies and incorporate them into forward-looking measures of the cost of capital and the effective average tax rate. We show that the treatment of expenses relating to IP income is particularly important in determining the effective tax burden. A key finding is that regimes that allow expenses to be deducted at the ordinary corporate income tax rate, as opposed to the lower IP Box tax rate, may result in negative effective average tax rates and can thereby provide a subsidy to unprofitable projects. We discuss the ways in which IP Boxes are likely to affect firms' decisions and relate this to possible policy aims. While some regimes attempt to link the tax benefit to real activities, others have designed a policy targeted at the income streams associated with intellectual property. A key concern is the role that IP Boxes may play in increased tax competition between European countries.

show abstract

Section: Incentives Over the Location Of Investmentmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intellectual property box regimes: effective tax rates and tax policy considerations

Evers

Miller

Spengel³

2014

Int Tax Public Finance

Self Cite

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…But, it can also induce artificial relocation of the ownership of intangible assets without attracting any real R&D activities (Griffith et al, 2014;OECD, 2015c).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Public Finance, Economic Growth and Inequality

Johansson¹

2016

OECD Economics Department Working Papers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

JT03405922Complete document available on OLIS in its original format This document and any map included herein are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area. ECO/WKP(2016)70 Unclassified English -Or. English ECO/WKP(2016)70 2 OECD Working Papers should not be reported as representing the official views of the OECD or of its member countries. The opinions expressed and arguments employed are those of the author(s).Working Papers describe preliminary results or research in progress by the author(s) and are published to stimulate discussion on a broad range of issues on which the OECD works.Comments on Working Papers are welcomed, and may be sent to OECD Economics Department, 2 rue André Pascal, 75775 Paris Cedex 16, France, or by e-mail to eco.contact@oecd.org. This document and any map included herein are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area.The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the West Bank under the terms of international law.Latvia was not an OECD Member at the time of preparation of this publication. Accordingly, Latvia does not appear in the list of OECD Members and is not included in the zone aggregates. © OECD (2016)You can copy, download or print OECD content for your own use, and you can include excerpts from OECD publications, databases and multimedia products in your own documents, presentations, blogs, websites and teaching materials, provided that suitable acknowledgment of OECD as source and copyright owner is given. All requests for commercial use and translation rights should be submitted to rights@oecd.org ECO/WKP(2016)70 3 ABSTRACT/RÉSUMÉPublic finance, economic growth and inequality: A survey of the evidence This paper reviews the key issues concerning the impact of public spending and taxation on long-run growth and inequality and takes stock of existing theoretical and empirical studies. Overall, the evidence highlights that the size of the government matters for long-term growth as a too large government may undermine growth through the cost of financing public spending. A reallocation of public spending towards infrastructure and education would raise income in the long run, whereas increasing social welfare spending can reduce inequality as such spending increases redistribution and risk sharing. Similarly, the available evidence also supports the hypothesis that some taxes are more distortionary than others, with income taxes found to be more harmful for growth than consumption and property taxes. However, a tax shift from income towards consumption taxes has equity implications, since income taxes are general...

show abstract

“…Erhaltung von mobilen, humankapital-und wissensintensiven Investitionen, sowie 3) Differenzierung der Steuersa tze nach der Elastizita t der Steuerbasis. 53 Die Punkte 2) und 3) ergeben sich aus empirischen Forschungen, die feststellten, dass europa ische Ünternehmen eher immaterielle als materielle Vermo genswerte in Tochtergesellschaften in Niedrigsteuerla ndern halten (Dischinger und Riedel, 2011) und die ra umliche Verteilung von Patenten auf den Ko rperschaftsteuersatz reagiert (Griffith et al, 2014 Instruments im Parlament entschieden wird (Roelandt, 2016). Diese Praxis fu gt sich nahtlos in die bereits seit la ngerem bestehende Kultur des Spending Reviews (eine gezielte, wirkungsorientierte Ausgabenkontrolle) der Niederlande ein (Schoch und den Broeder, 2013 scha tzer und Fehlerkorrekturmodelle angewandt.…”

Section: Determinanten Der Bemessungsgrundlageunclassified

Evaluierung der Forschungsprämie

Ecker¹,

Fink²,

Sardadvar³

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ownership of intellectual property and corporate taxation

Cited by 243 publications

References 26 publications

Intellectual property box regimes: effective tax rates and tax policy considerations

Intellectual property box regimes: effective tax rates and tax policy considerations

Public Finance, Economic Growth and Inequality

Evaluierung der Forschungsprämie

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About