Albert van der Horst

Corporate Tax Harmonization in the EU

This paper explores the economic consequences of proposed EU reforms for a common consolidated corporate tax base. The reforms replace separate accounting with formula apportionment as a way to allocate corporate tax bases across countries. To assess the economic implications, we use a numerical computable general equilibrium (CGE) model for Europe. It encompasses several decision margins of firms such as marginal investment, FDI decisions, and multinational profit shifting. The simulations suggest that consolidation does not yield substantial welfare gains for Europe. The variation of effects across countries is large and depends on the choice of the apportionment formula. Consolidation with formula apportionment does not weaken incentives for tax competition. Tax competition instead offers a rationale for rate harmonization, in addition to base harmonization.

Corporate Tax Policy and Unemployment in Europe: An Applied General Equilibrium Analysis

This paper analyzes the impact of corporate taxes on structural unemployment, using an applied general equilibrium model for the European Union. We find that the unemployment and welfare effects of corporate taxes differ considerably among European countries. The magnitude of these effects rise in particular in the broadness of the corporate tax base of a country, and the strength of international spillover effects through foreign direct investment. The effect on unemployment is smaller if the substitution elasticity between labour and capital is large, if international spillover effects operate primarily via multinational profit shifting, and if equilibrium forces on the labour market are strong. Although the effect of corporate taxes on unemployment may be smaller than the effect of labour and value-added taxes (e.g. under relatively strong real wage resistance), the welfare costs of corporate taxation are typically larger for most European countries under plausible parameters, especially under strong international spillovers.

Will Corporate Tax Consolidation Improve Efficiency in the EU

The European Commission favours the introduction of a consolidated corporate tax base to overcome the distortions arising from the existing system of separate accounting. The blueprints for consolidation are simulated with the applied general equilibrium model CORTAX. We show that the benefits of a common consolidated tax base are limited due to two weaknesses. Formula apportionment, which is needed to allocate the consolidated taxable profits across jurisdictions, creates for MNEs new tax planning possibilities to exploit tax rate differentials in the European Union. In addition, it triggers tax competition as the incentives for member states to attract foreign investment by reducing their tax rates are enforced. The second weakness arises from the unlevel playing field, which is introduced if only part of the firms chooses to participate in the consolidation. The gains from consolidation can be fully grasped if it is obliged for all firms and accompanied by harmonisation of the tax rate.

Code of Coordination for Corporate Taxation

Should EU-Member States give up their right to design their corporate income tax? Currently, Member States may freely set their tax rates and are allowed to design their tax base as long as it does not constitute harmful tax competition. This is regulated in the Code of Conduct, which is not a legally binding instrument but does have political force. By adopting this Code, the Member States have undertaken to roll back existing tax measures that constitute harmful tax competition and refrain from introducing any such measures in the future.1

Why European Innovation Policy

In March 2000 the Lisbon European Council defined the goal for the EU to become the ‘most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world by 2010’. This has raised the question of how Member States can intensify investments in R&D, or more generally, of how they can become more innovative. One part of this question, which has been extensively investigated by Cornet et al. (2006), is which policies are likely to be successful in stimulating private R&D or in raising productivity. They showed for the Dutch economy that, among other policies, expansion of the provisions for starting innovating companies and expansion of public support for funds that supply small amounts of venture capital loans are likely to be successful.

Growth and jobs: A different approach for each

Halfway through the Lisbon process, achievements have in many respects fallen distinctly behind the ambitious aims set by EU heads of state and government in March 2000. What has gone wrong? What changes are required to get the process back on track? Is a Lisbon strategy, even a reformed one, really needed?