Formulary apportionment in the European Union—future research agenda

Mlčúchová, Markéta

doi:10.18559/ebr.2023.3.798

Abstract

The aim of the paper is to identify the relevant prior research focused on the Formulary Apportionment methodology in the European Union, to explore the current literature and develop directions for future research. Reflecting upon the announced European Commission’s Proposal for new framework for business taxation and the foreseeable upswing of academic discussion focused on the formulary apportionment methodology this paper represents the first systematic literature review on this topic. The study identifies eight main thematic clusters, provides an interpretative framework and suggests valuable future research directions within each thematic cluster as well as general future research agenda.

References

Almendral, V. R. (2010). An ever-distant union: The cross-border loss relief conundrum in EU law. Intertax, 38(10), 476–501.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Altshuler, R., & Grubert, H. (2010). Formula apportionment: Is ıt better than the current system and are there better alternatives? National Tax Journal, 63(4), 1145–1184. https://doi.org/10.17310/ntj.2010.4S.13
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Anand, B. N., & Sansing, R. (2000). The weighting game: Formula apportionment as an instrument of public policy. National Tax Journal, 53(2), 183–199. https://doi.org/10.17310/ntj.2000.2.01
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ancillai, Ch., Sabatini, A., Gatti, M., & Perna, A. (2023). Digital technology and business model innovation: A systematic literature review and future research agenda. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 188, 122307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.122307
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Arel-Bundock, V., & Parinandi, S. (2018). Conditional tax competition in American states. Journal of Public Policy, 38(2), 191–220. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0143814X17000071
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Barrios S., d’Andria D., & Gesualdo M. (2020). Reducing tax compliance costs through corporate tax base harmonization in the European Union. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, 41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intaccaudtax.2020.100355
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Becker, J., & Fuest, C. (2010). Tax enforcement and tax havens under formula apportionment. International Tax and Public Finance, 17(3), 217–235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10797-009-9121-4
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Becker, J., & Runkel, M. (2013). Corporate tax regime and international allocation of ownership. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 43(1), 8–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2012.11.002
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Bettendorf, L., Devereux, M. P., van der Horst, A., Loretz, S., & de Mooij, R. A. (2010). Corporate tax harmonization in the EU. Economic Policy, 63, 537–590.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Bettendorf, L., van der Horst, A., de Mooij, R. A., & Vrijburg, H. (2010). Corporate Tax Consolidation and Enhanced Cooperation in the European Union. Fiscal Studies, 31(4), 453–479. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5890.2010.00121.x
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Bloch, F., & Demange, G. (2021). Profit-splitting rules and the taxation of multinational digital platforms. International Tax and Public Finance, 28(4), 855–889. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10797-020-09643-0
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Bogerd, H. (2007). The attraction and feasibility of formula apportionment for the European Union. EC Tax Review, 16(6), 274–282. https://doi.org/10.54648/ecta2007045
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Borg, J. C. (2013). The tax treatment of losses under the proposed Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base Directive. Intertax, 41(11), 581–587.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Buettner, T., Riedel, N., & Runkel, M. (2011). Strategic consolidation under formula apportionment. National Tax Journal, 64(2), 225–254. https://doi.org/10.17310/ntj.2011.2.01
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ceipek, R., Hautz, J., Mayer, M. C. J., & Matzler, K. (2019). Technological diversification: A systematic review of antecedents, outcomes and moderating effects. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 21(4), 466–497. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12205
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Cerioni, L. (2015). The never-ending ıssue of cross-border loss compensation within the EU: Reconciling balanced allocation of taxing rights and cross-border ability-to-pay. EC Tax Review, 24(5), 268–280.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Cerioni, L. (2016). The quest for a new corporate taxation model and for an effective fight against ınternational tax avoidance within the EU. Intertax, 44(6–7), 463–480.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Cerioni, L. (2018). The European Commission proposal for a 3% ‘Call Rate’ as a new suggestion for a EUCIT: An assessment against the criteria for a fair taxation. EC Tax Review, 27(5), 237–249.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Cobham A., Janský P., Jones C., & Temouri Y. (2021). An evaluation of the effects of the European Commission’s proposals for the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base. Transnational Corporations, 28(1), 29–50. https://doi.org/10.18356/2076099x-28-1-2
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Conrad, R. F. (2006). Interjurisdictional taxation and attribution rules. Public Finance Review, 34(5), 505–526. https://doi.org/10.1177/1091142106289029
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Cottani, G. (2016). Formulary apportionment: A revamp in the post-base erosion and profit shifting era? Intertax, 44(10), 755–760.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
d’Andria, D., Pontikakis, D., & Skonieczna, A. (2018). Towards a European R&D incentive? An assessment of R&D provisions under a common corporate tax base. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 27(5–6), 531–550. https://doi.org/10.1080/10438599.2017.1376168
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
de Groot, I. (2017). Group provisions in the Common (Consolidated) Corporate Tax Base. Intertax, 45(11), 742–749.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
de Mooij, R., Liu, L., & Prihardini. D. (2021). An assessment of global formula apportionment. National Tax Journal, 74(2), 431–465. https://doi.org/10.1086/714112
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
de Wilde, M. (2020). On the future of business income taxation in Europe. World Tax Journal, 12(1), 79–128.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Devereux, M. P., & Fuest, C. (2010). Corporate income tax coordination in the European Union. Transfer-European Review of Labour and Research, 16(1), 23–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/1024258909357699
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Devereux, M. P., & Loretz, S. (2008). The effects of EU formula apportionment on corporate tax revenues. Fiscal Studies, 29(1), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5890.2008.00067.x
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Domonkos, T., Domonkos Š., Dolinajcová, M., & Grisáková, N. (2013). The effect of the formula apportionment of the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base on tax revenue in the Slovak Republic. Ekonomický Časopis, 61(5), 453–467.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Eberhartinger, E., & Petutschnig, M. (2017). CCCTB: The employment factor game. European Journal of Law and Economics, 43(2), 333–358. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10657-015-9505-0
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Edmiston, K. D. (2002). Strategic apportionment of the state corporate income tax—An applied general equilibrium analysis. National Tax Journal, 55(2), 239–262. https://doi.org/10.17310/ntj.2002.2.03
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Edmiston, K. D., & del Granado, F. J. A. (2006). Economic effects of apportionment formula changes results from a panel of corporate income tax returns. Public Finance Review, 34(5), 483–504. https://doi.org/10.1177/1091142106289016
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Eggert, W., & Haufler, A. (2006). Fiscal policy in action—Company-tax coordination cum tax-rate competition in the European Union. Finanzarchiv, 62(4), 579–601. https://doi.org/10.1628/001522106X172706
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Eichfelder, S., Hechtner, F., & Hundsdoerfer, J. (2018) Formula apportionment: Factor allocation and tax avoidance. European Accounting Review, 27(4), 649–681. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180.2017.1364165
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Eichner, T., & Runkel, M. (2008). Why the European Union should adopt formula apportionment with a sales factor. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 110(3), 567–589. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9442.2008.00551.x
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Eichner, T., & Runkel, M. (2009). Corporate income taxation of multinationals and unemployment. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 39(5), 610–620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2009.04.001
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Eichner, T., & Runkel, M. (2011). Corporate income taxation of multinationals in a general equilibrium model. Journal of Public Economics, 95(7–8), 723–733. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2010.12.004
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Eichner, T., & Runkel, M. (2012). Efficient tax competition under formula apportionment without the sales factor. Economics Bulletin, 32(4), 2828–2838.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Faccio, T., & Fitzgerald, V. (2018). Sharing the corporate tax base: Equitable taxing of multinationals and the choice of formulary apportionment. Transnational Corporations, 25(2), 67–89. https://doi.org/10.18356/7b2c8305-en
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Fernandez, M. J. G. T. (2012). Corporate tax harmonization: Key ıssues for ensuring an efficient ımplementation of the CCCTB. Intertax, 40(11), 598–605.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Fox, W. F., Murray, M. N., & Luna, L. (2005). How should a subnational corporate income tax on multistate businesses be structured? National Tax Journal, 58(1), 139–159. https://doi.org/10.17310/ntj.2005.1.07
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Fuest, C. (2008). The European Commission’s proposal for a common consolidated corporate tax base. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 24(4), 720–739. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/grn032
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
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. International Tax and Public Finance, 14(5), 605–626. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10797-006-9008-6
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Garbarino, C. (2014). Tax design ıssues in respect to foreign branches and controlled companies and the feasibility of a consolidation area in the EU. EC Tax Review, 23(1), 16–29.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Goolsbee, A., & Maydew, E. L. (2000). Coveting thy neighbor’s manufacturing: the dilemma of state income apportionment. Journal of Public Economics, 75(1), 125–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0047-2727(99)00036-5
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Gordon, B. (2014). Tax competition and harmonisation under EU law: Economic realities and legal rules. European Law Review, 39(6), 790–811.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Gordon, R., & Wilson, J. D. (1986). An examination of multijurisdictional corporate-ıncome taxation under formula apportionment. Econometrica, 54(6), 1357–1373. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914303
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Greil, S., Müller R., & Olbert, M. (2019). Transfer pricing for digital business models: Early evidence of challenges and options for reform. World Tax Journal, 11(4), 557–588.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Gresik, T. A. (2016). Allowing firms to choose between separate accounting and formula apportionment taxation. Journal of Public Economics, 138, 32–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2016.04.002
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Gupta, S., Moore, J., Gramlich, J., & Hofmann, M. A. (2009). Empirical evidence on the revenue effects of state corporate income tax policies. National Tax Journal, 62(2), 237–267. https://doi.org/10.17310/ntj.2009.2.03
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Gutmann, D., & de la Bletiere, E. R. (2017). CC(C)TB and international taxation. EC Tax Review, 26(5), 233–245.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hellerstein, W., & McLure, C. E. (2004). The European Commission’s report on company income taxation: What the EU can learn from the experience of the US states. International Tax and Public Finance, 11(2), 199–220. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:ITAX.0000011400.45314.57
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Herzig, N., Teschke, M., & Joisten, C. (2010). Between extremes: Merging the advantages of separate accounting and unitary taxation. Intertax, 38(6–7), 334–349. https://doi.org/10.54648/taxi2010037
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hodzic, S. (2015). The ımpacts of the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base in Croatia. Ekonomski Vjesnik, 28(2), 327–338.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hundsdoerfer, J., & Wagner, J. (2020). How accurately does the CCCTB apportionment formula allocate profits? An evaluation of the European Commission proposal. Journal of Business Economics, 90(4), 495–536. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-019-00962-1
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Jarass, L., & Obermair, G. M. (2008). Tax on earnings before interest and taxes instead of profit—fair, simple and competitive: A conceivable initiative of EU Member States for a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base. EC Tax Review, 17(3), 111–117.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Khan Niazi, S. U. (2017). Re-launch of the proposal for a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB) in the EU: A shift in paradigm. Legal Issues of Economic Integration, 44(3), 293–314.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
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. Journal of Business Economics, 88(9), 1029–1060. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-018-0891-y
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kind, H. J., Midelfart, K. H., & Schjelderup, G. (2005). Corporate tax systems, multinational enterprises, and economic integration. Journal of International Economics, 65(2), 507–521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinteco.2004.06.002
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Krchnivá, K., & Nerudová, D. (2018). The CCCTB allocation formula game: The performance of economic sectors. Prague Economic Papers, 27(4), 427–448. https://doi.org/10.18267/j.pep.660
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kudrle, R. T. (2009). Ending the tax haven scandals. Global Economy Journal, 9(3). https://doi.org/10.2202/1524-5861.1520
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Lacova, Z., & Hunady, J. (2018). The consequences of tax base rules on enterprise ınnovation in the European Union. Modeling Innovation Sustainability and Technologies, 19–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67101-7_3
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Lehoux, L., Duck, H., Akhmadeev, R., Morozova, T., & Bykanova, O. (2019). Sustainable development facets: Taxation solutions for the energy industry. Journal of Security and Sustainability Issues, 9(2), 457–472. https://doi.org/10.9770/jssi.2019.9.2(8)
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Liesegang, C., & Runkel, M. (2019). Equalizing tax bases or tax revenues under tax competition? The role of formula apportionment. Journal of Public Economic Theory, 21(1), 98–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpet.12319
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Llopis, E. L. (2017). Formulary apportionment in the European Union. Intertax, 45(10), 631-641.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Mardan, M., & Stimmelmayr, M. (2018). Tax revenue losses through cross-border loss offset: An insurmountable hurdle for formula apportionment? European Economic Review, 102, 188–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2017.12.007
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Martini, J. T., Niemann, R., & Simons, D. (2012). Transfer pricing or formula apportionment? Tax-induced distortions of multinationals’ ınvestment and production decisions. Contemporary Accounting Research, 29(4). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1911-3846.2012.01140.x
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Martini, J. T., Niemann, R., & Simons, D. (2016). Tax-induced distortions of effort and compensation in a principal-agent setting. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, 27, 26–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intaccaudtax.2016.07.002
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Martins, A., & Taborda, D. (2022). BEFIT and formulary apportionment: Should ıntangibles be ıncluded in the formula? EC Tax Review, 31(3), 131–139.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Matsumoto, M. (2016). Public-input provision under formula apportionment. Finanzarchiv, 72(1), 74–95. https://doi.org/10.1628/001522116X14557023949256
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Mayer, S. (2009). Formulary apportionment for the internal market. IBFD Doctoral Series.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
McGaughey, S. L., & Raimondos, P. (2019). Shifting MNE taxation from national to global profits: A radical reform long overdue. Journal of International Business Studies, 50(9), 1668–1683. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-019-00233-9
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
McLure, C. E., Jr. (1981). The elusive ıncidence of the corporate ıncome tax: The state case. Public Finance Review, 9(4), 395–413. https://doi.org/10.1177/109114218100900402
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
McLure, C. E., Jr. (2000). Implementing state corporate income taxes in the digital age. National Tax Journal, 53(4, part 3), 1287–1305. https://doi.org/10.17310/ntj.2000.4s2.02
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Merriman, D. (2015). A replication of coveting thy neighbor’s manufacturing: The dilemma of state income apportionment. Public Finance Review, 43(2), 185–205. https://doi.org/10.1177/1091142114537892
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Mitroyanni, I., & Putzolu, C. (2009). CCCTB and business reorganizations the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base and business reorganizations. Intertax, 37(8–9), 436–448.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Munnell, A. H. (1992, September). Taxation of capital ıncome in a global economy—An overview. New England Economic Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, 33–52. Musgrave, P. (1972). International tax base division and the multinational corporation. Public Finance, 27, 394–413.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Nerudová, D., & Krchnivá, K. (2016). Tax sharing under the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base: Measurement of the profit generating factors in the agriculture sector. Agricultural Economics, 62(8), 363–377. https://doi.org/10.17221/222/2015-AGRICECON
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Nerudová, D., & Solilová, V. (2015). The ımpact of the CCCTB ıntroduction on the distribution of the group tax bases across the EU: The study for the Czech Republic. Prague Economic Papers, 24(6), 621–637. https://doi.org/10.18267/j.pep.514
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Nerudová, D., & Solilová, V. (2017). Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base system re-launching: Simulation of the impact on the Slovak budget revenues. Ekonomický Časopis, 65(6), 559–578.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Nerudová, D., & Solilová, V. (2018). Mandatory CCCTB implementation in the Eurozone and its impact on corporate tax revenues in the Czech Republic. E & M Ekonomie a Management, 21(1), 4–23. https://doi.org/10.15240/tul/001/2018-1-001
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Nerudová D., & Solilová V. (2019). The ımpact of the ıntroduction of a CCCTB in the EU. Intereconomics, 54(3), 160–165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10272-019-0815-2
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Nerudová D., Solilová V., Litzman M., & Janský P. (2020). International tax planning within the structure of corporate entities owned by the shareholder-individuals through Panama Papers destinations. Development Policy Review, 38(1), 124–139. https://doi.org/10.1111/dpr.12403
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Nerudová, D., Solilová, V., & Litzman, M. (2021). Is there a real chance to adopt the CCCTB without UK participation in the EU? Ekonomický Časopis, 69(6), 582–603. https://doi.org/10.31577/ekoncas.2021.06.02
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Nielsen, S. B., Raimondos-Møller, P., & Schjelderup G. (2003). Formula apportionment and transfer pricing under oligopolistic competition. Journal of Public Economic Theory, 5(2), 419–437. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9779.00140
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Oestreicher, A., & Koch, R. (2011). The revenue consequences of using a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base to determine taxable ıncome in the EU Member States. Finanzarchiv, 67(1), 64–102. https://doi.org/10.1628/001522111X574191
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ortmann, R., & Sureth-Sloane, C. (2016). Can the CCCTB alleviate tax discrimination against loss-making European multinational groups? Journal of Business Economics, 86(5), 441–475. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-015-0780-6
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Perotto, G. (2021). How to cope with harmful tax competition in the EU legal order: Going beyond the elusive Quest for a definition and the misplaced reliance on state aid law. European Journal of Legal Studies, 13(1), 309–340. https://doi.org/10.2924/EJLS.2019.052
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Pethig, R., & Wagener, A. (2007). Profit tax competition and formula apportionment. International Tax and Public Finance, 14(6), 631–655. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10797-006-9017-5
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Petkova, K., & Weichenrieder, A. J. (2020). The relevance of depreciation allowances as a fiscal policy instrument: A hybrid approach to CCCTB? Empirica, 47(3), 579–610. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10663-019-09441-w
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Pinto, S. M. (2007). Corporate profit tax, capital mobility, and formula apportionment. Journal of Urban Economics, 62(1), 76–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2006.08.008
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Pirvu, D., Banica L., & Hagiu, A. (2011). Implications of the common consolidated corporate tax base introduction on tax revenues (case study on Romania). Romanian Journal of Political Science, 11(1), 91–102.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Polezharova, L. V., & Krasnobaeva, A. M. (2020). E-commerce taxation in Russia: Problems and approaches. Journal of Tax Reform, 6(2), 104–123. https://doi.org/10.15826/jtr.2020.6.2.077
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Quentin, D. (2017). Corporate tax reform and “value creation”: Towards unfettered diagonal re-allocation across the global inequality chain. Accounting, Economics and Law, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1515/ael-2016-0020
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Riedel, N. (2010). The downside of formula apportionment: Evidence on factor demand distortions. International Tax and Public Finance, 17(3), 236–258. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10797-009-9116-1
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Riedel, N. (2011). Taxing multi-nationals under union wage bargaining. International Tax and Public Finance, 18(4), 399–421. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10797-011-9164-1
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Riedel, N., & Runkel, M. (2007). Company tax reform with a water’s edge. Journal of Public Economics, 91(7–8), 1533–1554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2006.11.001
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
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. Transformations in Business & Economics, 11(3), 36–56.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Roggeman, A., Verleyen, I., Van Cauwenberge, P., & Coppens, C. (2013). The EU apportionment formula: Insights from a business case. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 14(2), 235–251. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3846/16111699.2011.638668
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Roggeman, A., Verleyen, I., Van Cauwenberge, P., & Coppens, C. (2014). Impact of a Common Corporate Tax Base on the effective tax burden in Belgium. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 15(3), 530–543. https://doi.org/10.3846/16111699.2013.807869
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Runkel, M., & Schjelderup, G. (2011). The choice of apportionment factors under formula apportionment. International Economic Review, 52(3), 913–934. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2354.2011.00654.x
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Russo, A. (2005). Formulary apportionment for Europe: An analysis and a proposal. Intertax, 33(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.54648/taxi2005001
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Sadiq, K. (2015). The case for unitary taxation with formulary apportionment in the finance sector and the effect on developing nations. Australian Tax Review, 44(2), 75–98.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Schaltegger, S., Christ, K. L., Wenzig, J., & Burritt, R. L. (2021). Corporate sustainability management accounting and multi-level links for sustainability—A systematic review. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 24(4), 480–500. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12288
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Schreiber, U., & Fuhrich, G. (2009). European group taxation-the role of exit taxes. European Journal of Law and Economics, 27(3), 257–274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10657-008-9090-6
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Shackelford, D., & Slemrod, J. (1998). The revenue consequences of using formula apportionment to calculate US and foreign-source income: A firm-level analysis. International Tax and Public Finance, 5, 41–59. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008664408465
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Solilová, V., Nerudová, D., & Litzman, M. (2016). Implementation of Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base and its ımplications for non-participating country: A case study for the Czech Republic. Ekonomickýy Časopis, 64(3), 282–298.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Sørensen, P. B. (2004). Company tax reform in the European Union. International Tax and Public Finance, 11(1), 91–115. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:ITAX.0000004778.63592.96
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Sosnowski M. (2014). Dilemmas of tax-inducted location decisions. Journal of International Studies, 7(2), 83–95. https://doi.org/10.14254/2071-8330.2014/7-2/7
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Spinosa, L., & Chand, V. (2018). A long-term solution for taxing digitalized business models: Should the permanent establishment definition be modified to resolve the issue or should the focus be on a shared taxing rights mechanism? Intertax, 46(6–7), 476–494.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Swenson, C. W. (2015). The cash flow and behavioral effects of switching to a single sales factor on state taxation. Journal of the American Taxation Association, 37(2), 75–107. https://doi.org/10.2308/atax-51203
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
van de Streek, J. (2012). The CCCTB concept of consolidation and the rules on entering a group. Intertax, 40(1), 24–32.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Weiner, J. M. (2006). Company tax reform in the European Union: Guidance from the United States and Canada on ımplementing formulary apportionment in the EU. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-29487-2
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Wetzler, J. W. (1995). Should the us adopt formula apportionment? National Tax Journal, 48(3), 357–362.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Wrede, M. (2013). Multinational financial structure and tax competition. Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics, 149(3), 381–404. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03399396
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Wrede, M. (2014). Asymmetric tax competition with formula apportionment. Letters in Spatial and Resource Sciences, 7(1), 47–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12076-013-0100-0
Search in Google Scholar Back to article

Formulary apportionment in the European Union—future research agenda

Abstract

Paradigm

My account