We empirically assess international corporate tax avoidance by strategic location of innovative output. The analysis draws on the universe of patent applications to the European Patent Office from 1990 to 2006 linked with data on multinational entities (MNEs) in Europe. Four findings emerge: first, patent holdings are distorted toward low-tax countries. Second, patent location in low-tax countries is correlated with a geographic separation of research and development output and input. Third, MNEs systematically sort high-value (low-value) patents to low-tax (high-tax) countries. Fourth, the propensity to locate patent ownership in low-tax countries is significantly decreased if controlled foreign company rules are enacted in the MNE’s parent country. The tightening of transfer pricing legislation, in turn, exerts a weak negative effect on the location of patent ownership only.
AbramovskyL.GriffithR.MacartneyG.MillerH.. 2008. “The Location of Innovative Activity in Europe.” IFS Working Papers, WP 08/10, Institute of Fiscal Studies, London.
2.
AlstadsæterA.BarriosS.NicodemeG.SkoniecznaA. M.VezzaniA.. 2018. “Patent Boxes Design, Patents Location, and Local R&D.” Economic Policy33 (93): 131–77.
3.
BeckerJ.FuestC.. 2007. “Quality versus Quantity—The Composition Effect of Corporate Taxation on Foreign Direct Investment.” CESifo Working Paper Series2126, CESifo Group Munich, Munich, Germany.
4.
BeerS.De MooijR.LiuL.. 2019. “International Corporate Tax Avoidance: A Review of the Channels, Magnitudes, and Blind Spots.” Journal of Economic Surveys. doi: 10.1111/joes.12305.
5.
BeerS.LoeprickJ.. 2015. “Profit Shifting: Drivers of Transfer (Mis)pricing and the Potential of Countermeasures.” International Tax and Public Finance22 (3): 426–51.
6.
BjörkmanI.Barner-RasmussenW.LiL.. 2004. “Managing Knowledge Transfer in MNCs: The Impact of Headquarters Control Mechanisms.” Journal of International Business Studies35 (5): 443–55.
BösenbergS.EggerP. H.. 2017. “R&D Tax Incentives and the Emergence and Trade of Ideas.” Economic Policy32 (89): 39–80.
9.
BradleyS.DauchyE.RobinsonL.. 2015. “Cross-country Evidence on the Preliminary Effects of Patent Box Regimes on Patent Activity and Ownership.” National Tax Journal68 (4): 1047–72.
10.
BräutigamR.SpengelC.StreifF.. 2017. “Decline of Controlled Foreign Company Rules and Rise of Intellectual Property Boxes: How the European Court of Justice Affects Tax Competition and Economic Distortions in Europe.” Fiscal Studies38 (4): 719–45.
CliffordS.2019. “Taxing Multinationals beyond Borders: Financial and Locational Responses to CFC Rules.” Journal of Public Economics173:44–71.
13.
De SimoneL.SansingR. C.. 2019. “Income Shifting Using a Cost-sharing Arrangement.” Journal of the American Taxation Association41 (1): 123–36.
14.
DharmapalaD.2014. “What Do We Know about Base Erosion and Profit Shifting? A Review of the Empirical Literature.” Fiscal Studies35 (4): 421–48.
15.
DharmapalaD.HinesJ.. 2009. “Which Countries Become Tax Havens?” Journal of Public Economics93 (9–10): 1058–68.
16.
DischingerM.KnollB.RiedelN.. 2014. “The Role of Headquarters in Multinational Profit Shifting Strategies.” International Tax and Public Finance21 (2): 248–71.
17.
DischingerM.RiedelN.. 2011. “Corporate Taxes and the Location of Intangible Assets within Multinational Firms.” Journal of Public Economics95 (7-8): 691–707.
18.
DudarO.SpengelC.VogetJ.. 2015. “The Impact of Taxes on Bilateral Royalty Flows.” ZEW Discussion Paper15–052, Centre for European Economic Research, Mannheim, Germany.
19.
DudarO.VogetJ.. 2016. “Corporate Taxation and Location of Intangible Assets: Patents vs. Trademarks.” ZEW Discussion Paper16–015, Centre for European Economic Research, Mannheim, Germany.
20.
ErnstC.RichterK.RiedelN.. 2014. “Corporate Taxation and the Quality of Research and Development.” International Tax and Public Finance21 (4): 694–719.
21.
EversL.MillerH.SpengelC.. 2015. “Intellectual Property Box Regimes: Effective Tax Rates and Tax Policy Considerations.” International Tax and Public Finance22 (3): 502–30.
22.
FeyC. F.FuruP.. 2008. “Top Management Incentive Compensation and Knowledge Sharing in Multinational Corporations.” Strategic Management Journal29 (12): 1301–23.
23.
GaesslerF.HallB.HarhoffD.. 2018. “Should There Be Lower Taxes on Patent Income?” NBER Working Paper, No. 24843, NBER, Cambridge, MA.
24.
GongY.2003. “Subsidiary Staffing in Multinational Enterprises: Agency, Resources, and Performance.” Academy of Management Journal46 (6): 728–39.
25.
GriffithR.MillerH.O’ConnellM.. 2014. “Ownership of Intellectual Property and Corporate Taxation.” Journal of Public Economics112:12–23.
26.
HallB.ThomaG.TorrisiS.. 2007. “The Market Value of Patents and R&D: Evidence from European Firms.” NBER Working Paper, No. 13426, NBER, Cambridge, MA.
27.
HauflerA.StählerF.. 2013. “Tax Competition in a Simple Model with Heterogeneous Firms: How Larger Markets Reduce Profit Taxes.” International Economic Review54 (2): 665–92.
28.
HeckemeyerJ. H.OlligsP.OvereschM.. 2018. ““Home Sweet Home” versus International Tax Planning: Where Do Multinational Firms Hold Their U.S. Trademarks?” National Tax Journal71 (3): 485–520.
29.
HoenenA. K.KostovaT.. 2015. “Utilizing the Broader Agency Perspective for Studying Headquarters—Subsidiary Relations in Multinational Companies.” Journal of International Business Studies46 (1): 104–13.
30.
KarkinskyT.RiedelN.. 2012. “Corporate Taxation and the Choice of Patent Location within Multinational Firms.” Journal of International Economics88 (1): 176–85.
KoethenbuergerM.LiberiniF.StimmelmayrM.. 2018. “Is It Just Luring Reported Profit? The Case of European Patent Boxes.” CESifo Working Paper, No. 7061, CESifo, Munich, Germany.
33.
KostovaT.NellP. C.HoenenA. K.. 2018. “Understanding Agency Problems in Headquarters-subsidiary Relationships in Multinational Corporations: A Contextualized Model.” Journal of Management44 (7): 2611–37.
34.
LangM.AignerH. J.ScheuerleU.StefanerM.. 2004. CFC Legislation, Tax Treaties and EC Law. New York: Kluwer Law International.
35.
LanjouwJ.SchankermanM.. 2004. “Patent Quality and Research Productivity: Measuring Innovation with Multiple Indicators.” Economic Journal114 (495): 441–65.
36.
LernerJ.1994. “The Importance of Patent Scope: An Empirical Analysis.” RAND Journal of Economics2 (2): 319–33.
37.
McFaddenD.1974. “Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior.” In Frontiers in Econometrics, edited by ZarembkaP., 105–42. New York: Academic Press.
38.
MescallD.KlassenK.. 2018. “How Does Transfer Pricing Risk Affect Premia in Cross-border Mergers and Acquisitions?” Contemporary Accounting Research35: 830–65. doi:10.1111/1911-3846.12397
QuickP.DayT. L.. 2006. “Management of IP: Intercompany Transfers, Offshore Planning and Recent Developments Regarding Cost-sharing.” The Licensing Journal1:14–21.
43.
RiedelN.ZinnT.HofmannP.. 2015. “Do Transfer Pricing Laws Limit International Income Shifting? Evidence from European Multinationals.” Mimeo.
44.
RufM.WeichenriederA. J.. 2012. “The Taxation of Passive Foreign Investment: Lessons from German Experience.” Canadian Journal of Economics45 (4): 1504–28.
45.
SandlerD.1998. Tax Treaties and Controlled Foreign Company Legislation: Pushing the Boundaries, 1st ed. the Netherlands: Springer.
ThomaG.TorrisiS.GambardellaA.GuellecD.HallB. H.HarhofD.. 2010. “Harmonizing and Combining Large Datasets. An Application to Firm-level Patent and Accounting Data.” NBER Working Paper, No. 15851, NBER, Cambridge, MA.
48.
TrainK.2003. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
49.
WalpoleM.RiedelN.. 2014. “The Role of Tax in Choice of Location of Intellectual Property.” UNSW Business School Research Paper, No. 2014 TABL1001, UNSW Business School, Sydney, Australia.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
