IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ers/journl/vxxivy2021i4-part1p333-341.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Notional Interest Deduction – Impact on the Cost of Equity in Investment Projects

Author

Listed:
  • Urszula Romaniuk
  • Krzysztof Malik

Abstract

Purpose: The Notional Interest Deduction (NID) was introduced to achieve equal treatment of debt and equity financing by granting an additional tax deduction from self-financing. Our purpose was to analyze the practical meaning of the introduced mechanism as a factor of the Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC) calculation and evaluation of the efficiency of development projects. In the art, the WACC is used to determine the rates of discount for the calculation of future cash flows (CF) and net present value (NPV) of investment projects. Design/Methodology/Approach: The NID mechanism is recognized as the Allowance for Economic Growth (ACE) and the countries benefiting from this relief are recognized as applying the ACE regime. The individual ACE regime is monitored and evaluated for compliance with the European Code of the Conduct Group for business taxation. The documents published by the Council of the European Union became the basis for the tax shield rate analyses and assessment of the impact of NID on WACC changes. Findings: It has been shown that the benefits of NID mechanism can correct Weighted Average Cost of Capital in minus and the differences between countries result from the ACE regime model used, the method of calculating the qualified base and the method of determining the reference rate for the calculation of the notional interest deduction. Practical Implications: The presented use of the notional interest deduction mechanism will fill the gap in the literature on the subject and indicate new opportunities to study the efficiency of the development of organizations. The results can also help practitioners to identify a mechanism whose use may be beneficial to the company due to the possibility of a more precise assessment of the efficiency of the investment project. Originality and Value: The NID mechanism is relatively new and the issues related to it have not yet received much analysis, in particular in connection with non-tax benefits. Meanwhile, taking into account the effects of ACE regime in discounting cash flows may affect the decision to implement or reject an investment project.

Suggested Citation

  • Urszula Romaniuk & Krzysztof Malik, 2021. "Notional Interest Deduction – Impact on the Cost of Equity in Investment Projects," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(4 - Part ), pages 333-341.
    • Handle: RePEc:ers:journl:v:xxiv:y:2021:i:4-part1:p:333-341
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ersj.eu/journal/2591/download
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Geert Campenhout & Tom Caneghem, 2013. "How did the notional interest deduction affect Belgian SMEs’ capital structure?," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 351-373, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gundert Hannah & Nicolay Katharina & Steinbrenner Daniela & Wickel Sophia, 2024. "The Tax Attractiveness of EU Locations for Corporate Investments: A Stocktaking of Past Developments and Recent Reforms," The Economists' Voice, De Gruyter, vol. 21(1), pages 97-132.
    2. Jozef Konings & Catherine Lecocq & Bruno Merlevede, 2022. "Does a tax deduction scheme matter for jobs and investment by multinational and domestic enterprises?," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 55(4), pages 1966-1989, November.
    3. Konings, Jozef & Lecocq, Cathy & Merlevede, Bruno, 2018. "Does a Tax Credit matter for Job Creation by Multinational Enterprises?," CEPR Discussion Papers 13105, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    4. Nicola Branzoli & Antonella Caiumi, 2020. "How effective is an incremental ACE in addressing the debt bias? Evidence from corporate tax returns," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 27(6), pages 1485-1519, December.
    5. Ricardo Malagueño & Ernesto Lopez-Valeiras & Jacobo Gomez-Conde, 2018. "Balanced scorecard in SMEs: effects on innovation and financial performance," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 51(1), pages 221-244, June.
    6. Inês Lisboa, 2017. "CAPITAL STRUCTURE OF EXPORTER SMEs DURING THE FINANCIAL CRISIS: EVIDENCE FROM PORTUGAL," Portuguese Journal of Management Studies, ISEG, Universidade de Lisboa, vol. 22(1), pages 25-49.
    7. Meki, Muhammad, 2023. "Levelling the debt–equity playing field: Evidence from Belgium," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    8. Hang, Markus & Geyer-Klingeberg, Jerome & Rathgeber, Andreas W. & Stöckl, Stefan, 2018. "Measurement matters—A meta-study of the determinants of corporate capital structure," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 211-225.
    9. Shafik Hebous & Alexander Klemm, 2020. "A destination-based allowance for corporate equity," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 27(3), pages 753-777, June.
    10. repec:ers:journl:v:xxiv:y:2021:i:4:p:333-341 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Cao, Yifei & Whyte, Kemar, 2022. "Corporate Tax Shields and Capital Structure: Levelling the Playing Field in Debt vs Equity Finance," National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) Discussion Papers 542, National Institute of Economic and Social Research.
    12. Peter Vaz da Fonseca & Andrea Decourt Savelli & Michele Nascimento Juca, 2020. "A Systematic Review of the Influence of Taxation on Corporate Capital Structure," International Journal of Economics & Business Administration (IJEBA), International Journal of Economics & Business Administration (IJEBA), vol. 0(2), pages 155-178.
    13. Kayis-Kumar, Ann, 2015. "Thin capitalisation rules: A second-best solution to the cross-border debt bias?," MPRA Paper 72031, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Susanne Maidorn & Lukas Reiss, 2021. "Treffsicherheit der Maßnahmen zur Stützung der Haushaltseinkommen während der COVID-19-Krise in Österreich," Monetary Policy & the Economy, Oesterreichische Nationalbank (Austrian Central Bank), issue Q3/21, pages 1-15.
    15. Carmen Bachmann & Martin Baumann & Konrad Richter, 2018. "The effects on investment incentives of an allowance for corporate equity tax system: the Belgian case as an example," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 51(4), pages 943-965, November.
    16. Dave Goyvaerts & Annelies Roggeman, 2020. "The Impact of Thin Capitalization Rules on Subsidiary Financing: Evidence from Belgium," De Economist, Springer, vol. 168(1), pages 23-51, March.
    17. Sonny Biswas & Bálint L. Horváth & Wei Zhai, 2022. "Eliminating the Tax Shield through Allowance for Corporate Equity: Cross‐Border Credit Supply Effects," Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 54(6), pages 1803-1837, September.
    18. Stefan Stöckl, 2017. "Measurement matters - A meta-Study of the determinants of corporate capital structure," Post-Print hal-01772346, HAL.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Notional Interest Deduction (NID); Allowance for Corporate Equity (ACE); cost of equity; tax shield; Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC); investment projects.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D21 - Microeconomics - - Production and Organizations - - - Firm Behavior: Theory
    • H21 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue - - - Efficiency; Optimal Taxation
    • G32 - Financial Economics - - Corporate Finance and Governance - - - Financing Policy; Financial Risk and Risk Management; Capital and Ownership Structure; Value of Firms; Goodwill
    • M21 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Business Economics - - - Business Economics

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ers:journl:v:xxiv:y:2021:i:4-part1:p:333-341. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Marios Agiomavritis (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://ersj.eu/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.