IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/hpe/journl/y2012v203i4p23-56.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

La neutralidad financiera en el Impuesto sobre Sociedades: Microsimulación de las opciones de reforma para España

Author

Listed:
  • Lourdes Jerez Barroso

    (Universidad de Extremadura)

  • Fidel Picos Sánchez

    (Universidade de Vigo)

Abstract

En las últimas décadas diversas líneas de reforma del Impuesto sobre Sociedades, como ACE y CbIT, han sido propuestas para eliminar el tratamiento fiscal preferente a la financiación mediante deuda. Este trabajo estima los efectos que tendría en España la aplicación de reformas de este tipo, mediante técnicas de microsimulación aplicadas sobre la base de datos contable sAbI. Los resultados muestran las fortalezas y debilidades de cada una de las reformas, y sugieren la aplicación de fórmulas mixtas y/o la puesta en marcha gradual de las reformas como transición hacia bases imponibles neutrales.

Suggested Citation

  • Lourdes Jerez Barroso & Fidel Picos Sánchez, 2012. "La neutralidad financiera en el Impuesto sobre Sociedades: Microsimulación de las opciones de reforma para España," Hacienda Pública Española / Review of Public Economics, IEF, vol. 203(4), pages 23-56, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:hpe:journl:y:2012:v:203:i:4:p:23-56
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.ief.es/comun/Descarga.cshtml?ruta=~/docs/destacados/publicaciones/revistas/hpe/203_Art2.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Christian Keuschnigg & Martin Dietz, 2007. "A growth oriented dual income tax," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 14(2), pages 191-221, April.
    2. (IFS), Institute for Fiscal Studies & Mirrlees, James (ed.), 2011. "Tax By Design: The Mirrlees Review," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199553747.
    3. European Commission, 2010. "Taxation trends in the European Union: 2010 edition," Taxation trends 2010, Directorate General Taxation and Customs Union, European Commission.
    4. Paul Johnson & Gareth Myles, 2011. "The Mirrlees Review," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 32(3), pages 319-329, September.
    5. Emilio Albi, 2010. "The Challenges of Corporate Income Taxes in a Globalised World," International Center for Public Policy Working Paper Series, at AYSPS, GSU paper1016, International Center for Public Policy, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
    6. European Commission, 2011. "Tax Reforms in EU Member States 2011: tax policy challenges for economic growth and fiscal sustainability," Taxation Papers 28, Directorate General Taxation and Customs Union, European Commission.
    7. European Commission, 2013. "Taxation trends in the European Union: 2013 edition," Taxation trends 2013, Directorate General Taxation and Customs Union, European Commission.
    8. Doina Radulescu & Michael Stimmelmayr, 2006. "ACE Vs. CBIT: Which Is Better for Investment and Welfare?," EcoMod2006 272100072, EcoMod.
    9. Michael Keen & Alexander Klemm & Victoria Perry, 2010. "Tax and the Crisis," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 31(1), pages 43-79, March.
    10. Alan Auerbach & Michael P. Devereux & Helen Simpson, 2007. "Taxing Corporate Income," CESifo Working Paper Series 2139, CESifo.
    11. Alfons J. Weichenrieder & Alfons Weichenrieder, 2005. "(Why) Do we need Corporate Taxation?," CESifo Working Paper Series 1495, CESifo.
    12. Ruud A. de Mooij, 2011. "The Tax Elasticity of Corporate Debt: A Synthesis of Size and Variations," IMF Working Papers 2011/095, International Monetary Fund.
    13. Ruud Mooij, 2005. "Will Corporate Income Taxation Survive?," De Economist, Springer, vol. 153(3), pages 277-301, September.
    14. Doina Maria Radulescu & Michael Stimmelmayr, 2007. "ACE versus CBIT: Which is Better for Investment and Welfare?," CESifo Economic Studies, CESifo Group, vol. 53(2), pages 294-328, June.
    15. Ruud A. De Mooij, 2012. "Tax Biases to Debt Finance: Assessing the Problem, Finding Solutions," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 33(4), pages 489-512, December.
    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. European Commission, 2011. "Tax Reforms in EU Member States 2011: tax policy challenges for economic growth and fiscal sustainability," Taxation Papers 28, Directorate General Taxation and Customs Union, European Commission.
    2. Finke, Katharina & Heckemeyer, Jost H. & Spengel, Christoph, 2014. "Assessing the impact of introducing an ACE regime: A behavioural corporate microsimulation analysis for Germany," ZEW Discussion Papers 14-033, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    3. 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.
    4. Devereux, Michael P., 2012. "Issues in the Design of Taxes on Corporate Profit," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 65(3), pages 709-730, September.
    5. Hebous, Shafik & Ruf, Martin, 2017. "Evaluating the effects of ACE systems on multinational debt financing and investment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 131-149.
    6. Ruud Mooij & Michael Devereux, 2011. "An applied analysis of ACE and CBIT reforms in the EU," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 18(1), pages 93-120, February.
    7. European Commission, 2012. "Taxation trends in the European Union: 2012 edition," Taxation trends 2012, Directorate General Taxation and Customs Union, European Commission.
    8. European Commission, 2013. "Tax reforms in EU Member States - Tax policy challenges for economic growth and fiscal sustainability – 2013 Report," Taxation Papers 38, Directorate General Taxation and Customs Union, European Commission.
    9. Nils aus dem Moore, 2014. "Taxes and Corporate Financing Decisions – Evidence from the Belgian ACE Reform," Ruhr Economic Papers 0533, Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Universität Dortmund, Universität Duisburg-Essen.
    10. Kayis-Kumar, Ann, 2015. "Taxing cross-border intercompany transactions: are financing activities fungible?," MPRA Paper 71615, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Ruud de Mooij & Michael P. Devereux, 2008. "Alternative Systems of Business Tax in Europe: An applied analysis of ACE and CBIT Reforms," Taxation Studies 0023, Directorate General Taxation and Customs Union, European Commission.
    12. Brekke, Kurt R. & Garcia Pires, Armando J. & Schindler, Dirk & Schjelderup, Guttorm, 2017. "Capital taxation and imperfect competition: ACE vs. CBIT," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 1-15.
    13. Brendan O'Connor, 2013. "The Structure of Ireland’s Tax System and Options for Growth Enhancing Reform," The Economic and Social Review, Economic and Social Studies, vol. 44(4), pages 511-540.
    14. F. De Sloover & Y. Saks, 2018. "Is job polarisation accompanied by wage polarisation?," Economic Review, National Bank of Belgium, issue iii, pages 79-90, september.
    15. repec:zbw:rwirep:0533 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Hebous, Shafik & Ruf, Martin, 2017. "Evaluating the effects of ACE systems on multinational debt financing and investment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 131-149.
    17. aus dem Moore, Nils, 2014. "Taxes and Corporate Financing Decisions – Evidence from the Belgian ACE Reform," Ruhr Economic Papers 533, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
    18. European Commission, 2012. "Tax reforms in EU Member States - Tax policy challenges for economic growth and fiscal sustainability – 2012 Report," Taxation Papers 34, Directorate General Taxation and Customs Union, European Commission.
    19. Langenmayr, Dominika & Haufler, Andreas & Bauer, Christian J., 2015. "Should tax policy favor high- or low-productivity firms?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 18-34.
    20. Robin Boadway & Motohiro Sato & Jean-Francois Tremblay, 2015. "Cash-flow business taxation revisited: bankruptcy, risk aversion and asymmetric information," Working Papers 1531, Oxford University Centre for Business Taxation.
    21. Sijbren Cnossen, 2016. "Tackling Spillovers by Taxing Corporate Income in the European Union at Source," CPB Discussion Paper 324, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Impuesto sobre Sociedades; ACE; CbIT; reforma fiscal; microsimulación;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • H25 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue - - - Business Taxes and Subsidies
    • H32 - Public Economics - - Fiscal Policies and Behavior of Economic Agents - - - Firm
    • C81 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - Methodology for Collecting, Estimating, and Organizing Microeconomic Data; Data Access

    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:hpe:journl:y:2012:v:203:i:4:p:23-56. 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: Miguel Gómez de Antonio (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iefgves.html .

    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.