IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/btx/wpaper/1315.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

CFC legislation, passive assets and the impact of the ECJ’s Cadbury-Schweppes decision

Author

Listed:
  • Martin Ruf

    (Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen)

  • Alfons J. Weichenrieder

    (Goethe Universität Frankfurt)

Abstract

In its Cadbury-Schweppes decision of 12 September 2006 (C-196/04), the ECJ decided that the UK CFC rules, which were implemented to subject low taxed passive income of foreign affiliates to UK corporate tax, implied an infringement of the freedom of establishment. Consequently, many EU countries including Germany changed their legislation. The paper discusses to which extent the ECJ ruling has impacted on the allocation of passive assets in German multinationals. Using firm level data we find evidence for an increased preference for low-tax European countries compared to non-European countries.

Suggested Citation

  • Martin Ruf & Alfons J. Weichenrieder, 2013. "CFC legislation, passive assets and the impact of the ECJ’s Cadbury-Schweppes decision," Working Papers 1315, Oxford University Centre for Business Taxation.
    • Handle: RePEc:btx:wpaper:1315
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sbs.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Business_Taxation/Docs/Publications/Working_Papers/Series_13/WP1315.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. von Hagen, Dominik & Pönnighaus, Fabian Nicolas, 2017. "International taxation and M&A prices," ZEW Discussion Papers 17-040, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    2. Clifford, Sarah, 2019. "Taxing multinationals beyond borders: Financial and locational responses to CFC rules," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 173(C), pages 44-71.
    3. Sabine Schenkelberg, 2020. "The Cadbury Schweppes judgment and its implications on profit shifting activities within Europe," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 27(1), pages 1-31, February.
    4. Overesch Michael, 2016. "Steuervermeidung multinationaler Unternehmen: Die Befunde der empirischen Forschung," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, De Gruyter, vol. 17(2), pages 129-143, July.
    5. Michael Overesch & Sabine Schenkelberg & Georg Wamser, 2018. "Do US Firms Pay Less Tax than their European Peers? On Firm Characteristics, Profit Shifting Opportunities, and Tax Legislation as Determinants of Tax Differentials," CESifo Working Paper Series 6960, CESifo.
    6. Haufler, Andreas & Mardan, Mohammed & Schindler, Dirk, 2018. "Double tax discrimination to attract FDI and fight profit shifting: The role of CFC rules," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 25-43.
    7. Kari Seppo, 2015. "Corporate tax in an international environment – Problems and possible remedies," Nordic Tax Journal, Sciendo, vol. 2015(1), pages 1-16, September.
    8. Danuse Nerudova & Veronika Solilova & Marek Litzman & Petr Janský, 2020. "International tax planning within the structure of corporate entities owned by the shareholder‐individuals through Panama Papers destinations," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 38(1), pages 124-139, January.
    9. Spengel, Christoph & Fischer, Leonie & Stutzenberger, Kathrin, 2020. "Breaking borders? The European Court of Justice and internal market," ZEW Discussion Papers 20-059, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    10. von Hagen, Dominik & Harendt, Christoph, 2017. "Impact of controlled foreign corporation rules on post-acquisition investment and profit shifting in targets," ZEW Discussion Papers 17-062, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    European Court of Justice; corporation tax; foreign direct investment; CFC regulation; passive investment;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • H25 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue - - - Business Taxes and Subsidies
    • H73 - Public Economics - - State and Local Government; Intergovernmental Relations - - - Interjurisdictional Differentials and Their Effects

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:btx:wpaper:1315. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Dongxian Guo (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/sbsoxuk.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.