IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/fip/fedkcw/2005-02.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Nexus, throwbacks, and the weighting game

Author

Listed:
  • Kelly D. Edmiston

Abstract

This paper modifies a model proposed by Anand and Sansing (2000) to explain why states have chosen different formulas for corporate income apportionment. I demonstrate that nexus assumptions and allocation rules can have significant effects on the outcomes of the model, and are important considerations in analyzing the impetus for and effects of apportionment competition.

Suggested Citation

  • Kelly D. Edmiston, 2004. "Nexus, throwbacks, and the weighting game," Community Affairs Research Working Paper 2005-02, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.
    • Handle: RePEc:fip:fedkcw:2005-02
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.kansascityfed.org/publicat/cap/Edmiston_WP_NexusThrowbacks05.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Edmiston, Kelly D., 2002. "Strategic Apportionment of the State Corporate Income Tax: An Applied General Equilibrium Analysis," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association, vol. 55(N. 2), pages 239-262, June.
    2. Anand, Bharat N. & Sansing, Richard, 2000. "The Weighting Game: Formula Apportionment as an Instrument of Public Policy," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association, vol. 53(n. 2), pages 183-200, June.
    3. Anand, Bharat N. & Sansing, Richard, 2000. "The Weighting Game: Formula Apportionment as an Instrument of Public Policy," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 53(2), pages 183-200, June.
    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. Hines Jr., James R., 2010. "Income misattribution under formula apportionment," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 54(1), pages 108-120, January.
    2. Martini, Jan-Thomas & Niemann, Rainer & Simons, Dirk, 2014. "Management incentives under formula apportionment: Tax-induced distortions of effort and compensation in a principal-agent setting," arqus Discussion Papers in Quantitative Tax Research 168, arqus - Arbeitskreis Quantitative Steuerlehre.
    3. Ortmann, Regina, 2015. "Uncertainty in weighting formulary apportionment factors and its impact on after-tax income of multinational groups," arqus Discussion Papers in Quantitative Tax Research 184, arqus - Arbeitskreis Quantitative Steuerlehre.
    4. William F. Fox & LeAnn Luna, 2005. "Do Limited Liability Companies Explain Declining State Corporate Tax Revenues?," Public Finance Review, , vol. 33(6), pages 690-720, November.
    5. Robert F. Conrad, 2006. "Interjurisdictional Taxation and Attribution Rules," Public Finance Review, , vol. 34(5), pages 505-526, September.
    6. Jan Thomas Martini & Rainer Niemann & Dirk Simons, 2014. "Management Incentives under Formula Apportionment - Tax-Induced Distortions of Effort and Compensation in a Principal-Agent Setting -," CESifo Working Paper Series 4908, CESifo.
    7. Pinto, Santiago M., 2007. "Corporate profit tax, capital mobility, and formula apportionment," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 76-102, July.
    8. Johannes Becker, 2024. "Rationalizing Formula Apportionment," CESifo Working Paper Series 11234, CESifo.
    9. Ruud De Mooij & Li Liu & Dinar Prihardini, 2021. "An Assessment of Global Formula Apportionment," National Tax Journal, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 431-465.
    10. repec:rri:wpaper:200503 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Santiago Pinto, 2005. "Formula Apportionment, Tax Competition, and the Provision of Local Goods," Working Papers Working Paper 2005-03, Regional Research Institute, West Virginia University.
    12. Anja De Waegenaere & Richard C. Sansing & Jacco L. Wielhouwer, 2006. "Who Benefits from Inconsistent Multinational Tax Transfer†Pricing Rules?," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(1), pages 103-131, March.
    13. Fatih Guvenen & Raymond J. Mataloni Jr. & Dylan G. Rassier & Kim J. Ruhl, 2022. "Offshore Profit Shifting and Aggregate Measurement: Balance of Payments, Foreign Investment, Productivity, and the Labor Share," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 112(6), pages 1848-1884, June.
    14. Francis Bloch & Gabrielle Demange, 2021. "Profit-splitting rules and the taxation of multinational digital platforms," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 28(4), pages 855-889, August.
    15. Rüdiger Pethig & Andreas Wagener, 2007. "Profit tax competition and formula apportionment," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 14(6), pages 631-655, December.
    16. Dietrich, Maik, 2009. "Entscheidungswirkungen einer europaweit harmonisierten Konzernbesteuerung [Impacts of European Group Taxation]," MPRA Paper 59870, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. MIYOSHI Yoshiyuki, 2017. "Does Sales Factor Apportionment Benefit the Welfare of State?," Discussion papers 17124, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    18. Raymond Mataloni & Kim Ruhl & Dylan Rassier & Fatih Guvenen, 2016. "Offshore Profit Shifting and Domestic Productivity Measurement," 2016 Meeting Papers 1382, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    19. Kind, Hans Jarle & Midelfart, Karen Helene & Schjelderup, Guttorm, 2005. "Corporate tax systems, multinational enterprises, and economic integration," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 507-521, March.
    20. repec:prg:jnlpep:v:preprint:id:660:p:1-22 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Wolfgang Eggert & Guttorm Schjelderup, 2003. "Symmetric Tax Competition under Formula Apportionment," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 5(2), pages 439-446, April.
    22. Buettner, Thiess & Riedel, Nadine & Runkel, Marco, 2011. "Strategic Consolidation Under Formula Apportionment," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 64(2), pages 225-254, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Corporations;

    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:fip:fedkcw:2005-02. 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: Zach Kastens (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/frbkcus.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.