IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/wpaper/hal-02502468.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Profit-sharing Rules and the Taxation of Multinational Internet Platforms

Author

Listed:
  • Francis Bloch

    (AMSE - Aix-Marseille Sciences Economiques - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - AMU - Aix Marseille Université - ECM - École Centrale de Marseille - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Gabrielle Demange

    (PSE - Paris School of Economics - UP1 - Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne - ENS-PSL - École normale supérieure - Paris - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - ENPC - École des Ponts ParisTech - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement)

Abstract

We analyze the strategy of a monopolistic Internet platform serving users from two jurisdictions with different corporate tax rates. We show that the platform exploits positive externalities across users to shift profit, and study the effects of a change in the corporate tax rate of one of the two jurisdictions. When externalities flow symmetrically among users in both jurisdictions, the platform increases quantities in the high tax jurisdiction and reduces quantities in the low tax jurisdiction. When externalities only flow from one jurisdiction to another, the platform's response depends on the direction of externalities. If externalities originate in the high tax jurisdiction, the platform increases quantities in the high tax jurisdiction ; if they originate in the low tax jurisdiction, the platform reduces quantities in the low tax jurisdiction. We contrast the baseline regime of separate accounting (SA) with a regime of Formula Apportionment (FA), where the tax bill is apportioned in proportion to the number of users in the two jurisdictions. Under FA, the platform always increases quantities in the lower-tax jurisdiction and decreases quantities in the higher-tax jurisdiction. We use a numerical simulation to show that the higher-tax jurisdiction prefers SA to FA whereas the lower-tax jurisdiction prefers FA to SA. JEL Classification Numbers: H32, H25, L12, L14.

Suggested Citation

  • Francis Bloch & Gabrielle Demange, 2020. "Profit-sharing Rules and the Taxation of Multinational Internet Platforms," Working Papers hal-02502468, HAL.
  • Handle: RePEc:hal:wpaper:hal-02502468
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-02502468
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.science/hal-02502468/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hans Jarle Kind & Marko Koethenbuerger & Guttorm Schjelderup, 2010. "Tax responses in platform industries," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 62(4), pages 764-783, October.
    2. Hans Jarle Kind & Guttorm Schjelderup & Frank Stähler, 2013. "Newspaper Differentiation and Investments in Journalism: The Role of Tax Policy," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 80(317), pages 131-148, January.
    3. E. Glen Weyl, 2019. "Price Theory," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 57(2), pages 329-384, June.
    4. Marc Bourreau & Bernard Caillaud & Romain De Nijs, 2018. "Taxation of a digital monopoly platform," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 20(1), pages 40-51, February.
    5. Kind, Hans Jarle & Koethenbuerger, Marko & Schjelderup, Guttorm, 2008. "Efficiency enhancing taxation in two-sided markets," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(5-6), pages 1531-1539, June.
    6. Paul Belleflamme & Eric Toulemonde, 2016. "Tax Incidence on Competing Two-Sided Platforms: Lucky Break or Double Jeopardy," CESifo Working Paper Series 5882, CESifo.
    7. 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.
    8. Gordon, Roger H & Wilson, John Douglas, 1986. "An Examination of Multijurisdictional Corporate Income Taxation under Formula Apportionment," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 54(6), pages 1357-1373, November.
    9. Søren Bo Nielsen & Pascalis Raimondos–Møller & Guttorm Schjelderup, 2003. "Formula Apportionment and Transfer Pricing under Oligopolistic Competition," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 5(2), pages 419-437, April.
    10. 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.
    11. Nielsen, Søren Bo & Raimondos-Møller, Pascalis & Schjelderup, Guttorm, 2010. "Company taxation and tax spillovers: Separate accounting versus formula apportionment," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 54(1), pages 121-132, January.
    12. Christos Kotsogiannis & Konstantinos Serfes, 2010. "Public Goods and Tax Competition in a Two‐Sided Market," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 12(2), pages 281-321, April.
    13. Gresik, Thomas A., 2010. "Formula apportionment vs. separate accounting: A private information perspective," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 54(1), pages 133-149, January.
    14. 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. 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.
    2. Mardan, Mohammed & Stimmelmayr, Michael, 2018. "Tax revenue losses through cross-border loss offset: An insurmountable hurdle for formula apportionment?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 188-210.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Eichfelder, Sebastian & Hechtner, Frank & Hundsdoerfer, Jochen, 2015. "Formula apportionment: Factor allocation and tax avoidance," Discussion Papers 2015/30, Free University Berlin, School of Business & Economics.
    6. Riedel, Nadine & Runkel, Marco, 2007. "Company tax reform with a water's edge," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(7-8), pages 1533-1554, August.
    7. Dirk Kiesewetter & Tobias Steigenberger & Matthias Stier, 2018. "Can formula apportionment really prevent multinational enterprises from profit shifting? The role of asset valuation, intragroup debt, and leases," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 88(9), pages 1029-1060, December.
    8. Marcel Gérard, 2005. "Multijurisdictional Firms and Governments’ Strategies under Alternative Tax Designs," CESifo Working Paper Series 1527, CESifo.
    9. Marco Runkel & Guttorm Schjelderup, 2011. "The Choice Of Apportionment Factors Under Formula Apportionment," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 52(3), pages 913-934, August.
    10. Wolfgang Eggert & Andreas Haufler, 2006. "Company-Tax Coordination cum Tax-Rate Competition in the European Union," FinanzArchiv: Public Finance Analysis, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 62(4), pages 579-601, December.
    11. Ana Agundez-Garcia, 2006. "The Delineation and Apportionment of an EU Consolidated Tax Base for Multi-jurisdictional Corporate Income Taxation: a Review of Issues and Options," Taxation Papers 9, Directorate General Taxation and Customs Union, European Commission, revised Oct 2006.
    12. Eichfelder, Sebastian & Hechtner, Frank & Hundsdoerfer, Jochen, 2015. "Formula apportionment: Factor allocation and tax avoidance," arqus Discussion Papers in Quantitative Tax Research 199, arqus - Arbeitskreis Quantitative Steuerlehre.
    13. Gresik, Thomas A., 2010. "Formula apportionment vs. separate accounting: A private information perspective," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 54(1), pages 133-149, January.
    14. Sara L. McGaughey & Pascalis Raimondos, 2019. "Shifting MNE taxation from national to global profits: A radical reform long overdue," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 50(9), pages 1668-1683, December.
    15. 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.
    16. Eichner, Thomas & Runkel, Marco, 2009. "Corporate income taxation of multinationals and unemployment," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(5), pages 610-620, September.
    17. Francis Bloch & Gabrielle Demange, 2018. "Taxation and privacy protection on Internet platforms," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 20(1), pages 52-66, February.
    18. Dietrich, Maik, 2009. "Entscheidungswirkungen einer europaweit harmonisierten Konzernbesteuerung [Impacts of European Group Taxation]," MPRA Paper 59870, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. 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.
    20. Doina Radulescu & Doina Maria Radulescu, 2007. "From Separate Accounting to Formula Apportionment: Analysis in a Dynamic Framework," CESifo Working Paper Series 2122, CESifo.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Digital platforms; multinational firms; corporate income taxation; Formula Apportionment; separate accounting *;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • H32 - Public Economics - - Fiscal Policies and Behavior of Economic Agents - - - Firm
    • H25 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue - - - Business Taxes and Subsidies
    • L12 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Monopoly; Monopolization Strategies
    • L14 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Transactional Relationships; Contracts and Reputation

    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:hal:wpaper:hal-02502468. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.