IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/fubsbe/201010.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Der Einfluss der Besteuerung auf die Rechtsformwahl: Eine Conjoint-Analyse

Author

Listed:
  • Sell, Sandra
  • Lopatta, Kerstin
  • Hundsdoerfer, Jochen

Abstract

Die Untersuchung richtet sich auf die Ermittlung der relativen Bedeutung der laufenden und aperiodischen Besteuerung im Entscheidungsprozess der Rechtsformwahl. Unter Vernachlässigung von Planungskosten sollten rationale Steuerpflichtige die Steuerbelastung als ein Entscheidungskriterium bei der Wahl der Unternehmensform zu berücksichtigen, da in Deutschland kein entscheidungsneutrales Steuersystem existiert. Fraglich ist die Bedeutung der Steuerbelastung für die Rechtsformwahl im Vergleich mit weiteren Entscheidungskriterien wie z.B. Haftung. Ideal wäre es, wenn die Probanden die relative Wichtigkeit der einzelnen Kriterien selbst quantifizieren könnten. Da die überwiegende Zahl der Probanden jedoch mit der Angabe des relativen Gewichts der Entscheidungskriterien vermutlich überfordert wären, wurde als Analysemethode zur Bestimmung der relativen Wichtigkeit der Steuerbelastung die Conjoint-Analyse gewählt. Es wurden zwei Gruppen befragt: Etablierte Unternehmer in einer Branche mit relativ niedriger Unternehmensgröße (Bestattungsunternehmer) und Existenzgründer. Als Ergebnis der fiktiven Rechtsformwahl kann festgehalten werden, dass die laufende Steuerbelastung, unabhängig davon, ob eine Betrachtung der einzelnen Gruppen (Bestattungsunternehmer oder Existenzgründer) oder eine Differenzierung bzgl. der Rechtsform durchgeführt wird oder nicht, immer die höchsten relativen Wichtigkeiten aufweist. Bezüglich der weiteren Entscheidungskriterien (Erbschaftsteuerbelastung, Haftung, Publizitätspflichten) kann keine einheitliche Aussage getroffen werden.

Suggested Citation

  • Sell, Sandra & Lopatta, Kerstin & Hundsdoerfer, Jochen, 2010. "Der Einfluss der Besteuerung auf die Rechtsformwahl: Eine Conjoint-Analyse," Discussion Papers 2010/10, Free University Berlin, School of Business & Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:fubsbe:201010
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/50546/1/669124680.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kay Blaufus & Renate Ortlieb, 2009. "Is Simple Better? A Conjoint Analysis of the Effects of Tax Complexity on Employee Preferences Concerning Company Pension Plans," Schmalenbach Business Review (sbr), LMU Munich School of Management, vol. 61(1), pages 60-83, January.
    2. Green, Paul E & Srinivasan, V, 1978. "Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 5(2), pages 103-123, Se.
    3. Blaufus, Kay & Hundsdoerfer, Jochen & Ortlieb, Renate, 2009. "Non scholae, sed fisco discimus? Ein Experiment zum Einfluss der Steuervereinfachung auf die Nachfrage nach Steuerberatung," arqus Discussion Papers in Quantitative Tax Research 67, arqus - Arbeitskreis Quantitative Steuerlehre.
    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. Hundsdoerfer, Jochen & Sielaff, Christian & Blaufus, Kay & Kiesewetter, Dirk & Weimann, Joachim, 2011. "The influence of tax labeling and tax earmarking on the willingness to contribute: A conjoint analysis," arqus Discussion Papers in Quantitative Tax Research 121, arqus - Arbeitskreis Quantitative Steuerlehre.
    2. Blaufus, Kay & Bob, Jonathan & Hundsdoerfer, Jochen & Kiesewetter, Dirk & Weimann, Joachim, 2010. "It's all about tax rates: An empirical study of tax perception," arqus Discussion Papers in Quantitative Tax Research 106, arqus - Arbeitskreis Quantitative Steuerlehre.
    3. Hundsdoerfer, Jochen & Sielaff, Christian & Blaufus, Kay & Kiesewetter, Dirk & Weimann, Joachim, 2010. "The name game for contributions: Influence of labeling and earmarking on the perceived tax burden," Discussion Papers 2010/12, Free University Berlin, School of Business & Economics.
    4. Blaufus, Kay & Bob, Jonathan & Hundsdoerfer, Jochen & Kiesewetter, Dirk & Weimann, Joachim, 2013. "Decision heuristics and tax perception – An analysis of a tax-cut-cum-base-broadening policy," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 1-16.
    5. Ronny Baierl, 2018. "Understanding Entrepreneurial Team Decisions: Measuring Team Members’ Influences With The Metricized Limit Conjoint Analysis," SAGE Open, , vol. 8(2), pages 21582440187, May.
    6. Winfried Steiner & Harald Hruschka, 2002. "A Probabilistic One-Step Approach to the Optimal Product Line Design Problem Using Conjoint and Cost Data," Review of Marketing Science Working Papers 1-4-1003, Berkeley Electronic Press.
    7. Merja Halme & Kari Linden & Kimmo Kääriä, 2009. "Patients’ Preferences for Generic and Branded Over-the-Counter Medicines," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 2(4), pages 243-255, December.
    8. Blaufus, Kay & Chirvi, Malte & Huber, Hans-Peter & Maiterth, Ralf & Sureth-Slaone, Caren, 2020. "Tax misperception and its effects on decision making: A literature review," arqus Discussion Papers in Quantitative Tax Research 261, arqus - Arbeitskreis Quantitative Steuerlehre.
    9. Silvia Jordan & Corinna Treisch, 2010. "The perception of tax concessions in retirement savings decisions," Qualitative Research in Financial Markets, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 2(3), pages 157-184, October.
    10. Haaijer, Marinus E., 1996. "Predictions in conjoint choice experiments : the x-factor probit model," Research Report 96B22, University of Groningen, Research Institute SOM (Systems, Organisations and Management).
    11. Fusco, Elisa, 2023. "Potential improvements approach in composite indicators construction: The Multi-directional Benefit of the Doubt model," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    12. Xue, Hong & Mainville, Denise Y. & You, Wen & Nayga, Rodolfo M., Jr., 2009. "Nutrition Knowledge, Sensory Characteristics and Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Pasture-Fed Beef," 2009 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, 2009, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 49277, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    13. Barbara Baarsma, 2003. "The Valuation of the IJmeer Nature Reserve using Conjoint Analysis," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 25(3), pages 343-356, July.
    14. Kowalska-Pyzalska, Anna & Michalski, Rafał & Kott, Marek & Skowrońska-Szmer, Anna & Kott, Joanna, 2022. "Consumer preferences towards alternative fuel vehicles. Results from the conjoint analysis," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    15. Kim, Junghun & Seung, Hyunchan & Lee, Jongsu & Ahn, Joongha, 2020. "Asymmetric preference and loss aversion for electric vehicles: The reference-dependent choice model capturing different preference directions," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    16. Horna, J. Daniela & Smale, Melinda & von Oppen, Matthias, 2005. "Private Participation In Agricultural Extension In Nigeria And Benin: Determining The Willingness To Pay For Information," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19401, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    17. John Liechty & Duncan Fong & Eelko Huizingh & Arnaud Bruyn, 2008. "Hierarchical Bayesian conjoint models incorporating measurement uncertainty," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 141-155, June.
    18. Christian P Theurer & Andranik Tumasjan & Isabell M Welpe, 2018. "Contextual work design and employee innovative work behavior: When does autonomy matter?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-35, October.
    19. Kannika Thampanishvong, 2013. "Determinants of Flash Flood Evacuation Choices and Assessment of Preferences for Flash Flood Warning Channels: The Case of Thailand," EEPSEA Research Report rr2013034, Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA), revised Mar 2013.
    20. Teichert, Thorsten Andreas, 1997. "Schätzgenauigkeit von Conjoint-Analysen," Manuskripte aus den Instituten für Betriebswirtschaftslehre der Universität Kiel 444, Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, Institut für Betriebswirtschaftslehre.

    More about this item

    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:zbw:fubsbe:201010. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fwfubde.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.