Base Erosion, Profit Shifting and Developing Countries

By Ernesto Crivelli, Ruud A. De Mooij, Michael Keen. Social Science Research Network, 2015

329 citations recorded by the source corpus.

International corporate tax issues are prominent in public debate, notably with the G20-OECD project addressing Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (‘BEPS’). But while there is considerable empirical evidence for advanced countries on the cross-country fiscal externalities at the heart of these issues, there is almost none for developing countries. This paper uses panel data for 173 countries over 33 years to explore their magnitude and nature, focusing particularly on developing countries and applying a new method to distinguish between spillover effects through real decisions and through avoidance —and quantify the revenue impact of the latter. The results suggest that spillover effects on the tax base are if anything a greater concern for developing countries than for advanced—and a significant one.

Subfields: Accounting, Economics and Econometrics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/219f07ebafa6013c4c073cff7357aa1c0de1b25c

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Accounting

In Economics and Econometrics

Citations in the corpus

Global distribution of revenue loss from corporate tax avoidance: re‐estimation and country results (2018, methodology): “As Crivelli et al. (2016) note, persuasive quantification of the revenue at stake through cross-border tax avoidance has proved elusive.”
The Missing Profits of Nations (2018, background): “Crivelli et al. (2015) infer revenue losses due to tax avoidance from the correlation between corporate tax revenue collected and the statutory tax rates of other countries in a panel model.4 Bolwijn et al. (2018) rely on the foreign direct investment statistics of non-haven countries, while our…”
INTERNATIONAL CORPORATE TAX AVOIDANCE: A REVIEW OF THE CHANNELS, MAGNITUDES, AND BLIND SPOTS (2018, unknown): “…1 0 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 Clausing (2009) 5 0 3.76 3.65 1.05 5.52 Clausing (2016) 8 0 2.92 2.84 1.85 4.61 Collins et al (1998) 1 1 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 Crivelli et al. (2016) 20 1 2.02 1.33 0.17 5.59 De Simone (2015) 9 9 0.83 0.91 0.25 1.29 De Simone et. al (2014) 2 0 1.00 1.00 0.66 1.34 Dharmapala…”