Accounting for Behavioral Considerations in Business Tax Reform: The Case of Expensing

Lily L. Batchelder
{"title":"Accounting for Behavioral Considerations in Business Tax Reform: The Case of Expensing","authors":"Lily L. Batchelder","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2904885","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"One of the fundamental questions in business tax reform is whether to allow firms to immediately expense investments or require economic cost recovery. The conventional view is that expensing would generate stronger growth effects holding revenues constant. This view is rooted in traditional models of corporate finance that assume firms look at the net present value of expected tax payments when incorporating taxes into investment decisions. But this traditional view ignores the possibility that firms focus on more salient measures of taxes as well. If so, they may respond less to expensing than this theory suggests because expensing does not lower their financial accounting tax liability and, all else equal, requires a higher statutory rate.This paper considers whether firms undervalue expensing due to a focus on these non-economic tax metrics and, if so, what this implies about business tax reform if the goal is to increase US investment. It develops a framework for what cost recovery rules are optimal, and then uses new and existing data to parameterize this framework, holding constant long-run revenues and the relative tax treatment of debt and equity. While the empirical evidence is still nascent, it tentatively concludes that applying economic cost recovery to public and very large companies in order to pay for a lower statutory tax rate would generate more US investment and growth than expensing — reducing the relevant tax rate on such companies by more than two percentage points estimated conservatively, and possibly by much more. This estimate is sensitive to the underlying empirical parameters and could easily change. But it does cast doubt on the conventional view that expensing would generate much more US investment and growth than the alternatives. It also contrasts with estimates by non-partisan Congressional staff that expensing as part of a business cash-flow tax would generate modestly higher growth, and with far more dramatic positive growth estimates by some prominent think tanks.","PeriodicalId":403078,"journal":{"name":"Public Economics: Fiscal Policies & Behavior of Economic Agents eJournal","volume":"2 2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-01-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Economics: Fiscal Policies & Behavior of Economic Agents eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2904885","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

One of the fundamental questions in business tax reform is whether to allow firms to immediately expense investments or require economic cost recovery. The conventional view is that expensing would generate stronger growth effects holding revenues constant. This view is rooted in traditional models of corporate finance that assume firms look at the net present value of expected tax payments when incorporating taxes into investment decisions. But this traditional view ignores the possibility that firms focus on more salient measures of taxes as well. If so, they may respond less to expensing than this theory suggests because expensing does not lower their financial accounting tax liability and, all else equal, requires a higher statutory rate.This paper considers whether firms undervalue expensing due to a focus on these non-economic tax metrics and, if so, what this implies about business tax reform if the goal is to increase US investment. It develops a framework for what cost recovery rules are optimal, and then uses new and existing data to parameterize this framework, holding constant long-run revenues and the relative tax treatment of debt and equity. While the empirical evidence is still nascent, it tentatively concludes that applying economic cost recovery to public and very large companies in order to pay for a lower statutory tax rate would generate more US investment and growth than expensing — reducing the relevant tax rate on such companies by more than two percentage points estimated conservatively, and possibly by much more. This estimate is sensitive to the underlying empirical parameters and could easily change. But it does cast doubt on the conventional view that expensing would generate much more US investment and growth than the alternatives. It also contrasts with estimates by non-partisan Congressional staff that expensing as part of a business cash-flow tax would generate modestly higher growth, and with far more dramatic positive growth estimates by some prominent think tanks.
营业税改革中的会计行为考量:以费用为例
营业税改革的一个基本问题是,是允许企业立即支出投资,还是要求收回经济成本。传统观点认为,在保持收入不变的情况下,支出将产生更强的增长效应。这种观点植根于传统的企业融资模型,该模型假设企业在将税收纳入投资决策时,会考虑预期纳税的净现值。但这种传统观点忽略了企业关注更显著的税收措施的可能性。如果是这样,他们对费用的反应可能不如这个理论所暗示的那样,因为费用不会降低他们的财务会计纳税义务,而且在其他条件相同的情况下,需要更高的法定税率。本文考虑企业是否因为关注这些非经济税收指标而低估了费用,如果是这样,如果目标是增加美国投资,这对营业税改革意味着什么。它开发了一个框架,用于成本回收规则是最佳的,然后使用新的和现有的数据来参数化这个框架,保持恒定的长期收入和债务和股权的相对税收处理。尽管经验证据仍处于初期阶段,但它初步得出结论:将经济成本回收应用于上市公司和超大型公司,以支付较低的法定税率,将比支出带来更多的美国投资和增长——保守估计,这将使此类公司的相关税率降低两个百分点以上,甚至可能更多。这种估计对潜在的经验参数很敏感,很容易改变。但它确实让人们对一种传统观点产生了怀疑,即开支化将比其他替代方案带来更多的美国投资和增长。这也与无党派国会工作人员的估计形成了对比,他们认为,作为企业现金流税的一部分,费用支出将略微提高经济增长,而一些知名智库的正增长预测则要明显得多。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信