Premium
Arguments in Favour of Tax Neutral Cost Allocation
Author(s) -
Lampenius Niklas,
Buerkle Tobias
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
abacus
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.632
H-Index - 45
eISSN - 1467-6281
pISSN - 0001-3072
DOI - 10.1111/abac.12031
Subject(s) - economics , depreciation (economics) , microeconomics , context (archaeology) , incentive , shareholder , corporate tax , monetary economics , tax reform , public economics , tax avoidance , finance , profit (economics) , paleontology , corporate governance , financial capital , capital formation , biology
When considering corporate taxes in a cost allocation context a trade‐off is generated for shareholders. On the one hand, accelerated depreciation increases the value of a project due to the depreciation tax shield. On the other hand, accelerated depreciation most likely does not induce robust goal congruency between managers and shareholders when utilizing residual income as an incentive system and, as a consequence, over‐ or underinvestment could result. In this context, the literature suggests the application of particular allocation rules. When extending the relative marginal benefits cost allocation rule ( R eichelstein, 1997; R ogerson, 1997) to include corporate taxes we find it to be tax neutral and to maintain its properties of generating robust incentives. As a consequence the over‐/underinvestment problem is solved, but the depreciation tax shield is often not maximized. However, we illustrate that in competitive markets shareholders ought to prefer a tax neutral allocation scheme over an accelerated depreciation schedule. Thus, we show that shareholders as well as regulators have—for different reasons—a preference for tax neutral cost allocation.