Design Matters: Firm-Level Evidence on Tax Treaty Provisions and Multinational Investment
This study provides the first firm-level evidence demonstrating that while tax sparing provisions consistently encourage market entry by OECD multinationals in low-and-middle income countries, the effects of double tax relief methods on investment intensity and entry are heterogeneous and depend significantly on whether firms invest directly or indirectly.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
Every time a company from a wealthy nation builds a factory or opens an office in a developing country, it faces a complex financial puzzle. The business must pay taxes to the country where the money is made, but it also owes taxes to the country where its headquarters are located. Without rules to manage this, the same profit could be taxed twice, once in each place, which would make doing business across borders incredibly expensive and often impossible. To solve this, nations sign bilateral agreements called double taxation treaties. These are essentially handshakes between governments that decide who gets to tax what, often lowering the rates or promising that if one country taxes a profit, the other will give a credit so the total burden isn't doubled. For decades, economists have debated whether these treaties actually encourage companies to invest more in poorer nations or if they simply help rich companies avoid paying their fair share. The answer has remained elusive because most studies have looked at the big picture, treating all investment as a single, uniform flow of money, which hides the specific choices individual companies make.
A new study by Pranvera Shehaj at Freie Universität Berlin cuts through this fog by looking at the actual decisions made by individual companies rather than just the total sum of money moving between countries. The research focuses on the period between 2005 and 2016, examining data from thousands of foreign subsidiaries owned by companies based in thirty-six wealthy nations and operating in thirty-four developing countries. The author distinguishes between two very different types of investment decisions. The first is the decision to enter a new market, which involves the high cost and risk of building a new subsidiary from scratch. The second is the decision to expand an existing operation, where a company that is already present decides to pour more money into its current facilities. The study also pays close attention to the route the money takes. Sometimes a company invests directly from its home country to the host country, but often it routes the investment through a third country, a strategy known as using a conduit, to take advantage of better tax deals elsewhere.
The findings reveal that the impact of these tax treaties is not the same for every company or every stage of investment. When it comes to the decision to enter a new market, the specific method a home country uses to relieve double taxation—whether it exempts foreign profits or gives a credit for taxes paid abroad—does not seem to matter much once the company has decided on its investment route. However, a specific clause known as "tax sparing" makes a significant difference. This provision ensures that if a developing country offers a tax break to attract investment, the wealthy home country will still give credit for that tax even though the company didn't actually pay it. The study finds that these tax sparing provisions consistently encourage companies to establish new subsidiaries. This suggests that preserving the value of local tax incentives is a powerful tool for getting companies to take the risk of entering a new, developing market.
The picture changes completely when looking at companies that are already established and deciding whether to expand their operations. Here, the specific way the home country handles double taxation becomes crucial, but only for companies that invest through indirect routes. If a company uses a third country as a conduit to reach the developing nation, improvements in the home country's tax relief method lead to a noticeable increase in how much that company invests. It appears that for these indirect investors, a better tax deal directly translates into more money being put into the ground. In contrast, companies that invest directly do not change their expansion plans based on these tax improvements; they seem to be driven by other factors. Furthermore, the study finds that tax sparing provisions, which helped companies enter the market, do not encourage these existing companies to invest more. In fact, for direct investors, these provisions are associated with less reinvestment, likely because the countries that offer them are often the ones where companies are less willing to put down deep roots.
This research challenges the idea that tax treaties have a single, uniform effect on global investment. By separating the decision to enter a market from the decision to expand within it, and by tracking the specific path the investment takes, the study shows that the rules of the game matter differently depending on the player's strategy. The results suggest that while tax sparing is effective at getting companies to show up, it does not necessarily keep them there or encourage them to grow. Similarly, changes in how home countries tax foreign profits only influence the growth of companies that are already using complex, indirect routes to get there. For policymakers, this means that the design of these treaties is critical. A provision that successfully attracts a new factory might do nothing to encourage that same factory to build a second one, and a tax break that works for a company routing money through a third country might be irrelevant for one investing directly. The study concludes that to truly understand how international tax rules shape the economy, we must look beyond the aggregate totals and examine the specific, varied behaviors of the companies themselves.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.