ABSTRACT This paper examines investment responses to emission taxes and the role of tax incidence in passing on tax burdens. Using private firms from Spain and the introduction of an emission tax in 2013 in the Autonomous Community Valenciana, we show that investments decline in response to the emission tax. Importantly, this investment decline does not depend on the level of pollution but on economic factors related to tax incidence. Investments in firms operating in highly competitive markets, firms with low pricing power, and firms with low financial flexibility are the most affected by environmental taxes. We generalize the investment findings using the introduction of carbon taxes in France and Ireland in a stacked difference-in-differences design. Overall, our results indicate that emission taxes affect not only polluters but also other firms and stakeholders such as suppliers, customers, and consumers depending on the relative elasticities of supply and demand. Data Availability: Data are available from the sources cited in the text. JEL Classifications: H22; H23; H32; G31.

This paper investigates the effect of frictions in consumption taxes on firms' product mix decisions. We use a stacked difference-indifferences approach that exploits the staggered transition from a sales tax with the risk of tax cascading to a value added tax (VAT) with credits on inputs across states in India, as well as detailed data on listed manufacturing firms' production decisions. We find that the switch to a VAT system induces affected firms to narrow their product scope and to reduce vertical integration. That is, firms cut the internal production of input goods and instead focus their production on their best-performing products. Firms affected by the switch to VAT reduce their firm size and are more likely to outsource production of input goods. We also show that this vertical disintegration results in lower manufacturing costs, higher profitability and firm value, and increased investment efficiency for affected firms. Overall, the paper shows that alleviating frictions in sales tax or VAT systems can reduce investment and productivity distortions and improve the allocation of capital across firms.

Pressure from short-horizon investors can hurt investments in innovative, long-run value-increasing projects. We explore the efficacy of a commonly proposed tax-based policy tool to mitigate this problem: the imposition of differentially greater taxes on short-term capital gains vis-à-vis long-term capital gains. Using a panel of 30 OECD countries in which seven countries exhibit 21 changes to differential capital gains taxation over 1991–2006, we find that rewarding longer-term ownership through lower taxes is associated with greater innovation. The evidence adds to our understanding of the real effects of taxation on investor trading and informs the debate on the use of capital gains taxes to address corporate myopia.

Consumers nominally pay the consumption tax, but theoretical and empirical evidence is mixed on whether corporations partly shoulder this burden, thereby affecting corporate investment. Using a quasi-natural experiment, we show that consumption taxes decrease investment. Firms facing more elastic demand decrease investment more strongly, because they bear more of the consumption tax. We corroborate the validity of our findings using 86 consumption tax changes in a cross-country panel. We document two mechanisms underlying the investment response: reduced firms’ profitability and lower aggregate consumption. Importantly, the magnitude of the investment response to consumption taxes is similar to that of corporate taxes. Received September 25, 2017; editorial decision August 26, 2018 by Editor Wei Jiang. Authors have furnished an Internet Appendix, which is available on the Oxford University Press Web site next to the link to the final published paper online.

ABSTRACT Economists broadly agree that the economic burden of corporate taxes is not entirely borne by shareholders but also borne in part by employees and consumers. We examine corporate tax avoidance in a setting where shareholders do not bear the entire economic burden of the corporate tax. We show that the relation between corporate tax incidence and corporate tax avoidance depends on the elasticity of labor supply, the productivity of capital relative to labor, and the tax deductibility of labor and capital. These forces operate through two channels ( firm scale and input mix ), making the actual association between tax avoidance and incidence an empirical question. We find that firms whose shareholders bear less of the economic burden of corporate taxes engage in less avoidance. Our findings suggest that maximizing after‐tax profits might entail less tax avoidance if shareholders do not entirely bear the corporate tax burden. In particular, when the incidence of the corporate tax falls on the firm, firms avoid more taxes. This tendency is stronger if firms use a higher level of capital input, if the deductibility of the cost of capital investment is limited, if firms have high capital productivity, or if tax enforcement is strong.

ABSTRACT Tax regimes treat losses and profits asymmetrically when profits are immediately taxed, but losses are not immediately refunded. We find that treating losses less asymmetrically by granting refunds less restrictively increases loss firms' investment: A third of the refund is invested and the rest is held as cash or returned to shareholders. However, the investment response is driven primarily by firms prone to engage in risky overinvestment. Consistent with the risk of misallocation, we find a delayed exit of low-productivity loss firms receiving less restrictive refunds, indicating potential distortion of the competitive selection of firms. This distortion also negatively affects aggregate output and productivity. Our results suggest that stimulating loss firms' investment with refunds unconditional on their future prospects comes at the risk of misallocation. JEL Classifications: G31; H21; H25.

ABSTRACT This paper examines how firms’ tax policy expectations (TPE) evolve around and relate to their investment responses to changes in tax policy. Using a text‐based approach to measuring TPE, we find that two recent tax policy–changing events—namely, the 2016 U.S. presidential election and the enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA)—spawned considerable between‐ and within‐firm variation in TPE, with aggregate time‐series patterns in TPE occasionally challenging prevailing assumptions in previous research. Further, we observe that event‐induced TPE relate to investment both before and in response to the TCJA's passage in 2017, with offsetting associations between its first and second moments, and that these TPE moderate the TCJA's intended investment‐stimulating effect. Furthermore, we document a difference between domestic and multinational firms in their TPE‐investment response, with the former (latter) more likely to adjust the level (shift the country location) of their investment. Overall, our findings support the idea that TPE can impact investment behavior in the face of a tax policy change and suggest that our methodology can be used by future research to incorporate TPE into analyses of tax policy effects.

Governments worldwide spend trillions of dollars on business support programs. This article examines the implications to investors of phasing out one of these subsidy programs. Our setting takes advantage of a unique quasi-natural experiment, where tax subsidies for Canadian Labour-Sponsored Venture Capital Corporations (LSVCCs) were phased out in one province but not in others. Using a difference-in-differences setting, we show that fund performance—unrelated to the tax credit—decreased substantially following the enactment of the phase-out. We further show empirically that LSVCC managers continued to charge venture capital-like management fees, despite the fact that their investment strategies become more similar to mutual funds. Our data strongly support the idea that investors in companies and/or funds that unexpectedly lose government support face significant financial costs.

ABSTRACT The limitation of executive compensation has been a matter of public and policy debate for at least 20 years. We examine a regulatory action in Austria in 2014 where the tax deductibility of the total value of executive compensation is unavoidably limited. We find no average effects on the growth or composition of executives’ pay. However, the deductibility limit affects the managers of firms with low bargaining power and of firms with strong corporate governance, indicating that they are affected by the deductibility limit. Additionally, the contract durations for executives decrease after renegotiation. We further find that affected firms experience cuts in investment and research and development, suggesting that shareholders bear part of the economic burden. Our results indicate that the effectiveness of other reforms, such as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, in restricting executive pay is rather limited. JEL Classifications: H21; H22; M41.

ABSTRACT Regulators are increasingly considering and mandating additional public tax disclosures to enhance transparency and promote scrutiny of corporate tax avoidance. We conducted three experiments to examine how such disclosures influence retail investors' perceptions of firms with identical effective tax rates but different tax avoidance methods. In the first experiment, participants evaluated whether firms were paying their fair share of taxes. We find that additional public tax disclosures reduce retail investors' tendency to differentiate between tax avoidance methods, subsequently affecting their willingness to invest. Specifically, participants use easy‐to‐process summary tax information in the additional public tax disclosure as a heuristic shortcut. The second and third experiments demonstrate that modifying the disclosure format and prompting participants to assess tax aggressiveness rather than fairness can mitigate these adverse effects. However, none of the cases significantly alters participants' perceptions compared to the baseline condition of no public tax disclosure. Overall, our findings provide insights into the design of, and the debate surrounding, additional public tax disclosures.