KURUMLAR VERGİSİ ORANI-HASILAT İLİŞKİSİ: OECD ÖRNEĞİ

Küreselleşme sürecinde hükümetler, özellikle 1980'lerden sonra, yabancısermayeyi çekmek için kurumlar vergisi oranlarını düşürmüştür. Ancak kurumlarvergisi oranlarında yaşanan azalmaya rağmen kurumlar vergisi gelirleri nispetenistikrarlı hatta artma eğilimi sergilemiştir. Literatürde “kurumlar vergisi oranıgelir paradoksu” olarak adlandırılan bu durum, şirketlerin kurumsallaşmadüzeylerinde artma ve gelir vergisinden kurumlar vergisine doğru bir kaymaylaaçıklanmıştır. Kurumlar vergisi oranı ile hasılat arasındaki ters yönlü ilişki, vergisistemlerinin tasarımı etkilemektedir. Nitekim günümüzdeki birçok ülke gelirvergisi ile kurumlar vergisi arasında bir tercih yapma ve vergi sistemlerini butercihe göre yeniden düzenleme eğilimdedir. Bu nedenle kurumlar vergisiparadoksunun geçerliliği ülkelerin vergi politikalarını etkileyen önemli birkonudur. Bu önemden dolayı bu çalışmada kurumlar vergi paradoksunungeçerliliği incelenmektedir. Çalışmada, bu paradoksal ilişkiyi incelemek içindoğrusal olmayan regresyon tekniği kullanılmıştır. Analiz sonuçlarına göre,Laffer eğrisinin kurumlar vergisi açısından geçerli olduğu tespit edilmiş vekurumlar vergisi gelirlerini maksimize eden oranın %34 seviyesinde olduğubelirlenmiştir. Bu sonuç, kurumlar vergisi alanında son dönemde yaşanandeğişimlerin ampirik açıdan teyit edilmesi açısından ve vergi politikasınıntasarımı şekillendirme açısından oldukça önemlidir.

CORPORATE TAX RATE-REVENUE RELATION: THE CASE OF OECD

In the process of globalization, governments have lowered the rates of corporate taxes to attract foreign capital, especially after the 1980s. However, despite the declining rates of corporate tax, corporate tax revenues have displayed a relatively stable, even increasing tendency. This situation, which is referred to in the literature as "the rate of corporation tax rate-income paradox", is explained by the increase in the level of corporatization of companies and a shift towards the taxation of corporations from income tax. The inverse relationship between corporate tax rate and revenue affects the design of tax systems. Today, many countries are inclined to make a preference between income tax and corporation tax and organize their tax systems accordingly. For this reason, the validity of the corporate tax paradox is an important issue that affects the tax policies of countries. Because of this importance, the validity of tax paradox is examined in the study. In this study, nonlinear regression technique was used for examining this paradoxical relationship. According to the results of the analysis, it was determined that the Laffer curve was valid in terms of the corporate tax, and it was determined that the ratio of maximizing the tax incomes of the corporations was 34 %. This result is very important in terms of empirical confirmation of recent changes in corporate taxation and shaping the design of tax policy.

PDF

___

Abbas, Ali ve Klemm, Alexander (2012). “A Partial Race to the Bottom: Corporate Tax Developments in Emerging and Developing Economies”, IMF Working Paper, WP/12/28.
Albi, Emilio (2010). “The Challenges of Corporate Income Taxes in a Globalized World”, The Elgar Guide to Tax Systems, p.130-182.
Auerbach, Alan (2006). “Why Have Corporate Tax Revenues Declined? Another Look”, NBER Working Paper Series, Working Paper 12463, (http://www.nber.org/papers/w12463, 10.04.2018’te erişildi).
Brender, Adi ve Politzer, Eran (2014). The Effect of Legislated Tax Changes on Tax Revenues in Israel. Research Department, Bank of Israel.
Brill, Alex ve Hassett, Kevin (2007). “Revenue-Maximizing Corporate Income Taxes: The Laffer Curve in OECD Countries”. AEI Working Paper 137, July 31.
Clausing, Kimberly (2007). “Corporate Tax Revenues in OECD Countries”, International Tax and Public Finance, 14(2), 115-133.
Creedy, John ve Gemmell, Norman (2009). “Corporation Tax Revenue Growth in The UK: A Microsimulation Analysis”, Economic Modelling, 26(3), 614-625.
Çalışkan, Zafer (2009). “OECD Ülkelerinde Sağlık Harcamaları: Panel Veri Analizi”, Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, (34), 117-137.
De Mooij, Ruud ve Nicodème, Gaetan (2007). “Corporate Tax Policy and Incorporation in the EU”, CEB Working Paper, N° 07/016.
Devereux, Michael., Griffith, Rachel ve Klemm, Alexander (2002). “Corporate Income Tax Reforms and International Tax Competition”, Economic Policy, 17(35), 449-495.
Herbst, Karel (2008). Is The Concept of The Laffer Curve Valid? The Empirical Evidence from The Corporate Income Tax for Selected OECD Countries. Charles University in Prague Faculty of Social Sciences Institute of Economic Studies Master Thesis.
Im, Kyung So., Pesaran, Hashem ve Shin, Yongcheol (2003). “Testing for Unit Roots in Heterogeneous Panels” Journal of Econometrics, 115(1), 53-74.
Jahnsen, Kari ve Pomerleau, Kyle (2017). “Corporate Income Tax Rates around the World, 2017”, Tax Foundation Fiscal Fact, No. 559.
Levin, Andrew., Lin, Chien-Fu ve Chu, Chia-Shang James (2002). “Unit Root Tests in Panel Data: Asymptotic and Finite-Sample Properties”, Journal of Econometrics, 108(1), 1-24.
Maddala, Gangadharrao Soundalyarao ve Wu, Shaowen (1999). “A Comparative Study of Unit Root Tests with Panel Data and a New Simple Test”, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and statistics, 61(S1), 631-652.
Mintz, Jack (1999). “Globalization of the Corporate Income Tax: The Role of Allocation”, FinanzArchiv/Public Finance Analysis, 389- 423.
Monteiro, Marta Rodrigues., Brandão, Elisıo Fernando ve Martins, Francisco Vitorino (2011). “A Panel Data Econometric Study of Corporate Tax Revenue in European Union: Structural, Cyclical Business and Institutional Determinants” FEP Working Papers, N. 437.
Mooij, Ruud De ve Nicodème, Gaetan (2008). “How Corporate Tax Competition Reduces Personal Tax Revenue”, CESifo DICE Report, 6(1), 27-31.
OECD (Ekonomik İşbirliği ve Kalkınma Teşkilatı) (2018). “Tax on Corporate Profits”, (https://data.oecd.org/tax/tax-on-corporateprofits.htm, 02.05.2018’te erişildi).
Öncel, Yenal (2005). “Kurumlar Vergisinde Değişim ve Uluslararası Vergi Rekabeti”, Maliye Araştırma Merkezi Konferansları, (47), 1- 20.
Pesaran, Hashem (2004). “General Diagnostic Tests for Cross Section Dependence in Panels”, CESifo Working Paper Series, No. 1229.
Piotrowska, Joanna ve Vanborren, Werner (2008). The corporate income tax rate-revenue paradox: Evidence in the EU, Directorate General Taxation and Customs Union, European Commission.
Sørensen, Peter Birch (2007). “Can Capital Income Taxes Survive? And Should They?” CESifo Economic Studies, 53(2), 172-228.
Spence, Ian (1997). “Globalization of Transnational Business: The Challenge for International Tax Policy”, Intertax, 25, 143.
Stinespring, John (2009). “Are State Corporate Income Tax Rates Too High? A Panel Study of Statewide Laffer Curves”, (https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f007/15afd3a87fa9b01555bea7ed ddacbe552683.pdf, 02.05.2018’te erişildi).
Swiston, Andrew., Mathai, Koshy ve Mühleisen, Martin (2007). “US Revenue Surprises: Are Happy Days Here to Stay?”, IMF Working Paper, WP/07/143.
Şen, Hüseyin ve Sağbaş, İsa (2015). Vergi Teorisi ve Politikası. Ankara: Kalkan Offset.
Tatoğlu, Ferda Yerdelen (2012). Panel Veri Ekonometrisi: Stata Uygulamalı. İstanbul: Beta Basım Yayın.
Turhan, Salih (1998). Vergi Teorisi ve Vergi Politikası. İstanbul: Filiz Kitabevi.
Vogel, Lukas (2012). Tax Avoidance and Fiscal Limits: Laffer Curves in an Economy with Informal Sector. Directorate General Economic and Financial Affairs (DG ECFIN), European Commission.
Weichenrieder, Alfons (2005). “(Why) Do We Need Corporate Taxation?”, CESifo Working Paper 1495.