We found a match
Your institution may have rights to this item. Sign in to continue.
- Title
Foreign Direct Investment, Thin Capitalization, and the Interest Expense Deduction: A Policy Analysis.
- Authors
Edgar, Tim; Farrar, Jonathan; Mawani, Amin
- Abstract
Five countries--Australia, Denmark, Germany, Italy, and New Zealand--have recently adopted comprehensive restrictions on the deductibility of interest expense applicable in the context of foreign direct investment. The introduction of section 18.2 of Canada's Income Tax Act, which denies the deduction of interest expense that can be traced to the earning of certain forms of exempt income in the context of outbound direct investment, is consistent with these legislative developments only in the broad sense that it attempts to impose some form of deductibility restriction. The approach chosen by the Department of Finance differs in two important respects from that adopted in those other countries. First, it appears to be based on an assumption that different types of deductibility restrictions are required in the context of outbound and inbound direct investment, with the thin capitalization rules in subsections 18(4) to (6) applying in the latter context to limit the deduction of interest expense on debt held by significant shareholders. Second, tracing is used to link interest expense and foreign-source income in the context of outbound direct investment. The comprehensive thin capitalization regimes in Australia and New Zealand apply equally in the context of outbound and inbound direct investment, as well as equally to intragroup debt and the external debt of a multinational group. Interest expense in excess of a specified leverage ratio is denied deductibility unless a resident corporation's ratio is consistent with a multiple of the consolidated ratio of the multinational group to which it belongs. The deductibility restrictions adopted in Denmark, Germany, and Italy follow this same broad pattern, but an interest-coverage ratio, characteristic of earnings-stripping legislation, is used to specify the permissible level of interest expense. This article argues that the legislative models adopted in these particular countries are a preferable form of interest deductibility restriction in a second-best world in which tax policy makers pursue the maximization of national welfare. Although the legislative outcome is a largely symmetrical application of a comprehensive thin capitalization or earnings-stripping restriction in the context of outbound and inbound direct investment, the policy case for deductibility restrictions is somewhat different in these two contexts. The competing legislative alternatives to an unrestricted interest expense deduction are also different. As a modified form of asset apportionment, a comprehensive thin capitalization regime allows tax policy makers to realize a necessary balance between the need for revenue maintenance and the encouragement of desirable outbound and inbound direct investment. As a form of gross-revenue apportionment, a comprehensive earnings-stripping approach can realize the same balance, but there are some differences in design features that may suggest a slight preference for a comprehensive thin capitalization regime. The authors conclude with the presentation of some empirical evidence of leverage ratios of Canadian corporations that tentatively suggest a baseline in specifying a safe-harbour ratio. They believe that the Department of Finance should take the opportunity provided by the report of the Advisory Panel on Canada's System of International Taxation to reconsider section 18.2, as well as the thin capitalization rules in subsections 18(4) to (6).
- Subjects
FOREIGN investments; CAPITAL movements; INVESTMENTS; CORPORATE finance; VALUATION; INTEREST costs
- Publication
Canadian Tax Journal / Revue Fiscale Canadienne, 2008, Vol 56, Issue 4, p803
- ISSN
0008-5111
- Publication type
Article