New Economics Papers
on Law and Economics
Issue of 2005‒06‒19
two papers chosen by
Jeong-Joon Lee, Towson University


  1. Investment Liberalization - Why a Restrictive Cross-Border Merger Policy can be Counterproductive By Norbäck, Pehr-Johan; Persson, Lars
  2. Book-Tax Gap. An Income Horse Race By Maurizio Bovi

  1. By: Norbäck, Pehr-Johan (The Research Institute of Industrial Economics); Persson, Lars (The Research Institute of Industrial Economics)
    Abstract: Investment liberalizing countries are often concerned that cross-border mergers & acquisitions, in contrast to greenfield investments, might have an adverse effect on domestic firms and consumers. However, given that domestic assets are sufficiently scarce, we identify a preemption effect and an asset complementarity effect, which imply that the acquisition price is substantially higher than the domestic seller's profits. Moreover, we show that for the acquisition to take place, the MNE must be sufficiently efficient when using the domestic assets, otherwise rivals will expand their business, thereby making the acquisition unprofitable. Consequently, restricting cross-border M&As may also hurt consumers.
    Keywords: Investment Liberalization; Mergers & Acquisitions; Development; Ownership
    JEL: F23 K21 L13 O12
    Date: 2005–06–13
    URL: http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:hhs:iuiwop:0644&r=law
  2. By: Maurizio Bovi (ISAE - Institute for Studies & Economic Analyses)
    Abstract: This paper presents some stylised facts about the book-tax gap, i.e. the difference between book and taxable income, of Italian corporations. This divergence is a reflection of the usage of any tax shields and any applicable credits and rebates which, in turn, implies that the concept of taxable income is elusive. Moreover overlapping fiscal policies make harder, on the one hand, firms’ tax planning and, on the other hand, policymakers’ control on the effectiveness of their manoeuvres. As for the fiscal year 2000, evidence based on data drawn from the Diecofis database shows that, as expected (why pay more?), in Italy there is a widespread and active industry set up to enable taxpayers to identify and take advantage of particular tax effects. In that year 55,201 (16% of the) firms were able to report positive book profits and to indicate non positive taxable incomes. A less expected outcome shows that the “income race” may finish in a quite different way. More than half (57%) of the uneconomic companies, ends up with positive taxable incomes (83,449 in absolute terms). A disaggregated analysis highlights that this latter share is much more lower among southern corporations and large enterprises, especially in the construction and in the hotel/restaurant services sectors. Finally, it results that industries whose firms more often declare negative taxable incomes tend to display significantly higher shares of irregular workers, as well.
    Keywords: Corporate income tax, tax avoidance, accounting
    JEL: G14 M4 K2
    Date: 2005–06–13
    URL: http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:wpa:wuwppe:0506009&r=law

This issue is ©2005 by Jeong-Joon Lee. It is provided as is without any express or implied warranty. It may be freely redistributed in whole or in part for any purpose. If distributed in part, please include this notice.
General information on the NEP project can be found at https://nep.repec.org. For comments please write to the director of NEP, Marco Novarese at <director@nep.repec.org>. Put “NEP” in the subject, otherwise your mail may be rejected.
NEP’s infrastructure is sponsored by the School of Economics and Finance of Massey University in New Zealand.