Entscheidungswirkungen steuerlicher Erfolgsabgrenzungsparadigmen bei multinationalen Unternehmen

  • André Schröer
Aufteilungsfaktoren Einheitsprinzip Entscheidungsneutralität Fremdvergleichsgrundsatz Multinationale Unternehmen 


In general, the allocation of income of multinational enterprises to several jurisdictions for corporate tax purposes follows the OECD standard of the arm’s length principle. In contrast to the theory of the multinational enterprise, delimitation of income following this principle does not fit systematically to the theoretical perception of the multinational enterprise as an integrated business. It is shown that almost any transfer price for tax purposes except for marginal-cost prices affects the optimal production plan. Therefore, it is inadequate to fix arm’s length related transfer pricing schemes to value cross border activities for tax purposes. Since the EU-Commission favours a comprehensive approach which is based on the unitary principle to tax integrated businesses in Europe, conditions under which an efficient allocation of resources results are specified.


Allocation Effects Arm’s Length Principle Formular Apportionment Multinational Enterprises Unitary Tax 


H21 H22 H25 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Arrow, Kenneth J. (1977), Optimization, Decentralization, and Internal Pricing in Business Firms, in: Arrow, Kenneth J./Hurwicz, Leonid (Hrsg.), Studies in Resource Allocation Processes, S. 134–145.Google Scholar
  2. Bond, Eric W. (1980), Optimal Transfer Pricing when Tax Rates Differ, in: Southern Economic Journal, Vol. 47, S. 191–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Copithorne, Lawrence W. (1971), International Coporate Transfer Prices and Government Policy, in: The Canadian Journal of Economics, Vol. 4, S. 324–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Diewert, Erwin W. (1985), Transfer Pricing and Economic Efficiency, in: Rugman, Alan M./Eden, Lorraine (Hrsg.), Multinationals and Transfer Pricing, S. 47–81.Google Scholar
  5. Dunning, John H. (2001), The Key Literature on IB Activities: 1960–2000, in: Rugman, Alan M./Brewer, Thomas L., (Hrsg.), The Oxford Handbook of International Business, S. 36–68.Google Scholar
  6. Eden, Lorraine (1998), Transfer Pricing and Corporate Income Taxation in North America.Google Scholar
  7. Erdahl, Steven D. (1995), Supreme Court Upholds California’s Unitary Taxation of Foreign Multinationals, in: Journal of Corporate Taxation Vol. 22, S. 3–35.Google Scholar
  8. Ernst & Young (2001), Transfer Pricing 2001 Global Survey,$file/Transfer_Pricing_2002.pdf, Zugriffsdatum: 04.06.2002.
  9. EU-Kommission (2001), Unternehmensbesteuerung im Binnenmarkt, SEK (2001) 1681.Google Scholar
  10. EU-Kommission (2001a), Steuerpolitik in der Europäischen Union — Prioritäten für die nächsten Jahre, KOM (2001) 260.Google Scholar
  11. EU-Kommission (2001b), Ein Binnenmarkt ohne steuerliche Hindernisse, KOM (2001) 582 endg.Google Scholar
  12. EU-Kommission (2003), Ein Binnenmarkt ohne unternehmenssteuerliche Hindernisse, Ergebnisse, Initiativen, Herausforderungen, KOM (2003) 726 endg.Google Scholar
  13. Ewert, Ralf/Wagenhofer, Alfred (2003), Interne Unternehmensrechnung, 5. Auflage.Google Scholar
  14. Gerken, Lüder/ Märkt, Jörg/ Schick, Gerhard (2001), Double Income Taxation as a Response to Tax Competition in the EU, in: Intereconomics, Vol. 36, S. 244–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Goodspeed, Timothy J./Witte, Ann D. (1999), International Taxation, in: Bouckaert, Boudewijn/De Geest, Gerrit (Hrsg.), Encyclopedia of Law and Economics, Volume I. The History and Methodology of Law and Economics, S. 256–300.Google Scholar
  16. Gordon, Roger H./ Wilson, John Douglas (1986), An Ecamination of Multijourisdictional-Corporate Income Taxation under Formula Apportionment, in: Econometrica, Vol. 54, S. 1357–1373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gresik, Thomas A./Osmundsen, Petter (2001), Transfer Pricing with no Unrelated Parties, Working Paper October 2001,, Zugriffsdatum: 01.08.2002.
  18. Halperin, Robert/Srinidhi, Bin (1987), The Effects of the US Income Tax Regulation’s Transfer Pricing Rules on Allocative Efficiency, in: Accounting Review, Vol. 62, S. 686–706.Google Scholar
  19. Halperin, Robert/ Srinidhi, Bin (1991), U.S. Income Tax Transfer-Pricing Rules and Resource Allocation: The Case of Decentralized Multinational Firms, in: Accounting Review, Vol. 66, S. 141–157.Google Scholar
  20. Hennart, Jean-François (2001), Theories of the Multinational Enterprise, in: Rugman, Alan M./Brewer, Thomas L., (Hrsg.), The Oxford Handbook of International Business, S. 127–149.Google Scholar
  21. Hirshleifer, Jack (1956), On the Economics of Transfer Pricing, in: Journal of Business, Vol. 29, S. 172–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hirshleifer, Jack (1957), Economics of the Divisionalized Firm, in: Journal of Business, Vol. 30, S. 96–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jacobs, Otto H. (2002), Internationale Unternehmensbesteuerung, 5. Auflage.Google Scholar
  24. Kreuter, Andreas (1999), Verrechnungspreise in Profit-Center-Organisationen, 2. Auflage.Google Scholar
  25. Lannoo, Karel/Levin, Mattias (2002), An EU Company without an EU Tax?, in: Centre for European Studies Research Report, April,, Zugriffsdatum: 30.10.2002.
  26. Lodin, Sven O./Gammie, Malcom (2001), Home State Taxation.Google Scholar
  27. Luttermann, Claus (1996), Besteuerung multinationaler Konzerne in den Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika, in: Recht der Internationalen Wirtschaft Heft 11, 42. Jg., S. 935–948.Google Scholar
  28. McLure, Charles E. (1980), The State Corporate Income Tax: Lambs in Wolves’ Clothing, in: Aaron, Henry J./Boskin, Michael J. (Hrsg.), The Economics of Taxation, S. 327–346.Google Scholar
  29. McLure, Charles E. (1981), The Elusive Incidence of the Corporate Income Tax: The State Case, in: Public Finance Quarterly, Vol. 9, S. 395–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mintz, Jack M. (1999), Globalization of the Corporate Income Tax: The Role of Allocation, in: Finanzarchiv, 56. Jg., S. 389–423.Google Scholar
  31. Mintz, Jack M./Weiner, Joann M. (2001), Exploring Formula Allocation for the European Union, Working Paper,, Zugriffsdatum 21.12.2003.
  32. Musgrave, Peggy B. (1974), International Tax Base Division and the Multinational Corporation, in: Public Finance 1972, S. 394–413.Google Scholar
  33. Musgrave, Peggy B. (1984), Principles for Dividing the State Corporate Tax Base, in: McLure, C. E. (Hrsg.), The State Corporation Income Tax, S. 228–246.Google Scholar
  34. Musgrave, Peggy B. (2000), Interjurisdictional Equity in Company Taxation: Principles and Applications to the European Union, in: Cnossen, Sijbren (2000), Taxing Capital Income in the European Union, S. 46–77.Google Scholar
  35. Nielsen, Søren Bo/ Raimondos-Møller, Pascalis/ Schjelderup, Guttorm (2003), Formula Apportionment and Transfer Pricing under Oligopolistic Competition, in: Journal of Public Economic Theory, Vol. 5, S. 419–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Oates, Wallace E. (1999), An Essay on Fiscal Federalism, in: Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 37, S. 1120–1149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Oestreicher, Andreas (2000), Konzern-Gewinnabgrenzung.Google Scholar
  38. Oestreicher, Andreas (2002), Konzernbesteuerung in Europa, in: Steuer und Wirtschaft, 32. Jg., 4. Quartal, S. 342–356.Google Scholar
  39. Plasschaert, Sylvain (1997), An EU-Tax on the Consolidated Profits of Multinational Enterprises, in: European Taxation, Vol. 37, S. 2–13.Google Scholar
  40. Research Institute of America (2003), All States Tax Handbook.Google Scholar
  41. Riecker, Andreas (1996), Körperschaftsbesteuerung in der Europäischen Union und das US-amerikanische Modell der Unitary Taxation.Google Scholar
  42. Schmalenbach, Eugen (1908/09), Über Verrechnungspreise, in: Zeitschrift für handelswissenschaftliche Forschung, 3. Jg., S. 165–185.Google Scholar
  43. Schneider, Dieter (2003), Wider Marktpreise als Verrechnungspreise in der Besteuerung internationaler Konzerne, in: Der Betrieb, 55. Jg., S. 53–58.Google Scholar
  44. Schjelderup, Guttorm/ Weichenrieder, Alfons J. (1999), Trade, Multinationals, and Transfer Pricing Regulations, in: The Canadian Journal of Economics, Vol. 32, S. 817–834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sørensen, Peter B. (2002), To Harmonise or not to Harmonise?, in: CES ifo Forum, Vol. 1, S. 31–35.Google Scholar
  46. Stehn, Jürgen (1992), Ausländische Direktinvestitionen in Industrieländern.Google Scholar
  47. Sunley, Emil M. (2002), The Pros and Cons of Formulary Apportionment, in: CES ifo Forum, Vol. 1, S. 36–37.Google Scholar
  48. Weichenrieder, Alfons (1995), Besteuerung und Direktinvestition.Google Scholar
  49. Weiner, Joann M. (1999), Using the Experience in the U.S. States to Evaluate Issues in Implementing Formula Apportionment at the International Level, U.S. Department of the Treasury, Paper 83,, Zugriffsdatum: 10.10.02.
  50. Weiner, Joann M. (2001), The European Union and Formular Apportionment: Caveat Emptor, in: European Taxation, S. 380–388.Google Scholar
  51. Weiner, Joann M. (2002), EU Commission, Member States Commit to EU-Wide Company Taxation, Formulary Apportionment, in: Tax Notes International, S. 515–520.Google Scholar
  52. Wellisch, Dietmar (2003), Internationale Verrechnungspreismethoden, Neutralität und die Gewinne multinationaler Unternehmen, in: Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik, 223. Jg., S. 332–359 und S. 464–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Schmalenbach-Gesellschaft.eV. 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ESSEC, Lehrstuhl für Allgemeine Betriebswirtschaftslehre und Betriebswirtschaftliche Steuerlehre Prof. Dr. Ulrich SchreiberUniversität MannheimMannheimDeutschland

Personalised recommendations