Taxing the ‘Un’Taxed Digital Economy with a Focus on India: Decoding the Outsourced Holding Company Model

  • Sovik Mukherjee
Part of the Contributions to Management Science book series (MANAGEMENT SC.)


In the backdrop of the digital revolution we are witnessing, value creation through conventional production of goods and services is being challenged every now and then. These days, the digital economy, from entertainment to shopping, forms a crucial part of millions and millions, but its value added is slipping through our grasp. The fact of the matter is that sizeable shares of the value additions these companies do are moved out of countries where corporate tax rates are high to the accounts of companies in tax havens. This means that the productivity gains achieved through the digital economy does not necessarily translate into increased tax revenues for the government. The big names in the digital business market, at present, have been accused of paying virtually no tax in those populous countries where they operate. For example, Google’s revenue reached about US$74.5 billion in 2016 and yet Google is known to be subject to low effective rates of taxation and even accused of deferring taxes on revenues over US$24 billion only in the United States. Other European countries like Italy, France and others have proposed to tax the income of these digital entities but somehow it never materialized. At the outset, the paper presents a theoretical model to show how that liberal tax laws have always been attractive for shifting profits. In this background, the paper discusses the outsourced holding company model of tax avoidance used by digital business platforms like Flipkart with a special focus on India and hence decoding the tax design that can be operationalized by the fiscal authority to ensure increased tax revenues from digital value creation under such a case.


Digital platforms Corporate tax Value chain Transfer pricing Holding company Google tax 


  1. Armstrong, M. (2006). Competition in two-sided markets. The Rand Journal of Economics, 37(3), 668–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bacache, M., Bloch, F., Bourreau, M., Caillaud, B., Cremer, H., Crémer, J., Et al (2015). Taxation and the digital economy: A survey of theoretical models. Retrieved from
  3. Bakos, Y., & Katsamakas, E. (2008). Design and ownership of two-sided networks: Implications for Internet platforms. Journal of Management Information Systems, 25(2), 171–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bauer, M. (2018). Digital Companies and Their Fair Share of Taxes: Myths and Misconceptions. ECIPE Occasional Paper, 3, 1–29.Google Scholar
  5. Belleflamme, P., & Toulemonde, E. (2016). Tax incidence on competing two-sided platforms: Lucky break or double jeopardy. Retrieved from
  6. Bourreau, M., Caillaud, B., & De Nijs, R. (2016). Taxation of a monopolist digital platform. Retrieved from
  7. Brynjolfsson, E., & Smith, M. D. (2000). Frictionless commerce? A comparison of Internet and conventional retailers. Management Science, 46(4), 563–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Caillaud, B., & Jullien, B. (2001). Competing cybermediaries. European Economic Review, 45(4), 797–808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Caillaud, B., & Jullien, B. (2003). Chicken and egg: Competition among intermediation service providers. The Rand Journal of Economics, 34(2), 309–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Church, J., Gandal, N., & Krause, D. (2008). Indirect network effects and adoption externalities. Review of Network Economics, 7(3), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ellison, G., Fudenberg, D., & Möbius, M. (2004). Competing auctions. Journal of the European Economic Association, 2(1), 30–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. eMarketer. (2016). Worldwide retail ecommerce sales will reach $1.915 trillion this year (eMarketer Report).Google Scholar
  13. Evans, D. (2003). Some empirical aspects of multi-sided platform industries. Review of Network Economics, 2(3), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ferrando, J. A., Gabszewicz, J., Laussel, D., & Sonnac, N. (2004). Two-sided network effects and competition: An application to media industries (No. 2004–09). Centre de Recherche en Economieet Statistique.Google Scholar
  15. Goolsbee, A. (2000a). In a world without borders: The impact of taxes on Internet commerce. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115(2), 561–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Goolsbee, A. (2000b). The value of broadband and the deadweight loss of taxing new technologies (No. 2019). American Bar Foundation.Google Scholar
  17. Goolsbee, A. (2001). Competition in the computer industry: Online versus retail. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 49(4), 487–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hagiu, A. (2006). Pricing and commitment by two-sided platforms. The Rand Journal of Economics, 37(3), 720–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hagiu, A. (2007). Merchant or two-sided platform? Review of Network Economics, 6(2), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hagiu, A. (2009). Two-sided platforms: Product variety and pricing structures. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 18(4), 1011–1043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hindriks, J., Perlata, S., & Weber, S. (2014). Local taxation of global corporation: A simple solution. Annals of Economics and Statistics/Annales d’Économie et de Statistique, 113–114, 37–65.Google Scholar
  22. Jeon, D. S., Laffont, J. J., & Tirole, J. (2004). On the “receiver-pays” principle. The Rand Journal of Economics, 35(1), 85–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jullien, B. (2005). Two-sided markets and electronic intermediaries. CESifo Economic Studies, 51(2–3), 233–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kind, H. J., Koethenbuerger, M., & Schjelderup, G. (2008). Efficiency enhancing taxation in two-sided markets. Journal of Public Economics, 92(5), 1531–1539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kind, H. J., Koethenbuerger, M., & Schjelderup, G. (2009). On revenue and welfare dominance of ad valorem taxes in two-sided markets. Economics Letters, 104(2), 86–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kind, H. J., Koethenbuerger, M., & Schjelderup, G. (2010). Tax responses in platform industries. Oxford Economic Papers, 62(4), 764–783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McAndrews, J., & Wang, Z. (2007). Microfoundations of two-sided markets: The payment card example (No. 128). Netherlands Central Bank, Research Department.Google Scholar
  28. Mukherjee, S. (2018). Cross country tax competition and its impact on multinational corporations–a theoretical re-examination. Financial Markets, Institutions and Risks, 2(1), 97–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rochet, J. C., & Tirole, J. (2003). Platform competition in two-sided markets. Journal of the European Economic Association, 1(4), 990–1029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rochet, J. C., & Tirole, J. (2004). Two-sided markets: An overview. Retrieved from
  31. Rochet, J. C., & Tirole, J. (2006). Two-sided markets: A progress report. The Rand Journal of Economics, 37(3), 645–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rochet, J. C., & Tirole, J. (2008). Tying in two-sided markets and the honor all cards rule. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 26(6), 1333–1347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ryasman, M. (2009). The economics of two-sided markets. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 23(3), 125–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schmalensee, R. (2002). Payment systems and interchange fees. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 50(2), 103–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schmalensee, R., & Evans, D. S. (2007). Industrial organization of markets with two-sided platforms. Competition Policy International, 3(1), 151–179.Google Scholar
  36. Tremblay, M. J. (2016). Taxation on a two-sided platform. Mimeo.Google Scholar
  37. Verma, S., & Dalal, M. (2014, November 25). Inside Flipkart’s complex structure. Retrieved from
  38. Weyl, E. G. (2010). A price theory of multi-sided platforms. The American Economic Review, 100(4), 1642–1672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sovik Mukherjee
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Economics, Faculty of Commerce and Management StudiesSt. Xavier’s UniversityKolkataIndia

Personalised recommendations