PurposeThis study investigates the impact of different transfer pricing rules on tax-induced profit shifting. Existing studies create different enforcement rankings of countries based on specific transfer pricing provisions on the assumption that larger penalties and more extensive information requirements imply higher tax enforcement. This assumption carries limitations related to the impact of transfer pricing rules in different countries and to the interaction of different tax rules. Instead, the authors propose a nonordered segregation of groups of countries with different transfer pricing rules, and they empirically investigate the impact of these transfer pricing rules on the profit-shifting behavior of firms.Design/methodology/approachThe authors apply the hierarchical clustering method to analyze 57 observable quantitative and qualitative characteristics of transfer pricing rules of each country. This approach allows the creation of groups of countries based on a comprehensive set of regulatory characteristics, to investigate evidence of profit shifting for each of these separate groups. Profit-shifting behavior is measured by the variation in the volume of import and export transactions between local firms and related parties located in other countries.FindingsThe results indicate that firms have a higher volume of intrafirm transactions with related parties located in countries with a lower tax rate. This result is consistent with the profit-shifting hypothesis. Moreover, the results show that relevant differences in transfer pricing rules across countries produce different effects on the volume of intrafirm transactions. The authors observe that the existence of domestic transfer pricing rules that override the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines may inhibit profit shifting. In addition, the results suggest that the OECD guidelines may facilitate profit shifting. Overall, it is observed that some transfer pricing rules may be more effective than others in curbing profit shifting and that firms are still able to manipulate transfer prices under some tax rules.Research limitations/implications(1) The authors focus on the Brazilian context, which provides a suitable set of profit-shifting incentives for the analysis, since it combines an extreme corporate tax rate, a highly complex tax system, and a unique set of transfer pricing rules. (2) Profit-shifting behavior is captured by the volume of intrafirm transactions. The authors would prefer to observe the transfer price directly; however, this information is not disclosed by firms, for it may represent a limitation to the investigation. Nonetheless, theory shows that the profit-shifting behavior is reflected by the manipulation of both transfer prices and intra-firm outputs.Practical implicationsThe authors find that the volume of intrafirm transactions may decrease or increase, depending on the transfer pricing system of the foreign country (including the tax-differential effect). It suggests that some transfer pricing rules are more effective than others in curtailing the profit-shifting behavior and that firms are still able to find vulnerabilities in current rules and take advantage of them in deploying a profit-shifting strategy.Social implicationsResults provide knowledge about how key differences on transfer pricing rules across countries influence the profit-shifting behavior. The results of the study may have valuable application in solving regulatory mismatches, to eliminate blind spots in transfer pricing rules and thus to contribute to the current review of OECD guidelines and to the global tax reset movement.Originality/valueRecent studies suggest that if tax-avoidance incentives are somewhat weak, it becomes difficult to observe the shifting behavior of firms. The puzzle is to check whether profit shifting is nonexistent under weak incentives or whether this is a matter of methodological limitations. The authors’ analysis is applied to a complex tax background with strong profit-shifting incentives; thus, it allows the authors to obtain robust evidences of the shifting behavior and the effect of different transfer pricing rules.
Capacity Rights and Full-Cost Transfer Pricing