DOCSLIB.ORG

Hold Or Sell? How Capital Gains Taxation Affects Holding Decisions

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Hold Or Sell? How Capital Gains Taxation Affects Holding Decisions Hold or sell? How capital gains taxation affects holding decisions Annika Hegemann∗, Angela Kunoth#, Kristina Ruppy and Caren Sureth-Sloanez Abstract: Investments with exit flexibility require decisions regarding both the investment and holding period. Because selling an investment often leads to taxable capital gains, which crucially depend on the duration of an investment, we investigate the impact of capital gains taxation on exit timing under different tax systems. We observed that capital gains taxation delays exit decisions but loses its decision relevance for very long holdings. Often the optimal exit time, which indicates the maximal present value of future cashflows, cannot be deter- mined analytically. However, we identify the breakeven exit time that guarantees present values exceeding those of an immediate sale. While, after-taxes, an immediate sale is often optimal, long holding periods might also be attractive for investors depending on the de- gree of income and corporate tax integration. A classic corporate tax system often indicates holdings over more than 100 periods. By contrast, a shareholder relief system indicates the earliest breakeven exit time and thus the highest level of exit timing flexibility. Surprisingly, high retention rates are likely to accelerate sales under a classic corporate system. Addition- ally, the worst exit time, which should be avoided by investors, differs tremendously across tax systems. For an integrated tax system with full imputation, the worst time is reached earlier than under partial or non-integrated systems. These results could help to predict in- vestors’ behavior regarding changes in capital gains taxation and thus are of interest for both investors and tax policymakers. Furthermore, the results emphasize the need to control for the underlying tax system in cross-country empirical studies. Keywords: Capital Gains Taxation, Holding Period, Exit Flexibility, Investment Decisions, Timing Decisions JEL-Classification: H20, H21, H25 Acknowledgements: Earlier versions of this paper were entitled "Impact of Capital Gains Taxation on the Holding Period of Investments under Different Tax Systems" and "Impact of Capital Gains Taxation on Investment and Holding Decisions under Different Tax Systems". We are grateful for very helpful suggestions by two anonymous reviewers. We thank Stephan Alberternst and Pia Kortebusch for valuable suggestions on an earlier draft. We are particu- larly grateful to Boqiang Huang for technical support and helpful advices on using MatLab. The usual disclaimer applies. Financial support by the German Research Fund (DFG), project no. SU 501/4-2, and the University of Paderborn is gratefully acknowledged. ∗ University of Paderborn, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Warburger Str.100, 33098 Paderborn, Germany. Tel.: ++49-5251-60-1875, email: [email protected], www.upb.de/taxation. # University of Cologne, Mathematical Institute, Weyertal 86-90, 50931 Köln, Germany. Tel.: ++49-221-470-6080, email: [email protected], www.mi.uni-koeln.de/AG-Kunoth/. y University of Paderborn, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Warburger Str.100, Paderborn, Germany. Email: [email protected]. z University of Paderborn, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Warburger Str.100, 33098 Paderborn, Germany. Tel.: ++49-5251-60-1781, email: [email protected], www.upb.de/taxation and Vienna University of Economics and Business, Vienna, Austria. Contents 1 Introduction1 2 Prior Literature4 3 Model 7 3.1 Tax-free Model................................. 7 3.2 General Tax Model .............................. 9 4 Holding Decisions 12 4.1 Parameter sensitivity............................. 12 4.2 Analytical Approach ............................. 18 4.3 Worst Exit Time................................ 20 4.4 Extremes at the Boundaries......................... 22 4.5 Numerical Analysis.............................. 28 5 Conclusion 33 I Hold or sell? How capital gains taxation affects holding decisions Abstract: Investments with exit flexibility require decisions regarding both the in- vestment and holding period. Because selling an investment often leads to taxable capital gains, which crucially depend on the duration of an investment, we investigate the impact of capital gains taxation on exit timing under different tax systems. We observed that capital gains taxation delays exit decisions but loses its decision rele- vance for very long holdings. Often the optimal exit time, which indicates the maximal present value of future cash flows, cannot be determined analytically. However, we identify the breakeven exit time that guarantees present values exceeding those of an immediate sale. While, after-taxes, an immediate sale is often optimal, long hold- ing periods might also be attractive for investors depending on the degree of income and corporate tax integration. A classic corporate tax system often indicates hold- ings over more than 100 periods. By contrast, a shareholder relief system indicates the earliest breakeven exit time and thus the highest level of exit timing flexibility. Surprisingly, high retention rates are likely to accelerate sales under a classic corpo- rate system. Additionally, the worst exit time, which should be avoided by investors, differs tremendously across tax systems. For an integrated tax system with full impu- tation, the worst time is reached earlier than under partial or non-integrated systems. These results could help to predict investors’ behavior regarding changes in capital gains taxation and thus are of interest for both investors and tax policymakers. Fur- thermore, the results emphasize the need to control for the underlying tax system in cross-country empirical studies. Keywords: Capital Gains Taxation, Holding Period, Exit Flexibility, Investment Deci- sions, Timing Decisions JEL-Classification: H20, H21, H25 1 Introduction Entrepreneurial investments are characterized not only by decisions to undertake an investment but also by the holding period. Taxes are well known to be impor- tant parameters of the institutional environment of investments (for an overview, see Shackelford and Shevlin 2001; Graham 2008; Hundsdoerfer et al. 2008; Hanlon and Heitzman 2010). Taxes on both the corporate and shareholder levels can significantly affect investment and divestment decisions. Specifically, selling an investment often produces capital gains, inducing capital gains taxes that are anticipated by investors. Capital gains taxes are well-known to induce lock-in effects (Constantinides 1983), thus impeding exits. Capital gains are often due to retained earnings; hence, they crucially depend on the duration of an investment. Because the duration of an investment can affect its after-tax profitability, we investigate the impact of capital gains taxation on the holding period. The relevance of the holding period in investment decisions was emphasized by Alles and Murray (2009), who found a significant impact of holding pe- riods on investment performance for different asset classes, and Cheng et al. (2010), who built on prior empirical studies and theoretically showed that the decision about the time to sell is crucial for real estate investments and their performance. Against this background, the following research questions arise: When should an investor di- vest? To what extent does capital gains taxation affect exit decisions? Because prior theoretical research has indicated that the manner in which capital gains taxes are em- bedded in the overall tax system is crucial for their impact on investment (König and Wosnitza 2000; Schreiber and Rogall 2000; Sureth and Langeleh 2007), we distinguish among three tax systems that differ in the degree of the integration of corporate-level taxes into income taxation. To what extent does the underlying tax system impact the effect of capital gains taxation on the holding period? No studies to date have analyt- ically addressed the impact of capital gains taxation in different tax environments on holding periods. We want to fill this gap, and we focus on both different tax systems, including capital gains taxes and tax rate differentials, and on the impact of retention policy. We take the investor’s point of view and focus on investment in corporate shares. After an initial investment, the investor receives dividends and/or capital gains in subsequent periods. In addition to, or alternatively by, investing in a corporation, 1 the investor can invest in the capital market and earn interest. Interest, dividends, and capital gains are all considered capital income, but they are typically subject to different tax rules, e.g., different tax scales. We assume symmetric taxation of capi- tal gains and losses. Consequently, profits are subject to the profit tax rate. Losses are tax-deductible at the same tax rate. We focus on the variable “time of sale” to analyze whether the investment becomes more or less profitable under a classic cor- porate tax system, a full imputation tax system or a shareholder relief tax system for different exit times. Because exit time drives the magnitude of capital gains tax- ation, it is particularly important to investigate the impact of capital gains taxes on investment decisions. This importance is particularly true, because many countries have implemented capital gains taxes – e.g., Canada imposed capital gains taxation in 1972, Ireland in 1975 and Australia in 1985 – while other countries abolished capital gains taxation between 2000 and 2012, e.g., Cyprus,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • REPLACING CORPORATE TAX REVENUES with a MARK to MARKET TAX on SHAREHOLDER INCOME Eric Toder and Alan D
    REPLACING CORPORATE TAX REVENUES WITH A MARK TO MARKET TAX ON SHAREHOLDER INCOME Eric Toder and Alan D. Viard October 2016 ABSTRACT We propose reducing the corporate tax rate to 15 percent and replacing the foregone revenue with a tax at ordinary income rates on the accrued, or mark-to-market income of American shareholders of publicly traded corporations, accompanied by an imputation credit for U.S. corporate income taxes paid. The proposal would dramatically reduce the tax significance of the source of corporate profits and the residence of corporations, both of which can be easily manipulated. Lowering the corporate tax rate to 15 percent would encouraging a capital inflow to the United States and reduce incentives to shift reported profits overseas and engage in inversion transactions while continuing to impose tax on foreigners who earn economic rents from investing in the United States. The proposal includes provisions for averaging of mark-to- market income, transition relief for firms that move from closely held to publicly traded status, and other measures to address the challenges of mark-to-market taxation. We estimate that the proposal would be approximately revenue-neutral and would make the distribution of the tax burden slightly more progressive. A revised version of the article was been published in the September 2016 issue of the National Tax Journal, Volume 69 (3), 701-731. The findings and conclusions contained within are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect positions or policies of the Tax Policy Center or its funders. I. INTRODUCTION This paper presents a proposal for reform of the taxation of corporate income.
    [Show full text]
  • Double Taxation of Corporate Income in the United States and the OECD
    Double Taxation of Corporate Income in the United States and the OECD FISCAL Taylor LaJoie Elke Asen FACT Policy Analyst Policy Analyst No. 740 Jan. 2021 Key Findings • The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act lowered the top integrated tax rate on corporate income distributed as dividends from 56.33 percent in 2017 to 47.47 percent in 2020; the OECD average is 41.6 percent. • Joe Biden’s proposal to increase the corporate income tax rate and to tax long-term capital gains and qualified dividends at ordinary income rates would increase the top integrated tax rate on distributed dividends to 62.73 percent, highest in the OECD. • Income earned in the U.S. through a pass-through business is taxed at an average top combined statutory rate of 45.9 percent. • On average, OECD countries tax corporate income distributed as dividends at 41.6 percent and capital gains derived from corporate income1 at 37.9 percent. • Double taxation of corporate income can lead to such economic distortions as reduced savings and investment, a bias towards certain business forms, and debt financing over equity financing. • Several OECD countries have integrated corporate and individual tax codes to eliminate or reduce the negative effects of double taxation on corporate The Tax Foundation is the nation’s income. leading independent tax policy research organization. Since 1937, our research, analysis, and experts have informed smarter tax policy at the federal, state, and global levels. We are a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. ©2021 Tax Foundation Distributed under Creative Commons CC-BY-NC 4.0 Editor, Rachel Shuster Designer, Dan Carvajal Tax Foundation 1325 G Street, NW, Suite 950 Washington, DC 20005 202.464.6200 1 In some countries, the capital gains tax rate varies by type of asset sold.
    [Show full text]
  • Tax Policy Update 16 27 April
    Policy update Tax Policy Update 16 27 April HIGHLIGHTS • European Parliament: Plenary discusses state of public CBCR negotiations 18 April • Council: member states freeze CCTB negotiations in order to assess its impact on tax bases 20 April • European Commission: new rules for whistleblower protection proposed, covers tax avoidance too 23 April • European Parliament: ECON Committee holds public hearing on definitive VAT system 24 April • European Commission: new Company Law Package with tax dimension published 25 April European Commission Commission kicks off Fair Taxation Roadshow 19 April The European Commission has launched a series of seminars on fair taxation, with a first event held in Riga on 19 April. These seminars bring together civil society, business representatives, policy makers, academics and interested citizens to discuss and exchange views on tax avoidance and tax evasion. Further events are planned throughout 2018 in Austria (17 May), France (8 June), Italy (19 September) and Ireland (9 October). The Commission hopes that the roadshow seminars will further encourage active engagement on tax fairness principles at EU, national and local levels. In particular, a main aim seems to be to spread the tax debate currently ongoing at the EU-level into member states as well. Commission launches VAT MOSS portal 19 April The European Commission has launched a Mini-One Stop Shop (MOSS) portal for VAT purposes. The new MOSS portal provides comprehensive and easily accessible information on VAT rates for telecom, broadcasting and e- services, and explains how the MOSS can be used to declare and pay VAT on such services. 1 Commission proposes EU rules for whistleblower protection, covers tax avoidance as well 23 April The European Commission has published a new Directive for the protection of whistleblowers.
    [Show full text]
  • Tax Avoidance Due to the Zero Capital Gains Tax
    2 Capital gains tax regimes abroad—countries without capital gains taxes Tax avoidance due to the zero capital gains tax Some indirect evidence from Hong Kong BERRY F. C . H SU AND CHI-WA YUEN Consistent with its image as a free-market economy with minimal government intervention, Hong Kong is a city with low and simple taxation. Unlike most industrial and developed economies with full-fledged tax structures, Hong Kong has a relatively narrow tax base. It has direct taxes, which account for about 60% of the total tax revenue. These direct levies fall on earnings and profits and in- clude an estate duty. Hong Kong also has indirect taxes, which ac- count for the remaining 40%. These consist of rates, duties, and taxes on motor vehicles and so on.1 Nonetheless, Hong Kong has neither a sales or value-added tax nor a capital gains tax. In this paper, we explain the absence of the capital gains tax and provide some indirect evidence on the tax-avoidance effects induced by this fact. Notes will be found on pages 51–53. 39 40 International evidence on capital gains taxes Why is there no capital gains tax in Hong Kong? Under the British colonial rule, no tax was levied on capital gains in Hong Kong.2 This continues to be the case since the Chinese gov- ernment took over in 1997. During the pre-1997 (colonial) period, the tax structure in Hong Kong was based on the British tax system, which uses the source concept of income for the taxation of different kinds of in- come.
    [Show full text]
  • Guide to Fiscal Information
    Guide to Fiscal Information Key Economies in Africa 2014/15 Preface This booklet contains a summary of tax and investment information pertaining to key countries in Africa. This year’s edition of the booklet has been expanded to include an additional five countries over- and-above the thirty-five countries featured in last year’s edition. The forty countries featured this year comprise: Algeria, Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Chad, Congo (Brazzaville), Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Egypt, Ethiopia, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, The Gambia, Ghana, Guinea Conakry, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Lesotho, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, South Sudan, Swaziland, Tanzania, Tunisia, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe. Details of each country’s income tax, VAT (or sales tax), and other significant taxes are set out in the publication. In addition, investment incentives available, exchange control regimes applicable (if any) and certain other basic economic statistics are detailed. The contact details for each country are provided on the cover page of each country chapter/ section and also summarised on page 4, Tax Leaders in Africa. An introduction to the Africa Tax Desk (including relevant contact details) is provided on page 3, Africa Tax Desk. This booklet has been prepared by the Tax Division of Deloitte. Its production was made possible by the efforts of: • Moray Wilson, Adrienne Snyman and Susan Heiman – editorial management, content and design. • Bruno Messerschmitt, Musa Manyathi and Sarah Naiyeju – Deloitte Africa Tax Desk. • Deloitte colleagues (and Independent Correspondent Firm staff where necessary) in various cities/offices in Africa and elsewhere.
    [Show full text]
  • Dividends and Capital Gains Information Page 1 of 2
    Dividends and Capital Gains Information Page 1 of 2 Some of the dividends you receive and all net long term capital gains you recognize may qualify for a federal income tax rate As noted above, for purposes of determining qualified dividend lower than your federal ordinary marginal rate. income, the concept of ex-dividend date is crucial. The ex- dividend date of a fund is the first date on which a person Qualified Dividends buying a fund share will not receive any dividends previously declared by the fund. A list of fund ex-dividend dates for each Qualified dividends received by you may qualify for a 20%, 15% State Farm Mutual Funds® dividend paid with respect to 2020, or 0% tax rate depending on your adjusted gross income (or and the corresponding percentage of each dividend that may AGI) and filing status. For single filing status, the qualified qualify as qualified dividend income, is provided below for your dividend tax rate is 0% if AGI is $40,000 or less, 15% if AGI is reference. more than $40,000 and equal to or less than $441,450, and 20% if AGI is more than $441,450. For married filing jointly Example: status, the qualified dividend tax rate is 0% if AGI is $80,000 or You bought 10,000 shares of ABC Mutual Fund common stock less, 15% if AGI is more than $80,000 and equal to or less than on June 8, 2020. ABC Mutual Fund paid a dividend of 10 cents $496,600, and 20% if AGI is more than $496,600.
    [Show full text]
  • FINANCE Offshore Finance.Pdf
    This page intentionally left blank OFFSHORE FINANCE It is estimated that up to 60 per cent of the world’s money may be located oVshore, where half of all financial transactions are said to take place. Meanwhile, there is a perception that secrecy about oVshore is encouraged to obfuscate tax evasion and money laundering. Depending upon the criteria used to identify them, there are between forty and eighty oVshore finance centres spread around the world. The tax rules that apply in these jurisdictions are determined by the jurisdictions themselves and often are more benign than comparative rules that apply in the larger financial centres globally. This gives rise to potential for the development of tax mitigation strategies. McCann provides a detailed analysis of the global oVshore environment, outlining the extent of the information available and how that information might be used in assessing the quality of individual jurisdictions, as well as examining whether some of the perceptions about ‘OVshore’ are valid. He analyses the ongoing work of what have become known as the ‘standard setters’ – including the Financial Stability Forum, the Financial Action Task Force, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. The book also oVers some suggestions as to what the future might hold for oVshore finance. HILTON Mc CANN was the Acting Chief Executive of the Financial Services Commission, Mauritius. He has held senior positions in the respective regulatory authorities in the Isle of Man, Malta and Mauritius. Having trained as a banker, he began his regulatory career supervising banks in the Isle of Man.
    [Show full text]
  • Poland: Tax Reform in the Light of EU Accession
    A WORLD BANK COUNTRY STUDY TAX REFORMS IN THE LIGHT OF EUACCESSION THE CASE OF POLAND The World Bank Washington, D.C. TABLE OF CONTENTS ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS....................................................................................................... v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................ vi CHAPTER I: VALUE-ADDED TAX..................................................................................... 1 A. Comparative Survey................................................................................................... 1 B. The Agricultural Sector.............................................................................................. 2 C. Other Special Schemes............................................................................................... 4 D. Rate Structure............................................................................................................. 8 E. Intra-Union Transactions: The Debate...................................................................... 10 F. VAT Information Exchange System (VIES) ............................................................. 12 CHAPTER II: EXCISES........................................................................................................... 17 A. Overview...................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The High Burden of State and Federal Capital Gains Tax Rates in the United FISCAL FACT States Mar
    The High Burden of State and Federal Capital Gains Tax Rates in the United FISCAL FACT States Mar. 2015 No. 460 By Kyle Pomerleau Economist Key Findings · The average combined federal, state, and local top marginal tax rate on long-term capital gains in the United States is 28.6 percent – 6th highest in the OECD. · This is more than 10 percentage points higher than the simple average across industrialized nations of 18.4 percent, and 5 percentage points higher than the weighted average. · Nine industrialized countries exempt long-term capital gains from taxation. · California has the 3rd highest top marginal capital gains tax rate in the industrialized world at 33 percent. · The taxation of capital gains places a double-tax on corporate income, increases the cost of capital, and reduces investment in the economy. · The President’s FY 2016 budget would increase capital gains tax rates in the United States from 28.6 percent to 32.8, the 5th highest rate in the OECD. 2 Introduction Saving is important to an economy. It leads to higher levels of investment, a larger capital stock, increased worker productivity and wages, and faster economic growth. However, the United States places a heavy tax burden on saving and investment. One way it does this is through a high top marginal tax rate on capital gains. Currently, the United States’ top marginal tax rate on long-term capital gains income is 23.8 percent. In addition, taxpayers face state and local capital gains tax rates between zero and 13.3 percent. As a result, the average combined top marginal tax rate in the United States is 28.6 percent.
    [Show full text]
  • Recycling Ecotaxes Towards Lower Labour Taxes
    Implementing a Double Dividend: Recycling Ecotaxes Towards Lower Labour Taxes Antonio Manresa ([email protected]) Departament de Teoria Econòmica and CREB Universitat de Barcelona 08034-Barcelona, Spain Ferran Sancho ([email protected]) Departament d'Economia Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona 08193-Bellaterra, Spain History: Fist draft April 2002 Revised draft August 2002, October 2002 __________________________________________________________________________ This work has been possible thanks to the financial support of the Regidoria de Medi Ambient de l'Ajuntament de Barcelona. Institutional support from research grants SEC2000-0796 and SGR2001-0029 (first author) and SEC2000-0390 and SGR2001-0164 (second author) are also gratefully acknowledged. Stated opinions are those of the authors and therefore do not reflect the viewpoint of the supporting institutions. Abstract In this paper we follow the tradition of applied general equilibrium modelling of the Walrasian static variety to study the empirical viability of a double dividend (green, welfare, and employment) in the Spanish economy. We consider a counterfactual scenario in which an ecotax is levied on the intermediate and final use of energy goods. Under a revenue neutral assumption, we evaluate the real income and employment impact of lowering payroll taxes. To appraise to what extent the model structure and behavioural assumptions may influence the results, we perform simulations under a range of alternative model and policy scenarios. We conclude that a double dividend –better environmental quality, as measured by reduced CO2 emissions, and improved levels of employment– may be an achievable goal of economic policy. Keywords: double dividend, tax recycling, ecotaxes. JEL code: H21, H22, C68 - 2 - 1. Introduction One of the most controversial topics in environmental public economics is the viability of a double dividend ensuing a fiscal reform.
    [Show full text]
  • Capital Gains) Above $250,000 Per Year
    Members of the Washington State Senate have an historic opportunity to create a more just state tax code while bolstering and sustaining our state’s fiscal and economic recovery long after federal recovery funds fade away. Senate Bill 5096 would create a new 7% excise tax on extraordinary profits from the sale of financial assets (capital gains) above $250,000 per year. If approved, this would be the most equitable change to Washington state’s upside-down tax code in nearly 90 years. And it would generate over $500 million per year in permanent new resources for child care and investments to help correct the upside-down nature of our tax code. Below are three reasons why Senators should act now and pass SB 5096 off the Senate floor. 1. Taxing capital gains would begin to address longstanding economic and racial injustices in our state tax code and economy We have the most upside-down or regressive state and local tax code in the nation, in which the poorest households face average tax rates that are six times higher than the rates paid by those at the very top of the income and wealth ladders. This regressive tax code is especially damaging to Washingtonians who are Black, Indigenous, or people of color, who face considerably higher average tax rates than wealthy white households. Because financial assets are so heavily concentrated among the very wealthiest householdsi in our state, SB 5096 would be paid only by those who can afford to pay more for investments in schools and other priorities that benefit us all.
    [Show full text]
  • The Financial Secrecy Index: Shedding New Light on the Geography of Secrecy
    The Financial Secrecy Index: Shedding New Light on the Geography of Secrecy Alex Cobham, Petr Janský, and Markus Meinzer Abstract Both academic research and public policy debate around tax havens and offshore finance typically suffer from a lack of definitional consistency. Unsurprisingly then, there is little agreement about which jurisdictions ought to be considered as tax havens—or which policy measures would result in their not being so considered. In this article we explore and make operational an alternative concept, that of a secrecy jurisdiction and present the findings of the resulting Financial Secrecy Index (FSI). The FSI ranks countries and jurisdictions according to their contribution to opacity in global financial flows, revealing a quite different geography of financial secrecy from the image of small island tax havens that may still dominate popular perceptions and some of the literature on offshore finance. Some major (secrecy-supplying) economies now come into focus. Instead of a binary division between tax havens and others, the results show a secrecy spectrum, on which all jurisdictions can be situated, and that adjustment lfor the scale of business is necessary in order to compare impact propensity. This approach has the potential to support more precise and granular research findings and policy recommendations. JEL Codes: F36, F65 Working Paper 404 www.cgdev.org May 2015 The Financial Secrecy Index: Shedding New Light on the Geography of Secrecy Alex Cobham Tax Justice Network Petr Janský Institute of Economic Studies, Faculty of Social Sciences, Charles University in Prague Markus Meinzer Tax Justice Network A version of this paper is published in Economic Geography (July 2015).
    [Show full text]