IP box effects in the gaming industry

• Authors: Anna Białek-Jaworska , Agnieszka Teterycz , Ricardo Sichel , Michał Woźniak

Abstracts

EN

Purpose – This paper aims to verify how the intellectual property (IP) box affects firms’ effective tax rate, growth and innovation activity outcomes related to intellectual property rights. Design/methodology/approach – Implementing the innovation box regimes into the tax system intends to encourage firms to engage in more innovative activities. In UK, Italy and Poland, the IP box tax relief was introduced in 2013, 2015 and 2019, respectively. In return, companies may reduce their tax rate to increase their investment and innovativeness. With a panel model approach – system GMM and DiD with multiple time periods – it analyses data from the Orbis database for 2011–2019 of 673 firms from the gaming industry in 11 countries and hand-collected data on intellectual property rights protection. The authors study public and private companies from the gaming sector in leading European markets and all three countries that protect intellectual property rights of software (Japan, South Korea, the USA). Findings – Recent reforms enable gaming companies to use preferential tax treatment for IP-related income and significantly impact a firm’s revenue growth. Practical implications – Nevertheless, European gaming firms require time to leap the gap to the growth and innovativeness of countries that protect software. Originality/value – The authors show that the IP box stimulates gaming firms to protect IP via wordmarks, figurative marks, trademarks and software patents that bring effects in five years. Despite the critics against IP box, the authors prove its lagged efficiency, especially in profitable and larger firms.

Keywords

EN

IP box; Innovation box; Effective tax rate; Gaming industry

• Publisher: Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
• Journal: Central European Management Journal
• Year: 2023
• Volume: 31
• Issue: 3
• Pages: 291-325

Dates

published

2023

Contributors

author

Anna Białek-Jaworska

• University of Warsaw

author

Agnieszka Teterycz

• University of Warsaw

author

Ricardo Sichel

• Candido Mendes University

author

Michał Woźniak

• University of Warsaw

References

• Alstadsæter, A., Barrios, S., Nicodeme, G., Skonieczna, A. M., & Vezzani, A. (2018). Patent boxes design, patents location, and local R&D. Economic Policy, 33(93), 131–177. doi: 10.1093/epolic/eix021.
• Balsmeier, B., Fleming, L., & Manso, G. (2017). Independent boards and innovation. Journal of Financial Economics, 123(3), 536–557. doi: 10.1016/j.jfineco.2016.12.005.
• Blundell, R., & Bond, S. (1998). Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models. Journal of Econometrics, 87(1), 115–143. doi: 10.1016/S0304-4076(98)00009-8.
• Bornemann, T., Laplante, S. K., & Osswald, B. (2020). The effect of intellectual property boxes on innovative activity & effective tax rates. Wu International Taxation Research Paper Series, 2018–03. doi:10.2139/ssrn.3115977.
• Bradley, S., Dauchy, E., & Robinson, L. (2015). Cross-country evidence on the preliminary effects of patent box regimes on patent activity and ownership. National Tax Journal, 68(4), 1047–1072. doi: 10.17310/ntj.2015.4.07.
• Bradley, S., Robinson, L., & Ruf, M. (2021). The impact of IP box regimes on the M&A market. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 72(2-3), 101448. doi: 10.1016/j.jacceco.2021.101448.
• Callaway, B., & Sant’Anna, P. H. (2021). Difference-in-differences with multiple time periods. Journal of Econometrics, 225(2), 200–230. doi: 10.1016/j.jeconom.2020.12.001
• Chen, S., De Simone, L., Hanlon, M., & Lester, R. (2019). The effect of innovation box regimes on income shifting and real activity. Working Paper No. 3453. Stanford University, Graduate School of Business, Stanford, CA. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3486428.
• Cunningham, C. C. (2018). Tax Reform Deduction: What Foreign-Derived Intangible Income means to C- Corporations. BDO. Available from: https://www.bdo.com/insights/tax/tax-reform-deduction-what- foreign-derived-intangible-income-means-to-c-corporations# (accessed 5 May 2021).
• Dyreng, S. D., Hanlon, M., & Maydew, E. L. (2008). Long-run corporate tax avoidance. The Accounting Review, 83(1), 61–82. doi: 10.2308/accr.2008.83.1.61.
• Dyreng, S. D., Hanlon, M., Maydew, E. L., & Thornock, J. R. (2017). Changes in corporate effective tax rates over the past 25 years. Journal of Financial Economics, 124(3), 441–463. doi: 10.1016/j.jfineco.2017.04.001.
• Evers, L., Miller, H., & Spengel, C. (2015). Intellectual property box regimes: Effective tax rates and tax policy considerations. International Tax and Public Finance, 22, 502–530. doi: 10.1007/s10797-014-9328-x.
• Gaessler, F., Hall, B. H., & Harhoff, D. (2021). Should there be lower taxes on patent income?. Research Policy, 50(1), 104129. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2020.104129.
• Gupta, S., & Newberry, K. (1997). Determinants of the variability in corporate effective tax rates: Evidence from longitudinal data. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 16(1), 1–34. doi: 10. 1016/S0278-4254(96)00055-5.
• Hall, B. H., Thoma, G., & Torrisi, S. (2007). The market value of patents and R&D: Evidence from European firms. Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings, 8, 1–6. doi: 10.5465/ambpp.2007.26530853.
• Haufler, A., & Schindler, D. (2020). Attracting profit shifting or fostering innovation? On patent boxes and R&D subsidies. CESifo Working Paper No. 8640. Available from: https://ssrn.com/abstract53720397 (accessed 22 April 2021).
• Jones, S., Baker, M., & Lay, B. F. (2017). The relationship between CSR and tax avoidance: An international perspective. Australian Tax Forum, 32(1). Available from: https://ssrn.com/abstract52954291 (accessed 22 April 2021).
• Karkinsky, T., & Riedel, N. (2012). Corporate taxation and the choice of patent location within multinational firms. Journal of International Economics, 88(1), 176–185. doi: 10.1016/j.jinteco.2012.04.002.
• Koethenbuerger, M., Liberini, F., & Stimmelmayr, M. (2018). Is it just luring reported profit? The case of European patent boxes. CESifo Working Paper Series No. 7061. Available from: https://ssrn.com/abstract53211147 (accessed 22 April 2021).
• Laplante, S. K., Skaife, H. A., Swenson, L. A., & Wangerin, D. D. (2019). Limits of tax regulation: Evidence from strategic R&D classification and the R&D tax credit. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 38(2), 89–105. doi: 10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2019.02.003.
• Lester, R. (2021). Tax accounting research on corporate investment: A discussion of the impact of IP box regimes on the M&A market by Bradley, Ruf, and Robinson (2021). Journal of Accounting and Economics, 72(2-3), 101451. doi: 10.1016/j.jacceco.2021.101451.
• McGuire, S. T., Omer, T. C., & Wang, D. (2012). Tax avoidance: Does tax-specific industry expertise make a difference?. Accounting Review, 87(3), 975–1003. doi: 10.2308/accr-10215.
• Merrill, P. (2016). Innovation boxes: BEPS and beyond. National Tax Journal, 69(4), 847–862. doi: 10.17310/ntj.2016.4.06.
• Minasian, J. R. (1962). The economics of research and development. In The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Social and Economic Factors. Princeton University Press. doi: 10.1515/9781400879762-004
• Minasian, J. R. (1969). Research and development, production functions, and rates of return. The American Economic Review, 59(2), 80–85.
• Mohnen, P., Vankan, A., & Verspagen, B. (2017). Evaluating the innovation box tax policy instrument in The Netherlands, 2007–13. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 33(1), 141–156.
• Newzoo (2020). Top 10 countries/markets by game revenues. Available from: https://newzoo.com/insights/rankings/top-10-countries-by-game-revenues/ (accessed 22 April 2021).
• OECD (2020). Compendium of R&D tax incentive schemes: OECD countries and selected economies. Available from: http://oe.cd/rdtax (accessed 22 April 2021).
• OECD (2015). Countering harmful tax practices more effectively, taking into account transparency and substance. Paris: OECD Publishing. Action 5–2015 Final Report. doi: 10.1787/9789264241190-en.
• OECD (2019). Intellectual property regimes, Available from: https://qdd.oecd.org/subject.aspx?Subject5IP_regimes (accessed 22 April 2021).
• Ohrn, E. (2016). The effect of IP box regimes on international IP payments and foreign research and development. Working Paper. Grinnell College. Grinnell, Iowa. Available from: https://ericohrn.sites.grinnell.edu/files/IP_Box/IP_Box_8_2016.pdf (accessed 10 May 2021).
• PwC (2020). Global entertainment & Media Outlook 2020–2024. Available from: https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/industries/tmt/media/outlook.html (accessed 10 May 2021).
• Rego, S. O. (2003). Tax-Avoidance activities of U.S. Multinational corporations. Contemporary Accounting Research, 20(4), 805–833. doi: 10.1506/VANN-B7UB-GMFA-9E6W.
• Rutkowski, E., Marszałkowski, J., & Biedermann, S. (2020). The game industry of Poland - report 2020. Polish Agency for Enterprise Development, Warsaw. Available from: https://www.parp.gov.pl/storage/publications/pdf/The_Game_Industry_of_Poland_report_2020v4.pdf (accessed 10 May 2021).
• Thomsen, M., & Watrin, C. (2018). Tax avoidance over time: A comparison of European and U.S. Firms. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, 33, 40–63. doi: 10.1016/j.intaccaudtax.2018.11.002.
• Zhong, R. I. (2018). Transparency and firm innovation. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 66(1), 67–93. doi: 10.1016/j.jacceco.2018.02.001.
• Zimmerman, J. L. (1983). Taxes and firm size. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 5, 119–149. doi: 10.1016/0165-4101(83)90008-3.

Identifiers

DOI

10.1108/CEMJ-12-2021-0143

Biblioteka Nauki

35019302