unlicensed corporate income taxes and firms financing decisions the case of vietnamese tax incentives

UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS HO CHI MINH CITY ERASMUS UNIVERSITY ROTTERDAM INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL STUDIES VIETNAM THE NETHERLANDS VIETNAM – THE NETHERLANDS PROGRAMME FOR M.A IN DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS CORPORATE INCOME TAXES AND FIRMS’ FINANCING DECISIONS: THE CASE OF VIETNAMESE TAX INCENTIVES BY PHAM NGUYEN QUANG HOA MASTER OF ARTS IN DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS HO CHI MINH CITY, DECEMBER 2017 UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS HO CHI MINH CITY ERASMUS UNIVERSITY ROTTERDAM INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL STUDIES VIETNAM THE NETHERLANDS VIETNAM – THE NETHERLANDS PROGRAMME FOR M.A IN DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS CORPORATE INCOME TAXES AND FIRMS’ FINANCING DECISIONS: THE CASE OF VIETNAMESE TAX INCENTIVES A thesis is submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirement for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS IN DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS BY PHAM NGUYEN QUANG HOA ACADEMIC SUPERVISOR Prof Dr NGUYEN TRONG HOAI HO CHI MINH CITY, December 2017 CERTIFICATION This is to certify that this thesis entitled “Taxes and Corporate Financial Decisions: The Case of Vietnamese Tax Incentives”, which is submitted by me in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Art in Development Economics to Viet Nam – The Netherlands Programme (VNP) To the best of my knowledge, my thesis does not infringe on anyone’s copyright nor violate any proprietary rights and that any ideas, techniques, quotation, or any other material from the work of other researchers in my thesis, published or otherwise, are fully acknowledge in accordance with the standard referencing practices PHAM NGUYEN QUANG HOA ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr Nguyen Trong Hoai for his comprehensive guidance, great support and valuable advice he has given through my research study I have been very lucky to a supervisor who took a high cared about my work and who respond to my question He consistently allowed this paper to be my work but steered me in the right the direction whenever he thought I needed it His careful editing contributed enormously to the production of this thesis I also would like to thank my co-supervisor Dr Truong Dang Thuy for his enthusiastic support, availability and constructive suggestion, which help me overcome the challenge and high-pressured situation during the time of research I would like to express my gratitude to all lecturers of the Vietnam- Netherlands Program who have provided an interesting lesson to build my economic knowledge during this program Besides, completing this work would have been difficult if it is not supported by my best friends I am indebted to them for their help Moreover, I wish to thank all my friends who are in VNP 21 who share unforgettable memories in this program Finally, there are also words of deep gratitude for my family who support and encourage me when I implement my postgraduate studies Pham Nguyen Quang Hoa December, 2017 ABSTRACT Based on the tax incentives policy enacted by Vietnamese Government in the year 2004, this paper applies Difference in Difference method and compares the debt- equity ratio of treatment and un-treatment (control) companies before and after this policy to determine the impact of corporate taxes’ change on firm’s capital structure The treatment group is state enterprises and otherwise is control group The data is collected in the period from 2001 to 2007, therein data related to the period 2001- 2003 is pre-treatment data and those in the period 2004-2007 is post- treatment date Similar to prior capital’s literature, the empirical results expose that that taxation actually has impact on leverage The measured impact is approximately -4.1 percentage point, meaning that with the introduction of incentive tax policy, the debt ratio of companies reduces more than percentage point The evidences also indicate that the large companies absorb the effect of tax change more than Small and Medium Enterprises and also are high significant level LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Variables’ definitions and measurement 23 Table 2: Descriptive Statistics and Means Differences for the period 2001-2007 28 Table 3: Descriptive Statistics and Means Differences for the year 2003 29 Table 4: Impact of Taxation on Company’s Capital Structure 34 Table 5: Small and Medium Enterprises versus Large Companies 36 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: The mechanism of the relationship between taxes change and financial structure 18 Figure 12: The difference between two groups after exogenous event 22 Figure 3: Common trend over time Figure 3- Panel A: Leverage 30 Figure 3- Panel B: Assets 30 Figure 3- Panel C: Labor 46 Figure 3- Panel D: Liquidity Ratio 46 Figure 3- Panel E: Investment 47 Figure 3- Panel F: Tangibility 47 Figure 3- Panel G: Profitability 48 Figure 3- Panel H: ROE 48 Figure 3- Panel I: Profit Margin 49 Figure 3- Panel K: Inventories Turnover 49 Figure 4- Bivariate Analysis Figure 4- Panel A: Leverage- Assets 50 Figure 4- Panel B: Leverage- Labor 51 Figure 4- Panel C: Leverage- Liquidity Ratio 52 Figure 4- Panel D: Leverage- Investment 53 Figure 4- Panel E: Leverage- Tangibility 54 Figure 4- Panel F: Leverage- Profitability 55 Figure 4- Panel G: Leverage- ROE 56 Figure 4- Panel H: Leverage- Profit Margin 57 Figure 4- Panel I: Leverage- Inventories Turnover 58 Formatted: Font: Not Bold, Font color: Auto LIST OF APPENDICES ANNPENDIX A1: FIXED EFFECT TEST 59 ANNPENDIX A2: RANDOM EFFECT TEST 60 ANNPENDIX A3: HAUSMAN TEST 61 CONTENS CHAPTER INTRODUCTION 10 1.1 Problem statement 10 1.2 Research objectives 12 1.3 Organization of the study 12 CHAPTER LITERATURE REVIEW 14 2.1 Tax changes 14 2.1.1 Tax changes are observed over a long period 14 2.1.2 Tax change is considered as an exogenous event 15 2.2 Measurements of capital structure and several elements have impact on capital structure 17 2.2.1 2.2.2 Measurements of cCapital structure 17 The impact of several elements on capital structure 18 2.3 Two main methodologies and empirical results regarding the effect of tax changes on capital structure’s decision in prior researches 21 2.4 2.3.1 Two main methodologies in prior researches 21 2.3.2 Empirical results in prior researches’ summary 22 Chapter remark 24 CHAPTER 3: DATA AND METHODOLOGY 27 3.1 Data source 27 3.2 Empirical model 28 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 34 4.1 Descriptive statistics 34 4.2 Bivariate analysis 36 4.3 Regression results 42 4.3.1 Impact of Corporate Tax Incentives on firms’ capital structure 42 4.3.2 Impact on Small and Medium Enterprises versus Large Companies 45 4.3.3 Discussion of research results 47 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS 50 5.1 Conclusion 50 5.2 Policy implications 51 5.3 Limitation of the study 52 REFERENCES 54 ANNPENDIX 72 CHAPTER INTRODUCTION 1.1 Problem statement If a business has used debt in its capital structure and the amount of the debt within the permitted level that the lenders cannot demand a higher interest rate, it will take advantage from the debt tax shield Since the cost of lending (proxied by interest) is deducted before calculating taxable profits, reduce profits, thereby, reduces the corporation tax of income that businesses must pay Some studies found the empirical evidences to support that taxes effect on capital structure However, it exists not less debates around this theory From the very first days of capital theories, Modigliani and Miller (1958), Miller (1977) and DeAngelo and Masulis (1980) desired to measure the impact of debt tax shield on corporate financial decisions They found the evidences suggesting that the more companies use debt to finance business, the more their own capital structures change related to tax benefit To the recent papers (Panier, Perez-Gonzales, and Villanueva, 2012; Princen, 2012; Faccio, Xu, 2015; …), these authors supply empirical results that tax benefit from debt tax shield effects firms’ leverage Princen (2012) used Difference in Difference model for the period 2001- 2007 to present that an equal tax treatment between debt and equity encouraging companies to use 2-7 percent less debt than a traditional tax system Panier, PerezGonzales and Villanueva (2012) approached in another aspect that is the equity ratio (the ratio between equity value and total assets) and showed the equity ratio of Belgium firms substantially rising from 32.6 percent in 2004 and 2005 to 34.2 percent in two following years In this case, 2004 is the year the tax reform had been valid Vietnamese corporate tax rules can be considered as a traditional tax system (Graham, 2003) Companies are taxed on their profits (the business income less the costs to generate that income) Those business that related costs included in the interest paid as return to the creditors Since these interest expenses reduces taxation income (tax deductibility) However, the returns to shareholders or 10 Figure 32- Panel E: Investment Figure 32- Panel F: Tangibility 60 Figure 32- Panel G: Profitability Formatted: Line spacing: Multiple 1,08 li Figure 32- Panel H: ROE Formatted: Line spacing: Multiple 1,08 li 61 Figure 32- Panel I: Profit Margin Fig ur e 32- Panel K: Inventories Turnover Panel I: Profit Margin Panel K: Inventories Turnover 62 Formatted: Line spacing: Multiple 1,08 li Formatted: Line spacing: Multiple 1,08 li Figure 43: Bivariate Analysis Panel A: Leverage- Assets 1,0 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 treatment untreatment 0,4 0,3 Figure 0,2 43- 0,1 Panel 0,0 B: 500000 1000000 1500000 2000000 ASSETS Levera 63 2500000 3000000 3500000 4000000 ge- Labor 1,0 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 treatment untreatment 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 LABOR 64 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 Figure 43- Panel C: Leverage- Liquidity 1,0 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 TREATMENT UNTREATMENT 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,0 0,00 1,00 LIQUIDITY RATIO 65 Figure 43- Panel D: Leverage- Investment Figure 43- Panel E: Leverage- Tangibility 1,0 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 TREATMENT UNTREATMENT 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,0 -1 INVESTMENT 66 1,0 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 TREATMENT 0,4 UNTREATMENT 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 TANGIBILITY Figure 43- Panel F: Leverage- Profitability 67 0,7 0,8 0,9 1,0 1,0 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 TREATMENT UNTREATMENT 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,0 -0,4 -0,2 0,0 0,2 0,4 PROFITABILITY 68 0,6 0,8 1,0 Figure 43- Panel G: Leverage- ROE 1,0 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 TREATMENT UNTREATMENT 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,0 -1,0 -0,5 0,0 0,5 1,0 ROE 69 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 Figure 43- Panel H: Leverage- Profit Margin 1,0 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 TREATMENT UNTREATMENT 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,0 -0,5 -0,4 -0,3 -0,2 -0,1 0,0 0,1 PROFIT MARGIN 70 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 Figure 43- Panel I: Leverage- Inventories Turnover 1,0 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 TREATMENT UNTREATMENT 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,0 0,0 10,0 20,0 30,0 40,0 50,0 60,0 INVENTORIES TURNOVER 71 70,0 80,0 90,0 100,0 ANNPENDIX ANNPENDIX A1: FIXED EFFECT TEST Fixed-effects (within) regression Group variable: madn Number of obs Number of groups = = 6370 910 R-sq: Obs per group: = avg = max = 7.0 within = 0.1459 between = 0.1962 overall = 0.1778 corr(u_i, Xb) = -0.2565 F test that all u_i=0: F(909, 5445) = 72 12.31 Prob > F = 0.0000 ANNPENDIX A2: RANDOM EFFECT TEST Random-effects GLS regression Number of obs = 6370 Group variable: madn Number of groups = 910 R-sq: within = 0.1366 Obs per group: = between = 0.2656 avg = 7.0 overall = 0.2304 max = = = 1232.00 0.0000 corr(u_i, X) Wald chi2(16) Prob > chi2 = (assumed) 73 ANNPENDIX A3: HAUSMAN TEST Coefficients (b) fixed t tax -.0236555 -.0167051 (B) (b-B) random Difference -.018974 -.024789 -.0046816 0080839 sqrt(diag(V_b-V_B)) S.E lassets 1070567 0809059 0261509 003111 labor -.0000665 -.0000454 -.0000212 7.85e-06 investment 0002182 0003902 -.000172 tangibility -.0768432 -.1311467 0543035 0044463 profitabil~y -.173023 -.2666394 0936165 006035 roe 0005826 003079 -.0024964 profit_mar~n -.0661074 -.0645826 -.0015248 inventorie~r 0000129 0000119 1.00e-06 current_ra~o -.0001878 -.0001493 -.0000385 0000216 liquidity_~o -.0007117 -.0008793 0001677 0000492 nol -.0040991 -.0098363 0057372 inflation -.0010048 -.0017682 0007634 gdp_growth -.217154 -.1235409 -.0936131 b = consistent under Ho and Ha; obtained from xtreg B = inconsistent under Ha, efficient under Ho; obtained from xtreg Test: Ho: difference in coefficients not systematic chi2(14) = (b-B)'[(V_b-V_B)^(-1)](b-B) (V_b-V_B is not positive definite) 74 ... CORPORATE INCOME TAXES AND FIRMS’ FINANCING DECISIONS: THE CASE OF VIETNAMESE TAX INCENTIVES A thesis is submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirement for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS IN DEVELOPMENT... corporate taxes and there is a negative relationship between personal dividend taxes and firms’ leverage in contrary Phan (2011) investigated the impact of income tax regime on capital structures of Vietnamese. .. effects The coefficient ρ captures the variation in the outcome of interest of the treated group (relative to the control group) in the years after the tax reform (relative to the years before the tax