Invest.climate;functioning of government international comparison 1990-2012
| Countries | Periods | Corporate tax rate (% of net revenues) |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 2012 | 30.0 |
| Austria | 2012 | 25.0 |
| Belgium | 2012 | 34.0 |
| Canada | 2012 | 15.0 |
| Czech Republic | 2012 | 19.0 |
| Denmark | 2012 | 25.0 |
| Finland | 2012 | 24.5 |
| France | 2012 | 34.4 |
| Germany | 2012 | 15.8 |
| Hungary | 2012 | 19.0 |
| Ireland | 2012 | 12.5 |
| Italy | 2012 | 27.5 |
| Japan | 2012 | 30.0 |
| The Netherlands | 2012 | 25.0 |
| Poland | 2012 | 19.0 |
| South Korea | 2012 | 22.0 |
| Spain | 2012 | 30.0 |
| Sweden | 2012 | 26.3 |
| United Kingdom | 2012 | 24.0 |
| United States | 2012 | 35.0 |
| EU-15 | 2012 | . |
| EU-25 | 2012 | . |
| EU-27 | 2012 | . |
| OECD | 2012 | . |
| Source: CBS. | ||
Table explanation
This table provides an international overview of several aspects of how the government functions in relation to the investment climate. The functioning of the apparatus of government is about two roles, namely:
(1) the government corrects markets that do not work well. It is expressed by the degree in which the government exerts influence on economic activity (for example by state control, sectoral and ad hoc state support and rules for starting up a business);
(2) the government as a market party, for example as a supplier of online basic public services.
Note:
Comparable definitions are used to compare the figures presented internationally. The definitions sometimes differ from definitions used by Statistics Netherlands. The figures in this table could differ from Dutch figures presented elsewhere on the website of Statistics Netherlands.
Data available from 1990 up to 2012.
Status of the figures:
The external sources of these data frequently supply adjusted figures on preceding periods. These adjusted data are not mentioned as such in the table.
Changes as of 22 December 2017:
No, table is stopped.
When will new figures be published?
Not.
Description topics
- Corporate tax rate
- The sum of the taxes levied by the national and local authorities on the income (profits) of companies. For countries with a progressive tariff system, where a lower tax rate is paid when profit falls below a certain tax threshold, we show only the top rate.
Australia and the United Kingdom:
Tax years do not run parallel with calendar years. The values refer to the situation starting in July and April.
Belgium (as from 2006):
The corporation tax can be partly compensated by deductions of notional interest. The deduction is not related to the results of the company, but only to the amount of assets and the yield of long-term government bonds. The deduction means that a relatively low result (before taxes) on the net assets of a company leads to a lower effective tax rate.
France:
The tariff includes allowances, but excludes local company tax (Taxe professionnelle) and turnover-related solidarity tax (Contribution de Solidarité).
Germany:
Including regional company tax (Gewerbesteuer) and allowances.
Hungary:
Excludes turnover-related local company tax and, as from 2004, innovation tax and, as from 2005, special allowances for financial and credit institutions.
Italy:
Excludes regional company tax (Imposta regional sulle Attivit Produttive;
IRAP).
The Netherlands (from 2008):
Concerns the taxable income above EUR 200.000.
Poland (from 2008):
There is no decentral government tax, but local authorities share in tax revenues to a certain percentage (for all local authorities).
United States:
The tariff of the states is a weighted average of the 'state corporate marginal income tax rate' that is levied by individual states.
Source: OECD, Tax Database.