Marginal credit rate

To examine the effects of particular tax credits on pharmaceutical R D investment, a more useful measure is the marginal incentive effect or marginal credit rate (5). This rate is the number of cents that a tax credit reduces the cost of an additional dollar that the taxpayer decides to spend on R D. The credit rate is a negative tax rate. Because of limitations on particular tax credits, the effective marginal credit rate can be different from the statutory rate. This chapter reviews what is known about the marginal credit rate associated with each of the several tax credit provisions affecting pharmaceutical operations. 

A number of researchers have estimated the effective marginal credit rate (the percent reduction in the cost of R D) implicit in the several incarnations of this tax credit using a variety of methods and assumptions they have found effective credit rates that are substantially less than the statutory rates of 20 or 25 percent. The divergence between the effective and statutory rates stems from the way in which the credit is calculated, the interaction of the credit with other provisions of the internal revenue code,11 the rate at which future savings are discounted to their present value, and the fact that not all firms have sufficient tax liability to use credits in the year they are earned. 

Altshuler used a different approach to estimate marginal credit rates (5). Using data from the IRS, she modeled the extent to which any particular type of firm was able to use the R D tax credit between 1981 and 1984. This model accounted for the carryforward and carrybacks of unused credits. Altshuler estimated the marginal effective credit rate for firms with different levels of R D and different tax liabilities. Assuming an (after-tax) interest rate of 7 percent, she found a marginal credit rate of 1.3 percent for 1981 across all industries. When weighted by qualified re-... 

Marginal credit rate For tax credits, the percentage reduction in the cost of an extra dollar of spending for a taxpayer, holding everything else constant. 

Marginal incentive effect See marginal credit rate. 

The combination of a NMW with tax credits and other reforms has reduced the severity of the unemployment and poverty traps. Table 29 illustrates the impact of the Government s reforms on high effective marginal tax rates (EMTRs) between 1998 and 2007. Table 30 illustrates real terms increase in what the Government describes as the Minimum Income Guarantee between 1999 and 2007. These theoretical incentives are personalised through software packages used by front line advisers that enable them to provide individualised better off in work calculations for unemployed and other workless claimants. 

The average effective tax rate for the industry after 1987 is likely to decline because the Tax Reform Act of 1986 reduced the U.S. corporate marginal tax rate after 1986. In 1987, the top Federal statutory marginal tax rate was 40 percent, compared with 46 percent in 1986, and it dropped to 34 percent in 1988. Therefore, when the effect of tax credits and deferments is taken into account, the average effective tax rate is likely to be even lower than 32 percent in years after 1987. For the drugs approved in 1981-83, the lower tax rate would have gone into effect in the 4th to 7th year after product launch.24... 

Baily and Lawrence (33) estimated marginal effective credit rates for the R D tax credit as it changed over the course of the 1980s. Assuming that a firm could take full advantage of the credit beginnin g in the first year it was available and... 

To date, only Baily and Lawrence have attempted to estimate the marginal effective credit rates of the 1989 version of the R D tax credit, although this work also lacks any industry-specific estimates. Baily and Lawrence estimated that the marginal effective credit rate for firms able to fully utilize the credit is the statutory 20 percent, but for firms limited in using the credit, it may be as low as 10 percent. Assuming that 70 percent of company -financed R D qualifies for the credit and no more than 10 to 20 percent of... 

R D is in firms that face limitation, Bailey and Lawrence estimated that, on average, the marginal effective credit rate of the latest version of the credit is 12 to 13.5 percent. Regardless of the exact marginal rate, their calculations indicate that the 1989 version of the R D credit provides incentives to increase R D spending substantially greater than those of earlier versions. 

OTA found no attempts to analyze the marginal effective credit rate of the basic research tax credit. Because of the complex structure of this credit, the marginal effective rate faced by any particular firm is lower than the statutory 20 percent and depends on the fro s overall qualified R D expenditures during the tax year and previous years, its qualified basic research payments during the tax year, and its undesignated university contributions during both the base period and the tax year. 

Second, taxes owed or payable depend not only on what is manufactured and sold but also on where it is manufactured. Drug companies can and do make decisions to manufacture products in jurisdictions that will afford them the best profile of after-tax cash flows. The availability of tax credits for locating manufacturing operations in U.S. possessions, such as Puerto Rico, substantially reduces the tax liability of pharmaceutical companies. (See chapter 8 for more detail.) Thus, the opportunity to make a new product in a low-tax jurisdiction means that the extra taxes incurred as a result of the introduction of a new group of products will certainly fall short of the statutory marginal corporate tax rate. 

Thus far our coverage of valuation has been on fixed-rate coupon bonds. In this section we look at how to value credit-risky floaters. We begin our valuation discussion with the simplest possible case—a default risk-free floater with no embedded options. Suppose the floater pays cash flows quarterly and the coupon formula is 3-month LIBOR flat (i.e., the quoted margin is zero). The coupon reset and payment dates are assumed to coincide. Under these idealized circumstances, the floater s price will always equal par on the coupon reset dates. This result holds because the floater s new coupon rate is always reset to reflect the current market rate (e.g., 3-month LIBOR). Accordingly, on each coupon reset date, any change in interest rates (via the reference rate) is also reflected in the size of the floater s coupon payment. 

As the chart shows, the company s unhedged cost is simply 1% over EURIBOR, reflecting the company s 1% credit margin. With the collar in place, the company s borrowing costs are unaffected when EURIBOR resets in-between the strike rates of 2.59% and 4%. This is because the collar has a zero cost, and neither the cap nor the floor are exercised when EURIBOR stays within this range. If, however, EURIBOR exceeds 4%, the cap compensates the company for the excess interest paid, capping the effective cost at 5%. Similarly, if EURIBOR fixes below 2.59%, the company s borrowing costs are floored at 3.59%. 

Ex-factory price Loading/unloading costs Working capital storage costs Dealers fees (margins) Transportation costs Interest rate on farm credit Distribution losses Advertising... 

A sensitivity analysis is made for the unavailability of all five of the standby non-Class 1 safety systems (chemical and volume control system (CVS), start-up feedwater system (SFW), normal residual heat removal system (RNS), diverse actuation system (DAS), diesel generators (DGs)). The plant CDF obtained is 7.4Qx 10, which is a factor of 31 increase over the base case. This sensitivity analysis shows that if no credit is taken for non-Class 1 safety t systems then the plant CDF, and hence any impact on the workers of the public, would increase to just above the BSO, confirming that they are only marginally important and rated appropriately. 

---