[
Almendral, V. R. (2010). An ever-distant union: The cross-border loss relief conundrum in EU law. Intertax, 38(10), 476–501.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Altshuler, R., & Grubert, H. (2010). Formula apportionment: Is ıt better than the current system and are there better alternatives? National Tax Journal, 63(4), 1145–1184. https://doi.org/10.17310/ntj.2010.4S.13
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Anand, B. N., & Sansing, R. (2000). The weighting game: Formula apportionment as an instrument of public policy. National Tax Journal, 53(2), 183–199. https://doi.org/10.17310/ntj.2000.2.01
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Ancillai, Ch., Sabatini, A., Gatti, M., & Perna, A. (2023). Digital technology and business model innovation: A systematic literature review and future research agenda. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 188, 122307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.122307
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Arel-Bundock, V., & Parinandi, S. (2018). Conditional tax competition in American states. Journal of Public Policy, 38(2), 191–220. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0143814X17000071
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Barrios S., d’Andria D., & Gesualdo M. (2020). Reducing tax compliance costs through corporate tax base harmonization in the European Union. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, 41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intaccaudtax.2020.100355
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Becker, J., & Fuest, C. (2010). Tax enforcement and tax havens under formula apportionment. International Tax and Public Finance, 17(3), 217–235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10797-009-9121-4
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Becker, J., & Runkel, M. (2013). Corporate tax regime and international allocation of ownership. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 43(1), 8–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2012.11.002
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Bettendorf, L., Devereux, M. P., van der Horst, A., Loretz, S., & de Mooij, R. A. (2010). Corporate tax harmonization in the EU. Economic Policy, 63, 537–590.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Bettendorf, L., van der Horst, A., de Mooij, R. A., & Vrijburg, H. (2010). Corporate Tax Consolidation and Enhanced Cooperation in the European Union. Fiscal Studies, 31(4), 453–479. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5890.2010.00121.x
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Bloch, F., & Demange, G. (2021). Profit-splitting rules and the taxation of multinational digital platforms. International Tax and Public Finance, 28(4), 855–889. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10797-020-09643-0
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Bogerd, H. (2007). The attraction and feasibility of formula apportionment for the European Union. EC Tax Review, 16(6), 274–282. https://doi.org/10.54648/ecta2007045
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Borg, J. C. (2013). The tax treatment of losses under the proposed Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base Directive. Intertax, 41(11), 581–587.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Buettner, T., Riedel, N., & Runkel, M. (2011). Strategic consolidation under formula apportionment. National Tax Journal, 64(2), 225–254. https://doi.org/10.17310/ntj.2011.2.01
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Ceipek, R., Hautz, J., Mayer, M. C. J., & Matzler, K. (2019). Technological diversification: A systematic review of antecedents, outcomes and moderating effects. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 21(4), 466–497. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12205
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Cerioni, L. (2015). The never-ending ıssue of cross-border loss compensation within the EU: Reconciling balanced allocation of taxing rights and cross-border ability-to-pay. EC Tax Review, 24(5), 268–280.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Cerioni, L. (2016). The quest for a new corporate taxation model and for an effective fight against ınternational tax avoidance within the EU. Intertax, 44(6–7), 463–480.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Cerioni, L. (2018). The European Commission proposal for a 3% ‘Call Rate’ as a new suggestion for a EUCIT: An assessment against the criteria for a fair taxation. EC Tax Review, 27(5), 237–249.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Cobham A., Janský P., Jones C., & Temouri Y. (2021). An evaluation of the effects of the European Commission’s proposals for the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base. Transnational Corporations, 28(1), 29–50. https://doi.org/10.18356/2076099x-28-1-2
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Conrad, R. F. (2006). Interjurisdictional taxation and attribution rules. Public Finance Review, 34(5), 505–526. https://doi.org/10.1177/1091142106289029
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Cottani, G. (2016). Formulary apportionment: A revamp in the post-base erosion and profit shifting era? Intertax, 44(10), 755–760.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
d’Andria, D., Pontikakis, D., & Skonieczna, A. (2018). Towards a European R&D incentive? An assessment of R&D provisions under a common corporate tax base. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 27(5–6), 531–550. https://doi.org/10.1080/10438599.2017.1376168
]Search in Google Scholar
[
de Groot, I. (2017). Group provisions in the Common (Consolidated) Corporate Tax Base. Intertax, 45(11), 742–749.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
de Mooij, R., Liu, L., & Prihardini. D. (2021). An assessment of global formula apportionment. National Tax Journal, 74(2), 431–465. https://doi.org/10.1086/714112
]Search in Google Scholar
[
de Wilde, M. (2020). On the future of business income taxation in Europe. World Tax Journal, 12(1), 79–128.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Devereux, M. P., & Fuest, C. (2010). Corporate income tax coordination in the European Union. Transfer-European Review of Labour and Research, 16(1), 23–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/1024258909357699
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Devereux, M. P., & Loretz, S. (2008). The effects of EU formula apportionment on corporate tax revenues. Fiscal Studies, 29(1), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5890.2008.00067.x
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Domonkos, T., Domonkos Š., Dolinajcová, M., & Grisáková, N. (2013). The effect of the formula apportionment of the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base on tax revenue in the Slovak Republic. Ekonomický Časopis, 61(5), 453–467.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Eberhartinger, E., & Petutschnig, M. (2017). CCCTB: The employment factor game. European Journal of Law and Economics, 43(2), 333–358. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10657-015-9505-0
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Edmiston, K. D. (2002). Strategic apportionment of the state corporate income tax—An applied general equilibrium analysis. National Tax Journal, 55(2), 239–262. https://doi.org/10.17310/ntj.2002.2.03
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Edmiston, K. D., & del Granado, F. J. A. (2006). Economic effects of apportionment formula changes results from a panel of corporate income tax returns. Public Finance Review, 34(5), 483–504. https://doi.org/10.1177/1091142106289016
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Eggert, W., & Haufler, A. (2006). Fiscal policy in action—Company-tax coordination cum tax-rate competition in the European Union. Finanzarchiv, 62(4), 579–601. https://doi.org/10.1628/001522106X172706
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Eichfelder, S., Hechtner, F., & Hundsdoerfer, J. (2018) Formula apportionment: Factor allocation and tax avoidance. European Accounting Review, 27(4), 649–681. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180.2017.1364165
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Eichner, T., & Runkel, M. (2008). Why the European Union should adopt formula apportionment with a sales factor. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 110(3), 567–589. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9442.2008.00551.x
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Eichner, T., & Runkel, M. (2009). Corporate income taxation of multinationals and unemployment. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 39(5), 610–620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2009.04.001
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Eichner, T., & Runkel, M. (2011). Corporate income taxation of multinationals in a general equilibrium model. Journal of Public Economics, 95(7–8), 723–733. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2010.12.004
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Eichner, T., & Runkel, M. (2012). Efficient tax competition under formula apportionment without the sales factor. Economics Bulletin, 32(4), 2828–2838.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Faccio, T., & Fitzgerald, V. (2018). Sharing the corporate tax base: Equitable taxing of multinationals and the choice of formulary apportionment. Transnational Corporations, 25(2), 67–89. https://doi.org/10.18356/7b2c8305-en
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Fernandez, M. J. G. T. (2012). Corporate tax harmonization: Key ıssues for ensuring an efficient ımplementation of the CCCTB. Intertax, 40(11), 598–605.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Fox, W. F., Murray, M. N., & Luna, L. (2005). How should a subnational corporate income tax on multistate businesses be structured? National Tax Journal, 58(1), 139–159. https://doi.org/10.17310/ntj.2005.1.07
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Fuest, C. (2008). The European Commission’s proposal for a common consolidated corporate tax base. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 24(4), 720–739. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/grn032
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Fuest, C., Hemmelgarn, T., & Ramb, F. (2007). How would the introduction of an EU-wide formula apportionment affect the distribution and size of the corporate tax base? An analysis based on German multinationals. International Tax and Public Finance, 14(5), 605–626. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10797-006-9008-6
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Garbarino, C. (2014). Tax design ıssues in respect to foreign branches and controlled companies and the feasibility of a consolidation area in the EU. EC Tax Review, 23(1), 16–29.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Goolsbee, A., & Maydew, E. L. (2000). Coveting thy neighbor’s manufacturing: the dilemma of state income apportionment. Journal of Public Economics, 75(1), 125–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0047-2727(99)00036-5
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Gordon, B. (2014). Tax competition and harmonisation under EU law: Economic realities and legal rules. European Law Review, 39(6), 790–811.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Gordon, R., & Wilson, J. D. (1986). An examination of multijurisdictional corporate-ıncome taxation under formula apportionment. Econometrica, 54(6), 1357–1373. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914303
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Greil, S., Müller R., & Olbert, M. (2019). Transfer pricing for digital business models: Early evidence of challenges and options for reform. World Tax Journal, 11(4), 557–588.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Gresik, T. A. (2016). Allowing firms to choose between separate accounting and formula apportionment taxation. Journal of Public Economics, 138, 32–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2016.04.002
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Gupta, S., Moore, J., Gramlich, J., & Hofmann, M. A. (2009). Empirical evidence on the revenue effects of state corporate income tax policies. National Tax Journal, 62(2), 237–267. https://doi.org/10.17310/ntj.2009.2.03
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Gutmann, D., & de la Bletiere, E. R. (2017). CC(C)TB and international taxation. EC Tax Review, 26(5), 233–245.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Hellerstein, W., & McLure, C. E. (2004). The European Commission’s report on company income taxation: What the EU can learn from the experience of the US states. International Tax and Public Finance, 11(2), 199–220. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:ITAX.0000011400.45314.57
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Herzig, N., Teschke, M., & Joisten, C. (2010). Between extremes: Merging the advantages of separate accounting and unitary taxation. Intertax, 38(6–7), 334–349. https://doi.org/10.54648/taxi2010037
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Hodzic, S. (2015). The ımpacts of the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base in Croatia. Ekonomski Vjesnik, 28(2), 327–338.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Hundsdoerfer, J., & Wagner, J. (2020). How accurately does the CCCTB apportionment formula allocate profits? An evaluation of the European Commission proposal. Journal of Business Economics, 90(4), 495–536. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-019-00962-1
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Jarass, L., & Obermair, G. M. (2008). Tax on earnings before interest and taxes instead of profit—fair, simple and competitive: A conceivable initiative of EU Member States for a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base. EC Tax Review, 17(3), 111–117.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Khan Niazi, S. U. (2017). Re-launch of the proposal for a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB) in the EU: A shift in paradigm. Legal Issues of Economic Integration, 44(3), 293–314.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Kiesewetter, D., Steigenberger, T., & Stier M. (2018). Can formula apportionment really prevent multinational enterprises from profit shifting? The role of asset valuation, intragroup debt, and leases. Journal of Business Economics, 88(9), 1029–1060. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-018-0891-y
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Kind, H. J., Midelfart, K. H., & Schjelderup, G. (2005). Corporate tax systems, multinational enterprises, and economic integration. Journal of International Economics, 65(2), 507–521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinteco.2004.06.002
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Krchnivá, K., & Nerudová, D. (2018). The CCCTB allocation formula game: The performance of economic sectors. Prague Economic Papers, 27(4), 427–448. https://doi.org/10.18267/j.pep.660
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Kudrle, R. T. (2009). Ending the tax haven scandals. Global Economy Journal, 9(3). https://doi.org/10.2202/1524-5861.1520
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Lacova, Z., & Hunady, J. (2018). The consequences of tax base rules on enterprise ınnovation in the European Union. Modeling Innovation Sustainability and Technologies, 19–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67101-7_3
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Lehoux, L., Duck, H., Akhmadeev, R., Morozova, T., & Bykanova, O. (2019). Sustainable development facets: Taxation solutions for the energy industry. Journal of Security and Sustainability Issues, 9(2), 457–472. https://doi.org/10.9770/jssi.2019.9.2(8)
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Liesegang, C., & Runkel, M. (2019). Equalizing tax bases or tax revenues under tax competition? The role of formula apportionment. Journal of Public Economic Theory, 21(1), 98–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpet.12319
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Llopis, E. L. (2017). Formulary apportionment in the European Union. Intertax, 45(10), 631-641.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Mardan, M., & Stimmelmayr, M. (2018). Tax revenue losses through cross-border loss offset: An insurmountable hurdle for formula apportionment? European Economic Review, 102, 188–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2017.12.007
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Martini, J. T., Niemann, R., & Simons, D. (2012). Transfer pricing or formula apportionment? Tax-induced distortions of multinationals’ ınvestment and production decisions. Contemporary Accounting Research, 29(4). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1911-3846.2012.01140.x
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Martini, J. T., Niemann, R., & Simons, D. (2016). Tax-induced distortions of effort and compensation in a principal-agent setting. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, 27, 26–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intaccaudtax.2016.07.002
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Martins, A., & Taborda, D. (2022). BEFIT and formulary apportionment: Should ıntangibles be ıncluded in the formula? EC Tax Review, 31(3), 131–139.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Matsumoto, M. (2016). Public-input provision under formula apportionment. Finanzarchiv, 72(1), 74–95. https://doi.org/10.1628/001522116X14557023949256
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Mayer, S. (2009). Formulary apportionment for the internal market. IBFD Doctoral Series.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
McGaughey, S. L., & Raimondos, P. (2019). Shifting MNE taxation from national to global profits: A radical reform long overdue. Journal of International Business Studies, 50(9), 1668–1683. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-019-00233-9
]Search in Google Scholar
[
McLure, C. E., Jr. (1981). The elusive ıncidence of the corporate ıncome tax: The state case. Public Finance Review, 9(4), 395–413. https://doi.org/10.1177/109114218100900402
]Search in Google Scholar
[
McLure, C. E., Jr. (2000). Implementing state corporate income taxes in the digital age. National Tax Journal, 53(4, part 3), 1287–1305. https://doi.org/10.17310/ntj.2000.4s2.02
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Merriman, D. (2015). A replication of coveting thy neighbor’s manufacturing: The dilemma of state income apportionment. Public Finance Review, 43(2), 185–205. https://doi.org/10.1177/1091142114537892
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Mitroyanni, I., & Putzolu, C. (2009). CCCTB and business reorganizations the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base and business reorganizations. Intertax, 37(8–9), 436–448.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Munnell, A. H. (1992, September). Taxation of capital ıncome in a global economy—An overview. New England Economic Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, 33–52. Musgrave, P. (1972). International tax base division and the multinational corporation. Public Finance, 27, 394–413.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Nerudová, D., & Krchnivá, K. (2016). Tax sharing under the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base: Measurement of the profit generating factors in the agriculture sector. Agricultural Economics, 62(8), 363–377. https://doi.org/10.17221/222/2015-AGRICECON
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Nerudová, D., & Solilová, V. (2015). The ımpact of the CCCTB ıntroduction on the distribution of the group tax bases across the EU: The study for the Czech Republic. Prague Economic Papers, 24(6), 621–637. https://doi.org/10.18267/j.pep.514
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Nerudová, D., & Solilová, V. (2017). Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base system re-launching: Simulation of the impact on the Slovak budget revenues. Ekonomický Časopis, 65(6), 559–578.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Nerudová, D., & Solilová, V. (2018). Mandatory CCCTB implementation in the Eurozone and its impact on corporate tax revenues in the Czech Republic. E & M Ekonomie a Management, 21(1), 4–23. https://doi.org/10.15240/tul/001/2018-1-001
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Nerudová D., & Solilová V. (2019). The ımpact of the ıntroduction of a CCCTB in the EU. Intereconomics, 54(3), 160–165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10272-019-0815-2
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Nerudová D., Solilová V., Litzman M., & Janský P. (2020). International tax planning within the structure of corporate entities owned by the shareholder-individuals through Panama Papers destinations. Development Policy Review, 38(1), 124–139. https://doi.org/10.1111/dpr.12403
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Nerudová, D., Solilová, V., & Litzman, M. (2021). Is there a real chance to adopt the CCCTB without UK participation in the EU? Ekonomický Časopis, 69(6), 582–603. https://doi.org/10.31577/ekoncas.2021.06.02
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Nielsen, S. B., Raimondos-Møller, P., & Schjelderup G. (2003). Formula apportionment and transfer pricing under oligopolistic competition. Journal of Public Economic Theory, 5(2), 419–437. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9779.00140
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Oestreicher, A., & Koch, R. (2011). The revenue consequences of using a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base to determine taxable ıncome in the EU Member States. Finanzarchiv, 67(1), 64–102. https://doi.org/10.1628/001522111X574191
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Ortmann, R., & Sureth-Sloane, C. (2016). Can the CCCTB alleviate tax discrimination against loss-making European multinational groups? Journal of Business Economics, 86(5), 441–475. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-015-0780-6
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Perotto, G. (2021). How to cope with harmful tax competition in the EU legal order: Going beyond the elusive Quest for a definition and the misplaced reliance on state aid law. European Journal of Legal Studies, 13(1), 309–340. https://doi.org/10.2924/EJLS.2019.052
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Pethig, R., & Wagener, A. (2007). Profit tax competition and formula apportionment. International Tax and Public Finance, 14(6), 631–655. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10797-006-9017-5
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Petkova, K., & Weichenrieder, A. J. (2020). The relevance of depreciation allowances as a fiscal policy instrument: A hybrid approach to CCCTB? Empirica, 47(3), 579–610. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10663-019-09441-w
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Pinto, S. M. (2007). Corporate profit tax, capital mobility, and formula apportionment. Journal of Urban Economics, 62(1), 76–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2006.08.008
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Pirvu, D., Banica L., & Hagiu, A. (2011). Implications of the common consolidated corporate tax base introduction on tax revenues (case study on Romania). Romanian Journal of Political Science, 11(1), 91–102.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Polezharova, L. V., & Krasnobaeva, A. M. (2020). E-commerce taxation in Russia: Problems and approaches. Journal of Tax Reform, 6(2), 104–123. https://doi.org/10.15826/jtr.2020.6.2.077
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Quentin, D. (2017). Corporate tax reform and “value creation”: Towards unfettered diagonal re-allocation across the global inequality chain. Accounting, Economics and Law, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1515/ael-2016-0020
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Riedel, N. (2010). The downside of formula apportionment: Evidence on factor demand distortions. International Tax and Public Finance, 17(3), 236–258. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10797-009-9116-1
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Riedel, N. (2011). Taxing multi-nationals under union wage bargaining. International Tax and Public Finance, 18(4), 399–421. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10797-011-9164-1
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Riedel, N., & Runkel, M. (2007). Company tax reform with a water’s edge. Journal of Public Economics, 91(7–8), 1533–1554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2006.11.001
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Roggeman, A., Verleyen, I., Van Cauwenberge, P., & Coppens, C. (2012). An empirical investigation into the design of an EU apportionment formula related to profit generating factors. Transformations in Business & Economics, 11(3), 36–56.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Roggeman, A., Verleyen, I., Van Cauwenberge, P., & Coppens, C. (2013). The EU apportionment formula: Insights from a business case. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 14(2), 235–251. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3846/16111699.2011.638668
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Roggeman, A., Verleyen, I., Van Cauwenberge, P., & Coppens, C. (2014). Impact of a Common Corporate Tax Base on the effective tax burden in Belgium. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 15(3), 530–543. https://doi.org/10.3846/16111699.2013.807869
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Runkel, M., & Schjelderup, G. (2011). The choice of apportionment factors under formula apportionment. International Economic Review, 52(3), 913–934. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2354.2011.00654.x
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Russo, A. (2005). Formulary apportionment for Europe: An analysis and a proposal. Intertax, 33(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.54648/taxi2005001
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Sadiq, K. (2015). The case for unitary taxation with formulary apportionment in the finance sector and the effect on developing nations. Australian Tax Review, 44(2), 75–98.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Schaltegger, S., Christ, K. L., Wenzig, J., & Burritt, R. L. (2021). Corporate sustainability management accounting and multi-level links for sustainability—A systematic review. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 24(4), 480–500. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12288
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Schreiber, U., & Fuhrich, G. (2009). European group taxation-the role of exit taxes. European Journal of Law and Economics, 27(3), 257–274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10657-008-9090-6
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Shackelford, D., & Slemrod, J. (1998). The revenue consequences of using formula apportionment to calculate US and foreign-source income: A firm-level analysis. International Tax and Public Finance, 5, 41–59. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008664408465
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Solilová, V., Nerudová, D., & Litzman, M. (2016). Implementation of Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base and its ımplications for non-participating country: A case study for the Czech Republic. Ekonomickýy Časopis, 64(3), 282–298.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Sørensen, P. B. (2004). Company tax reform in the European Union. International Tax and Public Finance, 11(1), 91–115. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:ITAX.0000004778.63592.96
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Sosnowski M. (2014). Dilemmas of tax-inducted location decisions. Journal of International Studies, 7(2), 83–95. https://doi.org/10.14254/2071-8330.2014/7-2/7
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Spinosa, L., & Chand, V. (2018). A long-term solution for taxing digitalized business models: Should the permanent establishment definition be modified to resolve the issue or should the focus be on a shared taxing rights mechanism? Intertax, 46(6–7), 476–494.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Swenson, C. W. (2015). The cash flow and behavioral effects of switching to a single sales factor on state taxation. Journal of the American Taxation Association, 37(2), 75–107. https://doi.org/10.2308/atax-51203
]Search in Google Scholar
[
van de Streek, J. (2012). The CCCTB concept of consolidation and the rules on entering a group. Intertax, 40(1), 24–32.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Weiner, J. M. (2006). Company tax reform in the European Union: Guidance from the United States and Canada on ımplementing formulary apportionment in the EU. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-29487-2
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Wetzler, J. W. (1995). Should the us adopt formula apportionment? National Tax Journal, 48(3), 357–362.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Wrede, M. (2013). Multinational financial structure and tax competition. Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics, 149(3), 381–404. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03399396
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Wrede, M. (2014). Asymmetric tax competition with formula apportionment. Letters in Spatial and Resource Sciences, 7(1), 47–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12076-013-0100-0
]Search in Google Scholar
