Many people are beginning to wrap their minds around the House Republicans’ proposed destination-based cash-flow tax and what it means for tax reform. Most people are still looking into the tax’s impacts on trade and how...
- Map: Share of State Tax Revenues from Corporate Income Tax
Map: Share of State Tax Revenues from Corporate Income Tax
Corporate income taxes are one of the smallest sources of state government tax revenue, as indicated by data from the U.S. Census Bureau. On average, only 5.4 percent of state tax revenues came from corporate income taxes in 2011 (the most recent data available). [Please note that this map discusses state tax revenues only, not state and local tax revenues together, as is outlined in our Facts and Figures booklet.]
Note that six states do not have a corporate income tax (Nevada, Ohio, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming), but three of them have a gross receipts tax (Ohio, Texas, and Washington). The Census defines “corporate net income taxes” as
Taxes on net income of corporations and unincorporated businesses (when taxed separately from individual income). Includes distinctively imposed net income taxes on special kinds of corporations (e.g., financial institutions).
Because of this, some of the states lacking a corporate income tax may not have a corporate share that is exactly equal to zero.
The top five states with the largest portion of tax revenues coming from corporate income taxes are New Hampshire (24.9 percent), Alaska (13.0 percent), Delaware (10.5 percent), Illinois (9.9 percent), and Tennessee (9.5 percent). Most of these states lack one of the major taxes and have high corporate income tax rates when compared to other states. For example, New Hampshire’s rate of 8.5 percent is 9th highest in the nation. Alaska has a progressive rate-structure with ten brackets and a top rate of 9.4 percent (5th highest).
There are a few reasons why the corporate income tax share is so low on average:
- The number of businesses organized as traditional C-corporations has decreased over time. Businesses can choose one of many forms when structuring themselves, and the number choosing to structure as a traditional corporation is shrinking. As my colleague Kyle Pomerleau pointed out in a recent report on pass-through business entities, "between 1980 and 2010, the total number of pass-through businesses [firms that file business taxes through the individual income tax] nearly tripled, from roughly 10.9 million to 30.3 million." Further, between 1980 and 2008, the number of C-corporations decreased from 2.2 million to 1.6 million. The result? There aren’t as many corporations left on which to levy the corporate income tax, thus shrinking the base.
- States hand out generous corporate tax incentive packages to entice businesses to move to (or remain in) their states. Business tax incentives are popular among state lawmakers. These include things such as jobs credits and investment credits. These lower the tax liability for certain businesses and industries that are engaging in activities that lawmakers deem desirable at the time. In addition to the fact that they are distortionary and non-neutral, incentives such as these carve away at the tax base, reducing tax revenue.
- States further reduce corporate tax bills by fiddling with income apportionment formulas, reducing the in-state taxable income of corporations within their borders. Income apportionment "formulas are used by states to determine what percentage of a corporation's profits are taxed. Generally, three categories are used: property, payroll, and sales." But an increasing number of states have started using sales-only apportionment or have even weighted sales more heavily than other factors. Changing apportionment formulas is a way to reduce the amount of taxable income for certain types of companies within a state without changing tax rates or tax bases, two things that can be politically difficult to do. According to Professor David Brunori (in State Tax Policy: A Political Perspective),
Using a double-weighted or single-sales factor usually lowers tax burdens for
corporations that have substantial operations within a state (as measured by
payroll and property) but sell most of their goods and services out of state.
Indeed, scholars have found that moving to a single-sales factor apportionment
formula decreases corporate income tax revenue by as much as 10 percent
All of these practices have carved away at the state corporate income tax base, making it a small source of state tax revenue when compared to other types of state taxes.
Get Email Updates from the Tax Foundation
Join the Tax Foundation's fight for sound tax policy Go
About the Tax Policy Blog
The Tax Policy Blog is the official blog of the Tax Foundation, a non-partisan, non-profit research organization that has monitored tax policy at the federal, state and local levels since 1937. Our economists welcome your feedback. If you would like to send an e-mail to the author of a blog post, please click on that person's name to locate his or her e-mail address or visit our staff page here.