@inbook{50394, author = {{Opitz, Oliver}}, booktitle = {{Neuere Entwicklungen in Produktion und Controlling}}, editor = {{Betz, Stefan}}, isbn = {{978-3-339-11532-4}}, pages = {{11--48}}, publisher = {{Dr. Kovac}}, title = {{{Kapazitätsplanung unter besonderer Berücksichtigung produktionsseitiger Risiken}}}, year = {{2020}}, } @techreport{49266, author = {{Heile, Vanessa and Huber, Hans-Peter and Maiterth, Ralf and Sureth-Sloane, Caren}}, publisher = {{TRR 266 Accounting for Transparency}}, title = {{{Tax Administrative Burden, Tax Relief and Investment during the Corona Crisis}}}, doi = {{10.52569/DQPH9785}}, year = {{2020}}, } @techreport{14901, abstract = {{This study investigates whether country risk factors, including political and fiscal budget risk, attenuate the effectiveness of tax policy tools that aim to encourage corporate risk-taking. Exploiting a cross-country panel, we predict and find that the effectiveness of loss offset rules and tax rate changes is fully attenuated for firms located in high-risk countries. We document the attenuating effect of country risk is more pronounced in high-tax countries or when countries increase their corporate tax rate. Additional tests around the U.S. federal budget crises from 2011 to 2013 indicate that temporarily heightened fiscal budget risk attenuates the effectiveness of loss offset rules even in countries with low political risk. We identify conditions (low political and low fiscal budget risk) under which targeted tax policy tools effectively stimulate risk-taking. This suggests that ensuring taxpayers receive tax refunds is important in times of economic crises with budgetary or political challenges. }}, author = {{Osswald, Benjamin and Sureth-Sloane, Caren}}, publisher = {{TRR 266 Accounting for Transparency Working Paper Series No. 28}}, title = {{{Do Country Risk Factors Attenuate the Effect of Tax Loss Incentives on Corporate Risk-Taking?}}}, doi = {{10.2139/ssrn.3297418}}, year = {{2020}}, } @inbook{15788, author = {{Betz, Stefan}}, booktitle = {{Neuere Entwicklungen in Produktion und Controlling}}, editor = {{Betz, Stefan}}, issn = {{1437-787X}}, pages = {{65--114}}, publisher = {{Dr. Kovac}}, title = {{{Kapazitätsplanung im Rahmen eines strategischen Kooperationsmanagements}}}, year = {{2020}}, } @inbook{15790, author = {{Osthoff, Lennart}}, booktitle = {{Neuere Entwicklungen in Produktion und Controlling}}, editor = {{Betz, Stefan}}, issn = {{1437-787X}}, pages = {{49--64}}, publisher = {{Dr. Kovac}}, title = {{{Zieloptimale Anzahl von Partnern in Beschaffungskollaborationen}}}, year = {{2020}}, } @inbook{15789, author = {{Betz, Stefan}}, booktitle = {{Neuere Entwicklungen in Produktion und Controlling}}, editor = {{Betz, Stefan}}, issn = {{1437-787X}}, pages = {{185--214}}, publisher = {{Dr. Kovac}}, title = {{{Zieloptimale Variantenvielfalt in der Produktionsplanung}}}, year = {{2020}}, } @book{15787, editor = {{Betz, Stefan}}, issn = {{1437-787X}}, pages = {{353}}, publisher = {{Dr. Kovac}}, title = {{{Neuere Entwicklungen in Produktion und Controlling}}}, year = {{2020}}, } @inbook{37390, author = {{Plückebaum, Daniel}}, booktitle = {{Neuere Entwicklungen in Produktion und Controlling }}, editor = {{Betz, Stefan}}, pages = {{115--147}}, publisher = {{Dr. Kovac}}, title = {{{Produktionsprogrammplanung bei variierender Fertigungstiefe}}}, year = {{2020}}, } @inbook{37394, author = {{Heidmann , Mathis}}, booktitle = {{Neuere Entwicklungen in Produktion und Controlling }}, pages = {{151--183}}, publisher = {{Dr. Kovac}}, title = {{{Eignung ausgewählter Entscheidungsunterstützungsinstrumente für die Planung, Steuerung und Kontrolle von Produktinnovationen}}}, year = {{2020}}, } @phdthesis{37395, author = {{Osthoff, Lennart}}, publisher = {{Dr. Kovac}}, title = {{{Kollaborationsentscheidungen im Supply Chain Management }}}, year = {{2020}}, } @article{41180, author = {{Ortmann, Regina and Pelster, Matthias and Wengerek, Sascha Tobias}}, issn = {{1544-6123}}, journal = {{Finance Research Letters}}, keywords = {{Finance}}, publisher = {{Elsevier BV}}, title = {{{COVID-19 and investor behavior}}}, doi = {{10.1016/j.frl.2020.101717}}, volume = {{37}}, year = {{2020}}, } @techreport{21407, author = {{Bornemann, Tobias and Schipp, Adrian and Sureth-Sloane, Caren}}, title = {{{ 2018/2019 Umfrage zur Steuerkomplexität in deutschen Finanzverwaltungen}}}, doi = {{10.52569/ILCP9945}}, year = {{2020}}, } @article{16486, abstract = {{After the introduction of CbCR – pursuant to the BEPS Project (Action 13) in 2015 –, which was established to reduce the information asymmetry between MNEs and tax authorities of the countries they operate in, now public CbCR – as suggested by the EU Commission in 2016 – is discussed as a next step. Here, the objective is to overcome information asymmetries between MNEs and the general public of the countries they operate in. Starting from the assumption that regulators care about the legitimacy of tax laws, this article evaluates pros and cons of public CbCR. The authors find that from the perspective of information asymmetries, public CbCR increases tax transparency only marginally at best. Accordingly, it is concluded that democracies that are based on the rule of law seem to rely on pillories in terms of public CbCR to enforce fair tax payments.}}, author = {{Lagarden, Martin and Schreiber, Ulrich and Simons, Dirk and Sureth-Sloane, Caren}}, journal = {{International Transfer Pricing Journal}}, number = {{2}}, title = {{{Country-by-Country Reporting Goes Public - Cui Bono?}}}, volume = {{27}}, year = {{2020}}, } @article{21415, abstract = {{This article comprehensively reviews Australia’s corporate income tax complexity as faced by multinational corporations (MNCs) and compares it to the average of the remaining OECD countries. Building on unique survey data, I find that the Australian tax code is considerably more complex than the OECD average, which is mainly due to overly complex anti-avoidance legislation, such as regulations on transfer pricing, general anti-avoidance or controlled foreign corporations (CFC). In contrast, Australia’s tax framework, which covers processes and features such as tax law enactment or tax audits, is close to the OECD average. A more detailed analysis yields further interesting insights. For example, excessive details in the tax code and the time between the announcement of a tax law change and its enactment turn out to be serious issues in Australia relative to the remaining OECD countries. }}, author = {{Hoppe, Thomas}}, journal = {{Australian Tax Forum}}, number = {{4}}, pages = {{451--475}}, title = {{{Tax Complexity in Australia – a Survey-Based Comparison to the OECD Average}}}, volume = {{35}}, year = {{2020}}, } @article{21420, author = {{Mair, Christina and Scheffler, Wolfram and Senger, Isabell and Sureth-Sloane, Caren}}, journal = {{Steuer und Wirtschaft}}, number = {{4}}, pages = {{317--329}}, title = {{{Auswirkungen der digitalen Flexibilisierung des Fertigungsortes auf die Verteilung der Besteuerungsrechte – Ergebnisse von Modellrechnungen zum 3D-Druck-Verfahren}}}, volume = {{97}}, year = {{2020}}, } @article{49871, author = {{Giese, Henning and Graßl, Benjamin and Holtmann, Svea and Krug, Philipp}}, journal = {{Deutsches Steuerrecht}}, number = {{16-16}}, pages = {{752--760}}, title = {{{Steuerliche Entlastungsmöglichkeiten für kleine und mittlere Unternehmen wegen der COVID-19-Pandemie}}}, volume = {{59}}, year = {{2020}}, } @article{21425, author = {{Kittl, Maximilian and Lorenz, Johannes}}, journal = {{Deutsches Steuerrecht}}, number = {{18}}, pages = {{897--903}}, title = {{{Was lange währt, wird endlich gut? Vorschau zur erwarteten Rechtsprechung des BFH zur grunderwerbsteuerlichen Konzernklausel}}}, volume = {{57}}, year = {{2019}}, } @inbook{21426, abstract = {{This chapter examines the drivers of corporate income tax complexity for multinational corporations in South Africa. Based on unique data from a global survey of tax consultants which was conducted in 2016 by Hoppe et al, novel insights can be provided into the complexity of the South African tax system. The data enable a comparison of South Africa with the global mean of tax complexity, as well as with its major trade and investment partners. It is further possible to distinguish between different areas of tax complexity, ie, tax code complexity (complexity inherent in the different regulations of the tax code) and tax framework complexity (complexity that arises from the features and processes of a tax system). Frequent changes in tax regulations, ambiguity and interpretation, as well as record-keeping, are found to be the most important complexity drivers in the tax code of South Africa. The analysis further highlights that anti-avoidance provisions, such as transfer pricing and controlled foreign corporation rules, are perceived as most complex. With respect to tax framework complexity, the poor disclosure of audit selection criteria, the lack of experience or technical skills of tax officers in the audit process and problems associated with tax refunds appear to be serious concerns. Even though South Africa’s overall tax system complexity does not seem to differ very much from other related countries, a closer look into the details reveals a number of future challenges.}}, author = {{Hoppe, Thomas and Safaei, Reyhaneh and Singleton, Amanda and Sureth-Sloane, Caren}}, booktitle = {{Tax Simplification - An African Perspective}}, editor = {{Evans, Chris and Franzsen, Riël and Stack, Elizabeth}}, isbn = {{978-1-920538-96-5}}, pages = {{267--293}}, publisher = {{Pretoria University Law Press}}, title = {{{Tax Complexity for Multinational Corporations in South Africa - Evidence from a Global Survey}}}, year = {{2019}}, } @techreport{20875, author = {{Sievers, Sönke and Kengelbach, Jens and Keienburg, Georg and Bader, Maximilian and Degen, Dominik and Gell, Jeff and Nielsen, Jesper}}, publisher = {{The Boston Consulting Group, Inc., M&A Report}}, title = {{{Downturns Are a Better Time For Deal Hunting}}}, year = {{2019}}, } @article{4561, abstract = {{We exploit a unique sample of structured financial products (SFPs) to analyze pricing and issuance dependencies among different types of such market‐linked investment vehicles. Our study provides evidence of cross‐pricing between products with complementary payoff profiles. Such dependencies may be explained by issuers’ efforts to generate order flow for products that supplement their current SFP risk exposure. Additionally, we observe issuance patterns in line with the argument that issuers exploit the complementarity payout profiles when bringing SFPs to market. Our study emphasizes cross‐pricing from a perspective not previously considered in the literature.}}, author = {{Pelster, Matthias and Schertler, Andrea}}, journal = {{Journal of Futures Markets}}, keywords = {{cross‐pricing, discount certificate, hedging, issuance decisions, put warrants, structured financial products}}, number = {{3}}, pages = {{342--365}}, title = {{{Pricing and issuance dependencies in SFP portfolios}}}, doi = {{10.1002/fut.21978}}, volume = {{39}}, year = {{2019}}, }