Corporate investment, dividend decisions, differential taxation and the no-arbitrage condition

Abstract

Masulis and Trueman (1988) investigated corporate investment and dividend decisions under differential personal taxation. They assumed investors in different tax brackets, a state-preference complete market (which includes pure securities for each state) with a ban on short-selling. They concluded that shareholders prefer non-zero dividend payment. In their model, the restrictions on short-sales were needed to bound tax arbitrage profits, among investors in different tax brackets, so that equilibrium could be reached. However, the joint assumptions of complete markets, and restrictions on short-selling, are inconsistent. By utilizing more recent results, from the tax arbitrage literature, we allow short-selling, and examine the role and implications of the no-arbitrage condition. We show that, with investors in different tax brackets, equilibrium is feasible. We conclude that a revised Masulis and Trueman type model does not explain a non-zero optimal dividend policy.