Background Taxation is a key component of tobacco products’ regulation given its proven effectiveness to generate revenue and achieve public health goals. The diversity of the market for e-cigarettes (electronic nicotine delivery systems and electronic non-nicotine delivery systems, ENDS/ENNDS) complicates comparative analyses per unit, thus challenging efforts to assess countries’ excise tax burdens for e-cigarettes. Further complicating taxes on e-cigarettes is the necessity to balance two public health priorities: (1) deterring initiation among people who have never smoked, and (2) supporting cessation efforts among people currently smoking or who previously smoked. This study evaluates and compares excise tax burdens and tax system characteristics of e-cigarettes across 54 countries.
Methods To determine countries’ excise tax burdens per millilitre of e-liquid, we collect a unique database of tax characteristics and prices in countries where ENDS/ENNDS are currently sold. We calculate the excise tax per millilitre of e-liquid and convert e-liquid prices to a comparable price per millilitre across countries.
Results Thirty countries employ a specific excise system, 10 apply an ad valorem system, 9 apply a tiered specific system, 1 applies a tiered ad valorem system and 4 apply a mixed tax system. The excise tax burden is highest in Belarus (87.2%, specific), Norway (81.2%, tiered specific) and Egypt (74.7%, mixed), and lowest in Costa Rica (7.4%, ad valorem), Paraguay (2.9%, ad valorem) and Croatia (0%, specific).
Conclusion The advantages of one tax system over another are context specific. Tax burdens tend to be much larger in countries that use a specific tax than in countries that use a value-based (ad valorem) tax.
- Electronic nicotine delivery devices
Data availability statement
Data are available upon reasonable request.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Contributors ED initiated and supervised this project, including the discussion with third party individuals and organisations cited in the Acknowledgements section. She is responsible for most of the models underlining the calculations and models used in the paper. CF reviewed the laws, synthesised and wrote research in the paper, and organised the figures, tables and citations. ED accepts full responsibility for the work and conduct of this study.
Funding This work was supported by the Bloomberg Philanthropies Initiative to Reduce Tobacco Use.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.