WWW.DISSERS.RU


...
    !

Pages:     | 1 |   ...   | 10 | 11 || 13 | 14 |   ...   | 17 |

Improvement/deterioration in business environment, broken down by business size (subject to the number of employees)Improvement Deterioration or explicit or explicit Balance of responses (improveimprovement, deterioration, ment/deterioration) and variance % of target % of target value group group Dynamics in the barriers to your business development to date as compared with 1. Power supply and costs 4.9 14.2 63.4 55.5 -58.5 -41.4 -2.32 0.2. Transport infrastructure 7.3 21.7 36.6 23.7 -29.3 -2.0 -9.35 0.3. Land lease or acquisition 5.0 11.7 20.0 22.3 -15.0 -10.6 -0.94 0.4. Access to financial resources and costs thereof 13.2 41.4 21.1 15.4 -7.9 26.0 -5.25 0.5. Labor resources availability 2.4 9.5 61.0 56.1 -58.5 -46.6 -1.60 0.6. Tax burden 22.0 15.7 29.3 29.2 -7.3 -13.5 1.22 0.7. Tax audits 2.4 8.7 14.6 26.4 -12.2 -17.7 0.97 0.8. Unfair court decisions 2.6 5.9 23.1 12.2 -20.5 -6.3 -3.66 0.9. Inefficient performance of lawenforcement authorities 0.0 4.4 15.4 11.8 -15.4 -7.4 -1.98 0.10. Performance of other than tax, judicial and law-enforcement government authorities 2.6 6.7 12.8 12.6 -10.3 -5.9 -1.19 0.11. Customs regulations 5.3 10.1 10.5 14.3 -5.3 -4.2 -0.34 0.12. Labor Code 23.1 26.7 20.5 11.9 2.6 14.8 -2.36 0.13. Non-competitive behavior of other companies in resource and sales market 0.0 5.5 28.2 29.4 -28.2 -23.9 -0.67 0. Responses were provided by 48 companies with the number of employees not exceeding 100 and by 621 companies with more than 100 employees.

ees.

ees.

ees.

ees.

ees.

ees..

p-value* z-statistics* Over 100 employOver 100 employOver 100 employUp to 100 employUp to 100 employUp to 100 employTable 5.

Improvement/deterioration in business environment, broken down by industry sectorsImprovement Deterioration or explicit or explicit Balance of responses (improveimprovement, deterioration, ment/deterioration) and variance % of target % of target value group group Dynamics in the barriers to your business development to date as compared with 1. Power supply and costs 16.0 13.1 52.0 56.8 -36.0 -43.7 0.83 0.2. Transport infrastructure 15.4 20.6 34.6 24.3 -19.2 -3.8 -4.01 0.3. Land lease or acquisition 16.0 10.7 20.0 22.2 -4.0 -11.6 1.28 0.4. Access to financial resources and costs thereof 57.7 38.5 0.0 16.2 57.7 22.4 4.43 0.5. Labor resources availability 11.5 8.9 50.0 57.0 -38.5 -48.1 1.04 0.6. Tax burden 19.2 15.3 46.2 28.6 -26.9 -13.3 -2.11 0.7. Tax audits 11.5 7.9 30.8 25.4 -19.2 -17.5 -0.24 0.8. Unfair court decisions 7.7 5.5 3.8 13.3 3.8 -7.8 2.35 0.9. Inefficient performance of lawenforcement authorities 3.8 4.0 7.7 12.2 -3.8 -8.2 0.86 0.10. Performance of other than tax, judicial and law-enforcement government authorities 3.8 6.1 15.4 12.5 -11.5 -6.4 -1.09 0.11. Customs regulations 7.7 9.9 11.5 14.2 -3.8 -4.4 0.14 0.12. Labor Code 34.6 26.0 11.5 12.5 23.1 13.4 1.49 0.13. Non-competitive behavior of other companies in resource and sales market 11.5 4.7 11.5 29.9 0.0 -25.1 3.15 0. Responses are provided by 30 mineral extraction companies and by 630 businesses of processing industry.

industry industry industry p-value* z-statistics* Mineral extraction Mineral extraction Mineral extraction Processing industry Processing industry Processing industry Table 6.

Responses, broken down by expectations of production growthImprovement Deterioration or explicit or explicit Balance of responses (improveimprovement, deterioration, ment/deterioration) and variance % of target % of target value group group Dynamics in the barriers to your business development to date as compared with 1. Power supply and costs 20.9 10.6 54.0 74.6 -33.1 -64.0 12.22 0.2. Transport infrastructure 26.1 21.6 24.2 84.5 1.9 -62.9 12.79 0.3. Land lease or acquisition 15.8 11.9 21.1 70.3 -5.3 -58.4 11.93 0.4. Access to financial resources and costs thereof 45.6 42.2 15.8 78.7 29.7 -36.5 7.39 0.5. Labor resources availability 14.9 5.6 59.6 89.2 -44.7 -83.6 16.66 0.6. Tax burden 18.2 17.2 27.0 60.9 -8.8 -43.7 9.45 0.7. Tax audits 6.8 9.3 23.5 26.5 -16.7 -17.3 4.39 0.8. Unfair court decisions 8.4 5.6 11.0 25.2 -2.6 -19.5 5.92 0.9. Inefficient performance of lawenforcement authorities 5.8 4.4 11.7 13.7 -5.8 -9.3 3.34 0.10. Performance of other than tax, judicial and law-enforcement government authorities 11.8 3.8 11.8 60.5 0.0 -56.7 11.96 0.11. Customs regulations 14.0 8.2 15.3 32.5 -1.3 -24.3 6.91 0.12. Labor Code 31.4 25.3 11.3 22.8 20.1 2.5 -0.75 0.13. Non-competitive behavior of other companies in resource and sales market 5.1 4.3 26.3 11.3 -21.2 -6.9 1.90 0. Responses are provided by 180 businesses that anticipate production growth and from 184, which expect reduction thereof.

p- * z-* Table 7.

Responses, broken down by expectations of revenue growthImprovement Deterioration or explicit or explicit Balance of responses (improveimprovement, deterioration, ment/deterioration) and variance % of target % of target value group group Dynamics in the barriers to your business development to date as compared with 1. Power supply and costs 21.2 10.3 56.7 65.5 -35.6 -55.1 3.47 0.2. Transport infrastructure 23.3 21.6 18.4 32.6 4.9 -11.0 4.90 0.3. Land lease or acquisition 20.4 13.3 17.3 29.5 3.1 -16.2 5.24 0.4. Access to financial resources and costs thereof 44.4 41.6 15.2 18.1 29.3 23.5 1.19 0.5. Labor resources availability 18.4 5.2 50.5 69.0 -32.0 -63.8 5.67 0.6. Tax burden 14.7 18.0 28.4 33.9 -13.7 -16.0 0.55 0.7. Tax audits 5.8 9.2 24.0 32.3 -18.3 -23.2 1.05 0.8. Unfair court decisions 6.0 7.3 11.0 17.6 -5.0 -10.3 1.66 0.9. Inefficient performance of lawenforcement authorities 6.0 4.9 10.0 22.2 -4.0 -17.2 3.48 0.10. Performance of other than tax, judicial and law-enforcement government authorities 7.3 4.0 8.3 17.3 -1.0 -13.4 3.72 0.11. Customs regulations 12.7 8.7 14.7 17.0 -2.0 -8.3 2.30 0.12. Labor Code 28.4 25.3 13.7 18.3 14.7 6.9 2.37 0.13. Non-competitive behavior of other companies in resource and sales market 8.9 4.9 22.8 39.1 -13.9 -34.2 4.03 0.Prospects for the introduction, in the Russian Federation, of the institution of taxpayer consolidation A. Kireeva The RF Ministry of Finance is actively discussing the prospects for the introduction of biggest taxpayers tax liabilities in respect of the tax on profit of organizations. For this purpose, the Ministry is planning to develop a package of amendments to Parts 1 and 2 of the RF Tax Code. This idea, in particular, has been reflected in the draft of the Main Directions of Tax Policy for the year 2009 and for the 2010 - 2011 planning period, elaborated by Russias Ministry of Finance and submitted to the Government of the Russian Federation for consideration.

Recently, the Ministry of Finance has been actively discussing the idea of introducing, into Russian tax legislation, the institution of taxpayer consolidation. In particular, this idea has been reflected in the draft of the Main Directions of Tax Policy for the year 2009 and for the 2010 2011 planning period, elaborated by Responses were provided by 114 companies, looking forward for revenue growth and from 256 of those, which expect reduction thereof.

p- * z-* Russias Ministry of Finance and submitted for the consideration by the Government of the Russian Federation. Below is a brief analysis of the major preconditions for the introduction of a number of alterations into tax legislation for the purpose of creating consolidated groups of taxpayers.

This consolidation, as such, infers the possibility for several interrelated taxpayers to consolidate their tax bases in respect of some types of taxes. It is suggested that the process should begin with the creation, in the Russian Federation, of appropriate legal conditions for consolidating tax liabilities only under the tax on profit of organizations, although later on the use of consolidated groups of taxpayers could be widened.

It should be noted that it is not for the first time that an attempt at introducing the institution of taxpayer consolidation into Russian practice has been made. As early as 1997, during the process of development of the RF Tax Code, the RF Government suggested, on the basis of international experience, that taxpayers should be allowed to form consolidated groups and therefore included in the draft of RF Tax Code a corresponding Chapter 7 Consolidated Group of Taxpayers. However, in the course of the draft law being considered by representative bodies, it was decided that the idea of taxpayer consolidation should be temporarily abandoned, due to its low level of elaboration and the tax authorities lack of sufficient experience of work with the biggest taxpayers at the first stage of development of tax management.

By the present stage of development, the reasons that have previously resulted in the decision not to use the institution of taxpayer consolidation have become practically nonexistent. Thus, ten branch inspectorates to deal with biggest taxpayers have been created within the structure of Russias Federal Tax Service. The quality of the tax authorities work with this category of taxpayers has significantly improved, and at presence, the collectability of taxes from biggest taxpayers is sufficiently high. At the same time, there have emerged certain new, previously lacking, preconditions for introducing the institution of taxpayer consolidation.

Consolidation of taxpayers makes it possible to provide solutions to a number of problems, which have recently arisen in the sphere of tax management and taxation. As it is planned to considerably expand, in the foreseeable future, the powers of tax authorities to acknowledge as transfer ones the prices being used by interdependent organizations, tax risks for companies structured as holding entities will become much higher. The introduction of the institution of taxpayer consolidation and the direct sanctioning for their tax bases to be consolidated will create a way to partly compensate for such risks.

It should be noted that, apart from taxpayer consolidation, the Main Directions of Tax Policy and the draft laws developed by the RF Ministry of Finance in order to restrict transfer pricing 33 also envisage some other measures designed to compensate for the risks faced by biggest taxpayers in connection with the expanded powers granted to tax authorities for revising prices for purposes of taxation.

In the context of such measures it is planned, in particular, to use the introduction of the institution of preliminary agreements on pricing. However, according to these plans, pricing agreements will be introduced with a long delay (supposedly no earlier than 2010). Moreover, the agreements themselves would be taxed and their use limited only to some (supposedly the biggest) transactions handled by taxpayers. As a result, preliminary agreements will not cover the whole entirety of contractual relations between the biggest mutually dependent taxpayers, but will be applied only to some transactions (or groups of transactions involving one and the same object), each of which will have to be separately agreed upon with tax authorities. Therefore, the risks of price revision will remain undiminished, even in the event of the introduction of preliminary agreements.

Taxpayer consolidation, in combination with pricing agreements, makes it possible to considerably reduce the acuteness of the problems caused by the toughening of measures aimed at restricting transfer pricing.

Consolidation of taxpayers duties can furnish such positive results as a certain weakening of the stimuli to apply transfer pricing and the creation of conditions for the unification of some tax management procedures used with regard to the groups participants. In particular, taxpayer consolidation suggests that the duties of calculating, declaring and paying the tax on profit of organizations and the corresponding forfeits and fines should be transferred by the groups participants to one person the responsible taxpayer of the group.

It is supposed that the responsible taxpayer should represent the groups interests during tax audits and when their results are being formalized, as well as in other legal relations pertaining to the calculation and See, for example, the Draft Federal Law On the Introduction of Alterations in Part One and Part Two of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation and on Deeming Individual Provisions of Federal Law of 9 July 1999, 154 FZ, On the Introduction of Alterations in and Amendments to Part One of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, to Have Lost Force in Connection with the Improvement of the Principles of Determination of Prices for Purposes of Taxation (http://www1.minfin.ru/).

payment of tax on the profit of organizations. As it can be rather difficult to single out the head organization within a group of interrelated organizations (because their stake can turn out to be mutual), it is reasonable that the selection of the responsible taxpayer should be made by the groups members themselves in the process of concluding the agreement on its creation.

It should be noted that the introduction of the institution of taxpayer consolidation can be advantageous not only to the State, but also to the very organizations comprising a consolidated group of taxpayers. By consolidating their tax bases, they can obtain considerable preferences, including the possibility to sum up their profits and losses when calculating the amount of the tax on profit of organizations. Also, the consolidation of the duties to be performed by the groups members with regard to the payment of the tax on profit of organizations suggests the possibility that, for purposes of taxation, the financial result (profit or loss) of economic operations carried out between the organizations participating in the group should not be taken into account. Likewise, it would be possible to sum up the losses across the group as a whole and to carry them forward. It is precisely these methods that can enable the participants of the group to partly compensate for the additional costs emerging in connection with the strengthening of control over applied prices.

Pages:     | 1 |   ...   | 10 | 11 || 13 | 14 |   ...   | 17 |



2011 www.dissers.ru -

, .
, , , , 1-2 .