To tax or not to tax - this question could have never been asked twenty years ago. Historically, income tax is a novel invention. Still, it became so widespread and so socially accepted that no one dared challenge it seriously. In the lunatic fringes there were those who refused to pay taxes and served prison sentences as a result. Some of them tried to translate their platforms into political power and established parties, which failed dismally in the polls. But some of what they said made sense.
Originally, taxes were levied to pay for government expenses. But they underwent a malignant transformation. They began to be used to express social preferences. Tax revenues were diverted to pay for urban renewal, to encourage foreign investments through tax breaks and tax incentives, to enhance social equality by evenly redistributing income and so on. As Big Government became more derided - so were taxes perceived to be its instrument and the tide turned. Suddenly, the fashion was to downsize government, minimize its disruptive involvement in the marketplace and reduce the total tax burden as part of the GNP.
As we said, VAT works. Despite some doubts by various analysts, for the most part it remains true that, if a country needs or wants a simpler tax, it is well to have a VAT. Nonetheless VAT does not always work well, principally because we yet are so tax educated society ready for "self-assessment". VAT is by no means necessarily the 'money machine' for every government.. Indeed, the equally conventional conclusion that a VAT is the most economically desirable and administratively effective way in which to collect a given share of national income through a general consumption tax also holds -- provided, again, that the capacity exists to administer VAT adequately. Similarly, as with any tax, although increasing the rate of an existing VAT rates will neither necessarily increase revenues proportionately nor be costless, it may nonetheless be the economically most sensible way to expand revenue shares in economy, if that is the policy goal.
In the past, companies often shifted reserves within the payable with little or no disclosure. The roll forward of UTPs now requires companies to clearly breakout increases and decreases due to changes in judgment and the expiration of statute of limitations, both of which are offset by charges to the current tax provision. In practice, this means that the current tax provision related to the tax return needs to be tracked separately from the current provision related to UTPs to allow for separate roll forwards. Likewise, payments and refunds related to the filing of the tax return will have to be separated from payments and refunds related to the settlement of UTPs in order to populate the Settlement column of the UTP roll forward. Where a UTP is relieved with an audit settlement, a "true up" may have to be recorded as a PY Increase or PY Decrease, offset by an adjustment to the current tax provision.
The roll forward of UTPs within the current taxes payable may give rise to a cumulative translation adjustment where activity is recorded in local currency and is translated into a different reporting currency. A cumulative translation adjustment arises because the beginning and ending balances are recorded at the beginning and ending spot rates, and the activity is recorded at the rates used in the income statement for the period. In their presentation of the UTP roll forward, companies will have to decide the best presentation of this item; i.e. should the cumulative translation be combined with the activity columns or should it be separately stated. For calendar year filers, this disclosure is not required until the 4th quarter of 2007. The roll forward of UTPs now requires companies to clearly breakout increases and decreases due to changes in judgment and the expiration of statute of limitations, both of which are offset by charges to the current tax provision. Changes in tax rates can also have a signify-cant impact on the integration of UTPs into the tax provision.
The initial VAT legislation, usually close to standard international models, as time goes on tends to become both more complex and to some extent ad hoc in how it is actually applied. The structure of VAT becomes littered with privileges and exemptions that minimize its revenue impact and make it difficult to manage. Sometimes, once concessions enter the system, they have been subsequently enlarged surreptitiously without quick response from the tax administration, becoming in effect almost a "self- assessment" system without the necessary administrative systems and safeguards to support such a system. Concessions thus feed on themselves, encouraging taxpayers to lobby for still more concessions, just as tax amnesties create an incentive to defer payment in anticipation of future amnesties. Little assistance in coping with these complexities is offered in the way of taxpayer services. Nor is much done to guard against abuse, with most so-called VAT "audits" amounting to little more than simple numerical checks. Widespread base erosion facilitates both evasion and also, when taxpayers are subject to audit, corruption.
Originally, taxes were levied to pay for government expenses. But they underwent a malignant transformation. They began to be used to express social preferences. Tax revenues were diverted to pay for urban renewal, to encourage foreign investments through tax breaks and tax incentives, to enhance social equality by evenly redistributing income and so on. As Big Government became more derided - so were taxes perceived to be its instrument and the tide turned. Suddenly, the fashion was to downsize government, minimize its disruptive involvement in the marketplace and reduce the total tax burden as part of the GNP.
As we said, VAT works. Despite some doubts by various analysts, for the most part it remains true that, if a country needs or wants a simpler tax, it is well to have a VAT. Nonetheless VAT does not always work well, principally because we yet are so tax educated society ready for "self-assessment". VAT is by no means necessarily the 'money machine' for every government.. Indeed, the equally conventional conclusion that a VAT is the most economically desirable and administratively effective way in which to collect a given share of national income through a general consumption tax also holds -- provided, again, that the capacity exists to administer VAT adequately. Similarly, as with any tax, although increasing the rate of an existing VAT rates will neither necessarily increase revenues proportionately nor be costless, it may nonetheless be the economically most sensible way to expand revenue shares in economy, if that is the policy goal.
In the past, companies often shifted reserves within the payable with little or no disclosure. The roll forward of UTPs now requires companies to clearly breakout increases and decreases due to changes in judgment and the expiration of statute of limitations, both of which are offset by charges to the current tax provision. In practice, this means that the current tax provision related to the tax return needs to be tracked separately from the current provision related to UTPs to allow for separate roll forwards. Likewise, payments and refunds related to the filing of the tax return will have to be separated from payments and refunds related to the settlement of UTPs in order to populate the Settlement column of the UTP roll forward. Where a UTP is relieved with an audit settlement, a "true up" may have to be recorded as a PY Increase or PY Decrease, offset by an adjustment to the current tax provision.
The roll forward of UTPs within the current taxes payable may give rise to a cumulative translation adjustment where activity is recorded in local currency and is translated into a different reporting currency. A cumulative translation adjustment arises because the beginning and ending balances are recorded at the beginning and ending spot rates, and the activity is recorded at the rates used in the income statement for the period. In their presentation of the UTP roll forward, companies will have to decide the best presentation of this item; i.e. should the cumulative translation be combined with the activity columns or should it be separately stated. For calendar year filers, this disclosure is not required until the 4th quarter of 2007. The roll forward of UTPs now requires companies to clearly breakout increases and decreases due to changes in judgment and the expiration of statute of limitations, both of which are offset by charges to the current tax provision. Changes in tax rates can also have a signify-cant impact on the integration of UTPs into the tax provision.
The initial VAT legislation, usually close to standard international models, as time goes on tends to become both more complex and to some extent ad hoc in how it is actually applied. The structure of VAT becomes littered with privileges and exemptions that minimize its revenue impact and make it difficult to manage. Sometimes, once concessions enter the system, they have been subsequently enlarged surreptitiously without quick response from the tax administration, becoming in effect almost a "self- assessment" system without the necessary administrative systems and safeguards to support such a system. Concessions thus feed on themselves, encouraging taxpayers to lobby for still more concessions, just as tax amnesties create an incentive to defer payment in anticipation of future amnesties. Little assistance in coping with these complexities is offered in the way of taxpayer services. Nor is much done to guard against abuse, with most so-called VAT "audits" amounting to little more than simple numerical checks. Widespread base erosion facilitates both evasion and also, when taxpayers are subject to audit, corruption.
About the Author:
Frank Miller has a Debt Consolidation Blog & Finance, these are some of the articles: Tips & Tricks For First-Time Investors You have full permission to reprint this article provided this box is kept unchanged.
No comments:
Post a Comment