Anglo-Saxon (USA, Australia, UK, Canada)
Predominance of direct taxes
Insignificant share of indirect taxes
Predominance of taxation of individuals
Eurocontinental (Germany, Netherlands, France, Austria, Belgium)
High share of social security contributions
Predominance of indirect taxes
Does not mean. share of direct taxes
Latin American (Chile, Bolivia, Peru)
Ensures tax collection in an inflationary economy
Predominance of indirect taxation
Does not mean. level of direct taxes
Mixed (Russia and many other countries)
Combines features of different models
Allows you to avoid dependence of the budget on the department. type or group of taxes
Introduced to diversify the income structure
24. Elements of taxation.
Essential - elements of tax, without which the tax obligation and the procedure for its execution cannot be considered certain
Optional - their absence does not affect the degree of certainty of the tax liability (for example: tax benefits)
Essential:
tax subject -face, on the cat. there is an obligation to pay tax
an object - actions/events, cat. determine the subject's obligation to pay tax.
cash base - cost, physical or other characteristic of the taxable object.
Cash rate – the amount of tax established per unit of measurement of the cash base
Cash period – calendar year or other period of time in relation to separate taxes, upon completion of the cat. the cash base is determined and the amount of tax payable is calculated
calculation order - determines the person obliged to calculate the tax (taxpayer, tax agent, tax authorities), as well as the tax calculation method (non-cumulative/cumulative, i.e. on an accrual basis)
payment deadline - calendar date, the expiration of time from the day of the event or a specific event, cat. stipulates the obligation to pay tax
payment procedure - techniques and methods for the taxpayer/cash agent to deposit the tax amount into the budget
25. Tax classifications.
Subject of tax
Taxes from individuals and legal entities
Taxes for individuals
Type of bet
Solid/specific (set at a fixed rate for each tax unit)
%/ad valorem (set in % of the tax unit)
Combined (combine fixed and % rates)
Objects
Property
Sales of goods, works, equipment
Taxation method - the procedure for changing the tax rate depending on the growth of the cash base
Equals ( for each tax payment. set = tax amount)
Proportional
Progressive ( As the cash base grows, the tax rate increases)
Regressive (as the cash base grows, the rate decreases)
Periodicity
One-time (payment is associated with an unsystematic random event) - purchase of real estate
Regular ( are charged from the defined periodicity throughout the entire period of ownership)
Budget assignment
Are common (not intended for specific financial expenditure)
Target ( for financiers conc. budget expenditure)
Possibility of arrangement
Indirect - cat. on in the price of goods (works, services) in the form of a premium that increases it and are paid by the consumer of goods (works, services) in their price
Direct – are levied directly from the taxpayer’s income
Personal - take into account the solvency of the taxpayer
Income of individuals
Real -not a student Finnish position of tax payers, level of profitability of the taxable object.
By payment method
Holds - the responsibility for calculating tax is assigned to a third party, cat. by virtue of the Law is obliged to act as a cash agent
Accruals – payment of tax on a cash basis. declarations-official statements about their cash obligations
Cadastral – tax im-va is made on the basis of external signs, its expected profitability, and the moment of tax payment is not related to the moment of receipt of income
Belonging to the level of management and power
Regional
Transport
Tax on im-vo org
For the gambling business
Federal
For the income of individuals
For the profit of the org
Half claim for production
Fee for the right to use fauna and aquatic biological resources
State duty
Land
On the name of individuals
Trade fee
Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below
Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.
Similar documents
Studying foreign experience in organizing local government and self-government: Anglo-Saxon, continental and regional models. Analysis of the local government system in the Republic of Belarus. Prospects for the introduction of foreign experience of self-government in the Republic of Belarus.
abstract, added 08/13/2012
Innovative model of an enterprise management system, principles and main stages of its development. Structural characteristics of innovative production management systems. Various forms and areas of activity to improve management.
abstract, added 02/03/2011
Submission and registration of an application for a patent for Vinakhid and Korisna model, passing the examination. The totality of legal norms of legislation that regulate documents are associated with the procedure for obtaining the right to a wine and a root model, and with its subjects.
course work, added 05/28/2015
Tax legal norm, a generally binding rule of conduct in the field of tax legal relations. Tax law, system of financial and legal norms. Object of taxation. Tax optimization, directions and methods. Basic principles of taxation.
abstract, added 11/13/2008
Legal protection of an industrial property object - a utility model. Features of drawing up, submitting and considering an application for a utility model certificate. Peculiarities of checking an application for a utility model. Suitability for reproduction.
course work, added 10/01/2008
Organization of the tax system of the Russian Federation, principles of its construction. Characteristics of types of violations of tax legislation and penalties for their commission. Analysis and main ways and directions for improving the tax system.
thesis, added 04/22/2014
Economic and legal foundations of the tax system. The essence of taxes and their role in the state economy. concept and main characteristics of tax systems. General characteristics of the tax system of the Russian Federation. Problems of reforming the tax system.
course work, added 01/07/2009
Organizational simplicity, transparency and elasticity of the taxation system.
The tax must be so simple as to be understandable to the taxpayer and so comprehensive as to minimize any loopholes for tax evasion. The tax must be flexible enough to be adjusted to changing economic conditions.
The tax systems of countries around the world have evolved under the influence of different economic, political and social conditions. In terms of the “set” of taxes, their structure, methods of collection, rates, fiscal powers of various levels of government, tax base, scope of taxes, tax benefits, such systems differ significantly from each other.
Of utmost importance for typifying the tax system of a state is its national or administrative-territorial structure. It is the form of government that largely determines the legal status of the constituent parts of a country, as well as the division of powers of central and local authorities in the formation of budgets through taxation. On this basis, there are three types of tax and fee systems, namely: federal, confederal and unitary states. Tax and fee systems of the first type exist in Australia, Brazil, Germany, and Spain. Canada and the USA, since all these states have a federal structure. The system of taxes and fees in Switzerland has confederal features. In Azerbaijan, Great Britain, China, Italy, France, Sweden, Japan and a number of other countries, systems of taxes and fees of the third type have developed.
The construction of tax systems in federal and confederal states is largely determined by the specific form of their government structure. In this case, we are referring to the peculiarities of the structure of states, which include relatively independent components (states, territories, cantons, lands, republics), because, ultimately, the issue of government structure comes down to the order of distribution of state power in the center and localities, including powers related to the establishment and collection of taxes and fees.
The construction of the tax systems of federal states is based on tax federalism, which is a system of operating principles and delimitation of the competence of central and regional authorities in the field of tax relations. The approaches of states when delimiting tax powers differ due to the peculiarities of their formation and legal traditions. One of the approaches, which has found application in Germany, is based on granting extensive powers in matters of taxation to the federal authorities, and the states are limited in the right to establish taxes similar to federal ones. However, at the same time, the lands collect federal and local taxes, the funds from which are redistributed between the federal and land budgets based on the principle of “equalizing” their income. The second approach, which is followed in the United States, involves giving states the right to form their own tax systems based on their legislation. In particular, income taxation occurs simultaneously at the federal and state levels.
In a confederal state like Switzerland, a special approach is used, which is different from all previous ones. It lies in the fact that the cantons that form a confederation and are sovereign territories themselves determine the limits of the competence of the central authorities in matters of establishing and collecting taxes. In fact, in this case we can talk about the cantons delegating part of their taxation powers to the center.
The presence of components in the structure of federal and confederal states leads to the need to form not only state and local, but also regional budgets. And this, in turn, means that, along with central and local taxes, regional taxes must be present in the tax systems of such states. This is why the tax systems of federations and confederations are three-tiered.
Unitary countries, and they are the majority in the world, are integral state formations, the administrative-territorial units that make up them are, as a rule, not endowed with sovereign rights, and therefore are completely subordinate to the central authorities, including in matters of taxation. The tax systems of such states are mostly two-tier and include only central and local taxes. In unitary states that include autonomous national entities (Azerbaijan, Ukraine), tax systems may include an additional level of taxation in the relevant territory.
Classification of tax systems and existing models of tax and fee systems
When creating their tax systems, states can base them on various parameters, for example, such as the ratio of the totality of tax exemptions to GDP, the total number and composition of taxes, progressivity, proportionality or regressiveness of tax rates, priority of taxation of certain categories of taxpayers or areas of economic activity, distribution tax revenues between budgets of different levels, etc. Based on these indicators, we can talk about the classification of tax systems.
Classification of tax systems is a reasonable classification of tax systems of different countries into certain groups, made on the basis of a certain demarcating feature and determined by the goals (objectives) of their comparison. The classification of tax systems is presented in Figure 6.
Figure 6 – Main classifications of tax systems
1) Depending on level of tax burden on the country's economy Tax systems can be classified into:
- liberal-fiscal , providing tax exemptions, taking into account social payments, approximately up to 30% of GDP. This group includes the tax systems of countries such as the USA, Australia, Portugal, Japan and most Latin American countries;
- moderately fiscal with a tax burden of 30 - 40% of GDP. This group consists of the tax systems of most countries, in particular Switzerland, Germany, Spain, Greece, Great Britain, Canada and Russia;
- tough-fiscal , allowing the redistribution through taxes of more than 40% of GDP. This level of withdrawals is ensured by the tax systems of countries such as Norway, the Netherlands, France, Belgium, Finland, Denmark, and Sweden.
2) Depending on the level of centralization of tax powers
- centralized, vesting the federal level of government with the vast majority of tax powers and ensuring a share of tax revenues - more than 65% of consolidated tax revenues. This level of centralization is ensured by the tax systems of France, the Netherlands, Austria and Russia;
- moderately centralized, giving all levels of management significant tax powers and ensuring the share of tax revenues at the federal level from 55 to 65% of consolidated tax revenues. This group consists of the tax systems of Australia, Germany, India;
- decentralized, giving lower levels of management more significant tax powers and ensuring the share of federal tax revenues up to 55% of consolidated tax revenues. This group includes the tax systems of the USA, Canada, and Denmark.
3) Depending on the level of economic inequality of income after taxation Tax systems can be divided into:
- progressive, if after taxes the economic inequality of taxpayers, measured by their income, is reduced. This group consists of the tax systems of most countries;
- regressive, if after taxes the economic inequality of taxpayers, measured by their income,
increases. Examples of constructing such tax systems
not known;
- neutral, if after taxes the economic inequality of taxpayers, measured by their income, remains unchanged. This group includes the Russian tax system.
These classifications are presented as basic ones, but they, of course, do not exhaust the entire variety of classifying indicators. In particular, classification is often used according to the economic indicator of the ratio of tax revenues from domestic and foreign trade, etc.
Thus, the Russian tax system can be classified as moderately fiscal, indirect, centralized, neutral.
One of the most important parameters that largely determines the tax system of a particular country is the ratio of direct and indirect taxation. Depending on the share of certain types of taxes and fees in the total volume of tax revenues, experts distinguish four main models of the tax and fee system. Conventionally, they are called Anglo-Saxon, Eurocontinental, Latin American and mixed taxation models.
Anglo-Saxon tax model exists in countries such as Australia, Great Britain, Canada and the USA. It is based on income taxation, i.e. the collection of direct taxes from individuals. The share of indirect taxes in the income of these countries is small. Thus, in the United States, funds from personal income tax account for 44% of budget revenues, while in the federal budget this tax accounts for more than 80% of revenues.
Eurocontinental tax model characterized by significant indirect taxation and a high share of social security contributions. Similar models of tax and fee systems exist in Austria, Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, France and Italy. For example, in 2000, the total tax revenue of the Italian state budget amounted to 596 trillion. Italian liras, of which direct taxes accounted for 315 trillion. lira (52.8%), and for indirect taxes - 281 trillion. lira (47.2%). In Germany, the share of contributions to social insurance is 45% of budget revenues, and revenues from indirect taxes are 22%, and direct taxes account for only 17%.
Latin American tax model relies heavily on indirect taxation, which is most effective in conditions of high inflation. In addition, the fact that indirect taxes are better collected and controlled is taken into account. This is important for those countries that do not have a powerful tax apparatus. For example, the share of indirect taxes in budget revenues is 42% in Bolivia, 46% in Chile, and 49% in Peru.
Mixed tax model combines the features of all mentioned models. States with a mixed model include those whose taxation systems cannot be unambiguously attributed to one or another taxation model. The taxation model that has developed in Japan can be considered mixed. In this country, the structure of tax revenues is generally approximately the same as in states that have an Anglo-Saxon taxation model. However, in contrast, in Japan, priority is given not to income taxation, but to the collection of insurance premiums.
Other options for modeling tax systems are also possible. Some states, which for various reasons have a relatively low tax potential, have taken the path of refusing to collect regular taxes and have taken as a basis preferential (offshore) tax model . Currently, there are about 60 countries in the world that have chosen a similar model.
For the most part, offshores (from the English offshore interpreted as “operating outside the territory of the country”) are small mainland countries (Andorra, Gibraltar, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco, Republic of Liber, Panama) or island states (Antigua and Barbuda, Bermuda, Commonwealth Bahamas, Republic of Malta, Republic of Seychelles, Jamaica). The offshore model chosen by these states is opposed to the general taxation regime and involves the creation of the most favorable conditions for taxpayers. Moreover, exclusively preferential taxation is usually combined with the establishment of various prohibitions and restrictions on the disclosure and provision of information about ongoing financial transactions and their participants. Thus, offshore companies attract foreign companies, which, instead of regular taxes, are obliged to pay only one-time registration fees. The budget revenues of such countries mainly consist of payments of this kind.
There are several types of preferential tax zones, depending on the presence of the following characteristics:
Income is not taxed at all or income received by residents outside a given state or territory is not taxed;
Certain types of activities and enterprises are preferentially or completely exempt from taxation;
Tax benefits apply only to companies of a certain organizational and legal form or only to non-resident companies.
The main condition for the functioning of such jurisdictions for the most part is the prohibition for registered companies to carry out business activities in the relevant territory and use local resources. This eliminates the potential competition that those registering for the purpose of acquiring preferential status may pose to resident economic entities. Newly registered companies may have other additional requirements, such as having a registered office, a secretary and employing local residents.
The construction of tax systems based on preferential taxation is perceived ambiguously by the international community. For the most part, countries in whose territory regular taxes and fees are levied have a negative attitude towards the establishment of an exclusively preferential tax regime in offshore zones, regarding such actions as unfair tax competition. This is explained by the fact that as a result of this practice, their own tax revenues are significantly reduced due to the departure of potential taxpayers to offshore jurisdictions. Currently, the OECD has already received official commitments on the gradual abolition of preferential tax regimes in countries such as Bermuda and the Cayman Islands , Cyprus, Isle of Man, Malta, Mauritius, Netherlands Antilles, San Marino and Seychelles.
However, it should be taken into account that the preferential model is also applied in part of the territories of those states that generally use traditional approaches to taxation. As an example, we can name such administrative units as the islands of Guernsey, Jersey, Sark, Maine (UK), Dublin, Shannon (Ireland), Hong Kong (PRC), Macau, Madeira Island (Portugal), Virgin Islands, Wyoming, Delaware, Commonwealth Puerto Rico (USA), Geneva, Nechetal, Friborg, Zug (Switzerland). In these cases, the main purpose of providing tax benefits is not so much the formation of budgets of the relevant territories through the collection of one-time payments, but rather the creation of a favorable investment climate in the country, increasing employment and increasing business activity.
Let us consider in more detail the specific features that offshore jurisdictions have.
Firstly, it is provided to offshore companies special tax regime. This special preferential tax regime means that offshore companies are fully or partially exempt from paying taxes or are taxed at a nominal or reduced tax rate. The tax regime provided to these companies, as a rule, assumes that all profits received by the offshore company will be taxed at a zero or purely symbolic rate, or at a rate significantly lower than the rate in industrialized countries. The income tax rate is clearly defined in each jurisdiction, sometimes depending on the type of registered company or the activities carried out by it.
In those jurisdictions that do not particularly emphasize their offshore status, it is often the case that the income tax rate depends on the location of the source of income. If the income is received outside the jurisdiction, then the tax rate is zero or minimal, but if the income is generated by the company in the territory of the jurisdiction of registration of the company, then the tax rate is the same as in relation to ordinary companies registered in this territory, and is not low. In such cases, the offshore status of a company is determined only by the location of the source of income. In particular, Cyprus could be named among such jurisdictions until 2003. In some jurisdictions, company taxation has been replaced by a fixed annual levy. The amount of the fee usually depends on the size of the company's authorized capital, type of activity and legal form.
In addition to the above, a specific feature is simplified procedure for registering an organization. In offshore jurisdictions, registering a company does not require a lot of time, paperwork and is characterized by great efficiency. Typically, the entire process can take from 2 hours to 3 weeks. This is achieved through a minimum number of documents and information submitted to government authorities for company registration. In some offshore jurisdictions, it is possible to purchase ready-made companies that already have their own name, legal address, all the documents necessary to start activities, and even bank accounts. Often it is sufficient to simply change domicile or transfer companies to or from another jurisdiction without liquidating the company, maintaining its name, structure, bank accounts and other assets. In addition, quite recently it has become possible to register offshore companies using modern means of communication and the Internet, which further simplifies registration procedures.
The next specific feature is registration and/or annual fees. As a rule, a registration fee is charged for registering an organization in an offshore jurisdiction. The amount of this fee depends on one or several factors (depending on the jurisdiction): on the size of the authorized or share capital (fund) of the registered organization, as on the Isle of Man, on the legal form of the company being founded, on the scope of its activities. The fee may also be calculated as a percentage of the registered capital or assets of the registered company. So, in particular, in Luxembourg the registration fee is 0.2% of the authorized capital of the organization. The registration fee in most cases ranges from $100 to $10,000. Obviously, the larger the size of the authorized capital (fund), the more the owner of the company must pay when registering it, especially since the calculation of the amount of this fee is often carried out according to the rules of arithmetic or geometric progression. Despite this, all offshore jurisdictions have a maximum registration fee, which cannot exceed the estimated fee.
In addition to the registration fee, the company is often required to pay an annual fee of a certain amount. Its value, as a rule, is strictly fixed. Like the registration fee, the amount of the annual fee can be calculated based on the size of the company’s authorized capital and its legal form. There are also jurisdictions where the annual fee is the same for all organizations. Payment of this fee must be made no later than a certain date, and late payment of the annual fee in some jurisdictions may be grounds for the liquidation of the company's offshore status or for its actual liquidation. The annual fee ranges from $50 to $5,000. There are also offshore jurisdictions where there are no registration or annual fees at all.
A specific feature can be considered established requirements for the size of the authorized (share) capital of the organization. Most offshore jurisdictions in the world have adopted the English system of law, where the concept of authorized capital means the amount for which a company is allowed to issue its shares. In addition, the authorized capital of the company also has the following characteristics:
The amount of capital to be issued determines how many shares of what denomination a company can theoretically issue;
Issued capital characterizes the number of issued shares that can be purchased from the company by its founders - owners;
Paid-in capital refers to the shares paid for by the founders (owners).
In offshore zones, a minimum payment for participation in the authorized capital is allowed; therefore, in most offshore zones, when registering an offshore company, the founders are limited to issuing and paying for only one or two shares for a small total amount (sometimes just a few dollars). As a rule, this is enough to determine the percentage of the founders’ shares in the authorized capital and distribution of income. For organizations registered in the form of partnerships, the formation of an authorized capital is not provided for at all.
The minimum possible amount of capital permitted for issue depends on the organizational form of the organization being established, and, naturally, on the offshore jurisdiction itself. The better the image of the offshore jurisdiction, the stricter the requirements for the minimum amount of capital of the company. In the Channel Islands, the declared capital must be at least 10 thousand pounds sterling, in the Isle of Man - only 2 thousand pounds sterling. The minimum amount of paid-up capital is generally set at a purely symbolic level and ranges from 1-10 US dollars, with the only exceptions being the requirements imposed on offshore banks and insurance companies. As a rule, the size of the paid authorized capital of a bank registered in an offshore zone is determined based on the specific situation and is about 100 thousand dollars. USA. The amount of capital authorized for issue, as well as paid-up capital, can be established in the currency of any state.
Another specific feature of offshore jurisdictions is that offshore companies are subject to certain organizational requirements and restrictions. These restrictions relate to the quantitative composition of its owners and to the executive body of the company and apply to both shareholders (owners) and officials of the organization. A significant part of offshore jurisdictions require organizations registered in their territories to have at least two shareholders. But there are also jurisdictions such as Gibraltar, where one owner or founder (shareholder) is sufficient. Slightly more stringent requirements are imposed on organizations in relation to its immediate executive body. In addition to determining the minimum number of persons directly involved in the management of the organization - directors, requirements are often imposed regarding their residence. Many jurisdictions require that at least one of the directors be a resident of that offshore jurisdiction. This is due to the desire of the governments of offshore jurisdictions to reduce unemployment by maximizing the provision of additional jobs or increasing the standard of living of the local population through additional sources of income in terms of offshore companies.
In addition to the above, it should be noted that many jurisdictions require offshore organizations having a secretary, and, as a rule, this is a prerequisite for the existence of an offshore business. In some cases, laws require that the company secretary can only be a resident of a given offshore jurisdiction, as this guarantees the authorities and business partners a certain stability and provides additional convenience in communication with the organization. The secretary maintains the company's records and minutes and is also required to submit all necessary documents to the company registry in a timely manner. In certain cases, a legal entity can also be appointed as a director, as well as a company secretary, but such a business organization is not permissible in all offshore jurisdictions.
Thus, in Switzerland and Luxembourg at least one of the directors must be a resident of the relevant state. In Gibraltar, an offshore organization can have only one director and is required to have a secretary. The residence of these officials can be any; they can also be corporate, i.e. be legal entities - organizations.
Aspects of holding meetings of shareholders and boards of directors of offshore organizations are regulated in a special manner. Any company is required to hold annual (regular) meetings of shareholders and boards of directors. The requirements for specified annual meetings and councils are intended to determine the place and manner in which they will be held. Most offshore jurisdictions allow annual meetings to be held outside their territory, although there are some exceptions. It is allowed to hold meetings using modern means of communication, electronics and the Internet.
One of the most important, fundamental specific features of the existence of offshore jurisdictions is confidentiality and reverent attitude towards various kinds of secrets. Features of state protection of trade secrets in different jurisdictions may vary. At the same time, the guarantor of confidentiality is directly provided by laws that impose severe penalties for the disclosure of confidential information, including criminal penalties. Firstly, it protects information related to the actual owner of the company. Many offshore jurisdictions officially allow nominee ownership. Official bodies - company registrars record and make publicly available the names of the so-called nominal owners. At the same time, the names of the real beneficial owners are kept in legally protected secrecy. A significant part of offshore jurisdictions is attractive precisely because they, to a greater extent than in other countries, respect the confidentiality of information related to the owners of organizations, which is expressed in the following main forms:
1) The volume and content of information entered into the register of legal entities. In many countries, when registering a company, its name, organizational form, information about its founders, owners and authorized capital, location and other information are entered in the registration register. Entering data about the company into this special register, which is called differently in different countries - the Trade Register or the Commercial Register (in Russia it is called the Unified State Register of Legal Entities, Unified State Register of Legal Entities), most often is the official evidence of the company's registration, and the company is considered existing from the moment the corresponding entry is made in the register. In countries that do not practice the registration of offshore companies, the information entered into the register is complete and comprehensive, and such registers are usually publicly available. Offshore jurisdictions are most often limited to a minimum set of information provided when registering a company and entered into the register, and, equally important, such information does not need to be documented.
In different offshore jurisdictions, registries contain different information, and in general the authorities treat the formation of registries differently. In some jurisdictions, especially those that take their reputation and image seriously, the information contained in trade registers is truly open and publicly available. In other offshore zones, such information is theoretically unavailable, but, nevertheless, it is contained in the register. As a rule, in offshore jurisdictions special legislation has been issued to keep the names of the real owners secret, but nevertheless such information is recorded and properly preserved. Offshore jurisdictions have been and continue to be very popular in certain circles, the legislation of which does not provide for the maintenance of any registers or other registration documents with records about registered companies and their owners. Questions about the need to enter information about a particular company into the register and requirements for its volume are resolved depending on the organizational form and status of the company and the type of activity it carries out. In practice, each jurisdiction provides its own unique conditions and requirements.
2) The procedure for making changes to the constituent documents. It often happens that when changes are made to the constituent documents of an organization, or the composition of its directors or executive bodies is changed, this organization is required to provide additional information and data to the official bodies of the state. However, the scope of requirements for additional provision to authorities may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In some jurisdictions, a report is only required to be provided in the event of a personal change in the company's governing bodies. Other offshore jurisdictions regulate these processes more strictly, stipulating that each company must additionally submit a report to the authorities once a year (either in a prescribed form or without establishing one) on the results of its activities, which must contain full information about both the directors and the secretary, and sometimes information about the owners. There are also offshore jurisdictions that do not impose such requirements at all.
3) Possibility of issuing bearer shares. The issue of bearer shares is the most efficient and does not require
special costs for keeping information confidential. In fact, the holder of such shares can be any legal entity or individual. Most importantly, no restrictions are imposed on the owners, their names do not need to be entered in the register and they do not need to be reported in any annual or other reporting.
4) Possibility of appointing nominee owners, directors and secretaries. Quite often, in order to maintain the secret of the true names of the owners of the company, it becomes necessary to appoint strangers to responsible executive positions in the company who agree to fulfill all the requirements of the true owners. These persons are called nominee directors and their role is performed by professional managers or specialized secretarial offices. Services of nominee directors and secretaries are available in almost all offshore jurisdictions, although in relation to third
to persons, nominal directors act as the real executive body of this organization. The relationship between the true owner of the company and its nominee director is based on a civil law agreement concluded between them, the contents of which are usually also secret. This could be, for example, a trust agreement, or these relations can be formalized by an ordinary power of attorney issued in the name of the nominee
director. Relationships with nominal ownership are formalized and developed somewhat more complicated, although the basic principle does not change. And although there are many ways to determine whether a person is the real owner, or whether he is just an employee, the institution of nominal ownership remains quite popular to this day.
The agreement between the owner and the nominal owner has the nature of a contract of agency (can be executed by a power of attorney) and is also a confidential document. An attorney - a nominal owner - from the point of view of legislation and the scope of powers for third parties, as a rule, is no different from the owner. At the same time, the agreement signed by the nominal owner (or the contents of the power of attorney) excludes the commission of any unauthorized actions on his part. In addition, a special agreement is signed on the renunciation of all rights by the nominal shareholders in favor of the real owner. In offshore practice, there are requirements when one or more nominal owners must be residents, but this is not a significant obstacle to doing business in an offshore jurisdiction.
As a rule, information about the real owners can only be disclosed in the event of legal proceedings at the special request of the judicial authorities. Investigative authorities can only gain access to this data through the court. Information is not disclosed to other authorities, including tax authorities of third countries (except when this procedure is provided for by special government agreements or international agreements).
5) Providing financial statements according to simplified standards. In different offshore jurisdictions, the requirements for accounting, auditing rules, financial reporting, the procedure for filing declarations, etc. vary quite significantly. In a number of offshore jurisdictions, organizations are not required to submit their financial statements to any tax or other government authorities at all. All reporting and declaration of performance for tax purposes may be replaced by a single fixed fee charged annually.
6) International cooperation of offshore jurisdictions in the field of information exchange.
An important specific feature of offshore jurisdictions is the established rules of exchange control or, rather, the almost complete absence of it. The preferential treatment of offshore jurisdictions is also determined by very loyal currency legislation, the absence of currency restrictions, the free export of profits, and the absence of customs duties and fees for foreign investors. An important factor in the attractiveness of an offshore jurisdiction is both the political and economic stability of this regime and, as a rule, the presence of widely developed financial and banking institutions.
Another important specific feature is the presence of an office in an offshore jurisdiction. Certain offshore jurisdictions allow an offshore company to have an office on their territory. In this case, it is clearly established that the office is used exclusively for administrative purposes and no profit can be made from it within the territory of that state or zone. In some offshore jurisdictions, it is possible to organize a “wide-ranging” office, which involves obtaining work permits and temporary residence permits for officials and employees of the offshore jurisdiction. In particular, in Europe it is possible to establish an offshore company with an office in Gibraltar and the Isle of Man.
The most important feature of a particular offshore jurisdiction is the presence of concluded and ratified international agreements on the avoidance of double taxation, as well as their number. Income derived in one country and then transferred to another country, in the absence of relevant international treaties, is subject to taxes (in particular, income tax) in both of these countries. Rules to help avoid such double taxation are determined by the provisions of relevant international agreements.
At the same time, starting around 2000, the period of liberal attitude towards offshore business was replaced by a serious tightening of control by government authorities. Since that time, we can talk about the existence of coordinated international anti-offshore regulation. If earlier the anti-offshore struggle was rather an internal affair of each individual state, then in recent years it has taken on a worldwide scale. Now such international organizations as the FATF (EATF), OECD, etc. are actively participating in it.
In this regard, at the current stage, offshore business is undergoing significant changes, especially in terms of increasing its “transparency”.
The classification of offshore zones is extremely diverse, which suggests that a unified approach to their grouping has not been formed. Researchers divide offshore jurisdictions according to their own criteria, depending on the goals pursued. The following examples prove this.
In connection with what has already been noted, clearly attracting attention, grouping using geographical characteristics is widely used. Thus, the geographical classification proposed by K. Doggart, and supplemented by the use of signs of prestige and reliability of “offshores”, carried out by R. White, makes it possible to identify five large groups within the regions of the world according to the degree of decreasing trust in the country of location of the company (Appendix A.1):
Leading countries of Western Europe that are members of the EU (Austria, Belgium, Ireland, the Netherlands, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, etc.);
Small countries of Western Europe and some countries of Eastern Europe (Hungary, Monaco, Isle of Man);
Mediterranean countries (Gibraltar, Israel, Cyprus, Malta);
Countries of the Asia-Pacific region (Hong Kong, Singapore, etc.);
Caribbean countries (Bahamas, Bermuda, Cayman Islands).
The basis of another classification is the use of tax regime characteristics. This classification was also used by R. White, it is widely used and improved by Russian researchers of the offshore problem - for example, A.R. Gorbunov. It includes countries with moderate taxation - the so-called tax havens or classic offshores, as well as tax oases, which mean territories with increased respectability of location (Appendix A.2).
The third classification of offshore centers is used by the IMF. It identifies three groups of territories (Appendix A.3).
International financial centers are the largest centers of international services with a developed payment and settlement system, infrastructure and based on the highly developed national financial market of the countries of location (City of London, US banking structures, Japanese offshore market);
Local regional centers characterized by developed intraregional flows of financial resources (Southeast Asia - Hong Kong, Singapore; in the Middle East - Bahrain, Lebanon; in Latin America - Panama; in Europe - Luxembourg);
Centers that do not actively participate in the flow of financial resources, but act only as a place of legal registration of transactions that are actually carried out in other countries, but are attractive to financial institutions located in developed countries; for offshore countries, this activity serves as one of the main sources of budget replenishment and decisions problems of employment of its own population. (Bahamas, British, Virgin, Cayman Islands).
It can be noted that the economic literature does not highlight the general characteristics of countries and territories with low taxation levels, designated as offshore centers. However, according to expert estimates, used in particular by the IMF, the number of offshore centers reaches 69.
By region of location, 22 offshore centers are located in the Western Hemisphere (US states - New York, Miami, Chicago, Cayman Islands, etc.), 19 centers are registered in Europe (Austria, Cyprus, Liechtenstein, Gibraltar), 17 - in Asia. Pacific region (Australia, Japanese offshore market, Singapore), 6 in the Middle East (Bahrain, Israel, Lebanon, Kuwait), 5 centers on the African continent (the most famous are Liberia, Seychelles) (Appendix A.4).
2.3. Latin American model
Let us consider the features of this model using the example of Bolivia.
In the period from 1985 to 2003. The Bolivian tax system has undergone quite a lot of changes and, in the end, as of the beginning of 2005, it developed as follows. The country has three levels of taxes - national taxes, municipal taxes and departmental taxes (local). State (national) taxes include 11 types of taxes, the main of which are VAT, personal income tax, corporate income tax, direct tax on the oil and gas sector, and customs duties. Municipal taxes include two taxes - the tax on real estate and vehicles and the tax on the transfer of real estate and vehicles. The base VAT rate is 13%. Services in the financial and insurance sector, hotel services for foreign tourists, and a number of other services are not subject to VAT. The basic corporate income tax rate is 25%. As an indirect national tax, the so-called consumption tax is also levied, which is levied on the import and sale of cigarettes, cigars, pipe tobacco, cars, motorcycles, boats, boats and yachts, all bottled drinks except mineral water, alcoholic beverages and beer. The tax rate for all the above products is different, for drinks it is levied depending on the volume, not the cost, the highest for whiskey ($0.86 per liter), the lowest for soft drinks ($0.02 per liter) , for vehicles the tax rate ranges from 10% to 18%, for tobacco products - 50%.
Autonomy of regional authorities
An ideal model for the functioning of the legislative and executive powers...
It developed in Great Britain and was widespread in the countries that were part of the British Empire. Great Britain consists of administrative-territorial units in which elected bodies of local government are formed - Councils...
Foreign models of local government
local self-government Anglo-Saxon imperious Formed in France, called continental as opposed to the “island” British model. France is characterized by a high degree of centralization of local government...
Foreign models of local government
In Germany, the basic unit of local government is the community. Communities can comprise a city, a rural settlement, several settlements...
The Anglo-Saxon model is common in the UK, USA, Canada, Australia and other countries with an Anglo-Saxon legal system, where local representative bodies formally act autonomously within the limits of their powers...
Foreign experience in organizing local self-government in the Russian Federation
Distributed in continental Europe (France, Italy, Spain, Belgium) and in most countries of Latin America, the Middle East, and French-speaking Africa. Is a hierarchical structure...
Despite the variety of specific forms, reflecting the characteristics of different countries, two main models of public administration reform can be distinguished: “Westminster” and “American”...
History of reform of the public administration system abroad
This model was used only in the USA. The American government began reforms called “reinvention” much later than the governments of the “Westminster world”...
Models of the welfare state
A social state of a liberal type is a state that guarantees the preservation of minimum incomes and a sufficiently high quality of pension and medical services, education, housing and communal services for the population...
Taxes and taxation
One of the representatives of this model is Great Britain. Its tax system developed in the last century; significant changes were made to it during the reform process of 1973. In particular...
Taxes and taxation
A prominent representative of this model is France. The French tax system can be divided into three large blocks: - indirect taxes included in the price of goods...
Taxes and taxation
The representative of this model is Russia. The modern Russian tax system took shape at the turn of 1991-1992, during a period of political confrontation, radical economic transformations and the transition to market relations...
A social state of a liberal type is a state that guarantees the preservation of minimum incomes and a sufficiently high quality of pension and medical services, education, housing and communal services for the population...
Basic models of the welfare state
“The basis of this concept is the assertion that universal prosperity has already been achieved in the industrialized countries of the West...
Basic models of the welfare state
A corporate-type welfare state is a state that takes responsibility for the well-being of its citizens, but at the same time delegates most of its social responsibilities to the private sector...
1This article is devoted to a comparative analysis of the tax system of the Russian Federation and foreign countries. In recent years, analysts, economists and scientists have increasingly turned their attention to the tax burden in Russia. This issue seems relevant against the backdrop of the introduction of new taxes, both at the federal and local levels. The article discusses four models of tax systems, which differ in the level of complexity of the tax burden. As part of the study, we relied on data from the RBC website and tried to analyze in detail the taxation mechanism in 5 countries out of 178 possible. The tax systems of the following countries were analyzed: Italy, Hungary, Moldova, Russia and St. Vincent. We assessed the taxes and mandatory payments established by the governments of these countries at the state and local levels, which must be paid by each enterprise.
tax system
income tax
personal income tax
laffer curve
1. Balakin R.V. Analysis of the Italian tax system in comparison with the tax system of the Russian Federation // Finance and Management. – 2014. – No. 3. – P. 44–81.
2. Bulycheva T.V. Problems of transformation of Russian financial reporting in accordance with international standards // Microeconomics. – 2014. – No. 2. – P. 6–10.
3. Imyarekov S.M., Shchankin S.A. Business activity of regional economic entities in the conditions of the economic crisis // Regionology. – 2009. – No. 2. – P. 91–99.
4. Minakov A.V. Methodology for managing the Russian fiscal system in the context of changes in the macroeconomic environment: dis. Ph.D. econ. Sci. – M. 2011. – P. 46–50.
Scientifically based? if the tax burden on the payer increases (the number of taxes increases and tax rates increase, benefits are canceled), then first we observe the effectiveness of the tax system, and later its gradual decrease. As a result, irreparable budget losses occur, because some of the taxpayers become bankrupt, another part is forced to curtail production, and other payers are looking for various ways to reduce the amount of taxes payable to a minimum. And it takes many years to restore efficient production while reducing tax pressure.
In addition, a taxpayer who has found an achievable tax avoidance route will no longer be willing to pay taxes in full if the result is to return to the previous level of tax withdrawal. The problem immediately arises in building and improving the tax system of any country - developed or in transition.
The tax system is a set of taxes, all kinds of fees and charges, various forms, principles and methods of their establishment, transformation or repeal of acts that ensure their payment, verification and responsibility for non-compliance with tax legislation.
In recent years, analysts, economists and scientists have increasingly turned their attention to the tax burden in Russia. This issue seems relevant against the backdrop of the introduction of new taxes, both at the federal and local levels. However, before drawing conclusions regarding the excessive tax burden in the Russian Federation, it makes sense to consider the experience of foreign countries in this matter, as well as global indicators.
Currently, in world practice, there are four models of tax systems, which differ in the level of tax burden: Anglo-Saxon, continental, Latin American and mixed. It is advisable to dwell on each of them, since each unites quite impressive blocs of countries.
Anglo-Saxon model: citizens bear the tax burden.
This model is focused primarily on direct taxation, and the bulk of the tax burden is placed on individuals. The main source of state budget revenue in such countries is income, which forms a share in the budget of:
60% in Australia;
44% in the USA;
40% - in Canada;
36.7% in the UK.
The average tax burden in such countries for all categories of taxpayers in 2015 was 30.5%.
Continental model: priority of indirect taxes.
In countries with a continental taxation system, a significant share of social security contributions can be noted. There are more indirect taxes than direct taxes. The VAT, which was invented in France, occupies a central place in the issue of budget financing. There, VAT collections now account for more than 50% of budget revenues. A similar situation exists in the Netherlands, France, Austria and Belgium.
The average tax burden in these countries in 2015 was 42.2%, mainly due to the Scandinavian countries, which collect a significant number of taxes to implement large-scale social programs.
The Latin American model: searching for equilibrium in conditions of inflation.
The economies of these countries are characterized by significant inflationary trends, so governments actively manipulate the ratio of direct and indirect taxes to protect government revenues from the effects of inflation.
The emphasis is placed primarily on indirect budget revenues, which are more adapted to conditions of high inflation, while direct ones are tied to specific functions of the state. For example, over the past three years, indirect taxes accounted for about 46% of budget revenues in Chile, 42% in Peru and 49% in Bolivia.
The average tax burden in countries with a Latin American model in 2015 was 29.3%.
Mixed model: manipulation of budget revenues.
This model is typical for countries that very often diversify the structure of their budget revenues and actively manipulate tax and non-tax sources and shift the burden from some taxpayers to others. These countries include the USA, Argentina, Italy and Russia.
The tax burden in these countries in 2015 was estimated by the OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) at 33.8%.
It should be noted that according to the same OECD, in 2015 the tax burden decreased in 9 member countries, and in 21 countries, on the contrary, increased. The increase affected Portugal, Turkey, Slovakia, Denmark and Finland, while a decrease was noted in Norway, Chile, and New Zealand.
Let's consider the tax systems of the following countries: Italy, Hungary, Moldova, Russia and St. Vincent.
The two-tier tax system of Italy is shown in Fig. 1.
Rice. 1. Italian tax system
Rice. 2. Tax system of Moldova
Rice. 3. Hungarian tax system
The two-tier tax system of Moldova is shown in Fig. 2.
The tax system of St. Vincent, which is an offshore zone, implies: a fixed government tax on companies, personal income tax, corporate income tax, but also assumes no capital gains tax, no non-resident income tax, no corporate income tax, no tax on transfers or stamp duties.
The two-tier tax system of Hungary is shown in Fig. 3.
The three-tier tax system of Russia is presented in Fig. 4.
Rice. 4. Russian tax system
Having analyzed the tax systems of the countries presented in the figures, we can conclude that the tax systems of Italy, Hungary and Moldova are slightly similar to each other, but there are still fundamental differences, both in the amount of taxes paid and in the structural organization. The tax system of the Russian Federation is no less complex and already has a three-level system for organizing the establishment and withdrawal of taxes. Such an organization is inherent in states that have a federal structure, to which Russia belongs. And finally, the tax system of St. Vincent is the most attractive and fairly steadily developing offshore zone, which has advantages and enormous opportunities for minimizing taxes paid.
For example, in order to pay all the necessary 24 taxes in Hungary, you need to spend 340 hours, that is, a little more than 14 days. Italy, although it requires you to pay “only” 15 taxes, but to fully repay them you need to spend a little more time than in Hungary, namely 360 hours. Among the represented participants in the rating there are countries that exceeded 50% of the full tax rate, with the exception of Russia - these are representatives of Southern Europe - Italy, and Central Europe - Hungary. The leader is Italy, where a businessman is required to give 76.20% of his earnings so that there are no tax claims against him from the state.
The Russian tax system is surrounded by outsiders, for example, such as Belarus (124 taxes and 1188 hours to pay them off); Ukraine (99 taxes and a colossal time for their repayment - 2084 hours, that is, more than six months), does not look so sad: about 22 taxes and about 19 days a year for full repayment. Although the rate is not too far behind the Hungarian one - 55.1%. For example, the lowest fiscal rate according to the RBC rating – 8.4% belongs to such an island state as Vanuatu.
In Fig. Figure 5 shows a diagram that clearly demonstrates what place a particular state occupies in the overall ranking of the organization of the taxation system throughout the world.
The overall index in the ranking of tax systems was calculated based on several indicators: the total number of taxes, time spent, frequency and methods of payment, indicators of tax rates, as well as the number of government agencies that are involved in the process.
We assessed the taxes and mandatory payments established by the governments of these countries at the state and local levels, which must be paid by each enterprise. The following taxes were considered in our study: profit tax, income tax and VAT.
Among other countries in the world, Russia today occupies a middle position in terms of the level of tax burden. The countries of the Scandinavian model, which are distinguished by a very significant tax burden on taxpayers, are significantly ahead of it. Nevertheless, the social security system in these countries is one of the most developed in the world.
At the same time, concern is raised by the fact that those countries that have carried out reforms over the past year to increase the volume of taxation of citizens have less pressure on taxpayers.
For example, in 2011–2013, the government of Mariano Rajoy in Spain carried out more than 30 tax reforms, most of which were aimed at increasing the tax burden. Thus, income tax increased from 15 to 21%, and VAT - from 18 to 21%. These reforms caused social discontent.
In Israel, where you have to pay tax on absolutely any income, income tax is levied on a progressive scale and amounts to 10, 20, 30, 46% on different amounts of income. At the same time, this country also turned out to be 5 positions more loyal to Russia in terms of the degree of tax burden in the ranking.
Russia is ahead of even partner countries in the Customs Union in terms of taxes. For example, in Kazakhstan, VAT is currently levied at a rate of 12%, while in Russia it is fixed at 18%, and income tax and profit tax in the southern neighbor of the Russian Federation are 10 and 15%, respectively.
At the same time, in Russia, authorities have recently increasingly recalled the need to increase the fiscal burden in the country. This is quite natural, since against the backdrop of falling economic growth rates, falling oil prices and the falling exchange rate of the ruble, a significant deficit will form in the budget, which will have to be covered.
Economists are accustomed to measuring the moderation of the tax burden using the Laffer curve. Its essence boils down to the fact that there is a certain threshold point of the tax rate, up to which an increase in taxes will lead to an increase in budget revenues, and after that, on the contrary, to a decrease. According to many analysts, Russia has already passed this threshold point.
Based on all that has been said above, we can conclude that the highest tax burden is typical for countries with a continental tax system model, among which the Scandinavian states are especially prominent. The global average tax burden is currently 33–34%.
One of the important directions for the development and improvement of any system, and in particular the system relating to taxation, is the study of the content side, which is aimed directly at identifying both strengths and weaknesses in each aspect of its study: organizational, component and functional. During the analysis, it is appropriate to use the method of comparing this system with similar models of other systems in order to compare particular system characteristics and determine their compliance with the mission and purpose of the analyzed object.
Reviewers:
Imyarekov S.M., Doctor of Economics, Associate Professor, Professor of the Department of Management and Trade Affairs of the Saransk Cooperative Institute (branch) of the ANOO VO Central Union of the Russian Federation "Russian University of Cooperation", Saransk;
Kolesnik N.F., Doctor of Economics, Professor of the Department of Accounting, Analysis and Audit, Mordovian State University. N.P. Ogareva", Saransk.