Tax TAX is a mandatory gratuitous payment (contribution) established by law and carried out in a certain amount and within a certain period. N. are credited to the budget of the appropriate level and are depersonalized in them. This is what distinguishes N. from all kinds of fees,

Excess profit

Excess income tax is a direct tax belonging to the group of income taxes, applied as an emergency tax by a number of states, a type of profit tax. The object of taxation is a part of the profit of legal entities (corporations) carrying out commercial activities in the country, and individuals, exceeding its average size for a certain previous period. The applicable tax rates are usually very high and can reach 80-100%.

Historically, the tax was used as an emergency measure in cases of acute financial difficulties of the state and a simultaneous increase in the profits of enterprises and organizations due to inflation, mainly during periods of war. It was calculated by two methods: percentage and standard. In the first case, the tax rate was set at a certain percentage of capital. With the second method, the rate was set as a percentage of the portion of profit exceeding the average (“normal”) profit for a number of previous years (usually 3-4 years).

This tax was first introduced in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (1915), as well as in Tsarist Russia (1916), where it was defined as a profit tax. The tax payers were commercial and industrial enterprises whose net profit amounted to more than 8% of their fixed capital. The object of taxation was the increase in profit, calculated as the difference between the actual profit received and a profit equal to 8% on fixed capital.

The tax was also used by a number of states during the Second World War. All countries applied high tax rates: in the USA in 1943-1945. they reached 80% of excess profits and were calculated using the standard method in Great Britain in 1939-1945. - 100% and both calculation methods were used. Despite the large percentage of seizures, revenues from this tax to state budgets were insignificant. After the end of World War II, the tax retained its importance and was still used in cases of acute financial difficulties of states, usually associated with military expenditures. For example, in Great Britain during the implementation of the long-term military program (1951-54), a tax was levied on share capital at a rate of 10%. In the United States, during the war with Korea (1950-53), the general tax rate on profits and excess profits reached 82%.

In the USSR, the excess profit tax was introduced in 1926 with the aim of “seizing the income of private capitalist elements obtained as a result of the use of speculative prices.” The tax payers were the owners of trade and industrial enterprises, as well as trade intermediaries. The object of taxation is the profit for a given year that exceeded the norm calculated on the basis of established prices. The rate of profit was determined by the provincial financial departments together with the trade authorities. The tax amount should not exceed 50% of the income tax salary. The tax was abolished by a resolution of the Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR dated May 17, 1934.

In the tax systems of developed countries at the end of the 20th century. There is no tax on excess income, but at the same time, there are special taxes on profits. They are introduced for a certain period or for a specific purpose and are an additional source of tax revenue (i.e., in economic essence, they represent a transformed tax on excess income). Thus, in the USA, as part of the corporate tax, the so-called “supplementary tax” was levied at a rate of 5%. In the UK, there was a capital gains tax, levied on the resale of property or securities. Special taxes also include taxes on profits in certain sectors of the extractive industry, primarily in the oil industry (the so-called oil corporation tax - “petroleum revenue tax”). This tax was paid by oil companies along with corporation tax in the UK, Norway, and Canada.

In modern economic systems of the 21st century. More and more attention is being paid to the application of excess income tax, this became especially important after the 2008 crisis.

Excess income tax in France

The attempt to introduce an excess income tax in France caused a public outcry. At the beginning of July 2012, French Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault made a statement that the country needed drastic measures that could stabilize the weak economy. The Prime Minister specifically mentioned the obligation of wealthy French citizens to help restore GDP. The authorities planned to introduce new tax rules, according to which the most profitable large corporations, as well as the richest residents of the country, would pay 45% of their income to the treasury. At the same time, for citizens whose income exceeds 1 million euros, the tax burden would be 75%. Despite the fact that in France the income tax is already quite high, and it is 41%.

However, soon, on December 29, 2012, the French Constitutional Court canceled the increase in the excess income tax of French citizens to 75%, which was to be introduced starting next year. Despite the fact that such a planned tax increase was a rather symbolic action that would affect only a few thousand French citizens, it seriously shocked many foreign investors and literally led to the flight of people with high incomes from their home country, for example, Gerard Depardieu. The richest Frenchman, head of the Moet Hennessy concern, Louis Vuitton Bernard Arnault asked for Belgian citizenship. The media linked this with the expectation of a tightening of tax policy in France, Arnault denied this. Many French rich people have long paid taxes in Belgium and Switzerland, where tax rates are lower than in France: they include singers Johnny Hallyday and Charles Aznavour, as well as actors Alain Delon and Isabelle Adjani, and tennis players Amelie Mauresmo and Yannick Noah.

Representatives of the Socialists in power hoped that the introduction of a 75% tax would help the state treasury receive approximately 300 million euros per year, which would be quite a significant help during the current financial crisis in the eurozone and would seriously support the national budget. However, to achieve this goal, the French government needed approximately 33 billion euros.

The French Constitutional Court, which determines the compliance of all new norms with basic laws, noted that the introduction of such a tax would be unfair, as it would put the French in unequal conditions.

Excess income tax in Australia

On March 21, 2012, the Upper House of Parliament (Senate) of Australia approved a law on a new tax on windfall profits of mining companies. The Australian government expects the tax to add about A$11 billion to its budget. However, it is not yet clear how long the effect of such a tax will be.

After the global crisis hit in 2008, former head of government Kevin Rudd's idea of ​​introducing a 40% windfall profit tax made sense. But as it progressed, the country's most popular politician quickly lost the confidence of the electorate, and this happened just a few months before the parliamentary elections. His deputy Julia Gillard became the new prime minister - for the first time in the country's history, this post was occupied by a woman. She immediately entered into negotiations with the mining giants, who willingly accepted the “peace proposals.”

The parties reached a mutual agreement - the tax rate was reduced to 30%, and a number of other amendments were made (96 points in total). In particular, the tax is now levied only on companies mining iron ore and coal whose annual profits exceed $75 million, which excludes small businesses from the blow. The tax affected about 320 Australian companies, but 85% of the burden was borne by BHP Billiton, Xstrata and Rio Tinto. The rate will be reduced to 29% by mid-2013, but further reduction will be possible only if the financial and economic situation changes. The Mineral Resource Rent Tax (MRRT) law was passed by a narrow 38:32 vote and came into force on July 1, 2012.

Analysts estimate that the Australian mining industry could lose up to 30% of profits as a result of the windfall tax. The new tax will increase investor concerns about the security of investments in this sector. Some experts predict the tax will undermine Australia's competitiveness in international markets and reduce the flow of foreign investment into the country. The tax would be a major blow to Australia's reputation as a business-friendly country.

The Liberal governments in the opposition-controlled states of Western Australia and New South Wales have already announced their refusal to comply with Gillard's recommendations that they not increase royalties on mining exports. This will further cut into the central government's windfall tax revenue, as Gillard's deal with the mining giants includes guarantees that they will be exempt from any state royalty increases.

Excess income tax in Russia

The bill, according to which a tax on excess profits and luxury will be introduced in Russia, may be submitted to the State Duma of the Russian Federation for consideration as early as 2013. At the same time, the country needs to prepare for the introduction of such a tax; in particular, government agencies need to clearly maintain a cadastre of property - land, real estate. A revision of the tax system currently existing in the country is hardly possible. Collection of personal income tax (NDFL) is more optimal and efficient than a differentiated taxation system. Items indicating the wealth of their owners, according to the introduced bill, are recognized as real estate and land plots worth more than 15 million rubles, vehicles (cars, planes, helicopters, yachts, boats) worth more than 2 million rubles, as well as jewelry and works art, the price of which exceeds 300 thousand rubles. The tax rate is planned to be differentiated, depending on the market value of the luxury property. Thus, owners of cars valued at 2 to 20 million rubles will have to pay 1% of their value to the treasury, tax on vehicles valued at 20 to 50 million rubles. will be 3%, and for vehicles over 50 million - 5%. At the same time, not only individuals, but also legal entities will be required to pay taxes for luxury.

Traditionally, there are two main arguments for its introduction: the huge gap between the poorest and richest Russians (their incomes on average in the country differ by 17 times, while in European countries it is three to five times) and the existence of a similar tax in a number of developed countries, such as France, Italy, Great Britain. Opponents of the initiative, in turn, draw attention to the fact that the tax administration mechanism in these countries works much more efficiently, and the tax system itself is more advanced.

Firstly, it creates conditions for double taxation, since Russia already has taxes on property, including those items that are listed in the document. Moreover, the bill does not contain provisions defining the procedure for calculating the tax on luxury goods. But this is far from the only flaw of its authors. For example, it is not clear why the list of luxury objects, along with jewelry, paintings and sculptures, did not include antique books, coins made of non-ferrous metals and many other material evidence of wealth. And differentiated tax rates depending on the value and type of property are not supported by justification and calculations. Thus, the introduction of this tax requires special modifications.

In addition, an excess profit tax may also be introduced in oil production. Final decisions on the new taxation system with specific tax rates and the timing of their introduction should be prepared in the near future. They are currently under development. Fiscal measures for regulating the industry may include the introduction of a special fiscal regime for new fields, differentiation of the income tax, equalization of duties on light and dark oil products, and in the future, a transition to a tax on excess profits in oil production.

The government is also considering additional proposals to provide benefits for oil industry projects that cannot be implemented without government support. We are talking about a system that will minimize the tax burden at the initial stage of field development, and subsequently repay debts to the state and receive benefits when the fields are worn out.

Thus, the experience of applying the excess income tax in a number of foreign countries helps to understand the reasons and relevance of its introduction. However, for a positive result from using the excess income tax, it is necessary to take into account such factors as the political situation in the country, the level of solvency of taxpayers, the formation of the tax base, the stability of the economic system and others.

Literature:

1) Tolkushkin A.V. Encyclopedia of Russian and international taxation // M: Yurist, 2003, 154-162 p.

2) Tolkushkin A.V. History of taxes in Russia//M: Yurist, 2001, 254-258 p.

3) Internet portal. World news [Electronic resource]// Access mode: http://www.novostimira.com.ua/news_38664.html

4) Internet portal. European news [Electronic resource] // Source in English. Access mode: www.euronews.com

5) Internet portal. “Metalloprokat.ru” [Electronic resource]// Access mode: http://www.metalindex.ru/news/2012/03/28/news_38789.html

6) Internet portal. “Ria Novosti” [Electronic resource] // Access mode: http://ria.ru/analytics/20121213/914640274.html

Corporations mean a payment that taxes the income of an organization, the size of which is significantly higher than the average. In most cases, the introduction of such a tax is considered as a last resort financial measure. This refers to a significant increase in corporate income against the backdrop of a difficult economic situation in a particular country. It was first used at the beginning of the last century, first in Great Britain and then in Russia of the pre-revolutionary period.

It should be noted that during Soviet times, an excess profit tax was also applied. In 1926, immediately after the NEP period, it was introduced to withdraw income received as a result of speculation in a variety of goods. Its payers were persons who owned trade or industrial organizations, trading agents and intermediaries. Any tax base that exceeded the norm was considered as a taxable base. Standard indicators were established by the financial departments and trade bodies of certain provinces.

It should be noted that the modern taxation system of the Russian Federation does not provide for the use of a tax on excess profits of corporations.

Methods for calculating the above tax

To determine the amount of tax, two methods are used:

• normative;
• percentage.

In the first case, the rate is a certain percentage of the part of the profit that exceeds the average. As a rule, the income received over the last three to four years is taken as a basis. The interest method involves paying a percentage of capital.

Characteristic features of the excess profit tax

In the modern world there is a tendency to reduce the tax burden, including the excess profit tax. Compared to the seventies, most developed Western countries have significantly reduced the rates for this fee, by an average of fifteen percent.

Very often the tax rate is stepped, that is, the percentage increases as income increases. This is of great importance for small and medium-sized businesses, since it makes it possible to pay tax at the most favorable rate.

It should be noted that the excess profits tax has a large number of different benefits. Thus, the US authorities exempt corporations from paying fees for the following types of payments:

• local and federal taxes;
• dividends to subsidiaries;
• charitable contributions;
• investments to support research activities;
• depreciation charges, etc.

US corporate excess profits tax

This tax was introduced in America in the middle of the last century. According to the provisions of the relevant law, organizations were required to contribute 47% from ordinary income and 77% from excess profits. But the amount of total deductions should not exceed 62%.

Despite the rather strict conditions, the law provided for many benefits, thanks to which virtually no one made payments in full. Insurance companies are a striking example. The presence of a technical typo in the text of the law actually exempted them from paying income taxes. A few years later, the error was corrected, but the issue of making payments for past periods was not even raised.

Stay up to date with all the important events of United Traders - subscribe to our