Economics and management of national economy

Corporate income tax: evolution, problems and possible solutions

Economic Annals-XXI

Economic Annals-ХХI: Volume 156, Issue 1-2, Pages: 44-48

Citation information:
Paientko, T., & Proskura, K. (2016). Corporate income tax: evolution, problems and possible solutions. Economic Annals-XXI, 156(1-2), 44-48. doi: https://doi.org/10.21003/ea.V156-0010

View Full TextDownload PDF

Tetiana Paientko
D.Sc. (Economics),
Professor,
Kyiv National Economic University named after Vadym Hetman
54/1 Peremohy Ave., Kyiv, 03680, Ukraine
tpayentko@mail.ru

Kateryna Proskura
D.Sc. (Economics),
Professor,
Kyiv National Economic University named after Vadym Hetman
54/1 Peremohy Ave., Kyiv, 03680, Ukraine
katarinam@ukr.net

Corporate income tax: evolution, problems and possible solutions

Abstract. Corporate income tax is one of the most important taxes in acquiring government revenue and fiscal regulation of economic activity. Corporate income tax in Ukraine has low fiscal and regulatory efficiency. The methods of corporate taxation used in Ukraine are constantly changing. Many of those changes have not had a positive influence on taxation and economic growth because the equilibrium between interests of the government and taxpayers is not maintained. The aim of this paper is to identify existing problems and propose ways for improving the taxation of corporate income in the context of balancing the interests of taxpayers and the government. Historical and trend analyses were used as methods in this paper.

The process of evolution of corporate income taxation in Ukraine can be divided into several stages, each of them having an influence on income taxation.

At the first stage, the object of income taxation changed several times during the year in order to increase the fiscal efficiency of the corporate income tax. It caused a negative reaction from businesses, and as a result many businesses moved into the shadow economy of Ukraine.

At the second stage, a large number of tax exemptions and exceptions were applied. Most of the exemptions and exceptions were given for special interests without proper controls, and were not meant to stimulate investment. These benefits were granted for an unjustifiably long period, and the excess profits derived from this preferential taxation were not directed at reinvestment in industries, but were distributed among the new owners. As a result, outdated technological structures were not improved. This is one of the reasons why they are not competitive today, both internationally and in the domestic market.

At the third stage, various types of tax incentives were regularly introduced. Their introduction was for a period of short duration. In particular, preferential mechanisms of income taxation for special economic zones, priority development areas, and technoparks were designed. On the whole, the idea of preferential taxation of these entities was aimed at stimulating economic development in depressed regions and boosting economic innovation. Despite the fact that this idea had had success in many developed countries, it did not work in Ukraine, mainly due to the fact that those who had income tax exemptions used them for the construction of tax evasion schemes.

Between 2010 and 2014, the tax base moved closer to being calculated on financial results according to accounting data, and revenues and expenses began to be recognised on the accrual principle. Despite significant progress in changing the object of income taxation, the system of income taxation which was in force at that time retained significant differences relevant to the taxation of income from securities transactions, taxation of banking institutions, insurance companies and collective investment institutions. At the beginning of 2015, the mechanism of accrual and payment of income tax changed radically again. Today, taxes are determined according to data of financial accounting in accordance with the National Provisions (Standards) of Accounting (P(S)A) or International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). However, a number of differences were identified between the two methods of accounting to which the object of income taxation has to be adjusted (tax adjustments that may increase or decrease the object of corporate income taxation).

The changes in corporate income taxation did not take into account the necessity of a balance of interests between the government and taxpayers. In general, those changes were made to increase fiscal efficiency. It is necessary to improve the mechanism of corporate income taxation to find the equilibrium between the interests of the government and taxpayers. It could be possible if the government develop a long term economic strategy based on the welfare economic theory.

Keywords: Income; Corporate Income Tax; Tax Base; Tax Rate

JEL Classіfіcatіon: H20; Н21; Н25

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21003/ea.V156-0010

References

  1. Sokolovska, A. M. (2004). State tax system: theory and practice of becoming. Kyiv: Znannia-Pres (in Ukr.).
  2. Maiburov, I. A., & Sokolovskaya, A. M. (2011). Theory of taxation. Advanced Course. Moscow: IUNITI-DANA (in Russ.).
  3. Krysovatyi, A. I. (2005). Theoretical and organizational dominants and practice of implementation of tax policy in Ukraine. Ternopil: Kart-blansh (in Ukr.).
  4. Dennis, R., et al. (2004). Macroeconomic Analysis of a 10 Percent Cut in Income Tax Rates. Technical Paper Series. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Budget Office.
  5. Diamond, J. W., & Viard, A. D. (2008). Welfare and Macroeconomic Effects of Deficit-Financed Tax Cuts: Lessons from CGE Models. Tax Policy Lessons from the 2000s. Washington, D.C.: The AEI Press.
  6. Favero, C., & Giavazzi, F. (2009). How Large Are The Effects of Tax Changes? Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 15303.
  7. Gravelle, J. G. (2014). Dynamic Scoring for Tax Legislation: A Review of Models. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service.
  8. Huang, Chye-Ching, & Frentz, N. (2014). What Really is the Evidence on Taxes and Growth. Washington, D.C.: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
  9. Laffer, A. B. (2004, June 1). The Laffer Curve: Past, Present, and Future. Heritage Foundation Backgrounder, 1765.
    Retrieved from http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/06/the-laffer-curve-past-present-and-future
  10. Sullivan, M. (2011). Corporate Tax Reform: Taxing Profits in the 21st Century. New York: Apress.
  11. Davis, W. R. (2014). Piecemeal Financial Products Tax Reform Considered Unlikely. Tax Notes, 142(3), 271-272.
  12. Shaviro, D. N. (2014). Fixing U.S. International Taxation. New York: Oxford University Press.
  13. Gravelle, J. G. (2011). Reducing Depreciation Allowances to Finance a Lower Corporate Tax Rate. National Tax Journal, 4(64), 1039-1054.
  14. Gravelle, J. G. (2012). Does the Concept of Competitiveness Have Meaning in Formulating Corporate Tax Policy? Tax Law Review, 65, 323-348.
  15. Mertens, K., & Ravn, M. O. (2013). The dynamic effects of personal and corporate income tax changes in the united states. The American Economic Review, 103(4), 1212-1247.
  16. Koriagina, T. (1990). The shadow economy in the USSR. Issues of Economy, 3, 29-41 (in Russ.).
  17. State Statistics Service of Ukraine (2015).
    Retrieved from www.ukrstat.gov.ua (in Ukr.)
  18. Tax Code of Ukraine (2016).
    Retrieved from http://zakon3.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/2755-17 (in Ukr.)
  19. Paientko, T. V. (2013). Institutionalization of fiscal regulation of financial flows. Kyiv: DKS Centre (in Ukr.).

Received 14.01.2016

View Full TextDownload PDF
In, , , , , ,

More Papers