COMPANIES AND MARKETS
/ TAXES
TRAINING OR PAYMENT?
DRAFT LAW “ON TAX ON ORGANIZATION INCOME” WILL BROKEN PRODUCERS
TEXT / ELENA WARSAW
No one likes taxes, except perhaps the tax authorities themselves. But it is easy to reconcile with the need to share what is earned, if you are sure it is for the good. Tax legislation is one of the most effective levers of the economy. By controlling this lever, it is possible to achieve the development of enterprises, the prosperity of citizens, and the strengthening of the country's power. Or you can just flip everything upside down.
Now the third part of the Tax Code is being prepared for adoption, and the chapter “On Corporate Income Tax” is waiting in the Duma. Two draft documents of this document are submitted for consideration: one is the government one prepared by the Ministry of Finance, the other - by deputies G. Kulik, V. Dubov and V. Hartung.
The Ministry of Finance’s project is purely fiscal in nature: it seems that the creators of the project are stripping as much money from taxpayers as possible, and then even the grass does not grow.
For example, the object of taxation in this document is not profit, that is, the difference between the income and expenses received, but the income itself. Moreover, the creators of the project define the concept of “income” in their own way: as an increase in the assets of an enterprise and economic benefits, including rights and advantages obtained. Clear? It turns out, for example, that the right to receive something is already income. Say, an enterprise has concluded an agreement on the purchase of equipment - pay tax, regardless of whether the delivery takes place or not.
And how to determine what benefit the company received, if it is not about a specific acquisition, which has a certain price, but about another right or advantage? In this case, who will calculate the amount of tax and how?
The project developers are not worried about this. They are much more worried that some "profits" of enterprises will remain unclaimed. And they clarify that "other income is recognized by the taxpayer, in particular, other income." Here is the solution! Say "boss", income, then income - lay out the money. As a result of such "exact" definitions, tax can be taken twice. For example, once - for the received partial prepayment, and the second - for it, but already as part of the proceeds from the sale. Or even better: if someone donates property to someone, then both of them must pay tax on its value. The sender pays it … at a loss!
However, not all income is taxed, but what is left of it if you subtract the costs of the enterprise (they are called tax deductions). But wait a sigh of relief: it is important what kind of expenses the Ministry of Finance is ready to withdraw from taxation. And it turns out that if the income that needs to be "shared with the state" can be everything that the state itself says, then with deductions - no initiative! Their list is strictly defined and cannot be supplemented. Where is the logic? So the state will find some “other” income and, levying a tax on it, will not even consider the costs of obtaining this income! This is not a divide, but a real robbery.
So, for deduction from the tax base, the necessary, reasonable, documented expenses are envisaged, provided for by regulatory enactments, without which production and sale are impossible. That is, exclusively direct production costs. And all kinds of marketing, hospitality expenses, losses from downtime due to external reasons, costs of maintaining mothballed capacities, losses due to emergencies - your problems, dear comrades! Just like (hold on!) Investments … in the development of production. And now this is more than serious.
Now enterprises are interested in spending money on their own development - up to 50% of profits can be spent on capital investments, and this money is not taxed. Such a privilege is not a luxury, just the equipment of our enterprises is so worn out that, if you do not give the opportunity to upgrade it, the industry will stop in a couple of years. And it will stop if the Finance Ministry project is adopted. After all, he does not attribute investments in production to tax deductions and cancels the exemption on capital investments.
However, industry will stop this way. Because, for example, very few people will be able to shell out advertising, which, as you know, is the engine of trade. If now part of the costs of promoting the goods is attributable to cost, that is, taxes are not taxed, then the draft of the Ministry of Finance is different. In order for the state not to overlay advertising costs, only “produced and sold goods (work, services)” should be promoted to the market. That is, the seller (and the buyer?) Advertising will get a pretty penny. It is also disadvantageous to promote companies or, for example, trademarks. This is a blow to sales, and hence to production.