《外文翻译--在通货膨胀下企业税制改革对中小企业投资决策的影响.doc》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《外文翻译--在通货膨胀下企业税制改革对中小企业投资决策的影响.doc（9页珍藏版）》请在taowenge.com淘文阁网|工程机械CAD图纸|机械工程制图|CAD装配图下载|SolidWorks_CaTia_CAD_UG_PROE_设计图分享下载上搜索。
1、原文：Effects of Corporate Tax Reforms on SMEs Investment Decisions under the Particular Consideration of InflationCorporate tax reforms carried out in EU countries since 1980 entail lower statutory tax rates and reductions in generous tax depreciation provisions. Several countries including the UK hav
2、e reduced tax rates for small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs). This study compares incentive effects of such reforms on the SMEs investment decisions adopting a simple present value model. Ceteris paribus, tax rates and depreciation rules vary in the model simulation, while the application of hi
3、storical cost accounting method in inflationary phases leads to fictitious increases in nominal net present value. Apart from the construction of international ranking, country-specific patterns of reform effects are also illustrated.The vast majority of firms that operate in advanced countries are
4、small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Therefore, SMEs competitiveness significantly affects the competitive position of a countrys economy as a whole. The concentration of SMEs activities on domestic market leads to a bounded business vision. Combined with the asymmetric information about profi
5、t opportunities abroad, this fact tends to limit the diversification of SMEs investments in an international context. Consequently they appear to be more directly affected by the national corporate tax reform than is the case with large multinational firms. On the other hand, SMEs have quite often b
6、een the primary target group of such an investment promotion policy (Chen et al., 2002; Devereux et al., 2004; Hendricks et al., 1997). According to Coyne (1995), SMEs are generally more responsive to domestic tax incentives than large ones. Taxes may play a more important role in the cost structure
7、 of SMEs because they do not have the financial and human capacity to developed sophisticated tax avoidance strategies.Some EU countries including the UK have traditionally had lower tax rates for SMEs, whereas such a corporate tax reduction does not exist in countries like Austria, Finland and Germ
8、any at all. Although it is disputable, those countries that provide fiscal incentives and preferential tax treatment to SMEs claim that they (1) create a large number of jobs and (2) enhance the level of entrepreneurship, which implies flexibility, speed, risk-taking and innovation (Chen et al., 200
9、2). A further reason for the tax policy attention paid to SMEs is that they represent an important breeding ground for large, profitable, tax-paying employers of the future and experience high growth rates in comparison to large enterprises (Hendrickset al., 1997, p. 1). According to Santarelli and
10、Vivarelli (2002), however, those less-efficient SMEs tend to have a higher expected probability to exit from the market than larger firms do and for this reason it is optimal for them to invest more gradually in the course of time, since entry and other investment costs made at the setting-up phase
11、are sunk. In this context a government subsidy may reduce differences between the efficient and the inefficient firms, and consequently disturb not only investment decisions but also market selection as well as the learning process undergone by entrepreneurs.The statutory corporate tax rate is clear
12、ly important in calculating the overall tax burden. However, this tax rate does not, in itself, establish the ultimate tax burden on a firms investment activity. Equally crucial are the effects of depreciation and other investment promotion provisions that determine the tax base (2004). In the pract
13、ice of corporate tax policy different tax depreciation rules are employed that do not typically ensure the socalled true economic depreciation (Samuelson,1964; Sinn, 1987). Furthermore, their generosity has been extended to stimulate private investment.On the other hand, depreciation based upon hist
14、orical cost is undervalued during inflationary phases, as the real cost of depreciation of todays assets is underestimated when the asset base is measured in nominal terms (Cohen and Hasset, 1999; Haufler and Schjelderup,2000; Ott, 1984). There have been a number of attempts to estimate the current
15、value of a capital good on the basis of indexation (Feldstein, 1979; Feldstein and Summers, 1979; Hulten and Wykoff, 1996). The research of the effective capital income tax rates based on the so-called user cost of capital approach received a significant stimulus from King and Fullerton (1984). The
16、follow-up studies in this area often suggested that the tax systems of most advanced economies were characterized by serious non-neutralities in the early and mid-1980s, . reflected in large differences in marginal effective tax rates on capital across different asset types, modes of finance, and in
17、vestor groups, and their overall burden was quite high, in particular because of failure to adjust the nominal tax base for inflation. Triggered by the liberalization of international capital flows in the1980s, Alworth (1988) and Keen (1991) further developed the King-Fullerton approach originally f
18、ocussed on domestic investments financed by domestic savings to capture the aspect of taxing multinational companies. The studies made by Devereux together with Griffith and Klemm (including Devereux and Griffith, 1998, 2003; Devereux et al., 2002; Devereux, 2004) have made a decisive contribution t
19、o the generalisation and expansion of the same approach for estimating average1 and marginal effective tax rates on domestic and foreign investment in the EU and OECD countries (European Commission, 2001; OECD, 1991). According to these international studies of effective tax rates, foreign investmen
20、t is likely to be overtaxed in relation to the domestic type due to incomplete alleviation of international double taxation. Yet an overestimation of the tax burden can emerge since the open-economy King Fullerton framework does not allow for all the important possibilities for tax planning availabl
21、e to multinational companies, which include taxation of royalties, use of tax havens for financing subsidiaries, allocation of parent interest expense to foreign income, shifting options for debt to high-tax foreign locations or the home country, etc. (Altshuler and Grubert, 2003; Grubert, 1998, 200
22、3, 2004; 2004). The effective (marginal and average) corporate tax rates are often defined as forward looking measures demonstrating the effect of tax on future expected earnings on a specific investment project. On the other hand, the calculation of average tax burden for example, in terms of a pro
23、portion of aggregate tax revenue to profit or a certain macroeconomic tax base like a measure of the operating surplus of the economy (Mendoza et al., 1994) is characterised to be backward-looking since it captures the impact of tax on the returns in any period of the whole past history of a firms i
24、nvestment decisions”(Devereux et al., 2002, p. 456). One reason for the low popularity of this method in the field of capital income taxation is that apart from corporate income taxes the aggregate tax revenue also includes, for instance, taxes on land, an immobile factor (Griffith and Klemm, 2004).
25、 However, the effects of taxation on such immobile factors and other input taxes for production are increasingly gaining importance for firms investment decisions and location choices in the international context (Desai et al., 2004).A similar forward-looking examination can also be carried out base
26、d on the present value model (Atkinson and Stiglitz, 1980; Nam and Radulescu, 2005). In other words this study argues that discrete investment choices of profit-maximising SMEs are dependent on the post-tax net present value (NPV). Without taxation, NPV is equal to the present value of future gross
27、return, discounted at an appropriate interest rate less investment cost. After the introduction of tax on corporate income, the present value of the asset generated from an investment amounts to the sum of present value of net return (gross return less taxes) and tax savings led by an incentive depr
28、eciation provision. An investment project is considered to be profitable when NPV is positive. Only in an exceptional case when tax depreciation corresponds to Samuelsons true economic depreciation and its calculation is based on current replacement cost of capital is the tax neutrality guaranteed i
29、n an inflationary phase. The superior features of such a dynamic investment decision model include, for example, that (1) one can adequately consider the development of gross return generated by an investment, (2) the true economic depreciation rate is not simply assumed but endogenously derived fro
30、m the trend of gross return, (3) the impacts of adopting different accounting methods of tax depreciation can be well illustrated when inflation prevails, and (4) firms most widely apply this method in practice, especially when carrying out the socalled feasibility study for checking overall profita
31、bility of investment projects.Unlike a large number of previous studies Unlike a large number of previous studies mainly dealing with capital income taxation of large multinational firms based on the user cost of capital approach, this study primarily examines adopting a simple present value model t
32、he incentive effect of corporate tax reforms on the SMEs investment decisions under the particular consideration of inflation, which were carried out in selected EU nations since the beginning of 1980s. Ceteris paribus, (SME-specific) corporate tax rates and depreciation rules vary in the model simu
33、lation carried out under the assumption of self-finance, while the application of historical cost accounting method in inflationary phases leads to fictitious increases in nominal NPV (Devereux et al., 2002; Feldstein, 1979; Kay, 1977). As a consequence in period with inflation generous tax concessi
34、on measures do not provide incentive effects as initially designed, since such fictitious gains prevail (Nam and Radulescu, 2004). In spite of the fact that the inflation rate has been gradually decreased in Europe the low rate still appears to matter for the calculation of the tax base and SMEs inv
35、estment decisions.The agenda of study is as follows. Section 2 briefly explains the recent evolution of corporate tax system in selected EU countries. Section 3 technically describes the major nature of present value model applied for the calculation of true investment promotion effects of tax polic
36、y measures. Section 4 illustrates the empirical results based on the calculated nominal NPV under the plausible parameter assumptions and compares the changes in international competitiveness of individual countries led by the numerous corporate tax reforms. The final section summarises the major fi
37、ndings of the study and concludes. For the selected six EU countries this study examines under the particular consideration of inflation the effects of corporate tax reforms on SMEs investment decisions implemented since the beginning of the 1980s. By and large corporate tax reforms carried out in t
38、he investigated countries have entailed lower statutory tax rates accompanied by a reduction in generous tax depreciation provisions. Among them the UK has traditionally had the SME-specific, reduced tax rates. Yet the timing and direction of changing individual tax policy measures did not always ta
39、ke place simultaneously and coherently. Unlike a large number of previous studies on measuring effective marginal tax rate this forward-looking study measures the tax incentive and/or burden on investment activity in terms of nominal net present value (NPV) under the specific assumptions of relevant
40、 parameters and self-finance. In particular it highlights the fact that the application of the historical cost accounting system (instead of the current cost accounting method) in the inflationary economy when calculating tax depreciation amounts creates the fictitious gain in nominal NPV (FGgdd*),
41、although the equity of tax depreciation and TED the important condition for tax neutrality is assumed. In general this type of gain decreased gradually in the period between 19802003, since the corporate tax rate and the inflation rate continued to sink in the investigated EU nations.Source: Chang W
42、oon Nam Doina Maria Radulescu,2007. “Effects of Corporate Tax Reforms on SMEs Investment Decisions under the Particular Consideration of Inflation”. Small Business Economics, vol.41, no.4, October, pp.101-105.译文：在通货膨胀下企业税制改革对中小企业投资决策的影响自1980年以来欧盟国家公司税制改革，公司承担较低的法定税率、大幅度降低税收折旧的规定。包括英国的很多国家都降低了中小企业的税率
43、。这一改革在中小企业简单投资模型中起到很好的激励效果。于其它条件不变、税率和折旧规则在模型中有所改变，然而历史成本会计的方法在通货膨胀时期应用增加虚假名义净现值。除了国际排名,国家建设模式的改革效应也做了说明。在先进国家经营的大多数公司都是中小企业。中小企业的竞争明显作为一个整体影响着一个国家的经济竞争地位。中小企业在本国的经济活动导致了有限的商业前景。结合国外不对称的获取利润机会的信息，这一事实将会限制中小企业在国际环境下的各式各样的投资。因此，他们比起大型跨国公司似乎更容易直接被公司税制改革影响。中小企业比起大企业对国内税收优惠更有响应。税收可能在中小企业的成本结构中起到重要作用因为他没有
44、融资和人们发展复杂的避税策略。因此，一般认为中小企业接触资本市场是有限制的，包括本国的和外国的市场，部分原因可能是更高的感性危险，信息障碍，以及参与小项目等等。结果是，中小企业在一些债务方面和大部分传统的自由资金的投资活动中经常很难获得长期的资金。公司税制度鼓励债务融资并且反对一些经济合作及发展组织国家中的中小企业，因为公司支付的利息可以在税前扣除，因此这种税在融资方式中更受大公司的青睐，是他更容易获得银行贷款。包括英国的一些欧盟国家对中小企业都有低的税率，然而这样的企业减税根本就不会存在在奥地利、芬兰、德国这些国家。但是这些国家提供财政激励和中小企业税收优惠待遇声称，他们(1)创造了大量的就
45、业机会和(2)提高企业家的水平,这暗示的灵活性、速度、冒险和创新。中小企业注意税收政策另一个原因就在于它是 “一个内在滋生大、有利可图,与大公司相比是未来的税收筹划者和高增长率”。根据桑塔瑞里和温雅丽 (2002)，然而，那些低效能的中小企业比大企业有预期较高的概率从市场中退出，也正是这原因经过一段时间慢慢的投资是最理想的，因为刚进入市场和投资的其他费用在建立阶段被减免。在此背景下,政府补助,可能会降低高效率和低效率的公司之间的差异,因此搅乱企业家的投资决策,市场选择以及学习过程经历。法定的公司税率计算企业整体的纳税负担是明确而又重要的，然而,这种税率, 在企业的投资活动中活动中本身并不建立最
46、终的税务负担。同样重要的的影响计税基础的是折旧和其它招商引资的条款。在实践中企业税收政策不同的税收折旧规则通常都不会被雇佣的保证,所谓的真实经济折旧。此外,他们的慷慨一直延续到刺激私人投资。另一方面, 在通货膨胀阶段折旧基于历史成本被低估了，因为如今资产折旧的真实成本以名义价值计算时被低估。那儿有很多的方法能以基础数据估算现今资产的价值，这种方法可以证明通货膨胀率是高还是低。然而对于很多不同的资产因太复杂而不能计算通货膨胀率。资本收益的税率研究根据一个叫资本成本的方法取得了很重要的激励。接下来这方面的研究表明“大多数经济先进国家的税收系统具有很严重的不公平的特征在1980年早期和中期”， 反映
47、在实际边际有效税率有巨大差异的不同的资产类型，经济模型以及投资组织，他们的整体负担是相当高的，尤其是因为错误的调整了名义税基通货膨胀率。在80年代引发的国际资本流动的自由化，奥斯和肯进一步发展了肯-浮尔顿的方法原来把注意力集中在国内投资国内储蓄资金方面,捕捉税务跨国公司。研究由格里菲斯和克了姆一起取得了决定性的贡献以及扩展的种估算同样的方法和边际有效税率对国内和外国投资在欧盟与OECD国家。根据这些有效的税率的国际研究，外国投资者根据本国不完整的税收政策可能会承担比国际更重的俩倍的税收。然而估计过高的税收负担揭示了经济型最棒的-浮尔顿的框架不允许跨国企业发展税收筹划价值的重要潜力，包括税务提成
48、费，为融资的企业建立了“避税天堂”，给国外的收入分配利息费用，以及选择高税收负担债务的外国地点或的母国。有效公司税率通常定义为一种方法证明了税收在未来预期特别的投资项目中是有影响的。另一方面，以平均的税收负担的计算为例，根据一项比例的总税收利益或某宏观经济的税基测量贸易盈余,特点是其改革向后看,因为它抓住报酬过去的一整个历史税的影响的公司投资决定”。 低的原因之一,验证了该方法的普及,在这一领域的资本所得税, 也包括企业所得税总税收，例如，税收在陆地上,一个固定的因素，然而, 在国际背景下税收对这样的影响因素就无法计算用于生产重要性日益增加企业的投资决策中的税收。类似的前瞻性考试也可以进行根据
49、现值模型，换句话说,本研究认为,有些投资中小企业利润最大化的选择依赖于净现值(NPV)而没有征税, 净现值是公平的未来的收益,以一个适当的利率计算投资成本。将税收引入企业收入之后,税收对企业资产的现值产生一个额达，总的净现值税收受着折旧的限制。一个被认为是有利可图的投资项目的现值是正的，只有在例外的情况下，当税收折旧与经济性贬值的计算是基于当前的更换资金成本的的通货膨胀的阶段。有优越特征的动态投资决策模型包括,（1）能充分考虑总回报的发展所产生的一项投资,（2）真正的经济折旧率不仅仅是来源于内在明显的回报, (3) 影响会计处理的方法采用不同的税收折旧在通货膨胀时能够获利,（4）企业最广泛的在实践中应用该方法,特别是在执行所谓的总体盈利的可行性研究的投资项目。与以前许多的研究，跨国公司的资本所得税基于用户资本成本的方法, 本研究采用一种简单主要检视现值模型对决策人激励企业税收改革中小企业在通货膨胀下考虑的投资决策, 在方法选定自应用于欧盟20世纪80年代初。其他条件不变，企业税率和折旧规则模型模拟在经费的假定下进行，而该情况下的历史成本会计方法会引起通货膨胀