外文翻译-- 欧盟成员国的增值税

毕业设计/论文外文文献翻译院系经济管理学院专业班级会计1202班姓名原文出处Bruce. V AT Between EU Member States[J].Int-ernational Tax and Public Finance.2013,(6).评分指导教师2016年3 月1 日欧盟成员国的增值税布鲁斯.欧盟成员国的增值税[J].国际税收与公共财政.2013,(6).本文结合了法律、经济等方面的知识对增值税（V AT）的征收过程中存在的问题进行了分析。

其主要目的是提供全面的教学工具、法律、案例和分析演习，并通过对世界各国的税务专家和学者的研究分析得出的启发，为未来应对的增值税问题提供借鉴意义。

通过本文的比较介绍，提供了一个分析有关税收结构和税收基础的政策问题，以及深入了解为何产生增值税纠纷，从而使增值税纠纷得到解决。

作者扩大了覆盖范围，包括在欧洲，亚洲，非洲和澳大利亚，介绍了这些国家新增值税的相关发展。

最后用一章对生活服务业进行了补充和案例分析。

增值税作为政府收入的主要来源正在被130 多个国家所使用。

增值税是一个具有普遍性和基础性的消费税，它增加了商品和服务的价值评估。

增值税是在生产的每一个阶段普遍征收的附加值，它也是一个让卖方为买方支付己购买的商品和服务的税款（进项税额）的一中税收信贷机制（销项税额）。

一般而言，增值税有以下几层含义：一个普通税适用于所有涉及生产和销售商品以及提供服务的商业活动；消费税最终由消费者承担；是间接征收消费的商品或服务价格的一部分；在每个阶段的生产和分配阶段间接税可见多级税收征收消费的商品或服务价格；一个小幅收税款，已被控在其所有的采购系统，它采用的是由卖方收取了相应的信贷索赔其所有销售的增值税或增值税的部分付款。

增值税纳税义务的计算方法有三种：信贷发票的计算方法是—加减法，还有另外的两种方法，但是仅仅只有信用发票的计算方法是相对使用广泛的。

信贷发票的方法突出了增值税的定义功能：使用销项税（销售缴纳的税款）和进项税（采购缴纳的税款）一般纳税人收取的增值税应税销售额和采购所支付的应税进项税额之间的差额作为计算其增值税纳税义务。

因此这种方法需要使用发票，分别列出所有应税销售额的增值税部分。

从而销售货物的一方为买方提供购货发票。

销售发票显示的是收取的销项税额，则购货发票显示的就是支付的进项税额。

最后，纳税人通过使用增值税发票抵免的计算方法来计算需汇到税务机关的增值税额。

方法如下：销售发票中的增值税（销项税额）减去购货发票所示的增值税（进项税额），减去进项税额后的余额汇给税务机关；如果进项税大于了销项税一般需退款。

美国是唯一一个作为经济合作与发展组织的成员不征收增值税的国家，然而，增值税已经成为联邦税收改革辩论争议的重要对象。

间接税如增值税产生的税收收入是许多国家的重要税收部分。

在实践中，增值税制度产生全球四分之一的税收收入。

近130个国家现在有一个增值税制度（包括过去10年中已经采用该系统的70个国家）（肯尼和明茨2004年）。

更多专注于国际流动性税基，备受外界关注更多的是税负、间接税、消费税或增值税制度，少缴纳企业所得税，特别是资本所得（戈登和尼尔森1997年）。

在欧盟统一增值税期间，间接税和增值税制度的协调受到重视（费尔等人，1995年）。

一项涵盖所有私人物品和服务的增值税法律都是现行欧盟制度的特点，但仍有许多豁免，这一普遍的指令，在2001年挪威的增值税改革也同样存在。

改革引入了服务增值税一般法，但许多豁免仍然特别存在着。

相比于不完善的、不均匀的系统更多的支持一般的、统一的增值税系统。

这样的系统可以提高经济效率，降低行政成本，寻租和欺诈活动的行业，低利率和零评级大堂（肯尼和史密斯2006）。

一般的、统一的增值税系统相当于一个统一的消费税的所有商品和服务。

这样的系统也意味着，生产者的物质投入净增值税税率为零，不论速度结构。

根据生产效率定理（德蒙和米尔利斯）。

一个增值税制度与豁免是不遵守生产效率定理，因为中间的税收将产业之间的差异，这是最佳的。

在另一方面，它覆盖了增值税制度，但有较低的利率，对他们的销售零的评级行业的青睐，它们可以在全速率撤销支出增值税中间体，只减少销售率或为销售率零。

一个一般的和统一的增值税制度也可能正面影响家庭福利的分配。

如果初始情况的特点是在大部分商品和少数服务征收增值税的税率不同，福利分配就相对较小，因此实行对所有商品和服务的统一税率可能会提高福利，因为服务消费随收入的分配提高福利分配。

热衷缺乏价值利益点（肯尼2007年）从理论的角度出发讨论了这一观点，尽管在实际的税收政策以及增值税的普及增加了税收。

正如上面所提到的，增值税系统一般不统一。

理论分析要求相对简单的模型和简单的税制结构分析的实际政策，经济和税收制度的结构是非常复杂的，需要有一个详细的数值模型，以分析不同增值税的影响系统。

本文主要分析了不完善和不均匀增值税系统的福利效应，通过分析和比较不同的不完善，不均匀增值税系统，做出了一个统一的以增值税体系为基础的动态和可计算的一般小型开放型经济均衡模型（CGE）。

该模型反映了实体经济在许多方面有所不同，从更简单的理论模型，满足规范税收理论的假设，并建议统一商品税，以便减少税务。

在我们的分析中，我们提出了下面的问题。

不完善的增值税制度可以导致经济发展更加糟糕，纳税对象是服务行为的增值税体系还不如纳税对象仅仅只包括商品的增值税体系，这是为什么呢？2001年进行增值税改革的挪威和从1990年底开始增值税改革的欧盟都出现过这种情况。

将一个不完善的增值税体系扩展成一个统一的和一般的增值税体系，会带来很多福利，那么它的先决条件又是什么呢？美国对其进行了解释，不能纯粹依据理论来建立增值税制度系统，因为这样会存在税收楔子和扭曲市场经济。

基线增值税系统是一个非均匀增值税系统，它的增税对象主要包括商品。

这个基线增值税系统与2001年挪威增值税改革相比较，它的特点是统一了所有商品和服务，包括公共产品和服务的增值税税率。

2001年挪威的增值税改革迈出了一步，它的一般增值税系统包括许多服务，但仍有许多免税、零税率和较低的税率。

特别是增值税税率对食品和不含酒精的饮料的征税，其征税率是一般增值税率的一半。

本文对公开收入的中性政策改革、一次性转移的变化以及系统中特定的增值税率都进行了研究，从中得出系统特定的增值税率对收入没有影响变化，但对其家庭福利有所影响。

综上所述，研究增值税对企业税收影响的影响是一项非常系统的工程。

首先，要对该项工程的必要性与重要性有一个清晰认识；其次，要对该项工程的研究现状有一个全面分析；最后，要对该项工程的加强路径有一个科学把握。

只有这样，才能真正夯实该项工程的基础，增强该项工程的有效性与实效性。

V AT Between EU Member StatesBruce.V AT Between EU Member States[J].International Tax and PublicFinance.2013,(6).This paper integrates legal, economic, and administrative materials about value added tax. Its principal purpose is to provide comprehensive teaching tools-laws, cases, analytical exercises, and questions drawn from the experience of countries and organizations from all areas of the world. It also serves as a resource for tax practitioners and government officials that must grapple with issues under their V AT or their prospective V AT. The comparative presentation of this volume offers an analysis of policy issues relating to tax structure and tax base as well as insights into how cases arising out of V AT disputes have been resolved. The authors have expanded the coverage to include new V AT related developments in Europe, Asia, Africa and Australia. A chapter on life service industry has been added as well as an analysis of significant new cases.More than 130 countries use V AT as a key source of government revenue. V AT is a general, broad-based consumption tax assessed on the value added to goods and services. V AT is generally levied on value added at every stage of production, with a mechanism allowing the sellers a credit for the tax they have paid on their own purchases of goods and services (input tax) against the taxes collected on their sales of goods and service (output tax). Generally, V AT is: A general tax that applies to all commercial activities involving the production and distribution of goods and the provision of services; A consumption tax ultimately borne by the consumer; An indirect tax levied on the consumer as part of the price of goods or services; A multistage tax visibleateach stage of the production and distribution chain; and A fractionally collected tax that uses a system of partial payments whereby a seller charges V AT on all of its sales with a corresponding claim of credit for V AT that it has been charged on all of its purchases.There are three methods of calculating V AT liability: the credit-invoice method, the subtraction method, and the addition method. This column deals with only the credit-invoice method, which is the most widely used. The credit-invoice method highlights the V AT defining feature: the use of output tax (tax collected on sales) and input tax (tax paid on purchases). A taxpayer generally computes its V AT liability as the difference between the V ATcharged on taxable sales and the V AT paid on taxable purchases. This method requires the use of an invoice that separately lists the V AT component of all taxable sales. The sales invoice for the seller becomes the purchase invoice of the buyer. The sales invoice shows the output tax collected and the purchase invoice shows the input tax paid. To summarize, taxpayers use the credit-invoice method to calculate the amount of V AT to be remitted to the taxing authorities in the following manner: Aggregate the V AT shown in the sales invoices (output tax); Aggregate the V AT shown in the purchase invoices (input tax); Subtract the input tax from the output tax and remit any balance to the government; and In the event the input tax is greater than the output tax. The United States is the only member of the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development that does not levy a V AT on a national level; however, V AT has become widely recognized as an important option in federal tax reform debates.Indirect taxes such as value added taxes generate a substantial part of tax revenue in many countries. In fact, V AT systems generate a quarter of the world’s tax revenue. Nearly 130 countries now have a V AT system (with over 70 countries having adopted the system during the last 10 years) (Keen and Mintz 2004). More focus on internationally mobile tax bases has drawn attention to directing more of the tax burden to indirect taxes such as consumption taxes or V AT systems, and less to income taxes, especially capital income (Gordon and Nielsen 1997). During the harmonization of EU taxes, indirect taxes, and V AT systems received much attention (Fehr etal. 1995). A general V AT law covering all private goods and services characterizes the current EU system, but there are still many exemptions from this general instruction.Such a V AT system also exists in Norway as a consequence of the Norwegian V AT reform in 2001. The reform introduced a general V AT law on services, but many exemptions are still specified.There are several arguments in favor of a general and uniform V AT system, compared with imperfect, nonuniform (and nongeneral) systems.Such a system may improve economic efficiency and reduce administration costs, rent-seeking and fraud activities by industries that lobby for lower rates and zero ratings (Keen and Smith 2006). A general and uniform V AT system equals a uniform consumer tax on all goods and services.Such a system also implies that the producers’ net V AT rate on material inputs equals zero, irrespective of the ratestructure. This is optimal according to the production efficiency theorem (Diamond and Mirrlees ).A V AT system with exemptions violates the production efficiency theorem because taxation of intermediates will differ between industries. On the other hand, industries that are covered by the V AT system but have lower rates or zero ratings on their sales are favored because they can withdraw expenditures to V AT on intermediates at full rates and only levy reduced or zero rates on their sales.A general and uniform V AT system may also have positive effects on the distribution of welfare among households. If the initial situation is characterized by a V AT on most goods but only on a few services, the introduction of a uniform rate on all goods and services may improve the distribution of welfare because services shareof consumption increases with income.Keen (2007) points to the lack of interest in value added taxation from the theoretical second-best literature in spite of the V AT’s popularity in practical tax policy. As mentioned above, V AT systems are in general not uniform. Theoretical analyses demand relatively simple models and simple tax structures to be analytically tractable.In practical policies, the structures of the economy and the tax systems are quite complex, and there is a need for detailed numerical models in order to analyze the effects of different V AT systems. This paper contributes to the literature by analyzing the welfare effects of an imperfect extension of a nonuniform V AT system, and comparing different imperfect, nonuniform V AT systems with a uniform and general V AT system within an empirically based dynamic computable general equilibrium (CGE) model for a small open economy. This model mirrors a real economy, Norway, and differs in many respects from the more simple theoretical models that fulfill the assumptions of normative tax theory and recommend uniform commodity taxes, combined with no input taxation.In our analyses, we ask the following questions. Can the introduction of a nonuniform V AT system including only some services make the economy worse off than having a V AT system only covering goods and in that case, why? Such reforms characterize both the Norwegian V AT reform of 2001 and the EU V AT reform from the late 1990-ties. Will an additional extension to a uniform and general V AT system be welfare superior to the nonuniform (and nongeneral) V AT systems and what are important preconditions? As will beexplained below, one cannot on purely theoretical grounds establish the welfare rankings of such V AT systems when there are preexisting distortions as tax wedges and market power in the economy. The baseline V AT system is a nonuniform V AT system mainly covering goods. This baseline V AT system is then compared with the extended nonuniform Norwegian V AT reform of 2001, and a general V AT system characterized by a uniform V AT rate on all goods and services, including public goods and services. The Norwegian V AT reform of 2001 was a step in the direction of a general V AT system by including many services, but there are still many exemptions, zero ratings and lower rates. In particular, the V AT rate on food and nonalcoholic beverages is half the general V AT rate. The policy reforms are made public revenue neutral, and changes in lump sum transfers as well as in the system specific V AT rate are studied. With a revenue-neutral change in the system-specific V AT rate, the V AT systems can be ranked with respect to welfare effects.When comparing the two different nonuniform V AT systems, our analysis shows that an imperfect extension of the V AT system to cover more services is welfare inferior to the baseline nonuniform V AT system only covering goods.In summary, influence of V AT tax on enterprises is a system engineering. First of all, it is necessary to have a clear understanding of the necessity and importance of the project; secondly, it is necessary to have a comprehensive analysis on the present situation of the project. Only in this way can we truly strengthen the foundation of the project, and enhance the effectiveness and effectiveness of the project.。