营改增文献

现代诗时间：2020-05-27

【www.myl5520.com--现代诗】

营业税改征增值税的问题研究文献综述
篇一:营改增文献

营业税改征增值税的问题研究-以物流业为例文献综

述

摘要：2012年8月1日起，我国实行营业税改增值税试点，试点行业主要有交通运输业和部分现代服务业。本文主要对所涉及的物流企业进行分析，探究“营改增”后对企业产生的影响，分析其原因并提出相应的建议。

关键词：营改增；物流企业；影响；建议

2011年财政部、国家税务总局印发《营业税改征增值税试点方案》（以下简称《试点方案》）通知中指出，营业税改征增值税（以下简称“营改增”）试点工作主要在交通运输业和部分现代服务业中进行。2012年8月1日起，我国将“营改增”试点范围扩大至北京、天津等10个省市。

物流企业作为从事物流活动的经济组织，主要从事交通运输及仓储、装卸、包装、配送等物流辅助服务，《试点方案》对物流企业规定了交通运输业按照11%的税率征收、物流辅助服务按照6%的税率征收。为此，作为主要改革对象的物流企业，实行“营改增”具有重要的意义和影响。

一、我国实施“营改增”的意义

1.降低企业税负，解决了重复征税问题

“营改增”后，实现了从原来“全额征收、道道征收”的营业税制向具有“环环征税、层层抵扣”的增值税税制的转变，打通了不同产业增值税抵扣链条，从制度上解决了由于货物与劳务税制不统一而造成的重复征税问题。

2.推动利润增长，实现企业自身健康发展

实行“营改增”后，企业合理安排筹资、投资、经营等财务活动，针对供产销以及内部核算等进行合理决策，利用国家法规积极进行纳税筹划和规避风险，既降低了税收负担，也提高了税后利润，实现了企业健康发展。

3.促进产业升级和企业发展模式转变

实行“营改增”后，通过进一步打通、延伸和拉长货物与服务之间、各环节之间、各企业之间的增值税抵扣链条，绝大部分试点企业以此为契机，着力整合资源、开拓渠道、拓展空间、创新服务领域，有利地促进了试点企业经营模式的转变，加快了产业升级，提升了企业竞争力。

4.加速大型物流企业专业化分工，减轻了中小物流企业生存压力

实行“营改增”后，物流外包已成为物流业发展趋势，有利于物流业的专业化分工和服务外包的发展，加速生产性服务与制造业相分离，有利于我国产业结构调整，促进物流企业持续发展。

另外，物流企业外购燃料、设备和修理费支出等的增值税进项税额可以进行抵扣，降低了物流企业的经营成本，鼓励企业进行技术改造和设备更新，促进企业发展；同时，中小物流企业可选择成为增值税的小规模纳税人，降低税负、避免重复纳税，减轻了中小物流企业生存压力。

二、“营改增”对物流企业的影响

据国家税务总局统计，2012年“营改增”试点地区为企业减少税收300亿元，总体上减负300多亿，有20多个行业实现减税。随着试点省市的推进，纳入试点企业户数也在不断增加，减税规模有望进一步扩大，但也有的行业税负有所增加，其中较为严重的就是物流企业。

1.从地区的角度看“营改增”对物流企业的影响

在上海，据调查结果显示，2013年1月67%的试点物流企业实际缴税平均增加5万元，个别大型物流企业的税负增加了100万元。其中上海德邦物流公司1月份实际税负比上年同期上涨了3.4%。

据山东省统计数据显示，山东共有交通物流企业17000户，参加“营改增”试点的142户。如果按目前试点执行，就山东的情况看，七成以上物流企业税负将大幅度增长。

在深圳，物流企业2012年1-6月营业额占深圳GDP8.8%的比重，物流企业对深圳经济起着支柱作用。“营改增”后，物流企业税负将大幅上升，很多企业的资金链中断，如果没有政府补贴，近万家物流企业将面临倒闭。

2.从业务的角度看“营改增”对物流企业的影响

《试点方案》对物流企业一般纳税人设置了交通运输服务按照11%的税率、物流辅助服务按照6%的税率征收增值税，而物流业小规模纳税人按照3%的税率。从2012年“营改增”试点情况来看，小规模纳税人税负明显下降，从事交通运输服务的物流企业一般纳税人税负“不降反升”，这与之前对“营改增”所希望的减税效果背道而驰，导致有些地区出现了争当小规模纳税人的现象。三、试点物流企业税负增加的原因

我国进行“营改增”的主要目的是减轻物流企业的税务负担，促进我国物流企业更快更好发展。但事与愿违，试点物流企业税负“不降反升”，究其原因，

主要有以下几方面。

1.税率设计过高，上下游抵扣链断裂

按照试点方案，物流企业出现税负增加的现象，原因是在此之前营业税税率是3%，变为增值税税率11%，只有抵扣率要达到8%才能保持税负不变，否则税负就会增加。“营改增”之后，理论上11%的增值税是可以抵扣的，但试点企业反映实际税负有可能增加到90%以上。分析其原因主要是上下游抵扣链断裂，没有全面打通增值税链条。由于我国还没有实现“营改增”的全覆盖，许多省市和行业还没有实行“营改增”，这就造成跨地区跨行业经营的物流企业按11%缴税，却做不到8%的进项抵扣。

2.税率上调幅度较大，而物流企业没有足够的增值税发票来抵扣

物流企业实行“营改增”，税率方面由原先的3%上调至11%。对物流企业来说，进项税抵扣方面，主要是汽油和固定资产。由于物流企业大部分从事跨地区运输，如途经的加油站不具备一般纳税人的资格不能开具增值税专用发票。同时对于物流企业前期购买交通运输设备和机器设备，也无法成为抵扣项目。

3.物流企业成本结构因素也是造成税负增加的原因

当前，我国物流企业成本结构是：人力成本约占30%，油费约占30%，路桥费约占40%，另外还有房屋租金、保险费、修理费及资产购置等大额成本，其中人力成本、路桥费、保险费等并不属于增值税可抵扣的范围，而可以抵扣的燃油、修理费等费用占总成本的比重不足40%，对于非新办的物流企业也因无购置资产需求而得不到进项抵扣，从而造成暂时性的税负增加。 4.原营业税差额征收优惠幅度大于“营改增”

营改增后，国家给予试点行业的原营业税优惠政策虽然可以延续，但对已经解决重复征税的，将予以取消。相比较而言，原营业税差额征收优惠幅度更大，增值税税率较高，很难合理规避，这也是“营改增”企业税负增加的原因。四、对试点物流企业的建议

我国进行“营改增”试点之后，对物流运输企业在短期内产生了一些不利的影响，政府和物流企业应共同采取各种措施，立足长远发展，把不利影响降到最低。

1.有选择地降低税率，修改一般纳税人划分标准

《试点方案》对物流企业一般纳税人设置了交通运输服务按照11%的税率，这是造成试点物流企业税负增加的主要原因。政府可以采取调整降低税率、提高

一般纳税人标准和扩大简易计税范围等，比如北京、江苏等相继出台了相关规定以解决改革中物流企业税负增加的问题。

2.继续加快“营改增”改革进程，扩大试点范围

加快步伐，将“营改增”由10省市的交通运输业和部分现代服务业推广到其他地区和行业，尽快实施全面覆盖，使增值税抵扣链条完整以减轻试点物流企业税负压力，实现税负公平。

3.加大物流企业进项税抵扣项目

（1）适当扩大进项税抵扣范围，即将过路过桥费、保险费、租赁费等纳入进项税抵扣范围。

（2）对近5年购置的现存运输工具和机器设备，按年折旧额核定可抵扣的进项税额，而对其他现存物资，则可参照1994年增值税改革时对已有存货进行进项抵扣方法来处理。

（3）加快审核加油站的一般纳税人资格，让物流企业从事跨地区运输过程中购买汽油时能取得增值税专用发票，使约占物流成本30%的燃油成本得以抵扣。

4.申请“营改增”财政过渡性专项补助

在“营改增”试点过程中，多数试点省市都下发了《关于实施“营改增”试点过渡性财政扶持政策的通知》，物流企业可以根据税负增加的实际情况及时申请过渡性财政扶持，政府也应及时调整扶持政策差异，避免税负增加给企业正常经营带来的不利影响。

5.充分运用税收优惠政策，做好纳税筹划

物流企业应当关注运用“营改增”试点新的税收优惠政策，重视不同税制下的税务成本，合理安排筹资、投资、经营等财务活动，进行统筹规划，实现税务成本控制。

6.加强企业相关人员业务培训

及时了解并掌握“营改增”的相关政策，注重财税知识更新，积极组织企业负责财务、销售和采购等工作的相关负责人参加营业税改征增值税的知识辅导培训，使企业涉税管理人员的业务水平不断提高，加强会计人员对“营改增”后新业务流程的操作能力。

五、结论

物流业是在 “营改增”试点中影响最大的行业，虽然很好地解决了物流企

业的重复收税等问题，但实施过程中出现的税负“不降反升”等问题应认真分析原因，积极应对。有分析师预计，短期盈利方面，对物流业会有小幅负面影响，而从中长期来看，将会降低物流运营成本、提升物流行业盈利能力。同时，随着试点过程中暴露出的问题，政府方面会不断探索、积极改进，在全面覆盖后“营改增”政策将更加科学、更加完善。

参考文献：

[1]周艳.“营改增”对物流企业的影响探微[J].财会月刊，2012（10）.

[2]李富颖.探讨营改增对物流运输企业的影响和对策[J].会计师，2012（11）.

[3]刘鑫琪，王积田.物流企业成本控制问题研究[J].商业经济，2010（8）.

[4]樊其国.“营改增”税负反增如何应对[J].首席财务官，2013（1）.

期末文献综述营改增
篇二:营改增文献

宁波大学考核答题纸

（2015—2016学年第一学期）

课号： 010A01AA5 课程名称：经济应用文写作改卷教师：陈钧浩学号： 146330876 姓名：张雨薇得分：

建筑业“营改增”困境及影响文献综述

摘要：“营改增”是完善现行流转税制的基础性举措，有利于国家进行经济的宏观的调控，及时的进行经济结构的调整。建筑业营业税改征增值税在即，但实际试点中建筑业却迟迟未纳入其中，足见建筑业“营改增”难度之大。本文通过文献综述，阐述了“营改增”的概念及影响，综述了建筑业“营改增”面临的主要困境，最后提出了相应的建议。 Abstract: To replace the business tax with a value-added tax is a fundamental measure to perfect the current circulation of tax system, is advantageous to the national economic macro control, as well as a timely manner to adjust the economic structure.To replace the business tax with a value-added tax in construction business will begin soon, but the actual pilot construction has not included, it serves to show the difficulty of this change in construction industry. Through literature review, this paper expounds the concept of to replace the business tax with a value-added tax and its influence, reviews the main difficulties, finally puts forward the corresponding suggestions.

关键词：建筑业营业税改征增值税困境影响

Keywords: construction industry; to replace the business tax with a value-added tax; predicament; influence

“营改增”是政府大力发展市场经济的勇敢实践，“营改增”进程是我国在新形势下，对税收体制完善的重要举措。“营改增”具有着广泛的社会意义，“营改增”不仅能够聚力于经济的增长，同时也能够有助于社会建设，政治建设，生态文明建设以及党的建设，促进整个改革进程的全面深化。虽然困难重重，但建筑业实行“营改增”无疑将促进建筑行业的协调性，有利于行业的科学持续发展。本文旨在通过对相关文献的综述，界定“营改增”的概念，阐述“营改增”对建筑业的预期影响，评述建筑业“营改增”的主要困境，并对政府和企业提出相应的建议。

一、建筑业营改增及其影响研究

（一）营改增概念及意义

“营改增”是营业税改征增值税的简称。其中营业税是一种价内税，计税较简单，以营业额（含税价格，即税后造价）作为计税基数，应纳税额 =营业额（税后造价）×税率[1]。应纳税额为“定值”，与营业额直接相关。而增值税是一种价外税，计税方式

分一般计税方法和简易计税方法[2]。根据《营改增方案》规定，建筑业原则上适用增值税一般计税方法，以销售额（除税价格，即税前造价）作为计税基数，应纳税额 = 销项税额 -进项税额，其中销项税额 =销售额（税前造价） ×税率。应纳税额为“变值”，不仅与销项税额相关，而且与进项税额相关。营改增自2012年1月试点以来，试点地区由点扩面再到全国，试点行业也陆续增加到“3+7”（交通运输业、邮政业、电信业和7个现代服务业）。而建筑业仍尚未纳入营改增试点，足见建筑业的特殊性及改征的难度。这也从侧面反应了营改增将对建筑业产生重大影响[3]。针对营改增的问题，必须坚持从全社会利益的角度来看，把营改增设计的影响因素内化统筹到社会主义社会的建设当中去，仔细的加以审视，才能够做出全面的、系统的判断。

根据国家统计局国民经济行业分类标准，建筑业包括房屋建筑业、土木工程建筑业、建筑安装业、建筑装饰和其他建筑业。建筑业虽属于第二产业范围，但是由于其主要以劳务输出为主，所以成为了第二产业中唯一被划分为征收营业税的产业[4]。目前，我国对建筑业课征3% 的营业税，存在着严重的税制不统一、抵扣链条不畅通和重复征税问题。如建筑工程所用原材料、设备及其他物资和动力价款在缴纳增值税后仍需课征营业税，且流转环节越多，重复课税问题越严重。由此可见，征收营业税已经严重阻碍了建筑业的发展。营改增文献。

（二）营改增对建筑行业的影响

1、税负变动的双重影响

一方面，从企业角度而言，按照目前暂定的11%征税的可能会造成企业的税负增加，对行业资产总量与就业产生影响。因为建筑业中间环节多，涉及面比较广，营改增进程对建筑业的影响很大。对此，部分学者提出建议可以将税率设置为8.1%左右，并进行了模型论证。[5]另一方面，从国家税收角度而言，若采用11%的税率，税负水平将低于最终税收负担率，税负下降过大，会给政府财政带来压力。因此，又学者建议采用13%的税率，使建筑业增值税税负水平介于改革前实际税负和最终税负之间，略低于最终税负率，并能从宏观角度上保证增值税财政功能的发挥。[6]

2、企业风险增加，产品定价改变

建筑业营改增会增加涉税风险，对企业的现金流造成一定的影响，同时直接影响营业收入。[7]具体而言，营改增将会导致建筑企业的收入和利润减少。此外，价外税税收负担最终由消费者来承担，会颠覆了以前的产品定价的模式，将导致产品定价发生变化，进而对建筑市场造成较大的影响。[8]

3、促进产业融合和技术革新

建筑业营改增能够减少企业的重复征税，利于延伸二三产业的增值税抵扣链条，促进二三产业的融合发展的结论。同时，建筑业营改增将利于施工企业更多投入企业的技术与设备，促进建筑业运营规模的提升，实现企业的及时转型。[9]

二、建筑业营改增面临的困境

（一）建筑业客观情况造成的困境

1、原材料来源复杂

建筑业材料存在着不能抵扣的进项税较多的明显特征。建筑业材料来源方式较多，加以建筑企业施工地点一般比较偏僻，很多从个体户、杂货店购置的砂、石及零星材料无发票。[9]此外，一些项目用其他票据抵充的情况也是时有发生。材料采购发票管理难度大，也给增值税进项税的核算及管理带来难题。

2、施工机械使用主体不明确

目前，建筑业基本上是以施工机械台班结算单、租赁单等作为机械使用费进行成本核算的。实务中，建筑企业总公司购置的施工机械，其进项税额都较大，实际使用却是项目部，而项目部又不是一个法律主体，这些都增加了增值税抵扣难度。[10]

3、人工成本比重大

建筑业中人工费平均比重约为20%~30%，低于材料费占建筑工程费50%~ 60% 的平均比重水平，高机械费约 5% ~ 10% 的比重水平，略高或相当于间接费用所占比重水平。

[11]由此可见，人工费是建安工程费用的重要组成部分。而且随着社会经济的发展，劳动力成本的快速上升已是一个不争的事实。但在我国现行法规中，人工成本不能抵扣进项税额，若单由3%税率的营业税变成更高税率的增值税，那么这一部分人工成本将在无形中提高了施工企业的税负。

（二）建筑业生产管理过程造成营改增困境

1、税利失调

在建筑业营改增的过程中税率比例和利润率失调的情况极易产生，建筑业中常见的最低价中标制度严重挤压了施工企业的利润。房屋作为建筑产品，一方面其价格中没有法定的利润，另一方面同业无序竞争，非理性压价，致使行业利润被挤压，始终比较低下。而税费是按合同额收取的，不管项目盈利还是亏损，无一例外都要征税，使得税利比例失调极易产生。[12]

2、生产过程的特殊性

建筑业是特殊的物质生产行业，具有露天作业、流动性大、工程周期长的特点。相比于一般的工业产品，建筑业产品体积更为庞大，且作业时间长，需要耗用大量的人力、物力、财力。施工周期越长，占用的资金越多，但在生产过程中不能提供任何效益，只有在建成验收交货后才能产生效益。因此，较多情况下，建筑业行业企业存在着生产经营困难，拖欠税收的情况，这也为建筑业营改增的推行带来了难度。

三、建筑业营改增困境解决对策

（一）科学配置行业税率

针对营改增后企业可能面对的财务困难，学者们也分别进行了建筑业营改增税率配置研究。部分学者认为增值税11%的税率偏高。其主要原因除上述的进项税额难以抵扣外，还有建筑业的实际利润率低下。事实上，目前建筑行业的平均利润率只有3.5%，其中还包含了多种经营和少量自营房地产开发的企业综合利润率，纯房建施工的企业利润

率普遍达不到 1%。[13]建筑企业应税利润率与实际实现的企业利润相去甚远，据此确定建筑业 11%的增值税率显然有失偏颇。部分学者则持相反意见，认为 11%的税率可推广继续使用，不同建筑企业的税负变化可能不尽相同，且部分建筑企业的税负可能增加，但从宏观、长远着眼，建筑业营改增适用 11% 的税率能切实降低税负，仍具有可行性，并认为要及时的建立地方税体系，健全中央与地方财力与事权相匹配的体制，促进营改增进程的科学推进。[12]此外，对于税负加重的企业，可以通过提高价格转嫁税负和企业内部消化等途径加以解决。[14]

（二）科学规划生产经营，完善行业管控体系

戴国华建议为解决目前建筑业面对的困境，可以细化业务衔接流程，明确材料的收入口径，确定分包款的税收扣除方式，同时衔接固定资产抵扣方法，规范行业的核算标准，以会促进营改增发展的科学性。[15]

邱泰如认为面对营改增的新形势，要切实解决好建筑业购进机械设备进项税额抵扣的问题,同时对其他方面进项税额也要加以合理抵扣。加强税收筹划及管理，加强资金管理，加大应收账款的催收力度，合理调配资金，防止建筑企业资金链断裂。[16]

周建国强调为使建筑业更好地适应营改增税制变化，应该提高其管理水平，合理评估企业现有的成本管理、工程预结算、财务会计等系统，更新换代以确保税改后能够准确地核算会计信息。同时也要注重调整企业的生产组织方式、市场营销和经营模式等方面，完善企业治理机制，主动从供应商选择、合同管理、财务管理、产业链构建等多方面多层次的进行税务筹划，享受税改利益。[17]

参考文献： [1]Stickney C P, Mcgee V E. Effective corporate tax rates the effect of size, capital intensity, leverage, and other factors *[J]. Journal of Accounting & Public Policy, 1982, 1(2):125-152.

[2]竹隰生,任宏,郭敬. 我国建筑业人工成本现状及发展趋势分析[J]. 建筑经济,2007,12:15-18.

[3]邓飞,刘贵文,孔平.我国建筑业发展现存问题、方向及重点领域分析[J]. 建筑经济,2011,10:20-24.

[4]赵慧,齐鲁光. 营业税改征增值税对建筑企业经营业绩的影响探讨[J]. 商业经济,2013,23:44-46.

[5]李兰, 肖双琼. 建筑业“营改增”的税负变化及影响研究[J]. 商业研究, 2014(03):62-67.

[6]王金霞,彭泽. 建筑业改征增值税的税率选择[J]. 税务研究,2014,01:52-54.

[7]杨威扬. 建筑业实行“营改增”的相关问题探讨[J]. 财会月刊, 2012(35):36-38.

[8]万建国.“营改增”对建筑企业的深刻影响和严峻考验[J]. 建筑,2012,21:11-14.

[9]宫丽文. 试论“营改增”对建筑业的影响[J]. 经济师, 2015(05):128-129.

[10]刘光军,任浩,崔胜利. 建筑业营业税改征增值税应处理好几个问题[J]. 财会月刊,2012,10:15-16.

[11]蓝羽. 谈建筑业营业税改增值税的有关问题[J].广西会计,1999,10:20-22.

[12]禹奎,陈小芳. 我国建筑业“营改增”的税率选择与征管[J].税务研究,2014,12:31-35.

[13]汪士和. 基于制度层面的建筑业“营改增”困境分析[J]. 建筑经济,2013,07:5-7.

[14]胡彦炜,赵惠敏.论我国流转税的改革目标[J]. 税务与经济(长春税务学院学报),1996,01:1-5+71.

[15]戴国华. 建筑业营业税改征增值税对企业影响的思考[J]. 财务与会计, 2012(03):41-44.

[16]邱泰如. 对建筑业“营改增”的探讨[J].

[17]周建国. 营改增试点对建筑业的影响[J].

财政研究, 2015(08). 企业改革与管理,2015,23:155.

营业税改征增值税外文文献
篇三:营改增文献

本科毕业论文

外文文献及译文

文献、资料题目：Comparing the Value-Added Tax

文献、资料来源：Journal of Public Economics

文献、资料发表（出版）日期：2011.4

院（部）：商学院

专业：会计学

班级：会计092

姓名：张苑苑

学号： 2009091213

指导教师：孙园园

翻译日期： 2013.6.16

外文文献：

Comparing the Value-Added Tax to the Retail Sales Tax

For Richard F. Dye , Therese J. McGuire

Journal of Public Economics

April 2011

Overview of VAT

More than 130 countries use VAT as a key source of government revenue. VAT is a general, broad-based consumption tax assessed on the value added to goods and services. VAT 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, VAT 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 visible at each stage of the production and distribution chain; and A fractionally collected tax that uses a system of partial payments whereby a seller charges VAT on all of its sales with a corresponding claim of credit for VAT that it has been charged on all of its purchases.

There are three methods of calculating VAT 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 VAT defining feature: the use of output tax (tax collected on sales) and input tax (tax paid on purchases). A taxpayer generally computes its VAT liability as the difference between the VAT charged on taxable sales and the VAT paid on taxable purchases. This method requires the use of an invoice that separately lists the VAT 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 VAT to be remitted to the taxing authorities in the following manner: Aggregate the VAT shown in the sales invoices (output tax); Aggregate the VAT 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 VAT on a national level; however, VAT has become widely recognized as an important option in federal tax reform debates.

Indirect taxes such as value added taxes (VAT) generate a substantial part of tax revenue in many countries. In fact, VAT systems generate a quarter of the world’s tax revenue. Nearly 130 countries now have a VAT 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 VAT systems, and less to income taxes, especially capital income (Gordon and Nielsen 1997). During the harmonization of EU taxes, indirect taxes, and VAT systems received much attention (Fehr et al. 1995). A general VAT law covering all private goods and services characterizes the current EU system, but there are still many exemptions from this general instruction.Such a VAT system also exists in Norway as a consequence of the Norwegian VAT reform in 2001. The reform introduced a general VAT law on services, but many exemptions are still speci?ed.

There are several arguments in favor of a general and uniform VAT system, compared with imperfect, nonuniform (and nongeneral) systems. Such a system may improve economic

ef?ciency 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 VAT system equals a uniform consumer tax on all goods and services. Such a system also implies that the producers’ net VAT rate on material inputs equals zero, irrespective of the rate structure. This is optimal according to the production ef?ciency theorem (Diamond and Mirrlees 1971a, 1971b).A VAT system with exemptions violates the production ef?ciency theorem because taxation of intermediates will differ between industries. On the other hand, industries that are covered by the VAT system but have lower rates or zero ratings on their sales are favored because they can withdraw expenditures to VAT on intermediates at full rates and only levy reduced or zero rates on their sales.

A general and uniform VAT system may also have positive effects on the distribution of welfare among households. If the initial situation is characterized by a VAT 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’ share of 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 VAT’s popularity in practical tax policy. As mentioned

above, VAT 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 VAT systems. This paper contributes to the

literature by analyzing the welfare effects of an imperfect extension of a nonuniform VAT system, and comparing different imperfect, nonuniform VAT systems with a uniform and general

VAT 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 ful?ll 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 VAT system including only some services make the economy worse off than having a VAT system only covering goods and in that case, why? Such reforms characterize both the Norwegian VAT reform of 2001 and the EU VAT reform from the late 1990-ties. Will an additional extension to a uniform and general VAT system be welfare superior to the nonuniform (and nongeneral) VAT systems and what are important preconditions? As will be explained below, one cannot on purely theoretical grounds establish the welfare rankings of such VAT systems when there are

preexisting distortions as tax wedges and market power in the economy. The baseline VAT system is a nonuniform VAT system mainly covering goods. This baseline VAT system is then compared with (1) the extended nonuniform Norwegian VAT reform of 2001, and (2) a general VAT system characterized by a uniform VAT rate on all goods and services, including public goods and services. The Norwegian VAT reform of 2001 was a step in the direction of a general VAT system by including many services, but there are still many exemptions, zero ratings and lower rates. In particular, the VAT rate on food and nonalcoholic beverages is half the general VAT rate. The policy reforms are made public revenue neutral, and changes in lump sum

transfers as well as in the system speci?c VAT rate are studied. With a revenue-neutral change in the system-speci?c VAT rate, the VAT systems can be ranked with respect to welfare营改增文献。

effects.

Ballard et al. (1987) and Gottfried and Wiegard (1991) analyze the welfare effects of different VAT systems including tax exemptions and zero ratings in static CGE models. The separability and homogeneity assumptions in their consumer demand models favor a uniform VAT system, which is supported in their policy simulations. In contrast, our model is an

intertemporal CGE model for a small open economy without strict homogeneity assumptions in consumer demand. Our model is well designed for analyzing VAT reforms because it

distinguishes between many industries, input factors and consumer goods and services. The modeling and parameters in the consumer demand system and the production technology are all the results of comprehensive micro- and macroeconometric analyses of Norwegian data. The model has a detailed description of the Norwegian system of direct and indirect taxes.

Speci?cally, net VAT rates on the input factors and gross VAT rates on the consumer goods and services are included in the model. We disregard the effects on costs of administration,

rent-seeking and distribution of welfare among households. The model emphasizes the small open economy characteristics by using given world market prices and interest rates. Imperfect competition is present in the domestic markets. A uniform and general VAT system is not a priori the most ef?cient in our model.

When comparing the two different nonuniform VAT systems, our analysis shows that an imperfect extension of the VAT system to cover more services is welfare inferior to the baseline nonuniform VAT system only covering goods. Obtaining ef?ciency in production is empirically important for the welfare effects of the different VAT systems. An imperfect extension of the VAT system reduces ef?ciency in production because intermediates will be taxed differently for

different industries. Consumer ef?ciency is also reduced due to lower VAT on inelastic goods and higher VAT on elastic services. Introducing a general and uniform VAT system is not obviously welfare superior in a distorted economy, but we ?nd that such a system improves营改增文献。

welfare compared to the other imperfect regimes. A signi?cant empirical advantage of the general and uniform system, which is revealed by the computations, is also its ability to reduce initial wedges in deliveries to the export and domestic markets.

General VAT Computation

To see VAT in action, consider Exhibit 1 on p. 612, which provides a simple illustration of how VAT is implemented in the production of bread. A farmer grows and sells wheat to a miller, who grinds the wheat into flour. The miller sells the flour 2 to a baker, who makes the dough and bakes the bread. The bread is then sold to the grocer, who sells the bread to the final consumer. In each stage of bread production, value is added by the seller, and VAT is levied on that amount. To ensure that VAT is levied only on the value added by the producer, VAT uses the credit-invoice mechanism. Thus, on selling the bread to the grocer, the baker collects $30 in VAT and claims an input credit of $15, the VAT paid when the baker purchased flour from the miller. The baker ends up remitting a net VAT liability of $15 to the tax authorities. The total revenue created by VAT is the sum of VAT liability collected in each stage of bread production, in this case $50. Although