Inconsistencies of small business fiscal stimulation in Ukraine

IF 1 Q3 BUSINESS, FINANCE Journal of Tax Reform Pub Date : 2019-12-27 DOI:10.15826/JTR.2019.5.3.068
N. Yaroshevych, S. Cherkasova, T. Kalaitan
{"title":"Inconsistencies of small business fiscal stimulation in Ukraine","authors":"N. Yaroshevych, S. Cherkasova, T. Kalaitan","doi":"10.15826/JTR.2019.5.3.068","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article discusses the effects of fiscal instruments used to stimulate the development of small business in Ukraine and the hypothesis that the inconsistencies inherent in these instruments prevent them from achieving the desired outcomes. To test this hypothesis, the authors estimated the percentage of small businesses covered by the simplified tax scheme and analyzed such fiscal instruments as the simplified tax scheme, various types of debt financing and taxation of debt financing. The authors used the data on the amount and dynamics of repayable financial assistance to estimate the scale of the phenomenon of corporate split-ups. The latter might be caused by the interest of large and medium-sized companies in accessing small business tax preferences. To calculate the amount of repayable financial assistance the authors propose to adjust the indicator of other current liabilities for the following indicators: other current accounts payable; interest incomes of resident banks; interest incomes of non-resident banks from their lending transactions in Ukraine; commission incomes of resident banks; and the total amount of corporate bonds. The analysis relies on the data of the State Statistics Service of Ukraine on activity of companies and the data of the National Bank of Ukraine on the country’s banking system in 2012–2017. The results of the analysis have confirmed the initial hypothesis about the contradictory effects of fiscal instruments: 1) In the given period, from 22% to 38% of small businesses did not have access to the benefits of the simplified tax system due to the inadequacy of the criteria for defining the size of business. 2) The taxation norms discriminated against small businesses seeking to use specific instruments of debt financing: instead of stimulating the development of start-ups, these fiscal instruments encouraged large and medium-sized companies to split into smaller units. 3) What distinguishes Ukraine from other countries is the wide use of repayable financial assistance by small businesses to attract funds. Calculations have shown that the share of repayable financial assistance among other available instruments of debt financing in the given period exceeded 28%. Thus, the findings indicate that further improvements of small business taxation are necessary.","PeriodicalId":53924,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Tax Reform","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Tax Reform","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15826/JTR.2019.5.3.068","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

Abstract

The article discusses the effects of fiscal instruments used to stimulate the development of small business in Ukraine and the hypothesis that the inconsistencies inherent in these instruments prevent them from achieving the desired outcomes. To test this hypothesis, the authors estimated the percentage of small businesses covered by the simplified tax scheme and analyzed such fiscal instruments as the simplified tax scheme, various types of debt financing and taxation of debt financing. The authors used the data on the amount and dynamics of repayable financial assistance to estimate the scale of the phenomenon of corporate split-ups. The latter might be caused by the interest of large and medium-sized companies in accessing small business tax preferences. To calculate the amount of repayable financial assistance the authors propose to adjust the indicator of other current liabilities for the following indicators: other current accounts payable; interest incomes of resident banks; interest incomes of non-resident banks from their lending transactions in Ukraine; commission incomes of resident banks; and the total amount of corporate bonds. The analysis relies on the data of the State Statistics Service of Ukraine on activity of companies and the data of the National Bank of Ukraine on the country’s banking system in 2012–2017. The results of the analysis have confirmed the initial hypothesis about the contradictory effects of fiscal instruments: 1) In the given period, from 22% to 38% of small businesses did not have access to the benefits of the simplified tax system due to the inadequacy of the criteria for defining the size of business. 2) The taxation norms discriminated against small businesses seeking to use specific instruments of debt financing: instead of stimulating the development of start-ups, these fiscal instruments encouraged large and medium-sized companies to split into smaller units. 3) What distinguishes Ukraine from other countries is the wide use of repayable financial assistance by small businesses to attract funds. Calculations have shown that the share of repayable financial assistance among other available instruments of debt financing in the given period exceeded 28%. Thus, the findings indicate that further improvements of small business taxation are necessary.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
乌克兰小企业财政刺激政策的不一致性
这篇文章讨论了用于刺激乌克兰小企业发展的财政工具的影响,以及这些工具固有的不一致性阻碍了它们实现预期结果的假设。为了验证这一假设,作者估计了简化税收计划涵盖的小企业的百分比,并分析了简化税收方案、各种类型的债务融资和债务融资的税收等财政工具。作者利用可偿还财政援助的数额和动态数据来估计公司拆分现象的规模。后者可能是由于大中型公司对获得小企业税收优惠的兴趣造成的。为了计算应偿还的财政援助金额,作者建议根据以下指标调整其他流动负债指标:其他应付经常账户;居民银行利息收入;非居民银行在乌克兰的贷款交易产生的利息收入;居民银行的佣金收入;以及公司债券总额。该分析依赖于乌克兰国家统计局关于2012-2017年公司活动的数据和乌克兰国家银行关于该国银行系统的数据。分析结果证实了关于财政工具矛盾影响的初步假设:1)在特定时期,由于定义企业规模的标准不足,22%至38%的小企业无法享受简化税收制度的好处。2) 税收规范歧视了寻求使用特定债务融资工具的小企业:这些财政工具非但没有刺激初创企业的发展,反而鼓励大中型公司拆分为更小的部门。3) 乌克兰与其他国家的区别在于,小企业广泛使用可偿还的财政援助来吸引资金。计算表明,在特定时期内,应偿还的财政援助在其他可用的债务融资工具中所占的份额超过28%。因此,调查结果表明,有必要进一步改善小企业税收。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Tax Reform
Journal of Tax Reform BUSINESS, FINANCE-
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
50.00%
发文量
13
期刊最新文献
MSMEs Tax Compliance in Indonesia During Pandemic COVID-19: The Role of Risk Preference as Moderation The influence of foreign ownership on tax avoidance in Thailand: A study from an emerging economy Rationality of the Tax and Economic Behavior of Enterprises in the Russian Forestry Sector Economic Growth and Optimal Tax Burden: A Case of Uzbekistan’s Economy The Impact of Indirect Taxation on Inequality in Russia
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1