深入挖掘版税:加拿大各省如何改善不可再生资源税

Robin Boadway, Benjamin Dachis
{"title":"深入挖掘版税:加拿大各省如何改善不可再生资源税","authors":"Robin Boadway, Benjamin Dachis","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2665754","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"From coast to coast, non-renewable-resource taxation is a key source of provincial government revenue – and political rancour. Alberta has recently started a comprehensive review of its oil and natural gas extraction tax system. Newfoundland and Labrador is looking at a redesign of its royalty system. And British Columbia has set up a new tax on liquefied natural gas production. These provinces can all improve their current resource tax systems to raise more money without jeopardizing investment. The key problem with current resource taxes in Canada is not the tax rates, but the design of the taxes. Canadian policymakers should be looking at international best practices in resource tax design. Australia and Norway have best-in-class resource taxes that are based on the cash flows of resource production. That better design means that resource companies in those countries pay a high tax rate on cash flows but still have a strong incentive to invest. Western Canadian provinces instead rely on economically distorting gross-revenue royalties for most onshore oil and gas taxation. These provinces should change their gross-revenue royalties to more efficient cash-flow taxes. Cash-flow taxes are a better way of reflecting the cumulative costs that resource companies face to extract energy than are gross revenue royalties. Although Alberta’s oil sands cash-flow tax and Newfoundland and Labrador’s offshore royalty follow many international best practices, both have room for improvement. Those provinces should rethink the rules around how companies pre-pay gross revenue royalties, the limits on the kinds of expenses companies can deduct, and having a royalty rate that fluctuates with oil prices. British Columbia’s mining tax hits many of the right notes. However, the province’s tax on liquefied natural gas exports would be unnecessary if it changed its gross-revenue royalties on natural gas extraction to cash-flow taxes. Likewise, the federal government should consider reforms to its own corporate income tax system to tax cash flows, not profits. Canadian provinces have collected about $79 billion in resource-specific tax revenues from 2009 to 2013. But the provinces can collect more while not harming investment in mining and oil and natural gas extraction if they change their distortive gross-revenue royalties into better designed cash-flow taxes.","PeriodicalId":247622,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Fiscal & Monetary Policy in Developing Economies (Topic)","volume":"84 ","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"12","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Drilling Down on Royalties: How Canadian Provinces Can Improve Non-Renewable Resource Taxes\",\"authors\":\"Robin Boadway, Benjamin Dachis\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.2665754\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"From coast to coast, non-renewable-resource taxation is a key source of provincial government revenue – and political rancour. Alberta has recently started a comprehensive review of its oil and natural gas extraction tax system. Newfoundland and Labrador is looking at a redesign of its royalty system. And British Columbia has set up a new tax on liquefied natural gas production. These provinces can all improve their current resource tax systems to raise more money without jeopardizing investment. The key problem with current resource taxes in Canada is not the tax rates, but the design of the taxes. Canadian policymakers should be looking at international best practices in resource tax design. Australia and Norway have best-in-class resource taxes that are based on the cash flows of resource production. That better design means that resource companies in those countries pay a high tax rate on cash flows but still have a strong incentive to invest. Western Canadian provinces instead rely on economically distorting gross-revenue royalties for most onshore oil and gas taxation. These provinces should change their gross-revenue royalties to more efficient cash-flow taxes. Cash-flow taxes are a better way of reflecting the cumulative costs that resource companies face to extract energy than are gross revenue royalties. Although Alberta’s oil sands cash-flow tax and Newfoundland and Labrador’s offshore royalty follow many international best practices, both have room for improvement. Those provinces should rethink the rules around how companies pre-pay gross revenue royalties, the limits on the kinds of expenses companies can deduct, and having a royalty rate that fluctuates with oil prices. British Columbia’s mining tax hits many of the right notes. However, the province’s tax on liquefied natural gas exports would be unnecessary if it changed its gross-revenue royalties on natural gas extraction to cash-flow taxes. Likewise, the federal government should consider reforms to its own corporate income tax system to tax cash flows, not profits. Canadian provinces have collected about $79 billion in resource-specific tax revenues from 2009 to 2013. But the provinces can collect more while not harming investment in mining and oil and natural gas extraction if they change their distortive gross-revenue royalties into better designed cash-flow taxes.\",\"PeriodicalId\":247622,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ERN: Fiscal & Monetary Policy in Developing Economies (Topic)\",\"volume\":\"84 \",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-09-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"12\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ERN: Fiscal & Monetary Policy in Developing Economies (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2665754\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ERN: Fiscal & Monetary Policy in Developing Economies (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2665754","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 12

摘要

从东海岸到西海岸,不可再生资源税是省级政府收入的主要来源,也是政治怨恨的主要来源。艾伯塔省最近开始对其石油和天然气开采税收制度进行全面审查。纽芬兰和拉布拉多正在考虑重新设计其版税制度。不列颠哥伦比亚省已经对液化天然气生产征收新税。这些省份都可以改善现有的资源税制度,在不损害投资的情况下筹集更多资金。目前加拿大资源税的关键问题不在于税率,而在于税收的设计。加拿大的政策制定者应该在资源税设计方面借鉴国际上的最佳做法。澳大利亚和挪威的资源税是一流的,以资源生产的现金流为基础。这种更好的设计意味着,这些国家的资源公司为现金流缴纳高税率,但仍有强烈的投资动机。相反,加拿大西部省份依靠扭曲经济的总收益特许权使用费来征收大部分陆上石油和天然气税。这些省份应将其总收入特许权使用费改为更有效的现金流税。现金流税比总收入特许权使用费更能反映资源公司开采能源所面临的累积成本。尽管阿尔伯塔省的油砂现金流税以及纽芬兰和拉布拉多省的海上特许权使用费遵循了许多国际最佳做法,但两者都有改进的空间。这些省份应该重新考虑有关公司如何预先支付总收入特许权使用费、公司可以扣除的费用种类限制以及特许权使用费随油价波动的规定。不列颠哥伦比亚省的矿业税在很多方面都是正确的。然而,如果该省将天然气开采的总收入特许权使用费改为现金流税,那么该省对液化天然气出口征收的税就没有必要了。同样,联邦政府应该考虑改革自己的企业所得税制度,对现金流征税,而不是利润。从2009年到2013年,加拿大各省征收了约790亿美元的资源相关税收。但如果各省将扭曲的总收入特许权使用费改为设计更合理的现金流税,就可以在不损害矿业、石油和天然气开采投资的情况下征收更多的税。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Drilling Down on Royalties: How Canadian Provinces Can Improve Non-Renewable Resource Taxes
From coast to coast, non-renewable-resource taxation is a key source of provincial government revenue – and political rancour. Alberta has recently started a comprehensive review of its oil and natural gas extraction tax system. Newfoundland and Labrador is looking at a redesign of its royalty system. And British Columbia has set up a new tax on liquefied natural gas production. These provinces can all improve their current resource tax systems to raise more money without jeopardizing investment. The key problem with current resource taxes in Canada is not the tax rates, but the design of the taxes. Canadian policymakers should be looking at international best practices in resource tax design. Australia and Norway have best-in-class resource taxes that are based on the cash flows of resource production. That better design means that resource companies in those countries pay a high tax rate on cash flows but still have a strong incentive to invest. Western Canadian provinces instead rely on economically distorting gross-revenue royalties for most onshore oil and gas taxation. These provinces should change their gross-revenue royalties to more efficient cash-flow taxes. Cash-flow taxes are a better way of reflecting the cumulative costs that resource companies face to extract energy than are gross revenue royalties. Although Alberta’s oil sands cash-flow tax and Newfoundland and Labrador’s offshore royalty follow many international best practices, both have room for improvement. Those provinces should rethink the rules around how companies pre-pay gross revenue royalties, the limits on the kinds of expenses companies can deduct, and having a royalty rate that fluctuates with oil prices. British Columbia’s mining tax hits many of the right notes. However, the province’s tax on liquefied natural gas exports would be unnecessary if it changed its gross-revenue royalties on natural gas extraction to cash-flow taxes. Likewise, the federal government should consider reforms to its own corporate income tax system to tax cash flows, not profits. Canadian provinces have collected about $79 billion in resource-specific tax revenues from 2009 to 2013. But the provinces can collect more while not harming investment in mining and oil and natural gas extraction if they change their distortive gross-revenue royalties into better designed cash-flow taxes.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Inflation and Productive Capacity - An Empirical Risk Reduction Model Hometown Favoritism and Intercity Investment Networks in China Financial Deepening and Entrepreneurial Growth in Nigeria: A Time Series Analysis (1986 – 2018) Benefits of FDI Subsidies: The Role of Funding Sources The Government Spending Multiplier in Latin American Countries: Does the Institutional Environment Matter?
×
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