商品及服务税和贷款中介服务:澳大利亚

R. Krever, J. Teoh
{"title":"商品及服务税和贷款中介服务:澳大利亚","authors":"R. Krever, J. Teoh","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3243112","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Australia’s goods and services tax (GST) follows the conventional VAT model and treats loan intermediary services as input taxed (exempt) supplies. Financial supplies are defined in regulations in terms not greatly different than found elsewhere. However, the Australian rules contain a number of features not usual elsewhere, reflecting in part different features of the Australian financial system such as the surcharge commonly imposed on sales paid by credit card. A general apportionment rule for input tax credits related to making financial supplies and taxable supplies is supplemented by a de minimis rule that allows many businesses to avoid the need for apportionment of input tax. A unique measure that deems some financial acquisitions to be financial supplies removes any possibility of investors claiming input tax credits. Another rule, adopted to remove the financial institution self-supply bias that favours large financial institutions over smaller competitors unable to bring some services in-house, provides a special ‘reduced input tax credit’ (usually 75% of the input tax) for selected inputs used by financial suppliers in the course of making supplies of loan intermediary services.","PeriodicalId":330166,"journal":{"name":"Law & Society: Public Law - Tax eJournal","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"GST and Loan Intermediary Services: Australia\",\"authors\":\"R. Krever, J. Teoh\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3243112\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Australia’s goods and services tax (GST) follows the conventional VAT model and treats loan intermediary services as input taxed (exempt) supplies. Financial supplies are defined in regulations in terms not greatly different than found elsewhere. However, the Australian rules contain a number of features not usual elsewhere, reflecting in part different features of the Australian financial system such as the surcharge commonly imposed on sales paid by credit card. A general apportionment rule for input tax credits related to making financial supplies and taxable supplies is supplemented by a de minimis rule that allows many businesses to avoid the need for apportionment of input tax. A unique measure that deems some financial acquisitions to be financial supplies removes any possibility of investors claiming input tax credits. Another rule, adopted to remove the financial institution self-supply bias that favours large financial institutions over smaller competitors unable to bring some services in-house, provides a special ‘reduced input tax credit’ (usually 75% of the input tax) for selected inputs used by financial suppliers in the course of making supplies of loan intermediary services.\",\"PeriodicalId\":330166,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Law & Society: Public Law - Tax eJournal\",\"volume\":\"11 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Law & Society: Public Law - Tax eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3243112\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law & Society: Public Law - Tax eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3243112","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

澳大利亚的商品和服务税(GST)遵循传统的增值税模式,将贷款中介服务视为进项税(免税)供应。监管机构对金融供应的定义与其他地方没有太大不同。然而,澳大利亚的规则包含了许多其他地方不常见的特征,部分反映了澳大利亚金融体系的不同特征,例如通常对信用卡支付的销售征收附加费。与制造金融供应品和应税供应品有关的进项税抵免的一般分摊规则是由最低限度规则补充的,该规则允许许多企业避免分摊进项税。一项将一些金融收购视为金融供应的独特措施消除了投资者申请进项税抵免的任何可能性。另一项规则是为了消除金融机构的自我供应偏见,这种偏见倾向于大型金融机构而不是无法在内部提供某些服务的小型竞争对手,该规则为金融供应商在提供贷款中介服务的过程中使用的特定投入提供了特殊的“减少进项税抵免”(通常是进项税的75%)。
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
GST and Loan Intermediary Services: Australia
Australia’s goods and services tax (GST) follows the conventional VAT model and treats loan intermediary services as input taxed (exempt) supplies. Financial supplies are defined in regulations in terms not greatly different than found elsewhere. However, the Australian rules contain a number of features not usual elsewhere, reflecting in part different features of the Australian financial system such as the surcharge commonly imposed on sales paid by credit card. A general apportionment rule for input tax credits related to making financial supplies and taxable supplies is supplemented by a de minimis rule that allows many businesses to avoid the need for apportionment of input tax. A unique measure that deems some financial acquisitions to be financial supplies removes any possibility of investors claiming input tax credits. Another rule, adopted to remove the financial institution self-supply bias that favours large financial institutions over smaller competitors unable to bring some services in-house, provides a special ‘reduced input tax credit’ (usually 75% of the input tax) for selected inputs used by financial suppliers in the course of making supplies of loan intermediary services.
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
Misdirected Recipients of Tax Reform: Section 199A, its True Beneficiaries, and Application to Low- and Middle- Income Residents Consistent Taxation in a Cashless Society Is It Time to Eliminate Federal Corporate Income Taxes? Brief of Amici Curiae Former Government Officials in Support of Respondents, CIC Services, LLC v. Internal Revenue Service Allocating COVID-19 State Aid Equitably – The Case of Denmark
×
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