外文翻譯---在通貨膨脹下企業(yè)稅制改革對(duì)中小企業(yè)投資決策的影響

1、<p><b>　　原文：</b></p><p>　　Effects of Corporate Tax Reforms on SMEs’ Investment Decisions under the Particular Consideration of Inflation</p><p>　　Corporate tax reforms carried o

2、ut in EU countries since 1980 entail lower statutory tax rates and reductions in generous tax depreciation provisions. Several countries including the UK have reduced tax rates for small and medium sized enterprises (SME

3、s). This study compares incentive effects of such reforms on the SMEs’ investment decisions adopting a simple present value model. Ceteris paribus, tax rates and depreciation rules vary in the model simulation, while the

4、 application of historical co</p><p>　　The vast majority of firms that operate in advanced countries are small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Therefore, SMEs’ competitiveness significantly affects the

5、competitive position of a country’s economy as a whole. The concentration of SMEs’ activities on domestic market leads to a bounded business vision. Combined with the asymmetric information about profit opportunities abr

6、oad, this fact tends to limit the diversification of SMEs’ investments in an international context. Consequently</p><p>　　Some EU countries including the UK have traditionally had lower tax rates for SMEs, w

7、hereas such a corporate tax reduction does not exist in countries like Austria, Finland and Germany at all. Although it is disputable, those countries that provide fiscal incentives and preferential tax treatment to SMEs

8、 claim that they (1) create a large number of jobs and (2) enhance the level of entrepreneurship, which implies flexibility, speed, risk-taking and innovation (Chen et al., 2002). A further reaso</p><p>　　Th

9、e statutory corporate tax rate is clearly important in calculating the overall tax burden. However, this tax rate does not, in itself, establish the ultimate tax burden on a firms’ investment activity. Equally crucial ar

10、e the effects of depreciation and other investment promotion provisions that determine the tax base (2004). In the practice of corporate tax policy different tax depreciation rules are employed that do not typically ensu

11、re the socalled true economic depreciation (Samuelson,1964</p><p>　　On the other hand, depreciation based upon historical cost is undervalued during inflationary phases, as the real cost of depreciation of t

12、oday’s assets is underestimated when the asset base is measured in nominal terms (Cohen and Hasset, 1999; Haufler and Schjelderup,2000; Ott, 1984). There have been a number of attempts to estimate the current value of a

13、capital good on the basis of indexation (Feldstein, 1979; Feldstein and Summers, 1979; Hulten and Wykoff, 1996).</p><p>　　The research of the effective capital income tax rates based on the so-called user co

14、st of capital approach received a significant stimulus from King and Fullerton (1984). The follow-up studies in this area often suggested that ‘‘the tax systems of most [advanced] economies were characterized by serious

15、non-neutralities in the early and mid-1980s, [...] reflected in large differences in marginal effective tax rates on capital across different asset types, modes of finance, and investor groups, [</p><p>　　Th

16、e effective (marginal and average) corporate tax rates are often defined as forward looking measures demonstrating the effect of tax on future expected earnings on a specific investment project. On the other hand, the ca

17、lculation of average tax burden – for example, in terms of a proportion of aggregate tax revenue to profit or a certain macroeconomic tax base like a measure of the operating surplus of the economy (Mendoza et al., 1994)

18、 – is characterised to be backward-looking since it captur</p><p>　　A similar forward-looking examination can also be carried out based on the present value model (Atkinson and Stiglitz, 1980; Nam and Radule

19、scu, 2005). In other words this study argues that discrete investment choices of profit-maximising SMEs are dependent on the post-tax net present value (NPV). Without taxation, NPV is equal to the present value of future

20、 gross return, discounted at an appropriate interest rate less investment cost. </p><p>　　After the introduction of tax on corporate income, the present value of the asset generated from an investment amount

21、s to the sum of present value of net return (gross return less taxes) and tax savings led by an incentive depreciation provision. An investment project is considered to be profitable when NPV is positive. Only in an exce

22、ptional case when tax depreciation corresponds to Samuelson’s true economic depreciation and its calculation is based on current replacement cost of capital is the</p><p>　　Unlike a large number of previous

23、studies Unlike a large number of previous studies mainly dealing with capital income taxation of large multinational firms based on the user cost of capital approach, this study primarily examines adopting a simple prese

24、nt value model the incentive effect of corporate tax reforms on the SMEs’ investment decisions under the particular consideration of inflation, which were carried out in selected EU nations since the beginning of 1980s.

25、Ceteris paribus, (SME-spec</p><p>　　The agenda of study is as follows. Section 2 briefly explains the recent evolution of corporate tax system in selected EU countries. Section 3 technically describes the ma

26、jor nature of present value model applied for the calculation of true investment promotion effects of tax policy measures. Section 4 illustrates the empirical results based on the calculated nominal NPV under the plausib

27、le parameter assumptions and compares the changes in international competitiveness of individual countries le</p><p>　　For the selected six EU countries this study examines under the particular consideration

28、 of inflation the effects of corporate tax reforms on SMEs’ investment decisions implemented since the beginning of the 1980s. By and large corporate tax reforms carried out in the investigated countries have entailed lo

29、wer statutory tax rates accompanied by a reduction in generous tax depreciation provisions. Among them the UK has traditionally had the SME-specific, reduced tax rates. Yet the timing and dire</p><p>　　Unlik

30、e a large number of previous studies on measuring effective marginal tax rate this forward-looking study measures the tax incentive and/or burden on investment activity in terms of nominal net present value (NPV) under t

31、he specific assumptions of relevant parameters and self-finance. In particular it highlights the fact that the application of the historical cost accounting system (instead of the current cost accounting method) in the i

32、nflationary economy when calculating tax depreciation a</p><p>　　Source: Chang Woon Nam Doina Maria Radulescu,2007. “Effects of Corporate Tax Reforms on SMEs’ Investment Decisions under the Particular Consid

33、eration of Inflation”. Small Business Economics, vol.41, no.4, October, pp.101-105.</p><p><b>　　譯文：</b></p><p>　　在通貨膨脹下企業(yè)稅制改革對(duì)中小企業(yè)投資決策的影響</p><p>　　自1980年以來歐盟國家公司稅制改革，公司承

34、擔(dān)較低的法定稅率、大幅度降低稅收折舊的規(guī)定。包括英國的很多國家都降低了中小企業(yè)的稅率。這一改革在中小企業(yè)簡單投資模型中起到很好的激勵(lì)效果。于其它條件不變、稅率和折舊規(guī)則在模型中有所改變，然而歷史成本會(huì)計(jì)的方法在通貨膨脹時(shí)期應(yīng)用增加虛假名義凈現(xiàn)值。除了國際排名,國家建設(shè)模式的改革效應(yīng)也做了說明。</p><p>　　在先進(jìn)國家經(jīng)營的大多數(shù)公司都是中小企業(yè)。中小企業(yè)的競爭明顯作為一個(gè)整體影響著一個(gè)國家的經(jīng)濟(jì)競爭地位。

35、中小企業(yè)在本國的經(jīng)濟(jì)活動(dòng)導(dǎo)致了有限的商業(yè)前景。結(jié)合國外不對(duì)稱的獲取利潤機(jī)會(huì)的信息，這一事實(shí)將會(huì)限制中小企業(yè)在國際環(huán)境下的各式各樣的投資。因此，他們比起大型跨國公司似乎更容易直接被公司稅制改革影響。中小企業(yè)比起大企業(yè)對(duì)國內(nèi)稅收優(yōu)惠更有響應(yīng)。稅收可能在中小企業(yè)的成本結(jié)構(gòu)中起到重要作用因?yàn)樗麤]有融資和人們發(fā)展復(fù)雜的避稅策略。</p><p>　　因此，一般認(rèn)為中小企業(yè)接觸資本市場是有限制的，包括本國的和外國的市場，部分

36、原因可能是更高的感性危險(xiǎn)，信息障礙，以及參與小項(xiàng)目等等。結(jié)果是，中小企業(yè)在一些債務(wù)方面和大部分傳統(tǒng)的自由資金的投資活動(dòng)中經(jīng)常很難獲得長期的資金。公司稅制度鼓勵(lì)債務(wù)融資并且反對(duì)一些經(jīng)濟(jì)合作及發(fā)展組織國家中的中小企業(yè)，因?yàn)楣局Ц兜睦⒖梢栽诙惽翱鄢虼诉@種稅在融資方式中更受大公司的青睞，是他更容易獲得銀行貸款。</p><p>　　包括英國的一些歐盟國家對(duì)中小企業(yè)都有低的稅率，然而這樣的企業(yè)減稅根本就不會(huì)存在在奧

37、地利、芬蘭、德國這些國家。但是這些國家提供財(cái)政激勵(lì)和中小企業(yè)稅收優(yōu)惠待遇聲稱，他們(1)創(chuàng)造了大量的就業(yè)機(jī)會(huì)和(2)提高企業(yè)家的水平,這暗示的靈活性、速度、冒險(xiǎn)和創(chuàng)新。中小企業(yè)注意稅收政策另一個(gè)原因就在于它是 “一個(gè)內(nèi)在滋生大、有利可圖,與大公司相比是未來的稅收籌劃者和高增長率”。根據(jù)桑塔瑞里和溫雅麗 (2002)，然而，那些低效能的中小企業(yè)比大企業(yè)有預(yù)期較高的概率從市場中退出，也正是這原因經(jīng)過一段時(shí)間慢慢的投資是最理想的，因?yàn)閯傔M(jìn)入市

38、場和投資的其他費(fèi)用在建立階段被減免。在此背景下,政府補(bǔ)助,可能會(huì)降低高效率和低效率的公司之間的差異,因此攪亂企業(yè)家的投資決策,市場選擇以及學(xué)習(xí)過程經(jīng)歷。</p><p>　　法定的公司稅率計(jì)算企業(yè)整體的納稅負(fù)擔(dān)是明確而又重要的，然而,這種稅率, 在企業(yè)的投資活動(dòng)中活動(dòng)中本身并不建立最終的稅務(wù)負(fù)擔(dān)。同樣重要的的影響計(jì)稅基礎(chǔ)的是折舊和其它招商引資的條款。在實(shí)踐中企業(yè)稅收政策不同的稅收折舊規(guī)則通常都不會(huì)被雇傭的保證,所

39、謂的真實(shí)經(jīng)濟(jì)折舊。此外,他們的慷慨一直延續(xù)到刺激私人投資。</p><p>　　另一方面, 在通貨膨脹階段折舊基于歷史成本被低估了，因?yàn)槿缃褓Y產(chǎn)折舊的真實(shí)成本以名義價(jià)值計(jì)算時(shí)被低估。那兒有很多的方法能以基礎(chǔ)數(shù)據(jù)估算現(xiàn)今資產(chǎn)的價(jià)值，這種方法可以證明通貨膨脹率是高還是低。然而對(duì)于很多不同的資產(chǎn)因太復(fù)雜而不能計(jì)算通貨膨脹率。</p><p>　　資本收益的稅率研究根據(jù)一個(gè)叫資本成本的方法取得了很

40、重要的激勵(lì)。接下來這方面的研究表明“大多數(shù)經(jīng)濟(jì)先進(jìn)國家的稅收系統(tǒng)具有很嚴(yán)重的不公平的特征在1980年早期和中期”， 反映在實(shí)際邊際有效稅率有巨大差異的不同的資產(chǎn)類型，經(jīng)濟(jì)模型以及投資組織，他們的整體負(fù)擔(dān)是相當(dāng)高的，尤其是因?yàn)殄e(cuò)誤的調(diào)整了名義稅基通貨膨脹率。在80年代引發(fā)的國際資本流動(dòng)的自由化，奧斯和肯進(jìn)一步發(fā)展了肯-浮爾頓的方法——原來把注意力集中在國內(nèi)投資國內(nèi)儲(chǔ)蓄資金方面,捕捉稅務(wù)跨國公司。研究由格里菲斯和克了姆一起取得了決定性的貢獻(xiàn)

41、以及擴(kuò)展的種估算同樣的方法和邊際有效稅率對(duì)國內(nèi)和外國投資在歐盟與OECD國家。根據(jù)這些有效的稅率的國際研究，外國投資者根據(jù)本國不完整的稅收政策可能會(huì)承擔(dān)比國際更重的倆倍的稅收。然而估計(jì)過高的稅收負(fù)擔(dān)揭示了經(jīng)濟(jì)型最棒的-浮爾頓的框架不允許跨國企業(yè)發(fā)展稅收籌劃價(jià)值的重要潛力，包括稅務(wù)提成費(fèi)，為融資的企業(yè)建立了“避稅天堂”，給國外的收入分配利息費(fèi)用，以及選擇高稅收負(fù)擔(dān)債務(wù)的外國地點(diǎn)或的母國。</p><p>　　有效公

42、司稅率通常定義為一種方法證明了稅收在未來預(yù)期特別的投資項(xiàng)目中是有影響的。另一方面，以平均的稅收負(fù)擔(dān)的計(jì)算為例，根據(jù)一項(xiàng)比例的總稅收利益或某宏觀經(jīng)濟(jì)的稅基測量貿(mào)易盈余,特點(diǎn)是其改革向后看,因?yàn)樗プ?bào)酬過去的一整個(gè)歷史稅的影響的公司投資決定”。 低的原因之一,驗(yàn)證了該方法的普及,在這一領(lǐng)域的資本所得稅, 也包括企業(yè)所得稅總稅收，例如，稅收在陸地上,一個(gè)固定的因素，然而, 在國際背景下稅收對(duì)這樣的影響因素就無法計(jì)算用于生產(chǎn)重要性日益增加企業(yè)

43、的投資決策中的稅收。</p><p>　　類似的前瞻性考試也可以進(jìn)行根據(jù)現(xiàn)值模型，換句話說,本研究認(rèn)為,有些投資中小企業(yè)利潤最大化的選擇依賴于凈現(xiàn)值(NPV)而沒有征稅, 凈現(xiàn)值是公平的未來的收益,以一個(gè)適當(dāng)?shù)睦视?jì)算投資成本。</p><p>　　將稅收引入企業(yè)收入之后,稅收對(duì)企業(yè)資產(chǎn)的現(xiàn)值產(chǎn)生一個(gè)額達(dá)，總的凈現(xiàn)值稅收受著折舊的限制。一個(gè)被認(rèn)為是有利可圖的投資項(xiàng)目的現(xiàn)值是正的，只有在例外

44、的情況下，當(dāng)稅收折舊與經(jīng)濟(jì)性貶值的計(jì)算是基于當(dāng)前的更換資金成本的的通貨膨脹的階段。有優(yōu)越特征的動(dòng)態(tài)投資決策模型包括,（1）能充分考慮總回報(bào)的發(fā)展所產(chǎn)生的一項(xiàng)投資,（2）真正的經(jīng)濟(jì)折舊率不僅僅是來源于內(nèi)在明顯的回報(bào), (3) 影響會(huì)計(jì)處理的方法采用不同的稅收折舊在通貨膨脹時(shí)能夠獲利,（4）企業(yè)最廣泛的在實(shí)踐中應(yīng)用該方法,特別是在執(zhí)行所謂的總體盈利的可行性研究的投資項(xiàng)目。</p><p>　　與以前許多的研究，跨國公

45、司的資本所得稅基于用戶資本成本的方法, 本研究采用一種簡單主要檢視現(xiàn)值模型對(duì)決策人激勵(lì)企業(yè)稅收改革中小企業(yè)在通貨膨脹下考慮的投資決策, 在方法選定自應(yīng)用于歐盟20世紀(jì)80年代初。其他條件不變，企業(yè)稅率和折舊規(guī)則模型模擬在經(jīng)費(fèi)的假定下進(jìn)行，而該情況下的歷史成本會(huì)計(jì)方法會(huì)引起通貨膨脹階段增加虛擬名義凈現(xiàn)值。由于在通貨膨脹時(shí)期大度的稅收讓步措施并不能取得最初計(jì)劃好的激勵(lì)效果,因?yàn)檫@樣的虛擬獲得收益。然而事實(shí)是通貨膨脹率已逐漸減少歐洲較低水平和

46、中小企業(yè)的投資決策中計(jì)算的稅基。</p><p>　　會(huì)議議程的學(xué)習(xí)是這樣的，第二節(jié)闡述了企業(yè)稅收系統(tǒng)在選定的歐盟國家的演化。第三節(jié)闡述現(xiàn)值模型計(jì)算在真正的投資決策下稅收政策措施的應(yīng)用。第四節(jié)說明實(shí)證結(jié)果，在假設(shè)參數(shù)變化下計(jì)算名義NPV和比較各個(gè)國家的國際競爭力的眾多領(lǐng)導(dǎo)的企業(yè)所得稅改革。最后一段的主要總結(jié)了研究出的結(jié)論。</p><p>　　在本次研究中選定的六個(gè)歐洲國家，主要考慮通貨膨

47、脹對(duì)企業(yè)所得稅改革的影響,中小企業(yè)投資決策從八十年代初起實(shí)施。大企業(yè)的稅收改革,調(diào)查表明國家?guī)砀偷姆ǘǘ惵实耐瑫r(shí)實(shí)施降低的稅收折舊的規(guī)定。在英國傳統(tǒng)上, 降低稅率。然而時(shí)間和方向改變個(gè)人所得稅的政策措施并不能總是同時(shí)進(jìn)行。</p><p>　　與大量的以前的研究對(duì)這和/或負(fù)擔(dān)方面投資活動(dòng)的標(biāo)稱凈現(xiàn)值(NPV)，于先前研究的大量的測量稅率邊際有效性不同，這次前瞻性研究實(shí)施稅收減免政策或者在特定的有關(guān)參數(shù)和經(jīng)費(fèi)的

48、假設(shè)下承擔(dān)以名義凈現(xiàn)值計(jì)算的投資活動(dòng)的稅收。它尤其強(qiáng)調(diào)以歷史成本核算通貨膨脹的經(jīng)濟(jì)，在計(jì)算折舊稅收時(shí)創(chuàng)造大量虛假的名義凈現(xiàn)值, 雖然在稅收中假定稅收的股權(quán)折舊和特德-重要的條件。通常,這種形式的獲得在1980-2003年之間逐漸下降，企業(yè)稅率和通貨膨脹率繼續(xù)在歐盟成員國中調(diào)查。</p><p>　　出處: [德]瑟泊凱瑞·漢納，《在通貨膨脹下企業(yè)稅制改革對(duì)中小企業(yè)投資決策的影響》, 公共稅務(wù)財(cái)政.第41