STUDIA UNIVERSITATIS PETRU MAIOR, SERIES OECONOMICA, FASCICULUS 1, anul V, 2011, ISSN 1843-1127

ARMONIZARE REGLEMENTAT VS COMPETIIE FISCAL N DOMENIUL IMPOZITRII DIRECTE EUROPENE REGLEMENTED HARMONIZATION VS FISCAL COMPETITION IN THE FIELD OF DIRECT EUROPEAN TAXATION
Mihaela GNDR
Universitatea Petru Maior din TrguMure Facultatea de tiine Economice, Juridice i Administrative Departamentul de Finane-Contabilitate Str. Nicolae Iorga, nr.1, Trgu Mure, MURE, 540088, Romnia email: mihaela.gondor@ea.upm.ro

Abstract: Pornind de la obiectivele i stadiul

armonizrii fiscale europene i n baza studiilor din literatura de specialitate, lucrarea dezvolt argumente proprii pro competiie fiscal i contra armonizrii fiscale totale, n domeniul impozitelor directe, rspunznd unor ntrebri cheie precum: n lipsa armonizrii totale, sistemele fiscale naionale au ntradevr un efect negativ pentru integrarea european?; Armonizarea n domeniul impozitelor directe este ntr-adevr critic pentru funcionarea pieei unice?.Utiliznd instrumentele analizei logice, lucrarea concluzioneaz asupra rolului benefic al competiiei fiscale.

Abstract: Starting from the objectives and the status of European tax harmonization and based on the research literatures studies, the paper formulates its own arguments pro tax competition and con total fiscal harmonization, with regard to direct taxation, by responding to some key questions:Have indeed the national tax systems a negative effect on EU market integration in the absence of the total harmonization?;Is direct tax harmonization critical to the operation of the Single Market? By using the logical analyse instruments, the paper concludes about the beneficial role of fiscal competition.

cheie: politic fiscal armonizare fiscal, competiie fiscal Cuvinte Clasificare JEL: F36, F42, G18

european,

Keywords: European Fiscal Harmonization, Tax Competition

Policy,

Tax

JEL Classification: F36, F42, G18

37

Mihaela GNDR _____________________________________________________________________________________________

1 INTRODUCERE

1 INTRODUCTION

Dezbaterea asupra impozitrii n cadrul Uniunii The debate over taxation within the European Europene este foarte aprins. Pe aceast tem, Union is a heated one. The literature on the subject literatura de specialitate este alimentat de o is fueled by one central question: Is regulated tax ntrebare central: Care este cea mai bun soluie harmonization or is market driven tax competition privind ratele asimetrice de impozitare existente n the best solution to the awkward state of prezent n statele membre: armonizarea fiscal asymmetric tax rates that currently exists in the reglementat sau concurena fiscal dictat de EU? The existing viewpoints run the gamut from pia? Punctele de vedere se desfoar pe toat entirely pro-harmonization to pure pro-competition gama, de la pro-armonizare total la poziii pur pro- stances. As a whole however, the literature simply concuren, astfel nct, n ansamblu, literatura de reveals the ambiguity of the issue, as reflected by specialitate nu face dect s dezvluie ambiguitatea heterogeneous approaches and the increasingly problematicii, reflectat prin abordrile eterogene i complex attempts to convey the reality of the ncercrile din ce n ce mai complexe de a exprima European situation. realitatea situaiei europene.

1.1. Obiectivele studiului

1.1. The Study Objectives

Pornind de la obiectivele i stadiul armonizrii Starting from the objectives and the status of fiscale europene i n baza studiilor din literatura de European tax harmonization and based on the specialitate, lucrarea dezvolt argumente proprii research literatures studies, the paper formulates pro competiie fiscal i contra armonizrii fiscale its own arguments pro tax competition and con totale, n domeniul impozitelor directe. total tax harmonization, with regard to direct taxation.

1.2. Metodologia studiului

1.2. The Study Methodology

Considernd important clarificarea unor aspecte Considering important to clarify some conceptual conceptuale general valabile referitoare la issues general valid related on the research field, domeniul de cercetare, acest studiu utilizeaz this study is based on logical analysis and not analiza logic i nu se concentreaz pe analiza focused on contextualized, empirical one. As a contextualizat, empiric. Ca urmare, metodologia result, the methodology used in this study has an

38

STUDIA UNIVERSITATIS PETRU MAIOR, SERIES OECONOMICA, FASCICULUS 1, anul V, 2011, ISSN 1843-1127

utilizat n acest studiu are un caracter abstract i se abstract bazeaz pe evaluri ale conceptelor, noiunilor, concepts, clasificrilor i interpretrilor. 1.3. Structura lucrrii

character,

based

on

evaluations

of and

notions,

classifications

interpretations.

1.3. The Paper Structure

Lucrarea este structurat n ase seciuni. Prima The paper is divided in six sections. The first seciune este introductiv, prezentnd importana section is the introductive one, presenting the temei, obiectivele studiului, metodologia utilizat i importance of the research theme, the studys structura lucrrii. A doua seciune prezint unele objectives, competiia fiscal n literatura de specialitate. A theoretical the methodology and the paper consideraii teoretice privind armonizarea fiscal i structure. The second section presents some considerations regarding fiscal treia seciune sintetizeaz succesele i eecurile n harmonization and fiscal competition in the domeniul armonizrii fiscale europene. Seciunile 4 research literature. The third section synthesizes the i 5 prezint argumentele pro armonizare fiscal successes and failures in the area of direct tax total, respectiv pro competiie fiscal n domeniul harmonization. The section 4 and 5 present the fiscalitii directe. n seciunea final sunt arguments pro total tax harmonization, respectively pro fiscal competition in the field of direct taxation. The final section presents the conclusions. prezentate concluziile lucrrii.

2 CONSIDERAII TEORETICE PRIVIND ARMONIZAREA FISCAL I COMPETIIA FISCAL N LITERATURA DE SPECIALITATE

2 THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING FISCAL HARMONIZATION AND FISCAL COMPETITION IN THE RESEARCH LITERATURE
Nerudova (2008) total tax

Armonizarea

fiscal

total

este

definit

de According

Nerudova (2008) ca fiind rezultatul concertat al harmonization is defined as the result of the armonizrii structurale i al armonizrii cotelor de structural harmonization and harmonization of the impozitare. Acelai autor definete armonizarea tax rates. According the same author, the structural structural ca rezultatul armonizrii structurii harmonization is defined as the result of the impozitelor. Armonizarea fiscal poate fi, de harmonization of the structure of taxes. Tax asemenea, neleas ca proces, ca instrumente harmonization can also be understood as the pentru atingerea scopului selectat i ca rezultat, de process, the tools for reaching the selected aim and

39

Mihaela GNDR _____________________________________________________________________________________________

armonizare a legislaiei fiscale n sine mpreun the result, harmonization of tax legislation itself (Nerudova, 2008). Rolul i dimensiunea implicrii statului together. (Nerudova, 2008) n The role and the dimension of the state

economie depind de modul n care statul utilizeaz involvement in the economy depends on the way politica fiscal ca i instrument. n analiza the state use as an instrument the fiscal policy. In impactului politicii fiscale asupa creterii the context of analyzing the impact of fiscal policy

economice nu trebuie ignorate efectele pe termen on economic growth it must be taken into scurt, politica fiscal reprezentnd un instrument consideration that fiscal policy is an instrument for prin care sunt atenuate fluctuaiile pe termen scurt, reducing the short-term fluctuations, taxes and impozitele i cheltuielile bugetare fiind folosite ca budgetary expenses are being used for influencing prghii n modificarea cererii agregate pentru a the aggregate demand in order to direct the deplasa economia ctre nivelul potenial al PIB. economy to the potential GDP. (Braoveanu i alii, (Braoveanu i alii, 2009) 2009) Conform Fabrizio i Mody (2006), politica fiscal According (Fabrizio i Mody, 2006), fiscal policy reprezint mai mult o prioritate politic dect una represents more a political priority than an economic, concluzie rezultat n urma studiului economical realizat pentru Romnia, Bulgaria, one, as it results from their

Lituania, econometrical study for 1997-2003 period, using

Letonia, Estonia, Polonia, Ungaria, Republica data for Romania, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Latvia, Ceh, Slovacia i Slovenia. Analizele econometrice Estonia, Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, realizate n perioada 1997-2003 arat c nici 50% Slovakia and Slovenia. The econometrical analysis din modificrile ncasrilor fiscale nu se pot explica shows that not even 50% of the changes in fiscal pe baza modificrilor variabilelor macroeconomice. revenues could be explained through the Estimarea ponderii n PIB a veniturilor fiscale au macroeconomic variables changes. The estimation fost realizate pe baza regresiei: yit = + vi + t ut +xit +wit +sit +it , (1) unde: where: vi a set of specific effects for the country i, in this ut common effects for all the countries in year t; xit economical variables; of fiscal revenues on GDP was made based on the following regression: yit = + vi + t ut +xit +wit +sit +it , (1)

yit ponderea n PIB a veniturilor fiscale n ara i yit fiscal revenues on GDP in country i in year t; n anul t; vi un set de efecte specifice rii respective, model considered exogenous; considerate exogene acestui model; ut efecte comune tuturor rilor n perioada t ;

40

STUDIA UNIVERSITATIS PETRU MAIOR, SERIES OECONOMICA, FASCICULUS 1, anul V, 2011, ISSN 1843-1127

xit variabile de control economic; wit variabile de control politic; sit indexul instituiilor fiscale.

wit political variables; sit fiscal institutions index. According Braoveanu et all, (2009), 1% change of

Conform Braoveanu i alii (2009), modificarea fiscal revenues corresponds to a change of fiscalitii cu 1% corespunde unei modificri medii Economic Growth in the opposite direction by a creterii economice reale, de semn contrar, cu 1.5533%, a change of Public Debt in the opposite 1,5533%, unei modificri medii a datoriei publice, direction by 2.1336%, a change of unemployment de semn contrar, cu 2,1336%, unei modificri in the opposite direction by 0.5362% and a change medii a ratei omajului, de semn contrar, cu of inflation rate in the same direction by 11.053%. 0,5362% i unei modificri medii a ratei inflaiei, According to the same source, 39.47% of the de acelai semn, cu 11,053%. Conform aceleiai variance of economic growth rates change is surse citate, modificarea presiunii fiscale explic explained by the change of overall tax burden, 39,47% din variaia ratei de cretere economic, 46.26% of the variation in public debt over GDP is 46,26% din variaia ponderii datoriei publice n explained by the change of overall tax burden, PIB, 20,17% din variaia ratei omajului i 12,22% 20.17% of the variance of the unemployment rate is din variaia ratei inflaiei. Corelaiile dintre aceste explained by the change of overall tax burden and variabile au fost testate prin aplicarea tehnicii de 12.22% of the variance of the inflation rate is regresie, cauzalitatea Granger i analiza pe explained also by the change of overall tax burden. intervale asupra bazei de date care conine valori The correlations between these variables were anuale ale indicatorilor n perioada 1990-2007, n tested by applying the regression technique, Romnia. Granger causality and interval analysis on the data Pornind de la analizele lui Fabrizio i continund base contains annual values of the indicators in the cu rezultatele cercetrii lui Braoveanu, am ajuns la period 1990-2007, in Romania. concluzia c politica fiscal este un instrument Starting with the Fabrizios conclusion and utilizat discreionar de autoritatea politic i continuing with Braoveanus research results, we executiv pentru a influena mai indicatorii can conclude that fiscal policy is used by political departe cu and executive authority as a discretionary

macroeconomici.

Mergnd

raionamentul, n condiiile disparitilor naionale instrument for influencing the macroeconomic ale condiiilor economice, politice i culturale, indicators. Going forward with the reasoning in fiecare stat membru va utiliza acest instrument n terms of national disparities of economical, mod diferit, ceea ce exclude armonizarea fiscal political and cultural conditions, each Member total la nivelul Uniunii Europene. State will use the fiscal tool in a different way,

Conform Smith (1999), este incorect a se considera which excludes the total tax harmonization at

41

Mihaela GNDR _____________________________________________________________________________________________

c armonizarea fiscal este absolut necesar pentru European Union level. piaa intern sau pentru uniunea monetar. As quotes (Smith, 1999), the declaration that the Argumentele autorului se sprijin pe exemplul tax harmonization is needed due to the internal Statelor Unite ale Americii, n cazul crora exist market or monetary union, is incorrect. The above diferene remarcabile privind sistemele fiscale, mentioned supports by the example of the U.S.A., chiar dac n aceast zon gradul de integrare where there are remarkable differences in taxation, economic i politic este mai mare dect la nivelul even though it is the area with higher economic and Uniunii Europene. Conform autorului, temerile political integration than European Union. The privind jurisdiciile cu fiscalitate redus i fears from spillover effects to the low tax eventualele efecte colaterale, nu-i au obiectul. n jurisdictions are according to the author not just. cadrul UE, jurisdiciile cu fiscalitate mai ridicat Higher tax jurisdiction in the EU offer qualified ofer for de munc calificat i mediu de afaceri labor force and stable business environment. On stabil. Dimpotriv, jurisdiciile cu fiscalitate the contrary, low tax jurisdictions try to establish sczut ncearc s-i gseasc locul pe piaa on the internal market. The author adds that in case intern. Autorul adaug, c, n cazul n care that the process would be stopped by the tax procesul ar fi oprit de armonizarea fiscal, Uniunea harmonization; the European Union would be less European ar fi mai puin convergent dect converged than ever before. oricnd nainte. According to Mitchell (2001) tax competition Potrivit lui Mitchell (2001) concurena fiscal generates responsible tax policy. Lower tax burden genereaz politici fiscale responsabile. Micorarea of business subjects creates the fertile soil for poverii fiscale pentru subiecii din afaceri creeaz higher economic growth. Without the tax sol fertil pentru o cretere economic mai mare. competition the governments could behave as the Fr existena concurenei fiscale, guvernele ar monopoly to levy the excessive taxes. As the putea adopta comportament genereaz de impozitare. tip monopol, mention (Mitchell, 2002), the tax competition

percepnd taxe excesive. Potrivit Mitchell (2002), always results in decrease in the statutory tax rates. concurena micorarea fiscal ratelor ntotdeauna The increased capital mobility results in situation, Creterea when the taxpayer can move the capital in the low

mobilitii capitalului genereaz situaii n care tax jurisdictions very easily. From that reason the contribuabilul i mut foarte uor capitalul n tax competition can be considered as very jurisdicii cu fiscalitate mai redus. Din acest important factor supporting the liberalization of the motiv, concurena fiscal poate fi considerat un world economics, for it creates the pressure on factor foarte important de sprijinire a liberalizrii decrease in tax rates and in budget expenditures. economiei mondiale, deoarece creeaz presiune pe

42

STUDIA UNIVERSITATIS PETRU MAIOR, SERIES OECONOMICA, FASCICULUS 1, anul V, 2011, ISSN 1843-1127

reducerea ratelor de impozitare i a cheltuielilor bugetare.

3 STADIUL ARMONIZRII FISCALE EUROPENE

3 THE STATUS OF EUROPEAN TAX HARMONIZATION

Directiva fundamental n domeniul impozitelor The fundamental directive in the field of direct directe este Directiva 77/799/CEE din 19 taxes is Council Directive 77/799/EEC of 19th decembrie 1977 privind asistena mutual acordat December 1977 concerning mutual assistance by de autoritile competente din statele membre n the competent authorities of the Member States in domeniul impozitrii directe n vederea controlrii the field of direct taxation for the reasons of activitilor companiilor multinaionale. n 1997, controlling the multinational companies activities. valabilitatea acestei directive a fost extins i In 1997 the validity of this directive was extended asupra impozitele indirecte, n special asupra taxei and includes the indirect taxes too, especially value pe valoarea adugat. added tax. n legtur cu instituirea pieei interne, n 1990 au In connection with the establishment of the internal fost adoptate dou directive foarte importante market two very important directives were adopted privind impozitul pe profit. Ambele directive sunt in 1990 concerning the corporate taxation. Both of n vigoare din 1993. Prima Directiv, Directiva nr. these directives are in force since 1993. The first 90/434/CEE din 23 iulie 1990, este cunoscut ca Council directive no. 90/434/EEC from 23rd July Directiva privind fuziunile. Aceasta reglementeaz 1990 is known as The Merger Directive. It obligaia fiscal care rezult din randamentul de regulates deferment of the tax liability resulting capital n cursul fuziunilor, divizrilor, from capital yield during merger, business transferurilor de active i schimburilor de aciuni n divisions, transfer of assets and cross-border shares cadrul Uniunii Europene. Scopul directivei este de exchange within the European Union. The aim of a evita impozitarea profitului care poate aprea n the directive is to avoid taxation of the profit, cursul fuziunii din diferena dintre valoarea de which can arise during the merger from the transfer a activelor i pasivelor i valoarea lor difference between value of the transfer of assets contabil. Directiva privind fuziunile a fost and liabilities and their accounting carrying value. modificat prin Directiva nr. 2005/19/CE, care The Merger Directive was amended by the extinde competenele existente, permind n directive no. 2005/19/EC, which was adopted special transferul sediului i reorganizarea particularly in connection with the establishment of companiei europene n cadrul Uniunii Europene, the statute of the European company, enabling its

43

Mihaela GNDR _____________________________________________________________________________________________

fr nici un obstacol fiscal. Noua directiv se transfer of the seats and its reorganization without asigur c transformarea sucursalei n filial nu va any fiscal obstacles. The new directive ensures that avea consecine fiscale i introduce un nou tip de transformation of the branch to the subsidiary will tranzacie - aa numita split off. not have any tax consequences and includes a new A doua directiv, Directiva nr. 90/435/CEE din 23 type of transaction so called split off. iulie 1990 privind un sistem comun de impozitare The second directive no. 90/435/EEC from 23rd aplicabil societilor-mam i filialelor, cunoscut July1990 sub numele de Directiva privind known as The Parent-Subsidiary

filialele, Directive regulates the system of the taxation of the

reglementeaz sistemul de impozitare al grupului group of companies, which operate on the national de firme, care opereaz la nivel naional i level and companies, which operate within the companii, care funcioneaz n cadrul Uniunii European Union. The aims of the directive are to Europene. Scopul directivei este s se asigure c ensure that member state of the parent company statul membru al societii-mam fie nu either does not tax the incomes of the subsidiary impoziteaz veniturile filialei avnd sediul n alt with the seat in other member state or if these stat membru, fie n cazul n care aceste venituri incomes are taxed, it enables parent company to sunt impozitate, permite companiei-mam s deduct the income tax paid by subsidiary in other deduc din baza de impozitare, impozitul pe venit member state from the tax base; to exempt the pltit de filial n alt stat membru i s scuteasc distribution of the net profit of the subsidiary from repartizarea profitului net al filialei de reinerea la the withholding tax. In 2003 was adopted the surs. n 2003 a fost adoptat Directiva nr. directive no. 2003/123/EC, which amends the 2003/123/CE, care modific Directiva privind original Parent-Subsidiary Directive and extends filialele, extinzndu-i competena i asupra the competence of directive to distribution of distribuirii profiturilor obinute de un sediu profits obtained from the permanent establishment permanent situat ntr-un stat membru ctre filiala located in one member state from the subsidiary, care are reedina n alt stat membru; distribuirii which is resident in other member state; profitului companiei ctre sediile permanente, care distribution of profit of the company to permanent sunt situate n alt stat membru dect companiile i establishments, which are located in other member filialele. state than companies and subsidiaries. Convenia de arbitraj nr. 90/436/CEE se aplic n The Arbitration Convention no. 90/436/EEC is Uniunea European ncepnd cu anul 1995 pentru o valid in the European Union since 1995 for the perioad de cinci ani, scopul su fiind eliminarea period of five years and its aim is to eliminate dublei impuneri care ar putea s apar n cazul double taxation which could arise in the case of interpretrii diferite n ri diferite a principiului different interpretation of principle of the transfer

44

STUDIA UNIVERSITATIS PETRU MAIOR, SERIES OECONOMICA, FASCICULUS 1, anul V, 2011, ISSN 1843-1127

privind preurile de transfer. Pn n prezent, pricing in different countries. Until now the perioada de valabilitate a conveniei a fost validity of the convention has been always ntotdeauna prelungit cu ali cinci ani, convenia extended by other five years. Nowadays it is valid fiind valabil pn n 2015. until 2015.

Directiva Economiilor nr. 2003/48/EEC a intrat n The Savings Directive no. 2003/48/EEC entered vigoare la 1 iulie 2005 i oblig statele membre s into force since 1st July 2005 and oblige the furnizeze celorlalte state membre informaii despre member states to provide other member states with dobnzile care au fost pltite deponenilor persoane information about interests, which were paid off to fizice avnd domiciliul sau rezidena n alt stat the individual savers. dect cel n care i-a depus economiile. The uniform system of the interest payments and Sistemul comun de impozitare aplicabil plilor royalties taxation between associated companies is transfrontaliere de dobnzi i redevene ntre set in Interest and Royalties Directive no. societi asociate este stabilit n Directiva privind 2003/49/EC, which has entered into force since 1st dobnzile i redevenele nr. 2003/49/CE, care a January 2004. Directive eliminates withholding tax intrat n vigoare ncepnd cu 1 ianuarie 2004. in case of interests and royalties cross-border Directiva elimin impozitarea la surs, n cazul payments. plilor transfrontaliere de dobnzi i redevene. In the field of direct business taxation the main n domeniul impozitrii directe a afacerilor measure is to introduce a Common Consolidated corporaiilor europene, principala msur vizeaz Corporate Tax Base for European business, a constituirea unei baze consolidate comune de strategy the Commission has been working towards impozitare, strategie la care Comisia European since 2001. A second series of measures is aimed at lucreaz nc din anul 2001. O a doua serie de removing cross-border tax barriers faced by EU msuri are drept scop eliminarea barierelor fiscale businesses. The third measure is aimed at creating a transfrontaliere cu care se confrunt ntreprinderile new car taxation strategy to replace Member State din UE. A treia serie de msuri vizeaz crearea unei registration taxes. The fourth measure concerns a noi strategii de impozitare auto care s nlocuiasc new policy to combat distortions due to fraud and n statele membre taxele de nmatriculare. A patra tax evasion (European Commission, 1997). serie de msuri const ntr-o nou politic de All the successes enumerated above represent only combatere a distorsiunilor datorate fraudei i minor steps in the field of structural harmonization. evaziunii fiscale (Comisia European, 1997). In the matter of tax rates, harmonization efforts as nowadays tax rates differ very

Toate succesele enumerate privind armonizarea failed

reprezint doar pai mici n domeniul armonizrii substantially within European Union, as it results structurale. n ceea ce privete armonizarea cotelor from table no.1, ranging from a minimum of 10 %

45

Mihaela GNDR _____________________________________________________________________________________________

de impozitare, dup cum rezult din tabelul nr. 1, in Bulgaria and Cyprus to a maximum of 59 % in toate eforturile s-au soldat cu eecuri, astfel nct Denmark. astzi cotele de impozitare difer puternic n cadrul Uniunii Europene ntr-un interval larg, cuprins ntre minimum 10% n Bulgaria i Cipru i maximum 59% n Danemarca.
Tabel 1 - Cote diferite (%) ale impozitelor directe la nivelul Uniunii Europene n anul 2011/Table 1 Different direct taxes rates (%) within European Union in 2011 Impozit pe profit/ Corporate Limita maxim de impozit pe venit/ Top Income Tax Personal Income Tax 25 50 34 50 10 10 10 30 20 15 25 58 21 21 26 53 33.33 41 15.825 federal plus 14.35-17.5 45 local Greece 25 40 Hungary 10-16 36 Ireland 12.50 41 Italy 31.40 45 Latvia 15 23 Lithuania 20 21 Luxembourg 26 38.95 Malta 35 35 Netherlands 25,5 34.40 Poland 19 32 Portugal 26.50 42 Romania 16 16 Slovakia 19 19 Slovenia 21 41 Spain 4-30 45 Sweden 26.3 55 United Kingdom 21-28 50 ntocmit de autor n baza datelor obinute din urmtoarele surse/ Made by the author using data from following sources: (European Commission, 2009), (European Parliament, 2010), (Taxes in Europe database, 2010), (Eurostat, 2011) State Membre/Member State Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany

46

STUDIA UNIVERSITATIS PETRU MAIOR, SERIES OECONOMICA, FASCICULUS 1, anul V, 2011, ISSN 1843-1127

n general, noile state membre au o structur Generally, the new Member States have a different diferit a veniturilor publice n comparaie cu structure compared with the old Member States; in vechile state membre; n special, n timp ce cele particular, while most old Member States raise mai vechi state membre obin venituri aproximativ roughly equal shares of revenues from direct taxes, egale din impozitele directe, impozitele indirecte i indirect taxes, and social contributions, the new contribuiile sociale, noile state membre Member States often display a substantially lower nregistreaz de cele mai multe ori o pondere share of direct taxes in the total. The lowest shares substanial mai mica a impozitelor directe n total of direct taxes are recorded in Slovakia (only 20.8 venituri. Cea mai mic pondere a impozitelor % of the total), Bulgaria (20.9 %) and Romania directe este nregistrat n Slovacia (doar 20,8% din (23.0 %). (Eurostat, 2011). One of the reasons for total), Bulgaria (20,9%) i Romnia (23,0%). the low direct tax revenue can be found in the (Eurostat, 2011). Una dintre explicaii poate fi pus generally more moderate tax rates applied in the pe seama ratelor de impozitare aplicate n noile new Member States to the corporate income tax state membre care sunt n general mai moderate and the personal income tax. Several of these att n cazul impozitului pe profit ct i n cazul countries have adopted flat rate systems, which impozitului pe venitul persoanelor fizice. Mai typically induce a stronger reduction in direct than multe dintre aceste ri au adoptat cote unice de indirect tax rates. Also among the old Member impozitare, care presupun de obicei o reducere States (EU-15) there are some noticeable puternic a cotelor impozitelor directe comparativ differences. The Nordic countries as well as the cu cotele impozitelor indirecte. De asemenea, United Kingdom and Ireland have relatively high printre vechile state membre (UE-15), exist unele shares of direct taxes in total tax revenues. In diferene notabile. rile nordice, precum i Denmark and, to a lesser extent, also in Ireland and Regatul Unit i Irlanda nregistreaz ponderi relativ the United Kingdom the shares of social

ridicate ale impozitelor directe n veniturile fiscale contributions to total tax revenues are low. There is totale. n Danemarca i, de asemenea, dar ntr-o a specific reason for the extremely low share of msur mai mic, n Irlanda i Regatul Unit, social contributions in Denmark: most welfare ponderea contribuiilor sociale n totalul veniturilor spending is financed out of general taxation. This fiscale este sczut. Exist un motiv specific pentru requires high direct tax levels and indeed the share ponderea extrem de redus a contribuiilor sociale of direct taxation to total tax revenues in Denmark n total venituri fiscale n Danemarca i anume is by far the highest in the Union. Among the old faptul c cele mai multe cheltuieli sociale sunt Member States, Germanys system represents in a finanate pe baza impozitrii generale. Acest lucru sense the opposite of Denmarks; Germany shows impune un nivel ridicat al impozitrii directe i the highest share of social contributions in the total

47

Mihaela GNDR _____________________________________________________________________________________________

ntr-adevr, n Danemarca, cota de impozitare tax revenues, while its share of direct tax revenues direct a veniturilor este de departe cea mai mare in the total is among the lowest in the EU-15. din cadrul Uniunii. Dintre vechile state membre, (Eurostat, 2011). sistemul fiscal al Germaniei reprezint din acest punct de vedere opusul celui din Danemarca; Germania prezinta cea mai mare pondere a contribuiilor sociale n veniturile fiscale totale, n timp ce ponderea impozitelor directe este printre cele mai sczute din UE-15. (Eurostat, 2011).

4 ARGUMENTE PRO ARMONIZARE FISCAL TOTAL

n ceea ce privete impozitarea direct,

4 ARGUMENTS PRO TOTAL TAX HARMONIZATION

In the field of direct taxation, total tax

armonizarea fiscal total ar reduce puternic evaziunea fiscal i ar preveni dubla impozitare la nivelul operaiunior intracomunitare. Armonizarea fiscal total la nivelul Uniunii Europene ar proteja aplicarea libertilor instituite prin tratat i ar elimina obstacolele fiscale din calea activitilor transfrontaliere, dar aceste obiective sar putea realiza i printr-o coordonare fiscal. Armonizarea fiscal total la nivelul Uniunii Europene ar reduce mult costurile de conformare fiscal pentru entitile care desfoar activiti transfrontaliere, dar acest obiectiv s-ar putea realiza si prin armonizarea fiscal structural.

harmonization would strongly reduce the tax evasion and prevent double taxation at Community level. The total tax harmonization at European Union level would safeguard the application of the Treaty freedoms and eliminate tax obstacles to crossborder activities, but these objectives could also be achieved through fiscal coordination. The total tax harmonization at European Union level would greatly reduce the tax compliance costs for the entities doing business abroad, but this objective could also be achieved through structural tax harmonization.

5 ARGUMENTE PRO COMPETIIE FISCAL

5 ARGUMENTS PRO FISCAL COMPETITION

Dei Comisia European declara n 2009 c Although the European Commission state in 2009 obiectivul unei micri ctre o politic general de that the objective of the moves towards a general impozitare const n a preveni efectele negative ale taxation policy has been to prevent the harmful

48

STUDIA UNIVERSITATIS PETRU MAIOR, SERIES OECONOMICA, FASCICULUS 1, anul V, 2011, ISSN 1843-1127

concurenei fiscale, n special migrarea bazelor de effects of tax competition, notably the migration of impozitare naionale ntre statele membre, n national tax bases as firms move between Member cutarea regimului fiscal mai favorabil (European States in search of the most favorable tax regime Commission, 2009), considerm c o astfel de (European Commission, 2009, we consider that competiie poate avea efecte benefice legate de such competition can have the beneficial effect of limitarea capacitii guvernelor de a impozita limiting governments ability to "tax and spend" pentru a cheltui, fr a duce la denaturarea without distortion tax structures. Besides, in recent structurilor fiscale. De altfel, n ultimii ani a sczut years the proportion of total taxation accounted for proporia impozitelor aferente factorilor relativ by taxes on relatively mobile factors like capital mobili cum ar fi capitalul (dobnzi, dividende, (interest, dividends, corporate tax) has fallen, while impozitul pe profit) n total impozite, n timp ce that on less mobile factors, notably labor for proporia impozitelor aferente factorilor mai puin example social charges - has risen. (European mobili, n special munca - de exemplu, contribuii Commission, 2009). sociale - a crescut. (European Commission, 2009). The presence of supranational international Prezena organizaiilor supranaionale a condus la organizations led to flourishing of multinationals nflorirea corporaiilor multinaionale i creterea corporations and the pursuing cross border investiiilor transfrontaliere. n acest scenariu, investments. In this scenario, capital tax policies politicile privind impozitarea capitalului au gained a significant role also due to the lack of ctigat un rol important i din cauza lipsei altor other means of competition such as interest rates mijloace de concuren, cum ar fi ratele dobnzii i and currency to fluctuations. attract The effort and of fluctuaiile valutare. Efortul diferitelor jurisdicii de jurisdictions

capital

foreign

a atrage investiii strine le va determina s reduc investment will induce them to lower the direct tax povara impozitelor directe pentru a obine o cot burden and gain a higher share in the international mai mare n diviziunea internaional de capital. division of capital. Competiia ntre sisteme fiscale diferite poate duce The competition between different fiscal systems la diminuarea unor cheltuieli publice sau la can lead to the diminishing of some public regndirea presiunii fiscale. n acest fel fiecare ar expenditure or to the rethinking of the fiscal i va reexamina propriul sistem fiscal i va ncerca pressure. This way every country will re-examine prin reducerea presiunii fiscale asupra factorilor its one fiscal system and will try by cutting off the mobili, munca i capitalul, s atrag investiiile fiscal pressure on the mobile factors, labor and strine sau mcar s susin dezvoltarea celor capital, to increase the foreign investments or just prezente. to sustain the cost and the development of the Fiind capabil s se deplaseze n toat Uniunea present ones.

49

Mihaela GNDR _____________________________________________________________________________________________

European, oricine i poate stabili reedina n acel Being able to move across the European Union stat care va i oferi combinaia optim ntre everybody can establish the residence in that state presiunea fiscal resimit i bunurile publice that will offer the optimal combination between the primite. Fenomenul exodului creierelor este fiscal pressure to be felt and public goods received. influenat att de cetean ct i de autoritatea The brain drain phenomenon is influenced by both central, n funcie de opiunile lor. Dac educaia the citizen and central authority according to their este un serviciu public, iar statele nu gestioneaz choices. If education is a public service and the eficient resursele financiare publice i n acelai states are not efficiently administrating their public timp cheltuielile publice efectuate pentru a acoperi financial resources and at the same time the public cererea de bunuri i servicii publice, pot aprea cu expenditures used to cover the demand of public uurin externalitile negative. Acest lucru goods and services it can easily appear the negative nseamn c, n ara de origine, scderea veniturilor externalities. This means that in the source country publice va genera o scdere a cheltuielilor publice, the lower public revenues will generate a decrease toate acestea vor avea ca urmare o cretere in expenditures a lower redistribution of revenues economic mai mic. Numai cu ajutorul politicii and all these will have as consequence a lower fiscale intr-un proces real i transparent de economic growth. Only using the fiscal policy into concuren fiscal, autoritile naionale pot a real and transparent fiscal competition process, gestiona eficient resursele financiare publice i, n the national authorities can efficiently administrate acelai timp cheltuielile publice, pentru a evita their public financial resources and at the same apariia externalitilor negative i pentru a atrage time their the public expenditures in order to avoid factorii mobili cum ar fi capitalul i fora de munc the appearance of the negative externalities and to din ntreaga lume. Cu ct sunt atrase mai mult attract the mobile factors like capital and labor capital i mai mult for de munc, cu att mai from all over the world. More attracted labor and performant este politica fiscal naional capital are, more performing national fiscal policy respectiv! Prin urmare, politica fiscal ar putea is! Therefore fiscal policy could help to increase contribui la creterea competitivitii naionale i a the competitivitii UE n ansamblul su. national competitiveness and the

competitiveness of the EU as a whole.

Tabelul nr.2 sintetizeaz i n acelai timp compar The Table no.2 synthesizes and also compares the argumentele pro armonizare total cu cele pro arguments pro total harmonization with the competiie fiscal. arguments pro fiscal competition.

50

STUDIA UNIVERSITATIS PETRU MAIOR, SERIES OECONOMICA, FASCICULUS 1, anul V, 2011, ISSN 1843-1127

Tabel 2 - Argumente pro armonizare fiscal total (pro AFT) i argumente pro competiie fiscal (pro CT), sintez comparativ/Table 2 - Arguments pro total tax harmonization (pro TTH) and arguments pro fiscal competition (pro FC), comparative synthesis Argumente pro AFT/ Arguments pro TTH Argumente pro CF/ Arguments proFC AFT ar proteja aplicarea libertilor instituite prin Aceste obiective s-ar putea realiza i printr-o tratat i ar elimina obstacolele fiscale din calea activitilor transfrontaliere./ The TTH would safeguard the application of the Treaty freedoms and eliminate tax obstacles to cross-border activities AFT ar reduce mult costurile de conformare fiscal pentru entitile care desfoar activiti transfrontaliere./The TTH would greatly reduce the tax compliance costs for the entities doing business abroad. AFT ar preveni efectele negative ale concurenei fiscale, n special migrarea bazelor de impozitare naionale ntre statele membre, n cutarea regimului fiscal mai favorabil/ The TTH would prevent the harmful effects of tax competition, notably the migration of national tax bases as firms move between Member States in search of the most favorable tax regime. AFT ar reduce puternic evaziunea fiscal la nivelul operaiunilor intracomunitare./The TTH would strongly reduce the tax evasion at Community level. Scopul CF este atragerea investiiilor strine i dezvoltarea celor prezente, deci CF va determina fiecare ar s i modernizeze n permanen propriul sistem fiscal i s reduc presiunea fiscal asupra factorilor mobili, munca i capitalul./The objective of FC is to increase the foreign investments and to sustain the development of the present ones, thats why FC can determine every country to permanently modernize its one fiscal system and to cut off the fiscal pressure on the mobile factors, labor and capital. AFT ar preveni dubla impozitare la nivelul operaiunior intracomunitare./The TTH would prevent double taxation at Community level. Cu ct sunt atrase mai mult capital i mai mult for de munc, cu att mai performant este politica fiscal naional respectiv! Prin urmare, CF ar putea contribui la creterea competitivitii naionale i a competitivitii UE n ansamblul su./More attracted Considerm c o astfel de competiie poate avea efecte benefice legate de limitarea capacitii guvernelor de a impozita pentru a cheltui, fr a duce la denaturarea structurilor fiscale/ We consider that such competition can have the beneficial effect of limiting governments ability to "tax and spend" without distortion tax structures. Acest obiectiv s-ar putea realiza i prin armonizarea fiscal structural/ This objective could also be achieved through structural tax harmonization. coordonare fiscal/These objectives could also be achieved through fiscal coordination.

51

Mihaela GNDR _____________________________________________________________________________________________ labor and capital are, more performing national fiscal policy is! Therefore FC could help to increase the national competitiveness and the competitiveness of the EU as a whole. Sursa: ntocmit de autor/ Source: Made by the author

CONCLUZII

CONCLUSIONS

Pe baza analizei evoluiei demersurilor privind Analyzing the European direct tax harmonization armonizarea impozitelor directe la nivelul Uniunii evolution and based on the above stated literature Europene i a rezultatelor cercetrii din literatura review, the following conclusions can be done: Tax de specialitate, urmtoarele concluzii se impun: competition Competiia fiscal nu poate fi cannot be considered as the considerat competition in real sense. Therefore it is not

concuren n sens real. Prin urmare, nu este corect possible to search for the parallels between the a cuta paralelele ntre competiia de pia i market competition and tax competition. While in competiia fiscal. n timp ce n competiia de pia market competition, the law of supply and demand domin legea cererii i a ofertei, competiia fiscal dominates, the tax competition is the play of este jocul intereselor politice i economice. political and economic interests. Migrarea bazelor de impozitare naionale n sensul The migration of national tax bases as firms move n care firmele se deplaseaz ntre statele membre, between Member States in search of the most n cutarea regimului fiscal cel mai favorabil nu favorable tax regime must not be seen like harmful trebuie s fie privit ca un efect nociv al effect of tax competition, but contrary like an concurenei fiscale, ci dimpotriv, ca un obiectiv al objective of the fiscal policy for each member state. politicii fiscale, pentru fiecare stat membru. Avnd Having this goal, governments have to make their acest obiectiv, guvernele trebuie s fac economia economy more attractive for all categories of mai atractiv pentru toate categoriile de factori mobile factors like capital and labor. Seeing like mobili, cum sunt munca i capitalul. Vzut din this, the fiscal competition represents a positive aceast perspectiv, concurena fiscal reprezint effect on EU market integration denying that direct un efect pozitiv pentru integrarea pe piaa UE, tax harmonization is critical to the operation of the contrazicnd afirmaia c armonizarea fiscal n Single Market. Moreover, considering the domeniul impozitelor directe este esenial pentru introduction of European Monetary Union and the funcionarea pieei unice. Mai mult dect att, "Europeanization" of monetary policy, fiscal policy avnd n vedere constituirea Uniunii Monetare remains one of the few tools at the disposal of Europene i "europenizarea" politicii monetare, national governments in their effort to influence

52

STUDIA UNIVERSITATIS PETRU MAIOR, SERIES OECONOMICA, FASCICULUS 1, anul V, 2011, ISSN 1843-1127

politica fiscal rmne unul dintre puinele their own economies, making taxation perhaps the instrumente la dispoziia guvernelor naionale n final component with which individual countries efortul acestora de a influena nivelul propriilor can deal with asymmetric shocks. In this way, an economii, ceea ce face, probabil, din politica fiscal important argument revealed by this paper is that componenta final prin care fiecare stat membru fiscal policy is a discretionary instrument used by poate face fa ocurilor asimetrice. n acest sens, national authorities for influencing the un important argument relevat de aceast lucrare macroeconomic indicators being the main reason este faptul c politica fiscal reprezint un for which the member states will not renounce its instrument principal de politic public folosit use. discreionar de ctre autoritile naionale pentru Specifically, this paper encourages the European ajustarea indicatorilor macroeconomici, constituind Commission and European Union member states to astfel motivul principal pentru care statele membre accept the beneficial role of tax competition and nu vor renuna la utilizarea acestuia. not try to achieve the tax rates harmonization Concret, aceast lucrare ncurajeaz Comisia anymore but only the harmonization of the tax European i statele membre ale Uniunii Europene basis. The aim in the field of direct tax s accepte rolul benefic al competiiei fiscale i s- harmonization i deplaseze eforturile din zona armonizrii ratelor harmonization. de impozitare spre zona armonizrii bazei de impozitare. Obiectivul armonizrii n domeniul impozitelor directe trebuie s se deplaseze dinspre armonizarea total spre armonizarea structural.
Acknowledgement

must

be

only

the

structural

Acknowledgement

Aceast lucrare a beneficiat de suport financiar prin proiectul "Studii Postdoctorale n Economie: Program de formare continu a cercettorilor de elit - SPODE" cofinanat din Fondul Social European, prin Programul Operaional Sectorial Dezvoltarea Resurselor Umane 2007-2013, contract nr. POSDRU/89/1.5/S/61755.

This work was supported by the project "PostDoctoral Studies in Economics: Training program for elite researchers - SPODE" co-funded from the European Social Fund through the Development of Human Resources Operational Programme 20072013, contract no. POSDRU/89/1.5/S/61755.

53

Mihaela GNDR _____________________________________________________________________________________________

BIBLIOGRAFIE
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]
Braoveanu I., Braoveanu L., Pun C. (2009), Correlations between fiscal policy and macroeconomic indicators, FABBV International Conference, 2009, pp. 51-59. Fabrizio ., Mody A., Can Budget Institutions Counteract Political Indiscipline? , FMI, European Department, WP/123, 2006, pp. 25. Kleiner N., Is Systems Competition a Viable Alternative to EU Tax Harmonization? , Master thesis, Haifa University, 2006, pp.21. Golinelli R., Momogliani S., The cyclical reaction of fiscal policy in the euro area: the role of modeling choices and data vintages, Fiscal Studies, 30, 1, 2010, pp 39-72. Gndr M., EU Fiscal Harmonization Policy vs. National Fiscal Systems, Studia Universitatis Petru Maior Journal (9), 2009, pp. 331-342. Gndr M., Fiscal Harmonization to further the goal of a single market , International Conference Babe Bolyai University of Cluj, 2009, pp. 125-132. Gndr M., La politique fiscale au sein de lUnion europenne (UE) et en Roumanie , The Juridical Current Journal (3), 2009, pp. 86-98. Mitchell J., Tax Competition Primer: Why Tax Harmonization and Information Exchange Undermine Americas Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy , (1460), Heritage Foundation Backgrounder, 2001, pp. 2-4. Nello S., The European Union: Economics, Policies and History, New York, McGraw-Hill, 2009.

[9]

[10] Nerudova D., Tax Harmonization in the EU, 2008, pp. 90-109. [11] Parker G., EU Tax harmonization plan ready in three years, Financial Times/25 May, 2005. [12] Smith D., Will Tax Harmonization Harm Job Creation?, The Economist, 351(8120), 1999, pp. 32. [13] Stults T., Tax Harmonization versus Tax Competition: A Review of the Literature, 2009 [14] European Commission, Towards Tax Co-ordination in the European Union: a package to tackle harmful
tax competition, 1997.

[15] European Commission, EU Tax Policy Strategy, 2001. [16] European Commission, Taxation trends in the European Union, 2010. [17] European Commission, Simplified Tax Compliance Procedures for SMEs, 2007. [18] Eurostat, 2011, http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu [19] Taxes in Europe database, http://ec.europa.eu/tedb [20] European Parliament, Taxation in the European Union: Report on the Development of Tax Systems , 2010

54