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 ntr-
adevr 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.

Cuvinte cheie: politic fiscal european, Keywords: European Fiscal Policy, Tax
armonizare fiscal, competiie fiscal Harmonization, Tax Competition

Clasificare JEL: F36, F42, G18 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 character, based on evaluations of
bazeaz pe evaluri ale conceptelor, noiunilor, concepts, notions, classifications and
clasificrilor i interpretrilor. interpretations.

1.3. Structura lucrrii 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, the methodology and the paper
consideraii teoretice privind armonizarea fiscal i structure. The second section presents some
competiia fiscal n literatura de specialitate. A theoretical 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
prezentate concluziile lucrrii. pro fiscal competition in the field of direct taxation.
The final section presents the conclusions.

2 CONSIDERAII TEORETICE PRIVIND 2 THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS

ARMONIZAREA FISCAL I REGARDING FISCAL
COMPETIIA FISCAL N HARMONIZATION AND FISCAL
LITERATURA DE SPECIALITATE COMPETITION IN THE RESEARCH
LITERATURE

Armonizarea fiscal total este definit de According Nerudova (2008) total tax
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). together. (Nerudova, 2008)
Rolul i dimensiunea implicrii statului 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 one, as it results from their
realizat pentru Romnia, Bulgaria, 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: of fiscal revenues on GDP was made based on the
following regression:
yit = + vi + t ut +xit +wit +sit +it , yit = + vi + t ut +xit +wit +sit +it ,
(1) (1)
unde: where:
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 a set of specific effects for the country i, in this
vi un set de efecte specifice rii respective, model considered exogenous;
considerate exogene acestui model; ut common effects for all the countries in year t;
ut efecte comune tuturor rilor n perioada t ; xit economical variables;

40
 STUDIA UNIVERSITATIS PETRU MAIOR, SERIES OECONOMICA, FASCICULUS 1, anul V, 2011, ISSN 1843-1127

xit variabile de control economic; wit political variables;

wit variabile de control politic; sit fiscal institutions index.
sit indexul instituiilor fiscale. 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 indicatorii can conclude that fiscal policy is used by political
macroeconomici. Mergnd mai departe cu and executive authority as a discretionary
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 tip monopol, mention (Mitchell, 2002), the tax competition
percepnd taxe excesive. Potrivit Mitchell (2002), always results in decrease in the statutory tax rates.
concurena fiscal genereaz ntotdeauna The increased capital mobility results in situation,
micorarea ratelor de impozitare. 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 3 THE STATUS OF EUROPEAN TAX

EUROPENE 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 known as The Parent-Subsidiary
sub numele de Directiva privind 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
Toate succesele enumerate privind armonizarea failed as nowadays tax rates differ very
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

State Membre/Member Impozit pe profit/ Corporate Limita maxim de impozit pe venit/ Top
State Income Tax Personal Income Tax
Austria 25 50
Belgium 34 50
Bulgaria 10 10
Cyprus 10 30
Czech Republic 20 15
Denmark 25 58
Estonia 21 21
Finland 26 53
France 33.33 41
Germany 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)

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 4 ARGUMENTS PRO TOTAL TAX

FISCAL TOTAL HARMONIZATION

n ceea ce privete impozitarea direct,
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 s-
ar 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.
In the field of direct taxation, total tax
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 cross-
border 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 5 ARGUMENTS PRO FISCAL

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 fluctuations. The effort of
fluctuaiile valutare. Efortul diferitelor jurisdicii de jurisdictions to attract capital and 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 national competitiveness and the
competitivitii UE n ansamblul su. 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 coordonare fiscal/These objectives could also be
activitilor transfrontaliere./ The TTH would achieved through fiscal coordination.
safeguard the application of the Treaty freedoms and
eliminate tax obstacles to cross-border activities
AFT ar reduce mult costurile de conformare fiscal Acest obiectiv s-ar putea realiza i prin armonizarea
pentru entitile care desfoar activiti fiscal structural/ This objective could also be
transfrontaliere./The TTH would greatly reduce the achieved through structural tax harmonization.
tax compliance costs for the entities doing business
abroad.
AFT ar preveni efectele negative ale concurenei Considerm c o astfel de competiie poate avea efecte
fiscale, n special migrarea bazelor de impozitare benefice legate de limitarea capacitii guvernelor de a
naionale ntre statele membre, n cutarea regimului impozita pentru a cheltui, fr a duce la denaturarea
fiscal mai favorabil/ The TTH would prevent the structurilor fiscale/ We consider that such competition
harmful effects of tax competition, notably the can have the beneficial effect of limiting governments
migration of national tax bases as firms move between ability to "tax and spend" without distortion tax
Member States in search of the most favorable tax structures.
regime.
AFT ar reduce puternic evaziunea fiscal la nivelul Scopul CF este atragerea investiiilor strine i
operaiunilor intracomunitare./The TTH would dezvoltarea celor prezente, deci CF va determina
strongly reduce the tax evasion at Community level. 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 Cu ct sunt atrase mai mult capital i mai mult for
operaiunior intracomunitare./The TTH would prevent de munc, cu att mai performant este politica fiscal
double taxation at Community level. naional respectiv! Prin urmare, CF ar putea
contribui la creterea competitivitii naionale i a
competitivitii UE n ansamblul su./More attracted

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 cannot be considered as the
Competiia fiscal nu poate fi 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 must be only the structural
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
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.
Acknowledgement
This work was supported by the project "Post-
Doctoral Studies in Economics: Training program
for elite researchers - SPODE" co-funded from the
European Social Fund through the Development of
Human Resources Operational Programme 2007-
2013, contract no. POSDRU/89/1.5/S/61755.

53
 Mihaela GNDR
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

BIBLIOGRAFIE
[1] Braoveanu I., Braoveanu L., Pun C. (2009), Correlations between fiscal policy and macroeconomic
indicators, FABBV International Conference, 2009, pp. 51-59.
[2] Fabrizio ., Mody A., Can Budget Institutions Counteract Political Indiscipline?, FMI, European
Department, WP/123, 2006, pp. 25.
[3] Kleiner N., Is Systems Competition a Viable Alternative to EU Tax Harmonization?, Master thesis, Haifa
University, 2006, pp.21.
[4] 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.
[5] Gndr M., EU Fiscal Harmonization Policy vs. National Fiscal Systems, Studia Universitatis Petru
Maior Journal (9), 2009, pp. 331-342.
[6] Gndr M., Fiscal Harmonization to further the goal of a single market, International Conference Babe
Bolyai University of Cluj, 2009, pp. 125-132.
[7] Gndr M., La politique fiscale au sein de lUnion europenne (UE) et en Roumanie , The Juridical
Current Journal (3), 2009, pp. 86-98.
[8] 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.
[9] Nello S., The European Union: Economics, Policies and History, New York, McGraw-Hill, 2009.
[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