| 10/10/2006||Sweden||Agreement with proposal|
| 9/15/2006||United Kingdom||Definition and coverage of a tax:|
We agree that the definition and coverage of a tax should be set out clearly, with some examples. The examples should illustrate the underlying concepts; but should not suggest that they are exhaustive or prescriptive. It is important not to try to produce a comprehensive list of treatments.
| 9/15/2006||United Kingdom||Accrual recording:|
We agree that taxes should be recorded on an accrual basis. And, that the expression 'due for payment' should be replaced by 'accruals'. We regret that the AEG could not agree on a single method for dealing with uncollectible taxes, but do not feel strongly enough to press for the issue to be reopened.
| 9/15/2006||United Kingdom||Tax credits:|
We strongly agree with the decision that payable tax credits should be recorded on a gross basis. And, that the presentation should permit the derivation of tax credits on a net basis also.
| 9/15/2006||Latvia||After deep discussions and expert consultations we basically support the
1993 SNA Update Issues.|
| 8/18/2006||Italy||We are in favour of the recommendations.|
| 7/28/2006||Lithuania||In general we support the recommendations.|
| 7/27/2006||Egypt||More clear definition is still needed to distinguish between taxes and other payment for services. Recording taxes in SNA should be more close to GFM 2001 recommendations.|
| 2/23/2006||South African Reserve Bank ||We agree with the AEG recommendations and support the idea that the presentation of data should permit the derivation of tax credits on a net basis also.|
| 1/27/2006||Central Bank of El Salvador||No estamos de acuerdo en afectar el principio de devengado para el registro de estas operaciones, ya que distorsionaría el momento de registro del hecho económico y alteraría el déficit fiscal.|
| 1/17/2006||Central Bank of Chile|| cbChile35; |
| 12/22/2005||Serbia and Montenegro||We agree with the suggested changes.|
| 12/14/2005||France|| L'INSEE attend la version définitive du texte pour se prononcer sur l'enregistrement des impôts.|
L'INSEE regrette que l'enregistrement net des crédits d'impôts ait été rejeté.
| 12/13/2005||Canada||Canada agrees that the SNA should not include the principle of accruing taxes that are not collectible and transferring them back to the economy or writing them off as bad debt. Tax systems designed with some desired compliance level whereby the government does not spend money on audit and enforcement beyond this point. Recommending that the SNA could provide point estimates of taxes collectible would require a standard of quality at a much greater level of detail than most macroeconomic data systems are designed to produce. In addition, the optic of the SNA database being used to measure compliance of the tax system is at odds with the need for statistical agencies to distance themselves from government operations for the statistical estimates to be viewed as credible and unbiased.|
Still, the SNA does need more clarity on the definition of taxes and the accrual principle associated with them. We look forward to reviewing the proposed chapter.
Canada agrees with treating payable tax credits on a gross basis and not netting them against taxes accrued. We have always implemented this approach to refundable tax credits which exist in the Canadian System.
| 12/12/2005||Bank of Korea||We agree with the recommendations of the AEG. |
However, in Korea, when the total amount of the credit exceeds the amount of the tax liability, the element of the credit in excess is not actually paid by the government but dealt with as next year's tax credit. In the case of tax credit, payable tax credits do not occur because all tax credit are recorded as reducing tax revenues.
| 12/9/2005||European Central Bank||The proposed treatment complies with the 1995 ESA|
| 12/9/2005||Russia||Rosstat largely supports the recommendations on the updating 1993 SNA, made at the July 2005 meeting of the Advisory Expert Group on National Accounts.|
| 12/5/2005||Denmark|| m3Denmark35; |
| 12/2/2005||Netherlands||We generally support the recommendations of the AEG.|
| 12/2/2005||Australia||Australia agrees with the AEG recommendations. |
| 12/2/2005||Turkey||We agree with the recommendations made at the July 2005 meeting of the Advisory Expert Group on National Accounts.|
| 12/1/2005||Germany||We are pleased to express our agreement with the AEG recommendations.|
| 12/1/2005||Norway||We welcome a freestanding chapter on questions of taxes. |
We think that payable tax credits in principle should be split, so that only the net payments are shown in the accounts. The tax should not be recorded gross, adding in the gross tax credit, as this addition represents taxes that are never paid.
| 12/1/2005||Brazil||We endorse the AEG decisions in the Bangkok meeting.|
We would like to point out the importance of the chapter in the SNA covering the issue.
| 12/1/2005||Israel||We agree with the recommendations of the AEG, including the recommendation to record tax credits on a gross basis. Since tax credits are substitutes for other benefits, only gross recording allows a satisfactory analysis. There may be other cases, where gross recording has not been made due to lack of information, although such a recording would useful for policy analysis. But that should not be a reason for not recording the tax credits, where information exists. One could, however, show the amounts of taxes that are set off by tax credits, separately.|
| 12/1/2005||United Kingdom||Definition and coverage of a tax|
We agree that the definition and coverage of a tax should be set out clearly, with some examples. The examples should illustrate the underlying concepts; hut should not suggest that they are exhaustive or prescriptive. It is important not to try to produce a comprehensive list of treatments.
We agree that taxes should be recorded on an accrual basis. And, that the expression 'due for payment' should be replaced by 'accruals'. We regret that the AEG could not agree on a method for dealing with uncollectible taxes, but do not feel strongly enough to press for the issue to be reopened.
We strongly agree with the decision that payable tax credits should be recorded on a gross basis. We agree that the presentation should permit the derivation of tax credits on a net basis also.
| 11/30/2005||Slovak Republic||SO SR give support to AEG recommendation related to ongoing effort for clarification of issue.|
| 11/30/2005||Italy||Istat fully agrees with the recommendations made at the July 2005 meeting of the Advisory Expert Group on National Accounts.
| 11/30/2005||State Bank of Pakistan||We have gone through recommendations made by Advisory Expert Group (AEG) and fully agree with them.
| 11/29/2005||People's Bank of China||I agree with your improvements and have no other suggestions.|
| 11/21/2005||USA||We disagree with the recommendation of the AEG regarding payable tax credits. (“Payable tax credits” are a type of tax credit for which the amount of the credit that exceeds the tax liability is paid directly to the taxpayer or recipient.) The AEG has recommended that that the full amount of payable tax credits should be treated as social benefits (what is referred to as a “gross” basis). Instead, we agree with the recommendation of the Task Force on Harmonization of Public Sector Accounting that only the element of payable tax credits that is actually paid to the beneficiary should be recorded as social benefits; the element that reduces the taxpayers’ tax liability should be recorded as a reduction in taxes, consistent with the treatment other (non-payable) tax credits. |
The AEG’s recommended treatment of payable tax credits requires an unnecessary imputation of taxes and social benefits, because the accounts would have to record amounts as taxes that are not actually collected and amounts as social benefits that are not actually paid. Governments make extensive use of tax allowances, exemptions, deductions, and payable or non-payable credits to achieve various policy purposes. We believe that this imputation weakens the applicability of the SNA’s current, clear definition of taxes as compulsory, unrequited payments made by institutional units to governments. By imputing values for transactions (social benefits and taxes) that differ from the amounts actually paid, this recommendation creates inconsistencies with treatment of other credits, allowances, exemptions, and deductions and would appear to open the door to additional imputations (so called “tax expenditures”). Furthermore, in designing their tax systems, countries have considerable flexibility to achieve the same results with combinations of these types of rules; therefore the supposed clear identification of social benefits that proponents of the “gross” treatment are hoping for is not likely to be obtainable in practice.
Regarding the other recommendations that are part of issue 35 (definition of tax revenue, accrual recording of taxes), we agree with the recommendations of the AEG.
| 5/27/2005||Pakistan||Agrees with the proposal recording as tax revenues amounts assessed, offset by a capital transfer representing the part unlikely to be collected.|
| 5/13/2005||State Bank of Pakistan||Agreed to the proposal of recording as tax revenues amount assessed, offset by a capital transfer representing the part unlikely to be collected.|
| 4/12/2005||Greece||Specifically in paragraph 44 we kindly inform you that we favour recording as tax revenues amounts assessed, offset by a capital transfer representing the part unlikely to be collected.|