Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this study is to carry out a comparative analysis of standard and special tax treatments in modern Russia and define the attractiveness of special tax treatments for economic entities. Methodology In this paper we apply a specially developed method of criterion evaluation of the attractiveness of special tax treatments for economic entities. Results The authors conclude that in modern Russia there are four special tax treatments—a simplified tax system, a patent tax system, a unified agricultural tax and a unified tax on imputed income. They give tax preferences to small and medium business entities such as a reduced tax rate of 5% on business income (in comparison with a 20% profit tax) and a slight simplification of tax reporting. Their advantage is a quite wide (with the prospect of expansion) coverage of priority entrepreneurial activity, and disadvantages are the necessity to pay many other taxes, the continuing high complexity of tax reporting, despite some simplification, as well as difficult transition and necessary regular confirmation of the right to use a special tax treatment. Recommendations Insignificant advantages and multiple disadvantages cause low attractiveness of special tax treatments for economic entities. Therefore, in order to upgrade the tax system of modern Russia, it is advised to increase the value of tax preferences and raise the simplicity, accessibility and convenience of special tax treatments.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Bumane, I., & Vodolagins, D. (2017). Favourable tax regimes that constitute selective state aid from the perspective of the cjeu recent case-law. European Research Studies Journal, 20(3), 231–245.
Choudhury, M. A. (2018). The nature of well-being objective function in tax-free regime of ethico-economics. Journal of Islamic Accounting and Business Research, 9(2), 171–182.
Federal Tax Service of the Russian Federation. (2018). Tax Treatment Selection. https://www.nalog.ru/create_business/ip/in_progress/taxation_type_choice/. Data accessed: 06.06.2018.
Fréret, S., & Maguain, D. (2017). The effects of agglomeration on tax competition: evidence from a two-regime spatial panel model on French data. International Tax and Public Finance, 24(6), 1100–1140.
Gordon, R. N., Joulfaian, D., & Poterba, J. M. (2016). Choosing between an estate tax and a basis carryover regime: Evidence from 2010. National Tax Journal, 69(4), 981–1002.
Jacob, M. (2018). Tax regimes and capital gains realizations. European Accounting Review, 27(1), 1–21.
Korotin, V., Popov, V., Tolokonsky, A., Islamov, R., & Ulchenkov, A. (2017). A Multi-criteria Approach to Selecting an Optimal Portfolio of Refinery Upgrade Projects Under Margin and Tax Regime Uncertainty (Vol. 72, pp. 50–58). United Kingdom: Omega.
Lee, S.-H., & Mason, A. (2015). Are current tax and spending regimes sustainable in developing Asia? In Inequality, Inclusive Growth, and Fiscal Policy in Asia (pp. 202–234). UK: Taylor and Francis Inc.
Leonardi, R. (2017). The digital economy and the tax regime in the UK. In The Challenge of the Digital Economy: Markets, Taxation and Appropriate Economic Models (pp. 97–109). Berlin: Springer International Publishing.
Popkova, E. G., Bogoviz, A. V., Lobova, S. V., & Romanova, T. F. (2018a). The essence of the processes of economic growth of socio-economic systems. Studies in Systems, Decision and Control, 135, 123–130.
Popkova, E. G., Bogoviz, A. V., Ragulina, Y. V., & Alekseev, A. N. (2018b). Perspective model of activation of economic growth in modern Russia. Studies in Systems, Decision and Control, 135, 171–177.
Rietzler, K., Fuest, C., Kauder, B., … Schmidt, C. M., Schratzenstaller, M. (2017). How should the german tax regime be reformed? | [Wie sollte das Steuersystem in Deutschland reformiert werden?]. Wirtschaftsdienst, 97(6), 383–403.
Rosenblatt, P., & Cabral, R. T. P. (2017). Tax transparency regime in taxation of profits abroad (CFC Rules): Gaps and conflicts in Brazilian law | [Regime de transparência fiscal na tributação dos lucros auferidos no exterior (CFC Rules): Lacunas e conflitos no direito brasileiro]. Brazilian Journal of International Law, 14(2), 450–463.
Ruiz, M. A. R. (2017). Considerations on the establishment of a common tax regime for social economic entities | [Consideraciones en torno al establecimiento de un rĂ©gimen tributario comĂşn para las entidades de la economĂa social]. REVESCO Revista de Estudios Cooperativos, 125, 187–212.
Stiegler, T., Wiesener, A. U., Bussian, A., & Schmid, J. (2016). The new German Tax regime for investment funds: An exemplar for Europe? In Proceedings of the 28th International Business Information Management Association Conference—Vision 2020: Innovation Management, Development Sustainability, and Competitive Economic Growth (pp. 2005–2013).
Tufetulov, A. M., Davletshin, T. G., & Salmina, S. V. (2015). Analysis of the impact of special tax regimes for small business financial results. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 6(1S3), 503–506.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Gashenko, I.V., Zima, Y.S., Davidyan, A.V. (2019). Standard and Special Tax Treatments. A Comparative Analysis. In: Gashenko, I., Zima, Y., Davidyan, A. (eds) Optimization of the Taxation System: Preconditions, Tendencies and Perspectives. Studies in Systems, Decision and Control, vol 182. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01514-5_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01514-5_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-01513-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-01514-5
eBook Packages: Intelligent Technologies and RoboticsIntelligent Technologies and Robotics (R0)