First, the contradiction between value-added tax and accounting accrual basis
China began to implement value-added tax from 1 99465438+1October1. However, after the implementation of this tax system, as an accountant reflecting the economic activities of enterprises, it is contrary to the existing accounting standards in China when dealing with value-added tax.
According to the regulations on accounting treatment of value-added tax, enterprises should set up detailed accounts of value-added tax payable under the subject of tax payable, and set up columns such as input tax, tax paid, output tax, export tax rebate and input tax transfer-out in the detailed accounts of value-added tax payable. It can be seen from the setting of detailed subjects of VAT payable that the accounting treatment of VAT in China is based on cash basis, that is, VAT is paid on the basis of product sales, the output tax of VAT payable is calculated, and the input tax paid by purchased raw materials is deducted to calculate the actual tax payable in this period. Because the raw materials purchased in the current period are not necessarily consumed in the product cost sold in the current period, the value-added tax paid by the enterprise in each period is not the real value-added part of the enterprise. Although in the long run, the total value-added tax paid by enterprises is consistent with the total value-added tax realized through deferral, they are not consistent in each accounting period, which is the difference between cash basis and accrual basis. Because other economic activities, such as product cost accounting and income expense accounting, are carried out according to the accrual basis principle, while the accounting treatment of value-added tax is carried out according to the cash basis principle, which makes the comparability of accounting information poor, thus weakening the reflection function of accounting information. Therefore, people can't judge whether the enterprise has calculated the turnover tax reasonably from the logical relationship of the accounting information of sales income or gross profit in the income statement as in the past. In particular, some wholly foreign-owned enterprises, after mastering the situation that accounting information is difficult to logically reflect the value-added tax and the actual value-added of enterprises, take advantage of this defect in accounting treatment and engage in illegal acts of evading value-added tax. For example, for those foreign-funded export enterprises that levy taxes first and then return them, according to the current tax law, the value-added tax of 17% is levied first when their products are exported; After the goods to be produced are exported, the value-added tax is refunded at 9%, and the actual tax burden is 8%. In order to evade taxes, they reduced the price of export products to the cost price of materials through affiliated enterprises and sold their products abroad at a price far lower than the actual cost price. Because export products "do not add value", the output tax can be refunded after deducting the input tax. From the accounting information of value-added tax, it is difficult for tax authorities to distinguish whether it is caused by artificially lowering the selling price or by purchasing too much raw materials and less input and output in the current period. This is exactly what we call value-added tax, which is actually not calculated according to the value-added part of the enterprise. The fuzziness of accounting information makes accounting lose its due reflection function and usefulness.
The current value-added tax accounting can not directly reflect the value-added tax situation of enterprises, which can not but be said to be the defect of value-added tax accounting. If China's current tax law can deduct the VAT output tax based on sales income from the VAT input tax of raw materials sold in the current month and calculate the VAT payable in the current period according to the accrual principle, it is not only reasonable, but also the information of VAT can provide great help for the supervision of tax authorities. Because of this, it is easy for tax authorities to quickly calculate whether the value-added tax paid in the current period is reasonable according to a certain proportion from the sales income or gross profit of the income statement. Therefore, calculating the value-added tax payable in each period according to this method also conforms to the accrual basis principle and matching principle of accounting.
Second, the contradiction between business tax and accounting double entry bookkeeping
The tax reform of 1994 determines that the real estate industry with high profits should pay business tax, land value-added tax and house deed tax when trading. This practice is in line with the spirit of tax reform of "unified tax law and fair tax burden", but when determining the capital equity transaction, considering that China's securities market is still in the development stage, it needs strong support. Therefore, turnover tax will not be levied on the sale of securities and stocks for the time being. Because stocks and securities are the concrete embodiment of capital rights and interests. Therefore, the transaction of capital equity does not need to pay any tax. This practice, on the surface, conforms to the current situation of China's current economic environment, but because of ignoring the characteristics of double-entry bookkeeping, the above practice has brought contradictions in accounting theory.
According to the theory of double-entry bookkeeping, there will be three phenomena in any economic activity, either the conversion of physical assets and creditor's rights, the mutual conversion of rights and liabilities, or the simultaneous change of physical assets and rights and interests. However, when we formulated the tax law, we did not consider the double-entry bookkeeping principle. For example, the transaction of real estate business has to pay land value-added tax, business tax and house deed tax, while the transaction of capital rights and interests is not taxed at all. This ignores the principle that asset transactions and capital equity transactions of enterprises are sometimes consistent in accounting expression. For example, a China real estate company and a foreign-funded enterprise jointly built a building. Foreign investors invest in machinery, equipment and working capital, and set up new Sino-foreign joint ventures with real estate invested by China through registration. After the joint venture, the real estate changed from an asset to an equity. However, less than a year after the joint venture, the Chinese side proposed to withdraw its shares on the grounds of poor operating efficiency of the joint venture. According to the Law on Sino-foreign Joint Ventures, if one party to the joint venture withdraws its shares and the other party has the preemptive right, it is logical for the foreign party to purchase the Chinese rights and interests at the market price of the real estate. As it is an equity transaction, according to China's current tax law, there is no need to pay any tax. In this way, the property right of the house becomes legally owned by a wholly foreign-owned enterprise. Although the result of the above transaction is the transfer of property ownership, in form, it turns the asset transaction into a capital transaction, that is, it does not violate the tax law and evades the business tax, land value-added tax and house deed tax that should be paid. It can be seen that according to the loopholes in China's current tax law, foreign investors first convert assets into capital, and then trade, thus avoiding tax obligations. This loophole is because we ignore the basic principle of double-entry bookkeeping. Therefore, when formulating the tax law, it is a necessary prerequisite to study the accounting principles and accounting standards carefully to ensure the fairness and rationality of the tax system.
Third, the contradiction between income tax and accounting period assumptions.
Income tax is an important tax in China's current tax system. Income tax is levied according to a certain proportion of an accounting entity's net income after deducting the reasonable expenses allowed by the tax law. Therefore, when we calculate income tax, we are based on two accounting assumptions: accounting entity assumption and accounting period assumption. It should be said that this is reasonable. However, our country is currently in the process of economic system reform and improvement. Under the condition that the modern enterprise system has not been established, we have to rely on those operating modes with temporary effects, such as contracting operation and leasing operation. However, due to the nonstandard operation method, a series of problems will arise when collecting income tax according to the above two accounting assumptions. First of all, the accounting entity is based on the enterprise legal person, and does not confirm the specific individual operators, while the contracting operation is the opposite, complaining that only the individual contractors are recognized and the legal person is not confirmed. Secondly, when the tax authorities collect income tax, the assumed accounting period is the tax payment period, and the contracted business period is the tax payment obligation period. Therefore, when the tax payment period is inconsistent with the contracted operation period, there will be insoluble contradictions.
For example, the period for an enterprise to contract individuals is from July 19*6 to June 19*7. During the contract period of 19*7 years and the operation period of 10 to June, according to the provisions of the income tax law, the contractor shall pay income tax for two quarters in advance according to its net operating income. Due to the management measures taken by the contractor in the course of operation, such as excessive use of equipment, failure to properly maintain equipment, failure to deal with outdated inventory and possible bad debts, failure to confirm possible contingent liabilities, etc. So when the boss takes back the business, no matter how hard he works, he will face immediate losses. Subsequent operators continue to operate the enterprise, resulting in large-scale losses, and the loss amount exceeds the net income of 19*7 years+1 to June. In this way, the first half and the second half cancel each other out, resulting in a net loss for the whole year. According to the provisions of the tax law, the tax authorities refunded the income tax paid in advance by enterprises in the first half of the year. However, there is a legal dispute about who should own this tax refund. The contractor believes that this tax refund was paid by the contractor and should naturally be earned by the contractor. However, the subsequent operators believe that the tax rebate is caused by operating losses. No loss, no tax refund. More crucially, the successor operators think that the tax refund of the tax department is aimed at the enterprise legal person, not the individual, so the tax refund naturally belongs to the enterprise. In fact, the key to the above contradiction lies in the contradiction between accounting subject and accounting period assumption and management mode. Because the tax law is based on the assumption of accounting subject and accounting period, the contract management mode takes natural persons as the accounting object and the contract management period as the confirmation period of their rights, obligations and responsibilities. When the two conflict, our tax law is at a loss.
References:
/viewnews-63 16