commission on fiscal imbalance 合集

Commission on fiscal imbalance合集

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: ies. One frequently cited example is the tax deductions that encourage the use of pollution-free energy. During the negotiation of the Lambermont agreement, an additional phase was completed by allowing not only tax deductions but also all tax increases related to regional jurisdiction. Additional clarification was made during this second phase of the negotiations: the accepted term is “tax reductions,” which must take the form of a tax credit, and not a “tax 33 deduction.” The difference is that in the first instance, the tax due is calculated according to the federal system and is then reduced by the amount of the regional tax credit. The tax deduction, on the other hand, usually refers to a reduction in the basis of assessment. This second technique should be rejected since the tax base is used by the federal government, the regions, the provinces and the communes and the modification of the tax base by the regions would affect the finances of the other entities. The alternative would have been to establish a second tax calculation, which would have made the operation costly from an administrative standpoint. Consequently, in order to avoid errors of interpretation, the term was modified between the Sainte-Thérèse and Lambermont agreement. The second principle concerns the fiscal autonomy margins established in the Sainte-Thérèse agreement. The margins were set at 3.25% until December 31, 2003 and 6.75% starting January 1, 2004. Consequently, the regions are authorized to implement “general proportional additional taxes and general, lump sum or proportional tax reductions, differentiated or undifferentiated by tax bracket, and to implement general tax reductions and increases,34 provided that 35 the sum of these measures does not exceed the maximum percentages” [OUR TRANSLATION]. These margins cover revenues from the federal personal income tax localized in each region. These revenues are actually calculated prior to the application of tax increases or reductions implemented by the regions and prior to the application of piggyback taxes levied by the communes and the provinces. These tax reductions or increases do not, therefore, affect the transfer that the regions receive from the federal government (the apportionment of which, between the regions, is based on the derivation principle). Similarly, the equalizing transfer36 is calculated on the basis of federal personal income tax revenues and, therefore, before regional fiscal decisions are made in respect of personal income tax. Were the opposite true, the amount of the equalizing transfer would have been affected by regional additional taxes or tax refunds while the fiscal capacity of each region remained unchanged. It is precisely this fiscal capacity and not actual tax revenues that must be considered in an equalizing transfer. The September 16, 2000 agreement also stipulated that the regions would not be authorized to reduce the tax’s progressivity. During negotiations in conjunction with the drafting of the legislation, two questions arose. First, what is the reference progressivi...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 03/06/2013 for the course ECON 220 taught by Professor Paulo during the Spring '13 term at University of Liverpool.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online