破解企業(yè)所得稅謎題
|
????作為一名新聞工作者，我的一貫職責(zé)是揭露社會(huì)時(shí)弊，指出問題并發(fā)出警報(bào)，將復(fù)雜的世界動(dòng)態(tài)真實(shí)而清晰地公之于眾。但是，我很少對(duì)報(bào)道中的問題提供明確的解決辦法，因?yàn)槟遣皇俏业墓ぷ鳌业慕巧皇且粋€(gè)觀察者和評(píng)判者，而非決策者。 ????但這次，我要離經(jīng)叛道，為時(shí)下正在熱議的公司所得稅問題給出我的解決辦法。當(dāng)前的問題是，公司的所得稅雖有海量的數(shù)據(jù)，但無法說明實(shí)際情況。 ????實(shí)際上很簡(jiǎn)單。只要能讓財(cái)務(wù)會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則委員會(huì)（Financial Accounting Standards Board）督促所有上市公司公布一項(xiàng)數(shù)據(jù)，這個(gè)問題就會(huì)迎刃而解——即公司為指定年份所交納的聯(lián)邦所得稅稅額。要知道，目前，各公司公布了大量的稅務(wù)數(shù)據(jù)，唯獨(dú)把聯(lián)邦所得稅排除在外。 ????這種改變勢(shì)在必行。雖然我們可以通過大量的報(bào)道、博客、網(wǎng)上評(píng)論、報(bào)告和Twitter信息對(duì)納稅情況有所了解，但是，誰又真的了解最近幾個(gè)月以來美國(guó)公司繳納公司所得稅的詳細(xì)情況呢？而且，很多報(bào)道都是有誤的。包括《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》（New York Times）3月25日的一篇常規(guī)報(bào)道稱，通用電氣公司（General Electric）在2010年未繳納公司所得稅。而造成這些報(bào)道錯(cuò)誤的原因是，報(bào)道者混淆了公司用來計(jì)算盈利的數(shù)據(jù)和應(yīng)向美國(guó)國(guó)稅局（Internal Revenue Service，IRS）繳納的稅款額度。 ????同樣，美國(guó)政策研究學(xué)會(huì)（Institute for Policy Studies）近期發(fā)布的《2011企業(yè)高管薪酬報(bào)告》（Executive Excess 2011 report ）也不可避免的出現(xiàn)了錯(cuò)誤。該報(bào)告將企業(yè)首席執(zhí)行官的薪酬與公司繳納的聯(lián)邦所得稅進(jìn)行了比較（這可真是個(gè)很不錯(cuò)的主意）。 ????上述兩家機(jī)構(gòu)不約而同地將會(huì)計(jì)分錄“美國(guó)稅金本期稅額”和公司應(yīng)向IRS繳納的稅金混為一談。其實(shí)，這兩個(gè)數(shù)字大不相同。 ????“事實(shí)上，對(duì)于跨國(guó)公司和發(fā)行無條件認(rèn)股權(quán)的公司來說，其財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)表中上報(bào)的‘本期稅額’所得稅金額不太可能代表其納稅申報(bào)單中顯示的實(shí)際支付所得稅額，”密歇根州立大學(xué)商學(xué)院（Michigan State University business school）高級(jí)稅務(wù)會(huì)計(jì)專業(yè)教授埃德蒙德?奧斯雷稱。請(qǐng)注意，其實(shí)，大部分大型美國(guó)公司都持有股票期權(quán)，或進(jìn)行跨國(guó)業(yè)務(wù)，或兩者兼而有之。 ????斯科特?克林格是IPS《2011高管薪酬報(bào)告》的主要撰稿人，他坦承，賬面上顯示的“本期稅額”只是“最大近似值”，與公司支付給IRS的實(shí)際稅額或從IRS獲得的退稅額度相比相差甚遠(yuǎn)。然而，報(bào)告中并未說明這一點(diǎn)。 ????《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》從來都是在第一時(shí)間提供及時(shí)報(bào)道。在8月31日關(guān)于IPS的一篇報(bào)告中，《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》順便引用了GE的納稅情況作為例子，稱GE已繳納部分2010年聯(lián)邦所得稅。然而《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》并未對(duì)兩次報(bào)告出現(xiàn)的出入作出任何解釋。要知道，它3月份的那篇報(bào)道（“他向美國(guó)交稅了嗎？沒有！”）可是另一個(gè)版本。而其在9月11日的一篇報(bào)道提到，只有公司自己知道自己究竟繳納了多少稅費(fèi)。當(dāng)然，這個(gè)觀點(diǎn)是正確的。 ????（披露警告：四月份，我和網(wǎng)絡(luò)新聞機(jī)構(gòu)ProPublica的資深記者杰夫?葛斯共同撰寫了一篇有關(guān)GE納稅情況的文章。該文章指出《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》3月份對(duì)GE納稅情況的報(bào)道有誤，得出的結(jié)論和《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》8月和9月的有關(guān)報(bào)道一致。說實(shí)話，《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》敢于發(fā)表與之前的說法相左的報(bào)道，值得表揚(yáng)。現(xiàn)在，有了《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》的支持，我們不再覺得勢(shì)單力薄。） ????總而言之，對(duì)于公司納稅情況，導(dǎo)致我們做出錯(cuò)誤判斷的罪魁禍?zhǔn)资乾F(xiàn)金流轉(zhuǎn)表（不是損益表）所顯示的公司在指定年里繳納稅款的額度。發(fā)現(xiàn)沒有，在指定年度繳納的稅額和繳納指定年份的稅額是不同的。事實(shí)上，企業(yè)不僅可以補(bǔ)交之前未繳納年份的稅費(fèi)，還可以提前繳納未來年份的稅費(fèi)；或者可以說，他們可以估算出未來某年應(yīng)繳的稅費(fèi)，然后提前上繳。屆時(shí)，如果估值和實(shí)際額度有出入，就會(huì)多退少補(bǔ)。 ????事實(shí)上，企業(yè)總是可以找到數(shù)據(jù)來為自己辯護(hù)。例如，美國(guó)移動(dòng)運(yùn)營(yíng)商Verizon就選出幾組數(shù)據(jù)，反駁IPS報(bào)告中的有關(guān)內(nèi)容。還有埃克森美孚公司（Exxon Mobil）（我持有該公司的股票）也是用同樣的方法，向《華爾街日?qǐng)?bào)》（Wall Street Journal）森?伯尼?桑德斯（佛蒙特州—獨(dú)立參議員）撰寫的專欄報(bào)道提出了反證。 ????企業(yè)如果能夠主動(dòng)公布其實(shí)際繳納稅額，那我們也可以在享有充分知情權(quán)的狀況下進(jìn)行討論。但現(xiàn)狀并非如此，絕大部分公司并沒有這個(gè)打算。 ????最簡(jiǎn)單效果也最顯著的手段，就是FASB責(zé)令企業(yè)公布其在指定年度納稅額度。但是，為什么FASB至今沒有這樣做？答案很明顯，因?yàn)闆]有適當(dāng)?shù)娜嘶蚪M織來提議。 ????FASB發(fā)言人羅伯特?斯圖爾特稱：“到目前為止，委員會(huì)沒有收到哪怕一份有關(guān)提供近來企業(yè)所得稅信息的請(qǐng)求。”他還說，該委員會(huì)一直都非常樂意改進(jìn)財(cái)政信息的報(bào)告情況，使其對(duì)投資者來說更具實(shí)用性。 ????好吧，我現(xiàn)在就來當(dāng)“第一個(gè)吃螃蟹的人”。還有誰愿意做第二個(gè)？ ????譯者：李淑玉/汪皓 |
????My usual journalistic role is to expose wrongdoing, point with alarm, and distill complicated information into clear explanations of what's really going on in the world. I rarely offer specific solutions, because that's not my job -- I'm an observer and critic, not a policy?maker. ????Today, though, I'm going to depart from form and suggest a solution to a problem that's plaguing the current debate about corporate income taxes: too many numbers, too little knowledge. ????It's simple, really. Get the Financial Accounting Standards Board to make public companies disclose one number that's currently not required -- the amount of federal income tax they pay for a given year. Companies report plenty of tax numbers, but not that one. ????Here's why we need this change. There have been a zillion stories, blog posts, online comments, reports, tweets, and who knows what else in recent months about how much income tax U.S. companies do or don't pay. Many of the pieces -- including the New York Times' agenda-setting Mar. 25 story claiming that GE (GE) paid no U.S. income tax for 2010 -- are wrong, because they confuse numbers that companies use to calculate earnings with the amount they pay the IRS. ????That is also true of the Institute for Policy Studies' recent Executive Excess 2011 report comparing chief executives' compensation packages with the U.S. income taxes their companies paid. (A great idea, by the way.) ????Both the Times story and the IPS study conflate an accounting entry called "current portion of U.S. taxes" with the taxes a company sends the IRS. But the two numbers are rarely the same. ????"For multinational companies and companies issuing nonqualified stock options, it is very unlikely the 'current' income tax expense as reported in the financial statement will represent the actual income taxes paid as reported on the tax return," says Ed Outslay of the Michigan State University business school, a leading tax scholar. Please note that most sizable U.S. companies have stock options, multinational operations, or both. ????Scott Klinger, chief author of the IPS study, readily concedes that "current tax" is a "best approximation" rather than the actual amount that companies pay the IRS or get back from it. However, the study doesn't say that. ????The Times is less forthcoming. In an Aug. 31 story about the IPS study, the Times, in passing, quoted GE as saying that it paid some federal income tax for 2010. The Times, which declined to comment, hasn't reconciled that with its March ("Its American tax bill? None.") version. Or with a Sept. 11 story that said -- correctly -- that only the companies know how much income tax they pay. ????(Disclosure alert: In April, Jeff Gerth of ProPublica and I wrote about GE's tax situation, pointing out the Times' original mistake and making the same points the Times has since made in its August and September stories. The Times deserves credit for evolving. It's nice to have company in what had been a lonely position.) ????Adding to the confusion about who owes what to the IRS are numbers from cash flow statements (not to be confused with profit-and-loss statements) that show taxes companies paid in a given year. Alas, taxes paid in a given year aren't the same as taxes paid for a given year. Payments could be for earlier years or future years, or could be estimated taxes paid that year that will be refunded in the future. ????You can find a number to support whatever case you want to make. Verizon (VZ) is using selected numbers to rebut what the IPS study said about it. Exxon Mobil (XOM) (in which I own stock) is using selected numbers to rebut a Wall Street Journal op-ed by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.). ????It would be nice if corporations voluntarily disclosed their actual tax bill so we could have an informed discussion. But even if some decide to do so, most won't. ????The obvious and simple solution is to have the Financial Accounting Standards Board require companies to disclose how much tax they paid for a given year. Why doesn't FASB require that now? Apparently because the appropriate parties, whoever they may be, haven't asked. ????"The FASB has not received any recent requests relating to the information currently provided about income taxes," says FASB spokesman Robert Stewart. "The FASB is always willing to consider ways to improve the usefulness of financial information for investors." ????Okay, I'm requesting. Anyone want to second me? |
?
最新文章