返回Google圖書搜尋

VAT and Immovable Property

其他書名	Full Taxation Models and the Treatment of Capital Gains on Owner-Occupied Residences
出版	SSRN, 2016
URL	http://books.google.com.hk/books?id=r5f9zgEACAAJ&hl=&source=gbs_api

註釋How should immovable property (in particular residential property) be treated under a value added tax? This paper considers whether proposals to tax all sales of immovable property (including consumer to consumer sales) are preferable to existing models (in which the first sale of new residential property is taxed - the price representing the net present value of the future consumption of the asset purchased - and subsequent sales are exempt).After setting out the essential features of a modern VAT, the paper outlines the consequences of taxing immovable property in full under a VAT, using an example that is gradually changed to illustrate the effects of different approaches. The examples illustrate how full taxation of sales of immovable property equates to non-taxation, while taxing re-sales of residential property with deferred input tax credits (whether without indexation, as proposed by Poddar, or with, as proposed by Conrad) amounts to a capital gains tax on homeowners. The paper concludes that existing models are not merely acceptable alternatives to a full taxation ideal but are in fact the only approach that is consistent with the underlying design of transaction-method VATs. The final section of the paper focuses on how exactly how such models can be given legal effect, using the New Zealand and Australian GSTs as examples. The discussion highlights one critical design feature of both countries' laws, which is ignored in most comparative tax discussions. Both countries target their GST only at value added to land by persons carrying on economic activities. They exclude from the tax base any capital appreciation (or depreciation) on immovable property held by owner-occupiers, residential landlords, and mere investors - an effect that is diametrically opposed to the proposals of Poddar and Cnossen. For reasons explained in the paper, the New Zealand approach has the advantage of being simpler and conceptually clearer, from a legal perspective, and is probably to be preferred.