Krasovsky Konstantin S
Alcohol and Drug Information Centre (ADIC-Ukraine), Vishnyakovskaya Str,, 13-212, Kyiv, 02140, Ukraine.
Tob Induc Dis. 2010 Aug 31;8(1):10. doi: 10.1186/1617-9625-8-10.
Tobacco taxes are one of the most effective ways to reduce tobacco use. Transnational tobacco companies (TTCs) claim they wish to develop and secure excise systems that benefit both governments and the profitability of the companies themselves. The objective of the paper is to use the case of Ukraine, with its inconsistent history of excise tax changes in 1992-2008, to explore tobacco industry taxation strategies and tactics, and their implications for governmental revenues.
Details of tobacco industry policy on tobacco taxation in Ukraine were obtained by searching tobacco industry internal documents and various published reports.
Even before entering the market in Ukraine, TTCs had made efforts to change the excise system in the country. In 1993-1994, TTCs lobbied the Ukrainian Government, and succeeded in achieving a lowering in tobacco tax. This, however, did not produce revenue increase they promised the Government. In 1996-1998, Ukrainian authorities increased excise several times, ignoring the wishes of TTCs, caused significant growth in revenue. Due to TTCs lobbying activities in 1999-2007 the tax increases were very moderate and it resulted in increased tobacco consumption in Ukraine. In 2008, despite the TTCs position, excise rates were increased twice and it was very beneficial for revenues.
The Framework Convention on Tobacco Control includes provisions both on tobacco taxation policy and on protection of public health policy from vested interests of tobacco industry. This paper provides arguments why tobacco taxation policy should also be protected from vested interests of tobacco industry. TTCs taxation strategy appears to be consistent: keep excise as low as possible. Apparent conflicts between TTCs concerning tax structures often hide their real aim to change tax structures for competing interests without increasing total tax incidence. Governments, that aim to reduce levels of tobacco use, should not allow tobacco companies to influence the development and implementation of tobacco taxation policy.
烟草税是减少烟草使用最有效的方法之一。跨国烟草公司(TTCs)宣称,他们希望开发并确保消费税制度既能使政府受益,又能保证公司自身的盈利能力。本文的目的是利用乌克兰在1992 - 2008年消费税变化历史不一致的案例,探讨烟草行业的税收策略和手段,以及它们对政府财政收入的影响。
通过搜索烟草行业内部文件和各种已发表的报告,获取乌克兰烟草行业税收政策的详细信息。
早在进入乌克兰市场之前,跨国烟草公司就已努力改变该国的消费税制度。1993 - 1994年,跨国烟草公司游说乌克兰政府,并成功实现了烟草税的降低。然而,这并未带来他们向政府承诺的财政收入增加。1996 - 1998年,乌克兰当局不顾跨国烟草公司的意愿多次提高消费税,导致财政收入显著增长。由于跨国烟草公司在1999 - 2007年的游说活动,税收增长非常适度,这导致乌克兰的烟草消费量增加。2008年,尽管跨国烟草公司持反对立场,消费税税率仍两次提高,这对财政收入非常有利。
《烟草控制框架公约》既包含了烟草税收政策的条款,也包含了保护公共卫生政策免受烟草行业既得利益影响的条款。本文提出了为何烟草税收政策也应免受烟草行业既得利益影响的论据。跨国烟草公司的税收策略似乎是一致的:尽可能降低消费税。跨国烟草公司在税收结构方面表面上的冲突,往往掩盖了它们为竞争利益而改变税收结构却不增加总体税负的真正目的。旨在降低烟草使用水平的政府不应允许烟草公司影响烟草税收政策的制定和实施。