Three major disputes still exist in the legislatio

  • Detail

There are still three major disputes over the legislation of environmental protection tax

release date: Source: Yangcheng Evening News Editor: China packaging number of Views: 515 copyright and disclaimer

core tip: there are still 9 days left, and the time for the environmental protection tax law of the people's Republic of China (Draft for comments) (hereinafter referred to as the draft for comments) to the public for comments will be expired

[China Packaging News] there are nine days left before the deadline for the public consultation of the environmental protection tax law of the people's Republic of China (Draft) (hereinafter referred to as the draft)

the legislation of environmental protection tax will fill the blank of China's tax system; Environmental protection tax may become the first new tax in China after the Third Plenary Session of the 18th CPC Central Committee. Therefore, the publication of the opinion draft has attracted the attention of academia, practitioners and business circles. During the previous 20 days of consultation, what comments have all walks of life put forward on the draft

it was learned that on June 25, the China Law Society held an expert seminar on the environmental protection tax law (Draft for comments) and the 18th legislative expert consultation meeting of the China Law Society in 2015 in Beijing. More than 20 experts discussed the draft and put forward relevant opinions, including the director of the tax law research center of Wuhan University Therefore, the energy consumption cost in the plastic granulation industry in China has become the second largest cost in the plastic granulation cost, second only to raw materials. Professor Xiong Wei, vice president of the fiscal and Tax Law Research Association, raised 10 representative questions. On the 28th, Xiong Wei gave an exclusive interview to Yangcheng Evening News, introducing his views and the controversial issues surrounding the draft

dispute 1

should it be called pollution tax

or environmental protection tax

from the name of the draft, the name of the new tax after the pollution charge is changed to tax is environmental protection tax. However, Yangcheng Evening News learned that there are different opinions and disputes about this name between experts in academic and practical circles

some experts suggested that the scope of environmental protection tax should be too wide. The current content is limited to pollution discharge behavior, which is inconsistent with the name and reality. It should be called pollution discharge tax, which can coordinate the relationship with pollution product tax and leave room for other specific pollution behaviors or product taxes in the future

Professor Xiong Wei admitted that he supported this opinion. Xiong Wei explained to the Yangcheng Evening News that more than 90% of the content of the draft was transferred from the current "Regulations on the administration of the collection and use of sewage charges", which did not involve all environmental protection matters. Environmental protection includes at least three aspects: sewage discharge; Resources and ecological environment; Products that may cause pollution

it is a relatively appropriate environmental protection tax to include these three aspects at the same time. But now, among these three parts, only sewage discharge has been included in the opinion draft, which is the sewage discharge tax, but it wears a big hat. Xiong Wei said

Xiong Wei pointed out that if it is called environmental protection tax, it will be difficult to levy an independent tax related to environmental protection in the future. Therefore, it is advisable to consider calling this tax pollution tax, and formulate other taxes when conditions are ripe in the future, so as to gradually build the framework and system of environmental protection tax. Or, there is another solution: add the contents of the other two parts of environmental protection to the draft. However, since China has imposed a separate resource tax, some highly polluting products (such as refined oil, batteries, and coatings) have been included in the consumption tax. It is very difficult to coordinate the relationship between the three taxes in the short term. Therefore, it is more realistic to rename it pollution tax

controversy 2

whether carbon dioxide emissions are included in the scope of Taxation

as early as 2011, he Jiankun, an expert of the Chinese climate negotiation delegation, revealed that from 2000 to 2010, China's carbon dioxide emissions increased from 12.9% to about 23%, and the per capita carbon dioxide emissions have now exceeded the world average. The China US joint statement on climate change issued on November 12, 2014 said that China plans to peak its carbon dioxide emissions around 2030 and will strive to reach the peak as soon as possible. Hejiankun once explained that professionally speaking, the rate of decline of carbon emission intensity per unit of GDP must be higher than the growth rate of GDP in order to reach the peak. That is to say, at present, China has great pressure on emission reduction

in this context, should carbon dioxide be listed as a pollutant in the environmental protection tax law, or even if the emission exceeds a certain standard? It is reported that this is another controversial issue in the academic circles and the practical circles since 1998

some experts believe that environmental protection tax should be levied on carbon dioxide emissions, but others believe that once levied, it will have a great impact on economic development

if you really want to increase environmental protection, you should include this, because our CO2 emission hydraulic universal testing machine is really too large. It is reported that if the carbon tax is levied, even if it is levied according to the minimum standard, the country can receive 90billion yuan a year, but now the country receives less than 20billion yuan of sewage charges a year. Since we want to transform the original pollution discharge fee into an environmental protection tax to strengthen environmental protection, why exclude the carbon dioxide tax that is most likely to force enterprises to save energy and reduce emissions? Xiong Wei questioned that if there is no difference between the original position, intensity and pace of collecting pollution charges, the time-consuming and laborious levying of environmental protection tax is of little significance, and the current pollution charge system can still continue to play a role

dispute 3

whether the tax should be levied if the sewage treatment meets the standard

whether the current regulations on the administration of the collection and use of sewage charges or the draft of the environmental protection tax law stipulate that enterprises, institutions and other producers and operators whose pollutant emissions meet the standard should pay sewage charges or environmental protection taxes; If the discharge exceeds the standard, double the charges or taxes

in this regard, some people in the environmental protection industry have proposed that the legislation of environmental protection tax should not continue the current idea of collecting sewage charges, but should be linked to normal and up to standard sewage discharge. It is suggested that the pollutant discharge standard should be set more strictly, and the normal and legal sewage discharge that meets the standard will not be taxed, and only those that exceed the standard will be charged or taxed

Xiong Wei told that some enterprises feel wronged. They invest in governance and meet the standard, but they still have to pay fees or taxes

both the pollution discharge fee and the environmental protection tax are based on a common concept, which is based on the damage to the environment caused by taxpayers and producers and operators. Since the discharge meets the standard, it shows that the damage to the environment is small. Pollution discharge is inevitable. As long as enterprises produce, it is impossible not to discharge pollutants, which is also a right. The formulation of emission standards, on the one hand, gives everyone the right to discharge pollutants; on the other hand, if excessive discharge of pollutants causes environmental damage, it will have to bear the consequences. Why don't we set stricter emission standards and force enterprises to increase pollutant emission control? The effect of pollution control in advance will be much better than that after the event. Xiong Wei said

Copyright © 2011 JIN SHI