The Government?s Preparation and Statement of Tax Expenditure (2007:3)

Report ID: 206

The Government can choose to give support or assistance to businesses and households through different types of allowances, grants or subsidies or through concessions (exemptions and special provisions) in the tax system. Such exemptions and special provisions in the tax system are called tax expenditures. Tax expenditures are the estimated cost to the unrealized tax revenue, which means that this cost is less visible than the cost of other forms of support and allowance.

In connection with the Swedish budget reform which took place in the mid-1990s, the Government established that an important requirement to assist a new, more efficient budget process would be for all exemptions and special provisions resulting in a reduction in revenue to be subjected to equally close scrutiny as the general expenditure appropriations. In order for this to be possible, the support given in the form of tax expenditures must be rendered visible.

Accordingly, since 1996 the Government has compiled an inventory of tax expenditures in a statement of tax expenditure appended to the Spring Fiscal Policy Bill. The objective of the statement is both to render visible the indirect support entailed by the tax expenditures and to provide a foundation for prioritising between different types of support.

In the 2006 statement, support in the form of tax expenditures is estimated at approximately 12 per cent of the total tax revenue, or approximately SEK 170 billion. So the tax expenditures amount to significant sums. At the same time, tax expenditures do not compete for scope in the budget in the same way as general expenditure appropriations. Nor are tax expenditures scrutinised and evaluated with the same regularity as general expenditure appropriations.

Since tax expenditures entail lower tax revenues, they have the same effect on the balance of the central government budget as support on the expenditure side of the budget. With the aim of maintaining good budgetary discipline, there is thus reason to set equally strict requirements for the preparation and accounting for new and existing tax expenditures as for the preparation and accounting for expenditure appropriations.

Joint Report of the International Coordinated audit of Chernobyl Shelter Fund

Report ID: 219

On April 26, 1986, the worst accident in the history of civilian nuclear power occurred at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in Ukraine, where an explosion destroyed the core of reactor Unit 4 containing approximately 200 tons of nuclear fuel. The explosion and heat from the reactor core propelled radioactive material as much as six miles high, where it was then dispersed mainly over 60,000 square miles of Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia. Smaller amounts of radioactive material spread over Eastern and Western Europe and Scandinavia and were even detected in the United States.

The Chernobyl Shelter Fund (CSF) was founded at European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) in 1997 aimed at financing Shelter Implementation Plant (SIP).The Fund is guided by the set of rules regarding its resource management. Contributor Governments, mainly of G-7 and European Union, contribute to the Fund. The Assembly of Contributors supervises SIP implementation progress.

The Initial SIP costs were estimated at about USD 758 million (about EUR 585 million 4) in 1997. In 2003 and 2004 technical uncertainties and delays in the SIP fulfilment became apparent, especially with the construction of NSC, which resulted in cost escalation to EUR 840 million. The causes of those cost increases and the resulting need for additional steps to control cost and time overruns were discussed at all level including the Assemblies of Contributors. All G-85 Governments agreed to increase the scale of CSF.

Such increase was tied to the requirements to be fulfilled by Ukraine, including improvement of management, removal of procedural obstacles and timely delivery of Ukraine’s contributions. Thus, as of January 2006 estimated total costs were EUR 955 million and term for SIP completion was extended from 2005 to 2010.

Due to failure in timely realization of SIP, in 2006, the Special Subgroup on the Audit of Natural, Man-caused Disasters Consequences and Radioactive Wastes Elimination of the EUROSAI Working Group on Environmental Auditing decided to conduct an international coordinated audit of the Chernobyl Shelter Fund.

The aim of the audit was the establishment of actual state of affairs regarding legal, organizational and financial support of decommissioning the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant (CNPP) and transforming destroyed CNPP Unit 4 into an environmentally safe system by fulfilling the Shelter Implementation Plan.

Source: http://old.ac-rada.gov.ua/img/files/auditeurosai1.pdf

Report on the Coordinated Audit on Tax Subsidies (in Russian)

Report ID: 397

The VI EUROSAI Congress held in Bonn from 30 May to 2 June 2005 dealt with the audit of public revenues by Supreme Audit Institutions (SAIs).The analysis of the country papers submitted by EUROSAI’s members prior to the congress showed, among others,  that there was still  insufficient knowledge about the effectiveness of tax subsidies, noted the extent and complexity of tax legislation that can lead to tax shortfalls and tax exceptions and concluded that SAIs should develop more reliable findings about the volume and target achievement of such tax subsidies.

The Congress therefore advocated conducting a coordinated audit of tax subsidies that was open to all EUROSAI members. For that purpose, a Working Group was set up to coordinate the planning of the audit and to establish the contents and headings of it.

The Supreme Audit Institutions of Germany, Cyprus, Denmark, France, Finland, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Russian Federation, Sweden, Switzerland, Slovak Republic, United Kingdom and Netherlands (observer) participated in the audit.

The objectives of the coordinated audit were:

• Enhancing the sharing of knowledge,
• Enhancing communication between EUROSAI Members in areas of special interest,
• Obtaining best practice information,
• Strengthening informal networks,

To obtain comparable results, a checklist was drafted that addressed all stages of a tax subsidy from legislation via implementation up to reporting. At the same time, this checklist formed the non-binding framework for an audit of transparency and reporting. Furthermore, three Working Sub-Groups were set up to deal with specific tax subsidies: Corporate Income Tax , Value Added Tax and Transparency and Subsidy Report.

After completing audit work, the Working Group came to the conclusion that, concerning tax subsidies, improvements were needed in the fields of legislation, evaluation and reporting in all participant states in order to create the overall transparency which it considered necessary both for the legislator and the general public.

SOURCE: https://www.eurosai.org/en/working-groups/historic-working-groups-committees/coordinated-audit-on-tax-subsidies-working-group/index.html

*This report is also available in the catalogue in English, Spanish, German and French.

INFORME INTERNACIONAL DE LA AUDITORÍA EN COOPERACIÓN AL PLAN COLOMBO PERUANO PARA EL DESARROLLO INTEGRAL DE LA CUENCA DEL RÍO PUTUMAYO 1998-2008

Report ID: 285

En el marco de las actividades de la COMTEMA OLACEFS,, las EFS de: Perú y Colombia realizaron una auditoría coordinada a las Entidades Públicas de cada país encargadas de la ejecución del Plan Colombo - Peruano para el
Desarrollo Integral de la Cuenca del río Putumayo",

El objetivo de la auditoría fue evaluar la gestión ambiental de las entidades públicas de cada país, encargadas de la ejecución del Plan Colombo Peruano para el Desarrollo Integral de la Cuenca del Río Putumayo – PPCP y emitir pronunciamiento acerca de su efectividad en la promoción del desarrollo sostenible regional y en el mejoramiento de la calidad de vida de las poblaciones peruanas y colombianas asentadas en el territorio.

La Auditoría Coordinada comprendió la evaluación selectiva de las instituciones públicas de cada país encargadas de la ejecución del Plan Colombo —Peruano, que surge como acuerdo Binacional, en el marco del Tratado de Cooperación Amazónico Colombo - Peruano, como una propuesta técnica encaminada a orientar acciones conjuntas que contribuyan al desarrollo sostenido y de conservación del medio ambiente y la biodiversidad de la región, así como a mejorar la calidad de vida de la población mediante la generación de actividades productivas y la adecuación de infraestructura física y social básica.

En tal sentido, en el Perú se auditó la gestión ambiental del instituto Nacional de Desarrollo - INADE a través del Proyecto Especial Desarrollo integral de la Cuenca del Río Putumayo - PEDICP, así como al Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores de Perú. Por parte de Colombia, al Instituto Amazónico de Investigaciones Científicas - SINCHI (entidad colombiana encargada de la ejecución del PPCP), la Corporación para el Desarrollo Sostenible del Sur de l Amazonía - Corpoamazonía y al Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores de Colombia.

La conclusión final del informe conjunto es que no existe mucha diferencia entre las realidades fronterizas de Perú y Colombia en el Putumayo, y que no obstante el tiempo de vigencia del Plan Colombo Peruano, aún es limitada la presencia del Estado en esa zona, situación que conlleva a una condición que surge como efecto de un problema estructural, en el que intervienen además de las variables ambientales las de orden social y económico, conjuntamente con la voluntad política que se puede designar para propender a la solución de la problemática.

Fuente. https://www.environmental-auditing.org/media/4604/colombia_peru_08_f_eng_ppcp.pdf

Report on the Coordinated Audit of Tax Subsidies

Report ID: 395

The VI EUROSAI Congress held in Bonn from 30 May to 2 June 2005 dealt with the audit of public revenues by Supreme Audit Institutions (SAIs).The analysis of the country papers submitted by EUROSAI’s members prior to the congress showed, among others,  that there was still  insufficient knowledge about the effectiveness of tax subsidies, noted the extent and complexity of tax legislation that can lead to tax shortfalls and tax exceptions and concluded that SAIs should develop more reliable findings about the volume and target achievement of such tax subsidies.

The Congress therefore advocated conducting a coordinated audit of tax subsidies that was open to all EUROSAI members. For that purpose, a Working Group was set up to coordinate the planning of the audit and to establish the contents and headings of it.

The Supreme Audit Institutions of Germany, Cyprus, Denmark, France, Finland, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Russian Federation, Sweden, Switzerland, Slovak Republic, United Kingdom and Netherlands (observer) participated in the audit.

The objectives of the coordinated audit were:

• Enhancing the sharing of knowledge,
• Enhancing communication between EUROSAI Members in areas of special interest,
• Obtaining best practice information,
• Strengthening informal networks,
• Improving cooperation with academic/research institutes

To obtain comparable results, a checklist was drafted that addressed all stages of a tax subsidy from legislation via implementation up to reporting. At the same time, this checklist formed the non-binding framework for an audit of transparency and reporting. Furthermore, three Working Sub-Groups were set up to deal with specific tax subsidies: Corporate Income Tax , Value Added Tax and Transparency and Subsidy Report.

After completing audit work, the Working Group came to the conclusion that, concerning tax subsidies, improvements were needed in the fields of legislation, evaluation and reporting in all participant states in order to create the overall transparency which it considered necessary both for the legislator and the general public.

Source: https://www.eurosai.org/en/working-groups/historic-working-groups-committees/coordinated-audit-on-tax-subsidies-working-group/index.html