Administration of the Value Added Tax

Report ID: 35

Objective of audit:

(CZ) The objective of the audit in the Czech Republic was to review the procedure used by financial authorities in administrating value added tax following integration of the Czech Republic into the common internal market of the European Community (hereinafter “EC”), connected with free movement of goods and services, and to review the use of the VIES1, particularly monitoring the exercise of the right to exempt intra-Community deliveries from value added tax.

(D) The objective of the audit was to review the system of intra-Community VAT control with a special focus on administrative cooperation in the field of VAT according to the above mentioned regulations. As a result of this, weaknesses should be reported and recommendations be developed to address the problems stated.

The audits were performed by the Supreme Audit Office, Czech Republic (hereinafter the “SAO”) and by the German Bundesrechnungshof (hereinafter “BRH”) in mutual cooperation on the basis of an agreement concluded between the two audit institutions on June 8, 2006. The cooperation primarily concerned the review of selected commercial transactions between taxpayers from the Czech Republic (hereinafter “CR”) and from the Federal Republic of Germany (hereinafter “Germany”), use of information obtained via international cooperation between tax administrations and comparison of the VAT administration systems in the two countries.

Based on an agreement between the two SAI the parallel audit on the administration of VAT in the CR and Germany was carried out. Besides the main point – exchange of information based on the Council Regulation (EC) No 1798/2003 and the Commission Regulation (EC) No 1925/2004 – the audit covered other topics as for instance the registration of taxpayers, VAT returns and recapitulative statements that are closely linked with it. Additionally, the legal situation in terms of international bus transportation of passengers and the comparison of certain statistical data were part of the audit.

By comparing the systems of administration of VAT in the two countries differences were found in the following areas:

1. Registration for VAT
2. International bus transportation of passengers
3. VAT returns
4. Recapitulative statements
5. International exchange of information in the area of VAT
6. Risk management

As part of cooperation, the two SAI reviewed selected cases of intra-Community transactions processed by tax entities in theCR and Germany. Thirty-one cases of business transactions were reviewed jointly using the legal provisions of the CLO, where there were doubts about their realization, their proper treatment or suspicion of VAT fraud. The SAI found that:

• In some cases, tax offi ces made use of the information obtained via international exchange and have reassessed taxpayer’s VAT liability. In those cases, taxpayers either unlawfully applied the right for exemption of supplies from VAT, or did not declare acquisition of goods in their VAT return.
• In some cases, tax offices could not make use of the information obtained, because the information was incomplete or incomprehensible. In other cases, the information could not be used because of differing legal provisions in both Member States.
• In some cases, the tax administration of another Member State refused to reply to a request for information.
• Some cases were detected, where taxpayers wrongly declared business transactions in their recapitulative statements. As a result of this, data in VIES were erroneous and therefore the tax administrators had to review those cases.

Rapport sur le contrôle coordonné des subventions fiscales

Report ID: 113

Le VIe Congrès de l'EUROSAI, qui s'est tenu à Bonn du 30 mai au 2 juin 2005, a traité du contrôle des recettes publiques par les Institutions supérieures de contrôle (ISC). L'analyse des documents nationaux soumis par les membres de l'EUROSAI avant le congrès a montré, entre autres, que les connaissances sur l'efficacité des subventions fiscales sont encore insuffisantes, a noté l'étendue et la complexité de la législation fiscale qui peut conduire à des insuffisances et à des exceptions fiscales et a conclu que les ISC devraient élaborer des conclusions plus fiables sur le volume et la réalisation des objectifs de ces subventions fiscales.

Le Congrès a donc préconisé la réalisation d'un audit coordonné des subventions fiscales, ouvert à tous les membres de l'EUROSAI. A cet effet, un groupe de travail a été créé afin de coordonner la planification de l'audit et d'en établir le contenu et les rubriques. Les Institutions supérieures de contrôle d'Allemagne, de Chypre, du Danemark, de France, de Finlande, de Hongrie, d'Islande, d'Italie, de Lettonie, de Lituanie, de Pologne, de Roumanie, de la Fédération de Russie, de Suède, de Suisse, de la République slovaque, du Royaume-Uni et des Pays-Bas (observateur) ont participé à l'audit.

Les objectifs de l'audit coordonné étaient les suivants
- Améliorer le partage des connaissances,
- Améliorer la communication entre les membres de l'EUROSAI dans des domaines d'intérêt particulier,
- Obtenir des informations sur les meilleures pratiques,
- Renforcer les réseaux informels,

Afin d'obtenir des résultats comparables, une liste de contrôle a été rédigée, portant sur toutes les étapes d'une subvention fiscale, depuis la législation jusqu'au rapport, en passant par la mise en œuvre. En même temps, cette liste de contrôle a constitué le cadre non contraignant d'un audit de la transparence et des rapports. En outre, trois sous-groupes de travail ont été créés pour traiter des subventions fiscales spécifiques : l'impôt sur le revenu des sociétés, la taxe sur la valeur ajoutée et le rapport sur la transparence et les subventions.

A l'issue des travaux d'audit, le groupe de travail est arrivé à la conclusion que, concernant les subventions fiscales, des améliorations étaient nécessaires dans les domaines de la législation, de l'évaluation et de l'établissement de rapports dans tous les Etats participants, afin de créer la transparence globale qu'il juge nécessaire tant pour le législateur que pour le grand public.

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

Fisheries management and monitoring of environmental impact on fish resources in the Baltic sea

Report ID: 159

1. In 2008 the Supreme Audit Institutions of Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Russia, and Sweden conducted an audit of environmental monitoring and fisheries management and control in the Baltic Sea. The Supreme Audit Institutions in Estonia, Finland, Lithuania, Russia, and Sweden did not participate in the audit of the environmental monitoring in the Baltic Sea. The Supreme Audit Institutions of Latvia, Poland and Germany did not participate in the audit of fisheries management and control in the Baltic Sea. The audit was performed as a performance and compliance audit and covered the period 2005-2007.

2. The audit was divided into two parts: The first part was about environmental monitoring in the Baltic Sea and the second part was about fisheries management and control in the Baltic Sea.

3. The overall objective of the first part was to assess whether the signatory states of the Helsinki Convention are complying with the standards of the Cooperative Monitoring in the Baltic Marine Environment (COMBINE) and how the Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) will affect national monitoring.

4. The overall objective of the second part was to conduct a review of fisheries management and control in the Baltic Sea.

5. The first and the second part of the audit share the following overall objective: How have the monitoring and fisheries control authorities contributed to preserve the marine environment and protect the fish stock in the Baltic Sea.

6. The relevant national legislation in the EU Member States is supposed to be within the frame set by the EU. However, the monitoring and fisheries management and control strategies may differ significantly among the individual countries, and comparative analyses may provide an overview of what is considered good practice. Furthermore, Russian fisheries legislation is, naturally, not adjusted to the EU-regulations. The Russian Federation’s national fishery legislation takes into consideration the requirements and provisions of nine international conventions and agreements related to fishery issues in the Baltic Sea. Moreover, Russia still adheres to the recommendations of the International Baltic Sea Fisheries Commission (IBSFC) in spite of the fact that it was dissolved in 2004.

7. The audit was planned and conducted as a parallel audit. A parallel audit means that the participating audit institutions audit the same audit objectives in their respective countries and identify relevant audit criteria and audit methods together. However, it is up to the individual supreme audit institution to decide how to conduct the audit and which audit criteria and audit methods to apply in the audit. The Joint Final Report is prepared on the basis of the data provided by the participating supreme audit institutions.

Global climate change audit Coordinated International Implications for Governments and their Auditors (UNFCCC Kyoto Protocol)

Report ID: 161

Worldwide, scientific communities consider climate change to be an important social, economic, and environmental issue that needs to be addressed through reducing greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to the resulting climatic changes, both current and potential. Countries have made important commitments in this regard, through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and its Kyoto Protocol, while negotiations on the issue continue internationally. In June 2007, 14 supreme audit institutions (SAIs) embarked on a project to cooperate in the design and undertaking of national audits of our respective governments’ climate change programs and performance. The project involved a diverse group of offices—from Australia, Austria, Brazil, Canada, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Indonesia, Norway, Poland, Slovenia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States that have varying degrees of experience in auditing governments’ management of climate change.

The governments of all these countries have indicated that climate change is an important issue and have made commitments to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and to addressing adaptation to climate change.

As a result of the social, economic, and environmental implications of government policies and the magnitude of public expenditures related to climate change, the actions governments take in the coming years are likely to have significant and historic implications for generations to come. As advocates of good management, effective governance, and accountability, SAIs are compelled to treat climate change policies, programs, and projects as highly material (pertinent and necessary) audit topics.

We are pleased to present the results of our audit work in this report. We hope the results of the coordinated audit will provide all SAIs—not just the 14 represented in this report—with a summary of common issues to consider as they undertake work to scrutinize their governments’ achievement of climate change commitments and delivery of related policies and programs.

The report highlights areas that SAIs may wish to examine to improve the implementation of their governments’ climate change policies and programs. The results also provide legislatures with a means to assess the progress that governments have made and challenges they face in delivering their programs and targets.

Bericht über die Abgestimmte Prüfung von Steuersubventionen

Report ID: 169

Der VI. EUROSAI-Kongress, der vom 30. Mai bis 2. Juni 2005 in Bonn stattfand, befasste sich mit der Prüfung der öffentlichen Einnahmen durch die Obersten Rechnungskontrollbehörden (ORKB). Die Analyse der von den EUROSAI-Mitgliedern im Vorfeld des Kongresses eingereichten Länderpapiere zeigte u.a., dass das Wissen über die Wirksamkeit von Steuersubventionen noch unzureichend ist, wies auf den Umfang und die Komplexität der Steuergesetzgebung hin, die zu Steuerausfällen und Steuerausnahmen führen können, und kam zu dem Schluss, dass die ORKB verlässlichere Erkenntnisse über den Umfang und die Zielerreichung solcher Steuersubventionen erarbeiten sollten.

Der Kongress sprach sich daher für die Durchführung einer koordinierten Prüfung von Steuersubventionen aus, die allen EUROSAI-Mitgliedern offen steht. Zu diesem Zweck wurde eine Arbeitsgruppe eingerichtet, die die Planung der Prüfung koordiniert und deren Inhalte und Rubriken festlegt.

Die Obersten Rechnungskontrollbehörden Deutschlands, Zyperns, Dänemarks, Frankreichs, Finnlands, Ungarns, Islands, Italiens, Lettlands, Litauens, Polens, Rumäniens, der Russischen Föderation, Schwedens, der Schweiz, der Slowakischen Republik, des Vereinigten Königreichs und der Niederlande (Beobachter) nahmen an der Prüfung teil.

Die Ziele des koordinierten Audits waren:

- Verbesserung des Wissensaustauschs,

- Verbesserung der Kommunikation zwischen den EUROSAI-Mitgliedern in Bereichen von besonderem Interesse,

- Gewinnung von Informationen über bewährte Praktiken,

- Stärkung der informellen Netzwerke,

Um vergleichbare Ergebnisse zu erzielen, wurde eine Checkliste erstellt, die alle Phasen einer Steuervergünstigung von der Gesetzgebung über die Umsetzung bis hin zur Berichterstattung behandelt. Gleichzeitig bildete diese Checkliste den unverbindlichen Rahmen für eine Prüfung der Transparenz und Berichterstattung. Darüber hinaus wurden drei Arbeitsuntergruppen eingerichtet, die sich mit spezifischen Steuersubventionen befassen: Körperschaftssteuer, Mehrwertsteuer und Transparenz- und Subventionsbericht.

Nach Abschluss der Prüfungsarbeiten kam die Arbeitsgruppe zu dem Schluss, dass in Bezug auf Steuersubventionen in allen Teilnehmerstaaten Verbesserungen in den Bereichen Gesetzgebung, Bewertung und Berichterstattung erforderlich sind, um die allgemeine Transparenz zu schaffen, die sie sowohl für den Gesetzgeber als auch für die Öffentlichkeit für notwendig hält.

QUELLE: https://www.eurosai.org/es/working-groups/historic-working-groups-committees/coordinated-audit-on-tax-subsidies-working-group/