James M. Bickley
Specialist in Public Finance
The President and leading Members of Congress have stated that fundamental tax reform is a major policy objective for the 112th Congress. Both a value-added tax (VAT) and a national sales tax (NST) have been proposed by participants in the tax-reform debate as replacement taxes for all or part of the nation’s current income tax system.
A firm’s value added for a product is the increase in the value of that product caused by the application of the firm’s factors of production. A VAT on a product would be levied at all stages of production of that product. A firm’s net VAT liability is usually calculated by using the creditinvoice method. According to this method, a firm determines its gross tax liability by aggregating VAT shown on its sales invoices. Then the firm computes its net VAT liability by subtracting VAT paid on purchases from other firms from the firm’s gross VAT liability. This net tax is remitted to the government. The subtraction method can also be used to calculate the VAT. Under this method, the firm calculates its value added by subtracting its cost of taxed inputs from its taxable sales. Next, the firm determines its VAT liability by multiplying its value added by the VAT rate. A flat tax, based on the proposal formulated by Robert E. Hall and Alvin Rabushka of the Hoover Institution, is a type of modified subtraction method VAT. A VAT has two special treatments of a product or a business: exemption and zero-rating.
In contrast to a VAT, an NST would be a federal consumption tax collected only at the retail level by vendors. an NST would equal a set percentage of the retail price of taxable goods and services. Retail vendors would collect the NST and remit tax revenue to the federal government. Both a VAT and an NST are frequently assumed to be ultimately paid by consumers. For 2011, the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center estimates that a 5% broad-based VAT would yield $277.2 billion ($55.44 billion per 1%).
The operating differences between a consumption VAT and an NST have important policy implications. On the one hand, the administrative cost of a VAT would exceed that of an NST because a VAT would require more information to be reported and audited. Also, an opportunity exists for an NST to be collected jointly with state sales taxes, but a federal VAT offers no readily available joint collection possibilities. A VAT would require more time to implement than an NST because a VAT is more complicated, covers more firms, and is a new tax method. On the other hand, a VAT with the credit-invoice method more easily excludes inputs from double taxation than does an NST. A VAT would be easier to enforce than an NST. It is in the self-interest of a firm to have accurate purchase invoices so that it can obtain full credit for prior VAT paid. Tax authorities can double check the accuracy of the VAT remitted by any firm because data are collected from producers at all levels of production. For a given year, a VAT could have a broader base than an NST because a VAT is easier to enforce. A VAT may be less visible to consumers than an NST. A VAT is levied at all stages of production, and policymakers have the option of not requiring the amount of VAT to be shown on retail sales receipts. As of January 26, 2011, one bill concerning an NST or VAT has been introduced in the 112th Congress: H.R. 25, or Fair Tax Act of 2011, would levy an NST.
Date of Report: January 28, 2011
Number of Pages: 9
Order Number: RL33438
Price: $19.95
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports
Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Specialist in Public Finance
The President and leading Members of Congress have stated that fundamental tax reform is a major policy objective for the 112th Congress. Both a value-added tax (VAT) and a national sales tax (NST) have been proposed by participants in the tax-reform debate as replacement taxes for all or part of the nation’s current income tax system.
A firm’s value added for a product is the increase in the value of that product caused by the application of the firm’s factors of production. A VAT on a product would be levied at all stages of production of that product. A firm’s net VAT liability is usually calculated by using the creditinvoice method. According to this method, a firm determines its gross tax liability by aggregating VAT shown on its sales invoices. Then the firm computes its net VAT liability by subtracting VAT paid on purchases from other firms from the firm’s gross VAT liability. This net tax is remitted to the government. The subtraction method can also be used to calculate the VAT. Under this method, the firm calculates its value added by subtracting its cost of taxed inputs from its taxable sales. Next, the firm determines its VAT liability by multiplying its value added by the VAT rate. A flat tax, based on the proposal formulated by Robert E. Hall and Alvin Rabushka of the Hoover Institution, is a type of modified subtraction method VAT. A VAT has two special treatments of a product or a business: exemption and zero-rating.
In contrast to a VAT, an NST would be a federal consumption tax collected only at the retail level by vendors. an NST would equal a set percentage of the retail price of taxable goods and services. Retail vendors would collect the NST and remit tax revenue to the federal government. Both a VAT and an NST are frequently assumed to be ultimately paid by consumers. For 2011, the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center estimates that a 5% broad-based VAT would yield $277.2 billion ($55.44 billion per 1%).
The operating differences between a consumption VAT and an NST have important policy implications. On the one hand, the administrative cost of a VAT would exceed that of an NST because a VAT would require more information to be reported and audited. Also, an opportunity exists for an NST to be collected jointly with state sales taxes, but a federal VAT offers no readily available joint collection possibilities. A VAT would require more time to implement than an NST because a VAT is more complicated, covers more firms, and is a new tax method. On the other hand, a VAT with the credit-invoice method more easily excludes inputs from double taxation than does an NST. A VAT would be easier to enforce than an NST. It is in the self-interest of a firm to have accurate purchase invoices so that it can obtain full credit for prior VAT paid. Tax authorities can double check the accuracy of the VAT remitted by any firm because data are collected from producers at all levels of production. For a given year, a VAT could have a broader base than an NST because a VAT is easier to enforce. A VAT may be less visible to consumers than an NST. A VAT is levied at all stages of production, and policymakers have the option of not requiring the amount of VAT to be shown on retail sales receipts. As of January 26, 2011, one bill concerning an NST or VAT has been introduced in the 112th Congress: H.R. 25, or Fair Tax Act of 2011, would levy an NST.
Date of Report: January 28, 2011
Number of Pages: 9
Order Number: RL33438
Price: $19.95
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports
Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Posts
