HE 200/1992Hallituksen esitys Edusk

HE 200/1992
Hallituksen esitys Eduskunnalle tuloverolaiksi sekä laiksi eräiden yleishyödyllisten yhteisöjen veronhuojennuksista annetun lain 1 ja 6 §:n muuttamisesta



ESITYKSEN PÄÄASIALLINEN SISÄLTÖ

Esityksessä ehdotetaan osana pääomatulojen verotuksen ja yritysverotuksen uudistusta uuden tuloverolain säätämistä. Uudistetussa tuloverojärjestelmässä pääomatuloja verotus erotettaisiin ansiotulojen verotuksesta. Pääomatulot olisivat 25 prosentin suhteellisen valtionveron kohteena. Ansiotuloja verotettaisiin nykyiseen tapaan progressiivisen veroasteikon mukaan valtionverotuksessa, ja niihin kohdistuisi myös kunnallisvero liitännäisineen. Yhteisöjen tuloon kohdistuisi yhtenäinen 25 prosentin vero, jonka tuotto jaettaisiin eri veronsaajien kesken.

Esityksessä uudeksi tuloverolaiksi pääomatulojen verotusta koskevat säännökset ja ansiotulojen verotusta koskevat säännökset on erotettu omiksi kokonaisuuksiksi. Luonnolliselle henkilölle laskettaisiin erikseen verotettava pääomatulo ja verotettava ansiotulo. Omistajayrittäjien tuloista katsottaisiin pääomatuloksi yrityksen pääoman laskennallista tuottoa vastaava määrä loppuosan tulosta jäädessä ansiotuloksi. Avointen yhtiöiden ja kommandiittiyhtiöiden tulot jaettaisiin nykyisestä poiketen aina verotettavaksi osakkailla.

Pääomatulojen verotukseen ehdotetaan suhteellisen verokannan käyttöönoton lisäksi useita muitakin muutoksia. Veropohjaa laajennettaisiin muun muassa luovutusvoittojen, vuokratulojen sekä vakuutustuottojen verotuksessa. Metsäverotuksessa siirryttäisiin nykyisestä pinta-alaperusteisesta järjestelmästä todellisten puun myyntitulojen verotukseen. Nykyisin lähdeveron alaiset korkotulot tulisivat yhtenäisen pääomatuloverotuksen piiriin täysimääräisesti vuonna 1996.

Korkomenot vähennetään esityksen mukaan pääomatuloista. Jos verotettava pääomatulo muodostuu esimerkiksi korkomenojen vuoksi negatiiviseksi, pääomatuloveroprosentin mukainen osuus alijäämästä hyvitettäisiin eräin rajoituksin verovelvollisen ansiotulosta menevästä verosta. Tämä järjestelmä korvaisi muun muassa nykyisen asuntolainojen korkovähennyksen. Lainan käyttötarkoituksen selvittämisestä luovuttaisiin. Viiden vuoden siirtymäkauden ajan myönnettäisiin lisäksi asteittain aleneva ylimääräinen korkovähennys, jonka määrä laskettaisiin vuonna 1992 maksettujen korkojen perusteella.

Esitykseen sisältyy uuden tuloverolain lisäksi teknisien muutosehdotuksien vuoksi ehdotus yleishyödyllisten yhteisöjen veronhuojennuksista annetun lain muuttamisesta.

Uusi tuloverolaki korvaisi nykyisen tulo- ja varallisuusverolain tuloverotusta koskevat osat sekä tappiontasauksesta tuloverotuksessa annetun lain. Esitykseen sisältyvät lait on tarkoitettu tulemaan voimaan siten, että niitä sovellettaisiin ensimmäisen kerran vuodelta 1993 toimitettavassa verotuksessa. Esitys liittyy valtion vuoden 1993 talousarvioesitykseen.


YLEISPERUSTELUT

1. Uudistuksen tausta

Esitys uudeksi tuloverolaiksi ja muut samassa yhteydessä annetut esitykset ovat keskeinen osa pääomatulojen verotuksen ja yritysverotuksen uudistusta, jonka tavoitteena on pääomatulojen verotuksen ja yritysverotuksen kehittäminen entistä yhtenäisemmäksi ja neutraalimmaksi.

Suomen tuloverojärjestelmää on uudistettu viime vuosina nopeasti. Vuodesta 1989 alkaen voimaan tulleessa kokonaisverouudistuksessa järjestelmää uudistettiin laajentamalla veropohjaa ja alentamalla valtionverotuksen veroasteikkoa. Kokonaisverouudistuksen sisältö vastasi pitkälti tuolloista kansainvälistä kehitystä. Ilman kokonaisverouudistusta Suomen tuloverojärjestelmä poikkeaisikin hyvin suuresti kansainvälisestä käytännöstä veroprosenttien alennuttua useissa maissa huomattavasti 1980-luvun puolivälin jälkeen. Taloudellinen integraatio ja pääomaliikkeiden kansainvälinen vapautuminen 1990-luvun alussa ovat kuitenkin jälleen tuoneet mukanaan uudet haasteet myös verotuksen kehittämiselle. Muissa Pohjoismaissa näihin haasteisiin on vastattu ripeästi. Uudessa tilanteessa Suomen kokonaisverouudistuksessa syntynyt tuloverojärjestelmä ei siten enää kaikin osin vastaa ajan vaatimuksia.

Kokonaisverouudistuksen keskeisiä tavoitteita oli kohdella erilaisia tuloja verotuksessa pitkälti samalla tavalla. Verotuksen yhtenäistäminen jäi silti etenkin pääomatulojen osalta osittaiseksi. Eri pääomatulojen verorasitus vaihtelee edelleen täydestä verovapaudesta yli 60 prosentin marginaaliverotukseen tavalla, joka ei ole voimavarojen kohdentumisen ja pääomamarkkinoiden toimivuuden kannalta onnistunut. Verotuksen epäneutraalisuuden taloudelliset vaikutukset ovat nykyisin aivan erilaiset kuin pääomamarkkinoiden laajan säännöstelyn aikana ennen 1980-luvun loppupuoliskoa. Rahamarkkinoiden vapauduttua pääomat voivat nykyisin varsin vapaasti hakeutua kohteisiin, joissa niiden taloudellinen tuotto on suurin. Pääomien kohdentumiseen vaikuttaa kuitenkin osaltaan verotus. Nykyisen epäneutraalin pääomaverotuksen ohjausvaikutukset ovat osoittautuneet kokonaistaloudellisesti yhä kielteisemmiksi.

Verotuksessa on pitkät perinteet ajatustavalla, jonka mukaan pääomatuloja tulisi verottaa ansiotuloja ankarammin. Käytännössä tämän ajatuksen toteuttaminen on kuitenkin monesta syystä osoittautunut vaikeaksi, ja pääomatulojen verotus on ollut ansiotulojen verotusta tiukempaa lähinnä näennäisesti. Pääomatulojen verotukseen on liitetty monenlaisia huojennuksia, joiden ansiosta keskimääräinen todellinen verorasitus on jäänyt lieväksi. Kun otetaan huomioon korkovähennyksen vaikutus, pääomatuloverotuksen kokonaistuotto on ollut negatiivinen.

Yksi syy siihen, ettei pääomatulojen laaja verottaminen henkilöverotuksen yleisten veroprosenttien mukaan käytännössä onnistu, on kansainvälisten pääomanliikkeiden vapautuminen. Tästä syystä on entistä aiheellisempaa lähteä siitä, että verotus ei voi olennaisesti ylittää kansainvälistä tasoa.

Ruotsissa ja Norjassa on viime vuosina toteutettu erittäin laajat tuloverouudistukset, joissa on siirrytty niin sanottuun eriytettyyn tuloverojärjestelmään. Eriytetty tuloverojärjestelmä merkitsee olennaista muutosta suhtautumisessa yhtäältä ansiotulojen ja toisaalta pääomatulojen verotukseen. Tälle järjestelmälle ovat henkilöverotuksessa tyypillisiä seuraavat piirteet:

1) ansiotulot ovat progressiivisen verotuksen piirissä;

2) pääomatuloihin sovelletaan yhtenäistä suhteellista verokantaa;

3) pääomatulojen verokanta on olennaisesti progressiivisen verotuksen ylimpien veroprosenttien alapuolella;

4) korkomenojen arvo vähennyksenä määräytyy pääomatulojen verokannan mukaan.

Eriytetty tuloverojärjestelmä tarjoaa eräitä merkittäviä etuja. Pääomatulojen alhaisen verokannan ansiosta tulotyyppikohtaisten huojennusten tarve supistuu olennaisesti tai poistuu kokonaan, jolloin järjestelmä voidaan rakentaa ratkaisevasti neutraalimmaksi. Tämä tarjoaa myös paremmat lähtökohdat säästäjien kannalta tärkeälle järjestelmän selkeyden ja vakauden ylläpitämiselle. Tulojen ja menojen yhtenäinen kohtelu estää puolestaan verojärjestelmän epäsymmetrioihin perustuvan verokeinottelun.

Eriytetyn tuloverojärjestelmän etuja vahvistaa osaltaan myös rakenne, jossa yhtiöveroprosentti on sama kuin pääomatulojen verokanta. Tämä helpottaa yrityksiin tehtävien erityyppisten pääomansijoitusten verorasituksen yhtenäistämistä sekä vähentää kannustimia siirrellä tuloja tai menoja yritysten ja henkilökohtaisen talouden välillä veroetujen saavuttamiseksi.

Luopuminen verotuksen progressiivisuudesta pääomatulojen osalta voi tuntua vaikeasti perusteltavalta, sillä tuloverotuksen progressiivisuutta on pidetty yleensä oikeudenmukaisuuden kannalta perusteltuna. On kuitenkin syytä ottaa huomioon, ettei pääomatulojen verotuksen progressiivisuus ole nykyisinkään tosiasiassa tehokasta, koska järjestelmään liittyy lukuisia huojennuksia. Tärkeimmistä pääomatuloista asuntotulon verotus on poistettu kiinteistöverouudistuksessa, korkotulojen pääosa on jo nykyisin suhteellisen lähdeveron kohteena ja myyntivoitot jäävät laajasti verotuksen ulkopuolelle.

Pääomatulo ei tavallisesti ole kokonaan reaalista tuloa vaan osittain korvausta pääoman reaaliarvon alenemisesta. Tällä perusteella voidaan puoltaa alempien nimellisten veroprosenttien soveltamista pääomatuloon kuin työtuloon. Käytännössä tärkein näkökohta on ehkä kuitenkin kansainvälisen verokilpailun asettamiin haasteisiin vastaaminen. Kansainväliset kokemukset osoittavat, että pääomaliikkeiden vapauduttua pääomat helposti pakenevat korkeita nimellisiä verokantoja maihin, joissa verotus on lievää.

Erityisesti matalan inflaation oloissa on kuitenkin vaara, että ansiotulojen ja pääomatulojen tosiasiallisen verorasituksen välinen ero muodostuu perusteettoman suureksi. Muun muassa tämän vuoksi vastaisuudessa tulisi pyrkiä alentamaan myös progressiivisen veroasteikon mukaisia veroprosentteja. Veroasteikon aleneminen olisi tarpeellista myös siksi, etteivät suuret erot sovellettavissa veroprosenteissa liiaksi houkuttelisi pyrkimyksiin muuntaa ansiotuloja pääomatuloiksi.

2. Kansainvälinen kehitys ja ulkomaiden lainsäädäntö

2.1. Yleistä

Pääomatulojen entistä nopeamman kansainvälisen liikkuvuuden vuoksi on verotusta kehitettäessä erityisen tärkeää ottaa huomioon muiden valtioiden verojärjestelmät. Ainakin toistaiseksi pääomatulojen verotuksen rakenne ja taso tosin vaihtelevat suuresti maittain, eikä selvää kansainvälistä linjaa ole nähtävissä. Useimmissa maissa pääomatuloja verotetaan lähtökohtaisesti yhdessä ansiotulojen kanssa, mutta on tavallista, että pääomatulojen verotukseen liittyy huojennuksia. Varsinkin korkotulojen verovalvonnassa on myös ongelmia.

Myöskään Euroopan yhteisön sisällä ei ole edistytty pääomatulojen verotuksen harmonisoinnissa. Olennaisin ratkaisu tässä suhteessa tehtiin vuonna 1989, kun Euroopan yhteisön komission direktiiviesitys korkotulojen vähimmäisverosta päätettiin jättää toistaiseksi toteuttamatta. Jäsenvaltiossa asuvalle henkilölle tai yhteisölle maksettavasta korosta olisi esityksen mukaan ollut pääsääntöisesti perittävä tulon lähteellä vähintään 15 prosentin vero (COM(89)60).

結果 (英語) 1:

THEY'RE 200/1992The Board's proposal to the Parliament as well as the income tax Act, certain services of general interest, the law amending the law on the tax relief on 1 and section 6 of the amendingTHE MAIN CONTENT OF THE PRESENTATIONBill proposes, as part of the reform of business taxation of capital income taxation and the new income tax legislation. The revised income tax system, the capital gains tax would be suspended from the taxation of earned income. Capital income would be subject to state tax of 25% relatively. Income would be taxed according to a progressive tax scale for the current method of taxation, and the State would also poll tax liitännäisineen. The income tax of 25% and there would be a single, the proceeds of which would be distributed among the various veronsaajien.In a presentation to a new income tax law, the provisions relating to the taxation of capital income and earned income tax provisions as sequences. A natural person are calculated separately for the taxable income and taxable as earned income. The owner of the company's capital would be regarded as capital income income of entrepreneurs, the deferred revenue, an amount equivalent to the rest of the print is barely earning income. Open companies and limited partnerships, companies, shareholders in the current taxable income would be distributed by way of always.The taxation of capital income, in addition to the introduction of the proposed tax rate relative to the number of other changes. To extend the tax base by, inter alia, the transfer of profits, rent income and insurance income for tax purposes. Forest taxation, for the remainder of the current surface-alaperusteisesta system on the actual sales of revenue taxation. Currently the source of taxable interest income would be subject to income tax in full uniform in the capital in 1996.The interest rate shall be deducted from the expenditure for the presentation, according to capital income. For example, if your taxable income is made up of interest payments due to negative capital income tax rate in accordance with the percentage of the taxable income which ensued from the deficit with some restrictions to a rate of tax. This system would replace the current interest rate on the mortgage deduction, among other things. How to determine the intended purpose of the loan would be abandoned. For a transitional period of five years to be granted, in addition to the interest rate reduction, which gradually dropped the extra amount be calculated on the basis of the interest paid in 1992.The presentation includes a new addition to the teknisien of the income tax Act, because of the change in the provision of services of general interest in the proposals contained in the proposal for amending the law on tax reductions.The new income tax law to replace the current income and property tax Act, the income tax, as well as the loss in relief for income tax law. The laws contained in the presentation is intended to come into effect in such a way that they would for the first time for the year 1993 supplied for tax purposes. The presentation is linked to the State of the 1993 budget proposal.YLEISPERUSTELUT1. the background of the reformPresentation of the new income tax law and the other in the same context, the performances are a central part of the capital gains tax and corporate tax reform, which is aimed at the development of business taxation, taxation of capital income and a more coherent and more neutral.The Finnish income tax system has been reformed in recent years quickly. Since 1989, which entered into force kokonaisverouudistuksessa system by expanding the tax base and lowering the scale of State tax. Kokonaisverouudistuksen content was largely the currency in international development. Without the kokonaisverouudistusta poikkeaisikin of the income tax system in Finland very much the international practice of replenishing the tax rates significantly in several countries since the mid-1980s. Economic integration and liberalization of international capital movements, and at the beginning of the 1990s, however, have once again brought new challenges to the development of the taxation. In the other Nordic countries to these challenges have been answered promptly. In the new situation the Finnish kokonaisverouudistuksessa emerged from the income tax system does not, therefore, make every effort to comply with the requirements of the time anymore.Kokonaisverouudistuksen the key objectives was to treat various types of income for tax purposes in much the same way. The harmonisation of taxation of capital income, in particular as regards the order stayed still. Different capital gains tax burden varies depending on the full tax exemption, more than 60 per cent margin taxation in a manner which is not an optimum allocation of resources and for the functioning of the capital market to be successful. The economic effects of tax epäneutraalisuuden are today quite different than a broad deregulation of the capital markets during the second six months before the end of the 1980s. The liberalisation of the financial markets in capital today can quite freely to destinations where their financial returns are highest. It seems, however, to contribute to the kohdentumiseen of capital taxation. The current epäneutraalin the effects of taxation on capital controls have proven to be the most economically more and more negative.For tax purposes, there is a long tradition of thought in a way that capital gains should be taxed more heavily than income. In practice, the implementation of this idea, however, has proved difficult for several reasons, and the taxation of capital income taxation on earned income has been higher, mainly due to the seemingly. The taxation of capital income is associated with a wide range of credits, which allow the average actual tax burden has remained lieväksi. The effect of the interest rate reduction, taking into account the capital income tax revenue has been negative.One of the reasons that the taxation of capital income taxation in personal tax rates in a wide, according to the general practice of international capital movements, fail, is liberation. For this reason, it is all the more reason to assume that the tax cannot be substantially exceeds the international standard.In Sweden and Norway has in recent years been very extensive income tax reforms, which have moved to the so-called differentiated income tax system. A differentiated approach to the essence of the change of the income tax system means, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, capital income taxation of earned income. This system of personal taxation, are typical for the following features:1. within the framework of the progressive income tax, are);2 the relative income of the uniform) the capital tax;capital income tax rate 3) is substantially below the top tax rates from progressive tax;the value of the deduction of interest expenditure of 4) is determined by the capital gains tax rate, according to the.A differentiated income tax system offers some significant advantages. Thanks to the low-tax income from capital need for tulotyyppikohtaisten relief will shrink substantially or eliminated entirely, in which case the system can be used to build a decidedly more neutral. This also provides a better starting point for the sake of clarity and the stability of the system from the point of view of savers to the preservation of the important. Revenue and expenditure, the standard treatment to prevent epäsymmetrioihin of the tax system is, in turn, based on a tax on speculation.In the case of a differentiated refund income tax system benefits also contribute to strengthen the structure, where the corporate tax rate is the same as the capital gains tax rate. This will make it easier for enterprises of different types of capital investments, the harmonisation of the tax burden and reduce the incentives to move income or expenditure for corporate and personal finances to achieve between the tax advantages.A waiver in respect of the capital gains tax progressivity can seem like a difficult-to-perusteltavalta, because income tax progressivity has generally been considered to be justified from the point of view of fairness. However, it is necessary to take into account, that is, in fact, even the progressiveness of capital income is not efficient because the system is related to the number of credits. The main income of the taxation of capital income property tax has been removed from the housing reform, interest income, the bulk of which has already been subject to the withholding tax, and sales currently relatively profits remain broadly exempt from tax.Capital income is usually not completely compensate for the actual reduction in income but rather part of the compensation for the capital. On this basis, the application of the nominal tax rates may be lower in favour of capital income than attained upon completion. In practice, however, the main point is, perhaps, the challenges of responding to the international tax competition. International experience shows that the liberalisation of capital movements capital easily escaping the high nominal tax rates in countries where the tax is mild.In particular, under conditions of low inflation is, however, a danger that the earned income and capital gains, the difference between the actual tax burden consists of an unjustified high. In future, therefore, should aim at, inter alia, to reduce the scale of the tax with a progressive tax rates also. The scale of the tax reduction would be necessary because of the large differences in applicable tax rates, that would attract too much efforts to convert income capital income.2. the international development and foreign law2.1. General informationInternational mobility of capital income taxation with faster development is therefore particularly important to take account of the tax systems in other States. So far at least, the structure and level of capital income taxation, however, vary greatly from country to country, and not a clear international line is not visible. In most countries, in principle, together with income taxed at the capital income, but it is usual that the taxation of capital income is associated with relief. Especially of interest payments under fiscal control is also a problem.Also within the European Community no progress has been made in the harmonization of capital income taxation. The most fundamental solution in this respect was in 1989, when the Commission's proposal for a directive of the European Community, it was decided to exclude interest income so far implemented over-emphasis on. Residing in a Member State, person or entity shall, as a general rule, should be paid according to the highlight had to be recovered at least 15% tax (COM (89) 60).

結果 (英語) 2:

HE 200/1992
Government proposal to Parliament Income Tax Act and the Act on certain public service corporations tax concessions 1 of the Act and § 6's on the MAIN CONTENT OF THE PROPOSAL The bill proposes as part of the taxation of capital income and corporate tax reform, the new Income Tax adjustment. The reformed tax system, capital income taxation would separate income tax. Income from capital would be 25 percent of the relative state tax subject. Income would be taxed as at present progressive tax scale state tax, and subject to the municipal tax plugins. The income subjected to a uniform 25 per cent tax, the proceeds of which would be distributed among the beneficiaries of the various tax. The bill for a new law on income tax on capital income tax provisions and income tax provisions have been separated into separate entities. A natural person not counted separately taxable capital gains and taxable income. Owner entrepreneurs income to be considered capital income for the company's capital deferred revenue amount corresponding to the remainder of the results jäädessä earned income. Open companies and private limited income would be distributed as opposed to the current taxable shareholders. capital income tax rate is proposed to relatively introduction of a number of other changes. Extension of the tax base, including capital gains, rental income and insurance income for tax purposes. Forest taxation shift from the current area-based system for real stumpage revenues. Currently, the taxation at source of interest income would be uniform capital income tax in full in 1996. Interest expense is reduced According to the proposal on capital income. Where the taxable capital income consists of interest payments, for example, due to negative capital income tax rate of the share of the deficit to offset certain restrictions, the taxpayer's earned income that went from the tax. This system would replace, inter alia, the current mortgage interest deduction. Purpose of the loan clearing abandoned. The five-year transitional period would be granted in addition to the sliding scale of additional rate reduction, the amount calculated in 1992, the interest paid on the basis of. The proposal includes a new income tax in addition to technical modifications due to the proposal of general interest to the tax relief on amending the law. The new Income Tax Act would replace the current income and capital tax law income tax relating to components as well as offsetting of losses for income tax of the Act. The proposal includes laws are intended to come into force in such a way that they would apply for the first time in the taxation year 1993. Bill relates to the 1993 budget. GENERAL MEMORANDUM 1. Background to the reform proposal for a new Income Tax Act and other presentations given at the same time are a key part of the taxation of capital income and corporate tax reform, the aim of which is a tax on capital income and corporate taxation, the development of more integrated and more neutral. Finnish income tax system has been reformed in recent years. Since 1989, entered into force in the overall tax reform, the system was reformed by expanding the tax base and reducing the state tax scale. The total content of the tax reform was largely matched by the then international development. Without the total tax reform Finnish income tax system departs very much from international practice of tax rates drop in the number of countries significantly the mid-1980s after. Economic integration and the liberalization of international capital movements in the early 1990s, however, are again brought with them new challenges in the development of taxation. Other Nordic countries, these challenges have been answered promptly. In the new situation of Finland's total tax reform born in the income tax system is thus no longer in all respects to the requirements of the time. The overall tax reform, the key objectives was to treat a variety of income tax in much the same way. Tax harmonization was still the capital, in particular as regards revenue, partially. Different capital income tax burden continues to vary the full tax exemption for more than 60 per cent margin taxation in a way that is not allocation of resources and the functioning of capital markets in terms of success. Taxation epäneutraalisuuden economic impacts are now quite different from extensive regulation of capital markets during the 1980s, before the second half. Money market vacated by capital can become quite free to seek locations where the financial return is highest. Allocation of capital seems to taxation. The current epäneutraalin taxation of capital control effects have proven to be the most economically increasingly more negative. For tax purposes, there is a long tradition of thought in a way that capital income should be taxed more heavily than income. In practice, the implementation of this idea, however, has proven difficult for many reasons, and the taxation of capital income has been earned income mainly seemingly tougher. Capital income taxation is connected to a wide range of reliefs, which makes the average actual tax burden has remained moderate. Taking into account the interest rate reduction effect, the total capital income has been negative. One of the reasons that a large capital income taxation of personal income tax of general tax rates in practice succeed, the international capital movements. Therefore, it is more appropriate to assume that the tax can not substantially exceed the international standard. Sweden and Norway, has in recent years implemented a very large income tax reforms, with a shift from the so-called differentiated income tax system. Dual income tax system represents a fundamental change in attitudes on the one hand, and income from capital gains tax. This system is one of personal taxation, typical symptoms of 1) income is a progressive tax purposes; 2) capital income is subject to a uniform proportional tax rate; 3) The capital income tax rate is essentially progressive taxation highest tax rates below; 4) interest cost value of the deduction is determined by the capital income tax rate. dual income tax system provides a number of significant benefits. Capital income tax rate due to the low tulotyyppikohtaisten the reliefs of the need to decrease substantially or completely eliminated, and the system can be crucial to build a more neutral. This also provides a better basis for savers system important for maintaining the clarity and stability. The authorizing officer uniform treatment, in turn, prevent tax asymmetries based on tax arbitrage. The differentiated income tax benefits of the system is confirmed by the structure, in which the company tax rate is the same as the capital income tax rate. This will facilitate the enterprises of different types of capital investment tax harmonization, as well as reduce the incentives to move income or expenditure of enterprises and personal finances from the tax advantages. Giving up the progressivity of taxation of capital income, it may seem difficult to justify, as the progressivity of the income tax is generally considered to be justified in terms of fairness. However, it is necessary to take into account that capital income tax progressivity is currently not in fact effective, because the system involves a large number of relief. The most important capital income housing income tax has been removed property tax reform, the bulk of income is already relatively withholding tax in the sales and profits remain broadly exempt from tax. Capital income is usually not completely real income, but in part compensation for the reduction in the real value of capital. This can be justified on the basis of the lower nominal tax rates applying capital income as earned income. In practice, the most important aspect, however, is perhaps the international tax competition the challenge of. International experience shows that the movement of capital, the liberalization of capital easily escaping from the high nominal rates in countries where the tax is mild. In particular, the low-inflation environment is, however, a risk that the earnings and capital income tax burden on the difference between the rated unjustifiably high. Among other things, this is why the future should strive to reduce the progressive tax scale with the tax rates. The scale of tax reduction would be necessary also to prevent large differences between applicable tax rates would attract too much effort to convert income into capital. 2. International development and foreign law 2.1. Overview of capital income faster international mobility, it is particularly important to the development of taxation whereas the other states' tax systems. At least so far of capital income taxation, the structure and level, however, vary greatly from country to country, and no clear international line was not visible. In most countries, capital income is taxed in principle, together with earnings, but it is usual that the capital gains tax associated with reduced rates. In particular, income tax control is also a problem. In addition, the European Community has been no progress in the harmonization of taxation of capital income. The essential solution in this regard was made ​​in 1989, when the European Community, the Commission's draft directive, income minimum rate, it was decided to leave yet been fully implemented. Member State to a resident person or entity would be payable on the proposal that it was not as a rule be recovered at source at least 15 per cent tax (COM (89) 60).