外文翻譯--應(yīng)納稅所得額以及分析（節(jié)選）

1、<p>　　中文3060字，1600單詞，9000英文字符</p><p><b>　　原文 </b></p><p>　　Taxable income and analysis</p><p>　　Material Source: CA Magazine Author: Suzanne Landry and Nadi

2、 Chlala </p><p>　　It can be a useful element to assess the quality of earnings reported by listed entities </p><p>　　The financial scandals of the past few years have underscored how important i

3、t is for investors to consider the quality of earnings reported by listed entities. Despite the existence of many benchmarks, the financial market seemed unable to foresee these events. Recently, an attempt was made to a

4、ssess earnings quality by connecting the dots between pre-tax income accounting income and taxable income, the argument being it would be unusual for a company to report high net earnings while showing l</p><p

5、>　　There are a number of useful factors to consider if taxable income is to be used as a benchmark to assess the quality of reported earnings, and the appropriateness of such a benchmark and its limitations need to be

6、 examined. </p><p>　　Earnings quality assessment factors </p><p>　　Investors use different benchmarks to analyze an enterprise’s earnings. The purpose of these benchmarks is to verify two specif

7、ic characteristics of reported earnings. The first concerns the relevance of earnings to decision-making. The more net earnings reflect the enterprise’s economic performance, the more they are perceived as being of good

8、quality and the more financial statement users will be able to rely on them for decision-making. </p><p>　　The second characteristic is the absence of management bias. Net earnings are compared to other figu

9、res that require fewer estimates and are thus less likely to be biased, such as cash flow from operations. The more net earnings are consistent with cash flow from operations, the more they are deemed to be of good quali

10、ty. In addition, since management tends to want to increase net earnings, the fact it adopted conservative accounting practices is an indicator of its lack of bias. </p><p>　　Taxable income as benchmark to a

11、ssess earnings quality </p><p>　　Taxable income could be a valid benchmark, especially as concerns the second characteristic. Management’s judgment and fair value measurement have recently played a major rol

12、e in determining net earnings, thus increasing the risk of biased information. There are three main advantages to using taxable income as a benchmark. First, taxable income is less subject to falsification than cash flow

13、 from operations, which is directly affected by transfers of receivables, accelerated accounts receivable </p><p>　　The significant gaps between accounting and taxable income also lead to questions from tax

14、authorities Lillian Mills, 1998; US Treasury Department, 1999 and the general public Gil Manzon, 1992, which can also increase capital cost. For example, a material difference between accounting and taxable income may in

15、dicate to investors that the accounting income is not enduring or persistent over the long term and, consequently, of inferior quality. </p><p>　　Management may also want to reduce the gap between accounting

16、 income and taxable income. US researchers have noted that management does this to justify aggressive tax behaviour by adopting an accounting policy that will depress accounting income Bryan Cloyd et al., 1996 or to mini

17、mize the risk that aggressive accounting practices will be discovered Merle Erickson et al., 2004. </p><p>　　Various financial analysis publications have also addressed this issue over the years. For instanc

18、e, Krishna Papelu, Paul Healy and Victor Bernard 2000 contend that the widening gap between accounting income and taxable income is an indication of aggressive accounting policies. Similarly, Lawrence Revsine, Daniel Col

19、lins and Bruce Johnson 2005 submit that it is perhaps a symptom of the deterioration of earnings quality and suggest an earnings conservatism ratio EC calculated as accounting income</p><p>　　Limitations of

20、using taxable income as a benchmark to assess earnings quality </p><p>　　Three factors limit the use of the difference between accounting and taxable income as a benchmark for earnings quality. The first fac

21、tor concerns the specific objectives sought in establishing these two figures. The purpose of accounting income is to provide useful information for economic decision-making while taxable income is meant, among other thi

22、ngs, to obtain funds to pay government expenses. In light of these different objectives, taxable income may not be a valid measurement of earnings</p><p>　　The second factor has to do with the basis of the c

23、alculation. Accounting rules are intended to reflect the economic substance of transactions and the relations between various entities. For instance, consolidated financial statements are required under generally accepte

24、d accounting principles GAAP, which is not the case for tax purposes. Also, the impairment of long-lived assets and the setting up of various provisions, which must be accounted for in accordance with GAAP, provide infor

25、mation th</p><p>　　The third factor concerns management’s motivations. It is in management’s interest to maximize accounting income and to minimize taxable income. Accordingly, significant differences betwee

26、n accounting and taxable income may be due to effective tax planning rather than the quality of lower earnings. </p><p>　　It should be noted, however, that the divergence between accounting and taxable incom

27、e is mitigated by tax laws in Canada. The tax authorities have tended to use accounting information as a basis for calculating taxable income and taxes pay- able. For federal tax purposes, corporations reconcile their ac

28、counting and tax income using Appendix 1 of the T-2 income tax return. The financial statements prepared for investors are the starting point of this reconciliation. In this way, they reduce the </p><p>　　Fi

29、nally, a major constraint in using taxable income as a benchmark to assess earnings quality is its confidential nature. Taxable income need not be disclosed under GAAP. In fact, there is no recommendation in CICA Handboo

30、k Section 3465 respecting the presentation of taxable income or its reconciliation with accounting income. The Accounting Standards Board AcSB seems to feel this information is only useful to tax authorities. </p>

31、<p>　　Consequently, investors can only estimate taxable income based on the income tax expense for the period and the tax rate in effect disclosed in the notes to the financial statements. This estimate may not be

32、suitable in situations where the corporation operates in several jurisdictions, prepares consolidated financial statements or has set up provisions for a potential challenge of its income tax returns by tax authorities.

33、</p><p>　　The difficulty of estimating taxable income has been noted by financial journalists. For example, an article in Business Week April 26, 2004 indicated that it is very difficult for sophisticated in

34、vestors to determine the amount of income taxes a particular corporation must pay and the amount that can be deferred indefinitely. Another article from the Wall Street Journal October 8, 2002 suggested that information

35、included in the tax returns of listed entities be made public. </p><p>　　Conclusion </p><p>　　The gap between accounting and taxable income is a reflection of the choices made at two levels ? ac

36、counting policies and estimates, and tax planning. Tax authorities can examine the reconciliation between accounting and taxable income to detect any irregularities. As for investors and financial analysts, this examinat

37、ion is impossible since no reconciliation is published in the financial statements. Further analysis of earnings quality is possible with the reconciliation of accounting and taxab</p><p>　　Finally, if infor

38、mation about taxable income is useful for the various financial statement users, the AcSB should address this issue. Participants in a recent conference organized by the Tax Center of the University of North Carolina and

39、 the Brookings Institution pressed for the implementation of accounting standards to present the reconciliation of accounting and taxable income in the financial statements. </p><p><b>　　譯文 </b

40、></p><p>　　應(yīng)納稅所得額以及分析</p><p>　　資料來源:CA Magazine 作者:Suzanne Landry and Nadi Chlala</p><p>　　這篇文章可以成為評估上市實體的收入質(zhì)量的一個有用的參考。 </p><p>　　過去幾年的財務(wù)丑聞都強調(diào)了這一點,即對于投資者來說,考慮上市實

41、體的收入質(zhì)量是非常重要的。盡管有許多標準存在,但是金融市場似乎無法預見這些事件。最近,有人嘗試以聯(lián)系稅前收入(會計收入)和應(yīng)納稅所得額之間的差額來評估收入質(zhì)量,這樣做的理由是,對于一個公司來說,其盈利報告顯示的凈收益很高的同時卻顯示出很少納稅義務(wù)或者無納稅義務(wù)是不尋常的。“安然”事件被引用作了一個例子,因為在1996年至1999年之間,安然公司都不存在應(yīng)納稅所得額,即使是在其會計收入高達23億美元的時候。相似地,“世界電訊”事件也在An

42、dersen被指責無法回答關(guān)于會計收入和應(yīng)納稅所得額之間的缺口時被揭發(fā)。 </p><p>　　考慮是否用應(yīng)納稅所得額作為評估收入質(zhì)量的一個標準時,可以使用多種有效的要素,這個標準的正確性及局限性需要被檢驗。</p><p><b>　　收入質(zhì)量評估要素 </b></p><p>　　投資者利用不同的標準來分析一個公司的收入。這些標準的建立是為

43、了去證實收入的兩個具體的特點。第一個是關(guān)于收入和決策之間的相關(guān)性。如果凈收入越能夠反映公司的經(jīng)濟狀況,越多的凈收入被認為是高質(zhì)量的,那么就會有越多的財務(wù)報告使用者能夠依賴它們做出決策。 </p><p>　　第二個特點是,管理的無偏差性。凈收入相比于其他指數(shù)來說需求更少的假設(shè),所以出現(xiàn)偏差的可能性也更小,比如營運資金流。凈收入與營運資金流一致性越高,這些資金流就越會被認為是高質(zhì)量的。此外,因為管理的目的是增加凈收

44、入,所以它采用保守的會計方法就是它缺少偏差的一種標志。 </p><p>　　應(yīng)納稅所得額作為一個標準去評估收入質(zhì)量 </p><p>　　應(yīng)納稅所得額可以作為一個有效的標準,尤其是涉及到上述第二個特點時。管理層的判斷和公允價值計量在決定凈收入時發(fā)揮了新的重要作用,因此偏差信息的風險有所增加了。用應(yīng)納稅所得額作為標準有三個主要的好處。首先,應(yīng)納稅所得額比營運資金流更少被偽造,它是直接受到應(yīng)

45、收款的轉(zhuǎn)讓,應(yīng)收款的加速回收,以及應(yīng)付款的結(jié)算的延遲的影響。此外,應(yīng)納稅所得額的數(shù)據(jù)反映了管理層的樂觀態(tài)度,因為它比會計收入少。管理層對人為地夸大應(yīng)納稅所得額顧慮重重,而不像對待收入和現(xiàn)金流那樣。最后,對應(yīng)納稅所得額的計量不像對會計收入計量時那樣靈活、有彈性。因此,應(yīng)納稅所得額不太可能被管理層操縱,一些不尋常的會計收入和應(yīng)納稅所得額之間的缺口也許會引出一些財務(wù)報表操控行為或者逃稅行為。 </p><p>　　在美

46、國,過去幾年中越來越多關(guān)于會計收入和應(yīng)納稅所得額的分歧使一些問題浮出水面:是企業(yè)在操縱財務(wù)報表還是他們在使用積極的財務(wù)計劃方法,或者兩者都有?研究表明應(yīng)納稅所得額提供了關(guān)于收入質(zhì)量的信息,因為美國稅法限制了一些特定的支出的抵稅能力,比如準備金及重組費用,這些特定支出一般會成為操控收入的媒介。Baruch Lev和Doron Nissim 建議利用應(yīng)納稅所得額作為一個參考來確保會計收入的真實性和一致性。根據(jù)他們和Michelle Hanl

47、on的研究,財務(wù)報表操控或所得稅申報操控可以通過分析應(yīng)納稅所得額和會計收入之間的關(guān)系被查出。 </p><p>　　一些明顯的介于會計收入和應(yīng)納稅所得額之間的缺口還會引出一些從稅務(wù)當局(Lillian Mills,1998;美國財務(wù)部)到普羅大眾(Gil Manzon,1992)都存在的問題,這樣的缺口還會增加資本支出。舉例來說,一個較大的會計收益和應(yīng)納稅所得額之間的差異也許會讓投資者明白,會計收入在長期來說不是

48、持久和穩(wěn)定的,換句話說,就是劣質(zhì)的。 </p><p>　　管理層也許會想要減小會計收入和應(yīng)納稅所得額之間的缺口。美國研究人員指出,管理層這樣做是為了證明采用有效的會計政策能夠降低會計收益的稅收侵略性行為(Bryan Cloyd等,1996)或者減少激進的會計方法被發(fā)現(xiàn)的風險(Merle Erickson等,2004)。 </p><p>　　多年來,許多金融分析的出版物都對這個問題進行了

49、研究討論。舉例來說,Krishna Papelu, Paul Healy 和 Victor Bernard 2000爭辯說,會計收入和應(yīng)納稅所得額之間差距的擴大表現(xiàn)出了采用了積極的會計方法的跡象。同樣,Lawrence Revsine, Daniel Collins 和 Bruce Johnson 2005 提到這也許是收入質(zhì)量惡化的一個征兆,并提出一個收入保守比率即歐共體,EC,由會計收益除以應(yīng)納稅所得額。在他們看來,會計收益和應(yīng)納稅

50、所得額應(yīng)該接近,也就是說,歐共體(EC)接近于1,帶來的結(jié)果是更高的收益質(zhì)量。他們還強調(diào)了比對不同時期、不同公司的EC比例以確認哪些是需要進一步考查的不尋常關(guān)系的重要性。 </p><p>　　用應(yīng)納稅所得額作為基準來評估收入質(zhì)量的限制。 </p><p>　　三個因素限制了會計收入和應(yīng)納稅所得額之間的差額作為一個考查收入質(zhì)量基準的使用。第一個因素涉及試圖建立這2個指標的特定目標。會計收入

51、的目的是為經(jīng)濟決策提供有用的信息,而應(yīng)納稅所得額一般被認為是為支付政府支出而獲得資金。根據(jù)這些不同的目的,應(yīng)納稅所得額也許不會成為一個有效地衡量盈余質(zhì)量的指標。 </p><p>　　第二個因素和計算的基礎(chǔ)有關(guān)。會計規(guī)則是為了反映各個經(jīng)濟實體間的交易關(guān)系。舉例來說,合并財務(wù)報表必須根據(jù)公認會計原則(GAAP)來計算,其并不是為了稅務(wù)目的。另外,必須按照GAAP中設(shè)立的各項規(guī)定對長期資產(chǎn)減值進行處理,為投資者提供對

52、于經(jīng)濟決策有用的信息。類似的費用是不抵稅的。因此,可以說應(yīng)納稅所得額是不完整的,因為它不構(gòu)成一個有效的評估收入質(zhì)量的基準。 </p><p>　　第三個因素涉及到管理層的動機。最大化會計收入和最小化應(yīng)納稅所得額是管理層愿意看到的。因此,會計收入與應(yīng)納稅所得額之間明顯的差距也許是受到有效的納稅籌劃的影響,而不是受低質(zhì)量的收入的影響。 </p><p>　　然而,應(yīng)當注意的是,會計收入和應(yīng)納稅

53、所得額之間的分歧被加拿大稅法所減輕了。稅務(wù)機關(guān)趨向于用會計信息作為計算應(yīng)納稅所得額和應(yīng)付稅額的基礎(chǔ)。以聯(lián)邦稅作為目的,公司用T-2所得稅返還表的附錄1來協(xié)調(diào)他們的會計收入和應(yīng)納稅所得額。為投資者準備的財務(wù)報表是這些協(xié)調(diào)的起點。通過這樣的方式,他們減少了審計所得稅申報的花費,并限制了激進的納稅籌劃的機會。沒有了這種捆綁,管理層更容易最大化會計收入以減少債務(wù)資本的花費,同時最小化應(yīng)納稅所得額以減輕其稅務(wù)負擔。 </p><

54、;p>　　最后,利用應(yīng)納稅所得額作為一個評估收入質(zhì)量的基準的主要制約因素是它的機密性。在會計準則下,應(yīng)納稅所得額無須被披露。事實上,在亞洲相互協(xié)作與信任措施會議(簡稱亞信,CICA)手冊第3465章中沒有任何條款是關(guān)于應(yīng)納稅所得額的介紹或是其與會計收入的協(xié)調(diào)性的。會計標準委員會(AcSB)似乎認為這個信息只對稅務(wù)部門有效。 </p><p>　　因此,投資者只能根據(jù)一段時間內(nèi)的所得稅支出和財務(wù)報表中的有效稅

55、率來估計應(yīng)納稅所得額。這種估計可能對于一些情況不適用,例如在數(shù)個司法管轄區(qū)經(jīng)營,編制合并的財務(wù)報表或建立了以應(yīng)對來自稅務(wù)部門的所得稅返還的潛在挑戰(zhàn)的預防措施。 </p><p>　　估計應(yīng)納稅所得額的難點已經(jīng)引起了財經(jīng)記者的注意。舉例來說,商業(yè)周刊(2004年4月26日)上的一篇文章表示,對于老練的投資者來說,確定一家特定的公司必須要支付的所得稅數(shù)額是非常困難的,而且公司支付金額的時間點可能會被無限期推遲。另一篇

56、刊登在華爾街日報(2002年10月8日)上的文章建議,上市實體的關(guān)于稅務(wù)申報的信息要公開。 </p><p><b>　　結(jié)論 </b></p><p>　　會計和納稅之間的收入差距源自兩個層面---會計政策、估計和稅務(wù)規(guī)劃。稅務(wù)部門可以考察會計收入和應(yīng)納稅所得額之間的統(tǒng)一性來調(diào)查任何的違規(guī)行為。至于投資者和金融分析師,使用這個考察方法是不可能的,因為會計收入與應(yīng)納稅

57、所得的統(tǒng)一性不會再財務(wù)報表中公布。對于收入質(zhì)量的進一步分析需要將會計收入和應(yīng)納稅所得額的統(tǒng)一性和其他分析方法結(jié)合起來,例如分析會計收入和營運資金流之間的關(guān)系。具體來講,關(guān)于會計收入和應(yīng)納稅所得額之間的關(guān)系若公布在財務(wù)報表上能夠幫助投資者準確找出某些趨勢和差異。 </p><p>　　最后,如果關(guān)于應(yīng)納稅所得額的信息對于各種財務(wù)報表使用者是有用的,AcSB就會設(shè)法解決這個問題。在由北卡羅萊納大學和布魯金斯學會稅收中