Inconsistencies of small business fiscal stimulation in Ukraine

Nataliia B. Yaroshevych, Svitlana V. Cherkasova, Tetyana V. Kalaitan

Abstract


The article discusses the effects of fiscal instruments used to stimulate the development of small business in Ukraine and the hypothesis that the inconsistencies inherent in these instruments prevent them from achieving the desired outcomes. To test this hypothesis, the authors estimated the percentage of small businesses covered by the simplified tax scheme and analyzed such fiscal instruments as the simplified tax scheme, various types of debt financing and taxation of debt financing. The authors used the data on the amount and dynamics of repayable financial assistance to estimate the scale of the phenomenon of corporate split-ups. The latter might be caused by the interest of large and medium-sized companies in accessing small business tax preferences. To calculate the amount of repayable financial assistance the authors propose to adjust the indicator of other current liabilities for the following indicators: other current accounts payable; interest incomes of resident banks; interest incomes of non-resident banks from their lending transactions in Ukraine; commission incomes of resident banks; and the total amount of corporate bonds. The analysis relies on the data of the State Statistics Service of Ukraine on activity of companies and the data of the National Bank of Ukraine on the country’s banking system in 2012–2017. The results of the analysis have confirmed the initial hypothesis about the contradictory effects of fiscal instruments:

1) In the given period, from 22% to 38% of small businesses did not have access to the benefits of the simplified tax system due to the inadequacy of the criteria for defining the size of business.

2) The taxation norms discriminated against small businesses seeking to use specific instruments of debt financing: instead of stimulating the development of start-ups, these fiscal instruments encouraged large and medium-sized companies to split into smaller units.

3) What distinguishes Ukraine from other countries is the wide use of repayable financial assistance by small businesses to attract funds. Calculations have shown that the share of repayable financial assistance among other available instruments of debt financing in the given period exceeded 28%.

Thus, the findings indicate that further improvements of small business taxation are necessary.

For citation

Yaroshevych N. B., Cherkasova S. V., Kalaitan T. V. Inconsistencies of small business fiscal stimulation in Ukraine. Journal of Tax Reform. 2019;5(3):204–219. DOI: 10.15826/jtr.2019.5.3.068

Article info

Received April 25, 2019; Revised September 15, 2019; Accepted October 2, 2019


 


Keywords


fiscal instruments, simplified tax system, debt financing, repayable financial assistance, small business

References


Evans C. Studying the Studies: An overview of recent research into taxation operating costs. Journal of Tax Research. 2003;1(1):64–92. Available at: https://www.business.unsw.edu.au/research-site/publications-site/ejournaloftaxresearch-site/Documents/paper4.pdf
2. Pashev K. V. Tax Compliance of Small Business in Transition Economies: Lessons from Bulgaria. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.717041
3. Smatrakalev G. Tax Policy for small and Medium Enterprises. Oxford Journal: An International Journal of Business & Economics. 2007;2(1):69–74. Available at: http://www.ojbe.org/oj/index.php/journals/article/viewFile/78/71
4. Hooi L. W. Implementing e-HRM: The readiness of SME manufacturing company in Malaysia. Asia Pacific Business Review. 2006;12(4):465–485. DOI: 10.1080/13602380600570874
5. Omar S. S., Arokiasamy L., Ismail M. The Background and Challenges Faced by the Small Medium Enterprises. A Human Resource Development Perspective. International Journal of Business and Management. 2009;4(10):95–102. DOI: 10.5539/ijbm.v4n10p95
6. Stefanović I., Milošević D., Miletić S. Significance and development problems of SME’s in contemporary market economy. Serbian Journal of Management. 2009;4(1):127–136. Available at: http://www.sjm06.com/SJM%20ISSN1452-4864/4_1_2009_May_1-136/4_1_127-136.pdf
7. Milano J. Shining a light on small business credit: promoting a transparent marketplace. November, 2017. Available at: https://www.progressivepolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/PPI_SmallBizCredit_2017.pdf
8. Hauser H.-E. The European Commission Recommendation on Small and Middle Enterprises – impacts of the incorrect application of a rigid definition. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/sdd/business-stats/35501496.pdf
9. Wolter H.-J., Hauser H.-E. Die Bedeutung des Eigentümerunternehmens in Deutschland – Eine Auseinandersetzung mit der qualitativen und quantitativen Definition des Mittelstandes. Available at: https://www.ifm-bonn.org/uploads/tx_ifmstudies/90_nf_2.pdf
10. Gunterberg B., Kayser G. Business registers and SMEsA qualitative definition of SME. Available at: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/52278/1/672553597.pdf
11. Wamba L.D., Hikkerova L., Sahut J.-M., Braune E. Indebtedness of young companies: the effects on their survival. Journal Entrepreneurship & Regional Development. 2017;29(1-2):174–196. DOI: 10.1080/08985626.2016.1255435
12. Ključnikov A., Belás Ja., Kozubíková L., Paseková P. The Entreprenurial Perception of SME Business Environment Quality in the Czech Republic. Journal of Competitiveness. 2016;8(1):66–78. DOI: 10.7441/joc.2016.01.05
13. Kumar S., Rao P. A conceptual framework for identifying financing preferences of SMEs. Small Enterprise Research. 2015;22(1):99–112. DOI: 10.1080/13215906.2015.1036504
14. Ono A., Uesugi I. Role of collateral and personal guarantees in relationship lending: Evidence from Japan’s SME loan market. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking. 2009;41(5):935–960. DOI: 10.1111/j.1538-4616.2009.00239.x
15. Zhou W. Bank financing in China’s private sector: The payoffs of political capital. World Development. 2009;37(4):787–799. DOI: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2008.07.011
16. Rahman A., Belas J., Kliestik T., Tyll L. Collateral requirements for SME loans: empirical evidence from the Visegrad countries. Journal of Business Economics and Management. 2017;18(4):50–675. DOI: 10.3846/16111699.2017.1357050
17. Ivanová E. Barriers to the development of SMEs in the Slovak. Oeconomia Copernicana. 2017;8(2):255–272. DOI: 10.24136/oc.v8i2.16
18. Gambini A., Zazzaro A. Long-lasting bank relationships and growth of firms. Small Business Economics. 2013;40(4):977–1007. DOI: 10.1007/s11187-011-9406-8
19. Ozturk B., Mrkaic M. Access to Finance by SMEs in the Euro Area: What Helps or Hampers? Available at: https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2014/wp1478.pdf
20. Rostamkalaei A., Freel M. The cost of growth: small firms and the pricing of bank loans. Small Business Economics. 2015;46(2):255–272. DOI: 10.1007/s11187-015-9681-x
21. Coulibaly B., Sapriza H., Zlate A. Financial frictions, trade credit, and the 2008–09 global financial crisis. International Review of Economics and Finance. 2013;26(1):25–38.
22. Centineo S. Investment innovation trends: factor – based investing. Serbian Journal of Management. 2017;12(1):65–75 DOI: 10.5937/sjm12-10764
23. Bastos R., Pindado J. Trade credit during a financial crisis: A panel data analysis. Journal of Business Research. 2013;66(5):614–620. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.03.015
24. Demirgüç-Kunt A., Maksimovic V. Funding growth in bank-based and market-based financial systems: evidence from firm-level data. Journal of Financial Economics. 2002;65(3):337–363. DOI: 10.1016/S0304-405X(02)00145-9
25. Lin T., Chou J. Trade credit and bank loan: Evidence from Chinese Firms. International Review of Economics and Finance. 2015;36(1):17–29 DOI: 10.1016/j.iref.2014.11.004
26. Demirgüç-Kunt A., Maksimovic V. Firms as financial intermediaries: Evidence from trade credit data. Available at: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/973231468767093690/110510322_20041117161023/additional/multi0page.pdf
27. Rahman A., Rozsa Z., Cepel M. Trade Credit and Bank Finance – Evidence from the Visegrad Group. Journal of Competitiveness. 2018;10(3):132–148. DOI: 10.7441/joc.2018.03.09
28. Mihai V. M. Issues on Accessing EU Non-refundable Funds by SMEs in Romania. Economic Insights – Trends and Challenges. 2016;V(LXVIII)(3):47–54. Available at: http://www.upg-bulletin-se.ro/archive/2016-3/6.%20Mihai.pdf
29. Staniewski M. W., Szopiński T., Awruk K. Setting up a business and funding sources. Journal of Business Research. 2016;69(6):2108–2112. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.12.016
30. Basu A., Parker S. C. Family finance and new business start-ups. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics. 2001;63(3):333–358. DOI: 10.1111/1468-0084.00224
31. Bates T. Financing small business creation: The case of Chinese and Korean immigrant entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing. 1997;12(2):109–124. DOI: 10.1016/S0883-9026(96)00054-7
32. Bădulescu A. Start-up financing sources: Does gendermatter? Some evidence for EU and Romania. Annals of Faculty of Economics. 2011;1(special):207–213. Available at: http://anale.steconomiceuoradea.ro/volume/2011/special/014.pdf
33. Terungwa A. An empirical evaluation of small and medium enterprises equity investment scheme in Nigeria. Journal of Accounting and Taxation. 2011;3(3):79–90. Available at: http://www.academicjournals.org/app/webroot/article/article1379412313_Terungwa.pdf
34. Abbasi W. A., Wang Z., Abbasi D. A. Potential Sources of Financing for Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) and Role of Government in Supporting SMEs. Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship Development. 2017;5(2):39–47. DOI: 10.15640/jsbed.v5n2a4
35. Abdulsaleh A. M., Worthington A. C. Small and medium-sized enterprises financing: A review of literature. International Journal of Business and Management. 2013;8(14):36–54. DOI: 10.5539/ijbm.v8n14p36
36. Onji K. The Response of Firms to Eligibility Thresholds: Evidence from the Japanese Value-Added Tax. Asia Pacific Economic Papers. 2008;(370). Available at: https://crawford.anu.edu.au/pdf/pep/apep-370.pdf
37. Taptunova I. Transformation of the corporate income tax into distributed profit tax (Policy Paper). 2016. Available at: http://euinfocenter.rada.gov.ua/uploads/documents/28909.pdf (In Ukr.)
38. Dubrovsky V., Cherkashin V. Comparative analysis of the fiscal effect from the instruments used for tax avoidance in Ukraine. In: Institution of Socio-Economic Transformation. Kyiv; 2017. (In Ukr.)
39. Stupnytsky O., Volga V. Micro-loans for small businesses in Ukraine: the EU experience and priorities of reforms. Journal of Mariupol State University. Series Economics. 2015;(9):48–58. Available at: http://economyandsociety.in.ua/journal/16_ukr/80.pdf (In Ukr.)
40. Danylyshyn V. I., Stefankiv O. M. Tax system’s vulnerabilities to abuse and ways of addressing them. Market Infrastructure. 2017;(7):285–290. Available at: http://www.market-infr.od.ua/journals/2017/7_2017_ukr/50.pdf (In Ukr.)
41. Dubrovsky V., Cherkashin V., Getman O. Tax evasion linked to import and sale of goods, in particular through abuse of the simplified tax system, and ways of minimizing it. Policy Paper. In: Institution of Socio-Economic Transformation. Kyiv; 2017. Available at: https://rpr.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Yak-zmenshyty-mozhlyvosti-dlya-uhylennya-vid-splaty-podatkiv-pry-importi-ta-prodazhi-tovariv-zokrema-cherez-zlovzhyvannya-sproschenoyu-systemoyu-opodatkuvannya.pdf (In Ukr.)




DOI: https://doi.org/10.15826/jtr.2019.5.3.068

Copyright (c) 2019 Nataliia B. Yaroshevych, Svitlana V. Cherkasova, Tetyana V. Kalaitan

eLibrary logoeLibrary logo  DOAJ logo ERIH PLUS logo 

© Journal of Tax Reform : ISSN 2414-9497 (online), ISSN 2412-8872 (print)