Local taxes - Local taxes
|
A general term for taxes levied and collected by local governments. Article 92 of the Constitution and Article 223 of the Local Autonomy Act stipulate that local governments have the inherent authority to levy and collect local taxes, but the direct basis for levying and collecting local taxes is the ordinances enacted by local governments. Taxpayers are obligated to pay taxes according to the ordinances of each local government. The Local Tax Act can be said to lay out the general framework for local government ordinances. [Takeshi Okawa] Local Tax PrinciplesIn addition to the conditions required for taxes in general, it is considered desirable for local taxes to meet the following conditions: (1) Universality (a tax that can generate sufficient revenue for each local government); These are called the local tax principles. Among these six principles, there are some who are opposed to the emphasis on burden sharing. As for the principle of benefit-based payment, there are also those who believe that the basis should be ability-based, with benefit-based payment being considered only to a lesser extent. Some of these local tax principles are mutually contradictory, and in the end, there is no choice but to combine taxes with their respective characteristics appropriately and devise a system that will meet these demands as a whole as much as possible. [Takeshi Okawa] HistoryThe foundations of Japan's current local tax system were established by a major reform of the national and local tax systems that was implemented in 1950 based on the recommendations of the Shoup Tax Mission, which visited Japan in 1949. The Shoup recommendations listed the following four points as basic principles for the local tax system: (1) The tax system must be simple. (2) Local taxes must be levied to permit effective local administration. Tax bases must be clearly assignable to particular local areas. (3) There should be a separation of tax sources between the national government, prefectures, and municipalities. (4) Local governments must have the authority to raise or lower tax rates. Based on this, the report recommended that the local tax system should consist of prefectural taxes including value-added tax, admission taxes, and entertainment and restaurant taxes, and municipal taxes including resident taxes and property taxes. The 1950 reform did not implement the Shoup recommendations as they were, but a review of the tax system began shortly thereafter, and in the 1954 reform, the value-added tax (which was not implemented immediately and the existing business tax and special income tax were imposed temporarily) was abolished, a business tax was created (the existing business tax and special income tax were integrated), and the entrance tax was transferred to the national government, while the prefectural inhabitant tax, the fixed property tax on large depreciable assets, the real estate acquisition tax, and the prefectural tobacco consumption tax were created to expand the tax base of prefectures. On the other hand, the reform of municipal taxes was limited to minor changes such as the creation of the municipal tobacco consumption tax. This reform broke the Shoup recommendation system of applying consumption tax to prefectural taxes and income and asset tax to municipal taxes. The overlap of tax bases between the national, prefectural, and municipal levels was also promoted. After that, the light oil tax (1956), city planning tax (1956), light motor vehicle tax (1958), motor vehicle acquisition tax (1968), special land holding tax (1973), and business establishment tax (1975) were established, and the resident tax system was unified in 1964 and 1965. In 1988, the so-called fundamental tax reform introduced a consumption tax as a national tax, and the municipal electricity tax, gas tax, and timber tax were unified into the consumption tax along with the national commodity tax, and the prefectural entertainment facility tax, food and drink consumption tax, and prefectural tobacco consumption tax were changed to golf course usage tax, special local consumption tax, and prefectural tobacco tax, respectively, and the municipal tobacco consumption tax was changed to the municipal tobacco tax. However, the aim of this fundamental reform was to strengthen the national taxes. Furthermore, the local consumption tax was introduced in the tax reform of 1994 (Heisei 6) (implemented in 1997). [Takeshi Okawa] Current local tax systemThe local tax system in fiscal 1999 (Heisei 11) is as follows (figures in parentheses are percentages): Prefectural taxes [1] Ordinary tax (88.2) (1) Statutory ordinary tax (88.0) (A) Prefectural inhabitant tax (24.8) (B) Business tax (27.0) (C) Local consumption tax (17.0) (D) Real estate acquisition tax (4.0) (E) Prefectural tobacco tax (1.9) (F) Golf course usage tax (0.6) (G) Special local consumption tax (0.7) (H) Motor vehicle tax (12.0) (I) Mining area tax (0.0) (J) Hunter registration tax (0.0) (K) Fixed property tax (0.1) (2) Non-statutory ordinary tax (0.1) [2] Special purpose tax (11.8) (1) Motor vehicle acquisition tax (3.2) (2) Light oil collection tax (8.7) (3) Hunting tax (0.0) Among prefectural taxes, the largest is business tax (mostly corporate business tax), followed by prefectural inhabitant tax, local consumption tax, automobile tax, and light oil delivery tax. Prefectural taxes are based on corporate business tax and prefectural inhabitant tax, complemented by consumption tax and automobile-related taxes. Among municipal taxes, the largest are fixed asset tax and municipal inhabitant tax, which together account for over 85% of municipal taxes. Prefectural taxes are centered on income-related taxes, making them vulnerable to the effects of the economy and unstable, whereas municipal taxes, which are weighted heavily towards fixed asset tax, are relatively stable. Furthermore, prefectures pay a certain portion of the automobile acquisition tax, golf course usage tax, local consumption tax, special local consumption tax (abolished on March 31, 2000), and interest on prefectural inhabitant tax to municipalities, and prefectures that include cities designated by government ordinance are required to transfer a certain portion of the light oil collection tax to the designated cities. In the special wards of Tokyo, the metropolitan government levies all prefectural taxes, the corporate portion of municipal inhabitant tax, fixed property tax, special landholding tax, business establishment tax, and city planning tax, while the special wards levy the remaining municipal taxes. The current local tax system has changed considerably from the original tax system based on the Shoup recommendations. The Shoup recommendations called for a simple tax system and the separation of tax sources between the national government, prefectures, and municipalities, but as mentioned above, since the 1954 reform, the number of tax items has increased and diversified significantly, with the creation of new tax items, mainly prefectural taxes. At the same time, the overlap of tax sources between the national government, prefectures, and municipalities has progressed. As of 2001, there is an overlap of tax sources among the national income tax, prefectural and municipal resident tax income tax, and prefectural personal business tax in the case of income tax; among the national corporation tax, prefectural and municipal resident tax corporate tax, and prefectural corporate business tax in the case of corporate income tax; and among the national consumption tax and local consumption tax, as well as among the national, prefectural, and municipal tobacco tax in the case of consumption tax. Although overlapping of tax sources is an inevitable tendency when the national and local governments each seek tax sources that will generate sufficient tax revenue, its relationship with national tax policy always becomes an issue. [Takeshi Okawa] Current situation and direction of reformLooking at the trends in the composition of local tax revenues in the final revenue settlement (net total for prefectures and municipalities), it had been steadily increasing since fiscal 1979, but began to decline after peaking at 44.3% in fiscal 1988, dropping to 41-42% in fiscal 1989-1991, below 40% in fiscal 1992, and dropping to 33.2% in fiscal 1995 and 33.7% in fiscal 1999. This slump in local taxes is, needless to say, due to the economic recession and the implementation of tax cuts as economic stimulus measures, and the shortfall in tax revenues has been made up for by increases in local allocation taxes and increased issuance of local bonds. However, looking at the figures by prefecture and municipality, the decline was much greater for prefectural taxes, at 40.9% in fiscal 1989, 29.3% in fiscal 1995, and 29.8% in fiscal 1999. This is because prefectural taxes are heavily dependent on the corporate enterprise tax, a tax that is easily affected by economic fluctuations. In contrast, the proportion of municipal taxes fell relatively small, from 39.9% in fiscal 1989, to 33.6% in fiscal 1995, and to 33.5% in fiscal 1999. Next, looking at the rate of increase/decrease of major local taxes in fiscal 1999 compared to the previous year, prefectural taxes were down 4.8% in total, broken down as follows: prefectural inhabitant tax down 1.1% (individual portion up 1.3%, corporate portion down 10.8%, interest rate up 6.1%), business tax down 12.3% (individual portion down 15.5%, corporate portion down 12.1%), local consumption tax down 2.8%. Municipal taxes were down 0.8% in total, including a 5.1% decrease in municipal inhabitant tax (income rate down 3.5%, corporate rate down 12.2%), and a 2.5% increase in fixed property tax. It can be seen that the large decrease in inhabitant and business tax revenues due to the implementation of permanent tax cuts on individual inhabitant taxes and corporate business taxes and the poor performance of corporate enterprises led to the decrease in local taxes. The decrease in corporate tax was particularly large. Another thing to note is that the larger the metropolitan area, the harder the prefectures were hit by the sudden decline in corporate taxes. The total amount of corporate inhabitant and enterprise taxes in Tokyo was 1,846.8 billion yen in fiscal 1989, but fell by 47% to 973.5 billion yen in fiscal 1999. During the same period, Osaka Prefecture saw a 53% decline from 835.2 billion yen to 394.8 billion yen, Aichi Prefecture saw a 38% decline from 588.4 billion yen to 367.3 billion yen, and Kanagawa Prefecture saw a 58% decline from 522.1 billion yen to 218.5 billion yen. With the exception of Aichi Prefecture, this decline was much higher than the national total (40%), and since the corporate inhabitant and enterprise taxes in these four prefectures accounted for 50% of the national total (fiscal 1989), the impact of this decline on these prefectures was extremely large. This once again cast doubt on the heavy reliance of prefectural taxes on highly unevenly distributed and unstable taxes. Currently, most local governments depend on local allocation tax. As of fiscal 1999, the only prefecture that did not receive the local allocation tax was Tokyo, while the number of large cities (12) was zero, the number of core cities (25) was one, the number of other cities (634) was 42, and the number of towns and villages (2,558) was only 41 (the number in parentheses is the total number of organizations). Most of the economically powerful large cities and core cities are grant-receiving organizations that cannot cover standard administrative costs with local taxes alone. Furthermore, there is a large disparity in financial strength between local governments, and many organizations have low financial strength. Looking at the total of prefectures and municipalities, 43.7% of the local governments had a financial capability index (the three-year average of the figure obtained by dividing standard financial revenue by standard financial needs; the lower the figure, the lower the standard tax revenue ratio) of less than 0.30, 25.8% had a figure between 0.30 and 0.50, 27.2% had a figure between 0.50 and 1.00, and 3.3% had a figure of 1.00 or more (non-granting local governments) (FY1999). This likely reflects the insufficient allocation of local taxes and the fact that local taxes include taxes that are highly unevenly distributed. In FY1999, the ratio of national and local expenditures was 38.7:61.3, while the ratio of national and local taxes was 58.4:41.6 (however, sources of expenditures include other sources than taxes). Among local taxes, the ones with the greatest regional uneven distribution are business tax, resident tax on corporate income, and fixed property tax (land), while local consumption tax is relatively less unevenly distributed. In light of this current situation, if we consider the future expansion of the role of local governments as decentralization progresses, it is clear that it is essential to streamline national treasury disbursements, review the role of local allocation tax, and increase local tax revenues. In expanding local tax revenues, it would be desirable to build a local tax system that places greater emphasis on universality, stability, and benefit-based payment, while also taking into consideration the fairness of the tax burden on the people through national and local taxes. [Takeshi Okawa] "The Current State of the Local Tax System and its Management, edited by the Tax Bureau of the Ministry of Home Affairs (1994, Local Finance Association)" ▽ "Tax Sources for Local Governments, edited by Kamino Naohiko and Kaneko Masaru (1998, Toyo Keizai Shinposha)" ▽ "Theories and Issues of Local Taxes (Revised Edition), edited by Hashimoto Toru (2001, Tax Accounting Association)" ▽ "The Future of the Local Tax System, written by Hayashi Hiroaki (2001, Chuo Keizai Sha)" [Reference item] | | | |Source: Shogakukan Encyclopedia Nipponica About Encyclopedia Nipponica Information | Legend |
|
地方公共団体が賦課・徴収する税の総称。地方公共団体が地方税を賦課・徴収する固有の権能をもつことは、憲法第92条および地方自治法第223条に規定されているが、地方税を賦課・徴収する直接の根拠は、地方公共団体が制定する条例にある。納税者は各地方公共団体の条例によって納税義務を負うことになる。地方税法は地方公共団体の条例に対していわば大枠を定めたものといえる。 ［大川 武］ 地方税原則地方税は、租税一般に要求される条件のほかに次のような条件を満たすものであることが望ましいとされている。 (1)普遍性（それぞれの地方公共団体が十分な収入をあげうる税であること）、 これらは地方税原則とよばれる。この六つの原則のなかでは、負担分任性を掲げることについては否定的な意見もある。また、応益性についても、基本は応能性に置くべきで、応益性はそれに加味する程度で考慮すべきであるという考え方もある。これらの地方税原則には相互に矛盾するものも含まれており、結局、それぞれの特性を備えた税を適当に組み合わせ、全体としてこれらの要請にできるだけこたえうるようにくふうするほかない。 ［大川 武］ 沿革わが国の現行の地方税制の基礎は、1949年（昭和24）に来日したシャウプ税制使節団の勧告に基づいて50年に実施された、国と地方を通ずる税制の大改革によって確立された。シャウプ勧告は地方税制の基本的な原則として次の4点をあげた。 (1)税制は簡素でなければならない。 (2)各地方税は効果的な地方行政を可能にするようなものでなければならない。課税標準は特定の地域に明確に割り当てうるものでなければならない。 (3)国と都道府県と市町村の間には税源の分離があるべきである。 (4)地方公共団体は税率を上げ下げできる権限をもたねばならない。そのうえで、地方税体系として、都道府県税には付加価値税、入場税および遊興飲食税を、市町村税には住民税と固定資産税をあてるように勧告した。 1950年の改正でもシャウプ勧告がそのまま実施に移されたわけではないが、まもなく税制の見直しが始まり、54年の改正で、付加価値税（ただちに実施されず暫定的に従来の事業税および特別所得税が課されてきた）の廃止と事業税の創設（従来の事業税と特別所得税の統合）、入場税の国への移管とともに、道府県民税・大規模償却資産に対する固定資産税・不動産取得税・道府県たばこ消費税の創設による都道府県の税源の拡充が行われた。他方、市町村税は市町村たばこ消費税の創設など小幅な改正にとどまった。この改正で、道府県税には消費課税を、市町村税には所得・資産課税をあてるというシャウプ勧告の体系は崩れた。また国、都道府県、市町村の三段階間での税源の重複も進められた。その後も、軽油引取税（1956年）、都市計画税（1956年）、軽自動車税（1958年）、自動車取得税（1968年）、特別土地保有税（1973年）、事業所税（1975年）が創設され、1964、65年度には住民税課税方式の統一が行われた。88年度には、いわゆる税制の抜本改正によって国税として消費税が導入されたことに伴って、市町村税の電気税、ガス税、木材引取税が国税の物品税とともに消費税に一本化され、道府県別の娯楽施設利用税、料理飲食等消費税、道府県たばこ消費税がそれぞれゴルフ場利用税、特別地方消費税、道府県たばこ税に、市町村たばこ消費税が市町村たばこ税に変更された。ただし、この抜本改正のねらいは国税の強化にあった。さらに、94年度（平成6）の税制改正で地方消費税が導入された（97年度施行）。 ［大川 武］ 現行の地方税体系1999年度（平成11）における地方税の体系は次のとおりである（かっこ内は構成比、単位％）。 道府県税 〔1〕普通税（88.2）(1)法定普通税（88.0）(ア)道府県民税（24.8）(イ)事業税（27.0）(ウ)地方消費税（17.0）(エ)不動産取得税（4.0）(オ)道府県たばこ税（1.9）(カ)ゴルフ場利用税（0.6）(キ)特別地方消費税（0.7）(ク)自動車税（12.0）(ケ)鉱区税（0.0）(コ)狩猟者登録税（0.0）(サ)固定資産税（0.1）(2)法定外普通税（0.1） 〔2〕目的税（11.8）(1)自動車取得税（3.2）(2)軽油引取税（8.7）(3)入猟税（0.0） 道府県税では、比重がもっとも高いのは事業税（大部分は法人事業税）で、ついで道府県民税、地方消費税、自動車税、軽油引取税の順になっている。道府県税は、法人事業税と道府県民税を主体にし、消費税と自動車関係税がこれを補完する体系になっている。市町村税では、比重が高いのは固定資産税と市町村民税で、この二つで市町村税の85％以上を占めている。道府県税は所得関係税を中心にしているため景気の影響を受けやすく、不安定であるのに対して、固定資産税の比重の高い市町村税は比較的安定している。 なお、道府県は、納付された自動車取得税、ゴルフ場利用税、地方消費税、特別地方消費税（2000年3月31日をもって廃止）、道府県民税のうちの利子割の、それぞれ一定部分を市町村に納付し、政令指定都市を包括する道府県は、納付された軽油引取税の一定部分を政令指定都市に交付するものとされている。また、東京都の特別区の区域では、都が道府県税の全部と市町村民税法人分、固定資産税、特別土地保有税、事業所税、都市計画税を課し、特別区は残りの市町村税を課することになっている。 現行の地方税体系は、シャウプ勧告に基づく当初の税制からは、だいぶ形を変えたものになっている。シャウプ勧告は簡素な税制、国、都道府県、市町村間の税源の分離等を掲げたが、前で述べたように、1954年の改正以降、道府県税を中心に税目の創設が続き、税目数は大幅に増加し多様化した。それと同時に、国・都道府県・市町村の税源の重複も進んだ。2001年現在、所得課税では、国税の所得税、道府県・市町村税の住民税所得割、道府県税の個人事業税の間で、法人所得課税では、国税の法人税、道府県・市町村税の住民税法人税割、道府県税の法人事業税の間で、消費課税では、国税消費税と地方消費税の間や国・道府県・市町村たばこ税の間で、税源の重複がみられる。税源の重複は、国と地方がそれぞれ十分な税収をあげうる税源を求めようとするとき避けられない傾向ではあるが、国の課税政策との関係がつねに問題となってくる。 ［大川 武］ 現状と改革の方向歳入決算額（都道府県と市町村の純計）に占める地方税収の構成比の推移をみると、1979年度（昭和54）以降一貫して上昇してきたのが、88年度の44.3％を頂点に低下し始め、89（平成1）～91年度は41～42％、92年度には40％を割り、95年度33.2％、99年度33.7％と落ち込んでいる。このような地方税の低迷は、いうまでもなく、景気後退や景気対策としての減税の実施によるもので、税収の不足分は地方交付税の増額や地方債の増発で補填(ほてん)されてきた。ただし、都道府県、市町村別にみると、この落ち込みは都道府県税のほうがはるかに大きく、89年度40.9％、95年度29.3％、99年度29.8％となっている。都道府県税が法人事業税という景気変動の影響を受けやすい税に大きく依存しているためである。これに対して、市町村税の構成比は、89年度39.9％、95年度33.6％、99年度33.5％と、落ち込みは相対的に小さい。 次に、1999年度の主要な地方税について対前年度増減率をみると、道府県税の場合、合計では4.8％の減であるが、その内訳は道府県民税1.1％減（個人分1.3％増、法人分10.8％減、利子割6.1％増）、事業税12.3％減（個人分15.5％減、法人分12.1％減）、地方消費税2.8％減となっている。また、市町村税の場合は、合計では0.8％の減となり、うち市町村民税5.1％減（所得割3.5％減、法人税割12.2％減）、固定資産税2.5％増となっている。個人住民税や法人事業税の恒久的な減税の実施や法人企業の業績不振で、住民税や事業税の大幅な減収が地方税の減少をもたらしたことがわかる。とくに法人分の減少が大きい。 もう一つ注意しなければならないのは、大都市圏の都道府県ほど法人関係税の急激な減少の打撃を強く受けたことである。法人住民税・事業税の合計額は、東京都では1989年度に1兆8468億円であったのが、99年度には9735億円と47％も減少している。同じ期間に、大阪府は8352億円から3948億円へと53％の減、愛知県は5884億円から3673億円へと38％の減、神奈川県は5221億円から2185億円へと58％の減となっている。愛知県を除いて全国合計の減少率（40％）を大きく上回っており、しかもこれらの4都府県の法人住民税・事業税は、全国合計の50％（1989年度）を占めているのであるから、これらの都府県にとってこの減少の影響はきわめて大きかった。このことは、都道府県税が偏在度の強い、不安定な税に大きく依存していることに対して、改めて疑問を投げかけた。 現在、ほとんどの地方公共団体は地方交付税に依存している。1999年度現在、不交付団体は、都道府県では東京都のみ、大都市（12）では0、中核市（25）では1、その他の都市（634）では42、町村（2558）では41にすぎない（かっこ内は全団体数）。経済力のある大都市、中核市のほとんどが、地方税だけでは標準的な行政をまかなえない交付団体になっている。そのうえ、地方公共団体間の財政力の格差は大きく、また財政力の低い団体が多い。都道府県と市町村の合計でみて、財政力指数（基準財政収入額を基準財政需要額で割って得た数値の過去3年間の平均値。この数値が低いほど標準的な税収入の比率が低いことを示す）が0.30未満の団体が43.7％を占め、0.30以上0.50未満が25.8％、0.50以上1.00未満が27.2％、1.00以上（不交付団体）が3.3％となっている（99年度）。地方税の配分が不十分であること、地方税に偏在度が大きいものが含まれていることなどを反映するものであろう。99年度における国と地方の歳出割合は38.7対61.3であるのに対して、国税と地方税の比率は58.4対41.6となっている（ただし、歳出の財源には租税以外のものも含まれる）。また、地方税のなかで地域間の偏在度が大きいのは、事業税、住民税法人税割、固定資産税（土地）であり、地方消費税の偏在度は比較的小さい。 このような現状を踏まえ、今後の地方分権の推進に伴う地方の役割の増大を考えるならば、国庫支出金の整理、地方交付税の役割の見直しとあわせて、地方税収の拡充が不可欠なことは明白である。そして、その拡充にあたっては、国税・地方税を通ずる国民の税負担の公平性に配慮しつつ、普遍性、安定性、応益性の観点をより重視した地方税体系を構築することが望ましいであろう。 ［大川 武］ 『自治省税務局編『地方税制の現状とその運営の実態』（1994・地方財務協会）』▽『神野直彦・金子勝編著『地方に税源を』（1998・東洋経済新報社）』▽『橋本徹編著『地方税の理論と課題（改訂版）』（2001・税務経理協会）』▽『林宏昭著『これからの地方税システム』（2001・中央経済社）』 [参照項目] | | | |出典 小学館 日本大百科全書(ニッポニカ)日本大百科全書(ニッポニカ)について 情報 | 凡例 |
<<: Local Governors' Conference - Chihochokankaigi
>>: Local transfer tax - Chihojoyozei
Recommend
Vercelli (English spelling)
Ancient name: Vercellae. Capital of Vercelli Provi...
Steiner, Rudolf
Born: February 27, 1861 in Kraljevik, Austria [Die...
Keane - Keane
…He grew up as an orphan, joined a troupe of trav...
Carolina Rattlesnake - Carolina Rattlesnake
...The main component of the venom is hemotoxic t...
Solingen (English spelling)
An industrial city in North Rhine-Westphalia, west...
Forssmann, W.
…Because a vein or artery is cut open and a cathe...
Prison Law
In a broad sense, it is a law that stipulates the...
Royal road - Oudou
A political way of governing with benevolence and...
Woodcock - Woodcock
A bird of the family Scolopacidae (illustration) i...
Morpho hecuba (English spelling) Morphohecuba
…[Mayumi Takahashi]. . . *Some of the terminology...
Aix-les-Bains (English spelling)
A resort and hot spring town on the eastern shore ...
Motivational boost - Iyokuzoushin
... Examples include pyromania and kleptomania. &...
Suttner - Forever (English spelling) Bertha Felicie Sophie von Suttner
Austrian writer and pacifist. Born in Prague in t...
Atmospheric pressure distribution - Atmospheric pressure distribution
This refers to the state of atmospheric pressure ...
Railing - Koran
〘Noun〙 = kouran (railing) ① ※Konjaku (around 1120)...