At present, in the second review draft submitted for consideration, there is no corresponding provision on whether pollution caused by environmental pollution should be held accountable after the pollution enterprises pay environmental protection tax.
Yunfeng, a member of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, said: "It is suggested that an additional provision be added to the draft general rules, that is.the collection of environmental protection tax does not exempt taxpayers from the liability for pollution prevention and compensation and other liability stipulated by laws and regulations.The reason is that environmental protection tax belongs to ex post remedy measures and can not fundamentally solve the environmental pollution problem.
Taxation Should not Exempt Liability for Pollution Damage
Article 2 of the draft states that in the territory of the People's Republic of China and other sea areas under the jurisdiction of the People's Republic of China, enterprises, institutions and other producers and operators directly discharging taxable pollutants into the environment shall pay environmental protection tax in accordance with the provisions of this Law.However, after the sewage enterprises pay the environmental protection tax in full, does it mean that they can be exempted from liability for environmental pollution damage caused by sewage?
Yunfeng believes that after levying environmental protection tax, some enterprises, institutions and other producers and operators that discharge taxable pollutants to the environment will have an illusion that taxpayers have paid environmental protection tax to the state, so the pollution of enterprises should be treated by the state with money, and they will not actively control pollution. Increasing tax liability is to inform taxpayers that paying environmental protection tax is a statutory obligation of polluters, Pollutants discharged by polluters to the environment must be paid environmental protection tax to the state according to regulations. According to the principle of polluters, paying environmental protection tax is not to buy the legitimate right to discharge pollutants. Paying environmental protection tax must also fulfill the legal obligations of pollution control and environmental quality improvement. Taxpayers paying environmental protection tax can not exempt them from other legal liabilities that they should bear according to law.
Wang Yi, a member of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, put forward a similar point of view. He emphasized that paying environmental protection tax is a legal obligation for polluters, and that other polluters should not be exempted from relevant legal obligations, such as pollution control, environmental improvement and compensation for damage, or even criminal liability, according to the principle of burden.
In addition, Zhou Tianhong and Yan Xin, members of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, have put forward their own views and similar suggestions.
Members recommend an increase in pollutant taxes
According to the "Environmental Protection Tax Items and Taxes Scale", the range of taxes on air pollutants and water pollutants is limited to 10 times. Specifically, air pollutants are 1.2 to 12 yuan per pollution equivalent and water pollutants are 1.4 to 14 yuan per pollution equivalent.
In the first draft review, the equivalent tax of air pollutants and water pollutants is set at 1.2 yuan and 1.4 yuan respectively, and the corresponding range is not set.
Zhou Tianhong introduced that considering the current base of air pollutant equivalent taxation is 1.2 yuan and water pollution is 1.4 yuan, which is the result of "tax shifting" and does not increase the burden of enterprises. However, from the overall point of view of the standard of translational sewage discharge fee, the tax setting is still too low to reflect the cost of pollutant treatment.
He suggested that it would be possible to raise taxes appropriately, increase expenditure on environmental protection, eliminate backward production capacity, force enterprises to operate pollution reduction equipment, reduce pollution, reduce regional differences, and also promote local governments to change their industrial structure.
At the same time, Che Guangtie, a member of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, believes that the tax and fee reform basically adheres to the principle of "shifting tax burden". The original standard for collecting pollutant discharge fees is regarded as the lower limit of tax rate. Although it does not increase the burden of enterprises. from the current and future situation, this standard is similar to the ecological environment pollution. The cost has been obviously unbalanced, and it is difficult to meet the incentive needs of enterprises to reduce emissions.
"It is suggested that the dynamic adjustment mechanism of tax rate should be further established and improved, and the lower limit of tax rate should be raised step by step in different stages, situations and regions, so as to give full play to the regulatory role of environmental protection tax, and ensure the steady progress of ecological construction and environmental governance." Car light iron said.
In addition, since the enactment of environmental protection tax legislation, there has been controversy about whether carbon dioxide should be included in environmental protection tax categories. The draft also does not cover the relevant content of carbon dioxide.
In this regard, Wang Yi suggested adding paragraph 2 under Article 3 to reserve legislative space for levying carbon tax and so on. The proposed provision is "levying carbon dioxide tax and so on, according to economic and social development, by amending this law". The reason is that there is a synergistic effect between carbon reduction and haze reduction. The establishment of a carbon tax is conducive to reducing carbon emissions and haze. It is also conducive to achieving carbon peak earlier and providing the necessary carbon pricing basis for the carbon market.
Environmental Protection Tax Should Guarantee Special Purpose
According to statistics, the pollution discharge fee levied in 2015 was 17.3 billion yuan, and the number of households paying the fee was 280,000. The income of sewage discharge fee is a special fund, which is mainly used for pollution prevention and control, and has become a part of China's environmental protection investment. However, how to levy and use environmental protection tax has become one of the hot topics of deliberation after the fee is changed to tax.
In the draft, there are no corresponding requirements on how to use and distribute environmental protection tax.
Chen Zhu, Vice Chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, suggested adding the clause that "environmental protection tax revenue should be used exclusively for environmental protection".
Chen Zhu introduced that the second review of the draft did not provide for the use of tax revenue. According to the usual tax theory, environmental protection tax will be included in the general budget and used as a whole.
