全面解读9号文寻找筹划新空间

2005年1月,国家税务总局出台了《关于调整个人取得全年一次性奖金等计算征收个人所得税方法问题的通知》(国税发[2005]9号,以下简称9号文)。对纳税人取得的全年一次性奖金的计税方法(实行年薪制与绩效工资的也比照执行)进     

对一次性奖金个税计算方法的质疑

国家税务总局最近就个人取得一次性奖金收入征收个人所得税计算方法下发了《关于调整个人取得全年一次性奖金等计算征收个人所得税方法问题的通知》(国税发[2005]9号)。对原有的政策进行了调整。国家税务总局下发“9号文件”的初衷是为合理解决个人取得全年一次性奖金征税问题，因而受到广大纳税人、扣缴义务人的极大关注。但笔者对于“9号文件”中有关一次性奖金征税计算方法的合理性提出质疑，因按该办法计算个人所得税将导致奖金收入在税率临界点的税负差别相当大，甚至出现多发一元奖金要多缴几佰元乃至几万元税款的现象，有违公平合理性原则。试举例如下。     

浅析计税新政、完善年终奖计征办法

《关于调整个人取得全年一次性奖金等计算征收个人所得税方法问题的通知》（国税发（2005）9号，简称9号文），对个人取得全年一次性奖金缴纳个人所得税计算方法进行了调整，将年终奖金由过去集中计税改为分摊计税，减轻了个人收入税负，体现出对那些经济效益一般，职工月工资收入较少且年终集中取得奖金的职工的人性化税收政策。但是，随着这一新计税办法的实施，出现了“奖金多、收入少”的“一元税差”现象，形成了奖金负效应区间，使得一部分纳税人难以理解、想法多多。     

试论全年一次奖金收入计证个人所得税的逻辑悖论

对于如何计证全年一次性奖金收入的个人所得税问题。国家税务总局今年先后发出了《国家税务总局关于调整个人取得全年一次性奖金等计算征收个人所得税方法问题的通知》（国税发[2005]9号）和《国家税务总局关于纳税人取得不含税全年一次性奖金收入计证个人所得税问题的批复》（[2005]715号）两份文件。较以前的规定进行了较大幅度的调整。[第一段]     

关于“全年一次性奖金计税办法”的探讨

随着财政部、国家税务总局《关于个人所得税修改后有关优惠政策衔接问题的通知》(财税[2018]164号)的发布,新的全年一次性奖金计税办法终于尘埃落定。该衔接规定以人为本,坚持原则性和灵活性相统一,在很大程度上弥补了《国家税务总局关于调整个人取得全年一次性奖金等计算征收个人所得税方法问题的通知》(国税发〔2005〕9号)规定的全年一次性奖金计税办法的弊端,降低了个人所得税纳税人以及单位代扣代缴义务人的税收负担和税务风险。     

年终奖节税新招

2005年1月26日,国家税务总局出台了一个新的文件--<国家税务总局关于调整个人取得全年一次性奖金等计算征收个人所得税方法问题的通知>(国税发[2005]9号),对全年一次性奖金的计税方法做出新规定.     

新税收政策下的奖金支付方式选择

2005年1月21日,国家税务总局颁布了国税发[2005]9号文件《国家税务局关于调整个人取得全年一次性奖金等计算征收个人所得税方法问题的通知》,该通知对全年一次性奖金计算征收个人所得税方法进行了重大调整,该文件的颁布将对纳税人取得的全年一次性奖金应纳个人所得税税款产生重大影响,为此,本文将依据该政策的要求,通过比较纳税人在不同的奖金支付方式下纳税人所应承担的税款,根据利益最大化的原则,帮助纳税人选择合理的奖金支付方式。     

企业为个人承担个税税前扣除政策辅导

为公平税负,规范管理,根据《个人所得税法》、《国家税务总局关于雇主为其雇员负担个人所得税税款计征问题的通知》(国税发〔1996〕199号)和《国家税务总局关于调整个人取得全年一次性奖金等计算征收个人所得税方法问题的通知》(国税发〔2005〕9号)等规定,2011年4月28日,国家税务总局发布《关于雇主为雇员承担全年一次性奖金部分税款有关个人所得税计算方法问题的公告》(国     

对合理规避个人所得税的探讨

国家税务总局2005年1月21日公布的《关于调整个人取得全年一次性奖金等计算征收个人所得税方法问题的通知》（国税发[2005]9号）对个人取得全年一次性奖金个人所得税的计算方法做了调整,新规定自2005年1月1日起实施。对每个企业来说如何充分依据国税发[2005]9号文件政策,既依法缴纳个人所得税,又把应纳个人所得税款降到最低限度是值得研究的一个课题。本文将针对如何吃透国税发[2005]9号文件精神,通过调整员工工资和奖金等收入发放办法来达到合理避税作初步探讨。     

年终奖发放纳税筹划分析

<正>全年一次性奖金是指行政机关、企事业单位等扣缴义务人根据其全年经济效益和对员工全年工作业绩的综合考核情况,向员工发放的一次性奖金。2005年1月26日,国家税务总局出台了一个新的文件——《关于调整个人取得全年一次性奖金等计算征收个人所得税方法问题的通知》(国税发[2005]9号),对年终一次性奖金的计税方法做出了新的规定。新文件     

跨行查询收费:替银行说几句话

银行卡跨行查询收费一经推出即遭到铺天盖地的反对,有的消费者甚至诉诸法庭。银行收取跨行查询费的行为究竟是出于对市场化原则的尊重还是蔑视?     

Managing for efficiency, managing for equity

It is a truism that not all managers do the same things in the same ways. Less often recognized, however, is the fact that the essential tasks and goals of management are not everywhere the same. Indeed, so unlike each other are the two primary systems of management--the "technocratic" and the "political"--that they consistently vary in the implicit contract offered to participants, the career path of members, the use of organizational structure, the choice of purpose, and the allocation of resources, but also provides a conceptual framework for understanding why they happen and what can be done to prevent their happening in the future.     

寿险产品评价体系研究

中国保险市场的发展,迫切需要建立保险评价体系.保险产品的评价体系是保险评价的核心,其主要目标是以保险产品相对透明为目的进行的.在所有的保险产品中,人身保险产品与社会大众关系最为密切,人身保险在保险业的保费收入中也占有决定性地位.所以,当务之急是首先建立人身保险产品的评价体系.寿险保单的保障程度、投资价值以及附带的服务水平是寿险产品的核心问题,应当成为寿险产品评价的主要内容.本文重点从寿险产品保障程度进行评价研究.     

微笑传递快乐 激情奉献奥运

前言：在2008年北京奥运会上,奥运志愿者成为了一道亮丽的风景线,他们用自己最美的微笑和热情的服务给世界留下了深刻的印象。在这个充满青春朝气的群体中,也活跃着财政青年的身影,他们以40天辛勤付出和无私奉献,圆满完成使命,为北京奥运的成功举办贡献了力量,也留下人生中美好的回忆。现刊载中评协奥运志愿者——李念辰和崔新园的文章,将他们辛苦工作的经历再现,让他们的欢乐与广大读者共享。     

Trust for accounting and accounting for trust

This paper combines insights from the sociology of knowledge and the emerging practice-based literature on learning and knowing to extend the institutional framework of accounting change developed by Burns and Scapens [Burns, J., Scapens, R.W., 2000. Conceptualising management accounting change: an institutional framework. Manage. Acc. Res., 11, 3–25]. In particular, it explores how management accounting systems (MAS) can be implicated in processes of learning and culture change, and used to identify ‘trustworthy’ solutions in the face of organisational crises. A case study of an Italian company, which was subject to massive change following its acquisition by General Electric, is used to discuss how, when crises arise and organisation members find themselves under intense pressure for change, their rationales and routinised behaviour, which are driven by the existing knowledge and cultural assumptions, are challenged. The case illustrates how MAS can act as sources of trust for the processes of change – i.e., accounting for trust; while at the same time being socially constructed objects of trust – i.e., trust for accounting. Drawing on the concept of personal trust and the notion of roles as access points to organisational (expert) systems, the paper discusses how, in this case, finance experts facilitated the acceptance and progressive sharing of new rationales and routines. Clearly, this does not guarantee that change will occur or occur in some ‘desired’ direction in other cases, but it increases the possibility of replacing trust in the predictability of routines with feelings of trust for change.     

关于《以财务报告为目的的评估指南（试行）》的起草说明

为适应新兴评估市场领域的发展,规范注册资产评估师执行以财务报告为目的的评估业务,保证评估执业质量,维护社会公共利益和资产评估各方当事人合法权益,中评协在财政部有关司局的帮助和指导下,组织有关专家起草了《以财务报告为目的的评估指南（试行）》（以下简称《指南》）。为便于评估机构和注册资产评估师以及相关部门、人士全面理解《指南》,现将有关起草情况说明如下。     

Accounting for decisions and decisions for accounting

Behavioral decision theory (BDT) is concerned with “accounting for decisions”. The development of this interdisciplinary field is traced from the appearance of several key publications in the 1950s to the present. Whereas the 1960s saw increasing theoretical and empirical work, the field really started to flourish in the 1970s with the appearance of the review by Slovic & Lichtenstein (Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, pp. 549–744, 1971), and key papers on probabilistic judgment (Tversky & Kahneman, Science, pp. 1124–1131, 1974), and choice (Kahneman & Tversky, Econometrica, pp. 263–291, 1979). From the early 1980s to the present, BDT has seen considerable consolidation and expansion and its influence now permeates many fields of enquiry. After this brief history, eight major ideas or findings are discussed. These are: (1) that judgment can be modeled; (2) bounded rationality; (3) to understand decision making, understanding the task is more important than understanding the people; (4) levels of aspiration/reference points; (5) use of heuristic rules; (6) the importance of adding; (7) search for confirmation; and (8) thought as construction. Next, comments are addressed to differences between BDT and problem solving/cognitive science. It is argued that whereas many substantive differences are artificial, two distinct communities of researchers do exist. This is followed by a discussion of some major shortcomings currently facing BDT that include questions about the robustness of findings as well as overconcern with a few specific, “paradoxial” results. On the other hand, there are many interesting issues that BDT could address and several specific suggestions are made. Moreover, these issues represent opportunities for accounting research and several are enumerated. Finally, BDT presents “decisions for accounting” in the sense that scarce resources need to be allocated to different types of research that could illuminate accounting issues. The argument is made that BDT is one research metaphor or paradigm that has proved useful in accounting and that should be supported. Such support, however, may mean that some researchers may work on issues that, at first blush, might seem distant from accounting per se.