(Weekly Organ of the Communist Party of India (Marxist)
July 19, 2009
C P Chandrasekhar
the Sensex is an indicator of corporate
sentiment, even if not of corporate performance, then union budget
received the thumbs down from big business in
is indeed surprising because the Finance minister
was quite clear of the need to support the private sector when he said:
“Private sector investment has been affected by the global
conditions. Our government is committed to creating a facilitating
in which a competitive private sector can thrive and play its rightful
the nation’s economic development.
MAJOR TAX CONCESSIONS
TO CORPORATE SECTOR
This perspective was reflected in his tax proposals as well. Despite the need to finance a burgeoning fiscal deficit, the Finance minister has imposed no additional taxation on the corporate sector other than raising the minimum alternate tax (MAT) from 10 to 15 per cent. This hurts only a few firms. The government’s own figures show that the average effective tax rate in financial year 2007-08 on 4,10,451 firms that had submitted tax returns electronically by March 31, 2009 exceeded 22 per cent and averaged 20.14 to 24.04 per cent in different profit classes. Even though this is well short of the normal corporate tax rate (inclusive of surcharge and cess) of 33.99 per cent, it is well above the new level for the MAT. That is, on average, firms in the government’s sample are in an effective tax rate range above the new MAT rate.
There are a large number of firms (1,61,916 to be precise) that pay zero or less than zero taxes. But these are largely companies that make losses. Their share in the total profits of all sample companies is less than 2 per cent, even though they constitute 40 per cent of the sample in terms of number. There are, however, 16 per cent of firms accounting for 45 per cent of sample firm profits that were subject to an effective tax rate of 0-20 per cent in 2007-08. It is a few of these firms falling in the 0-15 per cent effective tax rate range that would be affected. It could hardly be argued that the fate of this set of firms influenced corporate sentiment substantially.
More so because the corporate sector has got a whole host of other benefits from the budget. If we exclude MAT, the corporate sector has indeed obtained a bonanza. For example, the Finance minister has chosen to extend for one more year (till 2010-11) the deduction from taxable income of the export profits of STPI units, and units in SEZs, EPZs and FTZs. This tax holiday was originally available till 2008-09 and was then extended to cover 2009-10. The major beneficiaries of this concession are the software development agencies and the IT-enabled service providers/business process outsourcing units, in whose case the effective tax rates are as low as 12 and 15 per cent respectively. Revenue forgone under this head in 2008-09 was Rs 20,366 crore. Overall corporate tax concessions have meant that the revenue foregone by the government stood at Rs 68,914 crore in 2008-09, which was Rs 6,715 crore higher than in 2007-08. This increase was greater than the Rs 6,375 crore increase in the fiscal deficit between these two years.
Another major tax concession offered to firms in this budget is the abolition of the fringe benefit tax (FBT). Besides the accounting scrutiny which firms were subjected to so as to assess whether they were complying with this form of taxation, the FBT was also a major burden on the corporate sector. In 2008-09, the sample of companies for which data are reported in the Annex on “Revenue foregone under the Central tax system” to the budget documents paid as much as Rs 6,553 as fringe benefit tax. This too was close to the increase in the fiscal deficit between 2007-08 and 2008-09. By abolishing FBT the Finance minister has foregone revenue of around this magnitude, since taxes on perquisites paid by individuals is unlikely to be anywhere near this amount.
Budgetary support for the corporate sector came in other forms as well. The Finance minister has chosen to continue with the temporary excise duty exemptions granted in the stimulus packages announced in December 2008 and February 2009. The effective excise duty rates were cut across the board by 4 percentage points on December 7, 2008. Later, on February 24, 2009, the mean excise duty rate of 10 per cent was further reduced by 2 percentage points from 10 per cent to 8 per cent. These changes were responsible for a significant share of the increase in excise revenues foregone from Rs 87,468 crore in 2007-08 to Rs 1,28,293 crore in 2008-09. With the budget refraining from raising the excise duties back to their earlier levels, the revenue foregone in 2009-10 would be substantially larger. To the extent that the corporate sector does not pass on the benefits of the excise duty reduction to the consumer, it will garner a part of the revenue foregone. And to the extent that it does pass it on, it may spur demand for private sector products. In sum, revenues have been foregone in the budget to support the corporate sector in the midst of the recession.
Besides these benefits given to industry through measures such as tax concession on investments made by the National Pension Scheme Trust in equity and the abolition of the commodities transaction tax, the government has provided support to stock and commodity trading which would benefit financial capital operating in these markets. Thus, from a tax point of view private capital of all kinds should be happy with this budget.
IN POPULIST RHETORIC
What then accounts for the corporate sector’s muted or even adverse response to the budget? An important factor here is that corporate expectations of concessions and reforms in this year’s budget were exaggerated for two reasons. The first was the idea promoted by the media and interested financial analysts and encouraged by the government that a much clearer mandate for the Congress, a more stable government and the absence of the Left in the equations of power had pave the way for a new generation of reforms, which would include more privatisation, more liberalisation and more concessions for the corporate sector.
The second was that this view was strongly supported by the tone and content of the Economic Survey presented prior to this budget. To quote the Survey: “The reforms of the 1990s created a competitive environment in which Indian entrepreneurship could flourish. The fruits of these reforms emerged gradually in the form of rising output and employment and higher growth from 2003-04 onwards. However, there is a perception among financial and other investors that government has been slow on policy reforms, in the past five years. As long as economic growth was above trend these apprehensions did not matter, but an economy where the industrial (manufacturing) growth has been steadily declining for nearly eight quarters over 2007-08 and 2008-09 with the revival still uncertain, policy interventions are necessary. More so the sector has been one of the main drivers of the recent spurt in GDP growth.” Accompanying this statement is a box that details measures required for “improving the investment environment and driving growth” which reads like a manifesto for accelerated reform. It is quite likely that such reform advocacy in a pre-budget government document encouraged financial investors to rush to market.
However, compared with the Survey’s advocacy, the reform moves in the budget appear to be a major retreat. Consider privatisation, for example. It comes couched in populist rhetoric. The Finance minister begins by saying: “The public sector undertakings are the wealth of the nation, and part of this wealth should rest in the hands of the people. While retaining at least 51 per cent government equity in our enterprises, I propose to encourage people’s participation in our disinvestment programme.” He then goes on to elaborate as follows: “The average public float in Indian listed companies is less than 15 per cent. Deep non-manipulable markets require larger and diversified public shareholdings. This requirement should be uniformly applied to the private sector as well as listed public sector companies. I propose to raise, in a phased manner, the threshold for non-promoter public shareholding for all listed companies.”
This is indeed a case for disinvestment and privatisation. But in language that is cautious. It came along with a rather limited programme for garnering resources through privatisation in the budget. The signals were clearly mixed. Those who had rushed to market misled by the media and the Survey rushed out, and the stock market collapsed. The corporate sector that might otherwise have been happy that it had retained old concessions and garnered new ones, was left disappointed. The Finance minister’s largesse was wasted.