Abstract

Modern world transformational transitions occur under the influence of exogenous and endogenous factors, which, on the one hand, serve as stimulators of these processes, and, on the other hand, deepen imbalances in the country. One of the most influential factors for low- and middle-income countries is the economy shadowing. These are illegal financial transactions that hold back the investment and innovation development of the country, decreasing the pace of its social and economic development. Building an effective policy of neutralization and minimization of the influence of these factors is possible only if there is evidence-based research of all channels of income concealment and determination of the volume of each of them. Taking into account the low effectiveness of traditional approaches to managing the economy shadowing, the application of innovative evaluation methods based on the determination of the volume of tax gaps in the economy can serve as a ground for increasing the efficiency of the existing tools of public administration in this area. This article summarizes the arguments and counter-arguments within the framework of scientific discussion on the estimation of the volume of tax gaps in the economy in the context of the foreign economic activity of the country as one of the tools for minimizing tax liabilities. Systematizing these scientific developments on the definite problem has shown that among scientists there is no consensus on the role of tax gaps in the economy and their interrelation with foreign economic activity of the country, which significantly updates the need for further empirical research in this area, aimed at determining the volume of tax gaps by the export-import activity and their influence on indicators of economic development of the country. The research is based on the use of the modified Grubel-Lloyd formula (which allows determining the index of asynchronous export-import activity in the retrospective dynamics) and indicators of the level of asynchronous export-import activity by the partner countries. The study subject is the countries with the highest (Georgia), medium (Turkey, Cyprus, Solomon Islands) and the lowest (Japan, Austria, United States) levels of economy shadowing, which allows taking a more thorough and objective decision on the effect of asynchronous export and import activity on the volume of tax gaps in the economy, and its dependence on the level of shadowing in the country for 2013-2017. The paper presents the results of the empirical analysis of the volume gap of foreign economic activity on the example of Ukraine and its trading partners, which has shown that the highest index of asynchrony is peculiar to countries with average levels of shadowing – Cyprus, Solomon Islands, and the lowest – with the participation of countries with low level of shadowing. At the same time, it has been determined that one of the highest asynchronous indexes is observed with the participation of offshore countries. The study empirically confirms and theoretically proves that the foreign economic component plays a significant role in the processes of economic development of the country, and the number of hidden tax payments, due to these transactions, occupy about 1% of the country’s GDP (gross domestic product). The results of the research may be useful for the relevant executive authorities in developing measures to prevent income shadowing in the context of export-import operations.

Keywords: economy shadowing, export operations, import operations, tax gap, asynchrony of foreign economic activity, innovative approaches of the economy unshadowing

JEL Classification: H20, H71, F49, K34.

Cite as: Tiutiunyk, I., Kobushko, I., Ivaniy, O., & Flaumer, A. (2019). Innovations in the management of tax gaps in the economy: foreign economic component. Marketing and Management of Innovations, 3, 112-125. https://doi.org/10.21272/mmi.2019.3-09

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

References

1. Bekoe, W., Danquah, M., Senahey, S.K. (2016). Tax reform and revenue mobilisation in Ghana. Journal of Economics Studies, 43(4), 522- 534.
2. Bilan Y., Vasylieva T., Lyeonov S., & Tiutiunyk I. (2019). Shadow Economy and its Impact on Demand at the Investment Market of the Country. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, Vol. 7, No. 2, 27-43.
3. Dakhno, I. I., Albishchenko, N.V., & Kovalenko, S.V. ta in. (2007). Upravlinnia zovnishnoekonomichnoiu diialnistiu. K Kyiv.: Tsentr uchbovoi literatury
4. De Boyrie, M., Pak, S., Zdanowicz, J. (2005). Estimating the Magnitude of Capital Flight due to Abnormal Pricing in International Trade: The Russia-USA Case, 29 Accounting Forum, 1-22.
5. Ebeke, C., Mansour, M., Rota-Graziosi, G. (2016). The Power to Tax in Sub-Saharan Africa: LTUs, VATs, and SARAs. Working Papers, FERDI. P. 254
6. Fuest, C., Riedel, N. (2010). Tax Evasion and Tax Avoidance in Developing Countries: The Role of International Profit Shifting. Working Papers 1012, Oxford University Centre for Business Taxation.
7. Grubel, H.G., Lloyd, P.J. (1975). Intra-industry Trade. The Theory and Measurement of International Trade in Differentiated Products. The MacMillan Press Ltd., London.
8. Harremi, M. (2014). A Simple Analysis of the Tax Gap Balkan Region. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 5, No. 19, P. 365.
9. Illicit Financial Flows Reports (IFFR). Global Financial Integrity official web-site. Retrieved from http://www.gfintegrity.org/reports/
10. Ipatov, B. G., McClelland, B., & Cavico F. J. (2018). An Analysis of the Relationship between Regulatory Control and Corruption based on Product and Market Regulation and Corruption Perceptions Indices. Business Ethics and Leadership, 2(3), 6-20.
11. Khwaja, M. S., Iyer, I. (2014). Revenue Potential, Tax Space, and Tax Gap. A Comparative Analysis. Policy Research Working Paper. The World Bank. 41 p.
12. Kostyuchenko, N., Starinskyi, М., Tiutiunyk, І. & Kobushko, I. (2018). Methodical Approach to the Assessment of Risks Connected With the Legalization of the Proceeds of Crime. Montenegrin Journal of Economics. Vol. 14, No. 4, 23-43.
13. Krumplyte, J. (2008). Šešelines ekonomikos samprata ir priežasčių analize. Ekonomika ir vadyba: aktualijos ir perspektyvos, 4(13), 238-250.
14. McManus, J., Warren, N. (2006). The Case for Measuring Tax Gap. Journal of Tax Research. Retrieved from http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/ eJTR/2006/3.html.
15. Mitchell, D. (2007). The Tax Gap Mirage. Tax & Budget Bulletin, Vol. 44. Retrieved from http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/tbb_0306_44.pdf
16. Murphy, R. (2014). The Tax Gap. Tax Evasion in 2014 – and what can be done about it. London: Public and Commercial Services Union.
17. Pak, S., Stelios, Z., Zdanowicz, J. (2003). Detecting Abnormal Pricing in International Trade: The Greece-USA Case, Interfaces, 33(2), 54-64.
18. Report on money laundering methods typology in 2002-2003 (2003). Development group on financial means to combat money laundering. Retrieved from http://www.bank.gov.ua/doccatalog/document?id=36191
19. Schneider, F. (2015). Size and Development of the Shadow Economy of 31 European and 5 other OECD countries from 2003 to 2015: Different Developments. Retrieved from http://www.econ.jku.at/members/ Schneider/files/publications/2015/ShadEcEurope31.pdf
20. Schneider, F., Enste, D. (2002) The Shadow Economy: Theoretical Approaches, Empirical Studies, and Political Implications. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press
21. Teobaldelli, D. and Schneider, F. (2013). The influence of direct democracy on the shadow economy. Public Choice. 157 (3), 543-567.
22. Toder, E.J. (2007). What Is the Tax Gap?. Tax Notes. Retrieved from http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/ 1001112_tax_gap.pdf
23. Vdovychenko., A. M., Zubrytskyi, A. I., & Serebrianskyi, D. M. (2013). Tin’ova mizhnarodna torhivlia: makroekonomichna teoriia ta fiskalni naslidky dlia Ukrainy. Kyiv: Alerta.
24. World Data Bank (2018) Retrieved from http://databank.worldbank.org/data/home.aspx
25. Zdanowicz, J. S. (2009). Trade-based money laundering and terrorist financing. Review of law & economics, 5(2), 855-878.