| 10/10/2006 | Sweden | Agreement with proposal |
| 9/15/2006 | United Kingdom | We agree with all the recommendations made by the AEG. |
| 9/15/2006 | Latvia | After deep discussions and expert consultations we basically support the
1993 SNA Update Issues. |
| 7/31/2006 | Israel | We agree with the solution for practical reasons. However, the conceptual and analytical problems should in our view be mentioned in the SNA, and possible alternative presentations outside the core accounts could be mentioned. |
| 7/27/2006 | Egypt | We agree with the treatment of the taxes on holding gains as taxes on income and wealth. |
| 1/6/2006 | State Bank of Pakistan | We agree with the AEG's recommendation to treat taxes on holding gains as current taxes on income and wealth, but its implementation would be difficult due to problems in acquiring necessary data at the desired level. |
| 5/19/2005 | Bank of Indonesia | BI has no objection to the concept of separating taxes on holding gains from other taxes, however the tax system remains not reported separately. |
| 5/9/2005 | Central Bank of Iran | With respect to the issue of “Taxes on holing gains” we are in favor of the AEG recommendations to continue to treat them as current taxes on income and wealth. Although, distinguishing taxes on holding gains from other taxes on income might be useful, but due to missing sufficient data in Iran, it is not possible to record them as a special sub-category. |
| 11/16/2004 | Central Bank of Chile | Ante todo es irrebatible que los impuestos a las ganancias de capital no son impuestos a los ingresos y en rigor no deberian presentarse en forma conjunta.
Sin embargo esa contradicción del SCN 1993 no es tan evidente si se considera que todo impuesto es una transferencia. En todos estos casos constituye un pago obligado unilateralmente sin contraprestación de servicios por parte del Estado. Desde ese punto de vista seria legitimo que forme parte de las cuentas de ingresos y gastos y que por ende afecte al ahorro de la unidades institucionales involucradas. Mirando el impuesto bajo esta perspectiva no pareciera ser distinto el impuesto at ingreso corriente que al ingreso extraordinario. En ambos casos a titulo de fmanciar la producción de bienes y servicios publicos de no rnercado del gobiemo, se recurre a deducir obligatoriamente de la capacidad de ahorro de las unidades institucionales una parte de sus ingresos corrientes o de capital .
Con todo, el ideal seria extraer el impuesto a las ganancias de capital de cuenta coniente y Ilevarla a la cuenta de capital, estableciendo nitidamente la diferencia entre irnpuesto al ingreso proveniente principalmente de la producción del periodo del impuesto por ganancias en transacciones de activos. Sin embargo, como la propuesta lo plantea, esta medida es aun prematura por la dificultad de obtener información separada para ambos tipos de ingreso. De tal forma se apoya la propuesta de mantener el tratamiento del SNA 1993 y de abrir D51 separando el impuesto al ingreso de los impuestos a ganancias de capital.
En el caso de Chile, se dispone solo de informacion parcial sobre esta clase de ingresos en la declaración anual de renta informada al Servicio de Impuestos Internos. En esa declaracion se incluyen preguntas sobre "ingresos no rentas" en general y mayor valor de "rescate de cuotas fondos mutuos" en un caso especifico de instrumento financiero.
|
| 11/3/2004 | Bank of Tanzania/National Bureau of Statistics | We agree with the AEGs recommendation that countries should continue to treat taxes on holding gains as current taxes on income and wealth. However, we should like to point out that the exercise of recording taxes on holding gains as a special subcategory within D.51 may be difficult due to problems emanating from collection of relevant data and information. |
| 10/18/2004 | National Bank of Tajikistan | The National Bank of Tajikistan agrees with the recommendations of the AEG. |
| 10/14/2004 | National Bank of Poland | We favor the decision not to change SNA regarding the classification of taxes on holding gains. |
| 10/13/2004 | European Central Bank | The ECB supports the provisional AEG decision on this issue, i.e. to continue recording taxes on holding gains as current taxes on income and wealth (D51), as far as possible under a specific sub-category within D5l. |
| 10/13/2004 | Austria | Statistics Austria supports the recommendation not to change the present SNA mainly for practical reasons. Decomposition is in practice not easy to implement due to the lack of information. |
| 10/12/2004 | Bank of France | La Banque de France approuve également les recommandations du Groupe consultatif concernant le traitement des impôts sur les gains de détention (7), consistant à maintenir les dispositions actuelles du SCN93, et dans la mesure du possible à adopter une comptabilisation plus détaillée des impôts. Cette solution préserve les principes du SCN93, à savoir le traitement des gains et perte de détention dans un compte de réévaluation distinct des comptes de revenu. |
| 10/12/2004 | Bank of Portugal | In respect with “Taxes on holding gains” we fully agree with the recommendations. Particularly, we consider the breakdown of taxes on households to identify those on holding gains as an important further step to have a more clear perception of the determinants of households’ disposable income evolution. |
| 10/12/2004 | Bank of Colombia | De acuerdo con lo expresado por el grupo AEG. |
| 10/12/2004 | Reserve Bank of Australia | We support the AEG recommendations. |
| 10/6/2004 | National Bank of Moldova | We agree with the AEGs recommendation that one should continue to treat taxes on holding gains as current taxes on income and wealth. These taxes should be shown as a special sub-category within D51. |
| 10/5/2004 | Bank of Korea | We agree with the recommendation of the AEG in principle. Due to insufficient data, however, it is not easily practicable to separate taxes on holding gains from current taxes on income and wealth in Korea. |
| 10/5/2004 | National Bank of Belgium | The current SNA in regard to the treatment of taxes on holding gains should not be changed, and these taxes should continue to be classified as taxes on current income (D51). Although, from a conceptual point of view, a breakdown of D51 between taxes on holding gains and the other income taxes might be useful.
|
| 10/4/2004 | South African Reserve Bank | We agree with the recommendations of the AEG. |
| 9/30/2004 | Central Bank of Madagascar | La mise en œuvre de la recommandation (classer les taxes sur les gains de détention dans une sous-catégorie de D51) ne pose aucun problème pour Madagascar, étant donné que cela ne modifierait pas trop la structure actuelle de sa comptabilité nationale. Cela lui permettra d`être conforme à l`objectif d`uniformisation des statistiques internationales et lui apporte l`avantage d`une meilleure lisibilité des comptes nationaux. |
| 9/30/2004 | Bank of Latvia | Latvia is in agreement with the recommendations of the AEG and we do not have any particular comment at this stage. |
| 9/30/2004 | Central Bank of The Netherlands | We endorse the recommendations made by the AEG with respect to the recording of taxes on holding gains. However, we should like to point out that for many countries it is not possible to record taxes on holding gains as a special subcategory within D.51. Therefore, this item cannot be made mandatory. Furthermore, we should like to stress the importance we attach to investigations into alternative concepts of household income. |
| 9/30/2004 | Bank of Guyana | An alternative treatment should be considered to removed any contradiction.
|
| 9/30/2004 | Lesotho - Central Bank | Taxes on capital gains are treated as taxes on income and deducted from income while the tax base (the realized holding gains) is not included in the SNA definition of income. Is this a contradiction that should suggest alternative treatments or should the SNA treatment remain the same?
Comment: The gain may be due to time value or inflation. |
| 9/20/2004 | India | The SNA treatment should remain the same in this case, although there appears to be apparent contradiction, as there will be several instances where taxes are charged without corresponding account of income as per the SNA definition. We agree with the recommendation of the AEG to show taxes on holding gains as a special sub-category within D51. |
| 8/24/2004 | United Kingdom | We agree that this should continue to be treated as current taxes on income and wealth (D51). And, that as far as possible, taxes on holding gains should be shown as a special sub-category within D51. |
| 8/12/2004 | Australia | Australia supports the AEG recommendations on the basis that an alternative treatment would be difficult to implement practically. |
| 8/11/2004 | Germany |  m1(c)de7; |
| 8/11/2004 | Canada | Canada agrees that the treatment of taxes on holding gains as current taxes on income and wealth due to practical difficulties in separating taxes on holding gains from taxes on labour and property income. |
| 8/11/2004 | Slovak Republic | Slovakia agrees that this issue should not be a priority for the present SNA revision. Furthermore, in conditions of the Slovak Republic we have some problems with separating of taxes on holding gains as a special item. |
| 8/11/2004 | Botswana | Agree with decision taken on the treatment of taxes on holding gains in the SNA 1993; but the issue on the definition of household income need to be resolved as it appears it is not only affecting household incomes only. One here is convinced that part of the problem is being resolved leaving out the other. Even though this may not be in the mandate of the AEG our view is that this matter should also be resolved; because in terms of the households such is very critical particularly when household budget surveys are conducted because households will report on these aspects definitely wherever there are cash transactions of whatever form. The questions that also arise are that how then should compilers make for such adjustments? As Statisticians it is the view that the issue of household income in such cases is critical and needs further clarity. |
| 8/11/2004 | South Africa | We agree with the recommendations of the AEG. |
| 8/11/2004 | USA | The United States supports this recommendation of the Advisory Expert Group and encourages maintaining consistency with the ongoing revisions of the Balance of Payments manual and the public sector accounting framework. |
| 8/11/2004 | Norway | We agree with the AEGs recommendation that one should continue to treat taxes on holding gains as current taxes on income and wealth. It may, however, be difficult in practice to separate taxes on holding gains from other taxes on income, but if possible, these taxes should be shown as a special sub-category within D51. |
| 8/11/2004 | Denmark | Statistics Denmark agrees that SNA should not be changed regarding the classification of taxes on holding gains which should remain part of D51, current taxes on income. A breakdown of D51 between taxes on ordinary income and taxes on holding gains could be useful, however, Denmark will not in practice be able to make the split. Moreover the analytically value of such a partial correction is not sufficiently obvious.
If an alternative measure of household disposable income is decided excluding taxes on holding gains, it should be on a voluntary basis as supplementary information e.g. as a memorandum item leaving the core measure of disposable income unaffected. |
| 8/11/2004 | Jordan | Agree with the AEG recommendations. |
| 8/11/2004 | The Netherlands | We agree with the recommendations of the AEG. Two additional remarks, how-ever:
• In the recommendations, it is stated that “taxes on holding gains should be shown as a special sub-category within D51”. It should be noted, however, that the relevant information often is not available; see the responses of the national statistical institutes on the relevant OECD-questionnaire.
• Secondly, holding gains and losses are becoming increasingly more impor-tant. At the same time, the boundaries with pure income items become less and less strict. As a consequence, it may be worthwhile to investigate the possibilities to change the 1993 SNA in such a way that alternative income measures can be derived from the system of national accounts more easily. |
| 8/11/2004 | New Zealand | • Continue to classify taxes on holding gains as current taxes (D51). Agreed. Statistics NZ supports the reasons given in the issues paper, viz: (i) The nature of the tax-base does not necessarily determine the classification of the tax, i.e. it is quite consistent to classify as a current payment a tax that has been assessed on levels of wealth. The classification is determined by the nature of the tax transaction itself. (ii) Taxes on holding gains are regular, current receipts from the perspective of government, and symmetry requires a current classification; (iii) In practice, taxes on holding gains are unlikely to be distinguishable from total income taxes.
• Show taxes on holding gains as a sub-category within current taxes (D51). Agreed in principle although, in practice, this split will not be possible. In NZ, in those (restricted) cases where capital gains are taxed, the tax is assessed across all income sources plus capital gains, and separate identification is not possible.
Note: Although agreeing with the recommendation, there appears to be good grounds for the revised SNA to (a) clearly outline the conceptual basis of the current definition, setting out the reasons for not adopting the Hicksian income definition, and (b) support alternative income concepts – in this case income including realised capital gains – to improve analyses. |
| 8/11/2004 | Macao, SAR China | We are pleased to express our agreement with the proposal. |
