Translated material
Share with budget
The Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade propose to withdraw gas excess profits
Deputy Minister of Economic Development and Trade Kirill Androsov said yesterday that his department and the Ministry of Finance have submitted a joint proposal to revise the mineral extraction tax (MET) in the gas sector. “In the report sent to the government, the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade propose comprehensive proposals for indexing and differentiating the mineral extraction tax rate on gas,” the official said. The report, sent for consideration to the Cabinet of Ministers, proposes introducing indexation of the tax rate as early as January 1, 2008, and introducing a differentiation system a year after that. However, he refused to give specific figures. As Vremya Novostey learned, in the final version, Alexey Kudrin and German Gref proposed to levy a mineral extraction tax of 315 rubles next year for each thousand cubic meters of gas produced. (currently 147 rubles), from January 1, 2009, increase the rate to 480 rubles, and in 2010 - to 735 rubles.As justification, arguments are given about increasing domestic gas prices and the need to restore fiscal justice by reducing the burden on consumers. In fact, the Ministry of Finance needs funds to cover growing social costs, and gas companies have been chosen as a suitable donor. Moreover, there are simply no other serious sources that will allow increasing annual payments to the budget by 4.2 billion, 4.3 billion and 6.7 billion dollars over three years. Gazprom and the Ministry of Industry and Energy have not yet submitted written opinions on their colleagues’ proposals. However, earlier the Minister of Industry and Energy Viktor Khristenko said that he considers it necessary to first finally resolve the issue of gas price indexation for several years in advance, and then raise taxes.
As is known, on November 30 last year, the government, considering the problems of gas supply to the electric power industry, generally approved the proposals of the Ministry of Industry and Energy on a gradual (until 2010 inclusive) increase in gas prices to the European level, minus transport costs and export duties. True, this decision was recorded only at the level of the minutes of the meeting, and there is no corresponding resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers yet. According to the schedule, next year domestic prices will increase by $13.3 per thousand cubic meters; in 2009, two indexations are planned - by $8.8 from January 1 and by another $9.3 from July 1, and the year later - by 10.5 dollars and 10.9 dollars per thousand cubic meters, respectively. From 2011, a domestic Russian price formula should come into force, tied to a certain average Western European price for Russian gas.
At the beginning of this year, Deputy Minister of Finance Sergei Shatalov, who is involved in tax policy, collected data on profitability and production plans from gas producers. As a result, it turned out that from such a price increase in 2008, Gazprom will receive approximately $4.1 billion in additional revenue, and independent producers will receive about $1.3 billion for all. In a year, income growth will be 4.2 and 1.4 billion, respectively, and in 2010 - 4.9 and 1.6 billion dollars. The proposals of the Ministry of Finance remove all this growth (except for the amount of inflation). And the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade, extremely dissatisfied with the focus of Gazprom’s investment program on the purchase of assets, and not on the intensive development of gas reserves and the development of the gas transportation system, strongly supported Mr. Kudrin.
The proposed schedule for revising the tax burden, according to its developers, in addition to the withdrawal of additional income, will establish European-level prices on the Russian market minus the cost of delivery to Europe and customs duties. Simple mathematical calculations show that in 2008 the budget will receive almost 112 billion rubles. from gas workers (of which 95 billion from the monopolist), in 2009 - 111 billion rubles. (including 94 billion from Gazprom), in 2010 - about 175 billion rubles. (145 billion).
“The solution to this issue requires deep study,” Gazprom told Vremya Novostey yesterday. Other gas producers try not to comment on the tax issue. And a source in one of the oil companies admitted that basically all gas producers are counting on the lobbying capabilities of the monopoly in this matter.
The opinions of economists surveyed by Vremya Novostei were divided. The head of the Economic Expert Group, Evsei Gurvich, considers the Ministry of Finance’s proposals to withdraw excess profits, primarily from Gazprom, to be quite fair. “The concern receives additional income, which it would be logical to withdraw and use to maintain the competitiveness of Russian gas consumers - by reducing other taxes, VAT or income tax,” he says. According to him, the gas monopolist has benefited a lot from rising export prices in recent years, and “it’s not very clear where this money went.” At the same time, very little was taken into the budget from gas workers compared to oil workers.
At the same time, the director of the consulting company SRP-Expertiza, economist Mikhail Subbotin, calls the very idea of a universal mineral extraction tax detrimental to the gas industry, and therefore, he believes, the conversation should not be about a primitive rate increase, but about changing the principle of collecting rental payments. “This is a poaching fiscal model, in which only those who skim the cream survive,” the expert believes. - This is an approach to milk everyone indiscriminately - both “cows” and “goats”: both those who can objectively pay, and those for whom, after paying taxes, work at the field becomes unprofitable. Moreover, the system does not stimulate the development of hard-to-reach deposits, each of which is unique and has its own level of return.” Therefore, in his opinion, differentiation of the mineral extraction tax according to the scheme adopted for oil workers leads the gas industry to a dead end and gives benefits to certain groups.