The enterprise inspected by the Interdisciplinary Inspection Team (established by the Provincial People's Committee in Decision No. 3892/QD-UBND) was found to have applied the conversion index incorrectly and under-declared the taxable output, namely Duyen Hoang Company Limited. This enterprise was then administratively fined VND 235 million by the People's Committee of Quy Hop district (in Decision No. 603/QD-UBND dated April 7, 2022); the Tax Department of Phu Quy I Area collected more than VND 1.84 billion in taxes and fees (in Decision No. 421/QD-CCT dated April 4, 2022).
It is worth mentioning that after receiving the decision to impose a fine and collect additional taxes and fees, Duyen Hoang Company Limited did not agree; on April 5, 2022, a petition was sent to the Provincial People's Committee, relevant agencies and the interdisciplinary inspection team.
Duyen Hoang Company Limited explained in a rather lengthy petition. But in general, it is believed that the inspection by the interdisciplinary inspection team was not objective, there was an imposition of tax penalties and tax arrears on the enterprise without legal basis; citing inappropriate documents and not within the scope of regulation of the company's activities in the field of calculating natural resource tax on white marble to make CaCo3 powder; The inspection team calculated the technical and economic norms as stone used as a common construction material (conversion coefficient) and then applied the tax price and tax rate as white marble used as industrial mineral powder.
In addition, it also provided information that in 2021, Duyen Hoang Company Limited was inspected by the Tax Inspection Team of Phu Quy I Tax Department (Decision No. 5982 dated September 23, 2021), and had a record and conclusion with specific figures. Duyen Hoang Company Limited then complied and fully paid the entire amount of money collected and fined for the years 2018, 2019, 2020. Meanwhile, the recent penalty decision of Phu Quy I Tax Department has not been agreed with the enterprise but has collected the money and fined a very large amount, which is 1,847,676,907 VND.
The proposal of Duyen Hoang Company Limited was answered by the Interdisciplinary Inspection Team in Document No. 26/DKT dated April 18, 2022. According to the Interdisciplinary Inspection Team, although in 2018 - 2019 - 2020, Duyen Hoang Company Limited was inspected and concluded by the Phu Quy I Regional Tax Department (Decision 5982 dated September 23, 2021) and the company complied, the team continued to re-inspect because the inspection period assigned by the Provincial People's Committee in Decision No. 3892/QD-UBND dated October 21, 2021 is from 2018 to September 2021.
The fact that the Interdisciplinary Inspection Team did not inherit the inspection results of the Inspection Team established by the Phu Quy I Regional Tax Department in Decision No. 5982 dated September 23, 2021 because: "On March 18, 2022, the Phu Quy 1 Regional Tax Department issued Official Dispatch No. 169/CCT-KT to the Interdisciplinary Inspection Team regarding the determination of resource output (white limestone) in 2018, 2019, 2020, accordingly, through review, it was found that Duyen Hoang Company Limited sold white marble resource products as Carbonate powder from the unit of calculation (ton) to the unit of calculation (m3) from 2018 to September 6, 2020 is not correct with the unit, the proportion of actual resource products sold (proportion 2.7 tons/m3, this is the specific gravity of the mine's monolithic rock, not the actual rough rock density of the resource product sold), contrary to the regulations on taxable resource output, accordingly, the Interdisciplinary Delegation re-examined all the results of the implementation of the budget payment obligation in the fiscal year the Delegation was allowed to inspect and found to be in accordance with the regulations".
Regarding the legal basis for applying the conversion index, the Interdisciplinary Inspection Team cited the regulations of the Provincial People's Committee; explained the structure of the marble mine of Duyen Hoang Company Limited, the data in the Mining License and the actual production of the enterprise. Thereby affirming the inspection and calculation process, the team proposed to apply the density of 1.7 tons/1m3According to Article 49, Article 50, Law on Tax Administration 38/2014/QH13, which stipulates "Principles of tax determination and tax determination for taxpayers in case of tax law violations", it is to ensure compliance with the principles of handling administrative violations in favor of the inspected entity, Duyen Hoang Company Limited.
At the same time, it was discussed: "In case Duyen Hoang Company Limited continues to not accept the Conclusion of the delegation and the Penalty Decision 421/QD-CCT dated April 4, 2022 on the application of the index issued in Decision No. 39/2017/QD-UBND dated April 1, 2017 of the People's Committee of Nghe An province to determine tax collection, a document will be sent to the delegation, the delegation will review and apply according to the specific project indexes for Duyen Hoang Company Limited, the index is expected to be applied less than 1.7 tons/m3”.
To learn, up to now, Duyen Hoang Company Limited has complied with the Penalty Decision 421/QD-CCT, paid the fines and collected taxes and fees. However, from the proposal of this enterprise, it is necessary to reiterate some of the contents that Nghe An Newspaper mentioned in the articles: "Around the case of a mineral enterprise being charged additional taxes"; "Continuing the article "Around the case of a mineral enterprise being charged additional taxes": Unusual signs?"; "Loopholes" causing loss of mineral tax revenue".
In those articles, Nghe An Newspaper reported that the Provincial Inspectorate, during the inspection of budget management and operation in Quy Hop district, discovered that Invecom Quy Hop Company Limited in fiscal year 2020 used the conversion coefficient from tons to m.3is 2.7 (2.7 tons = 1m3) for the exploited stone output to calculate the resource tax payable, applied from the start of exploitation until the end of 2020, is not in accordance with regulations. Because according to Decision No. 39/2017/QD-UBND dated April 1, 2017 of the Provincial People's Committee, the conversion rate of raw stone to calculate environmental protection fees is 1.7 tons = 1 m3(effective from April 10, 2017); according to Decision No. 22/2020/QD-UBND dated August 24, 2020 of the Provincial People's Committee, the conversion rate of white marble to calculate resource tax when converting from tons to m3is 1.6 (1.6 tons = 1m3), applied from September 7, 2020. Thereby, the Provincial Inspectorate concluded that the use of the above conversion coefficient by Invecom Quy Hop Company Limited to calculate resource tax is "at risk of resource tax loss in white marble mining activities", reported to the Provincial People's Committee in Conclusion No. 19/KL-TTr dated November 29, 2021.
In those articles, it was reported that Dong Tien Joint Stock Company was inspected by the 3892 Interdisciplinary Inspection Team and discovered that it had declared "differences" in taxes and fees, leading to administrative sanctions and collection of resource tax and environmental protection fees in 2020 and the first 9 months of 2021 with an amount of more than 997 million VND. Information that the 3892 Interdisciplinary Inspection Team inspected and discovered that Trung Nguyen Nghe An Minerals Company Limited had applied the incorrect conversion rate to calculate resource tax, leading to collection of resource tax and environmental protection fees in 2020 and the first 9 months of 2021 with an amount of over one billion VND.
At the same time, it is also reported that Dong Tien Joint Stock Company and Trung Nguyen Nghe An Minerals Company Limited, before being inspected by the 3892 Joint Inspection Team, had been inspected by tax authorities for their tax obligations. To wonder: Why are inspections carried out regularly but these enterprises still commit violations that are not difficult to detect, such as declaring "differences" in taxes and fees; and incorrectly applying the conversion coefficient for calculating natural resource tax?
Recalling these contents, along with the incident of Duyen Hoang Company Limited, to see that the Provincial Inspectorate's report to the Provincial People's Committee in Conclusion No. 19/KL-TTr "there is a risk of loss of resource tax in white marble mining activities" is extremely correct and necessary. Because the whole province has 245 mineral exploitation licenses granted by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment and the Provincial People's Committee. With the situation clarified through a few mineral enterprises mentioned above, even the most optimistic person cannot believe that the remaining mineral enterprises in the province are not "entangled" in this situation. To raise the question: In recent years, how much mineral tax and fees has the State budget lost? What needs to be done to recover the lost taxes and fees and end this situation?
