Table 1 shows how the responses about solutions in the taxation of ag-riculture were forming. At a similar level of responses the surveyed farmers stated, that the agricultural tax should continue to function as usual (40.5%
indications) or that the income tax and agricultural tax can operate at the same time on the basis of choice (37.7%
indications). The first variant favored mainly farmers with territorially the largest holdings (44.6% indications), the strongest in economic terms (55%) and with the agricultural-type “animals in grazing system” (49%). However, in the case of the second response the dependencies that were found were slightly different, because behind this solution were mainly farmers with ter-ritorially the smallest holdings (43%), the one with the economic strength of 16 to 40 ESU (42.9%), and the one with the agricultural-type “field crops”
(52.8%). It can therefore be concluded that the concerns of the farmers related to the possible introduction of the
in-come tax were rising with the increas-ing scale of activities, in connection with the owned agricultural area. How-ever, in favor of the replacement of the agricultural tax to income tax, with the simultaneous decommissioning of the income tax from the special sectors was an average of 11,2% of farmers In favor of such a solution were mainly farmers with holdings with the size of an agri-cultural area of 15-30 ha (13.6%), the economic strength of 8 to 16 ESU and agricultural-type “granivore animals”
(14.3%). The greatest diversification in the share of this response concerned to the groups of agricultural holdings, distinguished by the criterion of the economic strength. In favor of this solution in the smallest degree were farmers from agricultural holdings with the lowest and the highest eco-nomic strength (5%). In the farms dis-tinguished by two other criteria there was no significant diversification of the response in this area. The owners of economically the strongest holdings are afraid of the increase of the income tax burden, in place of existing minor agricultural tax burden. However, the low level of acceptance of this response by the farmers from the holdings with the lowest economic strength can re-sult from complications of settlements, which will be necessary for introduc-tion of the income tax. Average 8.7% of respondents are in favor of lump sum tax burden of holdings, calculated by the office of the municipality which is basing on the estimated income.
Supporters of this solution were especially farmers managing the hold-ings of agricultural-type “granivore an-imals” (20%) and the lowest econom-ic power (15%). It can be concluded that these responses are, on the one hand, seeking the possibilities for re-ducing the tax burden while carrying out intensive production, on the other while-concern before the increase of additional workload with the intro-duction of income tax, inadequate to
the scale of conducted operations. Ac-ceptance for this response decreased with the increase of economic strength of the farm. On farms economically the strongest, this response has not occurred.
According to most farmers, the previous load from the agricultural tax is acceptable and should be main-tained at its current level (approximate-ly 64.2% of responses) (Table 1). This concerned especially to the holdings economically the strongest (76.2%) and the to the one with agricultural-type
“animals in grazing system” (72.5%).
For groups of households separated by the criterion of the agricultural area, differences in acceptance of this response was relatively small (61,8-66,1%) Least of all, the acceptance for this response showed farmers with holdings of “mixed” agricultural type (58,9%). On average, 17.1% of farm-ers is of the opinion, that the agricul-tural tax constitutes a slight burden in relation to the income derived from agricultural activities This was mostly the opinion of the farmers with the smallest agricultural area (22,5%) and those with the average economic strength 8-16 ESU (20.3%). Farmers from holdings with the greatest eco-nomic strength (9.5%) and the “field crop” type (10.1%), were in turn char-acterized by the lowest acceptance for this answer. However, 10.9% of farmers surveyed, believed that the income tax burden is too high, in relation to their income from agricultural activities.
This concerned especially to the farm-ers from the holdings with economic strength of 8-16 ESU (18.8%), while the lowest acceptance for this answer con-cerned to the holdings with the eco-nomic strength of 16-40 ESU (2.4%) and the agricultural-type “animals in grazing system “(3.9%). There were no significant variation in the share of this response in groups of holdings which were diversified according to the criterion of agricultural size of the
area (8,8-11,7%). At the same time an average of 5.9% of the farmers were of the opinion that the agricultural tax burden, in relation to their income, depends in a greater extent on the eco-nomic position of the holding, rather than the quality of AA’s.
Most of the surveyed farmers is of the opinion that it is reasonable to take into account, while calculating the agricultural tax, only the quality of AA’s and the tax district (56% of responses) (Table 2). This concerned especially of the holdings with the larg-est agricultural area (58.7%), with the lowest and highest economic strength (respectively 60.5% and 60%) and the agricultural-type “granivore animals”
(59.4%). The opposite view had mostly farmers from holdings with an agricul-tural area of 15-30 ha (47%), and the economic strength of 16-40 ESU (55%) as well as the one with the agricultural-type, “field crops” (49.2%). According to farmers, the agricultural tax assess-ment should additionally take into account the economic strength of the holdings (22.7% indications) and the agricultural type of carried out produc-tion (27%). For addiproduc-tional taking into account the economic strength, were mainly farmers managing the holdings with an agricultural area of 15-30 ha, the economic strength of ESU 16-40 (35%) and the one with the “mixed”
agricultural-type (25.4%). Acceptance to take into account, while calculating agricultural tax, agricultural-type of holdings increased with the growth of agricultural area size and the economic strength of the holdings. The biggest supporters of this kind of solution are the farmers managing the holdings with the agricultural-type “granivore animals” (28.1%).
According to 26.5% of the farm-ers, the introduction of income tax to the Polish agriculture will be very unfa-vorable. Such an opinion was expressed mainly by the farmers from the hold-ings up to 30 ha of agricultural area
(27,8-29,2% of responses), economi-cally the strongest (35.5%) and by the one with the agricultural-type “animals in the grazing system “ (41.4%). The lowest part of this response occurred in the types of agricultural holdings
“field crops” and “granivore animals”
(respectively 19.8% and 20.5%). This means that the farmers from the in-tense one-way holdings can actually see some possible benefits from the introduction of income tax. From all the surveyed agricultural farm groups, the lowest acceptance for this an-swer concerned to the holdings with the economic strength of 16-40 ESU (14.3%). The introduction of income tax in agriculture accepts an average of 26% of the farmers, but only on condi-tion that the tax reliefs and exempcondi-tions will be used.
Such solution is acceptable to the largest extent by farmers form the largest area of arable lands (33,8%), who have the largest economic force o (32,3%) and of the agricultural type
“ granivore animals” (36,4%). Farmers who lead agricultural activity on a large scale and intensive production, can probably see advantages of introduc-ing income tax. Agricultural taxi s paid no master whether there is income or not. The lowest level of acceptance of this answer was in holdings in the agri-cultural type of „animals of the pastur-age system” (19%). According to 23,3%
questioned farmers, introduction of in-come tax in place of the agricultural tax will lead to eliminating to a large extent so called pseudo-farmers, who are only owners of arable lands, but lead other, not agricultural activity. Such answer was given especially in the largest hold-ings when it come to their area (26,9%) and economic force-40 ESU (32,1%).
In case of group of holdings grouped according to agricultural type, none substantial difference in this answer was noted.
Only 4,4% of the farmers stated that introduction of income tax will
contribute to increasing social justice within tax charge. 17,2% of farmers think that introduction of income tax would be advisable in large holdings.
The answer was given especially in the smallest holdings when it comes to the area (21,4%) and with the smallest eco-nomic force (26%). This opinion was shared by 18,2% of farmers leading agricultural activity of the type „gra-nivore animals” (18,2%). The lowest acceptance for this answer was noted in the largest area of arable lands and with the largest economic force (10,3%
and 9,7%, accordingly), as well as of ag-ricultural type mostly associated with the agricultural area, i.e. “animals in the pasture system”- 10,3%. Accord-ing to the questioned farmers, the ar-able land of the holding, above which it is advisable to introduce income tax should be around 126 hectares of ar-able land. Together with the increase of the area of arable land, also the mini-mum area of arable land got larger in the holdings, in which according to the farmers the income tax should be introduced (from about 83 hectares of arable land to 185 hectares of arable land UR). In case of economic force criterion, none unequivocal relation was fund. The smallest minimum hold-ing area, starthold-ing from which the in-come tax should be paid, concerned farmers from the economically stron-gest holdings (75,0 hectares of arable land). Farmers conducting holdings of the type: „field cultivation”, as the mini-mal area of arable land to be covered by the income tax, regarded about 157 hectares of arable land.
A vast majority of the questioned farmers think, that taxation of agricul-tural income should function on the basis of a separate regulation, which would take into account the specific character of agricultural activity (85,4%
indicated that) (Table 2.). Such an opin-ion was shared by the farmers form the holdings of the strongest economic force. In case of other criteria of
group-ing holdgroup-ings, no significant difference was noted - the part of the answer was on a similar level to the one for average farmers.11,6% of farmers were in favor of income tax, calculated on the ba-sis of a regulation on income tax from natural persons, such as special depart-ments of agricultural production. It concerned mostly holding of a signif-icant economic strength 16-40 ESU (15,0%) and of the agricultural type
„system of pasturage animals” (14,6%).
In case of arable land criterion, no dif-ference between the groups was noted.
In favor of this solution were mostly farmers managing holdings of area 15-30 hectares of arable land (13,9%).
Taxation of agricultural holdings on the basis of income tax from legal en-tity regulation was only indicated by 1,7% farmers. The majority of farmers (56,1%) were against increasing the share of agriculture workers by pay-ing Agricultural Social Insurance Fund shares, even though the cost might be treated as a cost of introducing income tax in agricultural holdings. Especially farmers from the economically stron-gest holdings were in favor of this opin-ion (63,2%), and the acceptance of this answer was getting smaller in relation to the increase of the area of the arable land. In case of agricultural criterion, no substantial difference was noted. In favor for increasing farmers’ share in paying Agricultural Social Insurance Fund were 43,9% of farmers, maliny from the largest holdings as far as ar-able land is concerned and from the least strong economic Power and ag-ricultural type of „animals in the pas-ture system” (50% each). Therefore, it can be stated, that generally there are quite a lot of people who are in favor of changes in farmers’ share in paying Agricultural Social Insurance Fund. It might be supposed that introduction of profitable tax solutions would increase farmers’ acceptance of higher contribu-tions that need to be paid for the Agri-cultural Social Insurance Fund.
In case of introduction income tax in holdings, farmers’ mostly fear addi-tional bureaucracy and control from the Inland Revenue. (40,8% indication) (Table 3.). Acceptance of this answer was higher with larger area of arable land, as well as for holdings with eco-nomic force up to 40 ESU. In holdings of the largest economic force, the fear caused by this factor was much lower.
(31,4%), najniższa z wszystkich anal-izowanych grup gospodarstw. From the criteria of the holdings grouping, the highest level of acceptance was for the agricultural type „animals in pasture system” (47,2%). Farmers also took into consideration the problem of complicated tax accounting (18%) and the necessity of constant updating their knowledge on tax law (17,4%). The first problem was mostly feared by farm-ers managing holdings of area 15-30 hectares of arable land (18,8%), of the least economic force (20,7%) and of the agricultural type “field cultivation”
(18,9%). To the least extent the prob-lem concerned holdings of the ”grani-vore animals” (14,7%). The problem of updating knowledge on tax law mainly concerned farmers from the smallest holdings (arable land) (19,6%), and those from the agricultural type “grani-vore animals” (22,1%). When it comes to the criterion of economic force, no significant relation was noted among the groups, although bigger fear con-cerned farmers from lower economic force. According to 11,7% of farmers, taxation will limit development of the holdings and 10,8% of them think that trainings from this field will be nec-essary, which will increase the costs.
Mostly farmers from smallest hold-ings and from holdhold-ings which are eco-nomically weakest holdings fear higher costs. To the largest extent income tax will contribute to limitation of devel-opment according to farmers manag-ing holdmanag-ing sof the „field cultivation”
type (14,2%).
Farmers’ opinions concerning potential disadvantages of introduc-ing income tax were quite diversified.
According to the farmers, due to in-troduction of income tax both owners of large holdings (eg. larger than 50 hectares of arable land), as well as the small ones, which generate low income (24,6% indications each). In case of small holdings the opinion is not justi-fied, except for the situation when they conduct an intensive activity, not much associated with the area of the arable land. The opinion of the unfavorable influence of tax changes on large hold-ings concerned mostly farmers from the area group of 15-30 hectares of ar-able land and of economic force 8-16 ESU (31%). In case of the agricultural type criterion, there was a visible domi-nance of the answer in the “animals in the pasture system” group and in
“granulose animals” (about 34%). On the other hand, owners of the smalles holdings (38,3%), and with lowest eco-nomic force (44,2%), as well as of the
“field cultivation” type and “mixed”
(26-27%) were convinced of a negative influence of the tax introduction on small holdings. According to 17,9%
farmers, due to the introduction of income tax mostly owners of middle-sized holdings who conduct intensive production, using to a larger extent purchase products (14,7%) will be the most disadvantaged. At the same time, 11,5% of them think, that introduction of income tax in the agriculture will contribute to worsening the situation of these, whose holdings are directed into animal production, conducted mainly on the basis of purchased fodder.
ConCLuSionS
In this article farmers’ opinions were presented on conditions of in-troducing income tax in place of agri-cultural tax. Based on the conducted
analysis, the following conclusions were drawn:
1. Currently the tax charge is as-sessed by the farmers as low, on a level which is by them acceptable. They are for maintaining the agricultural tax on the conditions that have been in force so far (about 41%), which mainly concerns the largest holdings when it comes to their area and the stongest when it comes to economic force. One should however bear in mind
that a substantial part of them (about 38%) think, that the tax should function together with the income tax, depending on individual choice. Those in favor of replacing agricultural tax with income tax accounted for as little as 11% of the questioned. Farmers do not have an unequivocal recognition, who might be the most disadvantaged due to the introduction of income tax.
On a similar level the farmers stated, however, that the most disadvantage will be owners of the largest holdings, as well as the smallest ones. This means that a potential proposal to introduce income tax in the individual holdings should be preceded with information action (e.g. through trainings), in or-der to make a change in this area. The biggest fears are associated mostly with bureaucracy and control by Inland
Revenue, as well as constant updating one’s knowledge on tax law.
2. A substantial part of the farmers think, that with the amount of the agricultural tax, next to the size of the arable land and tax region, also economic force should be included and agricultural type. By intensive produc-tion, which is connected to a lesser extend to the arable land (e.g. swine breeding, broiler breeding) the tax accounting method used so far does not take into consideration potential differences in the income between the holdings. Farmers’ assessment is not unequivocal. About 27 per cent of them have defined this solution as a very disadvantageous one for the farmers, but also a very similar number of them accepts the income tax on the condition that reliefs and exemptions will be introduced. According to the majority of farmers, income tax should be in force on the basis of a separate regulation, which would provide for the specific characteristic of the agri-cultural production. A significant part of the farmers (about 44%) would be in favor of increasing contributions paid to Agricultural Social Insurance Fund, as long as it would be recognized as tax cost.
reFerenCeS:
1. Brzeziński B., 1996: Prawo podat-kowe zarys wykładu. Wydawnic-two,,Dom Organizatora”, Toruń.
2. Dziemianowicz R., 2007: Opodat-kowanie jako forma wsparcia rol-nictwa. Zagadnienia Ekonomiki Rolnej, nr 2, Warszawa.
3. Gomułowicz A., Małecki J., 2006:
Podatki i prawo podatkowe. Wy-dawnictwo Prawnicze LexisNexis, Warszawa.
3. Goraj L., Mańko S., Sass R., Wy-szkowska Z., 2004: Rachunkowość rolnicza. Wydawnictwo Difin, War-szawa.
4. Ustawa o podatku rolnym z dnia z dnia 15 listopada 1984 r., Dz. U.
z 1993 r., nr 94, poz. 431.
5. Ustawa o zmianie ustawy o podat-ku rolnym z dnia 10 października 2002 r., Dz. U. z 2002 r., Nr 200, poz.1680.
6. Wasilewski M., Gruziel K., 2007:
Podatek dochodowy w opiniach rolników. Zagadnienia Ekonomi-ki Rolnej, nr 2, Warszawa.
7. Wasilewski M., Gruziel K., 2008:
Podatek dochodowy w indywidu-alnych gospodarstwach rolniczych - koncepcja i skutki. Zagadnienia Ekonomiki Rolnej, nr 1.
W
minionych dwóch de-kadach sektor rolno-żywnościowy w Polsce został poddany głębo-kim przeobrażeniom. Szczególnie istot-ne zmiany miały miejsce w otoczeniu rolnictwa, co było związane z przejściem od gospodarki centralnie planowanej do gospodarki wolnorynkowej. Zastą-pienie gospodarki niedoboru (rynek producenta) gospodarką z nadwyżkami podaży produktów rolno-spożywczych (rynek konsumenta) miało charakter fundamentalny, wzmożony otwar-ciem rynku w skali międzynarodowej.Skutkowało to gwałtownym wzrostem znikomej dotąd konkurencji zewnętrz-nej. Polskie rolnictwo, przetwórstwo rolno-spożywcze i handel zagraniczny
Skutkowało to gwałtownym wzrostem znikomej dotąd konkurencji zewnętrz-nej. Polskie rolnictwo, przetwórstwo rolno-spożywcze i handel zagraniczny