Coronavirus vs Business: Why Anti-Crisis Steps Taken are not Enough?

Simple, self-isolation, accessibility only to critical infrastructure facilities and a lack of protection against infections - this is how COVID-19 met the world. In fairness, it should be noted that all countries of Europe, without exception, have faced large problems, and it is becoming increasingly difficult to find a “green” territory on the world map.

Aware of the magnitude of the problems that the pandemic has brought, governments are massively developing preferential tax regimes for their citizens and are looking for ways out of this situation.

Countries have differently prioritized ways to reduce the negative business impact of coronavirus:

• In the United States, they announced their intention to exempt residents from paying taxes on wages by the end of the year and to focus on taxation of social insurance and medicine.
  
• The Danish government has decided to defer VAT.
  
• Australia will direct resources to support small and medium-sized businesses, as well as benefits for senior citizens.
  
• China will introduce tax incentives for manufacturers of medical supplies, logistics and courier companies, companies in the field of transport, tourism, the hotel and restaurant sector, as well as allocate funds for bonuses to doctors and participants in the program against COVID-19.
  
• The UK announced a reduction in tax rates, lending to small businesses, the possibility of reducing VAT is being considered.
  
• Italy plans to introduce tax incentives for businesses, lending to small and medium-sized businesses, payments to companies that have lost more than 25% of profits, and also allocate funds to support unemployed citizens.
  
• In France, attention is focused on the rights of workers and employers.
  
• In Belgium, companies receive a tax deferral, and owners of the restaurant business or shops that sell "the necessary goods" and which were closed due to quarantine are eligible for assistance in the amount of 1,200-1,600 euros.

At the same time, if we consider the proposed anti-crisis steps by both experts and representatives of the business community, they have a common point on the elimination of income tax by replacing tax on withdrawn capital, which minimizes state intervention in the economy of enterprises and is generally a more flexible tool for business.

The main difference between the tax on withdrawn capital and income tax is that taxation is not subject to financial results, but certain operations.

Why did we Focus on the Tax on Withdrawn Capital from all the Ideas that are now Voiced?

Because it is a way to overcome the crisis without additional financial investments, it has long been studied and embodied in the text of the worked-out bill, and not an idea born of a national panic. It remains only to add that the sooner we begin to act, the less negative consequences this will bring to the economy of any country.

One Step Ahead of Cybercriminals: How can the Financial Sector Reduce the Risks of Digital Fraud

The financial sector is perhaps one of the leaders in the use of information technology and investment in security systems. It is also one of the most closely interconnected sectors of the economy, making it an obvious target for cybercriminals. For several years in a row, the World Economic Forum (WEF) has put cyberattacks on the top of the list of major global risks, and an analysis by its experts shows that all over the world, the forces of good in this area often lose the fight.

Fighting fraud is a challenge for the entire financial industry, and there are no quick fixes. Ensuring cybersecurity in the foreseeable future will undoubtedly remain a key priority, but the threat of fraud can be reduced to the level of a local irritant if financial institutions are vigilant, monitor the reliability of the applied safeguards and actively cooperate with each other.