Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/101150
|
| Title: | 從國際法觀點分析租稅協定濫用所造成稅基侵蝕與利潤移轉問題：以經濟合作與發展組織所提出行動方案六為例
An Analysis on OECD`s Action Plan 6 for Tax Erosion and Profit Shifting due to Treaty Shopping-From the Viewpoint of International Law |
| Authors: | 蔡日騰 |
| Contributors: | 許耀明
蔡日騰 |
| Keywords: | 租稅管轄權衝突
稅基侵蝕與利潤移轉
租稅協定濫用
行動方案六
國際租稅軟法
國家實踐
國際習慣法
conflict of tax jurisdiction
base erosion and profit shifting
treaty shopping
Action Plan 6
international soft tax law
states’ practice
customary international law |
| Date: | 2016 |
| Issue Date: | 2016-09-02 00:20:51 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 全球化發展趨勢，使得稅基具有流動完全可能性，而在國家管轄權獨立原則下，難免會產生積極或消極租稅管轄權衝突。解決積極租稅管轄權衝突，主要是採用租稅協定；消極租稅管轄權衝突問題，造成重複不課稅(Double Non-Taxation)的國際性議題，除各國租稅收入減少外，企業商譽及企業公平競爭也受衝擊。OECD提出解決稅基侵蝕與利潤移轉的行動方案，並指出稅基侵蝕與利潤移轉，來自於國際租稅制度的失效，及有害租稅競爭，需要採用國際合作模式解決方案，以減緩各國在制定回應租稅規避的議題上壓力。
租稅協定濫用隱匿實際經濟內容，並破壞締約國間互惠原則及租稅公平原則，導致OECD與G20共同合作制定以共識為基礎的行動方案六，將利益限制條款及目的測試條款列入租稅協定範本中。利益限制條款及目的測試各有其優勢，在此可以取其中之一，或將兩者皆列入租稅協定。條約必須遵守原則下，行動方案六必定產生租稅協定與內國法規範優先適用問題。
行動方案六解決租稅協定濫用議題，需要形成不會對參與者產生拘束力的抽象規範，而給予在採用及適應上有相當調整彈性的國際租稅軟法。各國追求本身絕對利益情況下，賽局理論中的囚犯困境類型可以提供各國實踐行動方案六的分析。行動方案六在G20國際政治背書，及全球租稅論壇溝通對話，使得各國在資訊壁壘消失，而認知租稅管轄權獨立性不應成為實踐行動方案六的障礙，進而形成實踐行動方案六將是各國利益最大化的共識。增加租稅收入誘因，及給予OECD非會員國家協助，將是實踐行動方案六最佳方式。部分條款範圍太廣且過於主觀的行動方案六，實踐上將會對國際商業往來有一定程度的衝擊；行動方案六統一租稅協定受益人概念，使得內國法仍無法脫離與租稅協定互動關係不確定，而可能增加納稅義務人租稅負擔；租稅協定網絡所建立的障礙，使得行動方案六將全球租稅的分配更集中於已開發國家。OECD將監督機制導入行動方案六實踐面，產生一種法確信國際習慣法的效果，間接擴張G20在跨國交易的國際租稅議題影響力。反思OECD的行動方案六的影響，我國應及早因應行動方案六實踐可能的衝擊，以及行動方案六強調經濟實質性，可以提供日後我國制定反租稅規避規範的參考。
The Trend of Globalization leads to the possibility of completely flowing tax base, but it inevitably results in the positive or negative conflict of tax jurisdiction under the principle of independent tax jurisdiction. The adoption of tax treaty is to tackle the positive conflict of tax jurisdiction; the negative conflict of tax jurisdiction, which causes the international issue of non-double taxation, results in not only loss of tax revenue, but also the impact on corporation’s reputation and fair competition. OECD proposes the action plan to tackle the issue of base erosion and profit shifting, and also identifies that the issue causing the failure of international tax regime and harmful tax competition should be tackled by international collaboration action plan to alleviate the pressure of responding to the tax issue as to tax evasion.
The implement of treaty shopping conceals the economic substance of transactions, and undermines the principle of tax fairness and reciprocity among the contracting states. That induces the collaboration action between OECD and G20 to formulate consensus-based Action Plan 6, which includes Limitation on Benefits Article and Principal Purposes Test Article for inclusion in the OECD Model Income Tax Convention. Since Limitation on Benefits Article and Principal Purposes Test Article have their own advantages, one or both of two articles could be adopted to include in the OECD Model Income Tax Convention. Under the principle of pacta sunt servanda, Action Plan 6 will lead to the issue regarding to the priority application between tax treaty and domestic law.
Action Plan 6 to tackle the issue of treaty shopping is required to develop non-binding abstract norms on participants, and give participants more flexible in the adoption of the international soft tax law. Under the condition every states pursuit their own absolute interests, the prisoner’s dilemma of game theory could provide the analysis on states’ implement of Action Plan 6. Action Plan 6 under the G20’s international political endorsement and the dialogue in Global Forum on Taxation leads to the disappearance of information barriers among states and the perception that the principle of independent tax jurisdiction should not be the barriers to implement Action Plan 6, and produces the consensus that implement of Action Plan 6 is the states’ best interests. The incentives of increase on tax revenue and the assistance to OECD non-member states is the best interests to implement Action Plan 6. The implement on Action Plan 6, some articles of which are too broad and subjective, would have the impact on international business transactions. Action Plan 6 to integrate the concepts of beneficiaries would lead to the uncertainty on the interaction between tax treaty and domestic law, and that will also increase the tax burden on taxpayers. Due to the barriers created by tax treaty network, Action Plan 6 causes the allocation of global tax revenue is more concentrated in developed states. OECD introduces the monitoring system into the implement of Action Plan 6, and that produces not only the effect of an opinio juris on customary international law, but also indirect expansion of G20’s influence on international tax issues as to cross-border transactions. Due to reflection on the influence of Action Plan 6, we should take the action to respond to the impact of implement on Action Plan 6, and Action Plan 6’s emphasis on economic substance can provide us with the legislative reference to anti-tax evasion clause. |
| Reference: | 一.中文文獻
(一)教科書、專書(依作者姓氏筆劃排序)
1.林彩梅，多國籍企業，五南圖書出版股份有限公司，2006年第六版。
2.姜皇池，國際公法導論，新學林出版股份有限公司，2006年3月。
3.陳清秀，現代稅法原理與國際稅法，元照出版有限公司，2010年第二版。
4.陳清秀，稅法總論，元照出版有限公司，2006年10月。
5.陳清秀，國際稅法，元照出版有限公司，2015.04。
6.曾怡仁，國際政治經濟學理論，三民書局，2013年5月。
7.楊永明，國際關係，前程文化事業有限公司，2010年6月。
8.張亞中主編，國際關係總論，揚智文化事業公司，2003年11月。
9.劉劍文，國際稅法學，北京大學出版社，2004年第二版。
(二)翻譯專書
1.布瑞斯威爾米爾茲(Barry Bracewell-Milnes)及魏斯林克(M. A. Wisselink)合著，鄭錦城譯，國際租稅之規避，財政部財稅人員訓練所，1984年1月版。
2.伊恩·布朗利(Brownlie, Ian)著，曾令良、余敏友等譯，國際公法原理，中國法律圖書有現公司，2007年7月。
3.達里奧·巴蒂斯特拉(Battistella, Dario)著，潘革平譯，國際關係理論，設會科學文獻出版社，2010年11月第1版。
4.Rohatgi, Roy著，林海寧及范文祥合譯，國際稅收基礎，北京大學出版社，2006年5月第1版。
(三)期刊論文
1.林騰鷂、黃茂榮，各類所得及其來源的認定標準，植根雜誌，第二十四卷第七期，頁241-257，2008年7月。
2.柯格鐘，論稅捐規避行為之立法與行為的類型化，興大法學，第15期，頁27-100，2014年5月。
3.柯格鐘，實質課稅原則與其在稅捐程序法中之運用-兼論稅捐稽徵法第12條之1增訂，台灣法學雜誌，第199期，頁121-163，2012年5月。
4.許耀明，國際習慣法、絕對法與國家豁免，月旦法學教室，第116期，頁36-38，2012年6月。
5.黃源浩，論國際稅法中的受益所有人概念，東海大學法學研究第三十九期，頁39-97，2013.4.。
6.陳清秀，租稅協定相關問題之探討，法令月刊，第六十二卷第五期，頁73-102，2011年5月。
7.葛克昌、鍾芳樺，稅捐規避行為之事實如何認定(上)-以所得稅法第六六條之八為例，月旦法學雜誌，第118期，頁165-181，2011.1.。
8.蔡慶輝，規制有害國際稅收競爭的國際組織問題探討，國際經濟法學刊，第18卷第2期，頁183-201，2011。
9.駱旭旭，構建國際經濟新秩序的法律工具選擇-以國際軟法與硬法的互動為切入點，國際經濟法學刊，第20卷第20期，頁79-99，2013.08.。
10.Raad, Kees Van著，陳敬宏譯、趙彥強、林季緯、鄭勤蓉;洪玉珊譯，國際稅法導論，植根雜誌，第二十四卷第三期，頁2-40，2008.03.。
11.Raad, Kees Van著，陳敬宏譯、趙彥強、林季緯、鄭勤蓉;洪玉珊譯，國際稅法導論，植根雜誌，第二十四卷第五期，頁81-120，2008.05.。
二.外文文獻
(一)教科書、專書(依作者姓氏筆劃排序)
1.Amatucci, Andrea ed., International Tax Law, Kluwer Law International, 2006.
2.Avi-Yonah, S. Reuven(Reuven Shlomo), International Tax as International Law: an Analysis of the International Tax Regime, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
3.Benvenisti, Eyal and Hirsch, Moshe ed., The Impact of International Law on International Cooperation Theoretical Perspectives, Cambridge University Press, 2004.
4.Bjorklund, K. Andrea and Reinisch, August ed., International Investment Law and Soft Law, Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 2012.
5.Block, D. Cheryl, Corporate Taxation: Examples and Explanations, Aspen Publishers, Third edition 2004.
6.Brummer, Chris, Soft Law and the Global Financial System: rule making in the 21st century, Cambridge University Press, 2012.
7.Diez, Thomas, Bode, Ingvild and Aleksandra Fernandes da Costa, Key Concepts in International Relations, SAGE Publications Ltd., 2011.
8.Evenett, J. Simon and Stern, M. Robert, Systemic Implications of Transatlantic Regulatory Cooperation and Competition, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., 2011.
9.Goldstein, L. Judith, Kahler, Miles, Keohane, O. Robert and Slaughter, Anne-Marie ed., Legalization and World Politics, The MIT Press, 2001.
10.Gráinne de BÃorca and Scott, Joanne ed., Law and New Governance in the EU and the US, Hart Publishing, 2006.
11.Hasenclever, Andreas, Mayer, Peter and Rittberger, Volker, Theories of International Regimes, Cambridge University Press, 2002 Fifth Printing.
12.Holmes, Kevin, International Tax Policy and Double Tax Treaties- an Introduction to Principles and Application, IBFD Publication BV, 2007.
13.James, Simon ed., Taxation: Critical Perspectives on the World Economy, Routldge, 2002.
14.Lang, Michael, Pistone, Pasquale, Schuch, Josef, Staringer, Claus, Storck, Alfred and Zagler, Martin ed., Tax Treaties: Building Bridges between Law and Economics, IBFD, 2010.
15.Lang, Michael, Rust, Alexander, Schuch, Josef and Staninger, Claus ed., Base Erosion and Profit Shifting(BEPS) The Proposals to Revise the OECD Model Convention, Linde Verlag Ges.m.b.H., 2016.
16.Lymer, Andrew and Hasseldine, John ed., The International Taxation System, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002.
17.Marks, P. Michael, Metaphors in International Relations Theory, Palgrave macmillan, 2011.
18.Martin, L. Lisa and Simmons, A. Beth ed., International Institutions: An International Organization Reader, The MIT Press, 2001.
19.Miller, Angharad and Oats, Lynne, Principles of International Taxation, Tottel Publishing Ltd, Second edition 2009.
20.Oberthür, Sebastian and Stokke, Olav Schram ed., Managing Institutional Complexity: Regime Interplay and Global Environmental Chang, The MIT Press, 2011.
21.Olsen, Knut, Characterisation and Taxation of Cross-Border Pipelines, IBFD, 2012.
22.Paetzold, Kolji, Corporation Social Responsibility (CSR): an international Marketing Approach, Diplomica Verlag GmbH, 2010.
23.Picciotto, Sol, Regulating Global Corporate Capitalism, Camberidge University Press, 2011.
24.Rixen, Thomas, The Political Economy of International Tax Governance, Palgrave Macmillan, 2008.
25.Ting, Antony, The Taxation of Corporation Groups Under Consolidation, Cambridge University Press, 2013.
26.Ulrika Mörth ed., Soft law in governance and regulation: an interdisciplinary analysis, Edward Elgar Publishing Inc., 2004.
27.Wendt, Carsten, A Common Tax Base for Multinational Enterprises in the European Union, Gabler Edition Wissenschaft, 1st edition 2009.
(二)期刊論文
1.Ally, Clinton, Minimizing tax revenue loss from internet transactions, Journal of International Taxation, October 2014, pp39-52.
2.Ault, J. Hugh, Reflections on the role of the OECD in developing international tax norms, Brooklyn Journal of International Law, 2009. 34, pp757-781.
3.Avi-Yonah, S. Reuven(Reuven Shlomo), Bridging the North/South Divide: International Redistribution and Tax Competition, Michigan Journal of International Law, fall 2004, pp371-387.
4.Baistrocchi, Eduardo, The use and interpretation of tax treaties in the emerging world: theory and implications, British Tax review, 2008. 4, pp352-391.
5.Baker, Philip, Is there a cure for BEPS? British Tax Review, 2013 5, pp605-606.
6.Barker, B. William, An International Tax System for Emerging Economies, Tax Sparing, and Development: It is all about source, University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law, winter 2007, pp349-389.
7.Brauner, Yariv, An International Tax Regime in Crystallization, Tax Law Review, winter 2003, pp259-328.
8.Brauner, Yariv, What the BEPS? Florida Tax Review, 16, 2014, pp55-99.
9.Castro, Leonardo F.M., U.S. Policy against treaty-shopping-from Aiken industries to anti-conduit REGS: critical view of current double-step approach in light of tax treaties’ objectives and purposes, Virginia Tax Review, fall 2011 Vol31. 2, pp297-330.
10.Christians, Allison, How nations share, Indiana Law Journal, fall 2012, pp1407-1453.
11.Christians, Allison, NETWORKS NORMS AND NATIONAL TAX POLICY, Washington University Global Studies Law Review, 2010. 9, pp1-37.
12.Cockfield, J. Arthur, The limits of the international tax regime as a commitment projector, Virginia tax review, Vol. 33, No. 59 2013, pp59-110.
13.Cockfield, J. Arthur, The rise of the OECD as informal“world tax organization”through national responses to E-commerce tax challenges, Yale Journal of Law and Technology, 2006.8, pp136-187.
14.Collier, Richard, Weeghel, Stef Van, Greenfield, Phil, and Olson, Pam, OECD Recommendations on BEPS 2014 deliverables: Few surprises but no let up, Journal of International Taxation, December 2014, pp25-53.
15.Cooper, Graeme and Stewart, Miranda, The Road Home? Finalizing and Implementing the BEPS Agenda, Bulletin for international taxation, June/July 2015, pp311-313.
16.David, H. Rosenbloom, Noked, Noam, and Helal, S. Mohamed, The unruly world of tax: a proposal for an international tax cooperation for forum, Florida Tax Review, 2015. 15, pp57-86.
17.Davis, Chris, The U.S. should replace the limitation on benefits provisions in its treaties with a general anti-avoidance regulation, Inside Basis, summer 2012, pp17-26.
18.Dean, A. Steven, NEITHER RULES NOR STANDARDS, Notre Dame Law Review, December 2011, pp573-583.
19.Elliffe, Craig, International tax avoidance-the tension between protecting the tax base and certainty of law, Journal of Business Law, July 2011, pp647-665.
20.Englisch, Joachim and Yevgenyeva, Anzhela, The “upgraded ” strategy against harmful tax practices under the BEPS action plan, British tax review, 2013. 5, pp620-637.
21.Fisher, M. Jasmine, Fairer Shores: Tax Havens, Tax Avoidance, and Corporation Social Responsibilty, Boston University Law Review, January 2014, pp337-365.
22.Fleming, J. Clifton Jr., Peroni, J. Robert, and Shay, E. Stephen, Getting serious about cross-boeder earnings stripping: establishing an analytical framework, North Carolina Law Review, March 2015, pp673-740.
23.Han, Sung-Soo, The harmonization of tax treaties and domestic law, Brigham Young University International Law & Management Review, 2011 no.7, pp29-50.
24.Jiang, Qunfang, Treaty shopping and limitation on benefits articles in the context of the OECD base erosion and profit shifting project, Bulletin for international taxation, March 2015, pp139-148.
25.Kleinbard, D. Edward, STATELESS INCOME, Florida Tax Review, Vol.11 2011 No9, pp699-774.
26.Knoll, S. Michael, Reconsidering international tax neutrality, Tax Law Review, winter 2011, pp99-129.
27.Knoll, S. Michael, The connection between competitiveness and international taxation, Tax Law Review, 2012 Vol65, pp349-373.
28.Kofer, Georg, The BEPS action plan and transfer pricing: the arm’s length standard under pressure?, British Tax Review, 2013.5, pp646-665.
29.Kornhauser, E. Marjorie, Doing the Full Monty: Will Publicizing Tax Information Increase Compliance? Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence, Vol. 18 No. 1, January 2005, pp95-117.
30.Kornikova, A. Anna, Solving the problem of tax-treaty shopping through the use of limitation on benefits provisions, Richmond Journal of Global Law and Business, Vol8:2 2008, pp249-286.
31.Lang, Michael and Brugger, Florian, The role of the OECD Commentary in tax treaty interpretation, AUSTRALIAN TAX FORUM, 2008 NO23, PP95-108.
32.Littlewood, Michael, TAX COMPETITION: HARMFUL TO WHOM? Michigan Journal of International Law, fall 2004, pp411-487.
33.Lyons, QC Timothy, International taxation and BEPS Action Plan: challenged by modernity, British Tax Review, 2014. 5, pp519-529.
34.Michael V. Sala, Breaking Down BEPS: Strategies, Reforms, and Planning Responses, Connecticut Law Review, December 2014, pp573-605.
35.Mistler, Bria, TAKING ACTION AGAINST BASE EROSION PROFIT SHIFTING, Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law, fall 2015, pp903-928.
36.Morgan, Ed, INTERNATIONAL TAX LAW AS A PONZI SCHEME, Suffolk Transnational Law Review, Vol. 34, No. 1, 2011, PP69-115.
37.Noked, Noam, Integrated tax policy approach to designing research & development tax benefits, Virginia Tax Review, 06/2014, pp109-151.
38.Nov, Avi, The “bidding war”to attract foreign direct investment: the need for a global solution, Virginia Tax Review, winter 2006, pp835-874.
39.Oliver, J. David B, Beneficial ownership and the OECD Model, British Tax Review, 2001. 1, pp27-59.
40.O’shea Tom, BEPS and anti-abuse rules: The EU law dimension, International Tax report, July/August 2014, pp1-8。
41.Owens, Jeffrey and Lang, Michael, The role of tax treaties in facilitating development and protecting the tax base, Tax planning international review, 06/2013, pp25-31.
42.Peters, Carmel, Developing countries’ reactions to the G20/OECD action plan on base erosion and profit shifting, Bulletin for international taxation, June/July 2015, pp375-381.
43.PWC(PricewaterhouseCoopers) International tax services, OECD draft on use of treaty benefits in inappropriate circumstances, Journal of International Taxation, June 2014, p50-53.
44.Raustiala, Kal, The architecture of international cooperation: Transgovernmental networks and the future of international law, Virginia Journal of International Law, fall 2002, pp1-92.
45.Ring, M. Diane, Democracy Sovereignty and Tax Competition: The Role of Tax Sovereignty in Shaping Tax Cooperation, Florida Tax Review, 2009 Vol9, pp555-596.
46.Ring, M. Diane, International tax relations: theory and implications, Tax Law Review, winter 2007, pp83-154.
47.Ring, M. Diane, One nation among many: policy implications of cross-border tax arbitrage, Boston College Law Review, December 2002, pp79-175.
48.Ring, M. Diane, What’s at stake in the sovereignty debate? : International tax and the nation-state, Virginia Journal of International Law, Vol. 49 No. 1 2008, pp155-208.
49.Ring, M. Diane, Who is making international tax policy? : International organizations as power players in a high stakes world, Fordham International Law Journal, February 2010, pp649-721.
50.Ritchie, Zara, Getting Business BEPS ready, Tax planning international review, 12.2015, pp20-23.
51.Roni, De Marco, How can the multilateral tax treaty help overcoming the treaty shopping issue, International Business Law, June 18, 2015. pp1-38.
52.Rosenzweig, H. Adam, Defining a Country’s “Fair Share” of Taxes, Florida State University Law Review, winter (Vol. 42) 2015, pp373-425.
53.Rosenzweig, H. Adam, New analysis: building a framework for a post-BEPS world, tax notes international Volume 74, number 12 June 23, 2014, pp1-7.
54.Rosenzweig, H. Adam, Thinking outside the tax treaty, Wisconsin Law Review, June 2012, pp717-785.
55.Rossi, Maria Cecilia, Is cloud computing a challenge to the traditional concept of a permanent establishment Part 2, International Tax report, June 2013, pp1-8.
56.Rubinger, L. Jeffrey, Qualifying for treaty benefits under the “derivative benefits” article, Florida Bar Journal, September/October 2014, pp45-48.
57.Ruth, Mason, U.S. Tax Treaty Policy and the European court of Justice, Tax Law Review, Fall Vol. 59 2005, pp65-131.
58.Sadiq, Kerrie, A nation’s role in addressing base erosion and profit shifting: sovereignty in relation to transfer pricing, New Zealand Journal of taxation law and policy, December 2013, pp343-363.
59.Schoueri, Luís Eduardo and Barbosa, Mateus Calicchio, Transparency: From Tax Secrecy to the Simplicity and Reliability of the Tax System, British Tax Review, No. 5 2013, pp666-681.
60.Self, Heather, Addressing base erosion profit shifting, British Tax Review, 2013.2, pp117-122.
61.Shaffer, C. Gregory, Pollack, A. Mark, Hard VS. Soft law: Alternatives, complements, and antagonists in international governance, Minnesota Law Review, February, 2010, pp706-799.
62.Sheppard, A Lee, Conceptualzing a new institutional framework for international taxation, Washington University Journal of Law & Policy, 2014 44, pp61-78.
63.Spencer, David, BEPS: digital economy, Journal of International Taxation, January 2014, pp31-40.
64.Spencer, David, The OECD BEPS project: tax challenges of the digital economy (part 2), Journal of International Taxation, February 2014, pp35-57.
65.Stephen Kim Park and Gerlinde Berger-Walliser, A FIRM-DRIVEN APPROACH TO GLOBAL GOVERNANCE AND SUSTAINABILITY, American Business Law Journal, Summer, 2015, pp255-315.
66.Stewart, Miranda, Abuse and economic substance in a digital BEPS world, Bulletin for international taxation, June/July 2015, pp399-409.
67.Taboada, Carlos Palao, OECD base erosin and profit shifting action 6: The general anti-abuse rule, Bulletin for international taxation, October 2015, pp602-608.
68.Thuronyi, Victor, International Cooperation and a Multilateral Treaty, Brooklyn Journal of International Law, 2001 NO26, pp1641-1681.
69.Ting, Antony, iTax - Apple`s International Tax Structure and the Double Non-Taxation Issue, British Tax Review, 2014 No1,pp40-71.
70.Ting, Antony, Old wine in a new bottle: Ireland’s revised definition of corporation residence and the war on BEPS, British Tax Review, 2014.3, pp237-247
71.Traversa, Edoardo, Interest deductibility and BEPS ACTION PLAN: NIHIL NOVI SUB SOLE?, British Tax Review, 2013 5, pp607-619.
72.Turner, Grahame H J, “Coherence of the tax system” and “balanced allocation of powers of taxation” contrasted: Part 1, International Tax report, June 2013, pp1-8.
73.Watson, Jonathan, Time to wake up, IBA Global Insight, April/May 2013, pp25-32.
74.Wells, Bret and Lowell, Cym, Tax base erosion and homeless income: collection at source is the linchpin, Tax Law Review, spring 2012, pp535-584.
75.Wells, Bret and Lowell, Cym, Tax base erosion: reformation of section 482’s arm’s length standard, Florida tax review, 15 2014, pp737-795.
76.Wolff, J. Mark, Congressional unilateral tax treaty overrides: the “Latter in time doctrine” is out of time, Florida tax review, 2009. 9, pp699-753.
三.其他
1.Brooks, Chris, Hillenbrand, Carola and Money, Kevin, What Stakeholders Expect from Corporations When It Comes to Paying Tax: Corporate Reputation and Optimal Tax Planning, Hillenbrand and Money, March 2015. 參考網站：https://www.henley.ac.uk/files/pdf/news/Henley_Business_School_Tax_Study_March_2015.pdf. 最後瀏覽日: 2016年4月12日。
2.Committee of Fiscal Affairs of OECD, Harmful tax competition: an emerging global issue, OECD, 1998. 參考網站：http://www.oecd.org/tax/transparency/44430243.pdf. 最後瀏覽日: 2016年5月01日。
3.Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Offshore Profit Shifting and the U.S. Tax Code—Part 2 (Apple Inc.) (2013) (Subcommittee Memo on Offshore Profit Shifting and Apple). 參考網站：http://www.hsgac.senate.gov/subcommittees/investigations/hearings/offshore-profit-shifting-and-the-us-tax-code_-part-2.。 最後瀏覽日: 2016年3月30日。
4.Itai, Grinberg, Breaking BEPS: The new international tax diplomacy, Georgetown Law Journal, September 10 2015 (draft), pp1-52. 參考網站：http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2652894. 最後瀏覽日: 2016年8月05日。
5.League of Nations Econ. & Fiscal Comm., Report on Double Taxation Submitted to the Financial Comm., League of Nations Doc. E.F.S.73.F.19, 1923, p20-27. 參考網站： http://adc.library.usyd.edu.au/view?docId=split/law/xml-main-texts/brulegi-source-bibl-1.xml;chunk.id=d2377e918;toc.depth=1;toc.id=d2377e918;database=;collection=;brand=default. 最後瀏覽日: 2016年4月23日。
6.Leblanc, Pierre, Matthews, Stephen, and Mellbye, Kirsti, The tax Policy Landscape Five Years after the Crisis, OECD Taxation Working Papers No17, OECD, 2013. 參考網站：http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/taxation/the-tax-policy-landscape-five-years-after-the-crisis_5k40l4dxk0hk-en#page19. 最後瀏覽日: 2016年4月22日。
7.International Fiscal Association, Cahier de Droit Fiscal International,2010.
8.McIntyre, S. Robert, Gardner, Matthew, Wilkins J. Rebecca, and Phillips, Richard, Corporate Taxpayers & Corporate Tax Dodgers 2008-10, Citizens for Tax Justice & the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, November 2011。參考網站：http://www.ctj.org/corporatetaxdodgers/CorporateTaxDodgersReport.pdf.。最後瀏覽日: 2016年4月9日。
9.Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Addressing Base Erosion and Profit shifting, OECD, February 2013. 參考網站：http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/taxation/addressing-base-erosion-and-profit-shifting_9789264192744-en#page1. 最後瀏覽日: 2015年12月28日。
10.Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) ed., Comments Received on Public Discussion Draft BEPS Action 6: Preventing the Granting of Treaty Benefits in Inappropriate Circumstances, OECD, 2014.4.11. 參考網站: http://www.oecd.org/tax/treaties/comments-action-6-prevent-treaty-abuse.pdf. 最後瀏覽日: 2016年5月10日。
11.Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Double taxation conventions and the use of base companies, OECD, July 15 2014. 參考網站: http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/taxation/model-tax-convention-on-income-and-on-capital-2014-full-version/r-5-double-taxation-conventions-and-the-use-of-base-companies_9789264239081-98-en#page8. 最後瀏覽日: 2016年5月28日。
12.Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version 2014, OECD, July 15 2014. 參考網站：http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/taxation/model-tax-convention-on-income-and-on-capital-condensed-version-2014_mtc_cond-2014-en#page3. 最後瀏覽日: 2016年4月2日。
13.Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), OECD Benchmark Definition of Foreign Direct Investment, OECD, Fourth Edition 2008. 參考網站；https://www.oecd.org/daf/inv/investmentstatisticsandanalysis/40193734.pdf. 最後瀏覽日: 2016年4月13日。
14.Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit- preventing the granting of treaty benefits in inappropriate circumstances, OECD, 2014.9.16. 參考網站：http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/taxation/preventing-the-granting-of-treaty-benefits-in-inappropriate-circumstances_9789264219120-en#page13. 最後瀏覽日: 2016年5月21日。
15.Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project - preventing the granting of treaty benefits in inappropriate circumstances, Action 6-2015 Final Report, OECD, 2015.10.05, p20. 參考網站：http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/taxation/preventing-the-granting-of-treaty-benefits-in-inappropriate-circumstances-action-6-2015-final-report_9789264241695-en#page21. 最後瀏覽日：2016年6月6日。
16.Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), OECD secretary-general report to the G20 finance ministers and central bank governors, 19-20 July 2013. 參考網站：http://www.oecd.org/g20/topics/taxation/OECD-tax-report-G20.pdf. 最後瀏覽日: 2016年4月22日。
17.Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administrations 2010, OECD, July 2010. 參考網站：http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/taxation/oecd-transfer-pricing-guidelines-for-multinational-enterprises-and-tax-administrations-2010_tpg-2010-en#page33. 最後瀏覽日: 2016年4月30日。
18.Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) ed., Public discussion draft-BEPS action 6: preventing the granting of treaty benefits in inappropriate circumstances, OECD, 2014 3. 14. 參考網站：http://www.oecd.org/tax/treaties/treaty-abuse-discussion-draft-march-2014.pdf. 最後瀏覽日: 2016年5月21日。
19.Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Tackling aggressive tax planning through improved transparency and disclosure, Report on disclosure initiatives, OECD, February 2011. 參考網站：http://www.oecd.org/ctp/exchange-of-tax-information/48322860.pdf. 最後瀏覽日: 2016年4月22日。
20.Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Taxing Multinational Enterprises, November 2013.
21.Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Third meeting of the OECD forum on tax administration Final Seoul Declaration, OECD, 14-15 September 2006. 參考網站：https://www.oecd.org/tax/administration/37415572.pdf. 最後瀏覽日: 2016年4月22日。
22.Schwab, Klaus ed., The Global Competitiveness Report 2011-2012, World Economic Forum, 2011.
23.Secretary-General of OECD, Action plan on base erosion and profit shifting, OECD, 2013, pp13-14. 參考網站：https://www.oecd.org/ctp/BEPSActionPlan.pdf. 最後流覽日：2016年6月1日。
24.United Nations, United Nations Model Double Taxation Convention between Developed and Developing Countries, UN, 2011. 參考網站：http://www.un.org/esa/ffd/documents/UN_Model_2011_Update.pdf. 最後瀏覽日: 2016年4月2日。
25.UNITED NATIONS INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION, Mapping Global Value chains: Intermediate goods trade and structural change in the world economy, 05/2010.
26.UNITED NATIONS INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION, Value Chain Diagnostics for Industrial Development, 2011. 參考網站: https://www.unido.org/fileadmin/user_media/Publications/Pub_free/Value_chain_diagnostics_for_industrial_development.pdf. 最後瀏覽日: 2016年5月15日。
27.聯合國、歐盟委員會、經濟合作與發展組織、國際貨幣基金及世界銀行合編，中國國家統計、局國民經濟核算司、中國人民大學國民經濟核算研究所譯，2008年國民帳戶體系(2008 Systems of National Accounts)，中國統計出版社，2012.10。參考網站：http://unstats.un.org/unsd/nationalaccount/docs/SNA2008Chinese.pdf. 最後瀏覽日: 2016年4月14日。
28.2012年10月20日路透通訊社（Reuters）報導星巴克公司品牌受租稅規避影響。參考網站：http://www.reuters.com/article/us-starbucks-tax-brand-idUSBRE89J04E20121020. 最後瀏覽日: 2016年4月12日。
29.G20領導人2012年6月18-19日在墨西哥洛斯卡沃斯(Los Cabos)所發布的聲明第48點。參考網站： https://www.oecd.org/g20/summits/los-cabos/2012-0619-loscabos.pdf. 。最後瀏覽日: 2016年4月17日。
30.G20財政部長及中央銀行2012年11月4-5日在墨西哥城(Mexico City, Mexico)發表最後公報第21點。參考網站：https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/international/g7-g20/Documents/G20%20Ministerial%20Communique%20November%204-5-2012-Mexico%20City.pdf. 最後瀏覽日: 2016年4月17日。
31.簡略說明跨國企業支付極少賦稅原因來自於BEPS，並介紹OECD的BEPS為何，及其影響為何。參考網站http://oecdinsights.org/2013/02/13/beps-why-youre-taxed-more-than-a-multinational/.最後瀏覽日: 2016年4月22日。
32.美國財政部2007年11月給國會的報告(Report to The Congress on Earnings Stripping, Transfer Pricing and U.S. Income Tax Treaties)中提到，公司利用資金借貸方式移轉利潤至低賦稅區使最普遍方法。參考網站：https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/tax-analysis/Documents/OTA-Report-Earnings-Stripping-Transfer-Pricing-2007.pdf. 第21頁。最後瀏覽日: 2016年4月30日。
33.立法院第9屆第1會期第20次會議2016年7月12日三讀通過建立反租稅規避制度之「所得稅法」第43條之3、第43條之4、第126條修正案。本次修正係為建立受控外國公司（Controlled Foreign Company，CFC）及實際管理處所（Place of Effective Management，PEM）制度，以建構更周延的反租稅規避規定。參考網站：http://lis.ly.gov.tw/lglawc/lawsingle?0215688B8A58000000000000000001400000000400FFFFFD00^015131050712^00015033001.。 最後瀏覽日: 2016年8月01日。
34.2012年4月29日紐約時報報導蘋果電腦公司租稅規避操作方式，其中提及利用虛設荷蘭公司取得租稅利益，並傳輸海外利潤至加勒比海免稅天堂。此為雙層愛爾蘭夾荷蘭三明治（Double Irish with a Dutch Sandwich）的租稅規避方式，蘋果電腦公司算是最早操作。參考網站：http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/business/apples-tax-strategy-aims-at-low-tax-states-and-nations.html?_r=0. 最後瀏覽日: 2016年7月30日。Google也採用雙層愛爾蘭夾荷蘭三明治（Double Irish with a Dutch Sandwich）的方式，套取租稅協定利益。
35.歐盟母子公司稅收指令90/435/EEC規定旨在消除重複課稅問題。參考網站；http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31990L0435:en:HTML. 最後瀏覽日: 2016年7月23日。
36.愛爾蘭商業組織會員主要是由愛爾蘭的國內企業或跨國企業所組成，主要目的在於遊說政府、政策制定者及國內或國際利害關係人，並對政策形成產生影響。目前約有7,500個會員。參考網站: https://www.ibec.ie/IBEC/IBEC.nsf/vPages/About_Us~about-ibec?OpenDocument. 最後瀏覽日: 2016年8月03日。
37.德國產業聯合會的成員主要是在德國各產業的同業公會，而一般單一公司無法成為會員。目前德國產業聯合會成員有36個同業公會，代表維護10萬家企業的利益。參考網站: http://english.bdi.eu/bdi/members/. 最後瀏覽日: 2016年8月02日。
38.雇主组織歐洲商會主要會員來自於歐洲34個國家的產業公會，一般單一公司非其直屬會員。雇主组織歐洲商會定期與歐洲議會委員會及理事會(European Parliament, Commission and Council)，以及主要政策關係人互動，目的在於倡導歐洲成長及提升競爭力水準。參考網站：https://www.businesseurope.eu/mission-and-priorities. 最後瀏覽日: 2016年8月03日。
39.美國全國對外貿易協會會員美國企業，其目的在於提倡一個具有規則的世界經濟，它也是目前唯一倡導會員的國際與公共政策優先事項。參考網站：http://www.nftc.org/?id=225. 最後瀏覽日: 2016年8月03日。
40.日本貿易會主要是日本的貿易公司所組成的行業協會，其目的在於為日本經濟的繁榮和透過貿易強化國際社會功能，並在有關貿易相關議題取得共識，以提供相對的解決方案給政府及相關組織。參考網站：http://www.jftc.or.jp/english/whatisjftc2.htm. 最後瀏覽日: 2016年8月03日。
41.日本經濟團體聯合會是日本最主要的經濟團體，會員是由日本大型跨國企業和上市公司所組成。其目的在於為了能夠穩定及迅速解決各種國內或國際的議題，並取得商業團體的一致共識。參考網站：http://www.keidanren.or.jp/en/profile/pro001.html. 最後瀏覽日: 2016年8月03日。
42.美國租稅協定範本專業解釋(2006 U.S. Model Technical Explanation) 第63至73頁。參考網站：https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Documents/hp16802.pdf. 最後瀏覽日: 2016年8月08日。
43.國際投資組織是一個由跨國企業在美國的子公司所組成非營利性質的美國商會，商會宗旨在於促進跨國企業在美國營運，以推動促使國際貿易及投資的政策。參考網站：http://www.ofii.org/about. 最後瀏覽日: 2016年8月08日。
44.瑞士控股公司聯盟是一個商業聯盟，代表設立在瑞士跨國企業的利益，該聯盟的宗旨在於改善瑞士的經濟環境及法律規則，並推動自由貿易環境以增進國際貿易的增長。參考網站：http://www.swissholdings.ch/en/our-federation/. 最後瀏覽日: 2016年8月03日。
45.稅務顧問的專業機構Confederation Fiscale Europeenne是一個跨歐洲國家的組織，目前該組織有來自21國歐洲國家的26個國家組織。其主要目的在於將有關租稅議題提出至歐洲聯盟，並促進歐洲各國租稅法交流合作。參考網站：http://www.cfe-eutax.org/about. 最後瀏覽日: 2016年8月03日。
46.法國商業聯盟擁有75萬個企業會員，是法國最大的企業聯盟，它代表企業與政府、媒體和公眾對話，保護企業利益，並代表企業參與國家經社諮詢機構活動。參考網站：http://eng.medef.com/missions/what-is-medefs-purpose.html. 最後瀏覽日: 2016年8月03日。
47.美國國際商業委員會是國際商會(The International Chamber of Commerce,ICC)、商業和工業諮詢委員會經合組織(Business and Industry Advisory Committee to the OECD)及國際雇主組織(International Organization of Employers )的美國會員，該委會大約有300個會員身分，其中包括跨國企業、律師事務所及商業公會。美國國際商業委員會的宗旨在於能將美國企業意見及解決方案推廣及提升，而影響國際性政策制定，並且藉由影響國際法規環境的發展，來降低會員海外的營運成本。參考網站：http://www.uscib.org/uscib-at-a-glance-ud-2410/.最後瀏覽日: 2016年8月05日。
48.租稅原則國際聯盟是由全球大約20多家大型跨國企業所組成，其行業別遍及消費產品、媒體、礦業、電信、油田服務、交通運輸、醫療、電腦IT技術等。該聯盟的宗旨基於防止重複課稅及提供可預測處理原則給國際化經營企業的前提，而促進國際稅收原則的發展及應用。參考網站：https://www.oecd.org/ctp/transfer-pricing/International-Alliance-Principled-Taxation%20(IAPT).pdf. 最後瀏覽日: 2016年8月05日。
49.BIAC主要有三類型會員所組成，一為OECD會員國的主要商業組織，二為具有OECD觀察員身分國的商業組織，三為定期參與BIAC政策工作的跨國際組織。BIAC定期及主動積極與OECD的互動，使得BIAC會員有機會參與OECD會議、全球論壇及諮詢OECD領導階層、各委員會及相關工作小組。BIAC的宗旨在於OECD政策制定階段解決企業需求，並藉由本身的專業對於OECD政策推廣產生正面的影響。參考網站：http://biac.org/quick-facts/. 最後瀏覽日: 2016年8月05日。
50.亞洲資本市場稅務委員會是一個由金融服務業機構所組成的組織，會員是在亞洲營運的銀行、投資銀行、證券公司及其他各種金融服務的機構(例如：高盛銀行、美國銀行、匯豐銀行、花旗銀行、及摩根大通銀行等)，而其代表主要為在香港地區的稅務主管。亞洲資本市場稅務委員會的主要宗旨是根據其章程，提供論壇給予會員討論對於在亞洲所產生會影響亞洲資本市場的租稅議題，並且交換對於議題分析觀點。亞洲資本市場稅務委員會也直接或間接參與與其他組織在租稅議題的倡導活動。參考網站：http://www.oecd.org/tax/exchange-of-tax-information/46019879.pdf. 最後瀏覽日: 2016年8月05日。
51.部分OECD國家基於本身資源有限，而必須與鄰近國家保持經濟及貿易互動，以發展本身經濟，因而採取較為彈性及高度自由化的稅制吸引國際資本流入，例如荷蘭、瑞士、盧森堡及瑞士。OECD在2000年給與G20財政部長的報告及由財政事務委員會建議事項，說明OECD會員國的租稅政策符合有害的租稅競爭要件，其中荷蘭、瑞士、盧森堡及瑞士在於資金融通及租賃、基金管理、以及總部租稅制度，列入以租稅吸引國際資金的流入。參考網站：http://www.oecd.org/ctp/harmful/2090192.pdf. 最後瀏覽日: 2016年8月05日。
52.我國所簽屬租稅協定共有30個，其中有16個國家為OECD會員國。參考網站：http://www.mof.gov.tw/Pages/Detail.aspx?nodeid=191&pid=63930. 最後瀏覽日：2016年8月6日。 |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
法學院碩士在職專班
100961005 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0100961005 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [法學院碩士在職專班] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Description |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 100501.pdf | | 1188Kb | Adobe PDF2 | 491 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
