| Abstract: | 由於各國財政收入短缺、輿論及政治壓力、科技進步造成課稅方式落後(例如：企業利用虛擬網路、雲端集中資訊管理、資料儲存及商品/服務交付)、以及許多跨國企業利用各國針對同一交易可能因當地稅務規定之差異造成雙重不課稅之稅務實質效應，造成跨國企業執行之功能風險及納稅義務造成一定程度地扭曲或規避，因此經濟合作暨發展組織(以下簡稱經合組織或OECD )因應Group of 20 (“G20”)成員國之提議下，於2013年2月發佈『稅基侵蝕與利潤移轉報告』( Base Erosion and Profit Shifting, 以下簡稱BEPS)相關探討，並於同年7月發佈15項與稅基侵蝕與利潤轉移議題相關之行動計畫(下稱BEPS行動方案)。
BEPS行動方案宣布之初即引起全球稅局及跨國企業之熱烈討論，主要係因為不論是否為OECD正式成員國，為期國內法規能與國際趨勢接軌，OECD所發佈之各式稅務指引及範本，一向是各國在訂定國內移轉訂價相關稅務法規及協議租稅協定內容時之主要參考指標，本次討論議題又因涉及範圍廣大，納稅義務人在因應及準備上以及稽徵機關稽查上如何落實理論基礎又不至於投入成本與效益失衡，則為大家主要關注之部分。
BEPS行動方案中，有5項行動計畫與移轉訂價尤其相關，包含行動方案3、行動方案8至10及行動方案13，其中行動方案3更與近期重獲財政部重視而通過之所得稅法第43條之3(受控外國公司)、第43條之4(實際管理處所)直接相關。
本研究也自公開資訊中取得台灣1家公開發行以上公司之年報及財務資訊，模擬BEPS對其可能造成之挑戰。
最後，本研究建議跨國企業對於BEPS行動方案不應僅視為是一般稅務遵循規定，而需重新審視集團整體投資架構及交易安排經濟實質與利潤分配之合理性，避免過於激進之稅務規劃在此國際反避稅浪潮下適得其反。
Due to government’s serious finance deficit, public opinion, politics pressure and outdated ways to impose taxes on transactions across-border resulting from development of technology, including transactions handled, managed, stored, and delivered on the Internet or through Cloud, and more importantly, double non-taxation on one single transaction due to different tax regulation among countries, function performed and risks assumed of a multi-national company often cannot match with its substance and taxes paid. As such, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD, accepted the proposal made by Group of Twenty Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors, Group of 20 (“G20”), and proposed discussion drafts called Based Erosion and Profit Shifting, BEPS, in February 2013, and released 15 action plans in relation to based erosion and profit shifting (“BEPS action plans”) in July of the same year.
BEPS action plans lead lively discussion globally, regardless countries are OECD members or not. The main reason is that countries prefer its domestic laws to fully follow global trend and tax guidance and sample documentation released by OECD have always been main reference when countries set its domestic transfer pricing regulations and treaties. However, another focusing area is that how tax payers implement revelant action plans to be fully in compliance in cost-and-benefit effective way, so that they will not be too overwhelming and get in too much cost burden.
Among the 15 action plans, 5 of them are specifically in relation to transfer pricing, including action plan 3, 8 to 10, and 13. Furthermore, action plan 13 directly relates to two passed tax revision, Income Tax Law Article 43-3 (Controlled Foreign Corporate) and Article 43-4 (Place of Effectiveness Management) that were back to Ministry of Finance’s attention.
This research also collects financial statement and public information available of one listed company and analysis potential impacts that BEPS action plans might have on it.
Lastly, this research recommends that multi-national enterprises should not under estimate BEPS action plans and view them as simple tax compliance, but more of great timing to re-assess group’s overall holding structure, substance and profit allocation amoung parties involved, to avoid aggressive tax planning and suffer greater losses in a anti-tax avoidance world. |
