CRS對台資在租稅天堂的影響

Abstract

由於跨國企業利用各國間資訊不對稱，及租稅天堂寬鬆稅制，企業常將利潤留在租稅天堂，導致資源配置扭曲和稅基流失。遂有經濟合作暨發展組織 (OECD) 提出的「BEPS有效打擊有害租稅競爭行動計畫5」，以因應有害租稅行為，要求各國從事經濟活動須具實質性。本研究目的在探討開曼、英屬維京群島等租稅天堂，陸續實行共同申報準則 (CRS) 及提出經濟實質法案後，是否仍會有企業及投資人願意在租稅天堂設立子公司、進行控股或三角貿易等，達到租稅規避？\n本研究主要探討以下議題：1. 台資企業資金之布局：面對CRS及實施經濟實質法案後，台商是否仍可利用租稅天堂，從事資金之布局以規避租稅。2. 台資企業如何選擇去留：面對CRS及實施經濟實質法案後，未來可能增加營運支出與稅務成本，將面臨去留的抉擇。若選擇留下，面對經濟實質衝擊之企業，應採取何種方案，以因應經濟實質要求。若選擇離開，對集團價值鏈及租稅規劃有何影響？3.租稅天堂彼此競合問題：各租稅天堂相互間，是否為吸引跨國企業於該國跨境投資或設立公司，進而彼此競爭從寬認定經濟實質標準？還是會遵從歐盟要求而從嚴執行經濟實質法案？\n本研究發現，雖然在CRS機制下，減少了一些避稅的誘因，但台灣在「受控外國公司」及「實際管理處所」尚未實施之前，租稅天堂仍具節稅效益。又因租稅天堂對於所得仍無須繳納所得稅，台灣母公司仍會透過當地公司進行轉投資，或提供母公司做金流等財務規劃使用。實施CRS機制及經濟實質法案後，尚不影響台資在租稅天堂資金布局。

The use of information asymmetries between countries by multinational enterprises and the loose tax system in tax havens to keep profits there has led to distortions in the allocation of resources and the loss of the tax base. Then there is the "BEPS Effectively Combat Harmful Tax Competition Action Plan 5" proposed by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) to combat harmful taxation behaviors and require countries to engage in economic activities to be substantive. The purpose of this study is to explore whether there are still enterprises and investors willing to set up subsidiaries in tax havens to invest, hold holdings or trade in triangular trade, etc., after the implementation of the Common Reporting Standard (CRS) and the introduction of the Economic Substance Law, in tax havens such as Cayman and the British Virgin Islands. In order to achieve tax avoidance?\nThis study focuses on the following topics: 1. The layout of funds of Taiwanese-funded enterprises: After facing the CRS and the implementation of the Economic Substance Law, whether Taiwanese businessmen can still use the tax haven to engage in the distribution of funds to avoid taxation. 2. How does Taiwanese-funded enterprises choose to stay: in the face of CRS and the implementation of the economic substantive law, the future may increase operating expenses and tax costs, will face the choice to stay. If they choose to stay, what kind of plan should they take to meet the requirements of economic essence. If you choose to leave, what is the impact on the group`s value chain and tax planning?3. The question of competition and cooperation among tax havens: Are tax havens competing with each other to attract multinationals to cross-border investment or set up companies in the country, thereby competing with each other to determine the economic essence standard leniently? Or will it comply with the requirements of the EU and strictly implement the economic substance law?\nThis study found that although some incentives for tax avoidance have been reduced under the CRS mechanism, Taiwan’s tax havens still have tax-saving benefits before the implementation of controlled foreign company and place of effective management. And because the tax haven still does not have to pay income tax on income, the Taiwan parent company will still reinvest through the local company, or use the parent company for financial planning such as cash flow. After the implementation of the CRS mechanism and the Economic Substance Law, it has not affected the distribution of Taiwanese -funded funds in tax havens.