1. NCCU Academic Hub
  2. Publications
  3. College of Commerce
  4. Theses
  5. Item

Publications-Theses

Article View/Open

Publication Export

Google ScholarTM

NCCU Library

Citation Infomation

Related Publications in TAIR

題名 企業不端行為與避稅天堂的關聯
Corporate wrongdoing and tax havens
作者 張瑋芩
Chang, Wei Chin
貢獻者 蘇威傑
張瑋芩
Chang, Wei Chin
關鍵詞 企業不端行為
勞資關係不端行為
企業犯罪
企業使用避稅天堂
Corporate wrongdoing
Labor related misbehavior
Illegal corporate behavior
Offshore companies in tax havens
日期 2017
上傳時間 31-Jul-2017 10:55:20 (UTC+8)
摘要 隨著2016年巴拿馬文件(Panama Paper)的曝光，社會對避稅天堂的關注度在此時達到高峰。由於使用避稅天堂是一種法律及道德上處於灰色地帶的商業手段，因此本研究欲探討是否具有不端行為的企業會較容易使用避稅天堂。過去研究指出，一間具有不端行為而導致形象轉為負面的企業，會因此失去商譽、銷售下跌或失去合作夥伴等。而為了挽救上述影響所帶來的損失，有過不端行為的企業有較高機會再次利用具有爭議性的方法來彌補虧損。由於避稅天堂通常具有低稅率或完全免稅的特徵，也具有極高的資訊隱蔽性，因此面臨經營困難的企業可以容易利用避稅天堂來降低交易成本，如匯集資金、避稅，甚至用來隱藏賄賂等不法行為。\n本研究採用台灣上市公司做為樣本，進行量化實證分析，結果顯示，企業不端行為件數、勞資關係不端行為件數及企業犯罪件數皆與企業到避稅天堂設立的子公司數呈現正向關係。曾具有勞資關係不端行為的企業，設立在避稅天堂的子公司數愈多，尤其是經主管機關處以罰鍰的企業，與避稅天堂的關聯性也愈高。
The public’s concern about tax havens has peaked as the leak of “Panama Papers.” Since setting up subsidiaries in tax havens is an ethically dubious and controversial business practice, this study would like to examine whether there is a relationship between corporate wrongdoing and the usage of tax havens. Prior studies have shown that corporate wrongdoing would lead to impairment in goodwill, reduction in sales or losing partnership. In order to recover from the losses occur from the effects mentioned above, companies would have a higher incentive to involve in controversial behaviors. Tax haven, with its unique characteristic such as extremely low tax rate or tax free, and a high degree of concealment regarding sharing information with other governments, enables companies to avoid some market transaction costs and gives them an opportunity to easily pool money, evade tax, and even hide illegal conducts such as bribery. This study uses a quantitative method to investigate on listed companies in Taiwan. The result shows that the amount of corporate wrongdoing, labor related misbehavior and illegal corporate behavior all have a positive relationship with the possibility that corporates use tax haven. Also, corporates, which have past records in labor related dispute, tend to set up more subsidiaries in tax havens; especially those fined by the authorities.
參考文獻 【英文部分】\n1. Baucus, D. A., & Baucus, M. S. (1997). Variations in base fees and royalties in franchising contracts. Franchising Research: An International Journal, 2(1), 15-31.\n2. Baucus, M. S. (1994). Pressure, opportunity and predisposition: A multivariate model of corporate illegality. Journal of Management, 20(4), 699-721.\n3. Chari, M., & Acikgoz, S. (2016). What drives emerging economy firm acquisitions in tax havens?. Journal of Business Research, 69(2), 664-671.\n4. Chen, S., Chen, X., Cheng, Q., & Shevlin, T. (2010). Are family firms more tax aggressive than non-family firms?. Journal of Financial Economics, 95(1), 41-61.\n5. Clinard, M. B. (1983). Corporate ethics and crime: The role of middle management. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.\n6. Desai, M. A., Foley, C. F., & Hines, J. R. (2006). The demand for tax haven operations. Journal of Public Economics, 90(3), 513-531.\n7. Dharmapala, D., & Hines J. R. (2009). Which countries become tax havens?. Journal of Public Economics 93(9), 1058-1068.\n8. Dyreng, S. D., Hoopes, J. L., & Wilde, J. H. (2016). Public pressure and corporate tax behavior. Journal of Accounting Research, 54(1), 147-185.\n9. Dyreng, S. D., & Lindsey, B. P. (2009). Using financial accounting data to examine the effect of foreign operations located in tax havens and other countries on US multinational firms` tax rates. Journal of Accounting Research, 47(5), 1283-1316.\n10. Finney, H. C., & Lesieur, H. R. (1982). A contingency theory of organizational crime. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 1, 255-299.\n11. Inagaki, K. (2015). Toshiba’s once lauded culture became the cause of its problems. Retrieved April 10, 2017, from 68365b68-2faf-11e5-91ac-a5e17d9b4cff \n12. Jones, C., & Temouri, Y. (2016). The determinants of tax haven FDI. Journal of World Business, 51(2), 237-250.\n13. Kriesberg, S. M. (1976). Decisionmaking models and the control of corporate crime. Yale Law Journal, 85(8), 1091-1129.\n14. Lange, D., & Washburn, N. T. (2012). Understanding attributions of corporate social irresponsibility. Academy of Management Review, 37(2), 300-326.\n15. Mishina, Y., Dykes, B. J., Block, E. S., & Pollock, T. G. (2010). Why “good” firms do bad things: The effects of high aspirations, high expectations, and prominence on the incidence of corporate illegality. Academy of Management Journal, 53(4), 701-722.\n16. Porter, M.E. (1980). Competitive strategy. NY: The Free Press.\n17. The Economist (2008). Bavarian baksheesh. Retrieved May 14, 2017, from http://www.economist.com/node/12800474\n18. The Economist (2016). The Secretive and Morally Dubious World of Shell Companies. Retrieved February 10, 2017, from http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/04/using-and-abusing-offshore-accounts\n19. The Economist (2016). The lesson of the Panama papers. Retrieved February 10, 2017, from http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/04/using-and-abusing-offshore-accounts\n20. The Guardian (2016). Senators accuse Apple of `highly questionable` billion-dollar tax avoidance scheme. Retrieved February 8, 2017, from https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/may/20/apple-accused-tax-avoidance-billions-scheme\n21. Vaughan, D. (1982). Toward understanding unlawful organizational behavior. Michigan Law Review, 80(7), 1377-1402.\n22. Wokutch, R. E., & Spencer, B. A. (1987). Corporate saints and sinners: The effects of philanthropic and illegal activity on organizational performance. California Management Review, 29(2), 62-77.\n\n【中文部分】\n1. 天下雜誌（2015）。「海外藏錢 蘋果第一名」。2017年2月10日，取自\nhttp://www.cw.com.tw/article/articleLogin.action?id=5071741\n2. 天下雜誌（2016）。「兩張圖看懂反避稅條款」。2017年2月10日，取自\nhttp://www.cw.com.tw/article/articleLogin.action?id=5077398\n3. 杜易寰、陳煒林、陳一姍（2016）。「巴拿馬文件獨家調查 ／2725家離岸公司背後」。天下雜誌，第540期，2017年2月10日，取自http://www.cw.com.tw/article/articleLogin.action?id=5075582\n4. 林燦澤（2015）。「宏達電更新財測案 記缺失一次」。2017年2月10日，取自http://www.chinatimes.com/newspapers/20150623000242-260210 \n5. 林嘉焜（2016）。「反避稅修法趨勢與資金管理」。2017年2月10日，取自http://news.cnyes.com/news/id/2167903\n6. 林潔玲（2017）。「反避稅條款上路…只欠東風」。經濟日報，2017年2月10日，取自https://udn.com/news/story/7243/2254028 \n7. 林昭儀、陳一姍（2014）。「國庫十年流失三千億？」。天下雜誌，第540期，2017年2月12日，取自http://www.cw.com.tw/article/article.action?id=5055451\n8. 賀桂芬（2014）。「47國聯手 撬開富豪的祕密帳戶」。天下雜誌，第547期，2017年2月10日，取自http://www.cw.com.tw/article/articleLogin.action?id=5058081 \n9. 楊芙宜（2015）。「星巴克、飛雅特涉避稅 歐盟各追繳11億」。自由時報，2017年2月10日，取自http://news.ltn.com.tw/news/world/breakingnews/1483227 \n10. 蕭富元（2013）。「把企業海外避稅追回來」。天下雜誌，第537期，2017年2月10日，取自http://www.cw.com.tw/article/articleLogin.action?id=5054519
描述 碩士
國立政治大學
國際經營與貿易學系
104351031
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0104351031
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 蘇威傑zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) 張瑋芩zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) Chang, Wei Chinen_US
dc.creator (作者) 張瑋芩zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) Chang, Wei Chinen_US
dc.date (日期) 2017en_US
dc.date.accessioned 31-Jul-2017 10:55:20 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 31-Jul-2017 10:55:20 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 31-Jul-2017 10:55:20 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0104351031en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) https://ah.lib.nccu.edu.tw/item?item_id=128287-
dc.description (描述) 碩士zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 國際經營與貿易學系zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 104351031zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 隨著2016年巴拿馬文件(Panama Paper)的曝光，社會對避稅天堂的關注度在此時達到高峰。由於使用避稅天堂是一種法律及道德上處於灰色地帶的商業手段，因此本研究欲探討是否具有不端行為的企業會較容易使用避稅天堂。過去研究指出，一間具有不端行為而導致形象轉為負面的企業，會因此失去商譽、銷售下跌或失去合作夥伴等。而為了挽救上述影響所帶來的損失，有過不端行為的企業有較高機會再次利用具有爭議性的方法來彌補虧損。由於避稅天堂通常具有低稅率或完全免稅的特徵，也具有極高的資訊隱蔽性，因此面臨經營困難的企業可以容易利用避稅天堂來降低交易成本，如匯集資金、避稅，甚至用來隱藏賄賂等不法行為。\n本研究採用台灣上市公司做為樣本，進行量化實證分析，結果顯示，企業不端行為件數、勞資關係不端行為件數及企業犯罪件數皆與企業到避稅天堂設立的子公司數呈現正向關係。曾具有勞資關係不端行為的企業，設立在避稅天堂的子公司數愈多，尤其是經主管機關處以罰鍰的企業，與避稅天堂的關聯性也愈高。zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) The public’s concern about tax havens has peaked as the leak of “Panama Papers.” Since setting up subsidiaries in tax havens is an ethically dubious and controversial business practice, this study would like to examine whether there is a relationship between corporate wrongdoing and the usage of tax havens. Prior studies have shown that corporate wrongdoing would lead to impairment in goodwill, reduction in sales or losing partnership. In order to recover from the losses occur from the effects mentioned above, companies would have a higher incentive to involve in controversial behaviors. Tax haven, with its unique characteristic such as extremely low tax rate or tax free, and a high degree of concealment regarding sharing information with other governments, enables companies to avoid some market transaction costs and gives them an opportunity to easily pool money, evade tax, and even hide illegal conducts such as bribery. This study uses a quantitative method to investigate on listed companies in Taiwan. The result shows that the amount of corporate wrongdoing, labor related misbehavior and illegal corporate behavior all have a positive relationship with the possibility that corporates use tax haven. Also, corporates, which have past records in labor related dispute, tend to set up more subsidiaries in tax havens; especially those fined by the authorities.en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents 第一章 緒論 1\n第二章 文獻回顧與假設推論 4\n第一節 企業使用避稅天堂 4\n第二節 企業不端行為 8\n第三節 假設推論 15\n第三章 研究方法 19\n第一節 樣本與資料來源 19\n第二節 變數操作型定義 20\n第三節 模型建構與分析方法 25\n第四章 結果與分析 27\n第一節 敘述性統計分析 27\n第二節 共線性 28\n第三節 實證結果分析 30\n第五章 結論與發現 35\n第一節 研究結果 35\n第二節 管理意涵 37\n第三節 研究限制與建議 39\n參考文獻 40zh_TW
dc.format.extent 1087468 bytes-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0104351031en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 企業不端行為zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 勞資關係不端行為zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 企業犯罪zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 企業使用避稅天堂zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Corporate wrongdoingen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Labor related misbehavioren_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Illegal corporate behavioren_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Offshore companies in tax havensen_US
dc.title (題名) 企業不端行為與避稅天堂的關聯zh_TW
dc.title (題名) Corporate wrongdoing and tax havensen_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen_US
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 【英文部分】\n1. Baucus, D. A., & Baucus, M. S. (1997). Variations in base fees and royalties in franchising contracts. Franchising Research: An International Journal, 2(1), 15-31.\n2. Baucus, M. S. (1994). Pressure, opportunity and predisposition: A multivariate model of corporate illegality. Journal of Management, 20(4), 699-721.\n3. Chari, M., & Acikgoz, S. (2016). What drives emerging economy firm acquisitions in tax havens?. Journal of Business Research, 69(2), 664-671.\n4. Chen, S., Chen, X., Cheng, Q., & Shevlin, T. (2010). Are family firms more tax aggressive than non-family firms?. Journal of Financial Economics, 95(1), 41-61.\n5. Clinard, M. B. (1983). Corporate ethics and crime: The role of middle management. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.\n6. Desai, M. A., Foley, C. F., & Hines, J. R. (2006). The demand for tax haven operations. Journal of Public Economics, 90(3), 513-531.\n7. Dharmapala, D., & Hines J. R. (2009). Which countries become tax havens?. Journal of Public Economics 93(9), 1058-1068.\n8. Dyreng, S. D., Hoopes, J. L., & Wilde, J. H. (2016). Public pressure and corporate tax behavior. Journal of Accounting Research, 54(1), 147-185.\n9. Dyreng, S. D., & Lindsey, B. P. (2009). Using financial accounting data to examine the effect of foreign operations located in tax havens and other countries on US multinational firms` tax rates. Journal of Accounting Research, 47(5), 1283-1316.\n10. Finney, H. C., & Lesieur, H. R. (1982). A contingency theory of organizational crime. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 1, 255-299.\n11. Inagaki, K. (2015). Toshiba’s once lauded culture became the cause of its problems. Retrieved April 10, 2017, from 68365b68-2faf-11e5-91ac-a5e17d9b4cff \n12. Jones, C., & Temouri, Y. (2016). The determinants of tax haven FDI. Journal of World Business, 51(2), 237-250.\n13. Kriesberg, S. M. (1976). Decisionmaking models and the control of corporate crime. Yale Law Journal, 85(8), 1091-1129.\n14. Lange, D., & Washburn, N. T. (2012). Understanding attributions of corporate social irresponsibility. Academy of Management Review, 37(2), 300-326.\n15. Mishina, Y., Dykes, B. J., Block, E. S., & Pollock, T. G. (2010). Why “good” firms do bad things: The effects of high aspirations, high expectations, and prominence on the incidence of corporate illegality. Academy of Management Journal, 53(4), 701-722.\n16. Porter, M.E. (1980). Competitive strategy. NY: The Free Press.\n17. The Economist (2008). Bavarian baksheesh. Retrieved May 14, 2017, from http://www.economist.com/node/12800474\n18. The Economist (2016). The Secretive and Morally Dubious World of Shell Companies. Retrieved February 10, 2017, from http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/04/using-and-abusing-offshore-accounts\n19. The Economist (2016). The lesson of the Panama papers. Retrieved February 10, 2017, from http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/04/using-and-abusing-offshore-accounts\n20. The Guardian (2016). Senators accuse Apple of `highly questionable` billion-dollar tax avoidance scheme. Retrieved February 8, 2017, from https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/may/20/apple-accused-tax-avoidance-billions-scheme\n21. Vaughan, D. (1982). Toward understanding unlawful organizational behavior. Michigan Law Review, 80(7), 1377-1402.\n22. Wokutch, R. E., & Spencer, B. A. (1987). Corporate saints and sinners: The effects of philanthropic and illegal activity on organizational performance. California Management Review, 29(2), 62-77.\n\n【中文部分】\n1. 天下雜誌（2015）。「海外藏錢 蘋果第一名」。2017年2月10日，取自\nhttp://www.cw.com.tw/article/articleLogin.action?id=5071741\n2. 天下雜誌（2016）。「兩張圖看懂反避稅條款」。2017年2月10日，取自\nhttp://www.cw.com.tw/article/articleLogin.action?id=5077398\n3. 杜易寰、陳煒林、陳一姍（2016）。「巴拿馬文件獨家調查 ／2725家離岸公司背後」。天下雜誌，第540期，2017年2月10日，取自http://www.cw.com.tw/article/articleLogin.action?id=5075582\n4. 林燦澤（2015）。「宏達電更新財測案 記缺失一次」。2017年2月10日，取自http://www.chinatimes.com/newspapers/20150623000242-260210 \n5. 林嘉焜（2016）。「反避稅修法趨勢與資金管理」。2017年2月10日，取自http://news.cnyes.com/news/id/2167903\n6. 林潔玲（2017）。「反避稅條款上路…只欠東風」。經濟日報，2017年2月10日，取自https://udn.com/news/story/7243/2254028 \n7. 林昭儀、陳一姍（2014）。「國庫十年流失三千億？」。天下雜誌，第540期，2017年2月12日，取自http://www.cw.com.tw/article/article.action?id=5055451\n8. 賀桂芬（2014）。「47國聯手 撬開富豪的祕密帳戶」。天下雜誌，第547期，2017年2月10日，取自http://www.cw.com.tw/article/articleLogin.action?id=5058081 \n9. 楊芙宜（2015）。「星巴克、飛雅特涉避稅 歐盟各追繳11億」。自由時報，2017年2月10日，取自http://news.ltn.com.tw/news/world/breakingnews/1483227 \n10. 蕭富元（2013）。「把企業海外避稅追回來」。天下雜誌，第537期，2017年2月10日，取自http://www.cw.com.tw/article/articleLogin.action?id=5054519zh_TW