學術產出-學位論文
文章檢視/開啟
書目匯出
-
題名 移轉訂價法規對跨國企業內部借款的影響
The Impact of Transfer Pricing Rules on Multinational Enterprises` Internal Loan作者 吳昌錦
Wu, Chang-Jin貢獻者 陳香梅
吳昌錦
Wu, Chang-Jin關鍵詞 跨國企業
內部借款
利潤移轉
移轉訂價法規
移轉訂價嚴謹程度
Multinational enterprises
Internal loan
Profit shifting
Transfer pricing rules
Transfer pricing strictness日期 2018 上傳時間 24-七月-2018 11:02:55 (UTC+8) 摘要 由於借款的使用能在資金貸入國扣除利息費用降低所得稅負，跨國企業便有誘因藉由內部借款將利潤移轉至低稅負地區，造成不少國家的稅基遭到侵蝕，故各國紛紛制定資本弱化條款限制利息費用扣除的上限。目前的文獻，大多是探討資本弱化條款對內部債務抑制的有效性，而忽略了利率的移轉訂價操縱亦是影響內部債務的關鍵因素。因此本文以2008年至2016年台灣17個產業的上市公司與其海內外關係企業作為研究對象，探討移轉訂價法規如何影響跨國企業的內部借款行為。另外，隨著制定移轉訂價法規的國家數愈來愈多，各國的制度亦各具特色，只觀察是否有該法規已不足以剖析其對內部借款的影響，故本文進一步引入移轉訂價的嚴謹程度來分析跨國企業的內部借款行為。\r\n本文建構兩個Tobit隨機效果模型分析內部借款的不平衡追蹤資料，其中模型一為移轉訂價法規對跨國企業內部借款的影響，而模型二則改用移轉訂價嚴謹程度進一步探討其對跨國企業內部借款的影響。實證結果顯示，若借貸雙方國家皆有制定移轉訂價法規，會降低跨國企業內部借款的使用；在借貸雙方又同時為租稅協定締約國時，反而能協助消除雙邊移轉訂價可能造成的重複課稅問題並提高關係企業之間的內部借款金額。最後，當貸入國的移轉訂價法規愈趨嚴謹，將能使跨國企業有明確的遵循依據，增加其對內部借款使用的依賴。
Since multinational enterprises can lower their taxable income by interest deduction in the host countries of borrowing affiliates, they have an incentive to shift profit to relative low tax rate jurisdictions through internal loan. As a result, many countries have legislated thin-capitalization rules to limit interest deduction and prevent its tax base from being eroded. However, most of the current literatures only focus on the effectiveness of thin-capitalization rules deterring internal loan and disregard the impact of interest rate transfer pricing on internal debt. Thus, this paper examines the impact of transfer pricing rules on internal debt by using affiliate level data from Taiwanese listed companies in 17 industries from 2008 to 2016. In addition, as more and more countries have legislated transfer pricing rules and have their own characteristics, this paper also attempts to explore the impact of transfer pricing strictness in different jurisdictions on internal loan.\r\nTwo Tobit random effect models in this paper are constructed by using unbalanced panel data. Model 1 is to examine whether transfer pricing rules affect internal loan between affiliates; Model 2 is further to investigate how transfer pricing strictness affect internal debt between affiliates. The results reveal that the host countries of lending and borrowing affiliates both have transfer pricing rules would decrease the amount of their internal loan; if they are tax treaty contracting states at same time, it would coordinate the potential problem of double taxation results from bilateral transfer pricing rules and increase the amount of internal debt. Finally, the stricter transfer pricing rules in host countries of borrowing affiliates would bring certainty to funding arrangement of multinational enterprises and increase its dependence on internal debt.參考文獻 汪瑞芝 (2013) ，「中國反自有資本稀釋條款對臺商融資決策之影響」，《會計審計論叢》，3(2)，81-125。\r\n馬嘉應與賴榮舟 (2013) ，「關係企業間財務安排移轉訂價議題之探討」，《當代財政》，27，23-33。\r\nBlonigen, B. A., L. Oldenski, and N. Sly, (2014), “The Differential Effects of Bilateral Tax Treaties,” American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 6(2), 1-18.\r\nBlouin, J., H. Huizinga, L. Laeven, and G. Nicodème (2014), “Thin Capitalization Rules and Multinational Firm Capital Structure,” IMF Working Paper, No. 14/12.\r\nBuettner, T. and G. Wamser (2013), “Internal Debt and Multinational Profit Shifting: Empirical Evidence from Firm-Level Panel Data,” National Tax Journal, 66(1), 63.\r\nBuettner, T., M. Overesch, U. Schreiber, and G. Wamser (2009), “Taxation and Capital Structure Choice—Evidence from A Panel of German Multinationals,” Economics Letters, 105(3), 309-311.\r\nBuettner, T., M. Overesch, U. Schreiber, and G. Wamser (2012), “The Impact of Thin-Capitalization Rules on the Capital Structure of Multinational Firms,” Journal of Public Economics, 96(11-12), 930-938.\r\nBuettner, T., M. Overesch, and G. Wamser (2016), “Restricted Interest Deductibility and Multinationals’ Use of Internal Debt Finance,” International Tax and Public Finance, 23(5), 785-797.\r\nDahlby, B. G. (2008), Taxation of Inbound Direct Investment: Economic Principles and Tax Policy Considerations, Advisory Panel on Canada`s System of International Taxation.\r\nDesai, M. A., C. F. Foley, and J. R. Hines (2004), “A Multinational Perspective on Capital Structure Choice and Internal Capital Markets,” The Journal of Finance, 59(6), 2451-2487.\r\nDewaelheyns, N. and C. Van Hulle (2010), “Internal Capital Markets and Capital Structure: Bank Versus Internal Debt,” European Financial Management, 16(3), 345-373.\r\nFarrar, J., and A. Mawani (2008), ‘‘Debt-Equity Limitations in Thin Capitalization Rules: Canadian Evidence,’’ CAAA 2008 Annual Conference Paper.\r\nFlanagan, K. B. (2017), “Cleaning Up After Chevron: A Proposed Cross-border Pipeline for the Transfer Pricing of Intra-group Debt Transactions,” Colum. J. Transnat`l L., 56, 123.\r\nHollas, J. C. and G. Hands (2009), “Comparability Adjustments: Finding an Arm’s-Length Interest Rate,” Tax Management Transfer Pricing Report, Vol. 18, No. 9.\r\nJohansson, Å. and Ø. B. Skeie, and S. Sorbe (2017), “Anti-Avoidance Rules Against International Tax Planning,” OECD Economics Department Working Papers, No. 1356, OECD Publishing.\r\nKPMG (2015), Global Transfer Pricing Review. (https://home.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmg/xx/pdf/2016/11/global-transfer-pricing-review.pdf)\r\nLohse, T., N. Riedel, and C. Spengel (2012), “The Increasing Importance of Transfer Pricing Regulations–A Worldwide Overview,” Oxford University Centre for Business Taxation Working Paper Series, WP 12/27.\r\nLohse, T., and N. Riedel (2013), “Do Transfer Pricing Laws Limit International Income Shifting? Evidence from European Multinationals,” CESifo Working Paper Series, No. 4404.\r\nMarques, M. and C. Pinho (2016), “Is Transfer Pricing Strictness Deterring Profit Shifting within Multinationals? Empirical Evidence from Europe,” Accounting and Business Research, 46(7), 703-730.\r\nMøen, J., D. Schindler, G. Schjelderup, and J. Tropina (2011), “International Debt Shifting: Do Multinationals Shift Internal or External Debt?” CESifo Working Paper Series, No. 3519.\r\nOECD (2015), Measuring and Monitoring BEPS, Action 11 - 2015 Final Report, OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project, OECD Publishing, Paris. (http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264241343-en)\r\nOECD (2016), Limiting Base Erosion Involving Interest Deductions and Other Financial Payments, Action 4 - 2016 Update: Inclusive Framework on BEPS, OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project, OECD Publishing, Paris. (http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264268333-en)\r\nOveresch, M. and G. Wamser (2010), “Corporate Tax Planning and Thin-Capitalization Rules: Evidence from A Quasi-Experiment,” Applied Economics, 42, 563-573.\r\nOveresch, M. and G. Wamser, (2014), “Bilateral Internal Debt Financing and Tax Planning of Multinational Firms,” Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 42(2), 191-209.\r\nPWC (2014), Navigating The Complexity Finding from The Financial Transactions Transfer Pricing Global Survey 2013.\r\n(https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/tax/transfer-pricing/assets/full-report-2013.pdf)\r\nWaegenaere, A., R. C. Sansing, and J. L. Wielhouwer (2006), “Who Benefits from Inconsistent Multinational Tax Transfer‐Pricing Rules?” Contemporary Accounting Research, 23(1), 103-131.\r\nWamser, G. (2014), “The Impact of Thin Capitalization Rules on External Debt Usage－A Propensity Score Matching Approach,” Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 76(5), 764-78.\r\nWeichenrieder, A. and H. Windischbauer (2008), “Thin-Capitalization Rules and Company Responses-Experience from German Legislation,” CESifo Working Paper, No. 2456, Munich.\r\nSchjelderup, G. (2016), “The tax sensitivity of debt in multinationals: A review,” International Journal of the Economics of Business, 23, 109–121.\r\nShieh, W. S., J. N. Ou, and J. C. Wang (2014), “The Impact of Anti-Thin Capitalization Rules on Capital Structure in Taiwan,” International Journal of Economics and Finance, 6(11), 142. 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
財政學系
1052550241資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G1052550241 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 陳香梅 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (作者) 吳昌錦 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (作者) Wu, Chang-Jin en_US dc.creator (作者) 吳昌錦 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Wu, Chang-Jin en_US dc.date (日期) 2018 en_US dc.date.accessioned 24-七月-2018 11:02:55 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 24-七月-2018 11:02:55 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 24-七月-2018 11:02:55 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (其他 識別碼) G1052550241 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) https://ah.lib.nccu.edu.tw/item?item_id=136703 - dc.description (描述) 碩士 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 財政學系 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 1052550241 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 由於借款的使用能在資金貸入國扣除利息費用降低所得稅負，跨國企業便有誘因藉由內部借款將利潤移轉至低稅負地區，造成不少國家的稅基遭到侵蝕，故各國紛紛制定資本弱化條款限制利息費用扣除的上限。目前的文獻，大多是探討資本弱化條款對內部債務抑制的有效性，而忽略了利率的移轉訂價操縱亦是影響內部債務的關鍵因素。因此本文以2008年至2016年台灣17個產業的上市公司與其海內外關係企業作為研究對象，探討移轉訂價法規如何影響跨國企業的內部借款行為。另外，隨著制定移轉訂價法規的國家數愈來愈多，各國的制度亦各具特色，只觀察是否有該法規已不足以剖析其對內部借款的影響，故本文進一步引入移轉訂價的嚴謹程度來分析跨國企業的內部借款行為。\r\n本文建構兩個Tobit隨機效果模型分析內部借款的不平衡追蹤資料，其中模型一為移轉訂價法規對跨國企業內部借款的影響，而模型二則改用移轉訂價嚴謹程度進一步探討其對跨國企業內部借款的影響。實證結果顯示，若借貸雙方國家皆有制定移轉訂價法規，會降低跨國企業內部借款的使用；在借貸雙方又同時為租稅協定締約國時，反而能協助消除雙邊移轉訂價可能造成的重複課稅問題並提高關係企業之間的內部借款金額。最後，當貸入國的移轉訂價法規愈趨嚴謹，將能使跨國企業有明確的遵循依據，增加其對內部借款使用的依賴。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) Since multinational enterprises can lower their taxable income by interest deduction in the host countries of borrowing affiliates, they have an incentive to shift profit to relative low tax rate jurisdictions through internal loan. As a result, many countries have legislated thin-capitalization rules to limit interest deduction and prevent its tax base from being eroded. However, most of the current literatures only focus on the effectiveness of thin-capitalization rules deterring internal loan and disregard the impact of interest rate transfer pricing on internal debt. Thus, this paper examines the impact of transfer pricing rules on internal debt by using affiliate level data from Taiwanese listed companies in 17 industries from 2008 to 2016. In addition, as more and more countries have legislated transfer pricing rules and have their own characteristics, this paper also attempts to explore the impact of transfer pricing strictness in different jurisdictions on internal loan.\r\nTwo Tobit random effect models in this paper are constructed by using unbalanced panel data. Model 1 is to examine whether transfer pricing rules affect internal loan between affiliates; Model 2 is further to investigate how transfer pricing strictness affect internal debt between affiliates. The results reveal that the host countries of lending and borrowing affiliates both have transfer pricing rules would decrease the amount of their internal loan; if they are tax treaty contracting states at same time, it would coordinate the potential problem of double taxation results from bilateral transfer pricing rules and increase the amount of internal debt. Finally, the stricter transfer pricing rules in host countries of borrowing affiliates would bring certainty to funding arrangement of multinational enterprises and increase its dependence on internal debt. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents 第一章 前言 1\r\n第二章 移轉訂價法規介紹與台灣上市公司關係企業之內部借貸分析 9\r\n第一節 移轉訂價法規介紹 9\r\n第二節 台灣上市公司關係企業之內部借貸分析 12\r\n第三章 研究方法 19\r\n第一節 樣本說明 19\r\n第二節 實證模型設定 21\r\n第三節 變數定義與來源 24\r\n第四章 實證結果 35\r\n第一節 敘述統計分析 35\r\n第二節 模型檢定 37\r\n第三節 實證結果 41\r\n第五章 結論與建議 47\r\n參考文獻 49 zh_TW dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G1052550241 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 跨國企業 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 內部借款 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 利潤移轉 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 移轉訂價法規 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 移轉訂價嚴謹程度 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) Multinational enterprises en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Internal loan en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Profit shifting en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Transfer pricing rules en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Transfer pricing strictness en_US dc.title (題名) 移轉訂價法規對跨國企業內部借款的影響 zh_TW dc.title (題名) The Impact of Transfer Pricing Rules on Multinational Enterprises` Internal Loan en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en_US dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 汪瑞芝 (2013) ，「中國反自有資本稀釋條款對臺商融資決策之影響」，《會計審計論叢》，3(2)，81-125。\r\n馬嘉應與賴榮舟 (2013) ，「關係企業間財務安排移轉訂價議題之探討」，《當代財政》，27，23-33。\r\nBlonigen, B. A., L. Oldenski, and N. Sly, (2014), “The Differential Effects of Bilateral Tax Treaties,” American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 6(2), 1-18.\r\nBlouin, J., H. Huizinga, L. Laeven, and G. Nicodème (2014), “Thin Capitalization Rules and Multinational Firm Capital Structure,” IMF Working Paper, No. 14/12.\r\nBuettner, T. and G. Wamser (2013), “Internal Debt and Multinational Profit Shifting: Empirical Evidence from Firm-Level Panel Data,” National Tax Journal, 66(1), 63.\r\nBuettner, T., M. Overesch, U. Schreiber, and G. Wamser (2009), “Taxation and Capital Structure Choice—Evidence from A Panel of German Multinationals,” Economics Letters, 105(3), 309-311.\r\nBuettner, T., M. Overesch, U. Schreiber, and G. Wamser (2012), “The Impact of Thin-Capitalization Rules on the Capital Structure of Multinational Firms,” Journal of Public Economics, 96(11-12), 930-938.\r\nBuettner, T., M. Overesch, and G. Wamser (2016), “Restricted Interest Deductibility and Multinationals’ Use of Internal Debt Finance,” International Tax and Public Finance, 23(5), 785-797.\r\nDahlby, B. G. (2008), Taxation of Inbound Direct Investment: Economic Principles and Tax Policy Considerations, Advisory Panel on Canada`s System of International Taxation.\r\nDesai, M. A., C. F. Foley, and J. R. Hines (2004), “A Multinational Perspective on Capital Structure Choice and Internal Capital Markets,” The Journal of Finance, 59(6), 2451-2487.\r\nDewaelheyns, N. and C. Van Hulle (2010), “Internal Capital Markets and Capital Structure: Bank Versus Internal Debt,” European Financial Management, 16(3), 345-373.\r\nFarrar, J., and A. Mawani (2008), ‘‘Debt-Equity Limitations in Thin Capitalization Rules: Canadian Evidence,’’ CAAA 2008 Annual Conference Paper.\r\nFlanagan, K. B. (2017), “Cleaning Up After Chevron: A Proposed Cross-border Pipeline for the Transfer Pricing of Intra-group Debt Transactions,” Colum. J. Transnat`l L., 56, 123.\r\nHollas, J. C. and G. Hands (2009), “Comparability Adjustments: Finding an Arm’s-Length Interest Rate,” Tax Management Transfer Pricing Report, Vol. 18, No. 9.\r\nJohansson, Å. and Ø. B. Skeie, and S. Sorbe (2017), “Anti-Avoidance Rules Against International Tax Planning,” OECD Economics Department Working Papers, No. 1356, OECD Publishing.\r\nKPMG (2015), Global Transfer Pricing Review. (https://home.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmg/xx/pdf/2016/11/global-transfer-pricing-review.pdf)\r\nLohse, T., N. Riedel, and C. Spengel (2012), “The Increasing Importance of Transfer Pricing Regulations–A Worldwide Overview,” Oxford University Centre for Business Taxation Working Paper Series, WP 12/27.\r\nLohse, T., and N. Riedel (2013), “Do Transfer Pricing Laws Limit International Income Shifting? Evidence from European Multinationals,” CESifo Working Paper Series, No. 4404.\r\nMarques, M. and C. Pinho (2016), “Is Transfer Pricing Strictness Deterring Profit Shifting within Multinationals? Empirical Evidence from Europe,” Accounting and Business Research, 46(7), 703-730.\r\nMøen, J., D. Schindler, G. Schjelderup, and J. Tropina (2011), “International Debt Shifting: Do Multinationals Shift Internal or External Debt?” CESifo Working Paper Series, No. 3519.\r\nOECD (2015), Measuring and Monitoring BEPS, Action 11 - 2015 Final Report, OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project, OECD Publishing, Paris. (http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264241343-en)\r\nOECD (2016), Limiting Base Erosion Involving Interest Deductions and Other Financial Payments, Action 4 - 2016 Update: Inclusive Framework on BEPS, OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project, OECD Publishing, Paris. (http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264268333-en)\r\nOveresch, M. and G. Wamser (2010), “Corporate Tax Planning and Thin-Capitalization Rules: Evidence from A Quasi-Experiment,” Applied Economics, 42, 563-573.\r\nOveresch, M. and G. Wamser, (2014), “Bilateral Internal Debt Financing and Tax Planning of Multinational Firms,” Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 42(2), 191-209.\r\nPWC (2014), Navigating The Complexity Finding from The Financial Transactions Transfer Pricing Global Survey 2013.\r\n(https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/tax/transfer-pricing/assets/full-report-2013.pdf)\r\nWaegenaere, A., R. C. Sansing, and J. L. Wielhouwer (2006), “Who Benefits from Inconsistent Multinational Tax Transfer‐Pricing Rules?” Contemporary Accounting Research, 23(1), 103-131.\r\nWamser, G. (2014), “The Impact of Thin Capitalization Rules on External Debt Usage－A Propensity Score Matching Approach,” Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 76(5), 764-78.\r\nWeichenrieder, A. and H. Windischbauer (2008), “Thin-Capitalization Rules and Company Responses-Experience from German Legislation,” CESifo Working Paper, No. 2456, Munich.\r\nSchjelderup, G. (2016), “The tax sensitivity of debt in multinationals: A review,” International Journal of the Economics of Business, 23, 109–121.\r\nShieh, W. S., J. N. Ou, and J. C. Wang (2014), “The Impact of Anti-Thin Capitalization Rules on Capital Structure in Taiwan,” International Journal of Economics and Finance, 6(11), 142. zh_TW dc.identifier.doi (DOI) 10.6814/THE.NCCU.PF.012.2018.F07 -
