學術產出-Theses
Article View/Open
Publication Export
-
題名 美國2017年稅改對企業之租稅負擔與財務策略影響
The impact of the 2017 U.S. tax reform on corporate tax burden and financial strategy作者 何盈儒
Ho, Ying-Ju貢獻者 陳明進
Cheng, Ming-Chin
何盈儒
Ho, Ying-Ju關鍵詞 減稅與就業法案
美國稅改
海外盈餘匯回
財務策略
Tax Cut and Jobs Act
U.S. tax reform
Foreign earnings repatriated
Financial strategy日期 2020 上傳時間 1-Jul-2020 13:33:19 (UTC+8) 摘要 本研究主要採取個案研究之方式，分析美國至 2017 年底通過『減稅與就業法案』（Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, TCJA）以來，企業之有效稅率變化與財務策略影響。本研究主要分為兩大部分，第一部分透過分析及彙整個案公司之財務報表及法說會資訊，歸納出二十五間公司、五大產業在稅改的影響下，其有效稅率與租稅負擔的實際變化；第二部分則透過分析個案公司在庫藏股買回、償還債務、以及併購活動等財務策略之資金投入金額，探討本次稅改之實際效益及其對不同產業所造成之影響。研究主要發現，稅改雖然使企業之法定所得稅率大幅下降，但原先將資金留置於海外低稅率國家的個案企業，在匯回稅的課徵下，均需承受一次性的鉅額租稅負擔，因此個案企業之有效稅率在 2018 年普遍呈現上升狀態，至 2019 年後，企業方能享受稅改所提供之租稅優惠。然而，即使個案企業之有效稅率在 2019 年後普遍均大幅下降，公司主要仍將稅改所釋出的資金以庫藏股買回及發放現金股利之方式返還給投資人，多數產業在併購活動方面之投資策略不會因一次性稅改增加資金而增加併購，而債務償還政策則未見一致改變，顯示稅改雖然提供了刺激經濟與增加投資機會之誘因，然而企業使用資金的方式卻不如政府預期。綜上所述，本文認為，在稅改的效益有限的情況下，政府之減稅政策應搭配與引導投資之配套措施，以確實規範企業使用海外資金之方式，方能達成減稅之實際目的。
Using case study method, this study analyzes the changes in U.S. companies’ effective tax rate and financial strategy under the influence of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA). This research is mainly divided into two parts. The first part selects 25 companies in 5 different industries and collects tax rate data from each companies’ SEC 10K financial statements. The second part discusses the actual impact of foreign cash repatriated back to the U.S. by analyzing the different financial strategies U.S. companies undertake such as share buybacks, debt repayments, and M&A activities.The study found that the tax reform generally reduced the statutory income tax rate of U.S. companies. However, companies that originally kept their cash in foreign tax havens were subjected to a one-time repatriation tax. Therefore, the effective tax rate of such cases generally increased in 2018. However, for most companies that enjoy the benefits of the tax reform, cash was mainly returned to investors through share buybacks and cash dividends. On the other hand, debt repayment activities do not show a consistent change and M&A activities have even decreased in certain industries, showing that although the U.S. tax reform provides incentives to stimulate the economy, it does not cause firms to change their investment plans. All in all, thisstudy believes that under the limited effect of the U.S. tax reform, tax reduction policies should be matched with supporting measures that regulate companies and direct foreign cash repatriated into investment activities.參考文獻 Americans Job Creations Act of 2004, H.R.4520, 108th Cong. (2003-2004).Bansal, R., De Backer, R., & Ranade, V. (2018). What`s Behind the Pharmaceutical Sector`s M&A Push. Retrieved from McKinsey Insights website: https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/strategy-and-corporate-finance/our-insights/whats-behind-the-pharmaceutical-sectors-m-and-a-pushBlouin, J., & Krull, L. (2009). Bringing it home: A study of the incentives surrounding the repatriation of foreign earnings under the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004. Journal of Accounting Research, 47(4), 1027-1059.Carey, N. (2016, January 13). Union Pacific Will Do All in Its Power to Stop Rail Mergers: CEO. Reuters. Retrieved fromhttps://www.reuters.com/article/us-railways-m-a-union-pacific/union-pacific-will-do-all-in-its-power-to-stop-rail-mergers-ceo-idUSKCN0UR22S20160113Clemons, R., & Kinney, M. (2008). An analysis of the tax holiday for repatriation under the jobs act. Tax Notes, 120(8), 759-768.Congressional Budget Office. (2018). An Update to the Economic Outlook 2018 to 2028 (CBO Publication No. 54318). Retrieved from https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2019-04/54318-EconomicOutlook-Aug2018-update-2.pdfDharmapala, D., Foley, C. F., & Forbes, K. J. (2011). Watch what I do, not what I say: The unintended consequences of the Homeland Investment Act. The Journal of Finance, 66(3), 753–787. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.2011.01651Dittmar, A., Mahrt-Smith, J., & Servaes, H. (2003). International corporate governance and corporate cash holdings. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 38(1), 111–133.Foley, C. F., Hartzell, J., Titman, S., & Twite, G. (2006). Why do firms hold so much cash? A tax-based explanation. Journal of Financial Economics, 86(3), 579-607. doi: 10.3386/w12649Gao, N., & Mohamed, A. (2018). Cash-rich acquirers do not always make bad acquisitions: New evidence. Journal of Corporate Finance, 50, 243–264. doi: 10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2018.04.002Grullon, G., & Michaely, R. (2002). Dividends, share repurchases, and the substitution hypothesis. The Journal of Finance, 57(4), 1649–1684. doi: 10.1111/1540-6261.0047464Harford, J. (2002). Corporate Cash Reserves and Acquisitions. Journal of Finance, 54(6), 1969-1997.Harford, J., Mansi, S., & Maxwell, W. F. (2006). Corporate Governance and Firm Cash Holdings. Journal of Financial Economics, 87(3), 535–555.Jagannathan, M. (2000). Financial flexibility and the choice between dividends and stock repurchases. Journal of Financial Economics, 57(3), 355–384. doi: 10.1016/s0304-405x(00)00061-1Jensen, M. (1986). Agency costs of free cash flow, corporate finance and takeovers. American Economic Review, 76(2), 323–329.Lee B. S., & Suh, J. (2011). Cash holdings and share repurchases: International evidence. Journal of Corporate Finance, 17(5), 1306-1329.Leste, T., Siegal, Y., & Shukla, M. (2019). Return on Capital Performance in Life Sciences and Health Care. Retrieved from Deloitte Insight website: https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/industry/health-care/return-on-capital-health-care.htmlLiu, E. (2018, May 2). Alphabet, Microsoft Help Boost S&P 500 Capex in Q1. Barron’s. Retrieved from https://www.barrons.com/articles/alphabet-microsoft-help-boost-s-p-500-capex-in-q1-1525282705Manzi, J., Tesher, D., Wilson, G., Grimando, L., Wong, A., & Khan, F. (2017). U.S.Corporate Cash Reaches $1.9 Trillion But Rising Debt and Tax Reform Pose Risk. Retrieved from S&P Global, Research & Insights website: https://www.spglobal.com/en/research-insights/articles/us-corporate-cash-reaches-19-trillion-but-rising-debt-and-tax-reform-pose-riskMulligan, C.B. (1997). Scale economies, the value of time, and the demand for money: longitudinal evidence from firms. Journal of Political Economy, 105(5), 1061–1079. doi: 10.1086/262105Navarro, P., & Ross, W. (2016). Scoring the Trump Economic Plan: Trade, Regulatory, & Energy Policy Impacts. (Final version, 2016-09-29 revised). Retrieved from http://assets.donaldjtrump.com/Trump_Economic_Plan.pdfOrganization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Tax. (2018). Tax reforms accelerating with push to lower corporate tax rates. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/tax/tax-reforms-accelerating-with-push-to-lower-corporatetax-rates.htmlPinkowitz, L., Stulz, R., & Williamson, R. (2006). Does the contribution of cash holdings and dividends to firm value depend on corporate governance? A cross-country analysis. Journal of Finance, 61(6), 2725–2751.Smolyansky, M., Suarez, G., & Tabova A. (2019). U.S. Corporations` Repatriation of Offshore Profits: Evidence from 2018. (FEDS Notes No. 2019-08-06).Washington: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.doi:10.17016/2380-7172.2239Stein, L. C., & Stone, E. (2013). The effect of uncertainty on investment, hiring, and R&D: Causal evidence from equity options. SSRN Electronic Journal. (Working Paper). Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm abstract_id=1649108Torjesen, I. (2015). Drug Development: The Journey of A Medicine from Lab to Shelf. Retrieved from the Pharmaceutical Journal website: https://www.pharmaceutical-journal.com/test-tomorrows-pharmacist/tomorrowspharmacist/drug-development-the-journey-of-a-medicine-from-lab-to-shelf/20068196.articleU.S. Department of the Treasury. (2005). Treasury and IRS Announce Guidance on Repatriation of Foreign Earnings Under the American Jobs Creation Act. (Notice 2005-10). Retrieved from https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press releases/Documents/repatriationnoticen200510.pdfWellener, P. (2020). 2020 Manufacturing Industry Outlook.Retrieved from Deloitte Insight website: https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/pages/energy-and resources/articles/manufacturing-industry-outlook.htmlZheng, S. (2019). Why do multinational firms hold so much cash? Further evidence on the precautionary motive. Journal of Multinational Financial Management, 50, 29–43. doi: 10.1016/j.mulfin.2019.03.002 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
會計學系
107353002資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0107353002 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 陳明進 zh_TW dc.contributor.advisor Cheng, Ming-Chin en_US dc.contributor.author (Authors) 何盈儒 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (Authors) Ho, Ying-Ju en_US dc.creator (作者) 何盈儒 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Ho, Ying-Ju en_US dc.date (日期) 2020 en_US dc.date.accessioned 1-Jul-2020 13:33:19 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 1-Jul-2020 13:33:19 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 1-Jul-2020 13:33:19 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0107353002 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/130501 - dc.description (描述) 碩士 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 會計學系 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 107353002 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 本研究主要採取個案研究之方式，分析美國至 2017 年底通過『減稅與就業法案』（Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, TCJA）以來，企業之有效稅率變化與財務策略影響。本研究主要分為兩大部分，第一部分透過分析及彙整個案公司之財務報表及法說會資訊，歸納出二十五間公司、五大產業在稅改的影響下，其有效稅率與租稅負擔的實際變化；第二部分則透過分析個案公司在庫藏股買回、償還債務、以及併購活動等財務策略之資金投入金額，探討本次稅改之實際效益及其對不同產業所造成之影響。研究主要發現，稅改雖然使企業之法定所得稅率大幅下降，但原先將資金留置於海外低稅率國家的個案企業，在匯回稅的課徵下，均需承受一次性的鉅額租稅負擔，因此個案企業之有效稅率在 2018 年普遍呈現上升狀態，至 2019 年後，企業方能享受稅改所提供之租稅優惠。然而，即使個案企業之有效稅率在 2019 年後普遍均大幅下降，公司主要仍將稅改所釋出的資金以庫藏股買回及發放現金股利之方式返還給投資人，多數產業在併購活動方面之投資策略不會因一次性稅改增加資金而增加併購，而債務償還政策則未見一致改變，顯示稅改雖然提供了刺激經濟與增加投資機會之誘因，然而企業使用資金的方式卻不如政府預期。綜上所述，本文認為，在稅改的效益有限的情況下，政府之減稅政策應搭配與引導投資之配套措施，以確實規範企業使用海外資金之方式，方能達成減稅之實際目的。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) Using case study method, this study analyzes the changes in U.S. companies’ effective tax rate and financial strategy under the influence of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA). This research is mainly divided into two parts. The first part selects 25 companies in 5 different industries and collects tax rate data from each companies’ SEC 10K financial statements. The second part discusses the actual impact of foreign cash repatriated back to the U.S. by analyzing the different financial strategies U.S. companies undertake such as share buybacks, debt repayments, and M&A activities.The study found that the tax reform generally reduced the statutory income tax rate of U.S. companies. However, companies that originally kept their cash in foreign tax havens were subjected to a one-time repatriation tax. Therefore, the effective tax rate of such cases generally increased in 2018. However, for most companies that enjoy the benefits of the tax reform, cash was mainly returned to investors through share buybacks and cash dividends. On the other hand, debt repayment activities do not show a consistent change and M&A activities have even decreased in certain industries, showing that although the U.S. tax reform provides incentives to stimulate the economy, it does not cause firms to change their investment plans. All in all, thisstudy believes that under the limited effect of the U.S. tax reform, tax reduction policies should be matched with supporting measures that regulate companies and direct foreign cash repatriated into investment activities. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents 第一章 緒論 7第一節 研究背景 7第二節 研究動機與目的 8第三節 研究架構 9第二章 文獻回顧 10第一節 美國2017年稅改 - 企業所得稅改革重點 10第二節 匯回稅 12第三節 企業持有現金的動機 15第四節 企業持有現金以進行股票買回或併購之討論 17第三章 研究方法 20第一節 研究公司之選取 20第二節 研究公司之產業介紹 21第四章 研究結果與分析 28第一節 有效稅率之變化及影響 28第二節 匯回稅與企業海外資金匯回後之運用策略 35第五章 結論 56第一節 研究發現 56第二節 結論與建議 61第三節 研究限制 62參考文獻 63 zh_TW dc.format.extent 2766789 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0107353002 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 減稅與就業法案 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 美國稅改 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 海外盈餘匯回 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 財務策略 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) Tax Cut and Jobs Act en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) U.S. tax reform en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Foreign earnings repatriated en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Financial strategy en_US dc.title (題名) 美國2017年稅改對企業之租稅負擔與財務策略影響 zh_TW dc.title (題名) The impact of the 2017 U.S. tax reform on corporate tax burden and financial strategy en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en_US dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Americans Job Creations Act of 2004, H.R.4520, 108th Cong. (2003-2004).Bansal, R., De Backer, R., & Ranade, V. (2018). What`s Behind the Pharmaceutical Sector`s M&A Push. Retrieved from McKinsey Insights website: https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/strategy-and-corporate-finance/our-insights/whats-behind-the-pharmaceutical-sectors-m-and-a-pushBlouin, J., & Krull, L. (2009). Bringing it home: A study of the incentives surrounding the repatriation of foreign earnings under the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004. Journal of Accounting Research, 47(4), 1027-1059.Carey, N. (2016, January 13). Union Pacific Will Do All in Its Power to Stop Rail Mergers: CEO. Reuters. Retrieved fromhttps://www.reuters.com/article/us-railways-m-a-union-pacific/union-pacific-will-do-all-in-its-power-to-stop-rail-mergers-ceo-idUSKCN0UR22S20160113Clemons, R., & Kinney, M. (2008). An analysis of the tax holiday for repatriation under the jobs act. Tax Notes, 120(8), 759-768.Congressional Budget Office. (2018). An Update to the Economic Outlook 2018 to 2028 (CBO Publication No. 54318). Retrieved from https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2019-04/54318-EconomicOutlook-Aug2018-update-2.pdfDharmapala, D., Foley, C. F., & Forbes, K. J. (2011). Watch what I do, not what I say: The unintended consequences of the Homeland Investment Act. The Journal of Finance, 66(3), 753–787. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.2011.01651Dittmar, A., Mahrt-Smith, J., & Servaes, H. (2003). International corporate governance and corporate cash holdings. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 38(1), 111–133.Foley, C. F., Hartzell, J., Titman, S., & Twite, G. (2006). Why do firms hold so much cash? A tax-based explanation. Journal of Financial Economics, 86(3), 579-607. doi: 10.3386/w12649Gao, N., & Mohamed, A. (2018). Cash-rich acquirers do not always make bad acquisitions: New evidence. Journal of Corporate Finance, 50, 243–264. doi: 10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2018.04.002Grullon, G., & Michaely, R. (2002). Dividends, share repurchases, and the substitution hypothesis. The Journal of Finance, 57(4), 1649–1684. doi: 10.1111/1540-6261.0047464Harford, J. (2002). Corporate Cash Reserves and Acquisitions. Journal of Finance, 54(6), 1969-1997.Harford, J., Mansi, S., & Maxwell, W. F. (2006). Corporate Governance and Firm Cash Holdings. Journal of Financial Economics, 87(3), 535–555.Jagannathan, M. (2000). Financial flexibility and the choice between dividends and stock repurchases. Journal of Financial Economics, 57(3), 355–384. doi: 10.1016/s0304-405x(00)00061-1Jensen, M. (1986). Agency costs of free cash flow, corporate finance and takeovers. American Economic Review, 76(2), 323–329.Lee B. S., & Suh, J. (2011). Cash holdings and share repurchases: International evidence. Journal of Corporate Finance, 17(5), 1306-1329.Leste, T., Siegal, Y., & Shukla, M. (2019). Return on Capital Performance in Life Sciences and Health Care. Retrieved from Deloitte Insight website: https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/industry/health-care/return-on-capital-health-care.htmlLiu, E. (2018, May 2). Alphabet, Microsoft Help Boost S&P 500 Capex in Q1. Barron’s. Retrieved from https://www.barrons.com/articles/alphabet-microsoft-help-boost-s-p-500-capex-in-q1-1525282705Manzi, J., Tesher, D., Wilson, G., Grimando, L., Wong, A., & Khan, F. (2017). U.S.Corporate Cash Reaches $1.9 Trillion But Rising Debt and Tax Reform Pose Risk. Retrieved from S&P Global, Research & Insights website: https://www.spglobal.com/en/research-insights/articles/us-corporate-cash-reaches-19-trillion-but-rising-debt-and-tax-reform-pose-riskMulligan, C.B. (1997). Scale economies, the value of time, and the demand for money: longitudinal evidence from firms. Journal of Political Economy, 105(5), 1061–1079. doi: 10.1086/262105Navarro, P., & Ross, W. (2016). Scoring the Trump Economic Plan: Trade, Regulatory, & Energy Policy Impacts. (Final version, 2016-09-29 revised). Retrieved from http://assets.donaldjtrump.com/Trump_Economic_Plan.pdfOrganization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Tax. (2018). Tax reforms accelerating with push to lower corporate tax rates. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/tax/tax-reforms-accelerating-with-push-to-lower-corporatetax-rates.htmlPinkowitz, L., Stulz, R., & Williamson, R. (2006). Does the contribution of cash holdings and dividends to firm value depend on corporate governance? A cross-country analysis. Journal of Finance, 61(6), 2725–2751.Smolyansky, M., Suarez, G., & Tabova A. (2019). U.S. Corporations` Repatriation of Offshore Profits: Evidence from 2018. (FEDS Notes No. 2019-08-06).Washington: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.doi:10.17016/2380-7172.2239Stein, L. C., & Stone, E. (2013). The effect of uncertainty on investment, hiring, and R&D: Causal evidence from equity options. SSRN Electronic Journal. (Working Paper). Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm abstract_id=1649108Torjesen, I. (2015). Drug Development: The Journey of A Medicine from Lab to Shelf. Retrieved from the Pharmaceutical Journal website: https://www.pharmaceutical-journal.com/test-tomorrows-pharmacist/tomorrowspharmacist/drug-development-the-journey-of-a-medicine-from-lab-to-shelf/20068196.articleU.S. Department of the Treasury. (2005). Treasury and IRS Announce Guidance on Repatriation of Foreign Earnings Under the American Jobs Creation Act. (Notice 2005-10). Retrieved from https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press releases/Documents/repatriationnoticen200510.pdfWellener, P. (2020). 2020 Manufacturing Industry Outlook.Retrieved from Deloitte Insight website: https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/pages/energy-and resources/articles/manufacturing-industry-outlook.htmlZheng, S. (2019). Why do multinational firms hold so much cash? Further evidence on the precautionary motive. Journal of Multinational Financial Management, 50, 29–43. doi: 10.1016/j.mulfin.2019.03.002 zh_TW dc.identifier.doi (DOI) 10.6814/NCCU202000648 en_US
