- 學位論文
利潤分割法與BEPS 2.0 Pillar One及其實務探討
Profit Split Method, BEPS 2.0 Pillar One and the Practical Discussion
摘要
利潤分割法本不是移轉訂價領域的新議題，早在1995年版本的OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administrations 即提出利潤分割法為五項常規交易方法之一，但實務上不論是企業在進行租稅安排的事前規劃，亦或是事後因相關稅法遵循而進行的分析，皆甚少使用利潤分割法作為主要分析方式。然而，因著多元的交易模式興起，過往的課稅權劃分可能早已無法適應新興的營業態樣，促使OECD提出BEPS 2.0 對於租稅利潤的劃分進行深入討論，其中Pillar One在2021年10月BluePrint 中指出其適用範圍不僅限於數位產業，並針對公式化的課稅方式，提出更為明確的課稅方針。本研究認為現下的BEPS 2.0，不僅針對新的交易類型及營運模式提出進一步的課稅見解，也為利潤分割法的使用、考量因素等具體分配參考提出明確指引，甚至擴張課稅權的範圍，以補充在數位經濟環境下未落地之常設機構課稅問題。綜觀台灣產業發展，在兩岸經貿高度連結及全球貿易環境價值鏈安排下，常見台灣公司主任集團研發、接單，在經由中國等海外據點進行產品製造的營運模式，故本研究以台灣上市公司(以下簡稱L公司)2018~2020年的利潤情況進行利潤分割法測試，討論其租稅分配的合理性及潛在的稅務風險，經本研究觀察該公司母子公司間之利潤分配存在不合理的配置；再者在中國的兩個子公司主要皆從事集團產品的製造，但以公開資訊所揭露之相關財務資訊，該兩個中國子公司的利潤率，確實存在功能相當但利潤差異過大的情形；且檢視集團功能及風險配置，不僅可能存有潛在受控交易的問題，稅局也極有可能提出應以利潤分割法作為常規交易方法進行移轉訂價分析，故L公司不可不重視集團利潤配置的問題。
並列摘要
The Profit Split Method is not a new topic in the field of transfer pricing. As early as the 1995 version of the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administrations, the Profit Split Method was proposed as one of the five conventional transaction methods. The Profit Split Method is rarely used as the main method of analysis in the prior planning of tax arrangements, or in the subsequent analysis due to compliance with relevant tax laws. However, due to the rise of the industry development, the current perspective of tax rights may able to adapt to the emerging business situation no longer, so prompting the OECD to propose BEPS 2.0 for in-depth discussions on the division of taxable profits. The Pillar One BluePrint published in October 2021, points out that its scope of application is not limited to the digital industry, and proposes a more clear tax policy for the formula method. This study believes that the current BEPS 2.0 not only provides further taxation insights for new transaction types and operating models but also provides clear guidelines for specific allocation references such as the use of the Profit Split Method and factors to be considered, even expand the scope of tax rights to supplement the permanent establishments' problem in the digital economy environment. However, due to the high degree of cross-border economic and trade linkages between Taiwan's industries and the arrangement of the global trade environment value chain, it is common to find that Taiwan companies respond to the group R&D, Ordering and having factories based in China for group manufacturing center. According to the case study in this thesis- L company. The L company has potential risks that might take the tax authority alert. First, the profit allocation does not make sense between the headquarter and subsidiaries. Second, two subsidiaries participate in manufacturing in China but have a profit gap. Third, existing potential control transactions between L company and China subsidiaries. The last, tax authorities might challenge the TP method and request to use the profit split method for re-analysis. Thus, L company should pay great attention to the group profit allocation problems.