跨境電商所得稅制度之研究

以提供「數位化服務」為核心的數位經濟是當前世界經濟發展的主流，然而超越地理及物理限制的數位產業，改變了實體貨物或勞務銷售之價值創造模式，同時也對既有以固定營業場所常設機構為中心的跨國所得稅制度造成不小的衝擊。由於「常設機構」在當前國際課稅管轄權之分配議題上占有舉足輕重之地位，常設機構除了可作為所得來源地國主張課稅管轄權的有力依據，另一方面也具有所得歸屬之效果，但在數位經濟的世界，由於數位電商不再倚賴固定營業場所或營業代理人提供服務，利用數位訊號以及遠端線路就可與所得來源地國之消費者進行各種服務貿易，導致所得來源地國無法藉由「常設機構」主張課稅管轄權取得足夠之財政收入，長久下來，不利於所得來源地國之財政穩定。數位經濟課稅問題讓世界不得不重新檢視既有國際課稅管轄權分配體系，新的課稅權分配體制除了要能滿足來源地國及居住地國的財政需求，同時間也必須避免同筆所得之重複課稅問題。在當前的數位經濟稅制方案中，主要以印度衡平稅、歐盟數位服務稅、數位常設機構以及擴大扣繳制度為主要解決手段，惟以上解決方案僅限於內國法層次，尚未擴及到租稅協定，如何在解決問題同時調和既有制度，尚待驗證。相較於世界主流採取之常設機構課稅原則，我國所得稅法第8條因採取來源所得課稅原則的課稅架構，得以迴避目前國際間最為棘手的常設機構論證問題，不過，也因為我國所得稅法缺乏常設機構作為論證我國有課稅管轄權的依據，以至於我國在過去數十年的跨境所得課稅實務上，對於何謂「來源於中華民國之所得」一直欠缺明確的判斷基準。財政部雖於107年初發布臺財稅字第10604704390號函令，試圖以既有條文建立我國的數位經濟所得稅制度，惟該函目前在所得類型分類、稽徵方法與租稅協定適用之競合上仍有疑義。本文認為，不論我國未來採取何種方案面對數位經濟課稅議題，財政部與立法者應積極參考國際課稅實務，定期檢視修正我國數位經濟所得稅制度，以兼顧我國財政收入並保護納稅人權利。

關鍵字

數位經濟；數位服務；價值創造；經濟關聯性；利潤分配；所得稅

並列摘要

The digitalization of industry keeps changing people’s way of doing business and ignites the revolution of new business models. Despite the rise of e-commerce in 2000, tax regimes around the world were not aware of the challenges presented by the digital economy until the notorious “Double Irish and Dutch Sandwich Scheme” revealed in 2010. Since then, countries around the world, especially member states of the OECD, started to take actions towards the problems raised by the digital economy. OECD BEPS Action 1, addressing the Tax Challenges of the Digital Economy, is the achievement of multiple years’ hard work. BEPS Action 1 concludes that using intangible assets has become a critical driver of value creation for digital businesses. In addition, advancements in digital technology enable digital service providers to carry out remote business activities and connect with customers far away. Certain processes carried out by local personnel in the past, can now be performed cross-border by automatic equipment like servers and data centers. These innovative characteristics make the value creation process of digital business hard to observe and poses threat to the international taxation system which is constructed on the two aspects: namely, the nexus for taxation and the methodology for allocating profit to the nexus. Meanwhile, tax regimes can be confusing in terms of characterizations of income and allocation of users’ value produced via participation. Although BESP Action 1 has provided 3 possible solutions, which are the new nexus in the form of a significant economic presence, the withholding tax on certain types of digital transactions and the equalisation levy, to tackle the challenges of the digital economy, global consensus remains elusive on whether and how to tax businesses with a substantial digital business footprint without physical presence in a jurisdiction. Some jurisdictions agree with the conclusion made by the OECD that it is not necessary to introduce an interim solution to avoid fragments of international taxation system and potential double taxation. Nevertheless, other tax regimes, like India and Italy, express their concern over bases erosion problem caused by the digitalization and are eager to adopt unilateral scheme to shore up their taxation right on cross border income. Confronted with the similar situation, in December 2018, the Ministry of Finance, R.O.C (Taiwan) revealed the administrative rule (Order No. 10604704390) as the interim solution. However, despite its good intension, the administrative rule is criticized for its withholding and tax bases calculation. Furthermore, the administrative rule’s effectiveness on preventing tax avoidance is at question because foreign digital service providers can still shift their profits to Singapore or Netherlands easily through the Double Taxation Agreements. By comparing and analyzing different interim solutions around the world, this thesis aims to propose a long-term digital taxation solution for Taiwan. Considering the consensus-based solution is still under development, this thesis suggests administrators in Taiwan follow the international trend on tax reform timely and carefully, and erase the gap between Double Taxation Agreements and Income Tax Act.