數位服務稅與OECD國際稅改革

Digital Services Taxes Policies and OECD New Framework for International Tax Reform

史雅如(YA-JU SHIH)

指導教授 ： 黃士洲 ； 郭俊賢

國立臺北商業大學/財經學院/貿易實務法律暨談判碩士學位學程/碩士(2022年)

摘要

在數位經濟時代，無數公司透過互聯網銷售貨物到全球，數位電商平台收集用戶資訊並創造了豐厚的數位服務利潤。數位經濟的蓬勃發展動搖了國際稅收秩序，各國都想在數位經濟改革中把握優勢地位，於是在近年掀起了數位服務稅的浪潮。本文將針對法國數位服務稅的新稅目訂定、美國提出的理論爭議與兩國之間的衝突進行文獻探討。通過歷史綜觀數位服務稅發展過程，整理國際政經局勢並切入不同的角度分析數位服務稅的課徵重點及爭議性。

本項研究發現部分國家陸續開徵數位服務稅，平衡數位化的財政扭曲。法國議會於2019年7月批准了數位服務稅，此稅適用於自2019年1月1日起在法國境內的營業額。美國立即對法國的做法提出質疑。2019年7月10日，美國貿易代表根據《貿易法》第302（b）（1）（A）條對該稅展開調查，並要求與法國進行數位服務稅磋商。2019年年底，美國總統川普政府表示，由於法國對美國科技公司開徵之數位服務稅具有歧視性，擬對法國24億美元進口產品（包括香檳，手提包和奶酪等產品）提高關稅。2020年1月法國政府決定暫停實施數位服務稅，以阻止美國對法國商品徵收高達100％的報復性關稅。

從美國貿易代表署調查報告提出的觀點來看，有兩個爭議點直接關係到數位服務稅在現行國際稅收原則下的正當性和合法性:一是數位服務稅是否符合公平課稅，不具有歧視性；二是數位服務稅在追溯適用、收入認列和課稅管轄權的認定是否違反了國際稅收協定。並且美國也堅決反對在經濟合作暨發展組織(OECD)訂定具有全球性規範的原則前，各國先行課徵單邊數位服務稅。對於自行課徵單邊數位服務稅國家與地區，美國貿易代表署不僅會展開貿易調查，也會進行相應的報復性措施。

各國態樣複雜，台灣不應盲目跟從，形成無形的貿易阻礙。應積極參與國際討論，等待數位時代衍生的稅收挑戰在國際上達成共識，同時憑據國際稅收原則和經濟合作暨發展組織(OECD)提出的全球適用的修法建議逐步跟進，讓課稅管轄權重新分配給數位服務之使用者所在的「消費地國」，思考如何革新跨境數位電商的營業稅與營所稅負。

希冀本文之研究與建議能為我國後續在瞭解國際原則與國內稅法之關係、修法之可行性上有所助益。

關鍵字

數位服務稅 ； 經濟合作暨發展組織 ； 國際稅收原則 ； 法國數位服務稅 ； 美國關稅 ； 國際政經局勢 ； 國際談判 ； 租稅公平 ； BEPS 2.0 兩大支柱方案

並列摘要

In a new digital economy era, countless companies sell their products to the world through the Internet. E-commerce interfaces collect user pieces of information and make huge digital service profits. The vigorous development of the digital economy has shaken the traditional international taxation order. All countries want to take advantage of the digital economy, so in recent years, a tidal wave of Digital Services Taxes (DST) has been set off. This article will focus on the establishment of the French digital service tax, the theoretical basis doubted by the United States, and conflicts between the two countries. The study will discuss these topics through literature review, historical overview of the development process of Digital Services Tax, sort out the international political and economic situation, and analyze the legislative purpose and controversy of DST from different angles.

This study found that some countries have levied DST to balance their fiscal distortions. The French Parliament approved a digital service tax in July 2019, and this tax applies to sales in France starting from January 1, 2019. The United States immediately questioned the French approach. On July 10, 2019, the U.S. government officials launched an examination into the tax in accordance with Section 302 (b) (1)(A) of the Trade Act and requested negotiations with France on DST. At the end of 2019, the Administration of U.S. President Trump stated that due to the discrimination of the DST imposed by France on U.S. technology companies, he intends to impose a 100% extremely high tariff on French valuables imports such as Champagne, handbags, and cheese. In January 2020, the French government decided to suspend the implementation of the DST to prevent the United States from imposing retaliatory tariffs.

From the point of view constructed in the investigation report of the United States Trade Representative, there are two disputes directly related to the legitimacy of the DST under the current principles of International Taxation: First, whether the DST is in line with tax equity and does not discriminatory. Second, is whether the retrospective application, the application to revenue, and the determination of taxation jurisdiction are in violation of international tax treaties. In addition, the United States firmly opposes the levy of unilateral digital services taxes before the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) establishes principles with global norms. For countries and regions that levy unilateral digital services taxes on their own, the U.S. Trade Representative will not only launch trade investigations but also take corresponding retaliatory measures.

Taiwan is recommended to actively participate in international discussions and wait for the tax challenges arising from the digital to reach an international consensus. At the same time, should be gradually followed up in accordance with the international tax principles and the globally applicable proposed amendments by the OECD to allow taxation jurisdiction is redistributed to the "country of consumption" where users of digital services are located and consider how to innovate the VAT and Income Tax burden of cross-border e-commerce.

The suggestions in this article are helpful in understanding the relationship between international principles and domestic tax laws, and the feasibility of amending laws in Taiwan.

並列關鍵字

BEPS 2.0: Pillar One and Pillar Two ； Tax Equity ； Government Negotiations ； International Political and Economic Situation ； U.S. Tariffs ； Digital Services Tax ； Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development ； International Taxation Principles, French Digital Services Tax

參考文獻

1. Office of the United States Trade Representative, Ambassador Robert E. Lighthizer, (2019), Section 301 Investigation Report on France’s Digital Services Tax, Retrieved from https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/Report_On_France%27s_Digital_Services_Tax.pdf

2. Daniel Bunn and Elke Asen, (2020), Re: Docket Number USTR–2020–0022 Tax Foundation Comments on the Initiation of Section 301 Investigations of Digital Services Taxes, Retrieved from https://taxfoundation.org/section-301-digital-tax-response/

3. KPMG (2021), Taxation of the digitalized economy: Developments summary, Retrieved from https://tax.kpmg.us/content/dam/tax/en/pdfs/2021/digitalize

4. Bloomberg, William Horobin and Aoife White, (2019), Why Digital Taxes Are the New Trade War Flashpoint

5. Robert Goulder (2021), The Cost of Change: Pillar 1 Reduced to the Back of a Napkin, Retrieved from https://www.taxnotes.com/featured-analysis/cost-change-pillar-1-reduced-back-napkin/2021/07/01/76qdb