发帖
雷达卡
Tech’s avoidance技术企业的避税花招
The rights and wrongs of moving profits offshore to cut tax bills利润转移海外以减少税单的对对错错
Sep 29th 2012 | NEW YORK | from the print edition
HAVING targeted wealthy individuals who stash money offshore, are America’s tax police about to go after deep-pocketed companies? Carl Levin hopes to make that happen. On September 20th the Senate subcommittee he chairs released a report and held a hearing highlighting tax avoidance by multinationals. The companies do this by shifting profits to havens with corporate-tax rates below America’s (where rates range up to 35%) and by using loopholes to bring some of that cash home without triggering a liability.
美国税警已经开始瞄准那些把钱藏到海外的富人，他们是不是打算开始追击那些财大气粗的企业？Carl Levin希望让其发生。在9月20日他主持的参议院小组委员会上他发表了一篇报告并举行了一场听证会，突出强调了跨国企业的避税问题。这些企业通过转移利润到公司税税率低于美国的掩蔽所（在35%左右），然后利用漏洞将其中的一些现金带回国而不用负任何责任。
Tax avoidance (unlike evasion) is legal, but companies often push into grey areas. A common way to move profits offshore is through transfer pricing, when subsidiaries in different countries charge each other for goods or services “sold” within the group. This is popular among technology companies with lots of intellectual property (IP), the value of which is subjective.
避税（而不是逃税）是合法的，但企业总是把它推入灰色地带。一个转移利润到海外的常用方法就是转让定价，即在不同国家的子公司为它们在集团内部售出的产品或服务互相收费。这一现象在各大技术公司中非常普遍，它们拥有众多主观定价的知识产权。
The hearing featured a case study involving Microsoft’s shifting of global IP rights to divisions in Puerto Rico, Ireland and Singapore, where the average effective tax rate is 4%. In 2011 these three units managed to book $15.4 billion of gross profit, 55% of Microsoft’s worldwide total. Whether or not this apportionment complies with transfer-pricing rules, it is “not consistent with a commonsense understanding of where the locus of Microsoft’s economic activity…is occurring,” said Stephen Shay of Harvard Law School.
听证会详细描述了一个案例，其中涉及微软把全球知识产权转移到Puerto Rico、爱尔兰和新加坡，这三个地方的平均有效税率为4%。2011年这三个地方成功进账毛利润154亿美元，是微软全球收益的55%。无论这样的关联交易是否遵从转让定价的规则，“这与众所周知的微软经营地点不符合，”哈弗法学院的Stephen Shay说道。
A second case study concerned lightly taxed foreign profits brought home by Hewlett-Packard. Though America doesn’t tax companies’ foreign income if it is kept overseas, the moment it returns it is fair game (which is why American firms hold an estimated $1.5 trillion abroad). An exception is made for short-term loans to other parts of the corporation. HP has taken advantage of this loophole to provide steady funding for its American operations from Belgian and Cayman subsidiaries. From 2008 to 2010, for instance, these two alternated their lending (of several billion dollars in all) so as to provide unbroken funding while keeping each loan below the 60-day ceiling allowed under the exception. “The ultimate example of form over substance,” huffed Mr Levin.
第二个案例涉及被轻微征税后带入国内的惠普公司海外利润。尽管美国对企业的海外收益并不征税，然而一旦这些资产被转回国内，征税标准就和国内收益一样了（这就是为毛美国企业在国外持有估价1.5万亿美元资产的原因）。但如果通过集团其他关联方以短期贷款资金的形式转回，便可以不受此限。惠普利用这一漏洞，让其比利时和德国的子公司长期给位于美国的公司注入资金。例如在2008到2010年间，这两家子公司交替为美国惠普持续提供贷款（累计资金达数十亿美元）。每次偿还时间都设置在60天内——恰好在政策漏洞所规定的‘短期’时间之内。勒翁对此斥责道：“这是个只有形式没有实质的极端例子。”
Whom to blame for all this darting through loopholes? Mr Levin chided companies for practising “tax alchemy”. But they are bound to exploit weaknesses in the rules, if only to avoid putting themselves at a competitive disadvantage. The manoeuvres of Microsoft and HP appear to comply with the letter of the regulations, even if they flout their spirit. Republicans argue that tax avoidance is a mere symptom of the disease, the real sickness being America’s high corporate-tax rate and a ridiculously complex rulebook.
对于这些钻空子的行为应该责怪谁呢?Levin先生谴责那些大玩“税戏法”的企业。但是只要能避免自己处于竞争劣势，他们势必会去寻找游戏规则的漏洞。微软和惠普的避税方法看起来没怎么违背相关法规的字面条文，即使他们违背了法律精神。共和党称，避税行为只是问题的表征而已，真正的根源是美国过高的公司税率和繁杂的税收法规。
The tax police deserve some blame. They have not been suspicious enough—though, to be fair, ensuring intercompany transactions are priced at arm’s length is tricky when no two intangible assets are the same. The unwieldiness of transfer-pricing regulations doesn’t help.
税警应该受到谴责。他们不够敏锐，然而说实话，保证内部公司交易定价公正是件比较棘手的事情，因为没有哪两种无形资产是相同的。过于冗繁的转让定价条例是没用的。
The subcommittee has brought to life an issue that can seem mind-numbingly technical. There is growing political mileage in attacking profit-shifting, given the economy’s fragility. Expect America’s tax police to take a dimmer view of aggressive avoidance. Whether they will prove a match for the multinationals’ phalanxes of lawyers is another matter.
小组委员会唤醒了一个看似乏味的技术性议题。在目前经济脆弱的情况下打击危害经济的利润转移行为，显然其获得政治好处的目的更为明显。期待美国税警吹响取缔恶意避税的号角。他们是否会与跨国公司的律师方阵进行一场较量就是另一回事了。
提升卡
置顶卡
沉默卡
变色卡
抢沙发
千斤顶
显身卡
京公网安备 11010802022788号
