無形資產移轉訂價的新規則──BEPS第8-10號行動方案評析及後續觀察

New Rules on Transfer Pricing of Intangible Assets: Comment and Observation on BEPS Action 8-10

近年來，許多跨國集團經常藉由無形資產的移轉或授權使用，並配合人為的移轉訂價規劃，將集團企業所產生的利潤，移轉至低稅負的租稅天堂國家。OECD在二○一五年十月五日提出BEPS第8-10號行動方案，正是為了解決部分跨國集團長期濫用無形資產的移轉訂價制度，所提出的因應對策。OECD在上述行動方案中認為：應該以當事人對於風險控制的實際行為，取代契約中關於法律上權利的形式歸屬。然而，此種作法的問題在於：由於「風險控制」的概念在解釋上仍有模糊空間，當各國間採取不同的認定標準時，即可能導致個案中的重複課稅；此外，也可能導致稅捐歸屬的認定，與法律上權利歸屬的認定，採取相互歧異的判斷標準。主管機關未來在評估將BEPS行動方案國內法化的過程中，也應該綜合考量我國企業所面臨的主、客觀條件，而非一味順從並移植OECD的政策走向，進而制定對於企業的發展自由過於嚴峻的稅捐法規。

Recent years, many multinational enterprise groups transfer their profits to tax havens with low tax rates, by transferring or licensing intangible assets under the deliberate use of transfer pricing. To counter multinational enterprise groups’ long abuse of transfer pricing of intangible assets, OECD had published BEPS Action 8-10 on October 5, 2015. OECD provides the following opinion in BEPS Action 8-10: The contracting parties’ practical conduct of risk management should replace contractual arrangements to determine the attribution. However, the problem of such opinion is the issue of double tax which happens when countries take different standards due to the possible ambiguity about “risk management”. In addition, this opinion will lead to the inconsistency of attribution—from the view of tax collection—and ownership—from the view of law. In addition, when evaluating the incorporation of BEPS Actions into domestic law, Taiwanese authorities should not merely follow and copy OECD’s policy. Instead, they should comprehensively consider the subjective and objective conditions faced by Taiwanese enterprises to avoid making tax law too harsh to enterprises’ freedom of development.