中國反資本弱化條款對臺商融資決策之影響

An Investigation of Anti-thin Capitalization Provisions in China on Taiwanese Enterprises' Financing Decision

中國在2008年新所得稅法實施後，其在特別納稅調整中規定，企業從其關聯方接受的債權性投資與權益性投資的比例超過二倍標準而發生的利息支出，不得在計算應納所得稅額時扣除，以防止資本弱化對中國稅基的侵蝕。在中國資本弱化所採用的特別納稅調整規定之下，本研究探討中國2008企業所得稅法實施前後，臺商在中國投資融資決策之影響。本研究數學推導以及實證結果皆發現，在中國實施反資本弱化條款前，由於舉債之利息支出，不論金額多寡，皆可以在公司所得稅計算前扣除，使得舉債有較多租稅優惠。因此，當企業有息負債比率愈高時，以舉債籌措資金所產生租稅利益愈大，其負債權益比率愈高；當企業邊際所得稅稅率愈高時，股東可以分配的稅後盈餘愈低，以舉債籌措資金所產生租稅利益愈大，其負債權益比率亦愈高。中國於2008年實施新所得稅法後，由於增加了反資本弱化條款，使得企業舉債額度超過限額的利息費用不得扣抵，其實證結果發現，負債權益比率較實施前低；但反資本弱化條款實施後，有息負債利率以及邊際所得稅率愈高的企業，並未受到反資本弱化條款之影響，乃由於臺商融資管道仍是募股大於舉債，並未超過利息費用不得扣抵之限額，因此舉債所產生租稅利益仍然存在。因此，該條款實施後，有息負債利率以及邊際所得稅率愈高的企業，其負債權益比率仍愈高。

According to the special tax adjustments of Chinese new income tax law in 2008, corporate funds from its affiliates, prescribed by the investment from debt and equity over interest expense incurred shall not be deducted when calculating the taxable income amount, in order to prevent tax base erosion by thin-capitalization in China. This study examines the impacts of the special tax adjustments under anti-thin capitalization provisions on Taiwanese corporations financial decisions in 2008. The findings of mathematical derivation and the empirical results indicate that, before implementing the anti-thin capitalization provisions, the borrowing fund from debtors are more tax benefits than from stockholders, because debt interest payments can be deducted totally before income tax expenses calculation regardless the amount of interest expenses. Therefore, companies with higher proportion of interest-bearing liabilities tend to have more tax benefits and higher debt-to-equity ratios. On the other hand, when companies have higher income tax rates, shareholders will distribute lower after-tax surplus. Companies with more tax benefits from debt financing, will also increase the debt-to-equity ratios. Chinese new income tax laws in 2008 had added the anti-thin capitalization provisions. The above provisions set the rules that the interest costs will not be deducted from income tax expense when the companies with borrowing amount exceed the set limit. The findings of the empirical results also indicate the effectiveness of the anti-thin capitalization provisions proofed by the decreasing debt-to-equity ratios. Nevertheless, the impact of the anti-thin capitalization provisions on companies with high interest-bearing liabilities and high marginal income tax rates are not revealed. The results may be due to the equity financing remains more than debt financing and the interest costs from borrowing from debtors should not be over the limit of deduction. Thus leverage of the tax benefits still exist after the implementation of the anti-thin capitalization provisions, which means companies with more interest-bearing liabilities and higher income tax rates have higher debt-to-equity ratios.