域外期刊概览 | 2023年5月 · 总第2期
·小编荐语·本期“域外期刊概览”栏目选取荷兰威科出版集团主办的专业税法期刊 Intertax 2023年第51卷第1期的五篇文章，主题涵盖FIAT案及其隐藏的后果、融资担保的转让定价、后BEPS世界的控股公司经济实质、欧盟税收指令中存在的潜在不兼容情况，以及比特币和加密资产的税收问题。葡萄牙里斯本大学教授 Ana Paula Dourado 认为，欧盟法院对合法性原则的提及应被理解为对欧盟权限的消极界限，对纳税人的税收透明度要求一直在扩大，与此同时纳税人的税收计划越来越被归类为滥用。前经合组织转让定价负责人 Andrew Hickman 和奥地利维也纳经济和商业大学教学和研究助理 Marcelo Henrique Barbosa Moura 认为，可将跨国集团内的信用度视为不可分割的集体，从而消除为转让定价而考虑集团内担保费用的必要性。荷兰国际税务顾问 Felipe Thé Freire 探讨了经合组织、欧盟和欧洲法院判例目前对对控股公司的实质要求，以评估它们在多大程度上趋于一致。意大利圣心天主教大学税法领域研究员 Andrea Purpura 认为，欧盟第6版《税务行政合作指令》与《反避税指令》的一般反滥用条款可能存在不兼容的情况，第6版《税务行政合作指令》所确认的报告义务可能过于宽泛。丹麦南丹麦大学助理教授 Jane Ferniss 认为，有必要将统一性、可预测性和明确性引入丹麦对比特币和加密资产的征税的税收规则中。
Intertax
Volume 51 Issue 1 2023
国际税法 第51卷第1期
http://file.tax100.com/o/202306/02/944_1685703385973.jpg?width=821&size=62044
目录
1.丨社论
The FIAT Case and the Hidden Consequences
FIAT案及其隐藏的后果
2.丨文章
Transfer Pricing of Financial Guarantees: The Limits of Arm’s Length and a Practical Solution
融资担保的转让定价：公平交易的局限性和实践的解决方案
3.丨文章
Economic Substance for Holding Companies in the Post-BEPS World and after Recent ECJ Case-Law: An Analysis of Developments in Europe
控股公司在后BEPS世界和最近欧洲法院判例法之后的经济实质：对欧洲发展的分析
4.丨文章
DAC6: Some (potential) Incompatibility Profiles with Article 6 ATAD
欧盟第6版《税务行政合作指令》：与欧盟《反避税指令》第6条存在潜在不兼容的情况
5.丨文章
Taxation of Bitcoins and Similar Cryptoassets in Scandinavia with Special Focus on Danish Law
在斯堪的纳维亚半岛国家（特别是丹麦）比特币和加密资产的税收问题
01
The FIAT Case and the Hidden Consequences
Editorial: The FIAT Case and the Hidden Consequences
社论：FIAT案及其隐藏的后果
作者：Ana Paula Dourado （葡萄牙里斯本大学教授）
Core view:
Fiat is a state aid case involving the analysis of domestic tax rulings, state aid, and the arm’s length standard. It concerns the issues of whether the European Commission can establish a European Union (EU) arm’s length standard as inspired in the OECD Guidelines and choose the adequate methods applicable to the specific case in light of the state aid rules. In the Fiat case, the Commission ‘considered that the arm’s length principle necessarily forms part of its assessment, under Article 107(1) TFEU, of tax measures granted to integrated companies, irrespective of whether a Member State has incorporated that principle into its national legal system’. Contrary to the Commission’s position, in the FIAT case, the CJEU decided that the arm’s length standard is to be determined according to the Member States’ law, and that the OECD guidelines are external to the national system.
The Editorial argues that The Court reference to the principle of legality is to be understood as a negative boundary to EU competence and similarly to corporate income tax rates, juridical double taxation, and the most favorable nation clause. In the absence of harmonization in the EU and if no reference is made to the international standards, the exercise of trans-fer pricing rights is under the competence of the Member States. Whereas the CJEU has developed an EU principle of abuse applicable to taxes that, by definition, is also vague, Member States could still explore disparities (double non-taxation) based on different concepts of the arm’s length standard. Issuing tax rulings on transfer pricing and addressing them to specific taxpayers (selectivity), can violate the principle of equal treatment in the Union and foster BEPS. This is an unbalanced result: tax transparency requirements on taxpayers have been expanding, tax-payers’ tax planning is increasingly classified as abuse and, yet, at the same time, Member States could select some taxpayers and treat them more favorably using transfer pricing rules. They could also incentivize aggressive tax planning (double non-taxation) via favorable transfer pricing methods enacted by tax rulings.
核心观点：
FIAT案是一个涉及到国内税收裁决、国家援助和公平交易标准分析的国家援助案件。其核心争点在于，欧盟委员会是否可以受《经合组织准则》的启发来建立欧盟的公平交易标准，并根据国家援助的规则选择适用于具体案件的适当方法。在FIAT案中，欧盟委员会认为“公平交易原则必然构成其根据《欧盟条约》第107(1)条对给予一体化公司的税收措施进行评估的一部分，无论成员国是否已将该原则纳入其国家法律体系”。与欧盟委员会的立场相反，在FIAT案，欧盟法院认为，公平交易标准应根据成员国的法律来确定，而经合组织的准则只是国家体系的外部准则。
本社论认为，欧盟法院对合法性原则的提及应被理解为对欧盟权限的消极界限。在欧盟没有统一标准的情况下，如果不参考国际标准，行使交易定价权属于成员国的权限。虽然欧盟法院已经制定了一个适用于税收的欧盟滥用原则，但从定义上看，这也是模糊的，成员国仍然可以根据公平交易标准的不同概念来探索差异（双重不征税）。发布转让定价的税收裁决，并针对特定的纳税人（选择性），可以违反欧盟的平等待遇原则，并促进BEPS。这是一个不平衡的结果：对纳税人的税收透明度要求一直在扩大，与此同时纳税人的税收计划越来越被归类为滥用。然而，成员国可以选择一些纳税人，利用转让定价规则更有利地对待他们。他们也可以通过税收裁决颁布的有利的转让定价方法来激励积极的税收计划（双重不征税）。
02
Transfer Pricing of Financial Guarantees: The Limits of Arm’s Length and a Practical Solution
Article: Transfer Pricing of Financial Guarantees: The Limits of Arm’s Length and a Practical Solution
文章：融资担保的转让定价： 公平交易的局限性和实践的解决方案
作者：Andrew Hickman（前经合组织转让定价负责人）和Marcelo Henrique Barbosa Moura（奥地利维也纳经济和商业大学教学和研究助理）
Abstract:
This article explains that current practical approaches to the pricing of intra-group financial guarantees attribute economic significance to group affiliation that diverges from common approaches and depends on a refined independence hypothesis that is not universally applied and risks suggesting uncertainties about the wider application of the arm’s length principle. Guidance has not assimilated recent revisions to the OECD guidance on control of risk, advocates complex and unsatisfactory valuation methods, and unconvincingly refers to implicit support that unhelpfully disguises active functions. With the benefit of revised guidance, circumstances similar to those in the General Electric case could be resolved differently. Intra-group financial guarantees epitomize the challenges faced when dealing under the arm’s length principle with how associated enterprises are capitalized. It is inappropriate to subject the arm’s length principle to the contortions and divergence described in this article when the guarantee derives from deliberate choices of the guarantor about how the subsidiary is capitalized. Treating creditworthiness within a multinational group as indivisible and collective is a practical solution, either on principled grounds or as a safe harbour, thereby eliminating the need to consider intra-group guarantee fees for transfer pricing purposes.
摘要：
本文认为，目前对集团内部融资担保的定价的实际方法将经济意义归于集团关联，这与常见的方法不同，并依赖于一个精致的独立假设，该假设没有得到普遍的应用，并有可能暗示公平交易原则更广泛的应用存在不确定性。指导意见没有吸收最近对经合组织关于风险控制的指导意见的修订，主张采用复杂和不令人满意的估值方法，并不令人信服地提到隐性支持，无助于掩盖积极功能。有了修订后的指南，类似于通用电气案中的情况可以得到不同的解决。集团内部的财务担保是在公平交易原则下处理关联企业资本化方式时所面临的挑战的缩影。当担保源于担保人对子公司资本化方式的有意选择时，让公平交易原则受制于本文所述的扭曲和分歧是不合适的。将跨国集团内的信用度视为不可分割的集体，是一个切实可行的解决方案，无论是基于原则性理由还是作为安全港，从而消除了为转让定价而考虑集团内担保费用的必要性。
03
Economic Substance for Holding Companies in the Post-BEPS World and after Recent ECJ Case-Law: An Analysis of Developments in Europe
Article: Economic Substance for Holding Companies in the Post-BEPS World and after Recent ECJ Case-Law: An Analysis of Developments in Europe
文章：控股公司在后BEPS世界和最近欧洲法院判例法之后的经济实质：对欧洲发展的分析
作者：Felipe Thé Freire（荷兰国际税务顾问）
Abstract:
Over the last decade, following the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting project (BEPS), the international tax framework has been in constant change. Some of those changes, such as the introduction of the Principal Purpose Test (PPT) in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Model Convention and the Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive (ATAD I and II) in the European Union (EU) aim at denying benefits to corporate structures and transactions put in place by Multinational Corporations (MNEs) whenever those are deemed to be abusive. Recent European Court of Justice (ECJ) judgments arguably further modified the international tax framework. One of the most important elements – following those developments – commonly analysed to assess abuse is ‘economic substance’. This article focuses on the analysis of substance requirements particularly for holding companies, which typically are less robust than those of companies generating active income. After analysing the definition and object of a holding company, the author explores the current views of the OECD and the EU on this topic, including ECJ jurisprudence, to assess to what extent those have converged. The article compares different instruments and concepts, as well as their underlying principles, aiming at applying them to specific cases of cross-border holding structures.
摘要：
在过去十年中，继税基侵蚀和利润转移项目（BEPS）之后，国际税收框架一直在不断变化。其中一些变化，如经济合作与发展组织（OECD）示范公约中的主要目的测试（PPT）和欧洲联盟（EU）的反避税指令（ATAD I和II）的引入，旨在拒绝跨国公司（MNEs）建立的公司结构和交易的利益，只要这些被认为是滥用的。最近欧洲法院（ECJ）的判决可以说进一步修改了国际税收框架。在这些发展之后，评估滥用的最重要因素之一是 "经济实质"。本文重点分析实质要求，特别是对控股公司的实质要求，通常没有产生积极收入的公司的实质要求那么有力。在分析了控股公司的定义和对象之后，作者探讨了经合组织和欧盟目前对这一主题的看法，包括欧洲法院的判例，以评估这些看法在多大程度上趋于一致。文章比较了不同的工具和概念，以及它们的基本原则，旨在将它们应用于跨境控股结构的具体案例。
04
DAC6: Some (potential) Incompatibility Profiles with Article 6 ATAD
Article: DAC6: Some (potential) Incompatibility Profiles with Article 6 ATAD
文章：欧盟第6版《税务行政合作指令》：与欧盟《反避税指令》第6条存在潜在不兼容的情况
作者：Andrea Purpura(意大利圣心天主教大学税法领域研究员)
Abstract:
From a comparative analysis of Article 6 Anti Tax Avoidance Directive (ATAD) and the Directive Administrative Cooperation (DAC)6, it would seem that the disclosure requirements of the latter are in accordance with the concept of tax avoidance (or ‘abuse of rights’) introduced by the general clause of Article 6 ATAD.
Nevertheless, notwithstanding the consistency of the DAC6 with the general anti-abuse clause of the ATAD, at least two types of uncertainties appear to arise. The first concerns the consistency of the directive mentioned previously with the ultimate purpose of the anti-avoidance regulations (which is to exclusively prevent and counteract avoidance conduct). The second involves the compatibility of the disclosure requirements imposed by the directive with the general anti-abuse clauses currently in force in some European legal systems (for all, reference will be made to the Italian experience).
The comparison outlined above would appear to demonstrate that the reporting obligations established by the DAC6 are overly broad and that they do not adequately take account of the ‘non-tax reasons’ that may justify the cross-border mechanism even for a transaction from which tax advantages may arise at the same time.
摘要：
比较分析欧盟《反避税指令》第6条和欧盟第6版《税务行政合作指令》发现，欧盟第6版《税务行政合作指令》中的披露要求似乎与欧盟《反避税指令》第6条所引入的避税（或 "权利滥用"）概念相符合。
然而，尽管第6版《税务行政合作指令》与《反避税指令》的一般反滥用条款是一致的，但仍然可能存在两类不兼容的情况。第一种情况是《税务行政合作指令》与《反避税指令》的最终目的（即防止、抵制避税行为）是否完全一致；第二种情况是《税务行政合作指令》的披露要求是否能与目前欧洲其他生效的“一般反权利滥用条款”相兼容（本文将参考意大利的实践）。
因此，第6版《税务行政合作指令》所确认的报告义务可能过于宽泛，没有充分考虑到 "非税收原因"——对于一项可能同时产生多项税收优惠的交易，也可能被跨境机制所规制。
05
Taxation of Bitcoins and Similar Cryptoassets in Scandinavia with Special Focus on Danish Law
Article: Taxation of Bitcoins and Similar Cryptoassets in Scandinavia with Special Focus on Danish Law
文章：在斯堪的纳维亚半岛国家（特别是丹麦）比特币和加密资产的税收问题
作者：Jane Ferniss（丹麦南丹麦大学助理教授）
Abstract:
The taxation of bitcoins and similar cryptoassets is of immense economic importance to the individual taxpayer and to society as a whole. In recent years, they have effectuated a number of tax law issues in Denmark. In Norway, Sweden, and Denmark, the taxation of bitcoins and similar cryptoassets is based on the general rules of tax law. This article contains a comparative analysis of the three Scandinavian countries’ tax treatment of gains and losses on them. The analysis shows that the Norwegian and Swedish rules that have been significantly changed and modernized do not at all present the same challenges as the Danish rules. In Denmark, there is need for uniformity, predictability, and clarity to be introduced into the taxation rules. Therefore, the article also provides some reflections how to change the Danish tax legislation.
摘要：
对比特币和加密资产征税，对纳税人和整个社会而言都能产生巨大的经济效益。近年来，比特币和加密资产已经在丹麦产生了一些涉及税法的议题。在挪威、瑞典和丹麦这三个斯堪的纳维亚国家，基于税法的一般规则而不是特别规则实现了对比特币和加密资产的征税。本文对这三个斯堪的纳维亚国家税收的收益和损失进行比较，分析发现挪威和瑞典的征税规则已经发生了很大的变化并走向现代化，但丹麦却面临自己特殊的挑战。在丹麦，有必要将统一性、可预测性和明确性引入税收规则中。因此，这篇文章也对丹麦的税收立法进行了反思。
整理 | 朱恬逸、娄佳璐
排版 | 娄佳璐
审核 | 张旭
http://file.tax100.com/o/202306/02/620_1685703386407.jpg?width=1080&size=117283
北京大学税法研究中心
Peking University
Center for Tax Law
http://file.tax100.com/o/202306/02/242_1685703386610.jpg?width=430&size=25581
长按二维码关注我们
页:
[1]