混合錯配安排對我國稅捐法制之影響——以BEPS第2號行動方案為中心

Abstract

本文以OECD所發布之BEPS第2號行動方案為研究核心，探討跨境交易參與者如何透過租稅管轄區之間的稅捐法規範歧異，形塑混合錯配安排以獲得稅捐上利益，以及此等行為將對我國稅捐法制產生何種影響。由於我國目前尚未針對混合錯配安排為特別立法，因此本文將依循稅捐基礎構成要件之規範層次，依序檢視稅捐主體、稅捐客體、與稅基之相關規範，是否可能形塑行動方案所定義之「混合主體」與「金融工具」；以及現行稅捐規避防杜條款，能否對混合錯配安排形成有效的因應。 就混合主體層面而言，由於我國對營利事業稅籍之判斷基準，主要係採本公司所在地主義，日後待新法施行後亦會兼採管理支配地主義，此些規範與其他租稅管轄區之不同判準的相互作用下，即有產生雙重稅籍居民企業之可能；再者，不論是透過常設機構課稅原則，使穿透個體轉變為獨立個體；或是藉由穿透課稅制度，將獨立個體轉變為穿透個體，均會使我國與其他租稅管轄區，對稅捐主體性質之認定產生歧異，從而形成第2號行動方案所謂的「混合主體」。 就金融工具層面而言，由於不同租稅管轄區，對於金融工具之定性結果未必相同，因此於稅務之處理亦可能存在差異。當一筆利息款項由我國居民企業給付與他國居民企業，且於我國已認列為稅基之減項時，可能因他國特殊的立法設計，使該筆款項被認列為股利。此際若同時適用股利免稅相關規範，該筆款項將不會被認列為稅基之加項，進而導致混合錯配結果之發生。 就稅捐規避防杜條款層面而言，由於我國現制下的特別防杜條款均無法對混合錯配安排形成有效且完整的防杜效果，而一般防杜條款則會面臨不確定法律概念解釋適用之難題。因此本文建議我國應針對混合錯配安排進行特別立法。然而在相關立法工作開始前，我國實應先重新檢視現行稅捐法制是否有同步修正之必要，例如過分擴張我國租稅管轄權，且與國際稅捐秩序相悖的中華民國來源所得課稅原則。同時也應密切關注國際稅改的最新趨勢，使修法之成果足以因應當今稅捐實務所面臨的挑戰。最後，我國也應積極爭取與他國簽署租稅協定之機會，不僅能一定程度地避免混合錯配結果之產生，更能進一步促使我國稅捐高權獲得其他主權國家之肯認。

This thesis focuses on Action 2 of the OECD’s Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) project, examining how participants in cross-border transactions exploit discrepancies between tax regulations across jurisdictions to create hybrid mismatch arrangements for tax benefits, and the implications such arrangements may have on Taiwan’s legal framework for taxation. As Taiwan has not yet enacted specific legislation targeting hybrid mismatches, this study analyzes relevant legal provisions through the lens of the fundamental elements of taxation—namely the taxpayer, the taxable object, and the tax base—to assess whether these may give rise to the “hybrid entities” and “financial instruments” as defined in Action 2. It also evaluates whether anti-avoidance provisions in current law can effectively respond to such mismatches. With regard to hybrid entities, Taiwan’s determination of corporate tax residency primarily adopts the place of incorporation principle, and the forthcoming legal reforms will also incorporate the place of effective management. These differing standards may interact with foreign jurisdictions’ rules to create dual-resident entities. Furthermore, differences in the application of permanent establishment principles and the use of pass-through taxation may lead to inconsistent classification of entities across jurisdictions, thereby giving rise to hybrid entities under Action 2. On the financial instrument side, variations in the classification of instruments across jurisdictions can result in mismatches in tax treatment. For example, if a Taiwanese resident enterprise pays interest to a foreign enterprise and claims a deduction, the same payment may be treated as a dividend in the other jurisdiction and, under certain exemption rules, may not be included in the recipient’s tax base. This situation results in a hybrid mismatch outcome. Regarding anti-avoidance measures, Taiwan’s current specific anti-avoidance rules are inadequate for addressing hybrid mismatch arrangements in a comprehensive manner, and the application of general anti-avoidance provisions faces interpretive uncertainties. Accordingly, this paper recommends the enactment of specific legislation targeting hybrid mismatch arrangements. Before embarking on such legislation, Taiwan should first reassess whether current tax rules—such as the overly broad application of the domestic-source principle that conflicts with international tax norms—require revision. Taiwan should also closely follow global tax reform trends to ensure that legislative developments address the practical challenges of modern taxation. Finally, Taiwan should proactively pursue the negotiation of tax treaties with other countries, which would not only help prevent hybrid mismatch outcomes but also enhance international recognition of Taiwan’s taxing power.