跨境提供服務之營業稅捐課徵─以Uber營業稅一案為例

Abstract

近年來科技日新月異，手機、平板電腦等行動電子裝置普及，裝置中的應用程式日益發達，發展電子商務已經成為不可逆的趨勢 。而在網際網路崛起的過程中，又創造出一種新的商業模式─平台（platform），它們改變傳統「線性生產」（pipeline）─以生產者為起點、消費者為終點，循序漸進創造與移轉價值的單向模式；取而代之的是利用技術將人、組織和資源連結起來，形成能夠創造及交流龐大價值的互動生態網絡，並透過網絡將資源導入市場、增加供給、創造價值，而平台商業模式也為傳統市場帶來了一連串的顛覆式創新。 Uber即是一個成功的平台模式，然因平台模式的上述特質，也增加了稅捐主管機關就平台活動課徵稅捐的困難度，以Uber行動應用程式（Uber APP）服務徵納營業稅為例，我國稅捐主管機關前曾命荷蘭商Uber International Holding B.V.在台子公司台灣宇博數位服務股份有限公司補繳2013年9月1日至2016年6月30日間銷售勞物（運輸服務）之營業稅額，並處以漏稅罰，但因宇博公司不服，因此就本案提起訴訟，案經臺北高等行政法院106年度訴字第848號判決、最高行政法院107年度判字第199號判決，最後於今年3月於臺北高等行政法院（案號：107年度訴更一字第55號）達成行政和解。 由於平台交易涉及多方交易，銷售者與買受人認定不易，故本文乃就前揭營業稅案件所提供之事實為開端，研究Uber App服務所涉及的交易對象、交易性質，及並聚焦於本案所涉及的稅捐客體、稅捐主體之討論，最後並提出本文見解與建議。

In recent years information technology has been evolving rapidly. It has re-shaped the way of people doing business by the introduction of smart phones and tablets. Moreover, catalyzed by the mass volume of handheld devices, apps, and users, transition into E-commerce has become an irreversible process. In the meanwhile, information technology has also changed business modes, from a traditional “pipeline” to a novel “platform”. The “pipeline” creates add-on values unidirectionally from manufacturer to end-user. In contrast, the “platform” provides a network of interconnected people, organizations, and resources, where the values are created by assembling supply and demand, resource and market. It may lead to a series of disruptive innovations to the traditional market. Because of the aforementioned characteristics of “platform” business mode, it is difficult for authority to tax such entities regarding their operation activities. As an example, Uber mobile application incurs excise tax in Taiwan. Taiwan taxation authority requested Taiwan Yubo Digital Service Co., Ltd. (under Uber International Holding BV, Netherland) to pay the sales tax on the sale of labor (transportation service) between September 1, 2013 and June 30, 2016, and the tax evasion penalty (hereinafter referred to as 'the case'). However, Yubo disagreed on the liability and filed the case. It was judged by the Taipei Higher Administrative Court's 106th Annual Proceedings No. 848, the Supreme Administrative Court's 107th Judgment No. 199, and finally in March an administrative settlement was reached by the Taipei High Administrative Court (Case No.: 107 v. No. 55). This article begins with the facts provided in the previous business tax case, studies the transaction objects involved in the Uber App service, the nature of the transaction, and focuses on the discussion of the tax object and tax subject involved in the case. Insights and suggestions.