论文部分内容阅读
众所周知,许多跨国企业将集团内债务用于避税目的。OECD税基侵蚀和利润转移(BEPS)项目行动4近期对这方面的研究作出了重大贡献,对于实际工作中不同形式的利息限制制度的设计要点和问题,形成了重要的认识。在地球的另一边,最近在澳大利亚发生了一起重大的税务案件,参议院对公司避税现象提出质询,揭示出雪佛龙如何在其税务结构中使用集团内债务的详细情况。即使并非不可能,却也极难从其财务报告中识破雪佛龙的这种税务结构。这是一个很及时的案例,我们可以通过分析,了解到在实践中集团内债务是如何得到运用的;以此为基础,我们还可以评估行动4提出的各项建议。本文的目的有两个方面。首先,本文分析了雪佛龙在澳大利亚使用的两种税务结构。以案例分析的形式,凸显由集团内债务引发的主要问题。其次,本文利用关于雪佛龙的经验数据,评估行动4提出的各项建议是否能够有效地应对因集团内债务而造成的税基侵蚀和利润转移。
As we all know, many multinational corporations use intra-group debt for tax avoidance purposes. OECD Taxes on Corruption and Profit Movement (BEPS) Project Action 4 has made a significant contribution to research in this area in the recent past, forming an important understanding of the design elements and issues of the different forms of interest-limit systems in practice. On the other side of the globe, a major tax case recently took place in Australia where the Senate challenged the company’s tax avoidance and revealed how Chevron is using its intra-group debt in its tax structure. It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to break Chevron’s tax structure from its financial reports. This is a very timely case study, and we can understand through analysis how intra-group debts are used in practice; on the basis of that, we can also evaluate the recommendations made in Action 4. The purpose of this article is twofold. First, the paper analyzes the two tax structures Chevron uses in Australia. In the form of case studies, highlights the major issues raised by intra-group debt. Second, the article uses empirical data on Chevron to assess whether the recommendations of Action 4 can effectively address the erosion of the tax base and the transfer of profits due to intra-group debt.