【作者】 叶莉娜；

【导师】 那力；

【作者基本信息】 吉林大学 ， 国际法学， 2014， 博士

【摘要】 经济全球化背景下，跨国公司通过生产、贸易和金融的跨国经营，从事“无国界”、“跨国界”的经济活动，带来了种种国际税法问题，转移定价就是经济全球化及知识经济给国际税法带来的冲击与挑战诸问题之一。跨国公司将利润从高税国向低税国转移，实现跨国公司总体税负最小化，转移定价是其基本手段。目前已经形成了三种转移定价法律调整制度——独立交易法、统一合并公司税基法（Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base，简称CCCTB）和公式分摊法。独立交易法是转移定价法律调整的基本制度，OECD、联合国以及代表国际税法另一流派的美国，都主张对转移定价的判断和调整遵循独立交易原则，使其具有了国际习惯法的地位。近年来，受到企业集团内部交易增加、知识产权等无形资产重要性在经营中不断增强的冲击与挑战，独立交易法显现出其适用的局限性和局促，受到很多批评与质疑，但仍然是规制转移定价问题的主要方法。全球公式分摊法被认为是对独立交易法最可能的替代性选择。但是，该方法过于激进，要求的国际合作水平之高，是当前以及短期内，甚至是长期内都难以达到的。欧盟提出的CCCTB则较为温和，是公式分摊法在超国家层面上的首次适用。其主要价值在于，成功地解决了独立交易法和全球公式分摊法在现阶段应用的困境，因而成为转移定价法律调整的新思维。公式分摊法本是一种国内法，主要在美国的大多数州，加拿大的一些省份以及巴西等少数国家内适用。将其适用于国际税法，则是一种在全球范围内从整体上划分跨国公司利润的方法，但是非跨国公司总部所在国的税收管辖权与税收收入会受到消极影响。该方法有广阔的应用潜力，未来很可能成为国际性转移定价规制的主要方法之一。从发展前景来看，公平交易法、CCCTB和全球公式分摊法这三套规则，各有其合理性与利弊，将来很可能会形成各行其是，在规制转移定价问题上各显身手的局面。无形资产越来越介入跨国公司生产与经营的各个环节，触动了传统转移定价法律调整制度的基础，诱发了其演变。独立交易法下，传统的三个以价格为基础的规制方法（可比非受控价格法、再销售价格法、成本加价法）的应用基础——价格的可比性，遭到了极大的冲击和挑战。为了克服寻找可比价格的困难，才开发出了以利润比较为基础的方法（即，可比利润法或者说交易净利润法、利润分割法）。随着无形资产在跨国公司价值创造中重要性的凸显，以及无形资产在企业价值创造中的整体性，利润法在规制无形资产转移定价方面也显出乏力与无奈。CCCTB和全球公式分摊法受到重视，主要在于两者是对公司的全球所得作整体处理，把无形资产创造的价值体现在生产、经营的各个环节上，间接地解决了独立交易法下所需要的可比对象寻找、价值评估等难题。跨国公司利用转移定价，不合理地分摊无形资产开发的成本和风险，引起了严重的税收结果，产生了开发无形资产成本分摊协议专门规则的需求。“美国成本分摊协议2011年最终规则”，代表了美国乃至国际上在该问题上的最新成果。很多以具体规则为基础的方法，特别是在传统转移定价方法基础上，针对各参与方的贡献，提出了几个具体的补充性计算方法，包括所得法、收购价格法和市场价值法，剩余利润分割法等平台贡献评估规则，进一步推动了无形资产转移定价规则的发展。经济全球化的发展使发展中国家的企业和中小型企业也越来越多地走向跨国与国际经营，也面临转移定价问题。转移定价给发展中国家带来的特殊挑战在于，由于经济落后，国际投资缺乏，大多数还没能建立有效的转移定价税制，即使有，也存在抽象的原则性规定过多，缺乏可操作性等缺陷。此外，发展中国家还缺乏对转移定价的行政管理能力和经验。发展中国家在转移定价规则的立法、执法、司法方面存在的严重欠缺，给其造成了严重的税收收入流失，非常不利于其积累促进发展所需要的资金。发展中国家的转移定价问题受到了发展中国家本身以及国际社会的关注，OECD、联合国对此都有研究、建议、举措。目前发展中国家基本上都采取独立交易法规制转移定价。巴西则建立了以安全港法和固定公式法为基础的转移定价规则，这是一种公式分摊法的变体，因此巴西成为第一个尝试公式分摊法的国家和发展中国家，对于其他发展中国家，有一定的参考价值。中小型企业的转让定价问题使税收政策制定者和征纳税双方都面临特殊的挑战，欧盟开发了详细具体的，有可操作性的中小型企业转移定价规则，其成员国在欧盟研究的指导下，进行了颇有价值的立法实践。我国中小型企业众多，对国际化经营的参与也越来越多，我国应当出于转移定价目的，对中小型企业作出专门规定，进一步降低中小型企业同期资料规则服从负担，鼓励中小型企业参与预约定价安排，投入资源培养征纳双方转移定价相关专业知识。更多还原

【Abstract】 Under the current economic globalization background, MultinationalEnterprises are engaging in “stateless” and “cross-border” economic activitieswhich have given rise to a variety of international tax law issues, Transfer Pricing isone of most prominent issues among them, caused by globalization and intellectualeconomy. By transfer pricing MNEs transfer profits from higher tax rate jurisdictionto lower jurisdiction to minimize their overall tax burden.There are three sets of transfer pricing rules, i.e, the Arm’s Length Principle,Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base rules and Global FormularyApportionment Method. Arm’s Length Principle is the fundamental one. The OECD,UN and the U.S which represents the other school in international tax law, alladvocate that decision and adjustment of transfer pricing being subjected to thisprinciple. thus making it as a customary international law rule. In recent years, theArm’s Length Principle has been seriously challenged by great increase ofwithin-MNE group business transaction and of intangibles in manufacturing andmarketing. The principle’s limitations has been seen and has caused much criticism.Nevertheless, it is still a main approach in transfer pricing regulation. The globalformulary apportionment method might be alternative to the arm’s length method.However, it needs very high degree of international cooperation, which can neitherbe accepted nor be realized by international community in a short period, even inlong run. The EU’s CCCTB proposal is more modest and it is also the formularyapportionment method’s first application in super-national level. Its main value liesin that it can successfully solve the problems that both the arm’s length method and global formulary method can’t do. Therefore it is a new idea in transfer pricingregulations. The Formula Apportionment Method is domestic law, mainly being usedin most states of the U.S, some provinces of Canada and some countries such asBrazil. Applying it in the international tax law means a method to divide MNEs’ totalprofit among their enterprises in the group. Revenue loss of non-MNEs’ headquartersituating countries are inevitable. This approach has great potential and it is verylikely to be a main method in international transfer pricing. The arm’s length method,CCCTB and global formulary method, each has its rationality and has good and badsides. They will play their roles in regulating transfer pricing in the future.Intangibles get more and more involved in MNEs’ production and management,shaking the basis of transfer pricing rules, causing its changes and evolution. Underthe Arm’s Length Principle, the basis of the three price comparability traditionalmethods (i.e. the Comparable Uncontrolled Price method, the resale price method,the cost plus method) has been seriously shaken and challenged. In order toovercome the difficulties in prices comparing, the profit comparing based methods(i.e. the comparable profit method or the transactional net margin method and theprofit split method) have been developed. With the importance and integrity ofintangible assets in the MNEs’ value-creation, these profit-based methods alsodemonstrate their weakness in transfer pricing regulating. CCCTB and the GlobalFormulary Apportionment method thus attract attention and emphasis, because thetwo approaches treat global income of a MNEs’ in a integrity way, distributingvalues brought about by intangibles in steps in the MNEs producing and marketing.Solving the difficulties in finding comparing objects and evaluation.MNEs conduct transfer pricing to unreasonably allocate costs and risks broughtabout by intangibles and cause serious tax consequences, there are increasing needsfor developing special rules on cost sharing arrangements of intangibles. The “U.S.Cost Sharing Arrangements2011Final Rules and Regulations” aims at regulatingtax related issues on joint development of intangibles among associated enterprises.It represents the latest development at the issue in U.S, or, even in the world. There are some rule-based methods, especially several specific complementarycalculating methods which are targeted at participants’ platform contributions’,including the Income Method, the acquisition price and market capitalizationmethods as well as Residual Profit Split Method etc. These special platformcontribution evaluation rules have further put forward the development of theintangibles’ transfer pricing rules.With economic globalization going in-depth, enterprises of developingcountries and the SMEs have been more and more engaged in transnational andinternational business, they have transfer pricing problems as well.The special challenges brought by transfer pricing for the developing countriesare that, many developing countries haven’t established working transfer pricingrules, if any, there still exists too much abstract principles and lacking of practicalitydefects. In addition, developing countries are generally lacking ability in transferpricing management and experiences. In this context, there are many defects andweak points in the developing countries’ transfer pricing rules’ legislation, lawenforcement and judiciary in general, and these facts have caused the developingcountries large revenue loss and shortage. Making the situation of raising money bytax for development worse. These special difficulties of the developing countrieshave caused attention of international community and developing countriesthemselves. OECD, UN and the EU have got involved in term of doing research,making guidance and taking measures to address the problems.At present，all most all of the developing countries use arm’s length method indealing with transfer pricing problems. Brazil has developed a set of special rulesbased on the safe harbor and fixed formula method. The rules are variants of theFormulary Apportionment Method. It is the first developing country and the firstcountry as well which use to the Formulary Apportionment Method.SMEs’ transfer pricing problem has given rise to tough issue for taxpolicy-makers and taxpayers. EU has developed detailed and practical SMEs transferpricing rules, under their guidance, many EU member countries have conducted legislation on the issue. China has a huge SMEs sector, the above theoreticalresearch, legislation and practices can have many implications for China.China should make specific definitions for SMEs for transfer pricing purpose,simplify SMEs’ contemporaneous documentation requirements to reduce theircompliance burden, while encourage SMEs take an active part in the AdvancePricing Arrangements. Training for tax staffs and tax payers in transfer pricingrelated knowledge also should be carried out.更多还原