新足迹

标题: 海外公司避税问题 [打印本页]

作者: maniwood 时间: 2012-10-25 10:23
标题: 海外公司避税问题
公司想在斯里兰卡开一个公司，因为当地根据的法规，按投资规模可以享受4-10年的免税。昨天咨询了一下CA，说这个要看斯里兰卡这个公司收入的来源，如果超过5%的income来自澳洲，那就要付30%澳洲的公司税了。我对于这个比例很怀疑。有没有高手比较明了的阿？

作者: JohnnySu 时间: 2012-10-25 10:27
There are specialist companies that setup overseas companies for Australian businesses. They can handle everything from legal compliance to setting up virtual offices.

作者: Poweregg 时间: 2012-10-25 10:30
搭车好奇问问
google或者holden/toyota每年都要给母公司授权使用费
这部分转出澳洲的钱，澳洲政府能抽水吗？不能抽的话，很容易避税啊

作者: maniwood 时间: 2012-10-25 10:52

Poweregg 发表于 2012-10-25 11:30
搭车好奇问问
google或者holden/toyota每年都要给母公司授权使用费
这部分转出澳洲的钱，澳洲政府能抽水吗 ...

要交税的。每个国家对于这个rate不一样。澳洲不知道要收多少。

作者: JohnnySu 时间: 2012-10-25 13:23

Poweregg 发表于 2012-10-25 10:30
搭车好奇问问
google或者holden/toyota每年都要给母公司授权使用费
这部分转出澳洲的钱，澳洲政府能抽水吗 ...

Depending on the category of payments there are Withholding Tax, company tax, and transfer pricing rules. Whichever way the income would be taxed before it goes overseas.:)

作者: LENNY_DONG 时间: 2012-10-25 13:25
ATO HAS FOREIGN CONTROL TEST

http://www.ato.gov.au/taxprofess ... 473.htm&page=54

作者: maniwood 时间: 2012-10-25 13:51

STS-TAX 发表于 2012-10-25 14:25
ATO HAS FOREIGN CONTROL TEST

http://www.ato.gov.au/taxprofessionals/content.aspx?menuid=0&doc=/cont ...

谢谢，我看完先。哈哈比较慢。

作者: 3IX37 时间: 2012-10-25 14:09
本帖最后由 3IX37 于 2012-10-25 14:39 编辑

Poweregg 发表于 2012-10-25 10:30
搭车好奇问问
google或者holden/toyota每年都要给母公司授权使用费
这部分转出澳洲的钱，澳洲政府能抽水吗 ...

This is a too advanced topic to discuss within a few words.

Mainly the intra-group transactions will trigger trasfer pricing rules, the rationale behind this is all transactions must be dealt in an arm's length manner. Otherwise the Commissioner has the ultimate power to determine the consideration.

You should refer to Division 13 ITAA 1936 for transaction with a non-treaty country, and the new Subdivision 815-A ITAA1997 for transactions with a treaty country.

AU has very few cases in relation to this matter, the most recent one is the SNF case which, rumor has it, it is the reason of the new subdivision 815-A.

For anyone is interested in this topic, i am happy to discuss it off line, as i am currently doing some researches regarding to this lately most talked topic. :)

作者: 3IX37 时间: 2012-10-25 14:28
本帖最后由 3IX37 于 2012-10-25 14:29 编辑

I believe it is treated as a controlled foreign company (CFC), under the de minims exception, attributable income must be less than $ lower of AUD $50,000 or 5% of gross turnover.

addtional care needs to be taken that the above exception rule applies to CFC in listed countries (as far as i remember). whether Sri Lanka is a listed country or not, it is up to you to find out :)

At this stage It seems to be right to me without furthering analysis.

作者: kikichou 时间: 2012-10-25 14:47
看看学习下！

作者: maniwood 时间: 2012-10-25 14:48

3IX37 发表于 2012-10-25 15:28
I believe it is treated as a controlled foreign company (CFC), under the de minims exception, attrib ...

where I can find the info in ATO? do you have any link I can have a look? As my understanding, our Sir Lanka company is operating independently with three directors (two local directors and one OZ director) on board now. It has its own bank account and their own operation office and doing seperate business as OZ company branch does. I believe Sir Lanka has the tax treaty with OZ, however, that link is gray and cannot be opened in ATO website. Do you mind discuss with me regarding these issues? Thanking you in advance...

作者: 3IX37 时间: 2012-10-25 14:58

Poweregg 发表于 2012-10-25 10:30
搭车好奇问问
google或者holden/toyota每年都要给母公司授权使用费
这部分转出澳洲的钱，澳洲政府能抽水吗 ...

haha, I just noticed that you mentioned Google.

This is a very good case, which currently under ATO investigation. I remember I read on the news, that Google as a multinational company, one of Fortune 500, only paid $70,000 Au tax in 2011.

They are using a group structure plan, nick name as "Irish sandwich", through which they avoid to have a permanent establish in Au, therefore all Au sourced income is taxed overseas. This is a very complicated corporate structure planning, so far very effective. Even Apple, Amazon and other big international corps are all using or partly using this strategy too.

You probably would notice that if you order something online from Apple, the invoice is not from AU, instead it is from some other country.

作者: JohnnySu 时间: 2012-10-25 15:06

STS-TAX 发表于 2012-10-25 13:25
ATO HAS FOREIGN CONTROL TEST

http://www.ato.gov.au/taxprofess ... uid=0&doc=/cont ...

This test is to test income flowing into Australian entities not income flowing overseas.

作者: 3IX37 时间: 2012-10-25 15:07
本帖最后由 3IX37 于 2012-10-25 15:09 编辑

maniwood 发表于 2012-10-25 14:48
where I can find the info in ATO? do you have any link I can have a look? As my understanding, our ...

Any more information than i provided above, i have to charge you for it :) I am just joking. But..

Seriously, i am currently working on something else. and you sound like a person like doing your own researches.

here are the links you might find handy

http://www.ato.gov.au/taxprofessionals/content.aspx?doc=/content/64063.htm
http://www.jws.com.au/__files/f/2019/Controlled%20Foreign%20Companies.pdf
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/itaa1936240/s340.html

the relevant legislation you should refer to are (mainly in ITAA1936)
s.456
s.331, s.332, s. 332A, s. 333
s.349 to s.355
mainly Part X and Part XI

作者: JohnnySu 时间: 2012-10-25 15:13

3IX37 发表于 2012-10-25 14:28
I believe it is treated as a controlled foreign company (CFC), under the de minims exception, attrib ...

CFC, FIF etc these rules test income flowing into Australia not income flowing out. You are looking in the wrong direction.

作者: 3IX37 时间: 2012-10-25 15:32

3IX37 发表于 2012-10-25 14:58
haha, I just noticed that you mentioned Google.

This is a very good case, which currently under ...

quote:
http://delimiter.com.au/2012/06/21/transfer-pricing-rules-wont-affect-google-tax/
http://www.charteredaccountants.com.au/News-Media/Charter/Charter-articles/Business-management/2012-09-Are-Borders-Meaningless.aspx

作者: 3IX37 时间: 2012-10-25 15:52
I am always amazed by how fast some people can response on this forum. Sometimes i wonder whether they work full time online in this forum.

OK, since i am taking this arvo off from work. Let me elucidate this further.

Yes, it is correct that the CFC rule can be seemed as an in-flow integrity mechanism, under which a foreign subsidiary, if is a controlled foreign company, even it is a resident in other juristiction (Non-Au resident) and the income is foreign sourced, they are still liable to Au tax. Again, this is an over simplified explanation. for some picky readers, i m sure you can refer more info from legistions.

and you absolutely right that i don't know all.

Cheers.

作者: maniwood 时间: 2012-10-25 16:07

3IX37 发表于 2012-10-25 16:52
I am always amazed by how fast some people can response on this forum. Sometimes i wonder whether th ...

但是我觉得你是对的啊，进和出只是相对的一个概念。就像我们公司现在的这个情况，虽然是公司想把钱转出去，然后可以在斯里兰卡免税，但是从斯里兰卡这方面讲，就算转出去了，也是要交AU的税。因为有CFC的问题存在。我是自己觉得原本这个计划就是行不通的。我有一点不明白的是如果有tax treaty, 是不是意味着所有公司就算在斯里兰卡有自己的branch并且独立运营，就算当地免了税（tax free period) 澳洲政府还是要税呢？这个CFC不是和tax treaty冲突了吗？

作者: LENNY_DONG 时间: 2012-10-25 16:23

taxbreak 发表于 2012-10-25 15:06
This test is to test income flowing into Australian entities not income flowing overseas.

Controlled foreign company
A controlled foreign company is a non-resident company controlled by an Australian entity. Under section 340 of the ITAA 1936 a foreign company is controlled by an Australian entity if one of the three control tests is satisfied:

strict control test
assumed controller test
de facto control test.
Strict control test

A foreign company will be treated as a controlled foreign company under the strict control test if a group of five or fewer Australian '1% entities', together with their associates, owns or is entitled to acquire a control interest of at least 50% in the foreign company.

An Australian 1% entity is an Australian entity that, together with its associates, holds an interest of at least 1% in the foreign company.

An Australian entity is an Australian partnership, an Australian trust, or an entity - other than a partnership or trust - that is a Part X Australian resident. A Part X Australian resident is a resident of Australia who is not treated solely as a resident of another country under a double taxation agreement between Australia and that country.

The associate-inclusive control interest of an entity is the sum of interests held by the entity and its associates in the foreign company. Interests that the entity and its associates are entitled to acquire are also taken into account.

Example of strict control test

Assumed controller test

A foreign company is normally treated as a controlled foreign company under the assumed controller test if a single Australian entity owns, or is entitled to acquire, an associate-inclusive control interest of at least 40%. An entity's associate-inclusive control interest in a foreign company is the sum of the interests held in the company by the entity and the associates of the entity. However, a foreign company is not treated as a controlled foreign company under the assumed controller test if the company is controlled by a party or parties unrelated to the single resident or its associates.

Example of assumed control test

De facto control test

A foreign company will be treated as a controlled foreign company under the de facto control test if a group of five or fewer Australian entities, either alone or with associates, effectively controls the foreign company.

Example of de facto control test

If an Australian entity can control the appointment of directors to a foreign company, the Australian entity will generally be taken to have de facto control of that company.

When is control measured?

The statutory accounting period of a controlled foreign company is a period of 12 months ending 30 June, unless the company elects to use another period. The control test is applied at the end of a company's statutory accounting period to check whether income of that company is to be attributed.

It may also be necessary to measure control when a controlled foreign company pays a dividend to another controlled foreign company or to a controlled foreign trust, or when a controlled foreign company changes residence.

作者: JohnnySu 时间: 2012-10-25 20:22
本帖最后由 taxbreak 于 2012-10-25 20:25 编辑

STS-TAX 发表于 2012-10-25 16:23
Controlled foreign company
A controlled foreign company is a non-resident company controlled by an ...

粘贴这么多大家也看不完
简单来说这CFC是针对澳洲企业在海外的子公司如果符合某些条件其收入就要算在澳洲母公司的头上缴澳洲的税这跟澳洲公司往海外输出利润避税是两码事的

作者: LENNY_DONG 时间: 2012-10-25 20:34

taxbreak 发表于 2012-10-25 20:22
粘贴这么多大家也看不完
简单来说这CFC是针对澳洲企业在海外的子公司如果符合某些条件其收入就要算在 ...

那楼主问的东西不就是澳洲企业的海外子公司么

或许我中文理解不太好

作者: maniwood 时间: 2012-10-26 10:07

taxbreak 发表于 2012-10-25 21:22
粘贴这么多大家也看不完
简单来说这CFC是针对澳洲企业在海外的子公司如果符合某些条件其收入就要算在 ...

公司的初衷是建立一个和公司一点关系都没有的公司在海外，用来避税。最后演变成一定要有一个澳洲的holding company，因为海外投资人家要看你公司的以前的帐。没有这个海外也不会让你随便成立公司。但是就是因为这个原因，最后就变成海外的公司成了子公司。很无奈啊。而且现在也搞不清楚到底Sir Lanka是不是和AU有tax treaty,这个tax treaty 和CFC有没有冲突。谢谢各位。

作者: JohnnySu 时间: 2012-10-26 10:31

maniwood 发表于 2012-10-26 10:07
公司的初衷是建立一个和公司一点关系都没有的公司在海外，用来避税。最后演变成一定要有一个澳洲的holdin ...

Hi my discussions were more focused on the Google case

In relation to your business. I can give you a contact. You can ring and ask for Eric Allan.
http://www.cmsaus.com.au/
They are specialist in setting up companies in tax heaven jurisdictions.
You can possibly set up a company in Belize or Hk where the company tax rates are close to 0.Talk to these people anyways they do these everyday.

作者: LENNY_DONG 时间: 2012-10-26 16:13

maniwood 发表于 2012-10-26 10:07
公司的初衷是建立一个和公司一点关系都没有的公司在海外，用来避税。最后演变成一定要有一个澳洲的holdin ...

ASK BIG 4......

THEY HAVE SPECIALIST TO DEAL WITH THESE ISSUE

作者: lee2267 时间: 2012-10-26 19:53

STS-TAX 发表于 2012-10-26 17:13
ASK BIG 4......

THEY HAVE SPECIALIST TO DEAL WITH THESE ISSUE

在我印象中安永在 transferrting price 这块是 4大最强的。。

作者: LENNY_DONG 时间: 2012-10-26 21:44

lee2267 发表于 2012-10-26 19:53
在我印象中安永在 transferrting price 这块是 4大最强的。。

反正他们帮全球企业钻空子地方多了去了

BHP好像在一个破岛开个分公司，丰田也是

作者: 3IX37 时间: 2012-10-31 22:35
本帖最后由 3IX37 于 2012-11-1 06:50 编辑

Poweregg 发表于 2012-10-25 10:30
搭车好奇问问
google或者holden/toyota每年都要给母公司授权使用费
这部分转出澳洲的钱，澳洲政府能抽水吗 ...

This is totally not related to the original LZ's post.

In relation to your question regarding how google managed to pay only $74,000 tax on claimed local revenue of $1 billion . the following is the brief detail for the so-called "Double Irish Dutch Sandwich" structure and background.

Background Knowledge:
Under tax treaty, when a foreign company, who is a resident of a treaty country, has a business profit in Australia, but has no permanent establishment (PE) in here, only the original resident country of the company has the taxing right for the profit.
PE is a defined term in Article 5.

How Google did it:

1) Google has no permanent establishment (a fixed place of business) in Australia. If u purchase an advertisement, you would get an invoice from Ireland. The advertising business is undertaken by an Irish company 1, who is the resident of Ireland.

2) Irish company 2, has business headquarter and business operation in Bahamas and holding/owning the title of its intellectual properties.

3) An Dutch associate is in Netherlands.

Irish 1 pays royalty to Irish 2 for the intellectual property it uses for its advertising business operation. this shifts the profit from Ireland to Bahamas, where the tax heaven is.

There usually would be a royalty withholding tax levied on this type transactions. This is why the Dutch associate coming to play. as there is no such withholding requirement for transaction between Ireland and Netherlands. Consequently, the majority of the profit has effectively been shifted from Australia to Bahamas.

One more background knowledge.
As Google is a US company, under US tax law Subpart F, a US company's overseas income does not need to be taxed until the time when the profit is repatriated back in US. That is why there is billions and billions "Stateless Money" shifting around world.

The controversy issue:
With the new technology is so advanced, a business does not need a strict fixed place for its business operation as it used to be. As the result, whether the definition of PE needs to be updated or whether the PE rule is still correctly serving its original legislative purpose. there are a lot of debates.

作者: 3IX37 时间: 2012-11-4 10:56
本帖最后由 3IX37 于 2012-11-5 15:58 编辑

maniwood 发表于 2012-10-26 10:07
公司的初衷是建立一个和公司一点关系都没有的公司在海外，用来避税。最后演变成一定要有一个澳洲的holdin ...

Sri Lanka is a treaty country. it however is not a listed country, instead it is one of section 404 countries. (if my memory serves me correctly)

One of the main purposes of tax treaty is to eliminate the juridical double taxation, under which a same taxpayer is taxed twice on the same income at the same time by 2 different tax jurisdictions.

As it was explained earlier in Google case, in most countries under treaty a foreign company is not taxed on its foreign sourced income without a permanent establishment, only the origin resident country has the taxing power. This means on the other hand if an australian resident uses a foreign company to derive business or investment income from a foreign source, AU would lose its taxing power and this income would generally escape from Au tax until it is distributed back to the Au resident controller.

However, unlike most other countries, Au additionally has its attribution regime, Part X - CFC rules, to prevent this, by attributing the income of the controlled foreign entity to the AU controller rather than waiting for it being repatriated back in Au.

This attribution regime has a limited operation in 2 respects
1) it generally does not apply where the foreign company derives a genuine active business operation income
2) it normally does not apply where the foreign income is subject to foreign income tax in a listed country where a comparable tax rate is levied.

The central operative provision for the CFC rules is s.456 of ITAA1936. The "attributable income", "attributable taxpayer" and "attribution percentage" are all defined terms in Part X, you can find the detailed definition there.

I hope this explained your question.

作者: maniwood 时间: 2012-11-6 09:20

3IX37 发表于 2012-11-4 11:56
Sri Lanka is a treaty country. it however is not a listed country, instead it is one of section 40 ...

谢谢，强人阿(paopaobing(88))

作者: 3IX37 时间: 2012-11-22 20:46

Poweregg 发表于 2012-10-25 10:30
搭车好奇问问
google或者holden/toyota每年都要给母公司授权使用费
这部分转出澳洲的钱，澳洲政府能抽水吗 ...

Hi there

Just in case that you have not yet read this news. It is related to this regard in the news on The Age today.

http://www.theage.com.au/busines ... 20121122-29rxl.html

Cheers

作者: xinxin119 时间: 2012-11-22 21:57
mark, 3ix37 是学术派的还是实战派的。。。在何方高就

作者: 3IX37 时间: 2012-11-23 09:39
本帖最后由 3IX37 于 2012-11-23 09:45 编辑

xinxin119 发表于 2012-11-22 21:57
mark, 3ix37 是学术派的还是实战派的。。。在何方高就

My friend, i really don't know how to answer you this question :)

I guess at the end of the day it is what we do defines us (Batman)

So what i do is that
- never stop learning,
- think globally act locally and
- measure twice cut once.

I don't think i know all, but i would like to learn more and share more from you and with you :)

作者: 640 时间: 2012-11-23 09:51
Can we just make it into a oversea loan, and pump up the expenses section instead?

作者: JohnnySu 时间: 2012-11-23 10:19

640 发表于 2012-11-23 09:51
Can we just make it into a oversea loan, and pump up the expenses section instead?

This is covered by the Thin Capital Provisions. You can not deduct all the interest if you debt ratio is over certain level.

作者: 640 时间: 2012-11-23 10:38

taxbreak 发表于 2012-11-23 11:19
This is covered by the Thin Capital Provisions. You can not deduct all the interest if you debt ra ...

“The thin capitalisation provisions are contained in div 820 of ITAA 1997. The provisions operate to disallow certain “debt deductions” where an entity is thinly capitalised. Put simply, Australia has imposed a 3:1 debt to equity ratio, meaning that at least 25 per cent of an asset’s value should be financed with equity and no more than 75 per cent of that value should be financed with debt.”

Assuming this is current, 75% of the asset value can be financed by debt?　

作者: 3IX37 时间: 2012-11-23 10:45
本帖最后由 3IX37 于 2012-11-23 10:58 编辑

640 发表于 2012-11-23 09:51
Can we just make it into a oversea loan, and pump up the expenses section instead?

Further to 34#,

i guess the thin cap is more likely than not to focus on Au sub or branch, who receives funding from offshore parent or investors. Yet the current circumstance of LZ is that AU company sets up offshore branches or Sub, if there is a loan, it is more like to be Au Parent lending money to offshore Sub. What can we achieve by doing this, i would like to think. :) If it is a low interest or interest free loan, transfer pricing regime will be triggered.

作者: 640 时间: 2012-11-23 10:58

3IX37 发表于 2012-11-23 11:45
Further to 34#,

i guess the thin cap is more likely than not to focus on Au sub or branch, who r ...

what about charging normal interest ? will that pass?

作者: 3IX37 时间: 2012-11-23 11:11
本帖最后由 3IX37 于 2012-11-23 21:18 编辑

640 发表于 2012-11-23 10:58
what about charging normal interest ? will that pass?

I don't think we can achieve any advantages by doing this.

Curent circumstance of LZ is
> Sri Lanka (SL) has 6 year tax break period, consequently it would make sense that LZ wants to generate more profit in SL and less profit in AU.
> the SL sub company (SL SubCo)is going to be a CFC (controlled foreign company) by definition in s.340
> even the SL SubCo is a Non-reisdent, the attributable income derived by it in SL will also be taxable at the hands of AU parent (the attributable taxpayer by definition s361) before the profit is actually repatriated back to Au. (provided the safe harbour rule is not satisfied. It is more likely than not that it is not satisfied)

it then gives LZ the possibility to use intra group transactions or services to potentially shift profit from Au to SL, and then the transfer pricing regime will be triggered. By charging the arm's length interest, there would be no profit shifted, it certainly would pass all tests. However, LZ would not achieve any tax advantages, which is the whole AU tax system, legislations are designed to achieve.

:)

作者: 640 时间: 2012-11-23 11:15

3IX37 发表于 2012-11-23 12:11
I don't think we can achieve any advantages by doing this.

Curent circumstance of LZ is

Fair enough, so we also need a way to get the money back. How about another loan to a local AU sub ? an Au sub that is not related to the 1st Au corp ?

作者: 3IX37 时间: 2012-11-23 11:24
本帖最后由 3IX37 于 2012-11-23 11:35 编辑

640 发表于 2012-11-23 11:15
Fair enough, so we also need a way to get the money back. How about another loan to a local AU sub ...

haha, good thinking.

However, ATO has its ultimate tool Division 13, it does not limit the international transaction to be between related associates. and s.136AD(4) gives the Commissioner the ultimate discretion power to determine the arm's length consideration for the international transactions in question. This would be what LZ would exhaust all his or her efforts to avoid.

:)

作者: 3IX37 时间: 2012-11-23 11:28

640 发表于 2012-11-23 11:15
Fair enough, so we also need a way to get the money back. How about another loan to a local AU sub ...

by the way, the retrospective power of ATO for dealing relating to Division 13 and/or Div 815-A is indefinite, not 5 year period, be noted.

作者: lee2267 时间: 2012-11-23 11:37
本帖最后由 lee2267 于 2012-11-23 12:41 编辑

Transferring Price specialist 才能完全回答这方面的问题的哇。。别说人家4大还有专门的 department搞这个东东。。
现在 Transferring Price 都是各个国家研究的重头戏。。

之前的有楼上的提及 google/apple 。。我贴出来给大家看看。。文章转自新浪财经。。

苹果绚丽的避税魔术被戏称作“爱尔兰荷兰三明治”，因为其手法主要是在两家爱尔兰子公司和一家荷兰子公司之间腾挪，就像两片面包夹着一片奶酪的三明治。

　　为了吸引投资解决就业，爱尔兰的企业所得税非常低，只有12.5%，远低于美国和其他欧盟国家。苹果在爱尔兰设立苹果国际销售公司(Apple Sales International，下称“爱尔兰销售公司”)，负责接收除了美国以外地区的所有销售收入，享受爱尔兰的低所得税税率。

　　但相比一些税率极低的“避税天堂”，爱尔兰的所得税还是高，为了尽可能地少缴所得税，苹果要把大部分营收以成本最低廉的方式转移到避税天堂去。

　　爱尔兰恰好又提供了向避税天堂转移营收的独特通道。根据爱尔兰独特的税法，即使是在爱尔兰注册的公司，只要其母公司或总部设在外国，就被认定为外国公司。于是，苹果在爱尔兰又设立了一家苹果国际运营公司(Apple Operations International，下称“爱尔兰运营公司”)，其总部则设立在著名的避税天堂——加勒比群岛。由于爱尔兰运营公司是外国公司，它把收入汇到总部不需要向爱尔兰缴税，几乎是零成本。

　　廉价的收银机已经设好，通向避税天堂的渠道也已打通，现在要考虑的是，怎么把爱尔兰销售公司的销售收入便宜地转到爱尔兰运营公司。

　　直接转，要缴爱尔兰所得税，划不来；好在欧洲的另一个国家可以为这个关键的转移提供跳板，那就是荷兰。

　　苹果在荷兰设有一家子公司——苹果欧洲运营公司(Apple Operations Europe，下称“荷兰运营公司”)。与爱尔兰不同，荷兰税法以公司注册地而不是总部所在地来认定公司的国籍，所以苹果在爱尔兰与荷兰的3家子公司在荷兰都被认定为欧盟的公司。爱尔兰和荷兰都规定，欧盟成员国公司之间的交易，免缴所得税。

　　桥梁也已经架好，现在的问题是：在这3家关联公司之间，并不存在实际的销售活动，怎样实现交易呢？

　　分析人士称，苹果选择了一种看不见摸不着但又很值钱的交易品来充当转移收入的媒介——知识产权。

　　当美国以外的苹果用户在iTune市场上点击购买一首歌或者一个软件的时候，苹果美国公司就把其所拥有的知识产权资产——也就是iPhone、iPad等硬件终端和iTune等软件所提供的服务——转移到爱尔兰运营公司，而用户所支付的现金则进入爱尔兰销售公司的账户。由于实现这一销售必须用到苹果的知识产权资产，因此爱尔兰销售公司就“需要”向爱尔兰运营公司支付知识产权专利使用费。爱尔兰销售公司通过荷兰运营公司的中转，将销售收入以专利使用费的名义转到爱尔兰运营公司，最终转到加勒比群岛上的总部。钱一旦进入那个避税天堂，就无法再被任何监管机构监控到。

　　在整个收入转移过程中，只需要缴纳荷兰低廉的交易税和部分爱尔兰低廉的所得税。

　　另外，苹果年报还披露，除上述3家欧洲的子公司外，苹果在美国也有一家注册在内华达州的子公司Braeburn Capital, Inc。由于内华达州不征收公司所得税，让该子公司汇总公司营收并进行投资，可以使部分投资收益避免向加州缴纳8.84%的所得税。

　　人人都吃三明治

　　其实，苹果使用的避税策略在美国大公司中并不少见。早在2010年，就有媒体报道过谷歌等公司在通过“爱尔兰荷兰三明治”将营收转移到避税天堂的做法。过去两年，标准普尔500指数成份股中的71家高科技公司——包括苹果、谷歌、雅虎和戴尔等——在全球范围内缴税现金税的比例平均比非高科技公司低三分之一。

　　纽约圣约翰大学会计系的助理教授孙佳麟告诉本报，美国公司所使用的上述国际会计策略在专业上被称为转让定价(Transfer Pricing)，指的是关联企业之间通过销售货物、提供劳务、转让无形资产等定价巧妙的交易，进行资金的转移。

　　一名会计专业人士对本报记者表示，在跨国经济活动中，利用关联企业之间的转让定价进行避税已成为一种常见的进行税务筹划的方法。其实现的原则是通过各种交易将利润向低税率国家转移。

　　在具体操作时，高税国企业向其低税国关联企业销售货物、提供劳务、转让无形资产时制定低价；低税国企业向其高税国关联企业销售货物、提供劳务、转让无形资产时制定高价。这样，利润就从高税国转移到低税国，从而达到最大限度减轻其税负的目的。

　　“苹果在美国进行大部分的研究。其主要雇员大多数是在美国。其54%的长期资产、69%的零售商店、39%的销售额都在美国。”美国非营利机构“税收分析师”的首席经济学家沙利文(Martin Sullivan)在分析文章中指出，“美国转让定价规则是筛子(让税收都漏走了)。”

　　沙利文称，如果没有相关的避税策略，苹果2011财年应缴纳联邦税税额可能增加24亿美元。

　　至于利用免税州注册公司来避税就更加普遍。著名的注册地址特拉华州威明顿的1209 North Orange Street那幢一层不起眼的小楼里注册了包括谷歌、通用汽车、福特、美国航空等超过28万家公司或子公司。唯一吸引这些大公司的就是特拉华州独特的法律和税务。

　　孙佳麟说，其实美国这样的税务漏洞由来已久，美国的税务机构IRS对此也了如指掌。他们曾督促国会立法，但国会议员们并没有多大动力去做这件事。因为即使这些公司税率偏低，它们仍是所在州的纳税大户，无论是州还是联邦政府，都从中受益。即使立法填上这个漏洞，美国还有其他的相关税法限制，最后美国政府并不一定能收到更多的税。

作者: maniwood 时间: 2012-11-23 12:26

3IX37 发表于 2012-11-23 12:24
haha, good thinking.

However, ATO has its ultimate tool Division 13, it does not limit the inter ...

谢谢大侠。最近有一个想法，不知道行不行的通。如果有其他party愿意买斯里兰卡子公司超过60%股份，而这个third party是一个superannuation 公司，这个super公司和我们的公司是没有关系的情况下，那就意味着我们公司失去了控制权。而这个super公司的所有者已经超过65岁，作为beneficiary，他收到dividend是不用付税的对吗？
这种情况下，我们公司的税怎么报呢？

作者: xinxin119 时间: 2012-11-23 13:09

maniwood 发表于 2012-11-23 13:26
谢谢大侠。最近有一个想法，不知道行不行的通。如果有其他party愿意买斯里兰卡子公司超过60%股份，而这 ...

Sole purpose test

作者: 3IX37 时间: 2012-11-23 13:50
本帖最后由 3IX37 于 2012-11-23 14:16 编辑

maniwood 发表于 2012-11-23 12:26
谢谢大侠。最近有一个想法，不知道行不行的通。如果有其他party愿意买斯里兰卡子公司超过60%股份，而这 ...

in relation to your question, if the super fund is unrelated, how the dividend is distributed to it, why would you care?

If your question is more related to the attributable income to your Au parent company, then...
> the Superfund is presumably still AU entity, right? if so the SL SubCo would still be a CFC, s.340((a), controlled by a group of 5 or fewer Au 1% entities.
> Even the third party were total unrelated and it were Non AU resident entity, the SL SubCo would still be a CFC under s.340(b) for a single Au entity holds no less than 40% interest.

How the attributable income is calculated is based on the attribution percentage, which is also defined in s.362. it would be more likely than not to be 40% in your scenario.

作者: acesoft 时间: 2012-11-23 13:51
that is a good thread....

作者: nis 时间: 2012-11-23 14:02
提示: 作者被禁止或删除内容自动屏蔽

作者: vince_au 时间: 2012-11-23 14:10
学习了

作者: 3IX37 时间: 2012-11-23 14:11
本帖最后由 3IX37 于 2012-11-23 14:26 编辑

lee2267 发表于 2012-11-23 11:37
Transferring Price specialist 才能完全回答这方面的问题的哇。。别说人家4大还有专门的 department搞这个 ...

I totally agree and thanks for sharing.

Further to this article, it was written more likely from the perspective of IRS in US. From the perspective of AU ATO, it has CFC attribution regime, which works differently from IRS US tax law. In US, income derived offshore by a non US resident is not required to be taxed in US until the profit is repatriated or distributed back in US. I believe the relevant legislation is Sub part F in US tax law.

However, AU tax has its attribution regime Part X. As i briefly introduced before, Part X imposes tax on the attributable income derived offshore by offshore Controlled Foreign Company/Entities even before the profit is distributed back in AU.

On the other hand, for those Foreign companies (Non AU companies), like google or apple, who has business operation in AU, yet they use the above mentioned strategy and avoid setting Permanent Establishment (PE) in Au. by this they have successfully shifted profit from AU to offshore.  As they are non AU resident, and they have no PE in AU, the profit is normally not deemed to be derived locally (AU) under tax treaty. CFC rule is not relevant in this scenario because here is no AU controller. Transfer pricing is however relevant.

To LZ
After all, this is very advanced and extremely complicated topic. There are firms specialised in this area, and they have buildings of people to do researches on different tax laws in difference jurisdictions around the world to find the best structure and strategies.  The answer you are seeking would not be available here by anyone in just a few pages of words. But i would be more than happy to discuss in a very high and brief level.

Cheers

作者: maniwood 时间: 2012-11-23 15:08

3IX37 发表于 2012-11-23 15:11
I totally agree and thanks for sharing.

Further to this article, it was written more likely from ...

谢谢，公司确实有请firm做research,但是都是在这个子公司成立之后的事。基本上都是觉得没有什么方法可以在现有的情况下避税了。因为大多数公司在斯里兰卡成立公司主要是为了减少人力成本而不是为了避税。所以老板就想把公司转手给法律上不相关的第三方，而实际上又能自己操控的公司。目前看来比较好的就是转给super fund。只要这个beneficiary 超过65岁，貌似dividend 就不用交税。而实际上老板只要能操控这个beneficiary 他就一样可以拿到钱了。当然从法律上来讲，老板肯定是要丧失操控权的，这里面有一个risk存在。如果100%转让，是不是行得通？

作者: lee2267 时间: 2012-11-23 21:07
本帖最后由 lee2267 于 2012-11-23 22:39 编辑

学习 ing

有兴趣的童鞋可以从历史开始了解

1. Tuesday, 1 November 2011， Treasury released a Consultation Paper开始公开征集法案讨论。。
document 地址http://archive.treasury.gov.au/c ... &ContentID=2219

2. Aug 2012， ATO published： The Tax Laws Amendment (Cross-Border Transfer Pricing) Bill (No. 1) 2012 has passed all stages without amendment and awaits Royal Assent. The Bill proposes to make retrospective amendments with effect from 1 July 2004 to confirm that transfer pricing rules contained in Australia's tax treaties and incorporated into domestic law provide assessment authority in treaty cases.

3. 22.NOV 2012 ATO 公布了稅法修正草案（div 13）。详细了解：http://www.ato.gov.au/content/54621.htm
中文译文: 来源搜狐IT
澳大利亞政府昨天（週四 11月22日）公布了稅法修正草案，希望阻止包括谷歌在內的大型跨國企業將在澳大利亞所獲得的收入轉移至荷蘭或愛爾蘭等低稅率國家。

　　澳大利亞政府此舉響應了此前英國和德國的一項倡議。後者在11月初曾表示將積極推動20國集團建立公平稅收標準，防止跨國公司的逃稅行為。此前有報道稱大型跨國公司利用法律漏洞將盈利轉移到其他低稅率國家以躲避盈利稅。

　　澳大利亞財政部助理部長大衛•布拉德伯裡表示，雖然在谷歌做廣告的澳大利亞企業看起來是依照合同與谷歌澳大利亞分公司進行日常交易，但是它們實際上是從一個谷歌在愛爾蘭的分公司購買廣告。因此，這部分利潤引發了各界的爭議。按照澳大利亞現行稅法規定，這些收入的征稅權力屬于愛爾蘭，而不是澳大利亞。澳大利亞的企業稅率為30%，愛爾蘭則為12.5%。

　　谷歌澳大利亞拒絕就布拉德伯裡的發言進行評論，但表示公司遵守所有當地稅法。谷歌發言人表示，谷歌對澳大利亞經濟的發展做出了很大的貢獻。谷歌幫助數以千計的企業實現在線增長，免費為數百萬澳大利亞人提供服務，並在當地雇傭650名員工。谷歌並未違反澳大利亞的稅法。

作者: 3IX37 时间: 2012-11-23 22:26

maniwood 发表于 2012-11-23 15:08
谢谢，公司确实有请firm做research,但是都是在这个子公司成立之后的事。基本上都是觉得没有什么方法可以 ...

I appreciate that you can't give away too much information on a public forum as it is fairly confidential matter.
I also appreciate that the trend here is to utilise a Super fund, (more likely to be a SMSF i presume) to take advantage of its concessional tax rate and withdraw its value through pension stream.

As i have not kept updated regarding to super fund, I m no expert regarding to this area. However, i would love to think:
> Super fund is in substance a trust, and the definition of associate is rather broad under s.318. and there must be some sort of control here, even it is over the beneficiary. (PartX also covers controlled foreign trust)
> if a scheme is entered for achieving tax benefits and short of commercial sense, Part IVA (tax anti-avoidence) might kick in.
> the dividend distributed from SL SubCo to the Super would be a offshore dividend. AU imputation rule does not apply this. the company tax paid overseas as a foreign tax credit can only reduce the super tax liability, not refundable. In addition, the whole purpose to set up a company in SL is to take the advantage of the 6 year period of SL tax break as well as the low local labour cost. Consequently how much foreign tax credits would the Super fund get from the dividend, i would like to think?
> once the value is distributed to the beneficiary, it would be the individual income of the beneficiary. How can your boss get his hand on another individual's personal income without any associate relationship? I would doubt.

I would love to know the detail of the strategy off line, if it does not breach your confidentiality.

Cheers :)

作者: lee2267 时间: 2012-11-24 08:45
本帖最后由 lee2267 于 2012-11-24 09:49 编辑

SMSF 感觉走的是对的。。只要 corp trustee 不是澳洲公司就好。。。beneficiary没有限制。可以澳洲人可以不澳洲人。。但是 corp super fund 的 beneficiary是 min 2个人。。老板一个人是不够的。。猫本市面上很多造 appt 的都是 corp smsf 。。。特指马来新加坡等东南亚的建筑商。。 beneficiary 是澳洲人，，
corp trustee 是东南亚的。。SMSF 是澳洲的

作者: Synergy000 时间: 2012-12-10 13:29

Poweregg 发表于 2012-10-25 11:30
搭车好奇问问
google或者holden/toyota每年都要给母公司授权使用费
这部分转出澳洲的钱，澳洲政府能抽水吗 ...

royalty的话会涉及transfer pricing的issue

作者: xinxin119 时间: 2012-12-11 20:45

lee2267 发表于 2012-11-24 09:45
SMSF 感觉走的是对的。。只要 corp trustee 不是澳洲公司就好。。。beneficiary没有限制。可以澳洲人可以 ...

how do u make sure central control and management is still in aus if foreign corp trustee is appointed ?

作者: 神马浮云 时间: 2012-12-11 21:36

xinxin119 发表于 2012-12-11 21:45
how do u make sure central control and management is still in aus if foreign corp trustee is appoi ...

It is a bloody tough question, mate!

作者: lee2267 时间: 2012-12-12 11:28

xinxin119 发表于 2012-12-11 21:45
how do u make sure central control and management is still in aus if foreign corp trustee is appoi ...

tax agent。。。

作者: 神马浮云 时间: 2012-12-12 12:52
Tax agent...？
我不信，可能和你打交道的ato officer信。

作者: xinxin119 时间: 2012-12-12 17:21

lee2267 发表于 2012-12-12 12:28
tax agent。。。

walking on the edge of the sword, lee

作者: lee2267 时间: 2012-12-12 20:22
本帖最后由 lee2267 于 2012-12-12 21:23 编辑

这个是 ethic 的问题。人见人智。。。但不能否认有市场就有人冒险。。其中的弯道并不一定是违法但是***

作者: 3IX37 时间: 2013-2-14 09:09

Poweregg 发表于 2012-10-25 10:30
搭车好奇问问
google或者holden/toyota每年都要给母公司授权使用费
这部分转出澳洲的钱，澳洲政府能抽水吗 ...

Something you might be interested in knowing, from media release on treasury website.

Reforms to crack down on tax avoidance and profit shifting
Reforms introduced into Parliament today will boost the Government's ability to tackle the challenges of base erosion and profit shifting, said Assistant Treasurer David Bradbury.

The Tax Laws Amendment (Countering Tax Avoidance and Multinational Profit Shifting) Bill 2013 contains amendments to the general anti avoidance rule, known as Part IVA, and the Transfer Pricing regime.

"These reforms strengthen two of our key weapons in the fight against base erosion and profit shifting. They will help to protect the integrity of Australia's income tax system and make sure that large taxpayers pay their fair share," said Mr Bradbury.

The Part IVA amendments ensure that the anti-avoidance provisions continue to counter schemes that comply with the technical requirements of the law but which, when viewed objectively, are conducted mainly to avoid tax.

The amendments will protect revenue of over $1 billion per year.

The amendments also modernise Australia's transfer pricing rules and provide a comprehensive and robust transfer pricing regime that is aligned with internationally accepted principles, as set out by the OECD.

Transfer pricing rules are critical to the integrity of the tax system. They seek to ensure that an appropriate return for the contribution of Australian operations of a multinational group is taxable in Australia for the benefit of the broader community.

"When multinationals don't pay their fair share, they gain an unfair competitive advantage over domestic companies and disadvantage Australian taxpayers who must make up the tax shortfall or accept fewer Government services," said Mr Bradbury.

"The Government has also recently announced its intention to improve the transparency of Australia's business tax system and the Treasurer will be taking this issue to the G20 Finance Ministers' meeting this weekend.

"Large multinational companies that use complex arrangements and contrived corporate structures to avoid paying their fair share of tax should not be able to hide behind a veil of secrecy."

13 February 2013

http://ministers.treasury.gov.au ... Year=&DocType=0

作者: 3IX37 时间: 2013-2-14 09:10

Poweregg 发表于 2012-10-25 10:30
搭车好奇问问
google或者holden/toyota每年都要给母公司授权使用费
这部分转出澳洲的钱，澳洲政府能抽水吗 ...

Governments need to modernise their tax systems to catch international companies that dodge paying corporation tax, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has warned.

The ease with which companies shift profits around the world to offshore havens shows that tax authorities need to step up their anti-avoidance efforts or risk losing billions of pounds in much-needed revenues, said the Paris-based thinktank in a report on Tuesday.

Angel Gurría, head of the OECD, said the G20 needed to act this year to combat avoidance, which he said was undermining the ability of governments to recover from the financial crisis. He said the failure to crack down on "the big guys" would leave small and medium-sized businesses and middle income taxpayers to pick up the tab for vital public services.

"Companies have a responsibility to pay corporation tax in the jurisdictions where they operate. Citizens are already losing faith in their banks and the financial system. If big corporations fail to pay tax and leave it to SMEs and middle income groups, it will undermine democracy. This is about the survival of democracy," he said.

The report comes only months after Starbucks promised to pay £20m in corporation tax, despite making a loss in its UK subsidiary. Other foreign companies that pay little or no corporation tax, including Google and Amazon, have justified their stance, saying they use tax avoidance rules allowed under UK law.

The OECD said many countries had failed to update their tax rules to cope with the digital age.

Without an overhaul of the rulebook, multinationals would continue to shift profits abroad.

The OECD plans to hand its report, Addressing Base Erosion and Profit Shifting, to G20 finance ministers at the end of the week ahead of a leaders conference in Moscow in September. Gurría said member countries needed to co-operate to tackle avoidance or their plans would fail.

Offshore tax havens have become global financial centres in their own right and benefited from massive inflows of funds that previously went in tax payments to OECD member countries. The UK is at the centre of the debate after the OECD and International Monetary Fund found that former colonies and British crown protectorates were key destinations for funds that have avoided tax.

Figures show that, in 2010, Barbados, Bermuda and the British Virgin Islands received more foreign direct investment than Germany or Japan.

Not only do offshore havens act as a base for multinationals to deposit funds, the funds are recycled for further investment into developing nations. The British Virgin Islands was the second largest investor into China in 2010 after Hong Kong. The BVI accounted for 14% of all investments into China compared w 45% from Hong Kong. The US trailed with 4% of the total investment into China.

Cyprus is the top investor into Russia, with 25% of all foreign investment, while Mauritius accounts for a quarter of all foreign investment into India.

Gurría said: " I think we have an attentive audience in the G20. Whether they act depends on whether they can see a way to address the problem because it does need a tremendous amount of co-operation."

The Guardian was praised by the OECD in its report for the long-running Tax Gap campaign that has highlighted the techniques used by multinationals to avoid tax. Gurría said countries needed to go further than signing treaties with offshore havens to gain information about bank accounts and financial transactions and seek to tackle illegal capital flight.

Richard Murphy, the anti-avoidance tax campaigner, said the OECD report was a wakeup call for countries that have seen hundreds of billions of pounds in profits avoid tax.

He said: "The OECD has smelled the coffee and this report reflects the mood of the moment. Applauding newspapers like the Guardian and campaigners alike it says that unless there is fundamental reform, corporation tax on multinational companies will collapse and serious distortions in markets will result.

"The report does not set out an agenda of changes but it does make clear six key areas where changes are needed. The tone of the report is enough to suggest that mere tinkering on any of them will not be enough this time: the OECD realises fundamental reform is required. That's a massive step forward for tax justice," he said.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/busine ... ance-multinationals

作者: 3IX37 时间: 2015-10-20 12:52

3IX37 发表于 2012-10-31 23:35
This is totally not related to the original LZ's post.

In relation to your question regarding ho ...

After 3 years from my previous post, OECD in last month published a new modified definition of Permanent Establishment in its Action 7 Final report of BEPS (Base Erosion and Profit Shifting) project. One purpose of this change is to ensure a fair allocation of taxing right on business profit in a current digital economy.

reference:
Preventing the Artificial Avoidance of Permanent Establishment Status, Action 7 Final report (2015), OECD/G20 BEPS Project.

作者: Lefan 时间: 2015-11-9 22:08
学习

欢迎光临新足迹 (https://oursteps.co/bbs/)