堵住跨国公司避税漏洞

It is time for a new approach to international tax. Multinationals ranging from GE in the US, Amazon in France and Starbucks in the UK are being attacked for tax avoidance. At a recent hearing, UK members of parliament pilloried companies for using tax havens, for “manipulating their accounts to cut their tax bills and for engaging in “immoral activity. MPs peppered their questions with phrases such as “it beggars belief and “I don’t know what you take us for.

是时候采用新的国际税制了。包括美国的通用电气(GE)，法国的亚马逊(Amazon)以及英国的星巴克(Starbucks)，许多跨国公司都因避税问题而受到指责。在英国议会最近举行的一个听证会上，议员们抨击企业利用避税天堂、为降低纳税额而“操纵账目以及从事“不道德行为。议员们连珠炮般地发出诘问，“难以置信和“不知道你们把我们当成什么了之类的语句不时出现。

Most striking about these exchanges and reports is that – beyond asserting that they have not broken any laws – the companies seem unable to defend their actions. This is because they cannot.

在围绕避税问题的争论和报道中，令人印象最深刻的是：除了声称他们没违反任何法律，这些公司似乎无法为他们的行为辩护。这是因为他们确实无话可说。

The international tax system effectively provides vast subsidies for multinational companies, helping them outcompete local competitors on a factor – tax – that has nothing to do with genuine economic productivity. They freeride on tax-funded benefits – roads, educated workforces, reliable courts – provided by the countries where they do business, while getting others to pay for those benefits. This distortion is inefficient and unproductive, and corrupts the very fabric of markets.

国际税收制度实质上等于为跨国公司提供了巨大的补贴，使它们在税收方面胜出本土竞争对手一筹，而这个方面与真正的经济生产力毫无关系。跨国公司在它们开展业务的国家享受着由税收保障的种种好处——道路、受过教育的劳动者、可靠的法院——却由别人为这些好处买单。这种扭曲的现状损害了效率和生产力，腐蚀了市场的基础架构。

The world’s tax rules have not kept pace with profound changes in the global economy. Instead of treating multinationals as the integrated firms that they are, the rules seek to disaggregate them into collections of separate entities. This encourages firms to cut tax bills via two related types of hocus-pocus.

世界税收制度没能跟上全球经济深刻变化的步伐。相关制度没有按照实际情况把跨国公司看做完整的公司，而是将他们看成一系列单独实体的集合。这事实上鼓励了这些公司用两种相关的技巧来减少纳税。

First, they locate holding companies and assets (such as the company’s brand or other intellectual property rights) in tax havens, then attribute large profits to those entities. Second, they engage in “transfer pricing, where the parts of the multinational trade with each other across borders at prices designed to suit their tax objectives. These techniques can be combined so that, to put it crudely, a tax haven entity might buy a widget or service cheap from another part of the multinational elsewhere and sell it dear, realising untaxed profits offshore. The UK subsidiary buys it dear from the tax haven entity but then sells it on (to a UK retailer, say) at the same high price, realising no profits. Hey presto! A big tax bill disappears. Nobody, anywhere, produced a better widget or service.

第一种技巧是，他们将控股公司及资产所在地登记在避税天堂，然后把利润的大部分归到这些实体名下。第二种技巧是，他们采用一种“转移定价(transfer pricing)方法，即跨国公司各分部相互之间按照特定的价格进行跨境交易，以达到避税目的。两种方法可以结合起来使用，简单地讲，位于避税天堂的实体可以以很便宜的价格从同一个跨国公司设在其他地区的实体购买某种产品或服务，再高价将其卖出，从而实现离岸免税利润。英国子公司从处于避税天堂的实体高价采购产品或服务，再以同样的高价出售（比如卖给英国零售商），结果利润为零。像变戏法一样！一张巨大的税务账单就这么变没了。任何地方都没人能提供更为物美价廉的产品或服务。

Fortunately, a far better system is available: unitary tax. Instead of taxing multinationals according to the legal forms that their tax advisers conjure up, they are taxed according to the genuine economic substance of what they do and where they do it. Each firm submits to the tax authorities of each country where it does business a “Combined Report providing consolidated accounts for the whole global firm, ignoring all internal transfers. The report specifies the firm’s physical assets, workforce and sales and the overall profits are then divided up among jurisdictions according to a formula weighing these three factors. This system would benefit everyone, particularly developing countries.

幸运的是，如今有一种税收体制要好得多：综合税(unitary tax)。这种税收体制不是根据跨国公司在税收顾问建议下填写的法定表格征税，而是根据真正的经济行为以及发生这种行为的所在地来征税。每个公司向经营所在国的税务机关提交一份“综合报告(Combined Report)，这份报告中要提供整个跨国公司的合并账目，不考虑所有内部转移行为。报告中说明公司的实物资产、员工总数以及销售额，然后，按照一个给上述三因素分配以权重的公式，对利润总额进行地区划分。这种税收体制对各方都有好处，特别是发展中国家。

Tax experts have long argued that this approach is better. It is proven too: most US states already use it successfully for state taxes. The EU’s proposal for a common consolidated corporate tax base goes a long way towards this, though its geographical focus should be expanded to require a worldwide Combined Report. It is possible to move towards unitary taxation without widespread international co-ordination, though that would certainly help.

很久以来税务专家们一直声称这种办法更好一些。其实它的效果已经得到证实：美国多数州已经在州税中成功运用了这种机制。而欧盟关于采纳通用的合并公司税基的提议朝着实行这种税制的方向走了一大步，不过这一方案在地理方面应该扩展为要求提供覆盖全球范围的综合报告。实现综合税制并不需要广泛的国际合作——尽管国际合作对此肯定会大有帮助。

The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, whose fiscal committee is the steward of the international tax system, has refused even to investigate this alternative, preferring to try and patch up the present system. India, Brazil and China are creating their own widely divergent rules, though all claim to comply with the OECD’s so-called consensus standard. The result is a system of ever growing complexity, which will create increasing conflicts and expose multinationals to double taxation and rising public obloquy.

然而，负责管理国际税收体制的是经合组织(OECD)的财政委员会，对这一替代方案他们甚至连考察一下都不同意，宁愿选择对现有体制修修补补。印度、巴西和中国都在建设各自五花八门的税收制度，却都声称遵循了经合组织的所谓公认标准。结果就是现有体制的复杂性日益增加，在这一体制下冲突将越来越多，跨国公司面临双重征税并日益受到公众指责。

UK Chancellor George Osborne and his German counterpart Wolfgang Sch?uble have said they will engage with the OECD to tackle the problems in international tax. If the initiative ends up merely tinkering with the arm’s length method, they will fail. Citizens should demand a new and serious approach.

英国财政大臣乔治·奥斯本(George Osborne)与德国财长沃尔夫冈·朔伊布勒(Wolfgang Sch?uble)已表示将与经合组织就国际税制问题进行磋商。如果这一举动最终带来的仅仅是对现成的办法进行修修补补，那将是失败的。公众应要求采纳一种全新的、真正有效的税制。

The writers are respectively the authors of ‘Treasure Islands’ and ‘Regulating Global Corporate Capitalism’

本文两位作者分别著有《Treasure Islands》以及《Regulating Global Corporate Capitalism》