Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.author陳巧玲en_US
dc.contributor.authorChiao-Ling Chenen_US
dc.contributor.author楊千en_US
dc.contributor.authorDr. Chyan Yangen_US
dc.date.accessioned2014-12-12T02:14:25Z-
dc.date.available2014-12-12T02:14:25Z-
dc.date.issued2004en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://140.113.39.130/cdrfb3/record/nctu/#GT009137553en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11536/59867-
dc.description.abstract本論文研究之出發點,乃是租稅是一個獲利企業所會產生之成本。而因企業集團或關係人間租稅負擔之不同,而使企業有誘因利用『移轉訂價』來達到規避稅負之目的。而所得稅法對防止營利事業利用關係企業間移轉訂價規避稅負,係規定於所得稅法第四十三條之一;甫於93年12月28日正式公布施行「營利事業所得稅不合常規移轉訂價查核準則」,我國雖有『不合常規移轉訂價查核準則』,但其適用對象、相關罰責及與兩稅合一之課稅標準等規範,並不完備或有矛盾,而目前也未見相關文獻予以討論,影響營利事業之權益甚巨,故本論文將就幾項缺失予以探討,並透過實務面及法律面兩稅合一觀點,提出建議。 本研究之結果及建議如下: 1.所得稅法第四十三條之一課稅主體的規定,應擴及營業事業與國內外其他營利事業、個人或教育、文化、公益、慈善機關團體,方能有效防止營利事業規避稅負。 2.依據財政部公布之「營利事業所得稅不合常規移轉訂價查核準則」,對不合營業常規調整案件係為漏稅性質,惟與以往稽徵實務及所得稅法第四十三條之一規定、兩稅合一未分配盈餘課徵並不一致。對不合營業常規調整案件,係為漏稅或推計所得性質,應重新定義,俾與兩稅合一未分配盈餘之課徵一致。 3.就法律保留原則觀點,不合營業常規交易應予處罰規定,宜增訂於所得稅法第四十三條之一較為妥適。zh_TW
dc.description.abstractTax is an unavoidable cost for a profit-seeking enterprise. The enterprises have incentives to apply transfer pricing to reduce tax burden. However, Income Tax Law Article 43-1 is to prevent affiliated enterprises using transfer pricing to reduce tax burden. In December 2004, Ministry of Finance announced “non-Arm's length transaction of transfer pricing on business income tax auditing criteria”. But the objects of application or relevance penalty is not clear or even conflict with the integrated income tax laws. Particularly, the penalty clauses affect an enterprise’s benefit largely. Therefore, this thesis uses case study method to propose suggestions for coherent regulations and its enforcement. This thesis had the following findings and suggestions: 1. Taxable objects in Income Tax Law Article 43-1 must extend to individuals and non-profit-seeking organizations. 2. By “non-Arm's length transaction of transfer pricing on business income tax auditing criteria”, the case of transfer pricing adjustment is the property of “tax evasion”, but Income Tax Law Article 43-1 regulation is “adjustment”,and different with integrated income tax “retain earning tax”. The case of transfer pricing adjustment must be redefined so as to match the Income Tax Law Article 43-1 and integrated income tax. 3. If the case of transfer pricing adjustment is tax evasion which should be punished, the government must be revise Income Tax Law Article 43-1 to correspond with the legal rules.en_US
dc.language.isozh_TWen_US
dc.subject營利事業所得稅zh_TW
dc.subject移轉訂價zh_TW
dc.subject租稅規避zh_TW
dc.subject關係企業zh_TW
dc.subject非常規交易zh_TW
dc.subject租稅處罰zh_TW
dc.subjectBusiness Income Taxen_US
dc.subjectTransfer Pricingen_US
dc.subjectTax evasionen_US
dc.subjectNon-Arm's length transactionen_US
dc.subjectRelated Partyen_US
dc.subjectTax Penaltiesen_US
dc.title營利事業所得稅移轉訂價課稅規定之研究zh_TW
dc.titleA Study on Transfer Pricing Regulations of Business Income Taxen_US
dc.typeThesisen_US
dc.contributor.department經營管理研究所zh_TW
Appears in Collections:Thesis