国际访谈 | 美国力推全球最低企业税率，意欲何为？

近期，在经济合作暨发展组织(OECD)有关税基侵蚀和利润转移会议期间，美国财政部表示，其在国际税负协商期间提议全球最低企业税率至少为15%，这低于其之前提出的最低21%的税率。

据报道，一些国家支持美国提出的最低税率21%，尤其是法国和德国，但其他国家认为这一水平太高。此前OECD最低税率的讨论围绕12.5%进行，因为爱尔兰就实施这一税率。

在相关谈判陷入停滞后，据悉，本周五于伦敦举行的七国集团（G7）财长会议上，七国财政部长预计就此国际税负问题将达成原则性协议。

当地时间4月5日，美国财政部长耶伦呼吁设定全球最低企业税率，以提高各国企业所得税收入，并防止跨国企业将利润转移至低税区或者逃避纳税义务。

美国推动全球最低企业税率背后有何深意？将对美国经济带来哪些影响？过去几年，美欧关于大型科技公司税收问题摩擦不断，美国全球最低企业税率方案能否缓和其与欧盟数字税领域的纷争？数字经济下的税基侵蚀与利润转移（简称BEPS）问题，已引起各国高度关注，国际税收规则应如何调整和改进？

对于上述热议话题，上海新金融研究院（SFI）编辑部与美国彼得森国际经济研究所（PIIE）非常驻高级研究员Gary Hufbauer、美国企业研究所（AEI）常驻研究员Kyle Pomerleau进行深入访谈。

▲ Gary Hufbauer

美国彼得森国际经济研究所（PIIE）非常驻高级研究员，曾任PIIE Reginald Jones高级研究员、美国外交关系委员会（Council on Foreign Relations）MauriceGreenberg讲席研究主任、美国乔治城大学（Georgetown University）国际金融外交学Marcus Wallenberg讲席教授与国际法研究所 （InternationalLaw Institute）副所长、美国财政部负责国际贸易与投资政策的副助理部长及国际税务主任。

▲ Kyle Pomerleau

美国企业研究所（AEI）常驻研究员；主要研究美国税收政策，曾任美国税务基金会（TaxFoundation）首席经济学家、负责经济分析的副总裁，带领基金会的宏观经济与税务建模团队开展研究，研究领域包括企业税务、国际税收政策、碳税、税制改革等多项政策议题。

“全球最低企业税率”意在遏制国际税收竞争

SFI：对于耶伦推动“全球最低企业税率”的真实目的，有观点认为主要是支持拜登基建计划，有观点倾向于是为了解决与欧盟在数字税领域的多年纷争，对此，您有何见解？

Kyle：拜登政府提出的企业税改革计划，拟将企业税率从21%提高至28%。加上州及地方征收的企业所得税，美国企业实际税率将从25.8%上升至32%左右。此外，拜登这一方案还会提高美国跨国公司为海外利润所缴纳的税金。

虽然这一方案能够提高联邦政府的税收收入，但同时也会促使更多美国企业将其利润、总部或部分资产转移至美国以外的其他国家。例如，科技公司会更倾向于将其知识产权转移到爱尔兰等低税率的国家或地区；其他企业为了避免为海外利润缴纳更高的税金，可能也会将总部迁移至这些国家或地区。

为了解决这个问题，拜登政府同时提出签订国际协议、提高全球范围内的企业税率，来支持其国内的企业税改革计划。这一协议的目的是遏制“税收竞争”，缩小不同国家或地区企业税之间的相对差距，这样一来，企业就无法通过转移活动地区来避税了。

Gary：从美国的角度看，推动全球最低企业税率主要是象征性的。拜登政府的倡议，主要是为了展示其在公司税，尤其是针对大型高盈利企业的税收方面的一种进步主义立场。进步派民主党人反对美国企业将注册地迁往卢森堡、新加坡、开曼群岛等低税率甚至零税率的国家来逃避纳税负担。他们喜欢全球最低企业税率的象征意义。

其次，此举意在为拜登计划推出的美国特别企业税奠定基础。这个税种主要针对在美经营的外国企业，以防止其把盈利转移到低税收的国家。

以德国和法国为首的部分欧洲国家支持全球最低企业税率，希望以此敦促爱尔兰、卢森堡、瑞士、马耳他等实行低税率的欧洲国家抬高企业税率。美国对全球最低企业税率的支持在一定程度上有利于缓解美欧之间在数字税领域的摩擦，但作用有限。比起最低企业税率，双方在数字税问题上的争端要大得多。

抬高企业税率难改美国长期预算失衡局面

SFI：推行“全球最低企业税率”能否解决美国当前财政困境？对美国经济将带来哪些影响？

Gary：对于美国，或者其他主要经济体来说，15%的全球最低企业税率没有什么实际意义，增加不了多少税收收入。此举主要是象征性的，不是实质性的。

Kyle：目前，美国联邦政府面临着长期预算失衡。到2031年，联邦政府预算赤字预计将达到1.8万亿美元，相当于GDP 的5.7%。联邦政府大量借债会降低未来美国人民的收入水平。同时，会导致私营部门储蓄流向政府、支持其开支，从而“挤出”生产性投资；此外，政府债务上升，意味着美国人民须支付给外国债权人更高的利息，这也会降低未来的收入水平。

拜登的方案能够增加联邦政府收入，但无法解决其面临的财政失衡问题。在未来十年内，企业税改革计划预计每年能为联邦政府带来约2000亿美元的收入，约占GDP的0.5%。

此外，拜登计划扩大联邦政府的开支，将未来十年内几乎所有的新增联邦收入用于基建投资和其他新的开支项目。这项称为“美国就业计划”（American Jobs Plan）的建议，在未来十年并不能缩减联邦预算赤字，长期来看，也只能略微改善预算平衡。

新的基础设施投资能够促进经济增长，但新增增长的大部分甚至全部都会被更高的企业税所抵消。抬高企业税率会让美国以及外国公司在美投资的成本变得更高，缩减美国生产资本规模，降低劳动生产率、工人工资以及经济产出。

美国企业税改革诸多问题悬而未决，国内外皆存阻力

SFI：拜登企业税改革在美国本土和海外遇到哪些阻力？存在哪些争议？

Kyle：拜登的企业税改革方案在国内和国际上都会面临阻碍。国内来说，商界担心将企业税率提高至28%会“损害美国的竞争力”，最终，美国企业所缴纳的联邦、州及地方企业税将达到32%，在经合组织（OECD）35个成员国中是最高的。民主党内的立法者也已经建议，将税率提高至25%，而不是28%。

企业税改革的具体落实也存在一些尚待明确的问题。例如，拜登计划对美国跨国公司海外利润的“最低税率”进行改革，要求跨国公司按照国家计算自己的最低税负，这在实施上会很复杂，但改革方案中并未明确实际如何操作，对于如何处理经营损失和外国税收减免等重要问题也未作规定。

国际上，围绕企业税改革方案也存在很多悬而未决的问题。拜登政府表示希望就15%的最低企业税率签署国际协议，德国、法国等主要国家对此表示支持。但是，15%最低税率具体如何实施目前尚不明朗。各国的税基不同，或者说对于“企业收入”的定义不同；此外，很多国家往往有特殊的规定，为特定企业活动制定较低的有效税率，例如为研发费用提供税收补贴等。制定相关国际协议时，需要充分考虑各国税收政策的种种差异。

如上所说，德国、法国等税率较高的国家表示支持15%的全球最低企业税，但也有国家已明确表示反对这一方案，例如爱尔兰。爱尔兰的企业税率为12.5%，不太可能愿意签署抬高企业税率的协议。还有部分主要国家的态度尚不明朗，如中国、印度等。

Gary：对于美国、欧盟等主要经济体来说，为自己支持的企业或者行业提供补贴是很容易的，如电动车、半导体、5G等。但小国家做不到。对于它们来说，吸引大公司最好的办法就是营造一个友好的营商环境，比如实施低税率甚至零税率。

所以，在很多小国眼里，征收全球最低企业税率感觉像是大国“合起伙来”遏制自己的发展——事实也正是这样。但是，如果大国决意如此，小国反对是没有用的。目前看，大国国内就此没有什么大的分歧。我不知道中国的态度，但至少美国、德国等大国都是支持此举的。

如果经合组织（OECD）国家均采取了全球最低企业税率，一个主要的问题就是如何让非OECD成员国接受这个税率。有些国家可能名义上实施15%的最低税率，但实际上却通过各类税收减免措施压低企业实际的纳税负担。

数字税问题加剧税收制度的复杂性和国际税务纠纷

SFI: 有观点认为，美国对“数字税”的态度是欧美能否达成企业所得税协议的关键，对此，您如何看待？

Kyle：目前，有部分国家征收所谓的“数字税”。数字税是一种企业所得税，主要针对大型科技公司征收。英国、法国等国仅对极大型公司的收入征收数字税，设定的门槛很高，基本上主要就是针对大型美国科技公司。本质上，数字税就是这些国家对在本国做生意的美国科技公司所征收的关税。

美国立法者，包括拜登政府，对数字税持怀疑态度，因为数字税特别针对美国企业，并不公平。拜登政府希望能够就对数字公司的征税达成统一协议，停止目前这些歧视性的税收行为，主张在更大范围内推行企业税改革。

拜登政府在企业税改革上愿意与各国展开合作，这增加了达成协议的可能性，但依然有一些问题需要解决。各国需要就如何对大型科技企业的利润在国家间进行再分配达成一致，这意味着必然会有赢家和输家。此外，在征收数字税时，美国希望对美国和欧盟国家的企业一视同仁，这可能会遭到来自部分国家的阻力。

Gary：拜登总统建议，不征收数字税，而是要求全球最大的跨国企业（如全球100强）在全球范围内缴税，即在产生盈利的地区纳税、而不是在商品或服务的生产地纳税。不管是数字税还是拜登的这一提议，都将极大地加剧税收制度的复杂性和国际税务纠纷。如果付诸实施，最大的受益人会是会计公司和税务律师。我认为至少近几年内，各国不可能就此达成什么协议。

企业税制度已无法适应数字经济，以增值税和个税代之是明智之举

SFI：应对经济数字化挑战的国际税收规则将如何演进？

Gary：公司税最主要的“卖点”在于很多人并不知道税负最终落在了谁身上：是公司的股东、员工，还是消费者？只要公众认为最终承担税负的只有股东，就会有人支持征收公司税，尤其是进步主义者。但事实上，在所有主要的税种中，公司税对经济的扭曲是最严重的，而且会遏制创新与经济增长。对数字经济征收企业税只会加剧经济扭曲、进一步损害经济增长。

明智的国家会主要依赖两种税收：一是增值税，如果实行单一税率的增值税几乎不会产生任何经济扭曲；二是个人所得税和房产税，这有利于降低收入不平等，且能在基本不扭曲经济的前提下创造大量的税收收入。

Kyle：现代经济暴露了企业所得税制度的一些主要缺陷。传统上，企业税的征税基础是“来源地”，即按照生产活动所在地征收企业税。比如，一个公司的某个工厂创造的收入要在工厂所在地纳税。很多情况下，明确生产地是很简单的事。

但是，当一家公司生产某种商品的流程非常复杂、跨多个地区，且不仅涉及工厂、还涉及知识产权等无形资产时，明确“来源地”就要复杂得多了。例如，一部电影的拍摄可能跨越了全球多个地区，演员在英国搭景地和非洲实地拍摄镜头，特效制作在新加坡、伦敦或者温哥华完成，制片方和知识产权可能属于美国。

在目前的税收体系下，这部电影产生的相关利润要在不同的国家、地区进行报税和申请税收减免，这样，企业就有动机在高税收的国家高报费用、在低税收的国家高报收入。为了防止这一现象，各国需对跨境交易实施严格的转移定价监管，但知识产权本身就很难定价，这会加大监管的难度。

鉴于按照“来源地”征税的体系对利润分配带来的诸多挑战，立法者或许可以考虑按照“目的地”征税，即根据商品的消费地区、而不是生产地区征收企业所得税。还是电影的例子，在“目的地”征税体系下，不会再要求计算电影制作在不同国家、地区产生的成本和收入，而会直接在电影最终上映的地区征税，这会降低企业税制的复杂程度。

但采用这种方法也会带来挑战。按照消费地区征税能充盈部分国家的税收收入，但也有一些国家的收入则会因此降低，受益的主要是美国这类消费市场较大的进口大国，而国内市场较小的出口国的财政则会蒙受损失。此外，确定数字服务消费者所在地区也会是个挑战。

长期来看，企业所得税这个税种甚至都可能慢慢被淘汰。未来，各国可能会直接通过个人所得税对企业股东征税，或者通过增值税对国内消费者征税。█

英文实录

SFI：What is the true purpose of promoting a minimum global corporate income tax? Some think it’s to support President Biden’s infrastructure plan, while some others see it targeted at resolving thelong-standing disputes between the US and the EU on digital tax. What is your take on this?

Kyle：President Biden has proposed a reform to the U.S. corporate income tax that would raise taxes on corporations. His plan would raise the corporate income tax rate from 21 percent to 28 percent. Combined with state and local corporate income taxes, the U.S. corporate income tax rate would rise from 25.8 percent to around 32 percent. In addition, his proposal would raise the tax burden on foreign profits earned by U.S. multinational corporations.

While the proposal would increase federal revenue, it would increase the incentive for corporations to shift their profits, headquarters, or certain assets out of the United States. For example, technology companies would have a stronger incentive to shift their intellectual property into low-tax jurisdictions such as Ireland. Other companies may find it worthwhile to expatriate and move their headquarters into these jurisdictions where they could avoid the higher tax burden on their foreign profits.

To address this, the Biden administration wants to pair its proposals with an international agreement to raise corporate taxes throughout the world. The purpose of this agreement is to reduce “tax competition” and shrink the relative difference in corporate income taxes across jurisdictions. Thus,companies would not be able to reduce their tax liability by shifting activity into them.

Gary: The main purpose, from a US perspective, is pure symbolism. The global minimum tax displays Biden’s progressive flag on taxing corporations,especially big and profitable firms. Progressive Democrats believe that corporations are getting away with tax murder, partly because of low or zero tax rates in countries like Luxembourg, Singapore, and the Cayman Islands. They love the symbolism of a global minimum.

A secondary purpose is to provide a foundation for Biden’s proposal to impose a special US tax when foreign firms with operations in the US remit earnings to a low tax country abroad.

Some European countries, led by Germany and France, want a global minimum tax to pressure Ireland, Luxembourg,Switzerland, Malta and other low-tax European countries to raise their corporate rates. US endorsement of the global minimum helps, in a small way, to resolve trans-Atlantic friction over the digital tax, a much more contentious issue.

SFI：If adopted, will the minimum tax help pull the US out of its fiscal difficulty? What will be the implications for the US economy?

Gary：As a practical matter, the global minimum rate of 15%, if adopted,will raise very little revenue for the United States or any other major country. This is tax symbolism, not tax substance.

Kyle：Currently, the United States’ federal government faces a long-term budget imbalance. By 2031, the federal government is projected to have a budget deficit of $1.8 trillion USD, equal to 5.7 percent of GDP. Federal borrowing risks reducing future incomes for Americans. Federal government borrowing can “crowd-out” productive investment in the United States by redirecting saving from the private sector to pay for federal spending. In addition, government borrowing can reduce future incomes by increasing the interest Americans must pay to foreign lenders.

Biden’s proposals would raise additional federal revenue but would not address the federal government’s fiscal imbalance. Biden’s corporate income tax proposals are projected to raise approximately $200 billion a year,or about 0.5 percent of GDP over the next decade.

Even more, Biden’s proposals will increase federal spending.Biden plans to dedicate nearly all the additional federal revenue from corporations over the next ten years to infrastructure investment and other new federal spending. The entire proposal, called the “American Jobs Plan,” will not reduce the budget deficit over the next decade and only make a modest improvement in the long-term.

Additional infrastructure investment can encourage economic growth, but the corporate tax increases could offset most or all of it. Raising the corporate income tax rate would make it more expensive for U.S. and foreign corporations to invest in the United States. This would result in a smaller stock of productive capital in the United States and lead to lower labor productivity, worker wages, and economic output.

SFI：What obstacles will the proposal encounter at home and abroad?What are the major disputed issues?

Kyle：Biden’s proposals will face obstacles at home and abroad. At home, there are concerns among the business community that his proposal to raise the federal corporate income tax rate to 28 percent would “harm U.S. competitiveness.” His proposal would raise the combined federal, state, and local corporate income tax rate to 32 percent, which would be the highest among the 35 members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Lawmakers of his own party are already suggesting that he raise the corporate to 25 percent instead.

There are still several unanswered questions about how Biden’sproposal would work. For example, his proposal would reform the U.S.’s “minimum tax” on foreign profits of U.S. multinational corporations. This reform would require corporations to calculate their minimum tax liability on a country-by-country basis, which could be complex. The proposal does not outline how this would work, or how it would deal with important issues such as the treatment of losses and the foreign tax credit.

Abroad, there are also unresolved issues. The Biden Administration has stated that it wants a deal on a 15 percent minimum corporate tax. Other major countries such as Germany and France have also signaled their support. However, it is not clear what a 15 percent minimum tax will look like.Countries have different corporate tax bases, or what constitutes “income.” In addition, countries often have special provisions that provide low effective tax rates for certain activities, such as subsidies for research and development expenses. Any deal will need to address these differences.

As mentioned, some higher-tax countries such as Germany and France have signaled their support of a 15 percent minimum tax, but other countries have already stated their opposition. Ireland, which has a corporate income tax rate of 12.5 percent, may not go along with a deal that would require them to raise their corporate tax rate. It is also unclear what other major countries, such as China and India will do.

Gary：Large countries, like the US, the EU, can easily subsidize firms or industries they want to promote – electric vehicles,semiconductors, 5G, whatever. This is not a viable option for small countries. For them, the best way to attract major corporations is by offering a business-friendly environment, including low or zero taxes.

So, for many small countries in the world,a global minimum tax looks like a way for large countries to “gang up” on their development aspirations. That’s true. But the objections of small countries will not deter large countries from pursuing the global minimum. And there is no significant opposition within large countries like the US or Germany. I don’t know views with in China.

If a global minimum rate is adopted by OECD countries, the big question will be how to force non-OECD countries to accept the rate. Some countries will go along with a headline rate, but enact various special deductions or tax credits that effectively undercut the headline rate.

SFI：There is the view that the attitude of the US toward digital tax is the key to whether an agreement between the US and the EU on corporate income tax can be reached. What is your view on this?

Kyle：Currently, several countries levy what are called “digital taxes.” These taxes apply to the revenue of corporations and are aimed at raising tax revenue from large technology companies. Countries such as the United Kingdom and France structured their taxes to apply to the revenue of only exceptionally large companies. The thresholds of the tax are set that they primarily only fall on large U.S. technology companies. In effect, these taxes are tariffs on U.S. tech companies that do business in these countries.

U.S. lawmakers, including the Biden Administration, are skeptical of these taxes as they unfairly target U.S. companies. The Biden Administration would like to reach a deal on taxing digital companies that would move away from these discriminatory taxes. Instead, they would like to see reforms to the corporate tax that are applied more broadly.

Although the Biden Administration’s willingness to work with other countries may make it more likely a deal is reached, there are still issues to be resolved. Countries need to come to an agreement on how they will reallocate the profits of large technology companies. This will, inevitably create winners and losers. In addition, the United States wants to ensure the design will apply to both U.S. and European companies. This may create resistance from some countries.

Gary：President Biden has suggested that, instead of a digital tax, the largest global corporations – perhaps 100 firms – should share part of their global profit tax base with countries according to where revenue is earned, not according to where goods or services are produced. Like the proposed digital tax, Biden’s proposal would create enormous complexities and international tax disputes. The main beneficiaries of these proposals, if enacted, would be accounting firms and tax lawyers. My forecast is that nothing much will be agreed for several years, if ever.

SFI：How will the international tax rules evolve in response to the challenges brought by an increasingly digitalized global economy?

Gary：The main selling point for corporate taxation is that no one know who pays the tax – shareholders, employees, or consumers. So long as the public thinks only shareholders pay, corporate taxes are popular – especially with progressives. However, among all major types of taxation, corporate taxes create the most economic distortion for each dollar of revenue raised. And they discourage innovation and economic growth. Trying to chase the digital economy with corporate taxes will only create more distortion and further impede economic growth.

Sensible countries will instead rely on two major taxes: value added taxes which, if uniform, create very little distortion for each dollar raised; and personal income and estate taxes, which can curtail inequality and raise a great deal of revenue with little economic distortion.

Kyle：The modern economy has shown some of the major weaknesses of the corporate income tax. Traditionally, the corporate income tax is based on the “source” principle. Under this principle, countries tax corporate profits based on the location of production. As such, the profits a corporation earns from a factory are taxed in the country in which the factory is operating. In many cases, determining the location of production is straightforward.

However, determining “source” is much more complex in the case a company that produces a good in a complex production process that spans multiple jurisdictions using not just factories, but also intangible assets such as intellectual property. For example, a movie may be produced throughout the world. Scenes in the film could be shot with actors on a set in England and on location in Africa. The special effects may be produced in Singapore, London, and Vancouver and the producers and the intellectual property may be in the United States.

To allocate the profits associated with this movie under the current system, companies need to take deductions and report revenue in multiple jurisdictions. Corporations have an incentive to overstate expenses in high-tax countries and overstate revenues in low-tax countries. To prevent gaming, countries need to police cross-border transactions with strict transfer pricing regulations. However, this is difficult in the case of intellectual property, which is hard to price.

Given the challenges in allocating profits under a source-based tax system, lawmakers may consider shifting towards “destination-based” taxation. Under this principle,companies would be taxed on where their consumers are rather than where their production is. In the case of the movie example, the corporate tax would no longer track expenses and revenues across jurisdiction. Instead, the profits would be taxed where consumers purchase the tickets to see the movie—a much easier task.

By no means is this approach challenge-free. Some countries may gain revenue, but others may lose. Large, importing countries with many consumers, like the United States,may benefit from a system like this. Smaller, exporting countries may lose revenue from a tax system like this. It may also be a challenge to determine where a consumer of digital services is located.

In the long-term, taxation may shift away from the corporate income tax altogether.Countries may shift towards taxing shareholders directly through the individual income tax or domestic consumption through the value-added tax.