“实质”——一个新加坡人的视角

Cindy Wong Siu Ching, T. Yan
{"title":"“实质”——一个新加坡人的视角","authors":"Cindy Wong Siu Ching, T. Yan","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3104981","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"One of the principles underpinning the OECD Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (“BEPS”) project is the concept of “substance”. Taxation is to be aligned with substance so that profits are being taxed in the location where value is created. However, what constitutes “substance” has not been clearly defined. This paper seeks to examine the concept of substance as applied in different contexts and attempts to put forth a notion of substance that is relevant to Singapore. Having examined the subject matter, the authors are of the view that it is no longer sufficient to have “substance” as a vague guiding principle or a simple threshold test. In view of the recent development in international tax rules, the concept of substance requires a measure of economic realities in order to resolve international tax issues by some norm justified by some concept of proportionality. Such an analysis would necessarily be a multi-faceted and subjective one. In this sense, it is doubtful whether there will ever be a consensus internationally on what constitutes substance or an acceptable level of substance, and the implementation of this principle would not be void of conflicts.","PeriodicalId":330166,"journal":{"name":"Law & Society: Public Law - Tax eJournal","volume":"36 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"'Substance' – A Singapore's Perspective\",\"authors\":\"Cindy Wong Siu Ching, T. Yan\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3104981\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"One of the principles underpinning the OECD Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (“BEPS”) project is the concept of “substance”. Taxation is to be aligned with substance so that profits are being taxed in the location where value is created. However, what constitutes “substance” has not been clearly defined. This paper seeks to examine the concept of substance as applied in different contexts and attempts to put forth a notion of substance that is relevant to Singapore. Having examined the subject matter, the authors are of the view that it is no longer sufficient to have “substance” as a vague guiding principle or a simple threshold test. In view of the recent development in international tax rules, the concept of substance requires a measure of economic realities in order to resolve international tax issues by some norm justified by some concept of proportionality. Such an analysis would necessarily be a multi-faceted and subjective one. In this sense, it is doubtful whether there will ever be a consensus internationally on what constitutes substance or an acceptable level of substance, and the implementation of this principle would not be void of conflicts.\",\"PeriodicalId\":330166,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Law & Society: Public Law - Tax eJournal\",\"volume\":\"36 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-04-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Law & Society: Public Law - Tax eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3104981\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law & Society: Public Law - Tax eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3104981","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

支撑经合组织税基侵蚀和利润转移(“BEPS”)项目的原则之一是“实质”概念。税收应与实质保持一致,以便在创造价值的地方对利润征税。但是,什么是“实质”还没有明确的定义。本文旨在研究在不同背景下应用的实质概念,并试图提出与新加坡相关的实质概念。在审查了主题之后,作者认为,将“实质”作为模糊的指导原则或简单的阈值测试已不再足够。鉴于国际税收规则最近的发展,实质性的概念需要对经济现实进行衡量,以便通过某种由某种比例性概念证明合理的规范来解决国际税收问题。这种分析必然是多方面的和主观的。从这个意义上说,国际上是否会就什么是实质或可接受程度的实质达成协商一致意见是值得怀疑的,执行这一原则不会没有冲突。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
'Substance' – A Singapore's Perspective
One of the principles underpinning the OECD Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (“BEPS”) project is the concept of “substance”. Taxation is to be aligned with substance so that profits are being taxed in the location where value is created. However, what constitutes “substance” has not been clearly defined. This paper seeks to examine the concept of substance as applied in different contexts and attempts to put forth a notion of substance that is relevant to Singapore. Having examined the subject matter, the authors are of the view that it is no longer sufficient to have “substance” as a vague guiding principle or a simple threshold test. In view of the recent development in international tax rules, the concept of substance requires a measure of economic realities in order to resolve international tax issues by some norm justified by some concept of proportionality. Such an analysis would necessarily be a multi-faceted and subjective one. In this sense, it is doubtful whether there will ever be a consensus internationally on what constitutes substance or an acceptable level of substance, and the implementation of this principle would not be void of conflicts.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Misdirected Recipients of Tax Reform: Section 199A, its True Beneficiaries, and Application to Low- and Middle- Income Residents Consistent Taxation in a Cashless Society Is It Time to Eliminate Federal Corporate Income Taxes? Brief of Amici Curiae Former Government Officials in Support of Respondents, CIC Services, LLC v. Internal Revenue Service Allocating COVID-19 State Aid Equitably – The Case of Denmark
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1