The Executive Yuan on Friday announced that rules designed to prevent Taiwanese businesses from setting up subsidiaries in low-tax countries or territories to avoid their tax obligations in Taiwan are to take effect next year. The move is part of the government’s efforts to follow international trends of reining in corporate tax avoidance, and to honor the principles of fairness in taxation.
The rules regulating controlled foreign companies (CFCs) were launched in June 2016, namely as Article 43-3 of the Income Tax Act (所得稅法) and Article 43-4, which regulate the place of effective management of CFCs, along with Article 12-1 of the Income Basic Tax Act (所得基本稅額條例), launched in May 2017.
When the legislature in July 2019 passed the Management, Utilization and Taxation of Repatriated Offshore Funds Act (境外資金匯回管理運用及課稅條例), it also passed a resolution requiring that the Executive Yuan decide the effective date of CFC rules within one year of the expiration of the tax amnesty legislation on repatriated funds. That law expired in August last year.
Under the legislation, a Taiwanese company that directly or indirectly holds 50 percent or more of shares or capital of a foreign enterprise registered in a low-tax country or jurisdiction, or has a significant influence on such a foreign enterprise, is considered to be a CFC. Therefore, the earnings of the foreign entity are regarded as the Taiwanese parent company’s investment income, which must be included in the parent company’s taxable income. In other words, income generated from a CFC is deemed taxable regardless of whether there is dividend distribution to the Taiwanese parent company.
Not all CFCs are subject to the rules. There are exemptions. For instance, CFCs engaging in business operations in their registered jurisdiction, or those with annual passive income — such as dividends, royalties, rental income or gains from asset sales — of less than 10 percent of their total income or current-year earnings of less than NT$7 million (US$253,403).
The Ministry of Finance also plans to adjust the applicable minimum corporate tax rate, which is set at 12 percent and could be raised to 15 percent, according to regulations. Although its implementation needs reviewing, the effective date of a minimum tax system for Taiwanese enterprises should not be far from the date when the CFC rules come into force. It is also in response to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s push for a global minimum tax of 15 percent on multinational corporations, which is to take effect next year.
The organization’s global minimum corporate tax applies to companies with annual revenue greater than 750 million euros (US$856.15 million) in two of four successive financial years. If the tax rate of a country or territory does not reach 15 percent, the government where the parent company is registered can make up the difference. About 160 Taiwanese corporations meet this criterion, the ministry said.
In the global fight against tax avoidance, it is increasingly difficult for corporations and wealthy people to take advantage of tax havens to avoid paying taxes. They should consider how to meet the requirements for exemption from CFC rules, for instance, by doing business in the country in which their foreign entities are registered, or adjusting their investment structure, profit allocation and transaction mode to mitigate the adverse impacts of the new rules.
Given the rapidly changing business environment worldwide, risk management and strategic deployment have become increasingly critical for corporations and wealthy people.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS