English
The continuing spread of the Omicron variant, coupled with international tensions resulting from the Russia-Ukraine war, has disrupted supply chains and caused supply scarcities. In the face of the enormous changes currently taking place, talent has begun rethinking their next moves, creating a manpower shortage for business. Accordingly, the Taiwanese government should consider its overall approach to talent development, including how to attract foreign professionals, simplify administrative procedures, and create a favorable business and tax environment to attract foreign investment.
Suggestion 1: Determine the feasibility of providing tax incentives to Gold Card holders without requiring that they obtain a work permit through their employer.
Employers who employ foreign professionals included under the “Scope of Application for Tax Preferences Provided to Foreign Professionals” (the Scope) must, in accordance with the Employment Services Act, apply to the Ministry of Labor for a work permit for such professionals in order for them to perform their professional duties and enjoy income tax reductions. Those designated as foreign special professionals can also choose to work in Taiwan with an Employment Gold Card issued by the National Immigration Agency under the “Act for the Recruitment and Employment of Foreign Professionals” (the Act). However, in the view of Taiwan’s tax authorities, Gold Card holders are unable to enjoy the aforementioned tax incentives unless they have obtained a work permit through their employer.
As the Scope and the Act went into effect in 2008 and 2018 respectively, it would be worthwhile to revisit the work permit requirement for Gold Card holders, a condition that increases costs and creates an administrative burden for businesses. We therefore request that the Ministry of Finance (MOF) consider expanding the Scope to include Gold Card holders to streamline administrative procedures and reduce related costs. Such an amendment would help Taiwan attract more highly skilled foreign talent and ultimately enhance Taiwan’s competitiveness.
Suggestion 2: Reconsider the appropriateness of taxing drop-shipment transactions.
Multiple factors, including the global pandemic, production capacity shortfalls, and supply chain disruptions, have led to a worldwide semiconductor shortage. Besides expanded production, the solution will depend on enhancing logistical efficiency. Drop shipping, in which finished goods are ordered from a contract manufacturer by one company but are shipped directly to a customer of that company, reduces shipping costs and increases efficiency.
However, MOF Ruling No. 10600664060 discourages the use of drop shipping by defining the income from such a transaction as Taiwan-sourced income, subject to taxation in Taiwan, if the foreign company engages in sales activity and completes the sale outside of Taiwan while the goods are located inside of Taiwan. Such tax is calculated by applying a formula prescribed by the abovementioned ruling to the income recorded on the enterprise’s account books or the general profit standards of that industry.
By contrast, should the Taiwan company ship the finished goods back to the foreign company that placed the order – rather than to the foreign company’s customer – the local company would not be deemed to have concluded the sale and generated Taiwan-sourced income. In substance, the only difference between the two transaction models is that the latter adds an unnecessary step between the contract manufacturer and the end customer, increasing the transportation costs and impeding supply-chain efficiency.
From an international tax perspective, the source of sales income is generally determined based on the location where the sale is concluded. For example, U.S. tax regulations stipulate that “a sale of personal property is consummated at the time when, and the place where, the rights, title, and interest of the seller in the property are transferred to the buyer. Where bare legal title is retained by the seller, the sale shall be deemed to have occurred at the time and place of passage to the buyer of beneficial ownership and the risk of loss.” If Taiwan were to adopt a similar rule, the mode of taxation could be objectively ascertained by examining the trade terms of each transaction.
Among Taiwan’s trade rivals, Korea and China provide more flexible tax treatment for drop shipment transactions. Since Taiwan’s tax rules on this kind of transaction decrease Taiwan’s business competitiveness, the Committee strongly urges the MOF to reevaluate the definition of “conclusion of sales” and issue a new ruling. Such an initiative would increase foreign investors’ confidence in Taiwan.
The Committee raised this issue in its 2021 White Paper, but was repeatedly told by the authorities to refer to existing laws and regulations, a response that does not adequately address our concerns. We will continue underscoring the importance of this issue to the government and hope to engage in productive dialogue in the year ahead.
Suggestion 3: Review applications for tax rulings at the ministry level.
Taxpayers seeking clarification regarding the taxation of certain transactions can apply for a tax ruling from the MOF as a way to comply with tax regulations and avoid future disputes. Based on our observation, however, applications received by the MOF are often first transferred to the National Taxation Bureau, which then passes them on to the local tax office for its opinion. This practice results in a very lengthy review process before the MOF finally provides its interpretation.
The MOF’s responsibilities include promulgation, amendment, and interpretation of tax laws and regulations, while local tax authorities are responsible for enforcing tax laws and regulations and performing tax audits within their jurisdiction. We understand that the MOF may require clarification of the details of the transaction at issue in a tax ruling application; however, it can do so by requesting supporting information directly from the taxpayer, rather than passing on the application to local tax authorities or collection offices to handle. Reviewing applications at the ministry level would improve the efficiency of the interpretation application procedure.
Suggestion 4: Include payments for computer software within the scope of income qualified for preferential withholding treatment.
Under Article 15-1 of the “Guidelines for the Determination of Income from Sources in the Republic of China in Accordance with Article 8 of the Income Tax Act” (the Guidelines), foreign companies may apply for a pre-approved net profit ratio (i.e., costs and expenses are deductible) and an onshore contribution ratio in order to reduce the amount of their withholding. However, such tax relief does not currently apply to foreign companies’ income derived from the sale of computer software, which creates difficulties for both the foreign companies and the withholding entities.
We note the following issues faced by foreign companies selling software:
Designation of income from software sales as passive income.
Article 15-1 pertains only to “remuneration for services” and “business profits,” as these are considered active forms of income, while current tax regulations classify income received from the sale of computer software (except for standardized software) as royalties, which are considered passive income. Such royalties are subject to 20% withholding on the total payment amount, with no deductible costs or expenses.
Domestic software companies, on the other hand, are allowed to claim costs and expenses. To further explain, the deemed profit rates of domestic software companies are about 8~16% (referring to industry codes 4641-12, 4831-12, 5820-99). As such, domestic software companies’ income is recognized by the tax authorities as active income, and costs and expenses can thus be deducted to determine the taxable amount.
Such differential treatment of foreign and domestic software companies’ income constitutes discrimination and violates the principle of equity in taxation.
Differential treatment of software transactions conducted as cross-border e-commerce business.
Taiwan tax regulations classify foreign companies that provide services (such as games or software) via a website as “cross-border e-commerce businesses” (CBEB). According to a tax ruling, such companies are eligible to apply for a preferential withholding rate of about 3-6%. Although the e-services provided by a CBEB also contain computer software, a CBEB which sells products via a website can enjoy a reduced withholding tax rate while other non-CBEB foreign software companies cannot.
On the other hand, the tax burden of a foreign company selling software other than through a website is more than three times that of its CBEB counterpart (20% vs. 6%), even though there is no major difference in the nature of the product, its authorized content, or other transaction terms. We believe that this differentiation was not intended by the Guidelines’ authors and therefore recommend amending the scope of Article 15-1 of the Guidelines to include sales of computer software.
Chinese
Omicron 疫情的持續延燒，加上俄國及烏克蘭戰爭造成國際情勢緊張，已使供應鏈產生斷鍊之危機，並造成物資短缺之現象。面對整體環境之鉅變，人才也開始思考何去何從，造成企業人力吃緊之窘境。據此，台灣政府應思考整體人才發展方向，包含如何吸引外國人才，簡化行政程序，並營造一良好商業及稅務環境，以吸引外資投資。
建議一：考量提供持有就業金卡之外國特定專業人才可免經由雇主申請工作許可，亦得適用外籍專業人士租稅優惠之可行性
雇主如擬聘僱符合《外籍專業人士租稅優惠之適用範圍》之外籍專業人士，須依《就業服務法》先向勞動部申請核發工作許可給外籍專業人士，方可讓外籍專業人士為其從事專業工作，且可依規定減免所得稅。此外，外國特定專業人才依《外國專業人才延攬及僱用法》規定，可自行向內政部移民署申請核發四證合一之就業金卡，即具有在台之工作權，然而，如雇主未協助持有就業金卡之外籍專業人士取得工作許可，則外籍專業人士依目前國稅局見解，則無法享有上述租稅優惠。
《外籍專業人士租稅優惠之適用範圍》係於2008年施行，但《外國專業人才延攬及僱用法》於2018年施行，持有就業金卡之外國專業人才是否有必要再透過雇主取得工作許可而得以適用租稅優惠，是值得討論之議題。此重複申請工作許可之作業已加重企業聘僱成本及行政負擔。因此，懇請財政部考慮修改《外籍專業人士租稅優惠之適用範圍》，將其適用對象擴增至依《外國專業人才延攬及僱用法》取得就業金卡之外國特定專業人才，以簡化企業行政程序及成本，進而吸引更多外籍專業人才來台就業及生活，以增強國家之競爭力。
建議二：重新考慮對「直運」(drop-shipment) 交易課稅的妥適性
在全球疫情起伏不定、產能短缺、供應鏈斷鍊等多重因素影響下，近年來全球晶片持續短缺。為緩解晶片短缺壓力，除擴張產能外，有效率的運輸，如透過直運，由合約製造商將成品直接運往台灣境外之客戶，亦扮演著重要角色。
然而，依據財政部台財稅字第10600664060號令，外國公司委託台灣公司從事製造加工後，該貨物於在我國境內時，在我國境外執行銷售活動且完成銷售，並嗣後運送予境內外客戶，該活動所產生之所得為台灣來源所得，需依帳簿核實、或依同業利潤標準及該號函令所訂之公式計算其所得額，並申報納稅。
據此，如果外國公司採用直運模式，將原物料及半成品進口至台灣，並委託台灣公司將製造及測試完成之產品直接運送予位在台灣境外之客戶，即使外國公司係在境外執行銷售活動，且客戶亦位在台灣境外，外國公司仍視為產生台灣來源所得並需就此納稅。反之，如果台灣公司在加工及測試後係將產品運送回外國公司，則外國公司即不認為銷售完成，亦無台灣來源所得。然而，實質上，兩種交易模式之間的唯一區別僅在於非直運模式下，合約製造商和最終客戶之間安插了不必要的一站（運回外國公司），此係徒增運輸成本及降低供應鏈效率。
自國際稅務角度觀之，銷貨所得的來源地一般取決於銷售完成之地點，例如，在美國聯邦稅務法規中規定，「銷售完成於權利、所有權及經濟利益由賣方移轉給買方時。若賣方僅保留法律所有權，而經濟所有權及承受損失之風險已移轉給買方，仍視為銷售已完成」。如台灣採納類似規定，則稅捐機關可以透過審查出口交易的貿易條件，客觀地確定銷售完成地點，以決定課稅權。
另外，台灣的產業競爭對手，如韓國及中國，似乎就直運交易提供較有利之租稅規定。反觀台灣之課稅規定，則較不利於外國公司在台從事直運交易，將會降低外國公司委託台灣半導體公司提供相關服務之意願，並有損台灣合約製造商的國際競爭力。因此，本委員會懇請財政部應重新檢視「銷售完成」之定義，重新發布核釋，增加外國投資者對台灣的信心及強化台灣的國際競爭優勢。
本委員會於2021年的白皮書已提過本議題，然而主管機關並未積極回應我們的訴求，僅請我們參見現行法規。故本委員會再次呼籲政府重視本議題，並希望今年能與主管機關持續進行溝通。
建議三：財政部自行辦理各項稅種解釋函令之申請案件
納稅人遇有租稅法令問題，為求法規之遵循及避免日後與主管機關有所爭議，實務上會以書面向財政部申請法令之釋義及解答。但觀察目前解釋令申請實務，財政部受理申請案件後，經常再轉發函國稅局，國稅局又再轉發函至管區稽徵所詢問意見，此流程因文書往返作業造成曠日費時。
另查賦稅署之職責包括各稅法規之訂定、修正及解釋之研議，為稅務法令之主管機關，而各地區國稅局之職責為各區國稅稽徵之執行。因此，為了提升解釋令研議之行政作業效率，謹此建議財政部自行辦理各項稅種解釋函令之申請案件，應無須再轉其附屬機關包括各地國稅局及管區稽徵所，以利時效。
建議四：關於權利金中之電腦軟體之對價，允許其亦得申請扣繳稅負之降低
依《所得稅法》第八條規定《中華民國來源所得認定原則》（下稱：「認定原則」）第15-1條，外國營利事業得申請預先核定淨利率及貢獻程度制度以降低扣繳稅負。但電腦軟體之對價被排除於認定原則第15-1條之適用範圍，外國營利事業及扣繳義務人面臨以下困難：
4.1 銷售電腦軟體之收入不應歸類為被動收入認定原則第15-1條僅限於「勞務報酬」或「營業利潤」兩項所得，係因此兩項所得為主動收入。而參酌各項稅務法令，除標準化軟體外，一般而言，支付電腦軟體之對價屬於權利金，視為被動收入。目前稅法仍把電腦軟體之對價歸類在被動收入權利金的情況下，導致其計算扣繳稅負時要全額繳納20%稅款，無法扣減成本費
用。
然國內軟體商收取相同性質之軟體對價，得認列成本費用。按109年度頒布之同業利潤標準，國內軟體業同業利潤率約為8~16%（行業標準代號4641-12, 4831-12, 5820-99），故稅務法令認可國內軟體業之收入為主動收入，可扣除成本費用後計算所得額。
惟當外國營利事業收取軟體對價時，卻僅因其身分為外國營利事業便無法爭取扣除成本費用後計算所得額，恐違租稅公平原則。
4.2 無法比照境外電商申請優惠扣繳稅率，存有差別待遇外國營利事業若「透過網站」銷售電子勞務，在稅法上歸類為境外電商，依據境外電商解釋令，得申請優惠扣繳稅率約3%至6%不等。探究境外電商銷售之電子勞務，其電子勞務內容大多含有電腦軟體，但「透過網站」銷售的境外電商即可申請降低扣繳稅負，但其他非境外電商之外國營利事業卻無法享有相同之待遇。
然而，境外電商及非境外電商銷售及授權電腦軟體，其商品性質及授權內容等交易條件不因銷售管道而有重大之差異，但稅負卻大相逕庭相差3倍以上（20%與6%之差異），此應該非立法者之本意，故建議放寬認定原則第15-1條納入電腦軟體之對價。
