English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 90773/120835 (75%)
Visitors : 25090047      Online Users : 44
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    政大機構典藏 > 商學院 > 會計學系 > 學位論文 >  Item 140.119/98550
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/98550


    Title: 租稅規劃策略與營運績效之關聯性研究-以台灣上市櫃電子業為例
    The relationship between tax planning strategies and operating performance: evidence from Taiwan Listed Company in Electronic industry.
    Authors: 林怡均
    Lin, Yi Chun
    Contributors: 許崇源
    林怡均
    Lin, Yi Chun
    Keywords: 租稅規劃
    營運績效
    研究發展
    租稅天堂
    移轉訂價
    Date: 2016
    Issue Date: 2016-07-01 14:56:16 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 因應全球化,企業跨國交易日趨頻繁,降低企業租稅成本並提升投資資金成 為管理階層經營首要考量。因此,跨國租稅規劃議題乃成為企業不容忽視的議題, 本研究主要探討企業投入研究發展的程度、於租稅天堂設立公司密集程度及關係 人交易移轉訂價偏離常規交易程度與公司營運績效的關聯性。
    企業投入之研究發展支出可以作為費用及一定程度內適用政府提供之投資 租稅抵減達到稅盾效果;透過於境外低稅率或免稅國家成立公司,可能會透過控 股關係移轉所得達到降低稅負的效果 ; 透過關係人交易將利潤移轉至低稅負國 家的公司以降低整體企業稅負。此三種租稅規劃策略對企業營運績效之影響乃本 研究重點。
    本研究以 2010 年至 2014 年共計 1,636 筆台灣上市櫃電子業之資料,相關的 實證結果顯示如下:
    一、研究發展投入程度與企業營運績效關聯性方面:研究發展與企業營運績效呈顯著正相關。
    二、租稅天堂稠密程度與企業營運績效關聯性方面:租稅天堂稠密程度與企業營運績效呈負相關,但是關聯性並不顯著。
    三、關係人偏離常規移轉訂價與企業營運績效關聯性方面:關係人偏離常規移轉訂價與企業營運績效呈顯著正相關。
    綜合此三種租稅規劃策略中以研究發展活動對企業營運績效最具顯著影響 力,因此,本研究推斷企業投入研究發展有助於提升企業長期的生產力、突破或 創新等,並進一步促進企業營運績效成長。
    但將子公司設置於租稅天堂對企業營運績效則較不具影響力,認為是因為近 年來,各國政府與國際組織紛紛加強查緝與建立完善的租稅制度以防止企業透過 紙上公司規避稅負的政策關係,而且此一租稅規劃並無為關聯企業創造任何實質價值。因此,在全球打擊租稅規避風潮逐漸盛行下,企業於租稅天堂佈局子公司可能亦會使企業暴露額外的稅務風險。
    企業透過關係人偏離常規交易對企業營運績效雖呈現正相關,但顯著性較研 究發展活動低,推斷為該租稅規劃策略目的僅以稅負極小化作為首要考量,未助於直接提升企業長期營運績效。
    In response to globalization, corporations increase cross-border transactions year by year. Reducing tax costs and increasing capital investment are managements’ primary consideration. Therefore, multinational corporations’ tax planning becomes a noticeable issue. The purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship of the extent of corporations’ research and development, the intensity of setting affiliates in tax haven, transfer pricing among affiliates deviated from arm’s length principle with corporate operating performance.
    Research and development investment can be expenses when filing tax return and applies for investment tax credit in certain degree to reduce corporate tax cost; through setting up offshore companies in low-tax or tax-free countries, holding companies may transfer or shift income to reduce the corporate tax burden; through related party transactions, holding companies can transfer profits to low-tax countries to reduce the company's overall corporate tax burden. This study focus on how do these three kinds of tax planning strategies affect corporate operating performance.
    The data of this study is from year 2010 to 2014 a total of 1,636 Taiwan-listed corporations in electronic industry. The relevant empirical results are shown below:
    First, the relationship between the degree of investment in research and development and corporate operating performance: They show a significant positive correlation.
    Second, the intensity of setting affiliates in tax haven and corporate operating performance: They are negatively correlated, but the correlation is not significant.
    Third, transfer pricing among affiliates deviated from arm’s length principle with corporate operating performance: They show a significant positive correlation.
    Among these three comprehensive tax-planning strategies, research and development activities influence most significantly on the corporate operating performance. Therefore, this study concluded that investments in research and development help corporations to improve long-term productivity of the enterprise, or breakthrough innovation, and further promote business operations performance growth.
    But set up affiliates in tax haven influencing less on corporate operating performance. Infer that governments and international organizations gradually reinforce investigating and establish a sound tax system in order to prevent tax avoidance through the paper companies. Besides, the tax planning doesn’t create any real value to affiliates. As the trend of fighting against tax avoidance increasingly popular around the world, setting up companies in tax haven may also make additional corporate tax risk exposure.
    Transfer pricing among affiliates deviated from arm’s length principle with corporate operating performance has positively correlated, but relatively less significant than the impact of research and development activities. Infer that this strategy only takes tax minimization as primary consideration, and not directly help to enhance long-term corporate operating performance.
    Reference: 中文部分
    1. 王謹韻,2008,投資抵減對企業研發效率之研究-以我國上市半導體產業為例,國立中正大學國際經濟研究所碩士論文。
    2. 王健全、陳厚銘,2000,政府獎勵措施對廠商績效之影響-LISREL分析方法之應用,台大管理論叢,10(2):頁71-96。
    3. 江淑玲、林麗容,2007,我國中小企業盈餘管理行為之探索性研究,東吳經濟商學學報,(57):79-109。
    4. 李慕萱、齊德彰、游尹璧,2011,研發強度與企業價值之關聯性研究。
    5. 佟毅,2014,避稅天堂的起源、發展與現狀,中國石油財會第4期:16-19。
    6. 吳佳穎,2001,台灣資訊電子產業研究發展活動與公司經營績效之研究,國立交通大學科技館管理研究所碩士論文。
    7. 林世銘與楊朝旭,1994,上市公司營利事業所得稅負擔之研究,財稅研究,第26卷,第6期:34-52。
    8. 林欣慧,2012,我國租稅優惠對產業稅負及權益報酬之影響,國立政治大學會計學系碩士論文。
    9. 林炯垚,1988,半強勢效率市場檢定之實證方法,管理評論,7:45-68。
    10. 林宛瑩、汪瑞芝與游順合,2012,研發支出、內部董事與經營績效,會計審計論叢,第 2 卷,第 1 期:61-90。
    11. 邱瓊玲,2011,關係人交易對財務危機預測模式影響之探討,育達科大學報,(26):31-48。
    12. 邱垂昌與黃秀姿,2006,自願設立獨立董事、關係人交易與公司價值關聯性之研究:代理理論與訊號發射理論之比較,管理及人文科學,1(3):379-403。
    13. 胡子仁,2000,我國租稅獎勵措施對營利事業有效稅率影響之實證研究,國立政治大學會計學系碩士論文。
    14. 徐永堅,2003,台商全球化的思維兼論國際移轉訂價租稅問題- 以個案公司探討,國立政治大學會計學系碩士論文。
    15. 徐嘉宏,2008,兩岸租稅規劃投資架構之個案研究,國立政治大學會計學系碩士論文。
    16. 孫克難、劉涵泰,2004,臺灣邊際有效稅率、租稅減免與投資行為,財稅研究,36(6):頁60-76。
    17. 孫克難,1999,產升條例對企業投資國際化之租稅獎勵,經濟前瞻,第63卷:頁46-49。
    18. 郭崑謨、江復明,1992,管理經濟學,台北:五南。
    19. 陳典陞,2013,租稅規避與公司價值,國立政治大學會計學系碩士論文。
    20. 陳明進、蔡麗雯2010,移轉訂價與盈餘管理之研究,證券市場發展季刊(TSSCI期刊),22(2):141-176。
    21. 陳明進,2005,研究發展投資抵減租稅獎勵效果之實證研究,行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告。
    22. 陳明進,2003,我國租稅優惠對營利事業租稅負擔之影響,管理評論,第22卷(1月):127-151。
    23. 陳明進,2002,營利事業有效稅率決定因素之實證研究,會計評論,第34期:57-75。
    24. 陳香梅、楊偕易,2006,臺灣跨國企業運用租稅天堂之特性分析.財稅研究, 38.2: 1-22.
    25. 陳德芬、陳瑋杰,2016,移轉訂價與避稅行為與租稅負擔之關聯,財稅研究,第45卷第2期:20-43。
    26. 黃柏曄,2013,租稅天堂密集度對公司盈餘管理行為之影響:以台灣上市電子工業為例,國立政治大學會計研究所碩士論文。
    27. 張逢源2011,產業創新條例施行對企業研發投入的影響-以台灣半導體產業為例,逢甲大學財稅研究所碩士在職專班碩士論文。
    28. 張恩浩,1991,研究發展之影響因素及其與績效關係之研究,國立台灣大學商學研究所碩士論文。
    29. 葉銀華、柯承恩、李德冠,2002,〈公司監理機制對於關係人交易的影響〉。「台灣財 務金融學會」,台北:2002 年財務學術研討會暨博士研究生論壇。
    30. 葉銀華,2016,家族傳承計劃勝過一紙遺囑,天下雜誌594:70。
    31. 楊開祥,2002,研究發展投資抵減與企業績效關聯之實證研究-以我國上市資訊電子業為例,國立台灣大學會計研究所碩士論文。
    32. 楊麗文,1997,由我國上市公司有效稅率租稅負擔談我國租稅政策─「獎勵投資條例」與「促進產業升級條例」比較,私立東海大學管理研究所碩士論文。
    33. 趙雅儀、蕭哲芬、廖瓊正,2012,關係人交易、稅負與公司績效關聯性之實證研究,桃園創新學報, 2012,第 32: 299-326.
    34. 鄭伶如,2008,公司治理、資本結構與公司價值關係之研究,文大商管學報, 13(1):65-92。
    35. 蘇麗雀,2004,我國公司規模與有效稅率關係之研究,逢甲大學會計與財稅研究所碩士論文。
    英文部分
    1. AI-Eryani, M. F., P. Alam, and S. H. Akhter. 1990. Transfer pricing determinants of U.S. multinationals. Journal of international business studies, third quarter: 409-425.
    2. Bartlett, Christopher A. and Sumantra G. 2000. Transnational management. Vol. 4. Chicago, IL: McGraw Hill.
    3. Berger, Philip G. 1993. Explicit and Implicit Tax Effects of the R&D Tax Credit, Journal of Accounting Research 31(2): 131-171.
    4. Bernstein, Jeffrey I. 1989. The Structure of Canadian Inter-industry R&D Spillovers, and the Rate of Return to R&D. Journal of Industrial Economics March 37(3): 315-325.
    5. Bennedsen, Morten, and Stefan Z.. 2015. Corporate tax havens and shareholder value. Available at SSRN 2586318.
    6. Benston, G. 1985. The Self-Serving Management Hypothesis: Some Evidence. Journal of Accounting & Economics, 7, April:67-84.
    7. Bessant, J., and Buckingham, J. 1989. Implementing integrated technology. Technovation, 9(4): 321-333.
    8. Bosworth, Derek, and Mark R. 2001. Market value, R&D and intellectual property: an empirical analysis of large Australian firms. Economic Record 77.239: 323-337.
    9. Brenner, Merrill S & Brian M. Rushton. 1989. A Strategic Analysis of Sales Growth and R&D in the Chemical Industry. Research Technology Management 32(2).
    10. Claessens, S., S.Djankov, J.Fam, and H.P.Lang. 2002. Disentangling the Incentive and Entrenchment Effects of Large Shareholdings. Journal of Finance.
    11. Chen, M., S. Lin, and T. Chang. 2001. The impact of tax-exempt stock and land capital gains on corporate effective tax rates. Taiwan Accounting Review 2 (April): 33-56.
    12. Chung, K. H., Wright, P., & Charoenwong, C. 1998. Investment Opportunities and Market Reaction to Capital and Expenditure Decisions. Journal of Banking & Finance, 22: 41-60.
    13. Chung, K. H. and S. W. Pruitt. 1994. A Simple Approximation of Tobin’s Q. Financial Management, 3: 70-74.
    14. Desai, M. A., and D. Dharmapala. 2009. Corporate tax avoidance and firm value. The Review of Economics and Statistics 91 (August): 537–546.
    15. Dyreng, Scott D. and Bradley P. Lindsey. 2009. Using Financial Accounting Data to Examine the Effect of Foreign Operations Located in Tax Havens and Other Countries on U.S. Multinational Firms’Tax Rates. Journal of Accounting Research 47 (5): 1283-1316.
    16. Edwin M. and Lorne S. 1985. How Effective Are Canada's Direct Tax Incentives for R and D? Canadian Public Policy,vol.11, issue 2: 241-246.
    17. Fisher, F. M. and J. J. McGowon. 1983. On the Misuse of Accounting Rate of Return to Infer Monopoly Profit,American Economic Review, 73: 82-97.
    18. Fullerton,D. 1984. Which effective tax rate? National Tax Journal 37 (March): 23-41.
    19. Green, J. P., Stark, A. W., & Thomas, H. M. 1996. UK Evidence of Market Valuation of Research and Development Expenditures. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting 23: 191-216.
    20. Gupta, S., and K. Newberry. 1997. Determinants of the variability in corporate effect tax rates: Evidence from longitudinal data. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 16 (Spring): 1-34.
    21. Hall, B. 1993. The stock market’s valuation of R&D investment during the 1980’s. American Economic Review 83(2): 259-264.
    22. Hall, R. and D. W. Jorgenson. 1967. Tax Policy and Investment Behavior,American Economic Review, 57.(3): 391-414.
    23. Hendricks, J. A. 1988. Applying cost accounting to factory automation. Management Accounting, 70(6): 24-30.
    24. Howell, R. A., & Soucy, S. R. 1987. Capital investments in the new manufacturing environment. Management Accounting,69(5):26-32.
    25. Jorgenson, Dale, and RE Hall.1967. Tax Policy and Investment Behavior. American Economic Review 57, no.3:391-414.
    26. Jorgenson, Dale W. 1963. Capital Theory and Investment Behavior, American Economic Review, 53(2):247-259.
    27. Kawor, Seyram, and Holy K. K. 2014. Effect of Tax Planning on Firms Market Performance: Evidence from Listed Firms in Ghana.International Journal of Economics and Finance 6.3:162.
    28. Keynes, J.M. 1936. The General Theory of Employment,Interestand Money. London:Macmillion, chapter11-12.
    29. Lang, Larry and Robert Litzenberger, 1989, Dividend announcements: Cash flow signalling vs. free cash flow hypothesis?, Journal of Financial Economics, this issue.Lev, Baruch, and Theodore Sougiannis. The capitalization, amortization, and value-relevance of R&D.Journal of accounting and economics 21.1 (1996): 107-138.
    30. Li, Tiger, and Roger J. Calantone. The impact of market knowledge competence on new product advantage: conceptualization and empirical examination.The Journal of Marketing (1998): 13-29.
    31. Liu, C., S. Lin, and D. Huang. 2001. Factors influencing corporate effective tax rates in Taiwan. Taiwan Accounting Review 2 (April): 57-84.
    32. McConnsll, JJ and H.Servaes. 1990. Additional evidence on equity ownership and corporate value. Journal of Financial Economics 27
    (October):595-612.
    33. Modigliani, F. and Miller, M. H. 1958. The costs of capital, corporation finance and the theory of investment. American Economic Review,48:261-297.
    34. Modigliani, Franco, and Merton H. Miller. Corporate income taxes and the cost of capital: a correction. The American economic review 53.3 (1963): 433-443.
    35. Morbey, G. K. 1989. R&D Expenditures and Profit growth. Research Technology Management,32(3):20-23.
    36. Morbey, G. K. and R. M. Reirhner. 1990. How R&D Affects Sales Growth, Productivity and Profitability. Research Technology Management 33(3):11-14.
    37. Morbey, G. K. & Dugal, S. S. 1992. Corporate R&D Spending During a Recession. Research Technology Management 35(4):42-46.
    38. Morck, R., A. Shleifer, and R.Vishny. 1988. Management Ownership and Market Valuation: An Empirical Analysis. Journal of Financial Economics, vol.20:293-315.
    39. Porcano, T. 1986. Corporate tax rates: Progressive, proportional, or regressive. The Journal of the American Taxation Association 7 (Spring):17-31.
    40. Philips, J. D. 2003. Corporate tax-planning effectiveness: The role of compensation-based incentives. The Accounting Review 78 (July): 847-874.
    41. Pindyck, R. S. 1988. Irreversible Investment, Capacity Choice, and the Value of theFirm. American Economic Review, 78(4):969-985.
    42. Polakoff, J. C. 1990. Factory floor layout: Catalyst for change. Management Review,79(11):33-36.
    43. Rego,S. O. 2003. Tax-avoidance activities of U. S. multinational corporations. Contemporary Accounting Research 20 (Winter):805-833.
    44. Rohatgi, R. 2007. Basic International Taxation. London: BNA International.
    45. Sougiannis, T. 1994. The accounting based valuation of corporate R&D. The Accounting Review 69(1):44-68.
    46. Scholes, M., and M. Wolson. 1992. Taxes and Business Strategy: A Planning Approach. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.:Prentice Hall.
    47. Shackelford, D. A. 1991. The market for tax benefit: Evidence from leverages ESOPs. Journal of Accounting and Economics 14 (June): 117-145.
    48. Shevlin, T., and S. Porter. 1992. The corporate tax comeback in 1987: Some further evidence. The Journal of the American Taxation Association 14 (March): 58-79.
    49. Slemrod, J. 2001. A general model of the behavior response to taxation. International Tax and Public Finance, 8(2): 119–128.
    50. Smith, Clifford W., and Ross L. Watts. 1992. The investment opportunity set and corporate financing, dividend, and compensation policies. Journal of financial Economics, 32.3: 263-292.
    51. Stickney, C. and V. McGee. 1982. Effective corporate tax rates: The effect of size, capital intensity, leverage, and other factors. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 1 (Winter): 125-152.
    52. Siegfried, J. 1974. Effective average U. S. corporation income tax rates. National Tax Journal 27 (June): 245-259.
    53. Shepherd, W. G. 1986. Tobin’s Q and the Structure-Performance Relationship: Comment. American Economic Review, 76, Dec.:pp.1203-1209.
    54. Watts, R. L. and J. L. Zimmerman. 1978. Towards a Positive Theory of the Determination of Accounting Standards. The Accounting Review, 53, No.1:112-34.
    55. Wernerfelt, Biger. 1984. A Resource-Based View of the Firm, Strategic Management Journal 5:171-180.
    56. Zimmerman, J. 1983. Taxes and firm size. Journal of Accounting and Economics 5 (2):119-149.
    Description: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    會計學系
    103353106
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0103353106
    Data Type: thesis
    Appears in Collections:[會計學系] 學位論文

    Files in This Item:

    File SizeFormat
    310601.pdf1800KbAdobe PDF1420View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏,無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用,惟仍請適度,合理使用本網站之內容,以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用,則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    2.本網站之製作,已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益,如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者,請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw),維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback