我們將面臨稅收之戰 Alphabet and Apple spell global tax war
The uproar about Google paying 130m in back taxes and raising the amount it pays in the UK by just 10m a year is merely a little local difficulty compared with what comes next. Apple could soon be instructed to pay billions, triggering a showdown between Europe and the US and a potential breakdown of the international tax system. This sounds apocalyptic but it is a decent bet.
谷歌(Google)在英國補繳1.3億英鎊稅款並將其在英國的納稅額一年提高區區1000萬英鎊，這件事引發的喧囂與接下來將要發生的事相比不過是小巫見大巫。蘋果(Apple)很快可能被要求支付數十億美元的稅款，這將導致歐洲與美國之間的攤牌，並有可能引發國際稅收制度的崩潰。聽上去像是世界末日，但這是一個勝算不錯的押注。
If you doubt it, consider the following. From irate taxpayers and infuriated politicians to defiant bosses of multinationals, many are at the ends of their tethers about corporate tax. Countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development have spent two years trying to fix the system; one of the first results, Google’s UK deal, has gone down terribly.
如果你有所懷疑，不妨考慮以下現實。從憤怒的納稅人、怒不可遏的政客到跨國公司的不買賬老闆，很多人都被企業稅問題搞得焦頭爛額。經合組織(OECD)國家花了兩年時間試圖理順這一制度；首批成果之一——谷歌在英國達成的協議——引發的反響糟糕透頂。
Apple disclosed on Tuesday that its minimally taxed pot of overseas cash has grown to $200bn. Tim Cook, chief executive, flew to Brussels last week to protest at the likelihood of being told by the European Commission to pay a chunk to Ireland, where it has operated since 1980. American politicians are angry at what some call “a direct threat to the interests of the US”.
蘋果最近披露，其千方百計避稅的海外資金庫已經擴大至2000億美元。蘋果首席執行官蒂姆錠克(Tim Cook)最近飛往布魯塞爾，抗議該公司有可能被歐盟委員會(European Commission)要求向愛爾蘭（蘋果自1980年起一直在該國經營）支付大量稅款。美國政客對某些人所稱的“對美國利益的直接威脅”大爲震怒。
The question on which the future of global tax harmony rests is not whether Google should pay more in the UK and less in Ireland. It is whether US multinationals pay much tax anywhere on overseas earnings, and whether they ever will. For now, billions in profits are booked in Bermuda and offshore entities, annoying everyone.
就全球稅收協調的未來而言，關鍵問題並不在於谷歌是否應該在英國繳納更多的稅款，而在愛爾蘭少繳些稅款，而是在於美國跨國公司是不是要在任何地方爲海外利潤支付可觀稅款？以及他們會不會這樣做？目前，鉅額利潤被計入百慕大之類地方的離岸實體，令各方惱火。
The centre is not holding for Alphabet, Google’s parent group, as France and Italy reinterpret their laws to make it pay more tax before local profits escape to Ireland and then, via the Netherlands, to Bermuda. It will surely fracture over EU cases against Apple and Amazon since the US lives in hope that one day, over the rainbow, their cash will come home to be taxed.
隨着法國、意大利重新解釋本國法律，以便迫使谷歌在把當地實現的利潤轉移至愛爾蘭（然後經由荷蘭轉移至百慕大）之前繳納更多稅款，對谷歌的母公司Alphabet來說，局面難以爲繼。歐盟對蘋果和亞馬遜(Amazon)採取的行動肯定會攪亂現狀，因爲華盛頓方面一直期盼着，有一天這些企業海外小金庫中的資金將會“跨越彩虹”回到母國，讓政府斬獲可觀稅款。
We face a historic moment. The tax system formed under the League of Nations in 1928 relies on the idea that companies should be taxed largely where profits are created, not where they sell their products and services. It could soon fall apart and what happens then is anyone’s guess, although it will not be pretty and will probably resemble a global tax war.
我們面臨一個歷史性的時刻。1928年在國聯(League of Nations)主導下形成的稅收制度依賴於這樣一種理念，即企業應當在創造利潤的地方繳納大部分稅款，而非在出售產品和服務的地方。這一制度可能很快就會瓦解，沒人知道之後會發生什麼，儘管局面不會好看，很可能像是一場全球稅收戰爭。
Multinationals, especially US corporations subject to America’s dysfunctional tax laws, stretched rules to the point where the result appals taxpayers. They did so with the aquiescence of offshore havens and countries such as Ireland and Luxembourg.
跨國公司——尤其是受制於功能失靈的美國稅法的美國企業——鑽法律空子的程度，對納稅人來說簡直駭人聽聞。他們之所以能夠這麼做，是因爲有了海外避稅天堂以及愛爾蘭、盧森堡等國的配合。
The European taxpayer in the street might just credit the idea that Alphabet or Apple create, design and manage their products and services from California, and so the US should receive a larger share of its profits than Italy or the UK. This is the intended outcome of international tax treaties.
大街上的歐洲納稅人或許會接受這樣的觀念：既然Alphabet或蘋果在加利福尼亞創造、設計和管理自己的產品和服務，因此，美國應該得到比意大利或英國更大的利潤份額。這正是國際稅收條約意欲達到的結果。
Why, though, should he or she accept that intellectual property can be shifted to any convenient spot, according to which jurisdiction levies the least tax? Google’s search engine was not invented in Bermuda and Apple did not develop the iPhone in a tax-advantaged entity sitting between Ireland and the US. Such structures obey the letter of the law but they are nonsensical.
不過，他或她爲什麼應該接受另一種觀念：知識產權可以轉移到任何便利的地方，就因爲那個司法管轄區徵收的稅率最低？谷歌的搜索引擎不是在百慕大開發的，蘋果也不是在坐落於愛爾蘭與美國之間的一個享有稅收優勢的實體開發iPhone。這種稅收結構符合法律條文，但它們是荒謬的。
They exist to hold what is in theory a US tax liability until Congress gets around to cutting the US corporate tax rate from 40 per cent (including federal and state taxes) and luring the cash back. Yet the chance of Apple repatriating the entire $200bn is slim; some of it will never return, being invested instead in overseas expansion.
它們的存在是爲了持有理論上的美國納稅義務——直至美國國會採取行動降低美國高達40%的企業稅率（包括聯邦和州稅收），把資金吸引回來。然而，蘋果將其全部2000億美元資金匯回美國的可能性很小；其中一部分永遠不會回到美國，而將被投資於海外擴張。
Mr Cook would leap out of his chair to protest at this point. These were and are the rules, he would say. By all means change them but do not impugn Apple’s honour by calling it a tax dodger or raiding its coffers retrospectively for alleged underpayments going back a decade. The EU should not use the device of state aid rules to interfere in Ireland’s right to set corporate tax rates.
在這一點上，庫克可能會從椅子上跳起來表示抗議。他會說，過去和現在實行的都是這些規則。立法機構可以想盡辦法改變它們，但不要損害蘋果的聲譽——稱其爲逃稅者，或者打蘋果所持現金的主意，在回溯性基礎上追討長達10年的據稱的欠稅。歐盟不應把國家補助規則用作工具，干涉愛爾蘭設定企業稅率的權利。
Well, perhaps. Without attributing malice to Steve Jobs, both Apple, the company he co-founded, and Ireland were pretty ingenious about tax; they can hardly complain if Margrethe Vestager, EU competition commissioner, is ingenious in return. As to Apple’s complaint of retrospective legislation, the Supreme Court often strikes down US state laws long after they were passed, no matter how inconvenient it is for anyone who is affected.
好吧，也許如此。在不說蘋果聯合創始人史蒂夫吠布斯(Steve Jobs)壞話的前提下，蘋果和愛爾蘭在稅收方面都頗有獨創意識；如果歐盟競爭事務專員瑪格麗特維斯特格(Margrethe Vestager)也拿出獨創意識，他們沒什麼可抱怨的。至於蘋果對有追溯效力法規的不滿，美國最高法院經常在州法律通過後很久將其推翻——不論這樣做對受影響的人造成多大麻煩。
The US Treasury is lining up on its companies’ side. It worries about taxpayers footing the bill in forgone tax receipts if more is taken by European countries. The Senate finance committee wants it to consider retaliating by double taxing European companies if billions are bitten from Apple.
美國財政部站在美國公司的一邊。它擔心，如果歐洲國家拿走更多的稅款，美國納稅人將爲打水漂的稅收收入買單。參議院財政委員會希望財政部考慮進行報復——如果蘋果被“咬掉”鉅額稅款，就對歐洲企業進行雙重徵稅。
The incentive to carry on co-operating is slim. The UK tax authorities tried to raise Google’s bill while still treating its British arm as a minor contributor to global profits — a plausible view under revised OECD guidelines. They are now in disgrace for not being tough enough while France and Italy, which have changed tack to enforce far higher local taxes, bask in approval.
繼續合作的動力不大。英國稅務當局試圖提高谷歌的納稅額，同時仍將其英國子公司視爲全球利潤的較小貢獻者——根據經合組織的修訂版指引，這是一種合理的觀點。他們如今受到詬病，被指態度不夠強硬，而改變策略、執行更高地方稅的法國和意大利受到廣泛讚賞。
It is clear where this ends. When the global tax consensus cannot hold, it is every nation for itself. This was what they tried to remedy in 1928 but the goodwill is fading fast.
這一切的結局很明顯。當全球稅收共識無法維持時，各國將只顧自己的利益。這正是他們在1928年試圖補救的情況，但誠意正在快速消退。
