苹果发债暴露美国税制弊端

当前位置：首页 > 英语笔译

苹果发债暴露美国税制弊端

天之聪教育 2013-05-15 天之聪教育 373次

苹果发债暴露美国税制弊端

Unlike America’s tax code, Apple is perfectly rational

        Apple’s decision last week to issue $17bn in bonds has drawn attention to America’s abominable corporate tax system. The tech giant’s first debt issue comes at a time when it has more than $100bn in cash held outside the US. By borrowing from the capital markets, Apple can pay dividends to shareholders more cheaply than if it used the money stored outside the country, while getting a tax deduction for interest expenses. This decision has angered those who like to inveigh against “tax avoidance” and “corporate greed”. But the culprit is not Apple; it is the over-complex US tax system.

        苹果(Apple)公司日前决定发行170亿美元债券，这使美国糟糕的企业税收制度受到了人们的关注。这是这家科技巨头首次发债，而就在此时苹果在美国以外的其他地区拥有超过1000亿美元的现金储备。不过相对于动用海外资金，苹果通过从资本市场融资能以更低的成本向股东发放股利，其所支付的利息支出还能抵税。苹果的这一举措激怒了某些喜欢抨击“避税”以及“公司贪欲”的人。但问题的根源并不在于苹果，而是过于复杂的美国税收制度。

        Apple’s actions can be explained by two features of the tax code: its treatment of foreign income and its bias towards debt over equity.

        苹果的发债举动可以通过美国企业税收体系的两大特点来解释：对于海外收入的处理方法以及倾向于鼓励企业发债融资而非发行股权。

        When an American company generates income outside the US, it first pays taxes in the country where the income is generated and then pays the “differential” tax when that income is returned. Consider an example. A company that generates $1bn in income in Taiwan, where the corporate tax rate is 17 per cent, will pay taxes of $170m to the island. It will then have to pay an additional $180m in federal taxes when the income returns to the US, where the corporate tax rate is 35 per cent.

        当一家美国公司在海外获得收入时，首先需在收入发生地缴纳所得税，之后再在这笔收入流回美国时支付税收差额。下面举一个例子作为说明。假设一家公司在台湾地区获得了10亿美元收入，当地的企业所得税率为17%，该公司应向台湾政府缴纳1.7亿美元税款。之后，当这笔收入转回美国国内时，该公司还需要缴纳1.8亿美元的联邦所得税，因为美国的企业所得税率为35%。

        Unsurprisingly, companies often choose not to bring the cash home, instead operating in financial limbo: the money is neither taxed nor used for dividends or investments.

        意料之中的是，美国企业通常选择不将海外收入转回国内，而是将之束之高阁：海外收入既没有在美国境内纳税，也没有被用于发放股息或投资。

        The laws giving rise to this situation are not new but two trends have developed to make Apple’s situation emblematic. First, US companies today generate more income from outside the US than they did 30 years ago. In 2011, US tech companies derived 57 per cent of their revenues outside America. Second, while the US federal corporate tax rate has over this time remained at 35 per cent, marginal tax rates in the rest of the world have moved lower.

        引发这一状况的税收规则由来已久，但两大趋势导致苹果公司的处境更具典型性。其一是，如今美国企业在海外的收入规模远远超出了30年前。2011年美国科技企业有57%的收入来自美国以外地区。其二是，在美国联邦企业税率一直保持在35%的同时，世界其他地区的边际税率则呈下降趋势。

        How do you fix the problem? There are those who believe that it is the patriotic duty of every US corporation to maximise taxes paid, a belief that is in conflict with a company’s fiduciary duty to its shareholders, many of whom may not share this belief. Indeed, many are foreign investors. To those with a punitive bent, the solution is to tax all income at US tax rates, irrespective of whether it is returned to the US or not. While that may appeal to egalitarian impulses, it will force US-based global companies to pay a large price to remain based in the US. Many will choose to leave. Another solution is to lower the US corporate tax rate towards that of other large economies and not tax foreign income as US income. This suggestion will attract populist anger but may actually result in more taxes being collected and greater investment in the US.

        那么该如何解决对于海外收入的税收处理问题呢？某些人认为，纳税金额最大化是各美国企业的爱国义务，但该观点与企业相对于自身股东的受托人义务存在冲突，大多数股东很可能并不认同这种看法，事实上，很多股东都是外国投资者。而在那些倾向于严厉监管的人看来，解决之道在于对所有收入按美国税率征税，不管收入有没有被转回美国国内。该主张或许迎合了某些平等主义倾向，但如此一来，总部在美国的跨国企业若要将总部留在美国就需要付出高昂代价。受此影响很多企业将选择离开美国。另一种解决方案是，将美国的企业税率降至与其他主要经济体接近的水平，并且避免将海外收入视为美国收入加以征税。这一提议或将激起民粹主义者的愤怒，但却可能带动企业在美国境内的纳税金额以及投资规模出现实实在在的增长。

        The US tax code also rewards companies that borrow money, by giving a tax benefit when you borrow (with interest payments being tax deductible) and not when you use equity (with dividends coming out of after-tax income). This results in a cost of debt for Apple of about 2 per cent, well below the 10-12 per cent that its equity is being priced to earn currently. The $17bn borrowed will go to buying back Apple stock, effectively recapitalising the company. If you are outraged that we would encourage companies to borrow, the answer again is to fix the tax code, either by taking away the tax deductibility of interest expenses or by making cash flows to equity (dividends) tax deductible.

        美国的税收制度还对发债融资的公司予以奖励，通过把利息支出作为税收抵减项而使企业获得“税盾”优惠，而对股权融资的企业则没有优待，因为股利支出来源于税后收入。受此影响，苹果公司的发债成本仅为2%左右，远远低于目前市场为其股票定价时采用的10%至12%的收益率。发债筹集的170亿美元资金将被用于股票回购，这在事实上将重组该公司的资本结构。如果你对我们国家鼓励企业借债感到愤怒，解决这一问题依然只能依靠调整税收制度，例如取消利息支出的税收抵减资格，或者允许股息支出抵税。

        I have four suggestions for lawmakers as they consider rewriting the US tax code. First, stop viewing the tax code as your primary instrument for shaping social policy, since those tax credits and deductions you introduce for your causes will create unintended and unworthy consequences. Second, keep the code simple, since complexities reward companies that hire tax planners and punish those that focus on their businesses. Third, once you write the new code, do not tinker with it, an insidious process that has undercut every previous attempt to make the law more rational. Fourth, do not expect taxpayers to view your new code as fair, no matter how much care you take. Most taxpayers will perceive themselves as paying more than their fair share of taxes, no matter what they pay. Taking these steps will be much more constructive than railing against a company that is simply behaving rationally.

        我对正在考虑修订美国税收制度的立法者们有以下四条建议。第一条是，不要再把税收法规看做是调节公共政策的主要工具，因为立法者们为了各自目的而引入的税收减免规则会产生意料之外以及得不偿失的后果。第二条是，保持税收规则的简洁性，因为复杂的税制只会导致那些聘用税务顾问的公司有空可钻，而专注于自身业务的企业则处于劣势。第三条是，税收规则一旦修订，就不要再胡乱修补，这种有隐患的做法已导致此前所有试图使税收法规更加合乎理性的努力效果大打折扣。第四条是，不管付出了多少心力，都不要奢望新的税收规则在纳税人眼中是公正的。绝大多数纳税人都认为自己的纳税金额高于他们应当承担的额度，不论他们实际缴纳了多少税款。与其斥责一家按照理性行事的公司，采纳以上四条建议将更加具有建设性。