評論
打印
Finance and economics
金融版塊
Tax in America
美國的稅收
A tale of two profits
兩種利潤的故事
A minimum tax on companies seems alluring, but is likely to disappoint
對公司征收最低稅似乎很誘人，但實施起來可能令人失望
ON THE FACE of things, it seems both absurd and unfair that large American companies regularly whittle down their tax bills, taking advantage of every loophole on offer.
從表面上看，美國大公司經常利用任何一個漏洞削減稅單，似乎既荒謬又不公平。
One study found that at least 55 big companies incurred no federal taxes at all on their profits in 2020.
一項研究發現，2020年，至少有55家大公司獲得的利潤是完全沒有繳納聯邦稅的。
A proposal being discussed as The Economist went to press, and as the Democratic Party scrambled to fund its social-spending package, seems to offer a popular solution: a minimum tax on corporate earnings as reported to shareholders, rather than as massaged down when reported to tax collectors.
在《經濟學人》付印時，民主黨正忙于為其社會支出計劃籌劃資金，一項正在討論中的提案似乎提供了一個受歡迎的解決方案：對向股東報告的公司收益征收最低稅率，而不是向稅務人員報告時被篡改的數據征收最低稅率。
The structure of the minimum tax looks simple enough.
最低稅率的結構看起來也很簡單。
Companies that report more than $1bn in profits to shareholders would pay a tax of at least 15% on those profits.
向股東報告利潤超過10億美元的公司將為這些利潤支付至少15%的稅。
The levy would be explicitly aimed at firms such as Amazon, which had an effective federal income-tax rate of just 4.3% from 2018 to 2020, far below the statutory rate of 21%, according to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a left-leaning think-tank.
根據左傾智庫稅收與經濟政策研究所的數據，這項稅收將明確針對亞馬遜等公司，從2018年到2020年，亞馬遜的有效聯邦所得稅稅率僅為4.3%，遠低于21%的法定稅率。
All told, the new tax would apply to some 200 big companies.
總而言之，新稅將適用于大約200家大公司。
Politically, the minimum corporate tax has much going for it.
在政治上講，最低公司稅有很多好處。
Angus King, an independent senator who is an architect of the proposal, believes it could raise $400bn over ten years.
該提案的設計者之一、獨立參議員安格斯·金認為，該提案可以在十年內籌集4000億美元。
That would help fund the bill that is the cornerstone of President Joe Biden’s “Build Back Better” agenda, featuring about $2trn in spending over the next decade (equivalent to less than 1% of projected GDP during that time).
這將有助于為這項法案提供資金，該法案是美國總統喬·拜登“重建更好”議程的基石，計劃在未來十年支出約2萬億美元(不到同期預計GDP的1%)。
The corporate minimum is also less controversial than another new levy the Democrats were rowing over, a tax on unrealised capital gains that would target 700 billionaires.
與民主黨正在討論的另一項新稅種相比，企業最低稅率的爭議性也較小，這項稅種針對的是700名億萬富翁的未實現資本利得稅。
Democrats had hoped at first to rely on a general increase in the corporate-tax rate to raise revenues.
民主黨人一開始希望依靠普遍提高企業稅率來增加收入。
But Kyrsten Sinema, a Democratic senator from Arizona whose support is needed for the bill to pass, opposed the wider increase and has instead backed the minimum tax as “commonsense”.
但來自亞利桑那州民主黨參議員基爾斯滕·西內馬反對更大范圍的增稅，轉而支持最低稅率，稱其為“常識”，他的支持對該法案的通過很重要。
The idea also has the approval of Joe Manchin, a Democratic senator from West Virginia, whose vote could prove decisive.
這一想法也得到了西弗吉尼亞州民主黨參議員喬·曼欽的同意，他的投票可能是決定性的。
The economic rationale is, however, more dubious.
然而，經濟理由則更令人懷疑。
Despite its apparently simple structure, it would introduce more complexity into an already bloated tax code.
盡管它的結構看起來很簡單，但它會給本已臃腫的稅法更加復雜。
Companies would face two parallel systems, calculating their liabilities first under regular tax rules and then under the minimum-tax regime.
公司將面臨兩個平行的體系，首先根據常規稅收規則計算負債，然后再根據最低稅收制度計算負債。
An earlier version of a minimum corporate tax, repealed under President Donald Trump in 2017, was so onerous that in some years compliance costs outstripped tax collections.
唐納德·特朗普總統于2017年廢除的早期版本的最低公司稅非常繁重，以至于在某些年份，合規成本超過了稅收。
The gap between taxable income and book income as reported to shareholders exists for a reason.
應納稅收入和向股東報告的賬面收入之間存在差距是有原因的。
When, say, a company builds a factory, financial rules require it to spread the cost over many years based on depreciation, letting investors know the value of its assets.
比方說，當一家公司建造工廠時，財務規則要求它根據折舊將成本分攤到多年，讓投資者知道其資產的價值。
Tax rules, however, let firms report costs when incurred.
然而，稅收規則允許公司在發生成本時報告成本。
That lowers tax bills when investments are made and encourages more spending.
這在投資時降低了稅收，并鼓勵了更多的支出。
Calculating minimum taxes based on book, rather than taxable, income would lead to two perverse outcomes.
根據賬面收入（而不是應稅收入）計算最低稅額將導致兩種反常的結果。
First, powers over tax would, in effect, be granted to the Financial Accounting Standards Board, an unelected body that governs how companies report income.
首先，稅收方面的權力實際上將被授予財務會計準則委員會，這是一個未經選舉產生的機構，負責管理公司如何報告收入。
Changes in its standards would lead to changes in taxation.
其標準的變化將導致稅收的變化。
Second, companies would have less scope for deducting investment expenses, and hence might pare back capital spending.
其次，公司扣除投資費用的空間會變小，因此可能會削減資本支出。
Mr Biden, though, does not want that to happen, so the proposal maintains several deductions, including for spending on clean energy and on research and development—one of the provisions that may have allowed Amazon to lower its taxes.
然而，拜登并不希望這種情況發生，因此該提案保留了幾項減免條件，包括清潔能源和研發方面的支出——這可能是允許亞馬遜降低稅收的條款之一。
Companies, for their part, will adapt.
就公司而言，他們將會適應。
By turning more to debt instead of equity markets for financing, for instance, they could increase their interest expenses, which would eat into both their book and taxable incomes.
例如，更多地轉向債券市場而不是股票市場融資，可能會增加利息支出，這將侵蝕它們的賬面收入和應稅收入。
The upshot is that the minimum corporate tax may end up raising far less revenue than its proponents believe, while also skewing investment incentives—and making a messy tax code even more complicated.
其結果是，最低公司稅最終可能比其支持者認為的要少得多，同時也扭曲了投資動機——使混亂的稅法變得更加復雜。
