从Glaxo案看营销性无形资产转让定价规制问题  

A Review on the Issues of Transfer Pricing Regulation of Marketing Intangibles in Glaxo Case

作　　者：廖益新[1] 

机构地区：[1]厦门大学法学院

出　　处：《法学家》2010年第1期63-74,共12页The Jurist

基　　金：国家社科基金项目"经济全球化进程中的税收国际协调法律问题研究"(03BFX047)的阶段性研究成果

摘　　要：国际关联企业间营销性无形资产转让定价规制主要涉及营销性无形资产的范围界定、所有权归属和价值回报确定等问题。美国Glaxo案件的争议反映出有关国家转让定价税制在这些问题上的立法与实践存在分歧,经合组织的《转让定价准则》也缺乏相应的明确指导规定。由于营销性无形资产的构成和价值确定具有高度的事实依附性,并不存在一种可普遍适用于各种营销性无形资产转让交易的认定标准和规则。为保证转让定价税制实施的正当性目标实现,防止国际税收争议发生和消除国际重复征税风险,应尽可能采用双边或多边预约定价协议方式规制国际关联企业营销性无形资产转让定价交易。关联企业应尽可能在交易合同中对营销功能的履行、风险的分担和营销性无形资产的价值回报事项做出具体的规定,并注意保存充分的同期资料证明文件。The regulation of transfer pricing of marketing intangibles among international affiliated enterprises involves the issues of determination of the scope, ownership and value return of marketing intangibles. Glaxo case in the United States reflected that there exist differences in transfer pricing tax rules and their practice of relevant countries, and OECD's Transfer Pricing Guidelines has not provided for clear guiding rules with respect of these issues. Due to the high factual dependence of determining the form and value of marketing intangibles, there is no a set of recognizing standards or criteria which may generally be applicable to various kinds of transactions involved in marketing intangibles. In order to realize the legitimation of transfer pricing tax rules' application, prevent from occurrence of international tax disputes and eliminate international double taxation, it is suggested that bilateral or multilateral advance pricing agreement should be the best way of regulating transfer pricing transactions of marketing intangibles among international related enterprises, and international related enterprises should make definite provisions in their contract on the issues such as the performance of marketing function, allocation of risks and reward of marketing intangibles value, and keep sufficient concurrent documentation carefully.

关 键 词：关联企业 营销性无形资产 转让定价 国际重复征税 

分 类 号：D996.1[政治法律—经济法学]