预约定价协议是否还是跨国公司的避风港？--评欧盟裁定菲亚特和星巴克的预约定价协议违法案例  

Is APA a Safe harbour for the Multinationals: A Comment on the APA Cases of Fiat and Starbucks by the European Commission

作　　者：李娜[1] 

机构地区：[1]华东政法大学博士后流动站,上海200042

出　　处：《国际税收》2016年第1期34-38,共5页International Taxation In China

基　　金：国家社会科学基金项目《数字经济时代国际税收管辖权划分规则之重构研究》(批准号:15BFX197)的阶段性研究结果

摘　　要：欧盟委员会在2015年10月裁定菲亚特与卢森堡税务机关以及星巴克与荷兰税务机关所签订的预先定价协议违反了欧盟竞争法,引发了跨国公司对预先定价协议确定性、可依赖性的顾虑,也揭示出如何限制税务机关在谈签预约定价协议时的自由裁量权这一问题。欧盟此项裁定与BEPS行动计划异曲同工,有助于打击跨国公司逃避税,也对我国制定相关政策有借鉴意义。The European Commission decided the APA between Fiat and Luxembourg and the APA between Starbucks and the Netherland have breached the EU competition law. This decision caused concerns amongst multinational companies about the certainty and reliability of APAs, and it also disclose the question on how to limit the discretional power of tax bureaus in negotiating and signing APAs. The European Commission＇s decision shows the same trend with the expanding BEPS projects on counterfeiting multinational companies＇ tax evasion and tax avoidance. And it also could be a reference for China＇s enacting the Special Tax Adjustment Implementing Measures （Trial）.

关 键 词：预约定价协议 定价转移 欧盟 国家援助 税基侵蚀及利润转移 

分 类 号：D996.3[政治法律—经济法学]