本研究旨在檢視我國無形資產移轉訂價之相關規定是否完備，並藉由外國立法例與案例之借鏡，據以針對未盡完備之處進行深入之探討，以作為我國未來制定或施行相關規範之參考。 首先，本研究以無形資產為範圍，對於主要國家與我國無形資產移轉訂價制度加以比較，以瞭解我國相關規定不足之處。研究結果發現，我國關於成本分攤協議之規定最為欠缺，因此本研究亦以上述之主要國家為參考對象，彙整與分析可參考之內容，擬具我國未來制定成本分攤協議相關規範之框架。經由本研究之整理，我國未來制定成本分攤協議相關規範所應著重之主要項目包括定義、應分攤之成本、合理預期收益、成本與收益之比率相符、參與者之異動與協議之終止、稅捐稽徵機關之調整、租稅待遇、協議內容以及稽徵行政等九大項目。 其次，借鑒相關案例之爭議與本研究之設想，本研究擬定我國未來制定或施行成本分攤協議之法規所可能面臨之問題或應考量之事項，分為稅務面、法制面與稽徵行政面，並據以提供相關建議。稅務面主要可分為分攤協議之成本、使用協議所開發之無形資產、成本分攤給付以及買進與買斷給付之稅務處理，法制面為應考量制定之法律位階與訂定內容之相關配套措施，稽徵行政面則須評估預審制度之效益、權責單位之規劃與其保密義務之限制、專責人員之專業素養與獨立性以及對於成本分攤協議進行技術輸出管制之重要性。 / This research examines whether the transfer pricing regulations of intangible assets in Taiwan are sufficient or not. It focuses on lack of regulations pertaining to cost sharing arrangements (CSA) in Taiwan. With the references to foreign legislations and cases, the research further discusses the legislation defects and provides suggestions for Taiwan’s legislatives as to enactment or enforcement of related regulations in the future. Specifically, this research locates the legislation deficiencies by comparing transfer pricing systems of intangible assets between major countries and Taiwan. Examples of such major countries are used as a framework of CSA regulations for Taiwan. This framework covers the following main items: definition of a CSA, intangible development costs (IDC), reasonably anticipated benefits (RAB), the consistency between IDC shares and RAB shares, changes in participants and the termination of CSAs, adjustments by tax administrations, tax treatment of CSAs, elements of a CSA, and administration of tax collection. Based on the above analysis and controversies of related cases, this research points out problems that may arise and issues that should be considered when CSA regulations are to be enacted or enforced in Taiwan. Such problems and issues can be separated into three aspects, namely, taxation, legal system, and administration of tax collection. The research concludes by offering suggestions on each aspect. For the taxation aspect, the tax treatment relating to certain conditions should be contemplated, including IDC shared by each participant in a CSA, exploiting the intangible assets developed by a CSA, cost sharing transaction payments (CST payments), and buy-in/buy-out payments. With regard to the aspect of legal system, the legal position and supplementary measures of CSA regulations should be taken into account. As to the aspect of administration of tax collection, many factors should be taken into consideration, such as assessing the feasibility and benefit of issuing a CSA advance ruling, determining the appropriate tax authorities in charge of CSAs, training and developing qualified tax officials to audit CSAs, and controlling the technologies export via CSAs.

中國大陸移轉訂價法規起步較晚，但近年來中國積極防堵並加大查核力度，在大部分操作方式都被阻絕的情況下，台商僅剩「保留合理利潤」一途。如何在這個前提下達到利潤最大化並降低稅務風險，是本研究探討的問題。依本研究之結論，獲得以下之結論: 一、透過集團組織重組，建立集中化管理模式，依照各公司功能及風險考量，分配合理利潤。 二、在考量風險下，透過預先訂價協議及成本分攤協議以降低稅務風險。 三、建立符合各國法規之集團訂價策略，掌握各國稽核重點，制定集團統一的溝通及防禦策略，事先做好同期資料及相關文據以供備查。 / The development of regulations with respect to transfer pricing was started late in China, however, China took positive actions to avoid transfer pricing and enforced the rules more strictly in recent years. Therefore, the Taiwanese investors only have the way of “remaining the reasonable profit” in the event of that most of the operating models have been prohibited. How to obtain the maximun benefit and lower the tax risk in such situation are the objectives and questions of this study. According to this research, the conclusion is as below: 1. To allocate the reasonable profit by group restructuring and setting the centralized management mode in accordance with consideration in function and risk of each corporation. 2. To lower the tax risk through advance pricing agreements and cost sharing agreements in consideration of the risk. 3. To build the group pricing strategy which is accordance with the regulations of each filed, controlling the inspection focus of each countries, setting the group strategy for communication and defense, and preparing the same period information and other related documents for future reference.

過去許多企業，將企業原本擁有的智慧財產（例如：專利、商標、營業祕密…）與企業的其他資產、負債，分離出來，成立智慧財產控股公司，並透過智慧財產供股公司的經營管理，獲取大量的租稅利益。此一租稅規劃工具雖然已引起稽徵機關的注意，但運用得當，仍可為企業創造可觀的利潤。 智慧財產控股公司的設立架構，母公司通常會在低稅率的國家或州，設立一完全控股的子公司，由智慧財產控股公司自行創設、或自母公司繼受智慧財產。智慧財產控股公司授權的對象，可能是母公司、亦可能為不相干的第三人。 智慧財產控股公司的租稅效益，來自智慧財產控股公司通常選在低公司稅率（甚至零稅率）的地區設立，對於權利金收入予以免稅的地區。母公司付給子公司的權利金費用，母公司可作為費用扣除，藉以降低母公司的所得稅。智慧財產控股公司可透過發放股利，或對母公司融資等方式，解決母公司的資金需求。 透過智慧財產控股公司進行租稅規劃，最重要面臨『移轉定價』與『避免濫用租稅協定』，因此智慧財產控股公司進行的關係人交易，不能是純為獲取租稅利益的假交易，必須有商業實質。 / Over the last decade or so, many businesses generating significant revenue from intellectual property such as patents, copyrights, trade names and marks, software and know-how (the IP Assets) have organized intellectual property holding companies (IPHCs) to reduce federal and state taxes while separating valuable IP Assets from other corporate liabilities. Recently, states have started to aggressively challenge this tactic. However, substantial state and federal tax savings can still be realized if IPHCs are organized and operated correctly. The structure of an IPHC is fairly simple. The parent corporation typically creates a corporate subsidiary in a state or in a foreign country where little or no taxes are imposed . IP Assets are created by or transferred to the subsidiary. The subsidiary enters into license agreements under which the parent corporation and non-related corporations agree to pay the IPHC royalties in exchange for an exclusive or non-exclusive right to use the IP Assets. Since most IPHCs are organized in jurisdictions with no income tax, the royalties received by the IPHC are generally tax-free. In addition, the parent corporation that paid the royalty typically can deduct the payment as a deductible expense, thereby reducing the parent's income or franchise tax liability. In some circumstances, IPHCs can make tax-free dividend distributions or loans to the parent corporation. The key issue IPHC should consider is “Transfer Price Issue” and “Anti Treaty Shopping Issue”. Transactions between related parties can’t be shame transaction, business substance is required.