Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-26T20:23:54Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Mauricio Bellucci.pdf: 2312676 bytes, checksum: 8c77fce8e05786cdf87e6de26da56bc1 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2015-09-22 / his paper is intended to scientifically analyze tax applicability to activities performed by Shared Service Centers, an organizational model increasingly adopted in large enterprise centers. The theme is pertinent because doctrinal content is rare on the subject and case law lacks consistency in solution and grounds to set the matter. To fulfill this purpose, based on the legislation, doctrine, and case law, legal concepts are built on realities normally found in this environment, which are confronted with rules applicable to the tax on income of legal entities (IRPJ), social contribution on net income (CSLL), contributions to the Social Integration Program (PIS), the Social Security Financing (COFINS) and the tax on the provision of services (ISSQN). Still, considering transnational corporate structures should be pointed out the withholding income tax (IRRF), the ISSQN, the PIS and the COFINS due on the import of services, the intervention contribution in the economic domain (CIDE), the financial transaction tax (IOF) - in this case the IOF - exchange - the transfer price rules (TP) and for the disguised distribution of profits (DDL). Finally, it evaluates the theme from the point of view of tax planning and the theory of evidence. We then demonstrate that the issue should be resolved based on the Federal Constitution. In this context, and in light of the General Law Theory, Law Philosophy, Language Philosophy, and Semiotics, criteria are presented that should be followed by the tax exactor when assessing economic events inherent to Shared Service Centers. We finally conclude for the nonapplication of the referred events in all the mentioned materiality, except for the IOF - exchange / Este trabalho objetiva analisar cientificamente o enquadramento ou não à tributação das atividades desempenhadas pelos Centros de Serviços Compartilhados (CSC), modelo organizacional cada vez mais utilizado em grandes conglomerados empresariais. Justifica-se porque raras são as manifestações doutrinárias específicas sobre o assunto e na jurisprudência não há uniformidade na solução e fundamentação apresentadas para se definir a questão. Para cumprir esse objetivo, constrói-se, com base na legislação, na doutrina e na jurisprudência, conceitos jurídicos sobre realidades comumente encontradas nesse ambiente, confrontando-os com as normas impositivas do imposto sobre a renda das pessoas jurídicas (IRPJ), da contribuição social sobre o lucro (CSLL), das contribuições ao Programa de Integração Social (PIS) e para o Financiamento da Seguridade Social (COFINS), do imposto sobre serviços de qualquer natureza (ISSQN); ainda, considerando-se estruturas empresariais transnacionais, devem ser apontados o imposto sobre a renda retido na fonte (IRRF), o ISSQN incidente sobre a importação de serviços, as contribuições ao PIS-importação, à COFINS-importação, bem como a contribuição de intervenção no domínio econômico (CIDE), o imposto sobre operações financeiras (IOF) nesse caso, o IOF-câmbio , enfim, das regras de transferência de preços (TP) e às relativas a distribuição disfarçada de lucros (DDL). Finalmente, avalia-se o tema sob o ponto de vista do planejamento tributário e da teoria das provas. Demonstra-se que a questão deve ser resolvida a partir da Constituição Federal. Neste contexto e à luz da Teoria Geral do Direito, da Filosofia do Direito, da Filosofia da Linguagem e da Semiótica, apresentam-se critérios que devem ser seguidos pelo aplicador da lei tributária ao avaliar os eventos econômicos inerentes aos CSC. Conclui-se pelo não-enquadramento de referidos eventos nas materialidades acima referidas, à exceção do IOF-câmbio

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.

My research concluded by the dissertation thesis focused on transfer pricing in financial management. The aim of this paper was to analyze the use of contracts for cost-sharing, contracts for contributing to the cost and service level agreements in a group of related persons of multinational companies. The work is divided into three logical parts. The first part of my dissertation analyzed the available scientific work and literature. A number of publications deals with the issue but only marginally. I thus drew upon mainly legal texts. I assumed the potential for practical use based on my finding that about 72 % of companies doing business in research and development operate in clusters of related persons. The second part of the paper deals with contracts for cost-sharing and cost contribution agreements. The basic problem of both agreements is reasonable estimation of the expected benefits. I suggested a procedure for estimation of benefit sharing among participants and also what indicators to use for measuring. Then I defined the share of costs. I suggested a definition of K.O. criteria for other than the U.S. legislation for incorrectly estimated shares. In this theoretical treatise on the weighted cost of capital I have found that companies that are not part of a group of related persons have a lower WACC. I pointed to the significant impact of agreements on avoidance of double taxation. As an alternative to the above contracts in the Czech Republic I presented a contract of association under the Civil Code. The third part of this work is dedicated to the Service Level Agreement. I conclude that it is necessary in certain ways to measure benefits, as it is a very important factor for the recipient of services. The benefits, however, cannot be measured directly, but through auxiliary variables, when the determining will always be influenced by the applied accounting standards. The second examined aspect was the allocation of costs to the service provider. Here, I conclude that there is no universally correct way. However, essential for these costs are only the actual relevant costs incurred in connection with the provision of intangible assets. Lastly, I focused on the usual profit margin surcharge over the cost provider of intangible assets. I conclude that when setting profit margins in accordance with the arm's length principle one should build on the level of normal returns on the invested assets of the provider.