O presente estudo analisa teorias do abuso no planejamento tributário. Inicialmente, busca-se definir e diferenciar planejamento tributário, planejamento tributário abusivo e evasão fiscal, partindo-se da premissa de que compete a cada Estado estabelecer, de forma peculiar, quais os critérios devem ser adotados para a identificação dessas figuras em seu ordenamento jurídico. Analisam-se os princípios constitucionais que podem ser ponderados no Brasil em relação a esse tema. Diante das teses que defendem a adoção, pelo Direito Tributário brasileiro, do abuso do direito, do abuso de formas, da fraude à lei e do propósito negocial, inclusive com fundamento nas experiências do Direito estrangeiro, analisa-se como tais teorias têm sido originalmente construídas, respectivamente, pela França, Alemanha, Espanha e Estados Unidos da América. Após a análise de cada uma dessas teorias estrangeiras, analisam-se os fundamentos da doutrina e jurisprudência favoráveis e contrários à sua aplicação no ordenamento tributário brasileiro, seja a partir de princípios jurídicos, de dispositivos do Código Tributário Nacional (em especial, art. 116, parágrafo único) ou mesmo do novo Código Civil (em especial, art. 187). Por fim, busca-se apresentar qual a norma atualmente vigente no Brasil para a tutela do planejamento tributário. / This study examines theories of abuse in tax planning. Initially, it defines and differentiates tax planning, tax avoidance and tax evasion, starting from the premise that is to the State to establish, in a peculiar way, in which criteria should be adopted for the identification of these figures in its legal system. It examines the constitutional principles that can be weighted in Brazil in relation to this theme. It examines the arguments that advocate the adoption of some theories by the Brazilian tax law, as abuse of law, abuse of forms, fraus legis and business purpose test. The research considers how such theories have been originally constructed, respectively, by France, Germany, Spain and the United States of America. After analyzes of each one of these foreign theories and examines the fundamentals of doctrine and court decisions that would be favorable or unfavorable for its application in the Brazilian tax planning, either from legal principles, from National Tax Code (in particular, art. 116, single paragraph) or even from the new Civil Code (in particular, art. 187). Finally, analyses which rule is currently in force in Brazil to the tax planning issues.

O presente estudo examina os limites à requalificação dos negócios jurídicos no Brasil, seja pelas autoridades fiscais seja pelo legislador tributário (infraconstitucional) com a criação de regras específicas e gerais para o controle da elusão fiscal. Para tanto, considera-se a elusão fiscal como figura autônoma, buscando-se identificar os critérios para a delimitação desta zona cinzenta existente entre a conduta contra legem (evasão) e aquela que não contraria, quer direta quer indiretamente, o ordenamento (elisão), e que corresponde à prática de atos aparentemente lícitos mas que ferem indiretamente o ordenamento. A identificação de tais critérios coloca em relevo a importância da causa dos negócios jurídicos e a noção de ilicitude atípica que qualifica os atos e negócios aparentemente lícitos porém desprovidos de causa, engendrados exclusivamente com vistas à economia de tributos. Analisa-se então como o ordenamento positivo brasileiro trata esta categoria de atos e negócios, buscando delimitar o que a administração fiscal está autorizada a fazer no combate à elusão fiscal. Em seguida, passa-se ao exame do controle da elusão fiscal realizado pela via legislativa, analisando-se os limites ao estabelecimento de regras específicas de prevenção ou de correção da elusão baseadas em ficções e presunções, as regras antielusivas constantes de convenções internacionais firmadas pelo Brasil, bem como a experiência estrangeira no estabelecimento de regras gerais antielusivas. Ao final, abordamos o conteúdo da regra geral antielusiva brasileira. / This research examines the limits applicable to the reclassification of activities by the Brazilian tax authorities or the Brazilian tax legislator (i.e., ordinary law) by means of specific and general anti-avoidance rules. For this purpose, we consider tax avoidance as an autonomous concept, which consists of those transactions that appear legitimate but are indirectly against rules, and we attempt to identify the criteria for delimitation of the gray area between an activity that represents a direct violation of Law tax evasion and one which does not infringe the law, either directly or indirectly valid tax planning. The identification of such criteria emphasizes the importance of the purpose behind a legal transaction and the idea of an illegality which is not expressly defined by law applicable to those acts and transactions that, despite appearing legitimate, have no substance and are exclusively structured for the purpose of saving taxes. We then analyze how Brazilian legislation treats such activities and transactions in order to identify the limits to which tax avoidance schemes can be regulated by Brazils tax authorities. Next, we examine how Brazilian tax legislation deals with tax avoidance, and analyze the limits on the establishment of specific anti-avoidance rules based upon fictions and presumptions, of anti-avoidance rules found in double tax treaties concluded by Brazil, and general anti-avoidance rules based upon other countries practices. Finally, we address the substance of the general anti-avoidance rule under the Brazilian tax system.

傳統探討利潤移轉效果的租稅競爭文獻中，忽略廠商租稅規避效果對公共財的影響。然而，在貿易自由化與國際化興盛的時代下，廠商對於國與國之間的租稅安排是複雜且不可避免，所以在探究租稅競爭時，租稅規避也是一項重要的考量因素。因此本文以Lai (2006) 一文為基礎，建構一個具有利潤移轉效果的國際租稅競爭模型，分別為Cournot數量競爭與Bertrand價格競爭，來探討廠商租稅規避效果對國際租稅競爭導致公共財提供量不足的影響問題。 本文章有幾點發現：Cournot 數量競爭下，避稅效果會強化稅基、稅收效果，和利潤移轉效果，加劇公共財提供數量不足的問題。而Bertrand價格競爭下，避稅效果同樣會使公共財提供量下降，但此模型下的利潤移轉效果對公共財影響為正向，使得公共財數量皆大於Cournot模型之下。此外，本文也探討眾多參數對政府最適決策的影響。 / The traditional literatures of tax competition, which include the rent shifting effect, ignore the impact of tax avoidance effect on public goods. However, the taxation arrangements between countries which firms face are complex and inevitable in this era of trade liberalization and internationalization. Therefore, when investigating tax competition, we should consider an important factor- tax avoidance. So, this paper is based on Lai (2006) to build an international tax competition model containing rent shifting effect. We will discuss the problem of insufficient public goods and how tax avoidance effect influence this question in Cournot competition and Bertrand competition. This conclusion shows that tax avoidance effect enhances tax-base effect, revenue effect and rent shifting effect in Cournot competition. In this condition, the issue of insufficient public goods will worsen. In Bertrand competition, tax avoidance effect will also make the quantity of public goods fall. But rent shifting effect in this model is so good for public goods that the quantity of public goods is larger than Cournot competition. Furthermore, this paper also uses software to test many parameters and finds the parameters how to influence government's optimal decision.

Pour lutter efficacement contre les phénomènes de fraude et d'évasion fiscales internationales favorisés par l'opacité des juridictions offshores et l'attractivité des paradis fiscaux, Je législateur a eu recours aux présomptions. Cette technique juridique a pour caractéristique de modifier la dialectique de la preuve en faveur de l'administration, qui n'est plus tenue de faire la démonstration de la fraude ou de l'évasion, mais seulement d'un ou de plusieurs faits connexes à l'infraction frauduleuse ou au fait d'optimisation fiscale abusive. En pratique, le législateur a souvent eu recours à des présomptions à la force renforcée, renversant directement le fardeau de la preuve sur le contribuable qui est d'emblée tenu d'établir la preuve d'un fait connexe exonératoire à l'infraction ou au fait abusif. Pour muscler leur efficacité, le législateur a également introduit des présomptions irréfragables, au couperet définitif. Les présomptions simples caractérisées par une clause anti-abus centrée sur l'objet ont pour particularité de faire peser sur le contribuable la charge d'une preuve qualitativement supérieure. Ces présomptions, dont l'actionnement est conditionné à la preuve d'un fait connexe par l'administration, représentent une catégorie hétérodoxe de dispositifs présomptif renforcés, obligeant le contribuable à faire un effort d'analyse sur les finalités des opérations, ce qui revient à lui faire supporter la charge de la preuve de l'absence d'abus de droit. L'emploi des présomptions se heurte essentiellement aux droits et liberté économiques communautaire et conventionnels, obligeant Je législateur à adapter les dispositifs présomptifs à ces contraintes. / In order to struggle efficiently against tax avoidance and tax evasion tendencies, enhanced by offshore jurisdictions, often lacking transparency, and tax havens with their attractive conditions, the lawmaker has enabled rebuttable and conclusive presumptions to be used in suing cases. These legal tricks favour Tax administrations in winning the argument, since those are no longer required to bring compelling evidence of tax avoidance or tax evasion. It is enough to prove a fraud, an offence or an aggressive tax optimisation process with one or several connected facts. In practice, the lawmaker is often using strengthened standards on presumption to reverse the burden of proof onto the taxpayer, who therefore must provide evidence for any exemptions from responsibility regarding the alleged offence or abuse. To improve these tools efficiency, the lawmaker has also designed conclusive ( or irrebuttable) presumptions. Usual presumptions are characterised by their emphasis on anti-abuse clauses, which oblige taxpayers to bring stronger evidences in lawsuit. For Tax authorities, these are part of a legal arsenal using connected facts against the defensor who carries the burden of proof related to tax monitoring operations in the absence of abuse of rights.

The European Union was devised to promote competition in the international market environment and ensure balanced allocation of fiscal and political requirements of the Member States. Globalization has led to enabling tax environments through granting of tax benefits by EU Member jurisdictions intended to promote competition in attracting foreign investment, trade, and development. Multinational Corporations may often exploit these tax benefits through various tax arrangement provisions causing a loss of tax revenue. The European Commission is implored to oversee the tax ruling granted by the Member States that is distortionary to the internal market. The Notion of State aid rule Article 107(1) TFEU is adopted as part of the mechanism to combat distortions that leads to tax evasion and harmful tax competition.  This research is intended to analyse the Commission and the General Court’s approach to demonstrate illegal or unlawful State aid through varied and adaptive methodology to tackle emerging complex tax arrangements provisions of Multinational Corporations, notably the Amazon and Engie recent cases. This paper also discusses the identification of potential conflict of laws between the relevant general system of legal rule of the domestic tax legislation and EU Law. Specifically with regards to the determination of whether a tax benefit confers a tax advantage and subsequently if that advantage is deemed selective in nature in a transfer of financial asset undertaking under a certain domestic law. The dynamics of potential abuse of law and aid recovery with the general tax principle of Legality will also be explored.

現行有關逃漏稅研究的國內外文獻，無論在理論推導或實證分析上，多集 中於非法的租稅逃漏（tax evasion）上，而忽略了另一種合法的減少稅 負的方法：租稅規避（tax avoidance）。本文乃將 Falkinger & Walther (1991) 獎懲並行的制度與傳統的租稅逃避（tax aversion）理 論相結合，而以較嚴謹的方式分析聯合的個人租稅逃漏與租稅規避的選擇 行為，即所謂的租稅逃避行為。本文共分為四章十節，略述如下：第一章 為緒論，分為三節，分別說明研究動機與目的、研究範圍與方法及章節安 排。第二章為文獻回顧，分為三節，以國、內外文獻為探討單元，分別依 時間順序及研究範圍與方法，針對租稅逃漏、租稅規避與租稅逃避聯合決 策行為等三個領域的文獻作假設分析與結論整理，最後則做一小結。第三 章為獎懲並行的租稅逃避理論（ A Mixed Penalty- Reward Tax Aversion Theory ），分為三節，第一節介紹獎懲並行的租稅逃避理論， 主要分成基本假設、模型設立、比較靜態分析和加入獎勵因素後的影響四 部份來討論。第二節乃以獎懲並行的租稅逃避模型與前章中所述較具代表 性的逃、避稅理論模型加以比較。最後則作一小結。第四章為結論，僅一 節。由於另一租稅減少途徑──租稅規避──的存在改變了許多僅討論租 稅逃漏文獻的結論。本文主要的結論是，除了查獲率和邊際懲罰率的變動 對申報所得和避稅所得佔總逃避所得的份額有明確的正向影響外，其他相 關變數如總所得、邊際稅率和邊際避稅成本的變動所造成的影響均不明確 ；而邊際獎勵率的變動對申報所得的影響亦無法確定，然其對避稅所得佔 總逃避稅所得的份額卻造成（反直觀的）負面的效果。此外，提高獎勵率 是否提高或降低其他變數變動的效果，其答案亦無法肯定。這些發現表 示 Falkinger & Walther (1991) 對於採用獎勵制度的優點似乎有誇大之 嫌。

This thesis deals with the real content of legal acts and its evaluation, identification and demonstration by the tax administrator. The aim is to determine which legal institutes are used in the tax administrator's control. Also if it uses the institute of the real content of legal acts and if it uses the correct way according to analysis of Czech law. The first part sets out the legal act, the second part sets out the interpretation of legal acts. The forms of the minimalization of the tax liability is set out in the third part, the greatest emphasis is on tax avoidance and tax evasion. The last part analyzes the most important law cases where the tax administrator argued one of the institutes simulated legal act, dissimulated legal act, evasion of the law, law abuse or tax avoidance by another method.

For some time now, the EU has worked on managing the tax issues that have spawned from companies establishing subsidiaries in various Member States. These tax issues have concerned that of double taxation leading to the conception of the Parent-Subsidiary Directive (2011/96/EU, the PSD). One of the main purposes of the PSD is to prevent double taxation. The PSD aimed to create a mutual taxation system for parent companies, with subsidiaries in other Member States, as it was deemed essential. However, it was a mutual taxation system with regards to dividends paid from subsidiaries to parent companies, which meant there were still discrepancies to be found – and, as it turned out, exploited by companies seeking to gain an illegitimate tax advantage. Consequently, the EU announced the ‘de minimis’ anti-abuse rule in the PSD, whereby adoption was mandatory, for all Member States, so long as a Member State’s current tax legislation does not meet the requirements set forth by the anti-abuse rule. One of the main purposes of the anti-abuse rule was to ensure an improved legal clarity and security as well as preventing the abuse of the provisions as established in the PSD. The idea behind the anti-abuse rule is, thereby, perceived as well meaning although remarks have been made, by various authorities, regarding the prevalent flaws the anti-abuse rule is plagued by. There have been remarks against the anti-abuse rule’s conception to begin with, as it goes against the general principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. Furthermore, there have been remarks regarding the vagueness of the prerequisites and wording in the anti-abuse rule, contrary to the main purposes of the anti-abuse rule as established by the EU.   In this study, the author will examine whether or not the criticism is justified, primarily by focusing on the possibilities of concretising the wording in the anti-abuse rule. This will be achieved by examining six Member States to determine how their respective adoption has fared. Also, the anti-abuse rule’s contribution to legal clarity and security will be determined, to discern whether or not the anti-abuse rule functions in accordance with its main purpose.   The author has found that the anti-abuse rule is indeed in accordance with the general principles of subsidiarity and proportionality given the proven inability of the individual Member States to devise a common solution to the aforementioned tax issues, as well as the fact that the extent of the measure is appropriate, considering the issue at hand. Furthermore, six Member States have been examined, to determine how their respective adoption of the anti-abuse rule have fared. Three Member States have chosen to adopt the anti-abuse rule whereas the remaining three have chosen to refrain on the grounds that it has been deemed superfluous, seeing as their current legislation already meets the minimum requirements as established in the provisions of the anti-abuse rule. The Member States that have chosen to implement the anti-abuse rule have done so by adopting the vague wording verbatim, giving credence to the notion that they refrained from interpreting and/or rephrasing the wording as it is perceived as not only vague but also occasionally abstract, thus difficult to concretise. Not only does this mean that the anti-abuse rule should be regarded as that of inferior standard, as far as legal clarity and security go, but also that it lacks transparency and should thereby be regarded as nigh counterproductive. / EU har sedan länge arbetat med att hantera de beskattningsfrågor som uppkommer i takt med att bolag etablerar dotterbolag i en annan medlemsstat. Dessa frågor berör exempelvis dubbelbeskattning varpå EU upprättade Moder- och Dotterbolagsdirektivet (2011/96/EU, nedan benämnt PSD) som avsåg hjälpa bolag undslippa denna problematik. Direktivet tog sikte på att skapa gemensamt beskattningssystem för moderbolag och dotterbolag hemmahörande i olika medlemsstater – då det ansågs viktigt med enhetliga beskattningsregler inom EU. Det ska observeras att denna enhetlighet enbart sträcker sig till vinstutdelning som lämnas från dotterbolag till moderbolag i en annan medlemsstat, vilket innebar att olikheter fortfarande förelåg i övriga beskattningsfrågor. Detta ledde sedermera till att multinationella bolag kunde utnyttja medlemsstaternas olikheter genom att företa arrangemang som resulterade i en otillbörlig skattefördel.   Företagandet av sådana arrangemang ledde till att EU valde att upprätta en de minimis-bestämmelse i PSD som var obligatorisk för samtliga medlemsstater att implementera, givet att deras nationella lagstiftningar inte redan uppfyllde bestämmelsens minimikrav. Denna bestämmelse kom sedermera att benämnas anti-missbruksbestämmelsen och ämnade tillföra en högre grad klarhet och säkerhet för att tydligare belysa de arrangemang som anses godtagbara och som inte ämnade missbruka PSD:s bestämmelser, där syftet bakom missbruket av PSD var att anskaffa skattefördelar. Tanken bakom anti-missbruksbestämmelsen är således godartad men likväl är bestämmelsen inte utan brister, samtidigt som den ifrågasätts från olika instanser. Det har påpekats att bestämmelsen inte bör ha upprättats, till att börja med, då den strider mot subsidiaritets- och proportionalitetsprincipen, som är fördragsstadgade. Vidare har det påpekats att rekvisiten i anti-missbruksbestämmelsen är otydliga och tillför således inte den klarhet och säkerhet enligt EU:s syfte.   Syftet med denna uppsats är att undersöka huruvida den nya anti-missbruksbestämmelsens ordalydelse kan konkretiseras, vilket görs efter att ha klarlagt hur sex utvalda medlemsstater gått till väga med implementeringen av nämnd bestämmelse. Slutligen utreds huruvida anti-missbruksbestämmelsens bidrag till klarhet och säkerhet görs i enlighet med dess syfte. Författaren har i denna uppsats kommit fram till att anti-missbruksbestämmelsen är förenlig med såväl subsidiaritetsprincipen som proportionalitetsprincipen, då medlemsstaterna, till dags dato, inte förmått hitta en lösning utan EU:s involverande samtidigt som EU:s ingripande står i proportion till målet med åtgärden. Det har funnits att medlemsstaterna som implementerat anti-missbruksbestämmelsen har avstått från att tolka och anpassa anti-missbruksbestämmelsen varför bestämmelsens vaga ordalydelse återfinns i respektive lands lagbestämmelser. Anledningen bakom varför de avstått från att tolka bestämmelsen anser författaren bero på att bestämmelsen är vag, stundtals abstrakt, med anledning av de rekvisit som begagnas. Detta medför att bestämmelsen blir svår att konkretisera, varför det kan anses att en av EU:s målsättningar – att bidra till ökad klarhet och säkerhet – inte kan anses uppfyllt. Vidare har anti-missbruksbestämmelsen lett till en minskad förutsebarhet och rättssäkerhet, varför bestämmelsen inte bara bör anses undermålig utan även nära inpå kontraproduktiv.

本論文主要目的係探討政府持股與企業避稅間之關係。本文以2005年至2014年台灣公開發行以上公司為樣本，分析政府持股比例、代表政府董監事席次比例對租稅規避的影響，並檢視公股主導企業之避稅程度。 實證結果顯示，政府持股比例對企業避稅無顯著影響，然而，當代表政府的董監事席次比例愈高，企業會減少避稅行為。此外，研究結果亦指出公股主導之企業相對於家族企業，其避稅程度較低。進一步分析公股主導之企業和雙權偏離互動對企業避稅之影響。實證分析發現，當股份盈餘偏離程度愈大，公股主導之企業相對於家族企業，其避稅程度較高，隱含公股主導之企業會透過避稅行為將財富移轉至企業本身；反之，當席次盈餘偏離程度愈大，公股主導之企業相對於家族企業，其避稅程度較低，表示政府掌握董事會席次時，能有效監督企業遵循稅法規定，採用較保守的租稅政策。 / The purpose of this study is to examine the association between government shareholding and tax avoidance. This study uses the data of Taiwan public companies from 2005 to 2014 to analyze whether government shareholding percentage and the ratio of directors held by the government have impact on tax avoidance, and investigate the level of tax avoidance of government-controlled companies. The empirical results reveal that government shareholding does not significantly affect corporate tax avoidance. However, when the ratio of directors held by the government increases, companies would reduce the level of tax avoidance. In addition, the results also indicate that government-controlled companies are less tax avoidance compared with family-controlled companies. This study conducts further analysis on the influence of the interaction of government-controlled companies and the deviation between control rights and cash flow rights on tax avoidance. The results show that the higher the level of the deviation between voting rights and cash flow rights, the higher the level of tax avoidance of government-controlled companies than family-controlled companies. It implies that government-controlled companies might transfer fund to themselves through tax avoidance. On the contrary, when the deviation between the ratio of controlled board seats and cash flow rights increases, the government-controlled companies engage in less tax avoidance than family-controlled companies. It represents that when the board of directors is controlled by the government, it could effectively supervise the company to comply with tax regulations, and the company would adopt conservative tax strategies.

The main goal of this thesis is to provide a sociologically informed analysis of tax avoidance and tax evasion in contemporary Mexico and Sweden, focusing particular attention on the explanatory role of social networks, social interactions, and positive feedback mechanisms. Two major data sources are used: (1) A panel dataset that includes all persons, 16 years or older, who resided in Stockholm County during at least one of the years 1990 to 2003 (N=1,967,993). The dataset includes detailed information on the socio-demographic characteristics, kinship networks, and criminal offences of these individuals; (2) A random sample of 36,949 firms that appeared in the Mexican Federal Register of Taxpayers for the year 2002. The records of the Mexican Federal Administrative Fiscal Tribunal provided data on all types of tax claims appealed before them during the 2002-2008 period. A variety of approaches and techniques are used such as agent-based simulation models, discrete time event history models, random effect logit models, and hierarchical linear models. These models are used to test different hypotheses related to the role of social networks, social interactions, and positive feedback mechanisms in explaining tax behaviour. There are five major empirical findings. (1) Networks seem to matter for individuals' tax behaviour because exposure to tax crimes of family members appears to increase a person’s likelihood of committing a tax crime. (2) Positive feedback mechanisms appear relevant because if a person commits a tax crime, it seems to increase the likelihood that the person will commit more tax crimes in the future. (3) Positive feedback mechanisms are also important for explaining corporate tax behaviour because a firm that has engaged in legal tax avoidance in the past appears to be more likely to engage in tax avoidance in the future. (4) Network effects are important in the corporate world because exposure to the tax avoidance of other firms increase the propensity of a firm to engage in tax avoidance. (5) Substitution effects between tax evasion and tax avoidance are likely to exist because when tax evasion becomes more prevalent in a firm’s environment, their likelihood of engaging in legal tax avoidance is lowered. The results underscore the importance of a sociological perspective on tax behaviour that takes into account social interactions and positive feedback mechanisms. In order to understand microscopic as well as macroscopic tax evasion patterns, the results presented in this thesis suggest that much more attention must be given to mechanisms through which taxation crimes breed more taxation crimes.