Lecture 5 Summary - Taxation of Passive Income
第五讲总结 - 被动收入的税收

This lecture examines the international tax treatment of passive income, primarily focusing on dividends, interest, and royalties as addressed in Articles 10, 11, and 12 of the OECD Model Tax Convention (MTC). A key theme is the sharing of taxing rights between source and residence countries and the role of the "beneficial ownership" concept in preventing treaty abuse.
本讲座将探讨被动收入的国际税务处理，主要侧重于股息、利息和特许权使用费，如 OECD 示范税收协定 (MTC) 第 10、11 和 12 条所述。一个关键主题是来源地国家和居民国之间对征税权的分配，以及“受益所有权”概念在防止滥用税收协定方面的作用。

Introduction to Passive Income
被动收入简介

• Concept: Passive income generally refers to earnings derived from investments or property ownership where the recipient does not actively participate in the business generating the income (e.g., dividends from shares, interest from loans, royalties from licensing intellectual property). It contrasts with active income from employment or carrying on a business.
  概念：被动收入通常指源于投资或财产所有权的收入，其中接受者不积极参与产生收入的业务（例如，股票股息、贷款利息、知识产权许可费）。它与来自就业或经营业务的主动收入形成对比。
• Treaty Objectives: Tax treaties aim to:
  条约目标：税收条约旨在：

1. Allocate taxing rights between the source state (S) where the income arises and the residence state (R) of the recipient.
   在收入来源地（S）和接受者的居住地（R）之间分配征税权。
2. Typically allow the source state limited taxing rights (often exercised via withholding tax - WHT) and the residence state full taxing rights, with the residence state obligated to provide relief for double taxation (credit or exemption).
   通常允许来源国有限的征税权（通常通过预提税-WHT 行使）和居民国完全的征税权，居民国有义务对双重征税提供减免（抵免或免税）。
3. Prevent treaty shopping (abuse of treaty benefits by residents of third countries) through conditions like the beneficial ownership requirement.
   通过受益所有权要求等条件，防止滥用税收协定（第三国居民滥用税收协定优惠）。
4. Distinguish passive income effectively connected to a Permanent Establishment (PE) in the source state, which is taxed as business profits under Article 7.
   区分与来源国常设机构（PE）有效相关的被动收入，该收入根据第 7 条作为营业利润征税。

Dividends (OECD MTC Article 10)
股息（经合组织税收协定范本第 10 条）

• Definition (Art 10(3)): Income from shares (jouissance shares/rights, mining shares, founders' shares) or other rights participating in profits (not debt-claims), and income from other corporate rights treated similarly to share income under the source state's law.
  定义（第 10 条第 3 款）：来自股份（收益股份/权利、矿业股份、发起人股份）或参与利润的其他权利（非债权）的收入，以及根据来源国法律与股份收入类似的其他公司权利的收入。
• Taxing Rights:  征税权：

• Residence State (Art 10(1)): The state where the recipient (beneficial owner) resides may tax the dividends.
  居住国（第 10 条第 1 款）：收款人（受益所有人）居住的缔约国可以对股息征税。
• Source State (Art 10(2)): The state where the company paying the dividends is resident may also tax, but if the beneficial owner of the dividends is resident in the other state, the source state tax is limited. The OECD MTC suggests limits of:
  来源国（第 10 条第 2 款）：支付股息的公司是居民的缔约国也可以征税，但如果股息的受益所有人是另一缔约国的居民，则来源国税收是有限制的。《经合组织范本公约》建议的限制是：

• 5% of the gross dividend amount if the beneficial owner is a company directly holding at least 25% of the paying company's capital.
  如果受益所有人是直接持有支付公司至少 25%资本的公司，则为股息总额的 5%。
• 15% of the gross dividend amount in all other cases.
  在所有其他情况下，为股息总额的 15%。

• Note: Specific treaty rates vary significantly (e.g., China-HK DTA: 5% if 25% holding, 10% otherwise; China-Singapore DTA: 5% if 25% holding, 10% otherwise). These limits do not affect the underlying corporate tax on the profits from which dividends are paid.
  注：具体条约税率差异很大（例如，中国-香港税收协定：如果持股比例为 25%，则为 5%，否则为 10%；中国-新加坡税收协定：如果持股比例为 25%，则为 5%，否则为 10%）。这些限制不影响股息支付来源利润的潜在公司所得税。

• PE Exception (Art 10(4)): If the beneficial owner has a PE in the source state, and the shareholding generating the dividends is effectively connected to that PE, the withholding tax limits in Art 10(2) do not apply. Instead, the dividend income is treated as business profits taxable under Article 7.
  常设机构例外（第 10(4)条）：如果受益所有人在来源国设有常设机构，且产生股息的股份与该常设机构有实际联系，则第 10(2)条中的预提税限制不适用。相反，股息收入被视为根据第 7 条应纳税的营业利润。
• Prohibition on Extra-territorial Taxation (Art 10(5)): A state generally cannot tax dividends paid by a company resident in the other state, just because the company derived profits from the first state. Exceptions apply if the recipient is resident in the first state or the dividends relate to a PE there.
  禁止域外征税（第 10 条第 5 款）：一个国家通常不能仅仅因为一家公司从另一国获得了利润，就对该公司支付的股息征税。如果收款人是第一国的居民，或者股息与第一国的常设机构有关，则有例外情况。

Interest (OECD MTC Article 11)
利息（OECD MTC 第 11 条）

• Definition (Art 11(3)): Income from debt-claims of every kind (whether or not secured by mortgage, whether or not carrying profit participation rights), including income from government securities, bonds, and debentures. Premiums/prizes linked to debt-claims are included. Penalty charges for late payment are excluded. This definition is generally exhaustive.
  定义（第 11 条第 3 款）：来自各种债权的收入（无论是否以抵押担保，无论是否具有利润参与权），包括来自政府债券、债券和信用债券的收入。与债权相关的溢价/奖金包括在内。延迟付款的罚款不包括在内。这个定义通常是详尽无遗的。
• Taxing Rights:  征税权：

• Residence State (Art 11(1)): The state where the recipient (beneficial owner) resides may tax the interest.
  居住国（第 11 条第 1 款）：收款人（受益所有人）居住国可以对利息征税。
• Source State (Art 11(2)): The state where the interest arises may also tax, but if the beneficial owner resides in the other state, the source state tax is limited. The OECD MTC suggests a limit of 10% of the gross interest amount. Many treaties reduce this further or provide for zero source tax (exclusive residence state taxation). Examples: China-HK DTA: 7%; China-Singapore DTA: 7% (for banks/financial institutions, or on bonds/debentures) / 10% (otherwise).
  来源国（第 11 条第 2 款）：利息产生的国家也可以征税，但如果受益所有人居住在另一国，来源国税收将受到限制。经合组织范本建议将税收限制在利息总额的 10%。许多条约进一步降低这一比例，或规定零来源国税（专属居住国税收）。例如：中国-香港税收协定：7%；中国-新加坡税收协定：7%（适用于银行/金融机构，或债券/记名债券）/10%（其他情况）。

• PE Exception (Art 11(4)): Similar to dividends, if the beneficial owner has a PE in the source state and the debt-claim is effectively connected to it, the 10% limit doesn't apply. The interest is taxed as business profits under Article 7.
  常设机构例外（第 11 条第 4 款）：与股息类似，如果受益所有人在来源国设有常设机构，且债权与该常设机构有实际联系，则 10%的限制不适用。利息根据第 7 条作为营业利润征税。
• Source Rule (Art 11(5)): Interest is deemed to arise in a state if the payer is that state itself, its subdivision/local authority, or a resident of that state. Exception: If the payer has a PE in connection with which the debt was incurred, and the PE bears the interest cost, the interest arises in the state where the PE is located, regardless of the payer's residence.
  来源地规则（第 11 条第 5 款）：如果付款人是该国本身、其下属部门/地方当局或该国居民，则利息被认为是在该国产生的。例外：如果付款人设有常设机构，且债务与该常设机构有关，并且常设机构承担利息成本，则利息在该常设机构所在的国家产生，而与付款人的居住地无关。
• Related Party Adjustment (Art 11(6)): If, due to a special relationship, the interest paid exceeds the arm's length amount, the treaty benefits (e.g., 10% WHT limit) apply only to the arm's length portion. The excess part remains taxable according to each state's domestic law, potentially under other treaty articles.
  关联方调整（第 11 条第 6 款）：如果由于特殊关系，支付的利息超过了独立交易额，则条约优惠（例如，10%的预提所得税限额）仅适用于独立交易部分。超出部分仍应根据各州国内法征税，可能适用其他条约条款。

Royalties (OECD MTC Article 12)
特许权使用费（OECD MTC 第 12 条）

• Definition (Art 12(2)): Payments received as consideration for the use of, or the right to use, any copyright (of literary, artistic, or scientific work, including software, films, tapes), patent, trade mark, design/model, plan, secret formula/process, or for information concerning industrial, commercial, or scientific experience (know-how). Distinguishing royalties from payments for services (Art 7), equipment rental (Art 7), or outright sale of IP (Art 13) can be complex.
  定义（第 12 条第 2 款）：因使用或有权使用任何版权（文学、艺术或科学作品，包括软件、电影、磁带）、专利、商标、设计/模型、计划、秘密配方/工艺，或有关工业、商业或科学经验的信息（专有技术）而收到的付款。将特许权使用费与服务费（第 7 条）、设备租赁费（第 7 条）或知识产权的彻底出售（第 13 条）区分开来可能很复杂。
• Taxing Rights:  征税权：

• OECD MTC Approach (Art 12(1)): Royalties are taxable only in the Residence state of the beneficial owner. The OECD Model advocates for zero source state taxation.
  OECD MTC 方法（第 12 条第 1 款）：特许权使用费仅在受益所有人的居住国征税。《经合组织范本》主张零来源国税收。
• UN MTC & Common Practice: Many treaties, particularly those based on the UN Model or involving developing countries, deviate from the OECD approach and allow limited source state taxation (e.g., 5-10% WHT) if the beneficial owner resides in the other state. Examples: China-HK DTA: 7%; China-Singapore DTA: 10%.
  联合国 MTC 与常见做法：许多条约，特别是那些基于联合国范本或涉及发展中国家的条约，偏离了经合组织的方法，并允许有限的来源国税收（例如，5-10%的预提税），如果受益所有人居住在另一国。例子：中国-香港 DTA：7%；中国-新加坡 DTA：10%。

• PE Exception (Art 12(3)): If the beneficial owner has a PE in the source state and the right or property generating the royalty is effectively connected to it, the exclusive residence taxation (or limited source taxation) rule does not apply. The royalty is taxed as business profits under Article 7.
  常设机构例外（第 12 条第 3 款）：如果受益所有人在来源国拥有常设机构，并且产生特许权使用费的权利或财产与该常设机构有实际联系，则不适用专属居住国税收（或有限来源国税收）规则。特许权使用费根据第 7 条作为营业利润征税。
• Related Party Adjustment (Art 12(4)): Similar to interest, if the royalty amount exceeds arm's length due to a special relationship, treaty benefits apply only to the arm's length portion. The excess remains taxable according to domestic law.
  关联方调整（第 12 条第 4 款）：与利息类似，如果由于特殊关系导致特许权使用费金额超过了独立交易价格，则条约优惠仅适用于独立交易部分。超出部分仍根据国内法征税。

Beneficial Ownership (BO) Requirement
实益所有权（BO）要求

• Purpose: A crucial anti-abuse provision included in Articles 10, 11, and 12 to prevent treaty shopping. It ensures that reduced treaty rates for passive income are only granted to the actual economic beneficiary resident in the treaty partner state, not to intermediaries like agents, nominees, or conduit companies established solely to access treaty benefits on behalf of residents of third countries.
  目的：第 10、11 和 12 条中包含的一项关键的反滥用条款，旨在防止税收协定滥用。它确保被动收入的优惠协定税率仅授予协定伙伴国的实际经济受益人，而不是授予仅为代表第三国居民获得协定利益而设立的代理人、代名人或导管公司等中介机构。
• Interpretation: The MTC does not define "beneficial owner". It should be interpreted in context, considering the treaty's object and purpose (preventing double taxation and fiscal evasion/avoidance), not just relying on narrow domestic law definitions. The OECD commentary emphasizes substance over form, indicating the BO is the person with the "right to use and enjoy" the income, not contractually or legally obligated to pass it on to another person. It implies discretion over the use of the income.
  解释：MTC 没有定义“实益所有人”。应结合上下文解释，考虑到条约的目的和宗旨（防止双重征税和逃税/避税），而不仅仅是依赖狭隘的国内法定义。《经合组织评注》强调实质重于形式，表明实益所有人是有权“使用和享有”收入的人，而不是在合同上或法律上有义务将收入转让给他人的人。这意味着对收入的使用具有自由支配权。
• Key Guidance & Jurisprudence:
  主要指导与判例：

• Indofood International Finance Ltd v JP Morgan Chase Bank NA (UK CA 2006): A landmark case concerning interest payments under the Indonesia-Mauritius treaty. A Mauritius Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) issued notes to investors and lent the proceeds to its Indonesian parent. The court held the Mauritius SPV was not the beneficial owner of the interest received from the parent because it was contractually obliged to pay equivalent amounts to the noteholders. It lacked the full right and enjoyment of the income, acting essentially as a conduit.
  Indofood International Finance Ltd 诉 JP Morgan Chase Bank NA (英国上诉法院 2006): 一项关于印度尼西亚-毛里求斯条约下利息支付的里程碑式案例。一家毛里求斯特殊目的实体 (SPV) 向投资者发行票据，并将所得款项借给其印度尼西亚母公司。法院裁定，该毛里求斯 SPV 不是从母公司收到的利息的受益所有人，因为它在合同上有义务向票据持有人支付等额款项。它缺乏对收入的完全权利和享受，本质上是作为一个管道运作。
• Prevost Car Inc. v The Queen (Canada 2009): Contrasting somewhat with Indofood, the Canadian Supreme Court found a Dutch holding company could be the beneficial owner of dividends from its Canadian subsidiary, even though it paid onward dividends to its shareholders, because it was not legally obligated to do so as an agent or conduit and exercised discretion. This highlights differing judicial interpretations globally.
  Prevost Car Inc. 诉女王 (加拿大 2009): 与 Indofood 案形成对比的是，加拿大最高法院裁定，一家荷兰控股公司可以成为其加拿大子公司股息的受益所有人，即使该公司向其股东支付了后续股息，因为它在法律上没有义务作为代理人或管道这样做，并且行使了酌处权。这突显了全球不同的司法解释。
• China State Taxation Administration (SAT) Announcement [2018] No. 9: Provides detailed guidance for determining BO status in China for treaty purposes. It employs a substance-over-form approach, considering factors like:
  中国国家税务总局公告 [2018] 第 9 号：为确定中国在条约目的下的受益所有人身份提供了详细指导。它采用实质重于形式的方法，考虑以下因素：

• Obligation to pay >50% of the income to a third-country resident within 12 months.
  在 12 个月内有义务将 >50% 的收入支付给第三国居民。
• Business substance of the recipient (functions, risks, assets, personnel).
  接收方的商业实质（职能、风险、资产、人员）。
• Control over the income/property generating it.
  对产生收入/财产的控制。
• Tax obligations in the recipient's residence country.
  接收方居住国的纳税义务。
• Agents, nominees, and designated payees are explicitly not BOs.
  代理人、代名人和指定收款人明确不是实益拥有人。
• Includes safe harbour rules (e.g., for listed companies, governments, individuals) and provisions for looking through intermediate holding companies in certain structures.
  包括安全港规则（例如，针对上市公司、政府、个人）以及在某些结构中用于看穿中间控股公司的规定。

Expanded Discussion: Context from Related Articles (Digital Nomads, TikTok Sale)
扩展讨论：来自相关文章的背景信息（数字游民，TikTok 出售）

While the core focus of Lecture 5 is the taxation of passive income (dividends, interest, royalties under MTC Articles 10, 11, and 12) and the beneficial ownership (BO) requirement, the supplementary articles provided touch upon distinct but related areas of international taxation, offering valuable context:
虽然第 5 讲的核心重点是被动收入（股息、利息、特许权使用费，根据 MTC 第 10、11 和 12 条）的税收以及受益所有权（BO）要求，但所提供的补充文章涉及国际税收的不同但相关的领域，提供了宝贵的背景信息：

1. Digital Nomads and Mobile Service Providers (L5_OECD_UN..., L5_Savvas Kostikidis...):
1. 数字游民和流动服务提供者 (L5_OECD_UN..., L5_Savvas Kostikidis...):

• Primary Focus: These articles analyze the significant challenges posed by highly mobile individuals (digital nomads, remote workers, independent service providers) to the traditional rules for taxing employment income (MTC Article 15) and, historically, independent personal services (former MTC Article 14).
  主要关注点：这些文章分析了高度流动个人（数字游民、远程工作者、独立服务提供商）对就业收入（MTC 第 15 条）和历史上独立个人服务（原 MTC 第 14 条）的传统税收规则构成的重大挑战。
• Key Issues Raised:  提出的关键问题：

• Nexus for Active Income: They question the adequacy of physical presence tests (like the 183-day rule in Art 15(2)) and the concept of "employment exercised" where work is performed remotely and sporadically across multiple jurisdictions. Traditional rules struggle to establish a clear taxing nexus for the source state when physical presence is transient or non-existent.
  积极收入的联系：他们质疑实际存在测试（如第 15 条第 2 款中的 183 天规则）以及“从事的就业”概念是否充分，尤其是在远程和零星地跨多个司法管辖区工作的情况下。当实际存在是短暂或不存在时，传统规则难以建立明确的来源国征税联系。
• Defining "Employer": Difficulties arise in identifying the true "employer" for Art 15(2)(b) purposes in non-traditional work arrangements (e.g., platform work, hiring-out labour).
  “雇主”的定义：在非传统工作安排（例如，平台工作、劳务派遣）中，为第 15 条第 2 款（b）项的目的确定真正的“雇主”时会出现困难。
• Proposed Reforms: Authors often suggest potential reforms to Art 15 or new nexus rules for service providers, sometimes drawing parallels to PE concepts or exploring alternative connecting factors beyond physical presence.
  拟议改革：作者经常建议对第 15 条进行潜在的改革，或为服务提供商制定新的联系规则，有时会与常设机构（PE）概念进行类比，或探索物理存在之外的替代连接因素。

• Relevance/Contrast to Lecture 5:
  与第 5 讲的相关性/对比：

• This focus on active income derived from services contrasts sharply with Lecture 5's focus on passive investment income. The nexus challenges highlighted for mobile individuals under Art 15 are generally less pronounced for passive income under Art 10, 11, and 12, where source is typically determined by the residence of the paying company (dividends), the location of the payer or PE bearing the debt (interest), or sometimes the place of use (royalties).
  这种对源于服务的积极收入的关注与第 5 讲对被动投资收入的关注形成鲜明对比。对于第 15 条下流动个人的关联性挑战，在第 10、11 和 12 条下关于被动收入的情况通常不那么明显，在这些条款中，收入来源通常由支付公司的居住地（股息）、付款人或承担债务的常设机构的所在地（利息）或有时是使用地（特许权使用费）来确定。
• However, the digital nomad discussion provides broader context on how mobility and digitalization strain traditional international tax rules based on physical presence and fixed locations, a theme relevant across different income categories. It underscores the pressure to modernize tax treaties.
  然而，关于数字游民的讨论提供了更广泛的背景，说明流动性和数字化如何使基于实际存在和固定位置的传统国际税收规则变得紧张，这是一个与不同收入类别相关的主题。它强调了修订税收协定的压力。

2. US Taxation of Inbound Investment / TikTok Sale (L5_Noked, Noam...):
2. 美国对流入投资的征税/TikTok 出售（L5_Noked, Noam...）：

• Primary Focus: This article examines the US policy of generally not taxing capital gains realized by foreign investors when they sell shares in US corporations (unless the corporation is primarily invested in US real property, under FIRPTA rules). It critiques this policy in light of the potential TikTok sale scenario and advocates for the US to impose such a tax, aligning with the practice of many other countries.
  主要关注点：本文探讨了美国的政策，即通常不对外国投资者出售美国公司股份实现的资本收益征税（除非该公司主要投资于美国房地产，根据 FIRPTA 规则）。文章根据潜在的 TikTok 出售情况批评了这一政策，并主张美国征收此类税，与其他许多国家的做法保持一致。
• Key Issues Raised:  提出的关键问题：

• Capital Gains vs. Dividends: It highlights the inconsistency between the US non-taxation of foreign investors' capital gains on share sales (an outcome often aligned with MTC Art 13(5) allocating taxing rights to the seller's residence state) and the US taxation (via WHT) of dividends paid to foreign investors (aligned with MTC Art 10(2) allowing limited source state taxation).
  资本利得与股息：文章强调了美国对外国投资者出售股份的资本利得不征税（这一结果通常与 MTC 第 13(5)条将征税权分配给卖方居住国一致）与美国对支付给外国投资者的股息征税（通过 WHT）（与 MTC 第 10(2)条允许有限的来源国征税一致）之间的不一致。
• Fairness and Revenue: Argues the exemption unfairly favours foreign over domestic investors and results in significant US tax revenue forgone, especially concerning sales of valuable US-based businesses (including digital ones).
  公平与收入：认为该豁免不公平地偏袒外国投资者而非国内投资者，并导致美国大量税收收入损失，尤其是在出售有价值的美国本土企业（包括数字企业）时。
• Enforcement: Suggests historical enforcement difficulties (collecting tax from non-residents) are less relevant today due to modern withholding mechanisms and information exchange.
  执法：认为由于现代预扣机制和信息交换，历史上存在的执法困难（向非居民征税）在今天已不再那么重要。
• Digital Economy Link: Connects the issue to digital taxation debates by noting that significant value derived from the US market can be realized tax-free by foreign investors upon selling shares of US tech-focused companies.
  数字经济联系：通过指出外国投资者在出售以美国科技为重点的公司的股份时，可以免税获得来自美国市场的巨大价值，从而将该问题与数字税收辩论联系起来。

• Relevance/Contrast to Lecture 5:
  与第 5 讲的相关性/对比：

• This analysis focuses on capital gains (MTC Article 13), primarily the residual rule in Art 13(5), contrasting it with the treatment of dividends (MTC Article 10) which is a core topic of Lecture 5. It thus provides a useful comparison of how treaties (and specific domestic policies like the US's) treat different forms of return derived from corporate investments.
  本分析侧重于资本利得（MTC 第 13 条），主要是第 13(5) 条中的剩余规则，并将其与股息的处理方式（MTC 第 10 条）进行对比，后者是第 5 讲的核心主题。因此，本文对条约（以及像美国这样的特定国内政策）如何对待公司投资产生的不同形式的回报提供了一个有用的比较。
• It does not directly address the mechanics of Art 10, 11, or 12 WHT rates or the interpretation of Beneficial Ownership, which are central to Lecture 5.
  它没有直接涉及第 10、11 或 12 条 WHT 税率的机制或受益所有权的解释，而这些是第 5 讲的核心内容。
• However, it touches upon the broader theme of allocating taxing rights between source and residence countries for income derived from cross-border investments and the policy considerations involved (revenue, fairness, economic effects), providing background relevant to the choices embedded in Art 10, 11, and 12.
  然而，它触及了在来源国和居住国之间分配跨境投资收入的征税权以及所涉及的政策考虑（收入、公平、经济影响）这一更广泛的主题，为第 10、11 和 12 条中包含的选择提供了相关的背景信息。

Conclusion on Relevance:  关于相关性的结论：

In summary, while the articles on digital nomads and the TikTok sale do not directly elaborate on the rules for taxing passive income or the concept of beneficial ownership discussed in Lecture 5, they offer valuable context. They highlight the significant challenges posed by mobility and digitalization to the taxation of active income and the policy debates surrounding the taxation of capital gains from cross-border investments. Understanding these related issues helps appreciate the broader landscape of international tax policy and the specific rationale and limitations of the rules governing passive income addressed in Articles 10, 11, and 12.
总之，虽然关于数字游民和 TikTok 出售的文章没有直接阐述关于被动收入征税或第 5 讲中讨论的受益所有权概念的规则，但它们提供了有价值的背景信息。它们突出了流动性和数字化对主动收入征税以及围绕跨境投资资本利得征税的政策辩论所构成的重大挑战。理解这些相关问题有助于理解国际税收政策的更广阔前景，以及管理第 10、11 和 12 条中涉及的被动收入规则的具体理由和局限性。