Abstracts
Résumé
Dans le cadre du projet sur l’érosion de la base d’imposition et le transfert des bénéfices (Base Erosion and Profit Shifting – BEPS) lancé en 2013, l’Organisation de coopération et de développement économiques (OCDE) a spécifiquement exprimé des préoccupations concernant les régimes préférentiels pour le revenu généré par la propriété intellectuelle et a recommandé que ces régimes requièrent que les bénéficiaires poursuivent des activités économiques réelles pour éviter qu’un régime soit assimilé à une pratique fiscale dommageable. L’adoption par plusieurs pays de régimes de propriété intellectuelle conformes à la recommandation de l’OCDE illustre l’effet de substitution entre les formes de concurrence fiscale et pourrait accroître la pression sur d’autres pratiques de concurrence fiscale.
Mots-clés :
- politique fiscale,
- concurrence fiscale internationale,
- propriété intellectuelle,
- OCDE
Abstract
As part of the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) project launched in 2013, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) specifically raised concerns about preferential tax treatment of income generated by intellectual property and recommended that these regimes require from the beneficiaries to conduct real economic activities to prevent them from being identified as harmful tax practices. The adoption by several countries of intellectual property regimes in line with the OECD’s recommendation illustrates the substitution effect between forms of tax competition and increases the pressure on other forms of tax competition.
As part of the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) project launched in 2013, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) specifically raised concerns about preferential tax treatment of income generated by intellectual property and recommended that these regimes require from the beneficiaries to conduct real economic activities to prevent them from being identified as harmful tax practices. The adoption by several countries of intellectual property regimes in line with the OECD’s recommendation illustrates the substitution effect between forms of tax competition and increases the pressure on other forms of tax competition.:
- tax policy,
- international tax competition,
- intellectual property,
- OECD
Appendices
Bibliographie
- Allred, Brent B. et Walter G. Park, 2007, « Patent Rights and Innovative Activity : Evidence from National and Firm-level Data », Journal of International Business Studies, vol. 38, no 6, p. 878-900.
- Alstadsaeter, Annette, Salvator Barrios, Gaetan Nicodeme, Agnieszka M. Skonieczna et Antonio Vezzani, 2015, Patent Boxes Design, Patents Location and Local R&D, ITS Working Papers on Corporate R&D and Innovation, no 6, JRC Technical Reports, Espagne, Commission européenne.
- Appelt, Silvia, Matej Bajgar, Chiara Criscuolom et Fernando Galindo-Rueda, 2016, R&D Tax Incentives : Evidence on Design, Incidence and Impacts, OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers, no 32, Paris, OECD Publishing.
- Athanasiou, Amanda, 2017, « Budget Gives Nods to BEPS, Innovation », Tax Notes—International, vol. 85, p. 797-799.
- Atkinson, Robert D. et Scott Andes, 2011, Patent Boxes : Innovation in Tax Policy and Tax Policy for Innovation, Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, 11 octobre.
- Böhm, Tobias, Tom Karkinksy, Bodo Knoll et Nadine Riedel, 2015, « Corporate Taxes and Strategic Patent Location Within Multinational Firms », CESifo Area Conferences on Public Sector Economics, Munich, 16-18 avril.
- Boldrin, Michele et David K. Levine, 2013, « The Case Against Patents », The Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 27, no 1, p. 3-22.
- Bradley, Sebastien, Estelle Dauchy et Leslie Robinson, 2015, « Cross-country Evidence on the Preliminary Effects of Patent Box Regimes on Patent Activity and Ownership », National Tax Journal, vol. 68, no 4, p. 1047-1072.
- Clausing, Kimberly A., 2016, « The Nature and Practice of Tax Competition », dans Peter Dietsch et Thomas Rixen (sous la dir. de), Global Tax Governance. What is Wrong with It and How to Fix It, Colchester, RU, [European Consortium for Political Research] ECPR Press.
- Danon, Robert J., 2015, « Tax Incentives on Research and Development (R&D) », Cahiers de droit fiscal international, vol. 100a, p. 15-56.
- Desai, Mihir A., C. Fritz Foley et James R. Hines Jr., 2006, « The Demand for Tax Haven Operations », Journal of Public Economics, vol. 90, p. 513-531.
- Dietsch, Peter, 2015, Catching Capital : The Ethics of Tax Competition, New York, Oxford University Press.
- Dietsch, Peter et Thomas Rixen, 2014, « Tax Competition and Global Background Justice », Journal of Political Philosophy, vol. 22, no 2, p. 150-177.
- Dischinger, Matthias et Nadine Riedel, 2011, « Corporate Taxes and the Location of Intangible Assets Within Multinational Firms », Journal of Public Economics, vol. 95, nos 7-8, p. 691-707.
- Ernst, Christof et Christoph Spengel, 2011, Taxation, R&D Tax Incentives and Patent Application in Europe, Discussion Paper no 11–024, Mannheim, Center for European Economic Research.
- Evers, Lisa, Helen Miller et Cristoph Spengel, 2013, Intellectual Property Box Regimes : Effective Tax Rates and Tax Policy Considerations, Discussion Paper no 13-07, Mannheim, Center for European Economic Research.
- Finley, Ryan, 2016, « Innovation Box Necessary to Protect Israel’s Technology Sector, Official Says », Tax Notes—Worldwide Tax Daily, 8 décembre.
- Finley, Ryan, 2017, « Germany Passes Anti-patent-box Law as Neighbors Keep Pre-BEPS Regimes », Tax Notes—International, vol. 85, p. 423-424.
- Genschel, Philipp et Peter Schwarz, 2011, « Tax Competition : A Literature Review », Socio-Economic Review, vol. 9, no 2, p. 339-370.
- Goulder, Robert, 2018, « Achtung ! U.S. Tax Reform Stumbles Over German Royalty Barrier », Tax Notes—International, vol. 89, p. 375-378.
- Gravelle, Jane G., 2015, Tax Havens : International Tax Avoidance and Evasion, CRS Report Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress, Washington, DC, Congressional Research Service.
- Griffith, Rachel, Helen Miller et Martin O’Connell, 2014, « Ownership of Intellectual Property Corporate Taxation », Journal of Public Economics, vol. 112, p. 12- 23.
- Gupta, Ajay, 2015, « The Patent Box : A Bad Idea Crosses the Atlantic », Tax Notes—International, vol. 79, p. 188-190.
- Haines, Anjana, Bernard David et Thierry Bovier, 2017, « Luxembourg : New BEPS-compliant IP Regime to Open up Opportunities », 1nternational Tax Review, 23 août.
- Harrick, Sian, 2015, « Incentives for Commercialising IP Rights in Australia—What’s Stopping Us ? », Engineers Australia, 25 septembre.
- Horowitz, Andrew W. et Edwin L.C. Lai, 1996, « Patent Length and the Rate of Innovation », International Economic Review, vol. 37, no 4, p. 785-801.
- Ireland, Department of Finance, 2010, The National Recovery Plan 2011–2014, Dublin, Department of Finance.
- Karkinsky, Tom et Nadine Riedel, 2012, « Corporate Taxation and the Choice of Patent Location Within Multinational Firms », Journal of International Economics, vol. 88, no 1, p. 176-185.
- Latulippe, Lyne, 2016, « Tax Competition : An Internalised Policy Goal », dans Peter Dietsch et Thomas Rixen (sous la dir. de), Global Tax Governance. What Is Wrong with It and How to Fix It, Colchester, RU, [European Consortium for Political Research] ECPR Press.
- Mutti, John et Harry Grubert, 2009, « The Effect of Taxes on Royalties and the Migration of Intangible Assets Abroad », dans Marshall Reinsdorf et Matthew J. Slaughter (sous la dir. de), International Trade in Services and Intangibles in the Era of Globalization, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, p. 111-137.
- OCDE, 1998, Concurrence fiscale dommageable : Un problème mondial, Paris, Éditions OCDE [Organisation de coopération et de développement économiques].
- OCDE, 2016, Lutter plus efficacement contre les pratiques fiscales dommageables, en prenant en compte la transparence et la substance, Action 5 – Rapport final 2015, Projet OCDE/G20 sur l’érosion de la base d’imposition et le transfert de bénéfices, Paris, Éditions de l’Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
- OECD, 2006, The OECD’s Project on Harmful Tax Practices : 2006 Update on Progress in Member Countries, Paris, Éditions de l’Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
- OECD, 2015a, Countering Harmful Tax Practices More Effectively, Taking into Account Transparency and Substance, Action 5–2015 Final Report, OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project, Paris, Éditions de l’Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
- OECD, 2015b, Explanatory Paper : Agreement on Modified Nexus Approach for IP Regimes, Paris, Éditions de l’Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
- Pantaleo, Nick, Finn Poschmann et Scott Wilkie, 2013, Improving the Tax Treatment of Intellectual Property Income in Canada, Commentary no 379, Toronto, C.D. Howe Institute.
- St-Cerny-Gosselin, Julie et Lyne Latulippe, 2016, Perspective canadienne sur le transfert international de bénéfices : Propriété intellectuelle, R-D et investissements directs étrangers, Cahier de recherche no 2016-08, Chaire de recherche en fiscalité et en finances publiques, Université de Sherbrooke.
- Sullivan, Martin A., 2015, « A History Lesson for a Future Patent Box », Tax Notes—International, vol. 79, p. 823-826.
- Webb, Michael, 2004, « Defining the Boundaries of Legitimate State Practice : Norms, Transnational Actors and the OECD’s Project on Harmful Tax Competition 1 », Review of International Political Economy, vol. 11, no 4, p. 787-827.