“创新之策”或“避税之道”——英国“专利盒”政策实践与启示

肖冰

PDF(817 KB)

科研管理 ›› 2021, Vol. 42 ›› Issue (1) : 113-123.

论文

“创新之策”或“避税之道”——英国“专利盒”政策实践与启示

肖冰¹,何丽敏^1,3,许可²

作者信息 +

"Policy of innovation" or "means of tax avoidance"—Practice and enlightenment of the "Patent Box" Policy in the United Kingdom

Xiao Bing¹, He Limin^1,3, Xu Ke²

Author information +

文章历史 +

摘要

税收优惠是激励创新的重要手段与方式，“专利盒”是欧盟地区促进企业创新的一项重要政策。实践中，该政策在降低企业税收负担、促进知识产权运用方面取得良好效果。但同时也存在优惠政策被滥用，以致成为企业避税工具的现实问题。通过案例研究的方法分析英国“专利盒”政策形成与演变的过程，研究发现，该政策有效降低了企业知识产权交易的税收金额，但政策受益的主体集中于大型跨国企业。在日趋严格的税收监管趋势下，限制优惠范围，规范计税方法，将成为“专利盒”政策发展的主要方向。上述结论可以为我国建立覆盖科技创新全流程的税收优惠政策体系提供有益参考。

Abstract

Tax preference is an important means and way to stimulate innovation, "patent box" is an important policy to promote enterprise innovation in EU. In practice, the policy has achieved good results in reducing the tax burden of enterprises and promoting the use of intellectual property rights. At the government level, the introduction of the "patent box" policy is mainly due to two reasons: first, the intellectual property rights represented by patents have become the main carrier for multinational companies to obtain profits, and their trading activities are extremely sensitive to tax rate issues; second, governments of various countries are in order to encourage the innovation and development of regional knowledge economy. The reason why the policy is called "patent box" is that taxpayers who enjoy the preferential policy need to tick a box in their tax returns. From the essence of this policy, the so-called "patent box" refers to a kind of preferential tax policy for the government to reduce and reduce the use fee, license fee, sales income of products or services and infringement compensation income in the process of specific types of intellectual property transactions. By the end of 2019, France, the United Kingdom, Italy and other EU member states have successively formulated "patent box" policies.
"Patent box" policy, as a preferential policy to promote enterprises to use intellectual property by reducing tax burden, is being accepted by more and more countries. It is becoming an important policy for all countries to attract enterprises′ intellectual property transactions, promote the localized implementation of scientific and technological achievements, and then enhance the regional innovation ability and level. Thanks to comprehensive and systematic statistical data and policy evaluation, the UK has become a typical sample to study the implementation effect of "patent box" policy in EU. The "patent box" policy, which is part of the UK government′s economic growth plan, started in 2013 and aims to provide additional incentives (in terms of tax) to encourage enterprises to invest in innovation. The specific policy objectives include: first, to apply for patents in the UK for intellectual property rights acquired in the UK, while ensuring that new and existing patents can be developed and commercialized in the UK; second, to produce and sell these innovative products and services from the UK. Third, encourage companies to create high-value jobs in the process of developing, manufacturing and utilizing these patents in the UK. The formulation and implementation of the "patent box" policy in the UK constitute two main clues for the development and evolution of the policy in the UK. In terms of policy-making, the formulation of the "patent box" policy in the UK has gone through four stages: policy research and planning, policy content design, draft opinion collection and bill promulgation and implementation. From 2013 to 2017, the average annual growth rate of the total tax reduction and exemption from the implementation of the policy is 44%, and the influence of the policy on enterprises is increasing year by year, which shows that more and more enterprises attach importance to and use the "patent box" policy to obtain tax relief.
There are some practical problems that preferential policies have been abused and become tax avoidance tools of enterprises. Therefore, how to balance the two has become an important factor affecting the evolution of the "patent box" policy. Accordingly, we can evaluate the "patent box" policy represented by the United Kingdom from two aspects: encouraging innovation and restricting tax avoidance. Theoretical and practical studies show that the implementation of the "patent box" policy can enhance the enthusiasm of enterprises to apply for patents. But at the same time, "patent box" has the policy effect of encouraging patent application, so the implementation of the policy will cause the decline of patent application examination level due to the increase of patent application. In recent years, in order to prevent companies from transferring their operating income offshore through intellectual property rights for the purpose of tax avoidance, the BEPS action plan actively promoted by OECD aims to limit the scope of application of the "patent box" policy, clarify the calculation method, and reduce the possibility of abuse by limiting the scope of application and refining the calculation method.
From the perspective of the policy system of improving scientific and technological innovation, China can learn from the "patent box" policy, which can be a beneficial supplement to the existing tax incentives, and help to establish a whole process tax preferential system from innovation and research to innovation achievements. Firstly, "patent box" is an important part of improving the tax preferential policy system of scientific and technological innovation, which is conducive to encouraging enterprise innovation; secondly, the "patent box" policy is similar to the existing "enterprise income tax policy of technology transfer income", and there are still some development obstacles in China. Therefore, China can promote the "patent box" policy from the following aspects: first, in terms of the application conditions of the preferential tax policy, appropriately relax the recognition standard of the income from technology transfer of resident enterprises, relax or cancel the time limit of "five years", and lower the threshold for market entities to enjoy the preferential tax policy; second, in the scope of application of the preferential tax policy, it is limited to "invention patent" and "utility model" should appropriately raise the technical threshold for enterprises to enjoy preferential policies, which reflects the requirements of improving patent quality in China at the present stage, and also conforms to the trend of international intellectual property tax preferential policies restricting intellectual property types; thirdly, it is suggested that small and medium-sized enterprises should be given targeted preferential measures in terms of the applicable objects of tax preferential policies Give.

导出引用

肖冰, 何丽敏, 许可. “创新之策”或“避税之道”——英国“专利盒”政策实践与启示[J]. 科研管理. 2021, 42(1): 113-123

Xiao Bing, He Limin, Xu Ke. "Policy of innovation" or "means of tax avoidance"—Practice and enlightenment of the "Patent Box" Policy in the United Kingdom[J]. Science Research Management. 2021, 42(1): 113-123

参考文献

[] 乔洪武,朱亚男.税收分成激励能促进上市公司创新吗?[J].经济与管理评论,2019,35(01):83-94.

Qiao Hongwu, Zhu Yanan. Can tax sharing incentive promote the innovation of listed companies? [J]. Review of Economic and Management, 2019, 35 (01): 83-94

[] 宋河发,廖奕驰.国外专利盒政策与我国技术转让投资所得税政策比较研究[J].知识产权,2019(02):81-88.

Song Hefa, Liao Yichi. A comparative study of foreign patent box policy and China's technology transfer investment income tax policy [J]. Intellectual Property Rights,2019(02):81-88.

[] Sebastien Bradley, Estelle Dauchy, Leslie Robinson. Cross-Country Evidence on the Preliminary Effects of Patent Box Regimes on Patent Activity and Ownership[J]. National Tax Journal, 2015, 68(4):1047.

[] Bongaerts W, Ijzerman I. The Secrets to the Success of the Dutch Innovation Box[J]. Tax Notes International, 2016, 2: 479-483.

[] Ciaramella L. Patent boxes and the relocation of intellectual property[J]. Available at SSRN 2943435, 2017.

[] Schwab T, Todtenhaupt M. Spillover from the haven: Cross-border externalities of patent box regimes within multinational firms[J]. IEB Working Paper 2017/15, 2017..

[] 曹越,赵书博,王琼琼.专利盒制度对企业创新的激励效应研究[J].财政研究,2019(04):117-129.

Cao Yue, Zhao Shubo, Wang qiongqiongqiong. Research on the incentive effect of patent box system on enterprise innovation [J]. Financial research, 2019 (04): 117-129

[] Chen S, De Simone L, Hanlon M, et al. The effect of innovation box regimes on income shifting and real activity[J]. Available at SSRN 3486428, 2019.

[] Evers, Lisa, Miller, Helen, Spengel, Christoph. Intellectual Property Box Regimes: Effective Tax Rates and Tax Policy Considerations[J]. SSRN Electronic Journal.

[] Bräutigam, Rainer, Spengel, Christoph, Streif, Frank. Decline of CFC rules and rise of IP boxes: How the ECJ affects tax competition and economic distortions in Europe[J]. Social Science Electronic Publishing, 2015.

[] Mohnen P, Vankan A, Verspagen B. Evaluating the innovation box tax policy instrument in the Netherlands, 2007–13[J]. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 2017, 33(1): 141-156.

[] Lester J, Warda J. An International Comparison of Tax Assistance for R&D: 2017 Update and Extension to Patent Boxes[J]. The School of Public Policy Publications, SPP Research Paper, University of Calgary, 2018, 11.

[] Gaessler F, Hall B H, Harhoff D. Should there be lower taxes on patent income?[R]. National Bureau of Economic Research, 2018.

[] Alstadsæter A, Barrios S, Nicodème G, et al. Patent boxes design, patents location, and local R&D[J]. Economic Policy, 2018, 33(93): 131-177.

[] Bornemann T , Laplante S K , Osswald B . The Effect of Intellectual Property Boxes on Innovative Activity & Effective Tax Rates[J]. Ssrn Electronic Journal, 2018.

[] 王鸿貌,杨丽薇.欧洲十二国专利盒制度的比较与借鉴[J].知识产权,2016(04) :108-113.

Wang Hongmao, Yang Liwei. Comparison and reference of patent box systems in twelve European countries [J]. Intellectual property, 2016 (04): 108-113.

[]姜滨滨,匡海波.市场驱动的联盟企业专利策略选择及产出效应[J].科研管理,2017,38(01) :70-80.

Jiang Binbin, Kuang Haibo. Patent strategy selection and output effect of market driven alliance enterprises[J]. Science Research Managment, 2017,38(01) :70-80.

[] 李乔彧. BEPS背景下“专利盒”税制的跨国协调:国际标准与中国应对[J]. 税务与经济, 2017(4) :79-86.

Li Qiaoyu. Transnational coordination of "patent box" tax system under the background of BEPS: international standards and China's response [J]. Taxation and economy, 2017 (4) :79-86.

[] 张嘉怡.有效创新激励还是有害税收竞争?—BEPS背景下“专利盒”政策的困境[J].中央财经大学学报,2015(05):3-11.

Zhang Jiayi. Effective innovation incentive or harmful tax competition? Dilemma of "patent box" policy under the background of BEPS [J]. Journal of Central University of Finance and economics, 2015 (05): 3-11

[] 陈远燕,张鑫媛,薛峰.知识产权税收激励的国际借鉴与启示—基于符合BEPS行动计划的新专利盒制度[J].国际税收,2018(10):12-17.

Chen Yuanyan, Zhang Xinyuan, Xue Feng. International reference and Enlightenment of intellectual property tax incentives: Based on the new patent box system in line with BEPS action plan [J]. International taxation, 2018 (10): 12-17

[] 曲顺兰,许可.慈善捐赠税收激励政策研究[M].北京:经济科学出版社,2017.12

Qu Shunlan, Xu Ke. Research on tax incentive policy of charitable donation [M]. Beijing: Economic Science Press, December 2017

[] 赵书博.中国与欧洲各国“专利盒(Patent Box)”制度比较研究[J].会计之友,2015(05):76-80.

Zhao Shubo. Comparative study on patent box system between China and European countries [J]. Friends of accounting, 2015 (05): 76-80

[] 张凤兵,王会宗.异质性视角下的R&D企业投入、政府资助与创新绩效——基于微观面板的计数模型实证研究[J].经济与管理评论,2019,35(02):80-92.

Zhang Fengbing, Wang Huizong. R & D enterprise investment, government funding and innovation performance from the perspective of heterogeneity: An Empirical Study Based on micro panel counting model [J]. Review of Economic and Management, 2019,35 (02): 80-92

[] 许可,肖冰,肖尤丹.创新驱动背景下我国专利主张实体扩张防范策略研究———美国与日本的经验借鉴［J］.科技进步与对策,2018,35(14):95-101.

Xu Ke, Xiao Bing, Xiao Yudan. Research on defense strategy of entity expansion of patent claims in China under the back-ground of innovation driven——Experience from the United States and Japan [J]. Science ＆ Technology Progress and Policy,2018,35 (14): 95-101.

[] 胡华夏,洪荭,肖露璐,刘雯.税收优惠与研发投入——产权性质调节与成本粘性的中介作用[J].科研管理,2017,38(06):135-143.

Hu Xiahua, Hong Hong, Xiao Lulu,Liu Wen. Tax preference and R & D Investment -- the mediating effect of property right adjustment and Cost Stickiness[J].Science Research Managment,2017,38(06):135-143.