钟昊申：美国国税局出台云交易分类条例并颁布收入来源地新规

On January 14, 2025, the US IRS published final regulations on the classification of cloud transactions and proposed regulations on the source of income from cloud transactions.[1]The cloud transactions cover cloud services, software-as-a-service (SaaS), remote AI, online games, and similar business models. Businesses who are located outside the US but provide services to customers in the US should know the rules to plan for taxes.

2025年1月14日，美国国税局（IRS）正式颁布了关于云交易（cloud transactions）分类的最终条例以及关于云交易收入来源（source of income）的拟议条例。云交易包括云服务、软件即服务（SaaS）、远程人工智能（remote AI）、在线游戏等类似商业模式。位于美国境外但向美国客户提供服务的企业，需充分了解这些规则以进行税务规划。

01

Final regulations on character of cloud transactions

关于云交易分类的最终条例

（1）Cloud transaction vs digital transactions

云交易和数字交易

The final regulations classify a digital transaction into 1 of 4 categories:

1.Transfer of the copyright;

2.Transfer of a copy of the digital content;

3.Provision of services for the development or modification of the digital content; or

4.Provision of know-how relating to development of digital content.[2]

Cloud transaction is separate from digital transactions.[3]Cloud transaction is defined as on-demand access to computer hardware, digital content, or similar resources; though excluding access to download digital content for storage on the customer’s own device.[4]

最终条例将数字交易（digital transaction）划分为以下4类：

1. 版权转让（transfer of the copyright）；

2. 数字内容副本转让（transfer of a copy of the digital content）；

3. 数字内容开发或修改服务（provision of services for the development or modification of the digital content）；或

4. 提供与数字内容开发相关的专有技术（provision of know-how relating to development of digital content）。

云交易（cloud transaction）和数字交易不同。云交易指按需访问计算机硬件、数字内容或类似资源，但不包括允许客户下载数字内容并存储至自有设备的商业模式。

（2）A transaction with multiple elements is classified by its predominant element

复合交易按主要成分归类

If a transaction contains multiple elements, the element is classified by its predominant element, which is the primary benefit received by the customer.[5]The primary benefit rule applies to both digital content transactions and cloud transactions.[6]

To determine the customer’s primary benefit:

• If the seller, licensor, or provider has data to determine the customer’s primary benefit, the provider should use that data.[7]
• If such data is not available, the provider may use other factors to estimate the primary benefit:
• The provider’s marketing,
• Distribution of development costs, or
• Market prices of products or services that are comparable to each element.[8]

The provider must make good faith effort to analyze data obtained in the ordinary course of business, but it is not obligated to develop data to determine the primary benefit.[9]

若某项交易包含多个要素，则依据客户获取的主要利益（primary benefit）确定其类别。主要利益规则同时适用于数字内容交易（digital content transactions）与云交易（cloud transactions）。

主要利益的判定标准

• 数据优先原则：若卖方、许可方或服务提供方掌握可判定客户主要利益的数据，则应基于该数据认定；
• 推定规则：若无直接数据，可参考以下因素综合推定主要利益：
• 提供方的营销情况；
• 开发成本的分摊比例；
• 可比产品或服务的市场价格。

提供方须基于善意原则（good faith）对日常经营中获取的数据进行分析，但无义务额外生成数据以确定主要利益。

（3）Cloud transactions are classified as provision of services

云交易被视为服务

A cloud transaction is a transaction where the customer obtains on-demand remote access to computer hardware, digital content, or similar resources.[10]If access to the resource is solely to download digital content for storage or use on the customer’s local device, it is not a cloud transaction.[11]

Cloud transactions are considered provision of services.[12]If transaction contains a cloud element and other element, the transaction is classified according to its predominant element.

Example 1: A microtransaction in Genshin Impact is a cloud transaction, because access to the game and in-game goods requires nearly continuous transfer of data to and from Mihoyo’s servers.[13]

Example 2: The purchase and download of Black Myth: Wukong is not a cloud transaction, because the game is meant to be downloaded then run locally. The digital rights management (DRM) software for remote authentication does not make the game a cloud transaction because it is not a core functionality of the game.[14]

Example 3: A studio inthe Chinese mainland produces an animated film and licenses it to Netflix for streaming in America. Netflix pays a lump sum for the distribution rights and a master copy, then charges customers a subscription fee to stream videos from its library. The subscription between the customer and Netflix is a separate transaction from the license between the film producer and Netflix.[15]The transaction between the film producer and Netflix consists of the transfer of the master copy and the license to stream the film to customers. The predominant benefit is the license, so the transaction is a transfer of copyright, not a cloud transaction.[16]

云交易是指客户通过远程按需方式获取计算机硬件、数字内容或类似资源的交易。若资源访问权限仅限于下载数字内容并在客户本地设备上储存或使用，则不构成云交易。

云交易本质上属于服务。若交易同时包含云要素与其他要素，则仍按主要要素归类。

例1：《原神》游戏中的微交易属于云交易，因为访问游戏及虚拟商品需持续与米哈游服务器进行数据交互。

例2：《黑神话：悟空》的购买和下载行为不构成云交易，因其设计用途为下载后本地运行。虽然游戏包括了数字版权管理（DRM）软件的远程验证功能，但该游戏也并不因此而纳入云交易范畴，因为该功能不属于游戏核心功能。

例3：一家中国大陆公司制作动画电影且将影片授权给Netflix在美洲发行。Netflix向制片方支付费用，获取发行权和母版拷贝。Netflix则通过向用户收取订阅费，提供影片库的流媒体服务。此案例中包括两个独立交易，即用户与Netflix之间的订阅服务、电影制片方与Netflix之间的授权协议。本文仅探讨后者的定性问题，电影制片方与Netflix之间的交易可以拆分为两个要素，即母版拷贝的转让、向终端用户提供流媒体的许可。由上可以认定交易的主要利益来源于影片流媒体播放的授权，因此该交易应定性为版权转让，并非云交易。

02

Proposed regulations on source of income

关于收入来源的拟议条例

The IRS has not adopted regulations on the source of income rules for cloud transactions, but they proposed regulations on January 14, 2025. The proposed regulations indicate where the IRS is thinking of going for a particular law, but there are several caveats:

1. The rules may not be finalized for years.

2. There may be changes between the proposed rules and final rules based on public comments.

3. A change of administration may put the rules on hold or change them.

Nevertheless, it is useful to know the proposed rules for risk planning.

美国国税局（IRS）尚未就云交易的收入来源规则颁布最终条例，但其于2025年1月14日发布了拟议条例。该拟议条例反映了IRS对相关法律的考量，但需注意以下几点：

1. 规则落地周期长：最终条例可能数年后方能确定；

2. 存在修改可能：根据公众反馈的意见，最终规则与拟议规则之间可能存在调整；

3. 政策不确定性：政权更迭可能导致规则的制定被搁置或更改。

尽管如此，了解拟议规则对于风险防控仍具有重要价值。

（1）Proposed apportionment formula

拟议分摊公式

This subsection describes the proposed apportionment rules for the source of cloud transaction income.

To find the US source income of a cloud transaction, multiply gross income from cloud transactions by the following apportionment factor:[17]

Cloud transactions do not use customer location for source of income.

本小节阐述了云交易收入来源的拟议分摊规则。总收入将乘以以下分摊系数：

客户所在地不影响云交易收入的来源地。

Intangible property factor

无形资产分摊因子

The worldwide intangible property factor is the sum of the following expenses to the extent that they are associated with the product line of the cloud transaction in question:[18]

A product line is all products with the same Corresponding Index Entry under a North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).[19]There is some flexibility to select the CIE and NAICS code, but once selected in the first year, the taxpayer must use the same selection in subsequent years.

The US source intangible property factor is:[20]

When more than 1 cloud transactions share the same expenses, apportion the expenses according to the gross income from the cloud transactions. The business may group substantially similar transactions together, unless there is reason to know that grouping would distort income.[21]

全球无形资产因子的计算方式如下，包含与相关云交易产品线相关的以下费用总和：

产品线是指根据北美行业分类体系（NAICS）具有相同对应索引条目（CIE）的所有产品。企业在选择对应索引条目和NAICS代码时具有一定灵活性，但首次选定后，纳税人必须在后续年度持续使用相同的分类标准。

美国来源无形资产因子的计算公式为：

若相关费用用于多项云交易，则应根据各项交易产生的总收入比例进行分摊。企业可将基本相似的交易合并计算，除非有合理理由认为此种合并会导致收入扭曲。

Personnel factor

人员分摊因子

The personnel factor is all compensation paid to persons who contribute to the cloud transaction, excluding R&D compensation.[22]R&D compensation is excluded because it is counted in the intangible factor.

Persons who contribute to a cloud transaction include:

• Technical and operational personnel, and
• Their immediate managers and supervisors.[23]

Excluded persons are:

• Business strategy leaders,
• Legal,
• Accounting,
• Sales, and
• Supporting staff for the cloud division.[24]

If the same person contributed to multiple cloud transactions, allocate their compensation based on time spent on each transaction.[25]If a person worked on multiple cloud transactions simultaneously, allocate based on the gross income from the transactions.[26]

The US source personnel factor is the compensation paid for work performed while a person is physically in the US.[27]For each employee who works both inside and outside the US, their compensation is allocated based on time spent working in a place.[28]

人员分摊因子包含所有参与云交易的人员薪酬（研发人员薪酬除外，因其已计入无形资产因子）。参与人员包括：

• 技术与运维人员
• 上述人员的直属经理及主管

不包括下列人员：

• 业务战略决策者
• 法务、会计、销售部门人员
• 云业务支持性岗位人员

特殊情形处理规则：

• 同一人员参与多项云交易的，应按各交易耗时比例分摊薪酬
• 同一人员同时参与多项云交易的，应按各交易产生的总收入比例分摊薪酬

美国来源人员因子的计算：以人员实际在美国境内工作期间的薪酬为准。对同时在美国境内外工作的人员，应按照各地工作时间占比分摊其薪酬总额。

Tangible property factor

有形资产分摊因子

The tangible property factor is the sum of the rental expense and depreciation expense of property directly used in the cloud transaction.[29]US source tangible property is physically located in the US.[30]

有形资产分摊因子是指直接用于云交易的资产的租金费用与折旧费用总和。其中，美国来源有形资产的认定标准为：该资产必须实际位于美国境内。

（2）Effect of source of income on tax

收入来源的税收影响

This subsection discusses the effect the source of income has on US tax. The rules cited in this subsection are final laws and regulations.

The US taxes foreign corporations on 2 types of income:

1. US source income that is not effectively connected with a US source of business, consisting of interests, dividends, rents, royalties, and other fixed or determinable annual or periodical income.[31]These types of income is called FDAP income for short. The tax rate is 30% of the gross income, reducible by treaties.[32]

2. Income that is effectively connected with a US trade or business.[33]The tax rate is 21% of the taxable income, a tax measurement that resembles (but is not the same as) accounting net income.[34]

For a foreign corporation that is engaged in a US trade or business:

• US source FDAP income is effectively connected with a US trade or business if the business were material in deriving the income.[35]
• All other US source income is effectively connected with a US trade or business.[36]

Therefore, the source of income determines how the US gets to tax it.

本小节阐释收入来源对外国企业的美国税收影响，所引用的均为现行生效法律法规。

美国对外国企业两类收入征税：

1. 与美国业务无实质关联的美国来源收入

a. 包括利息、股息、租金、特许权使用费及其他固定或可确定的年度/定期收入（简称"FDAP收入"）

b. 税率为总收入的30%，可根据税收协定降低

2. 与美国贸易或业务有实质关联的收入

a. 税率为应税收入的21%（类似但不完全等同于净利润）

特殊规则：

• 对于已在美国开展业务的外国企业，若其业务对FDAP收入的产生具有实质性作用，则该FDAP收入视为与美国业务有实质关联
• 其他类型收入中，所有美国来源收入均自动认定为有实质关联

结论：收入来源直接决定了美国如何对该笔收入征税。

03

Income tax treaties

关于收入来源的拟议条例

Many countries have double taxation treaties that can mitigate tax consequences of internal rules. Generally, these treaties allow a host country to tax a foreign person’s business income only to the extent that the business income is attributed to a permanent establishment in the host country.

If the US’s internal tax rules are incompatible with business requirements, it may be useful for the business to select its overseas headquarters based on tax treaties. The US has an income tax treaty with China, Ireland, and Luxembourg. The US-China treaty only covers the Chinese mainland. The US does not have an income tax treaty with Singapore.

许多国家签订了避免双重征税协定，这些协定可以减轻国内税收法规带来的税务影响。一般而言，此类协定规定东道国仅可对外国企业来源于当地常设机构的业务收入征税。

若美国国内税收法规与企业经营需求存在冲突，企业可考虑基于税收协定选择海外总部所在地。美国与中国、爱尔兰及卢森堡签有所得税协定。中美税收协定只适用于中国大陆。但美国与新加坡尚未签订此类税收协定。

04

Examples

示例分析

（1）SaaS provider with only physical presence in China

仅在中国境内运营的SaaS提供商

In this example, business A provides software as a service (SaaS) to customers. Customers pay a monthly subscription fee to access the software on the server using the browser, a mobile app, or a computer program. A continuous internet connection to the servers is required to use the software. This can be business software, a consumer application, or an online game.

The company is incorporated in the Chinese mainland. All physical servers are in the Chinese mainland, and the main customer base is in China. Business A has incidental customers around the world. The company has a wholly owned subsidiary in Hong Kong that manages overseas payments. The Hong Kong subsidiary has few employees handling administrative tasks. All other employees, including customer service employees for overseas customers, are in the Chinese mainland.

The SaaS subscriptions are cloud transactions under US tax rules, because the predominant benefit that customers derive is the ability to remotely access and use the software hosted on the business’s servers. The subscriptions are substantially similar, because they are for the same SaaS.

The tangible property factor consists of rent and depreciation expense for the physical servers. There is no US source portion because none of the servers is physically located in the US.

The personnel factor consists of compensation for employees directly involved in the cloud transactions. There is no US source portion because none of the employees work in the US.

The intangible property factor is the R&D personnel compensation, plus amortization of IP, plus IP royalties. The US source portion is the total intangible property factory, multiplied by R&D personnel compensation for workers in the US, divided by total R&D personnel compensation. Because there are no R&D workers in the US, there is no US source portion.

The numerator of the apportionment factor is 0. Therefore, business A does not have any US source income.

基本案情：

企业A提供软件即服务（SaaS），客户按月付费后，可以通过浏览器、移动应用或计算机程序访问服务器上的软件，但需联网访问。服务范围涵盖商业软件、消费类应用及在线游戏。

运营架构：

• 注册地：中国大陆
• 服务器位置：全部位于中国大陆
• 客户分布：主要在中国境内，少量海外客户
• 子公司：A公司在香港设有一家全资子公司（仅处理海外支付事务，少量行政人员）
• 人员配置：所有员工（包括海外客户服务人员）均在中国大陆办公

税务分析：

• 交易性质认定
• 该SaaS订阅属于云交易，因客户主要获益于远程访问和使用服务器软件的能力
• 所有订阅服务具有相似性（同一SaaS产品）
• 分摊因子计算
• 有形资产因子：服务器租金及折旧费用
• 美国来源部分：0（服务器均位于中国）
• 人员因子：直接参与云交易的员工薪酬
• 美国来源部分：0（无员工在美国工作）
• 无形资产因子：研发人员薪酬+知识产权摊销+特许权使用费
• 美国来源部分计算公式：
• 总无形资产因子×（美国研发人员薪酬/全球研发人员薪酬）=0（因无美国研发人员）

结论：

分摊分子为0，故企业A不产生任何美国来源收入。

（2）SaaS provider with overseas presence in Singapore

在新加坡设立海外实体的SaaS提供商

SaaS provider setup

企业架构说明

In this example, business B provides software as a service to customers. The business develops software and deploys it on its servers. Customers pay a monthly subscription fee to access the software on the server using the browser, a mobile app, or a computer program. A continuous internet connection to the servers is required to use the software. This can be business software, a consumer application, or an online game.

The headquarters is a company incorporated in the Chinese mainland, which serves Chinese customers. The Chinese mainland company is the 100% owner of a company limited by shares in Singapore, which is the headquarters of overseas operations. The Singapore subsidiary rents physical servers located in Singapore for overseas customers.

Employees in Singapore are responsible for server maintenance, sales, first level operational and technical support to customers, and strategic decisions regarding overseas operations. Employees in the Chinese mainland develops software, deploys the software on the servers, provide ongoing software updates, and provide elevated operational and technical support to the Singapore subsidiary. Overseas customers contract with the Singapore subsidiary and pay them for the SaaS. The Singapore subsidiary pays a fee to the Chinese mainland company for the use of the software and support.

在本案例中，企业B向客户提供软件即服务（SaaS）。该企业开发软件并将其部署在自有服务器上。客户按月支付订阅费，通过浏览器、移动应用或计算机程序访问服务器上的软件，使用该软件需要联网。这类服务可以是商业软件、消费类应用或在线游戏。

公司总部是在中国大陆注册成立的企业，客户主要来自于中国大陆。这家中国大陆企业在新加坡设有一家全资子公司，为其海外业务总部。新加坡子公司租用了位于新加坡的服务器，为海外客户提供服务。

新加坡的员工负责服务器维护、销售、为客户提供运营和技术支持，以及海外业务的战略决策。中国大陆的员工负责软件开发、将软件部署到服务器上、提供持续的软件更新，并向新加坡子公司提供高级运营和技术支持。海外客户与新加坡子公司签订合同并支付SaaS费用。新加坡子公司向中国大陆公司支付软件使用费和支持服务费。

US tax analysis

美国税务分析

The SaaS subscriptions are cloud transactions, because the predominant benefit that customers derive is the ability to remotely access and use the software hosted on the business’s servers. The subscriptions are substantially similar, because they are for the same SaaS.

The tangible property factor consists of rent for the servers. There is no US source portion because none of the servers is in the US.

The Singapore subsidiary pays compensation to its employees for technical and operational support to customers. The compensation belongs in the personnel factor. There is no US source portion, because employees do not work in the US.

The payment to the Chinese mainland company is for more than 1 element:

• Royalties for the license to deploy the software on the Singapore subsidiary’s servers. The royalty element belongs in the intangible property factor.
• Technical and operational support to deploy and run the software. The support element belongs in the personnel factor.

For the intangible property factor, the US source portion is the total intangible property factor, multiplied by the compensation paid to US R&D personnel, divided by the compensation paid to all R&D personnel. The US source intangible property factor is 0, because there is no R&D in the US.

The US source portions of all 3 factors in the numerator are 0. Therefore, business B does not have any US source income.

该SaaS订阅服务属于云交易，因为客户获得的主要利益是远程访问和使用企业服务器上的软件。由于是同一SaaS产品，这些订阅服务具有高度相似性。

有形资产因子包含服务器租金费用。由于所有服务器均不在美国境内，因此美国来源部分为零。

新加坡子公司向其员工支付客户技术和运营支持薪酬，这部分属于人员因子。由于没有员工在美国工作，美国来源部分为零。

新加坡子公司向中国大陆公司支付的费用包含两个要素：1）在新加坡子公司服务器上部署软件的许可使用费（特许权使用费）；2）部署和运行软件的技术和运营支持费用。特许权使用费要素属于无形资产因子，而支持服务要素属于人员因子。

对于无形资产因子，美国来源部分计算公式为：总无形资产因子×支付给美国研发人员的薪酬÷支付给所有研发人员的薪酬。由于没有研发活动在美国进行，美国来源无形资产因子为零。

三个因子的美国来源部分均为零，这意味着没有任何收入需要分摊至美国。

（3）SaaS provider with local rented servers

采用本地租赁服务器模式的SaaS提供商

SaaS provider setup

企业架构说明

In this example, business C provides software as a service to customers. The business develops software and deploys it on its servers. Customers pay a monthly subscription fee to access the software on the server using the browser, a mobile app, or a computer program. A continuous internet connection to the servers is required to use the software. This can be business software, a consumer application, or an online game.

The headquarters is a company incorporated in the Chinese mainland, which serves Chinese customers. The Chinese mainland company is the 100% owner of a company limited by shares in Singapore, which is the headquarters of overseas operations. The Singapore subsidiary owns 100% of a US LLC. The US LLC rents physical servers in the US, which host the SaaS business for North America. The Singapore subsidiary owns 100% of a Germany GmbH to serve the EU and a Sociedade limitada in Brazil to serve South America. The Singapore subsidiary serves Southeast Asia and Oceania directly.

The US LLC has a small number of employees to manage the US physical servers. Employees in Singapore are responsible for sales, first level operational and technical support to customers, and strategic decisions regarding overseas operations. Employees in the Chinese mainland develops software, deploys the software on the servers, provide ongoing software updates, and provide elevated operational and technical support to the Singapore subsidiary.

Overseas customers contract with the Singapore subsidiary and pay them for the SaaS. The Singapore subsidiary pays the US LLC a fee for managing the physical servers on a cost-plus basis. The Singapore subsidiary pays a fee to the Chinese mainland company for the use of the software and support.

在本案例中，企业C向客户提供软件即服务（SaaS）。该企业开发软件并将其部署在自有服务器上。客户按月支付订阅费，通过浏览器、移动应用或计算机程序访问服务器上的软件，使用该软件需要联网。这类服务可以是商业软件、消费类应用或在线游戏。

公司总部是在中国大陆注册成立的企业，客户主要来自于中国大陆。这家中国大陆企业在新加坡设有一家全资子公司，为其海外业务总部。新加坡子公司又在美国设有一家全资子公司（LLC）。这家美国LLC租赁位于美国的物理服务器，为北美地区托管SaaS业务。此外，新加坡子公司还全资控股一家德国有限责任公司（GmbH）服务欧盟市场，以及一家巴西有限责任公司（Sociedade limitada）服务南美市场。新加坡子公司直接负责东南亚和大洋洲业务。

美国LLC有少量员工负责管理美国的物理服务器。新加坡的员工负责销售、为客户提供运营和技术支持服务，以及海外业务的战略决策。中国大陆的员工负责软件开发、将软件部署到服务器上、提供持续的软件更新，并向新加坡子公司提供高级运营和技术支持。

海外客户与新加坡子公司签订合同并支付SaaS费用。新加坡子公司按成本加成的方式向美国LLC支付物理服务器管理费。新加坡子公司向中国大陆公司支付软件使用费和支持服务费。

US tax analysis

美国税务分析

The US LLC is a disregarded entity by default.[37]Its activities, income, and expenses are attributed to its owner, the Singapore company. The Singapore company limited by shares, German GmbH, and Brazilian Ltda are corporations by default.[38]They pay tax as separate entities from their owners.[39]

All 3 types of entities can elect to be disregarded.[40]For the sake of simplicity, assume that the Germany GmbH and the Brazilian Ltda elected to be disregarded under US tax law. Thus, for US tax analysis, it is as if the Singapore subsidiary were running the servers and paying local employees directly.

The fee that the Singapore subsidiary pays to the Chinese mainland company is considered a fee paid to a related third party, while the payments to the US, Brazilian, and German subsidiaries are disregarded as payments between branches of a single taxpayer.

The SaaS subscriptions are cloud transactions, because the predominant benefit that customers derive is the ability to remotely access and use the software hosted on the business’s servers. The subscriptions are substantially similar, because they are for the same SaaS.

Some of the subscription is US source, because the Singapore subsidiary (through the US LLC) rents servers that are physically located in the US, and those servers are used to provide SaaS to customers.

The tangible property factor consists of rent for the servers. The US source portion is the rent for the servers that are physically in the US.

The Singapore subsidiary pays compensation to its employees for technical and operational support to customers. The compensation belongs in the personnel factor. The US source portion is the compensation paid to the employees in the US, who maintain the US servers.

The payment to the Chinese mainland company is for more than 1 element:

• Royalties for the license to deploy the software on the Singapore subsidiary’s servers. The royalty element falls under the intangible property factor.
• Technical and operational support to deploy and run the software. The support element falls under the personnel factor.

For the intangible property factor, the US source portion is the total intangible property factor, multiplied by the compensation paid to US R&D personnel, divided by the compensation paid to all R&D personnel. The US source intangible property factor is 0, because there is no R&D in the US.

根据美国税法，美国LLC默认被视为“穿透实体”，其经营活动、收入和支出均归属于其所有者（新加坡公司）。而新加坡子公司、德国GmbH和巴西Ltda默认被视为独立纳税实体，但这三个主体也可选择被视为穿透实体。为简化分析，我们假设德国GmbH和巴西Ltda已选择按美国税法被视为穿透实体。因此，就美国税务分析而言，相当于新加坡子公司直接运营服务器并支付当地员工薪酬。新加坡子公司向中国大陆公司支付的费用被视为向关联第三方支付，而向美国、巴西和德国子公司的支付则被忽略。

该SaaS订阅服务属于云交易，因为客户获得的主要利益是远程访问和使用企业服务器上托管的软件。由于是同一SaaS产品，这些订阅服务具有高度相似性。

因为新加坡子公司（通过美国LLC）租用了位于美国境内的服务器，且这些服务器用于向客户提供SaaS服务，因此部分订阅收入将被视为美国来源收入。

有形资产因子包含服务器租金费用。美国来源部分为位于美国境内的服务器租金。

新加坡子公司向其员工支付客户技术和运营支持薪酬，这部分属于人员因子。美国来源部分为支付给美国服务器维护人员的薪酬。

新加坡子公司向中国大陆公司支付的费用包含两个要素：1）在新加坡子公司服务器上部署软件的许可使用费（特许权使用费）；2）部署和运行软件的技术和运营支持费用。特许权使用费要素属于无形资产因子，而支持服务要素属于人员因子。

对于无形资产因子，美国来源部分计算公式为：总无形资产因子×支付给美国研发人员的薪酬÷支付给所有研发人员的薪酬。由于没有研发活动在美国进行，美国来源无形资产因子为零。

An example with numbers

以具体数字为例

The chart below illustrates business C with numbers. The Chinese mainland revenue and expenses not included because the Chinese mainland company is considered a separate taxpayer from the Singapore subsidiary.

下表列示了具体数字示例（注：中国大陆公司的收入和费用未包含在内，因其被视为独立于新加坡子公司的纳税主体）：

Intuitively, we might expect the US source income to be close to the amount collected from US customers, but the US source income is lower by almost 1/3. To mitigate the risk that the IRS would challenge any assumptions, check alternative assumptions that can apportion income differently. One such assumption is the grouping of all transactions together. The regulations allow grouping, but only if doing so does not distort the source of income. Therefore, we should check the apportionment results with a different method of grouping transactions.

Another way to group the transactions is by customer location: We perform the same calculations as above, except we group the transactions by server region and separate US customers from other North American customers. The result of group by region is $10.08 million of US source income, about $300,000 lower than if we group worldwide transactions. The difference is not high enough to distort the source of income, so worldwide group is likely acceptable.

一般我们会认为美国来源收入应接近从美国客户处收取的金额，但该案例计算出的美国来源收入比公司来自于美国客户的收入低了近三分之一。美国国税局（IRS）可能要求核查是否存在导致收入来源失真的计算方法。当前采用的是将所有交易合并计算的方法。虽然法规允许这种做法，但前提是不能导致收入失真。

我们还可以采用另一种按客户所在地汇总的方法进行计算，即保持上述计算方式不变，但按服务器所在区域汇总交易数据，并将美国客户与其他北美客户分开计算。按区域汇总的结果显示美国来源收入为1008万美元，比全球汇总方法低了约30万美元。这一差异并不显著，因此可合理认为全球汇总方法是可以接受的。

（4）R&D center in the US

在美国设立研发中心

Extending the example with business C above, suppose the Singapore subsidiary performs R&D, and its R&D center is in the US. Some of the fee paid to the Chinese mainland company would be apportioned to the US under the intangible property factor, which can increase the US source income.

For the following example, assume that in addition to the setup above, the US LLC spends $2,000,000 on R&D employees who extend the capabilities of the software for overseas markets. The results are below.

延续前述C公司的案例，假设新加坡子公司开展研发活动且其研发中心设于美国。根据无形资产因子计算规则，新加坡子公司支付给中国大陆母公司的部分费用将被分摊至美国，这将增加美国来源收入。

在以下示例中，除原有架构外，假设美国LLC另投入200万美元用于海外市场软件功能拓展的研发人员支出。计算结果如下所示：

By opening a R&D center in the US, the business almost tripled its US source income, which is now almost double the amount of revenue from US customers. The new rules generally disfavor opening R&D centers in the US. If business C needs to open such an R&D center, it may want to do some tax planning first.

值得注意的是，设立美国研发中心导致企业美国来源收入增长近三倍，最终金额甚至达到美国客户收入的两倍。根据新规定，在美国设立研发中心通常会产生不利的税务影响。因此，如果C公司需要设立此类研发中心，需要先进行税收规划。

●注释：

[1]90 FR 2977; 90 FR 3075.

[2]26 CFR 1.861-18(b)(1).

[3]26 CFR 1.861-18, -19.

[4]26 CFR 1.861-19(a).

[5]26 CFR 1.861-18(b)(2), (3).

[6]26 CFR 1.861-18(b)(2), -19(c)(2).

[7]26 CFR 1.861-18(b)(3)(ii)(A), -19(c)(2).

[8]26 CFR 1.861-18(b)(3)(ii)(B).

[9]26 CFR 1.861-18(b)(b)(iii).

[10]26 CFR 1.861-19(b).

[11]26 CFR 1.861-19(b).

[12]26 CFR 1.861-19(c)(1).

[13]See 26 CFR 1.861-19(d)(11).

[14]See 26 CFR 1.861-19(d)(11).

[15]26 CFR 1.861-18(h)(19)(ii)(A).

[16]26 CFR 1.861-18(h)(19)(ii)(B).

[17]Prop. Reg. 1.861-19(d); 90 FR 3075, 3081.

[18]Prop. Reg. 1.861-19(d)(2)(i); 90 FR 3075, 3082.

[19]Prop. Reg. 1.861-19(d)(8); 90 FR 3075, 3083.

[20]Prop. Reg. 1.861-19(d)(2)(ii); 90 FR 3075, 3082.

[21]Prop. Reg. 1.861-19(d)(7); 90 FR 3075, 3082-3083.

[22]Prop. Reg. 1.861-19(d)(3)(i); 90 FR 3075, 3082.

[23]Prop. Reg. 1.861-19(d)(3)(iii); 90 FR 3075, 3082.

[24]Prop. Reg. 1.861-19(d)(3)(iv); 90 FR 3075, 3082.

[25]Prop. Reg. 1.861-19(d)(3)(i); 90 FR 3075, 3082.

[26]Prop. Reg. 1.861-19(d)(3)(i); 90 FR 3075, 3082.

[27]Prop. Reg. 1.861-19(d)(3)(ii); 90 FR 3075, 3082; 26 CFR 1.861-4(b)(2)(ii)(E).

[28]26 CFR 1.861-4(b)(2)(ii)(E).

[29]Prop. Reg. 1.861-19(d)(4)(i); 90 FR 3075, 3082.

[30]Prop. Reg. 1.861-19(d)(4)(ii); 90 FR 3075, 3082.

[31]26 USC 881(a).

[32]26 USC 881(a).

[33]26 USC 882(a).

[34]26 USC 882(a), 11.

[35]26 USC 864(c)(2).

[36]26 USC 864(c)(3).

[37]26 CFR 301.7701-3(b).

[38]26 CFR 301.7701-3(b).

[39]26 USC 301.

[40]26 CFR 301.7701-3(a), -2(b)(8).

特别声明：

大成律师事务所严格遵守对客户的信息保护义务，本篇所涉客户项目内容均取自公开信息或取得客户同意。全文内容、观点仅供参考，不代表大成律师事务所任何立场，亦不应当被视为出具任何形式的法律意见或建议。如需转载或引用该文章的任何内容，请私信沟通授权事宜，并于转载时在文章开头处注明来源。未经授权，不得转载或使用该等文章中的任何内容。

1. 钟昊申：美国开始对覆盖弃国者的赠与和遗产征税

本文作者

特别感谢北京市天元（广州）律师事务所律师罗力铭对本文的贡献。