With the exception of property tax, perhaps the most controversial tax in Taiwan is the capital gains tax. It distinguishes itself in the way it has been a story of stops and starts, it has never been properly implemented and nothing has ever come of all the effort put into it. All the stops and starts have been damaging for the government and the public’s faith in it.
There are three types of securities taxes.
First, there is the tax on the gains made from buying and selling securities, generally known as the capital gains tax. This includes the tax on gains made from the first time shares are sold on the market, referred to as the initial public offering (IPO) tax.
Second, there is the tax on cash or stock dividends generated by share holdings within a portfolio, which is included as part of the overall income tax.
Third, there is securities transactions tax, also known as stamp duty.
There have been at least three attempts to levy a capital gains tax in Taiwan since a centralized trading market was established.
The first attempt was, according to former head of the Industrial Development Bureau Wang Ya-kang (汪雅康), scrapped at the time because of a slew of technical problems and was replaced in amended form, incorporated as part of a securities transactions tax. This was a practical arrangement that made a significant contribution to the stock market and tax revenue.
Then, in September 1988, the Ministry of Finance announced that it was planning to levy a capital gains tax the following year.
The market reacted to this news by closing limit down for the next 19 days, even though the government halved the securities transactions tax after the new tax was implemented in an attempt to soften the blow.
The result of this attempt was a return to square one, scrapping the tax on income from stock in non-listed companies in the process.
The third attempt at a capital gains tax was the reintroduction of the tax through legislation passed in April 2012.
The tax included a rather unique clause that placed a lid on levying the tax if the TAIEX fell below a 8,500-point threshold, which gave a strong impression that this tax was not yet ready for implementation.
Sure enough, in June 2013, the law was revised to include the similarly curious “big investors clause,” according to which, a 0.1 percent tax would be levied on the portion of investments of big investors that exceeded NT$1 billion (US$30.63 million) in a year. Legislators appear to have a blind spot when it comes to this tax.
Consider some of the problems.
First, with the exception of the UK, all of the major nations in the world that levy a capital gains tax have, at different times, did not levy a securities transactions tax.
Second, all of the nations that levy a capital gains tax have measures in place to offset losses.
In Japan, investors can carry capital gains forward for up to three years and use them to offset losses for the next three years. The tax rate is levied as separate taxation, that is, at a rate of 15 percent, with an additional 5 percent residence tax. However, Japan does not levy a securities transactions tax.
The US does not levy a securities transactions tax, either, but it does levy a capital gains tax of between zero and 39.6 percent, depending on the length of time the securities were held and the tax bracket the individual is in.
It also allows losses to be carried forward to subsequent years. The nominal top corporate tax rate is quite high at 35 percent, but it can be offset toward losses for the following three years.
South Korea only levies capital gains tax on major shareholders with stock holdings of more than 3 percent of a company, and the South Korean government is not concerned with investors making large volume transactions.
In Hong Kong and Singapore, capital gains tax does not really exist. In Hong Kong, both parties to a transaction are subject to a transactions tax of 0.1 percent, whereas transactions are tax exempt in Singapore.
It is evident that there exists a problem in levying a capital gains tax in Taiwan.
First, the government wants to be seen to be levying a capital gains tax, which seems to be a fair and just way to obtain tax revenue, but at the same time, is reluctant to scrap its beloved tax on securities transactions.
Second, it discriminates against big investors, a rare thing anywhere in the world.
Third, it does not want to give serious consideration to allowing gains to be offset against future losses for a certain number of years.
Finally, taxes should of course be levied on IPO income. This tax was removed in connection to a 1989 tax reform, and it would only be reasonable to now introduce a minimum tax.
Those who advocate taxation according to the ability to pay as a sign of fairness and justice should take a look at how much revenue European nations, the US and Japan have received from their capital gains tax over the past decade.
If they, like Taiwan, could have tax revenues upward of NT$100 billion every year from their capital gains tax, they probably would not hesitate to abandon demands that the capital gains tax meet fairness and justice requirements.
Schive Chi, a former minister without portfolio and chairman of Taiwan Stock Exchange Corp, is a visiting professor at Shih Hsin University.
Translated by Paul Cooper and Perry Svensson
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under