臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本文以民國102年至104年股東可扣抵稅額減半實施前後之台灣上市及上櫃公司為樣本，針對股東可扣抵稅額減半實施對公司股利政策及股東持股型態所產生的影響，進一步探討下列三點：(1)是否會因部分股利所得重複課稅，造成公司選擇將部份盈餘保留而減少發放股利予股東之現象。(2)股東稅負壓力不同的公司，在減半後其股利政策的調整是否會有所不同。(3)股東是否會利用個人股東與法人股東之課稅規定差異而改變其持股型態以節省稅負。研究結果顯示，未依股東稅負壓力將公司分群時，股利支付率並未因股東可扣抵稅額減半實施而減少，反而顯著增加。但以股東稅負壓力角度切入並將公司分群時，發現股東可扣抵稅額越大(股東稅負壓力越高)之公司，其股利支付率在股東可扣抵稅額減半實施後顯著減少。同時，高法人股東持股比率(股東稅負壓力低)之公司，其股利支付率較減半實施前顯著增加。實證結果說明：(1)股東稅負壓力不同，在稅制變革時之股利政策調整會有所差異。(2)高法人股東持股比率之公司在增稅時，其股利支付較穩定。(3)減半實施後，個人股東為節省稅負而有將其持股轉為稅負壓力較低之法人型態的現象。

In 2015, the amended Income Tax Law was enforced. In this paper, we take Taiwan listed companies and OTC companies as our samples from 2013 to 2015, and focus on the impact of the halved imputation credit on corporate dividend policies and shareholders’ holding types to discuss the following issues: (1) Do companies retain their earnings and reduce dividends due to the partial double taxation of dividends? (2) Do companies under the different tax burden adjust their dividend policies in different ways? (3) Do shareholders change their holding types to avoid tax through the different tax burden between individual shareholders and corporate shareholders?
The results show “ the dividend payout ratio significantly increases after the halved imputation credit was implemented” when not grouping companies into different shareholders’ tax burden levels. However, as we expected, when grouping companies into the different shareholders’ tax burden levels and being in view of the tax burden, dividend payout ratio is negatively related to imputation tax credit (high tax burden) and is positively related to the proportion of corporate shareholders (low tax burden). The analyses of the results are as follows: (1) Companies under the different tax burden adjust their dividend policies in different ways when the amended Income Tax Law was enforced. (2) As a company is with the high proportion of corporate shareholders, its dividend payout ratio remains steady when shareholders’ tax burden increases. (3) Individual shareholders change their holding types to corporate shareholders to avoid tax after the halved imputation credit.

口試委員會審定書 i
摘要 ii
Abstract iii
目錄 iv
圖目錄 v
表目錄 vi
第一章 研究動機與目的 1
第二章 文獻回顧 4
第三章 研究方法 8
第一節 研究假說 8
第二節 研究期間與樣本 15
第三節 研究模型與變數定義 15
第四章 實證結果與分析 20
第一節 敘述性統計分析 20
第二節 迴歸分析之實證結果 22
第三節 額外分析 34
第五章 結論與建議 38
第一節 結論 38
第二節 建議 39
參考文獻 42

王元章(2001)，「內部人持股、風險、股利、負債、投資與公司價值」，證券市場發展期刊，第13卷第3期。

汪瑞芝、陳明進(2004)， 「兩稅合一制前後上市公司股利發放之實證研究」，管理學報，第21卷第2期。

林世銘、楊朝旭(1994)，「上市公司營利事業所得稅負擔之研究」，財稅研究，第 26 卷第6 期。

洪榮華、曾子耘、林聖傑(2006)，「從股東稅負壓力探討兩稅合一對股利政策之影響」，輔仁管理評論，第13卷第一期。

馬孝璿(1999)，「兩稅合一制對我國集團企業股利政策之衝擊」，財稅研究，第31卷第6期。

陳正芳(2013)，「營利事業所得稅稅率調降對公司股利政策之影響」，臺灣銀行季刊第64卷第1期。

陳妙玲、葉秀鳳(2002)，「兩稅合一對於高科技產業股利政策之影響」，財稅研究，第34卷第2期。

黃瑞靜、徐守德、廖四郎(2001)，「兩稅合一對公司價值、股利政策與資本結構之影響-動態資本結構模型之應用與台灣產業的實證研究」，管理評論，第20卷第2期。

闕河士、黃旭輝(1997)，「成長機會與股票股利關係之實證研究 - 代理問題觀點」，管理與資訊學報，第2期。

Alli, K. L, A. Q. Khan, and G. G. Ramirez (1993), “Determinants of Corporate Dividend Policy: A Factorial Analysis”, Financial Review, (28).

Bhattacharya, S. (1979), “Imperfect Information, Dividend Policy, and the Bird in the Hand Fallacy”, Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science, (10).

Crutchley, C. E., M. R. H. Jensen, J. S. Jahera, Jr., J. E. Raymond(1999), “Agency Problems and the Simultaneity of Financial Decision Making the Role of Institutional Ownership”, International Review of Financial Analysis, (8).

Farrar, D. and L. Selwyn (1967), “Taxes, Corporate Financial Policy and Return to Investors”, National Taxes Journal, (20).

Greene, W.H. (1990), “Econometric Analysis”, New York: MaCmillan Publishing Company.

Koch, P. D. and C. Shenoy(1999), “The Information Content and Dividend and Capital Structure Policies”, Financial Management, (28).

Miller, M. and F. Modigliani(1961), “Dividend Policy, Growth and the Valuation of Shares”, Journal of Business, (34).

Rozeff, M. S.(1982), “Growth, Beta and Agency Cost as Determinants of Payout Ratios”, Journal of Financial Research, (5).

Smith, C. W. and R. L. Watts(1992), “The Investment Opportunity Set and Corporate Financing, Dividend, and Compensation Policies”, Journal of Financial Economics, (32).