Re: [新聞] 美國計畫對非公民海外匯款課徵5％消費稅已刪文

看板Stock (股票)作者Tradesque (交易事)時間10小時前 (2025/05/19 17:03)推噓0(0推 0噓 1→)

留言1則, 1人參與討論串14/16 (看更多)

※ 引述《maplefff (降息の恐怖嘎鱷)》之銘言： : ※ 引述《maplefff (降息の恐怖嘎鱷)》之銘言： : : 原文在 : : https://waysandmeans.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/SMITMO_017_xml.pdf : : 第327頁, SEC 111205, 以下原文以Open AI o3翻譯 : : ######START : : SEC. 112105. 匯款轉移消費稅 : : ------ : : （a）一般規定 : : 將第 36 章於子章 B 之後增列下列新子章： : : 「子章 C—匯款轉移『第 4475 節　課稅』 : : ------ : : 「第 4475 節　課稅」 : : （a）一般規定—— 對任何匯款轉移徵收相當於該筆轉移金額 5 ％之稅。 : 更新一下, 結論：是大家可以睡了, 美股投資匯回跟這個沒有關係 : 這個稅法影響得是類似paypal或是WISE之類的非傳統消費轉帳系統 : 《Reg E》§ 1005.3(c) Exclusions from coverage. : 明確排除 : 3. Similar fund transfer systems. Fund transfer systems that are similar : to Fedwire include the Clearing House Interbank Payments System (CHIPS), : Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT), : Telex, and transfers made on the books of correspondent banks. : SWIFT匯款屬於UCC 4A管制下的Wire transfer, 不是Remittance transfer 提案的原檔有標注定義的法源： (d) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this section, the terms ‘remittance transfer’, ‘remittance transfer provider’, ‘designated recipient’, and ‘sender’ shall each have the re- spective meanings given such terms by section 920(g) of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (15 U.S.C. 1693o-1; re- lating to ‘‘Remittance Transfers’’). 應該是要以1693o-1裡面的定義為主。而1693o-1的定義是這樣寫的： (g) Definitions As used in this section- (2) the term "remittance transfer"- (A) means the electronic (as defined in section 106(2) of the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (15 U.S.C. 7006(2))) transfer of funds requested by a sender located in any State to a designated recipient that is initiated by a remittance transfer provider, whether or not the sender holds an account with the remittance transfer provider or whether or not the remittance transfer is also an electronic fund transfer, as defined in section 1693a of this title; and (B) does not include a transfer described in subparagraph (A) in an amount that is equal to or lesser than the amount of a small-value transaction determined, by rule, to be excluded from the requirements under section 1693d(a) of this title; 單就這個提案和提案中對照到的法條來看，我的理解是沒有排除SWIFT。不過重點來了，今天預算委員會通過了第二次表決，這週還要送到眾議院全院表決表決通過了送到參議院同不同意提案的內容又是另一回事，這也會是很多攻防發生的地方，會不會有條件同意？還是直接否決？先前聽到的風向是參議院民主黨說要封殺這個草案，實際會怎樣也只能繼續關注對自己權益有影響的就多追蹤一下，沒影響的就隨便吧 -- ※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc), 來自: 220.129.200.84 (臺灣) ※ 文章網址: https://www.ptt.cc/bbs/Stock/M.1747645387.A.214.html