NO.PZ202304050100008502
问题如下：
(2) Eriksson mentions that Trana is undertaking a comprehensive review of its operations in 2016, and its objectives include reducing overall tax costs by lowering its effective tax rate and reducing foreign exchange gains and losses reported on the income statement.
Which of the following strategies would be most likely to help Trana achieve at least one of the objectives mentioned by Eriksson for 2016?
选项：
A.
Raise the price at which Anart sells its goods to other group members
B.
Increase the number of stores in the US region
C.
Initiate a hedge on the net asset position of the eurozone subsidiary
解释：
A is correct. Anart operates in a South American country with the lowest tax rate of the group—10% versus 25% in the United States, 30% in the eurozone, and 22% (or 16.5%) in Sweden. If more of the corporate profits are earned by Anart, the effective tax rate will decrease.
Anart currently earns a return of 204/4,485 = 4.5%, whereas the overall corporate profit rate is 10.3% (3,096/30,200).
Any income taxed in South America would be eligible for a tax credit in Sweden, and Trana would be liable for the tax difference between the local 10% rate and the rate in Sweden (22% or 16.5%).
To the extent that taxable income can be diverted from the US or eurozone operations (where the rates are higher than Sweden’s), it would result in an overall tax saving for Trana.
By increasing the price at which Anart sells goods to the US and eurozone subsidiaries, it would increase the taxable income earned in South America and reduce the taxable income (through higher cost of goods sold) in the United States and the eurozone. Because of the tax treaty with Sweden, there would be no net tax savings on the goods sold to US and eurozone stores by Anart if the prices change.
Because both retail subsidiaries are translated using the current rate method, all foreign exchange gains/losses are reported in other comprehensive income not on the income statement. Therefore, the effects of hedging the exposure in the Eurozone subsidiary would also be reported in other comprehensive income and not affect the income statement. Increasing the number of stores in the US would increase the amount of income in the highest tax jurisdiction and hence increase taxes, not lower them.
B is incorrect. Increasing the number of stores in the US region will not affect the tax rate, but would increase taxable income because the tax rate there is greater than in Sweden and would not affect foreign exchange gains and losses on the income statement because it is self-sustaining, and the gains and losses go to other comprehensive income.
C is incorrect. The eurozone subsidiary is also self-sustaining, and any effect of hedging its net asset position would go to other comprehensive income, not net income. The eurozone’s taxes are higher than in Sweden, so there would be no lowering of taxes either.
老师好，前面同学的问题回复，还是没理解
后再看两种情况：
1，是美国这个子公司提高售价，此时美国公司这里的利润增加因而税前利润更高，但是由于税率低，税费交的会比集团层面实现同样的利润交的税更低
２，美国这个子公司售价很低，导致美国税前利润很少，再加上税率低，税费几乎可以忽略，但是集团层面保留的大量的税前利润，加上税率高，交的税费就会更高
首先，美国这个子公司不管提高售价还是降低售价，针对的都是集团内的其他子公司，也就是内部交易。
所以很难理解，集团为了降低税，让美国子公司调整内部交易售价的合理性到底在哪里：
1，美国子公司提高售价，税前利润的提高，完完全全是以其他子公司提高成本为代价来提高的，而税和税前利润的提高是成比例的。
假设美国子公司原售价200元，税前利润是100元，税是13%，那么应该交税13元；现在美国子公司售价300元，税前利润200元，应该交税26元，即使税率相比其他国家再低，实际上交的税还是更高了，而且是在增加其他子公司成本的前提下，属于费力不讨好，并没有减低交税，而且增加了交税。让其他子公司承担提高售价的成本的行为，也无法让集团层面实现同样的利润。
2，美国子公司降低售价，一样也没意义。
【就是整个题，实际上并不能降低集团层面的税，反而提高的其他子公司的成本。提高了售价还需要额外交税，交的税应该是更高了而不是更低了】。
除非这个题目变为：同样一个商品，更多的用子公司去销售，而非用母公司，这样回答中：“由于税率低，税费交的会比集团层面实现同样的利润交的税更低“的这句话才成立。
或者变为：同样一个商品，母公司给子公司提升售价，和子公司给母公司提升售价，哪个更税更低，也能勉强说得过去。
但是单独让美国子公司提高售价，来降低税，实在是理解不了。
