The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) of 2017 fundamentally altered the calculus for cross-border mergers and acquisitions, and the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), enacted July 4, 2025, has since rewritten the international tax rules again for tax years beginning after 2025. For Singapore, Hong Kong, and China-outbound founders looking to acquire US assets or expand operations through M&A, understanding the current post-OBBBA mechanics is critical. The reduction of the corporate tax rate to 21% and the shift toward a quasi-territorial tax system have changed how deals are structured, where value is trapped, and how holding companies should be designed.

The New Baseline: 21% Rate and FDDEI (Formerly FDII) Incentives

Prior to the TCJA, the US corporate tax rate of 35% made it a tax-inefficient jurisdiction to hold intellectual property (IP) or operating profits. The reduction to 21% immediately increased the after-tax cash flow of US targets, making them more expensive but more valuable assets. More importantly, the foreign-derived income incentive — originally FDII, renamed FDDEI (Foreign-Derived Deduction Eligible Income) by the OBBBA for tax years beginning after 2025 — provides a preferential effective tax rate of roughly 14% on income derived from selling goods or services abroad. This creates a unique opportunity for Asian founders acquiring US tech or manufacturing companies: by centralizing IP in a US holding company, you can benefit from this lower rate on global sales, provided the cross-border corporate structuring for SG and HK founders is executed correctly to avoid anti-abuse rules.

Structuring the Acquisition Vehicle: Direct vs. US HoldCo

The primary decision for any foreign buyer is whether to acquire the US target directly through a foreign parent (e.g., a Singapore Pte Ltd or Hong Kong Limited) or to establish a US holding company (typically a Delaware C-Corp) to act as the acquirer.

If you acquire the target directly, the US subsidiary pays 21% federal tax on its profits. When those profits are distributed as dividends to the foreign parent, they are subject to a 30% withholding tax unless a treaty reduces it — and here is the critical point: the United States has no income tax treaty with Singapore, and none with Hong Kong. There is no treaty-reduced rate for either jurisdiction, so dividends to a Singapore or Hong Kong parent face the full 30% withholding. Plan around this default — for example by realizing returns as capital gains rather than dividends, or by using the portfolio interest exemption for qualifying debt — and structure accordingly.

Conversely, using a US HoldCo allows for tax-free mergers under Section 368(a) if you plan to roll up other US assets in the future. It also positions the group to take advantage of the FDII regime. However, if your foreign parent (e.g., a BVI or Cayman entity) owns other low-tax subsidiaries, inserting a US HoldCo above them could trigger Net CFC Tested Income (NCTI, the OBBBA’s successor to GILTI) inclusions — with the QBAI exclusion repealed and a reduced §250 deduction, those foreign earnings are effectively taxed at roughly 12.6–14%. Therefore, the hierarchy of the entity chart is paramount.

Debt Financing and the 163(j) Limitation

Many cross-border deals are financed through debt, often via intragroup loans from the Asian parent to the US acquisition subsidiary. The TCJA introduced Section 163(j), which limits net interest expense deductions to 30% of adjusted taxable income (an EBITDA-based measure, permanently restored by the OBBBA after the earlier scheduled shift to EBIT was reversed). For highly leveraged acquisitions, this can result in a significant portion of interest payments being non-deductible, effectively increasing the tax burden on the US entity.

Founders must model the debt-to-equity ratio carefully. If the US entity is capital-heavy, you may need to structure the financing as equity contributions rather than third-party or related-party debt to preserve interest deductibility. This requires precise data analytics and financial modeling for cross-border groups to forecast EBITDA and ensure the interest cap is not breached during the critical post-acquisition integration phase.

Withholding Planning Without a Treaty

Because the United States has no income tax treaty with Singapore or Hong Kong, there are no treaty benefits — and no LOB test — to plan into for these jurisdictions. Dividends, interest, and royalties paid from the US to Singapore or Hong Kong entities default to 30% withholding. Withholding planning therefore relies on statutory routes: the portfolio interest exemption for qualifying debt, structuring income as non-US-source, or exiting via capital gains rather than dividend repatriation.

For China-outbound entrepreneurs, note that the US–China income tax treaty does remain in force, so a mainland Chinese parent with genuine substance may qualify for treaty rates — but routing payments through a Hong Kong or Singapore intermediary forfeits any treaty claim, since neither jurisdiction has a US treaty. Substance in the intermediary still matters for other reasons (banking, local tax residency, anti-conduit rules), but it cannot create US treaty benefits that do not exist. This is where international tax planning and US-China treaty optimization becomes a non-negotiable step in the due diligence phase.

Compliance Mechanics: ODI and Local Filings

Beyond US tax law, the mechanics of the outbound investment must be managed. For founders based in China, the acquisition requires approval through the MOFCOM and SAFE ODI (Outbound Direct Investment) procedures. The improved tax environment in the US strengthens the business case for these applications, but the capital validation process remains rigorous.

For Singapore founders, ACRA filings must be updated to reflect the acquisition of foreign assets, and IRAS may review the transfer pricing documentation of the intragroup loan funding the purchase. Hong Kong founders must navigate the IRD's requirements for declaring offshore income, ensuring that the US acquisition does not inadvertently trigger Hong Kong profits tax due to the "operation" test if local management is exercised there.

YZ CPA Advisory View

The TCJA, as reshaped by the OBBBA for tax years beginning after 2025, keeps the US a tax-efficient jurisdiction for holding global IP, but only if the structure is designed to avoid the NCTI (formerly GILTI) trap on legacy low-tax entities. For Singapore, Hong Kong, and China-outbound founders, the optimal post-reform structure typically involves a US HoldCo owning the IP and operating assets — and because the US has no income tax treaty with Singapore or Hong Kong, repatriation should be engineered around the default 30% withholding (capital-gain exits, portfolio-interest debt) rather than assumed treaty rates.

To discuss how these developments affect your cross-border operations, schedule a consultation with YZ CPA Advisory or explore our international tax planning and US-China treaty optimization service.

中文摘要

美国税改（TCJA）将企业税率降至21%，并引入FDII制度，使得美国成为跨境并购和持有知识产权的极具吸引力的司法管辖区。对于新加坡、香港及中国出海的创始人而言，直接收购与设立美国控股公司（HoldCo）的决策至关重要，需权衡 OBBBA 后的 NCTI（原 GILTI）规则、利息扣除限制（163(j)），以及美国与新加坡/香港之间没有税收协定、股息默认适用 30% 预提税的现实。合理的结构设计应利用美国低税率优势，并围绕无协定预提税安排利润回收（如资本利得退出、组合利息债权）。

2017年的《减税与就业法案》（TCJA）从根本上改变了跨境并购的计算逻辑，而2025年7月4日生效的《One Big Beautiful Bill Act》（OBBBA）又对2025年之后开始的纳税年度重写了国际税规则。对于寻求通过并购收购美国资产或扩大业务的新加坡、香港及中国出海创始人而言，理解 OBBBA 后的现行规则至关重要。企业税率降至21%以及向准属地税制的转变，改变了交易结构、价值锁定方式以及控股公司的设计。

新基准：21%税率与FDDEI（原FDII）激励政策

在TCJA之前，美国35%的企业税率使其成为持有知识产权（IP）或运营利润的税务低效管辖区。降至21%立即提高了美国标的公司的税后现金流，使其成为更昂贵但更有价值的资产。更重要的是，境外衍生收入激励——原 FDII，OBBBA 对2025年后开始的纳税年度将其更名为 FDDEI（Foreign-Derived Deduction Eligible Income）——为向国外销售商品或服务产生的收入提供约14%的优惠有效税率。这为收购美国科技或制造公司的亚洲创始人创造了独特机遇：通过将IP集中在美国控股公司，您可以利用全球销售的这一较低税率，前提是针对新加坡和香港创始人的跨境企业架构搭建必须正确执行，以避免反滥用规则。

架构收购载体：直接收购 vs. 美国控股公司

任何外国买方的主要决策在于：是通过外国母公司（例如新加坡Pte Ltd或香港有限公司）直接收购美国标的公司，还是建立美国控股公司（通常是Delaware C-Corp）作为收购方。

如果您直接收购标的公司，美国子公司需对其利润缴纳21%的联邦税。当这些利润作为股息分配给外国母公司时，需缴纳30%的预扣税，除非有税收协定降低该税率——而关键在于：美国与新加坡之间没有所得税协定，与香港之间也没有。两地均不存在协定优惠税率，支付给新加坡或香港母公司的股息将适用全额30%预提税。规划应以此为前提——例如以资本利得而非股息方式实现回报，或对合格债权利用组合利息豁免——并据此设计架构。

相反，如果您计划未来整合其他美国资产，使用美国控股公司允许根据第368(a)条进行免税合并。这也使集团处于利用FDII制度的有利位置。然而，如果您的外国母公司（例如BVI或开曼实体）拥有其他低税率子公司，在其之上插入美国控股公司可能会触发 NCTI（Net CFC Tested Income，OBBBA 对 GILTI 的更名）纳入规则——由于 QBAI 豁免被废除且 §250 扣除下调，这些外国收益的实际税率约为12.6%–14%。因此，实体架构图的层级至关重要。

债务融资与163(j)限制

许多跨境交易通过债务融资，通常通过亚洲母公司向美国收购子公司提供的集团内部贷款。TCJA引入了第163(j)条，将净利息支出扣除限制为调整后应税收入（以 EBITDA 为基础——OBBBA 已永久恢复该口径，此前拟转向 EBIT 的安排被撤销）的30%。对于高杠杆收购，这可能导致很大一部分利息支付无法扣除，从而有效增加美国实体的税务负担。

创始人必须仔细模拟债务权益比率。如果美国实体是资本密集型的，您可能需要将融资构建为股权出资，而不是第三方或关联方债务，以保留利息扣除能力。这需要针对跨境集团的精确数据分析与财务建模来预测EBITDA，并确保在关键的收购后整合阶段不突破利息上限。

无协定环境下的预提税规划

由于美国与新加坡、香港之间均没有所得税协定，对这两个辖区而言不存在可规划的协定优惠，也没有 LOB 测试。从美国支付给新加坡或香港实体的股息、利息和特许权使用费默认适用30%预提税。预提税规划因此依赖法定路径：对合格债权的组合利息豁免、将收入安排为非美国来源，或以资本利得而非股息汇回的方式退出。

对于中国出海企业家，须注意中美所得税协定仍然有效，具备真实实质的中国内地母公司可能符合协定税率——但若通过香港或新加坡中间实体收取款项，则会丧失任何协定主张，因为这两个辖区都没有与美国的税收协定。中间实体的实质在其他方面（银行开户、当地税务居民身份、反导管规则）仍然重要，但无法创造并不存在的美国协定优惠。这就是为什么国际税务规划与美中税收协定优化成为尽职调查阶段中不可或缺的一步。

合规机制：ODI与当地申报

除了美国税法，还必须管理对外投资的机制。对于在中国境内的创始人，收购需要通过MOFCOM和SAFE ODI（对外直接投资）程序获得批准。美国改善的税收环境加强了这些申请的商业理由，但资本验证过程仍然严格。

对于新加坡创始人，必须更新ACRA申报以反映对外国资产的收购，IRAS可能会审查资助购买的集团内部贷款的转让定价文档。香港创始人必须应对IRD关于申报离岸收入的要求，确保如果当地管理在香港进行，美国收购不会因“经营”测试而无意中触发香港利得税。

YZ CPA 顾问观点

经 OBBBA 对2025年后纳税年度的重塑，TCJA 框架下的美国仍是持有全球IP的税务高效管辖区，但前提是结构设计必须避免遗留低税率实体的 NCTI（原 GILTI）陷阱。对于新加坡、香港及中国出海创始人，改革后的最优结构通常涉及拥有IP和运营资产的美国控股公司——鉴于美国与新加坡、香港没有税收协定，利润回收应围绕默认30%预提税来设计（资本利得退出、组合利息债权），而非假定的协定税率。

要讨论这些发展如何影响您的跨境运营，请与YZ CPA顾问预约咨询或探索我们的国际税务规划与美中税收协定优化服务。

中文摘要

美国税改（TCJA）将企业税率降至21%，并引入FDII制度，使得美国成为跨境并购和持有知识产权的极具吸引力的司法管辖区。对于新加坡、香港及中国出海的创始人而言，直接收购与设立美国控股公司的决策至关重要，需权衡 OBBBA 后的 NCTI（原 GILTI）规则、利息扣除限制（163(j)），以及美国与新加坡/香港之间没有税收协定、股息默认适用 30% 预提税的现实。合理的结构设计应利用美国低税率优势，并围绕无协定预提税安排利润回收（如资本利得退出、组合利息债权）。

Reference: Background from International Tax Review. This is original YZ CPA Advisory analysis.