國(guó)家稅務(wù)總局有關(guān)負(fù)責(zé)人就《一般反避稅管理辦法（試行）》有關(guān)政策問題答記者問

2014年11月16日，國(guó)家主席習(xí)近平在澳大利亞布里斯班舉行的G20領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人第九次峰會(huì)第二階段會(huì)議討論世界經(jīng)濟(jì)抗風(fēng)險(xiǎn)能力議題時(shí)指出：“加強(qiáng)全球稅收合作，打擊國(guó)際逃避稅，幫助發(fā)展中國(guó)家和低收入國(guó)家提高稅收征管能力”。這是我國(guó)最高領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人首次在國(guó)際重大政治場(chǎng)合就稅收問題發(fā)表重要意見。隨后，為落實(shí)習(xí)主席“打擊國(guó)際逃避稅”的指示，國(guó)家稅務(wù)總局迅速行動(dòng)，發(fā)布了《一般反避稅管理辦法（試行）》（以下簡(jiǎn)稱“辦法”），進(jìn)一步規(guī)范和明確稅務(wù)機(jī)關(guān)采取一般反避稅措施的適用范圍、判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)、調(diào)整方法、工作程序、爭(zhēng)議處理等相關(guān)問題。近日，稅務(wù)總局有關(guān)負(fù)責(zé)人就《一般反避稅管理辦法（試行）》有關(guān)政策問題回答了記者提問。

記者：為什么要出臺(tái)《一般反避稅管理辦法（試行）》（以下簡(jiǎn)稱“辦法”）？

答：中國(guó)從2008年《企業(yè)所得稅法》開始引入一般反避稅條款，一般反避稅在中國(guó)尚屬較新的領(lǐng)域，目前《企業(yè)所得稅法》及其實(shí)施細(xì)則、《特別納稅調(diào)整實(shí)施辦法（試行）》等法律法規(guī)提供了一般反避稅管理的原則性規(guī)定，但是至今尚缺乏一套全面、綜合的管理辦法來規(guī)范各地稅務(wù)機(jī)關(guān)的操作流程和執(zhí)行標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。中國(guó)稅務(wù)機(jī)關(guān)在過去6年多的時(shí)間中，在一般反避稅調(diào)查方面，積累了一定的實(shí)踐經(jīng)驗(yàn)，同時(shí)也迫切感受到出臺(tái)一套統(tǒng)一管理辦法的必要性?！掇k法》旨在為一般反避稅條款提供詳細(xì)的程序操作指引，以便建立更加透明、統(tǒng)一和公平的一般反避稅機(jī)制。

記者：《辦法》的主要內(nèi)容是什么？

答：《辦法》進(jìn)一步明確了一般反避稅的適用范圍和判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，也明確了“稅收利益”的含義、“避稅安排”的主要特征等概念和問題，有助于稅務(wù)機(jī)關(guān)在實(shí)踐中更精準(zhǔn)地掌握啟動(dòng)一般反避稅的尺度。

此外，《辦法》還制定了一套嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)?shù)囊话惴幢芏惞芾沓绦?，貫穿立案、調(diào)查、結(jié)案三個(gè)階段，并對(duì)每個(gè)階段中不同層級(jí)稅務(wù)機(jī)關(guān)承擔(dān)的職能和權(quán)限作出詳細(xì)且具有操作性的規(guī)定，旨在通過嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)?shù)某绦騺肀ＷC一般反避稅措施能夠透明、公平和公正地執(zhí)行。《辦法》也賦予被調(diào)查企業(yè)提出異議、申請(qǐng)救濟(jì)、協(xié)調(diào)解決爭(zhēng)議等權(quán)利，切實(shí)保護(hù)了納稅人的合法權(quán)利。

記者：一般反避稅針對(duì)什么樣的避稅安排？

答：根據(jù)《企業(yè)所得稅法》第四十七條及其實(shí)施條例第一百二十條的規(guī)定，一般反避稅是針對(duì)企業(yè)實(shí)施的不具有合理商業(yè)目的而獲取稅收利益的安排。這里有兩個(gè)要素，一個(gè)是不具有合理商業(yè)目的，在評(píng)估一項(xiàng)安排的合理商業(yè)目的時(shí)，需要根據(jù)個(gè)案的具體情況，綜合考慮各方面因素，重點(diǎn)判斷該安排的經(jīng)濟(jì)實(shí)質(zhì)；另一個(gè)要素是獲取稅收利益，稅收利益包括減少、免除或者推遲繳納企業(yè)所得稅應(yīng)納稅額。當(dāng)然，不能僅僅因?yàn)橐豁?xiàng)安排獲取了稅收利益，就認(rèn)定其為一般反避稅安排，因?yàn)椤镀髽I(yè)所得稅法》為企業(yè)提供了法定的稅收優(yōu)惠，如果企業(yè)經(jīng)濟(jì)實(shí)質(zhì)符合《企業(yè)所得稅法》規(guī)定的相關(guān)條件而享受稅收優(yōu)惠政策的，不屬于一般反避稅的范疇。

此外，為便于基層稅務(wù)機(jī)關(guān)判定及納稅人自我評(píng)估，《辦法》也明確了避稅安排的主要特征：一是以獲取稅收利益為唯一目的或主要目的；二是以形式符合稅法規(guī)定但與其經(jīng)濟(jì)實(shí)質(zhì)不符的方式獲取稅收利益。

記者：《辦法》的適用范圍是針對(duì)所有的境內(nèi)以及跨境交易么？

答：《辦法》不適用于下面兩種情況：

一是與跨境交易或者支付無關(guān)的安排?？缇车谋芏惏才艜?huì)造成我國(guó)稅款的流失，而境內(nèi)交易的調(diào)整有可能會(huì)造成兩地之間重復(fù)征稅，因此境內(nèi)交易不是我們關(guān)注的重點(diǎn)，現(xiàn)階段本《辦法》只針對(duì)跨境交易或支付。

二是涉嫌逃避繳納稅款、逃避追繳欠稅、騙稅、抗稅以及虛開發(fā)票等稅收違法行為。這些違法行為應(yīng)根據(jù)《稅收征收管理法》的相關(guān)規(guī)定處理。

記者：《特別納稅調(diào)整實(shí)施辦法（試行）》第九十二條也提到了應(yīng)當(dāng)啟動(dòng)一般反避稅調(diào)查的避稅安排的范圍，和《辦法》里的相關(guān)規(guī)定有何聯(lián)系？

答：本《辦法》和現(xiàn)有的政策相輔相成，形成了一個(gè)完整的一般反避稅法規(guī)體系?！镀髽I(yè)所得稅法》及其實(shí)施細(xì)則和《特別納稅調(diào)整實(shí)施辦法（試行）》為一般反避稅條款的適用提出了原則性規(guī)定，本《辦法》在工作層面明確了啟動(dòng)一般反避稅調(diào)查程序的具體判定要件，是對(duì)現(xiàn)有政策相關(guān)條款的細(xì)化和解釋。稅務(wù)機(jī)關(guān)和納稅人應(yīng)當(dāng)結(jié)合整個(gè)法規(guī)體系提供的原則性規(guī)定來綜合考量。

記者：一般反避稅通常是在什么情況下啟用的？如何看待它和其它反避稅條款的關(guān)系？

答：《企業(yè)所得稅法》第六章規(guī)定了一系列反避稅措施，包括轉(zhuǎn)讓定價(jià)、資本弱化、成本分?jǐn)偂⑹芸赝鈬?guó)企業(yè)等，這些條款分別針對(duì)一些特定的避稅安排。企業(yè)的避稅安排如果屬于這些反避稅條款調(diào)整范疇時(shí)，應(yīng)首先適用該反避稅條款的相關(guān)規(guī)定。只有當(dāng)一項(xiàng)避稅安排不能夠適用任何一項(xiàng)具體反避稅條款時(shí)，我們才會(huì)啟用一般反避稅條款。也就是說，一般反避稅條款是窮盡所有其他的反避稅措施后的最后手段。

記者：一旦啟用一般反避稅條款，如何進(jìn)行調(diào)整？

答：一旦啟用一般反避稅條款，稅務(wù)機(jī)關(guān)應(yīng)以具有合理商業(yè)目的和經(jīng)濟(jì)實(shí)質(zhì)的類似安排為基準(zhǔn)，按照實(shí)質(zhì)重于形式的原則實(shí)施特別納稅調(diào)整。調(diào)整方法包括重新定性安排的全部或者部分交易；在稅收上否定交易方的存在，或者將該交易方與其他交易方視為同一實(shí)體；對(duì)相關(guān)所得、扣除、稅收優(yōu)惠、境外稅收抵免等重新定性或者在交易各方間重新分配；或其他合理方法。

記者：哪一層級(jí)的稅務(wù)機(jī)關(guān)擁有決定一般反避稅立案調(diào)查和結(jié)案的權(quán)限？

答：考慮到一般反避稅案件的復(fù)雜性，一般反避稅的立案調(diào)查和最終結(jié)案都需要經(jīng)過稅務(wù)總局的批準(zhǔn)。主管稅務(wù)機(jī)關(guān)的立案申請(qǐng)，以及不予調(diào)整或初步、最終調(diào)整方案都需要分別層報(bào)省級(jí)稅務(wù)機(jī)關(guān)復(fù)核同意后，報(bào)稅務(wù)總局審核決定。這與現(xiàn)有的政策規(guī)定也是一致的。

記者：基層稅務(wù)機(jī)關(guān)在整個(gè)一般反避稅程序中，行使怎樣的職能和權(quán)限？

答：基層主管稅務(wù)機(jī)關(guān)應(yīng)結(jié)合企業(yè)所得稅匯算清繳、納稅評(píng)估、同期資料管理、對(duì)外支付稅務(wù)管理、股權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓交易管理、稅收協(xié)定執(zhí)行等工作，及時(shí)發(fā)現(xiàn)一般反避稅案源。發(fā)現(xiàn)企業(yè)存在避稅嫌疑的，層報(bào)省級(jí)稅務(wù)機(jī)關(guān)復(fù)核同意后，報(bào)稅務(wù)總局申請(qǐng)立案。在調(diào)查階段，主管稅務(wù)機(jī)關(guān)審核企業(yè)、籌劃方、關(guān)聯(lián)方以及與關(guān)聯(lián)業(yè)務(wù)調(diào)查有關(guān)的其他企業(yè)提供的資料，可以采用現(xiàn)場(chǎng)調(diào)查、發(fā)函協(xié)查和查閱公開信息等方式核實(shí)。主管稅務(wù)機(jī)關(guān)根據(jù)調(diào)查過程中獲得的相關(guān)資料，自稅務(wù)總局同意立案之日起9個(gè)月內(nèi)進(jìn)行審核評(píng)估，綜合判斷企業(yè)是否存在避稅安排，形成案件不予調(diào)整或初步、最終調(diào)整方案的意見和理由，層報(bào)稅務(wù)總局結(jié)案。

記者：在一般反避稅案件的整個(gè)立案、調(diào)查和結(jié)案過程中，被調(diào)查企業(yè)能否提出異議維護(hù)企業(yè)權(quán)益？

答：當(dāng)一般反避稅案件立案后，被調(diào)查企業(yè)會(huì)收到《稅務(wù)檢查通知書》，此時(shí)企業(yè)可以在60日內(nèi)（或申請(qǐng)延期）提供資料說明安排的商業(yè)目的等信息，證明其稅收安排不屬于避稅安排。在結(jié)案階段，被調(diào)查企業(yè)如果對(duì)《特別納稅調(diào)查初步調(diào)整通知書》存在異議的，可以在7日內(nèi)提出異議，之所以提出這些時(shí)限要求，一方面是為了保證案件的高效處理，另一方面也是為了督促企業(yè)做好日常稅務(wù)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)內(nèi)控和合規(guī)工作。被調(diào)查企業(yè)對(duì)稅務(wù)機(jī)關(guān)做出的一般反避稅調(diào)整決定不服的，還可以按照有關(guān)法律法規(guī)的規(guī)定申請(qǐng)法律救濟(jì)。

記者：《辦法》是否適用于境外間接股權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓？

答：如果境外間接股權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓存在一般反避稅規(guī)范的避稅安排，本《辦法》也適用于境外間接股權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓。

On 16 November 2014 when discussing on the topic of strengthening the world economy's anti-risk capacity at the Second Phase of 9th G20 Leaders' Summit held in Brisbane, Australia, China’s President Xi Jinping pointed out that “efforts should be made to reinforce the international collaboration on tax matters, to crack down on cross-border tax avoidance and evasion, and to help developing countries and low-income countries improve their capabilities of tax collection and administration.” It is the first time that tax matters were noted in an important statement by China’s paramount leader in such a high-profile international political context. To act upon President Xi’s direction to “crack down on international tax avoidance and evasion”, China’s State Administration of Taxation (“SAT”) has responded immediately, and has released the Administrative Measures on the General Anti-Avoidance Rule (Trial) (the “Measures”) to further regulate and clarify various matters relating to application of the general anti-avoidance rule (“GAAR”), such as the applicable scope, judging criteria, adjustment methods, working procedures, dispute resolutions when employing GAAR measures. The in-charge SAT officials recently replied to regulation-related questions from the press on the Measures.

Question 1(“Q1”): What motivates the release of the Administrative Measures on the General Anti-Avoidance Rule (Trial) (“the Measures”)?

Answer 1 (“A1”): While GAAR was first introduced into China’s Corporate Income Tax (CIT) Law in 2008, it is still a relatively new concept in China. Although the CIT Law and its Detailed Implementation Rules (“DIRs”), together with the Implementation Measures on Special Tax Adjustments (Trial), provide the principles for GAAR application, a set of comprehensive administrative measures has long been absent to regulate local tax authorities’ operation procedures and enforcement standards across the country until the release of the Measures. During the last six years or so, the Chinese tax authorities have gathered some practical experience in administering GAAR in examination, and have found an increasingly pressing need to introduce a set of coordinated administrative measures. The Measures are intended to provide a detailed set of guidelines for GAAR application, in order to build up a more transparent, consistent and fair GAAR framework.

Q2: What are the key elements in the Measures?

A2: The Measures further clarify the applicable scope and judgment criteria of GAAR. They also clarify some critical definitions and issues, such as the definition of “tax benefit” and the major features of a “tax avoidance arrangement”. These should provide clear guidance to the tax authorities on when GAAR should be invoked in practice.

The Measures provide a set of sound procedures, covering all phases of GAAR administration, from case selection, examination, to conclusion. They also provide sound procedural rules setting out the roles and responsibilities of tax authorities at different levels in each phase to ensure transparent and fair implementation of GAAR. In addition, they provide taxpayers with the right to raise evidence, file objections, and apply for relieves as well as dispute resolutions so as to protect their legitimate rights.

Q3: What kind of tax avoidance arrangements should be subject to GAAR?

A3: According to Article 47 of the CIT Law and Article 120 of its DIRs, any tax avoidance arrangement intended to obtain a tax benefit without reasonable commercial purpose should be subject to GAAR. There are two key elements involved here: one being “without reasonable commercial purpose”, which calls for a comprehensive consideration based on the specific facts of each individual case with a key focus on evaluating the economic substance of such an arrangement; the other being “to obtain a tax benefit”, which means to obtain any reduction, exemption or deferral of CIT payable. The fact that a tax advantage has been obtained does not necessarily make an arrangement subject to GAAR. This is because the CIT Law itself offers legitimate tax incentives to enterprises. If the economic substance of an enterprise satisfies the relevant conditions for a preferential tax policy under the CIT Law and it enjoys that tax benefit as a result, it should not be subject to GAAR.

In addition, to facilitate the assessment by local tax authorities and self-assessment by taxpayers, the Measures also specify the following two major features of a “tax avoidance arrangement”:

1) obtaining a tax benefit is the sole purpose, or the main purpose; and

2) the tax benefit is obtained by using a scheme which is not consistent with its economic substance even though its form may be permissible in accordance with the tax laws.

Q4: Are the Measures applicable to all types of domestic and cross-border transactions?

A4: The Measures are not applicable to the following two scenarios:

1) Arrangements not involving cross-border transaction or payment. Cross-border tax avoidance arrangements may lead to the loss of China’s tax revenue, while the tax adjustments to solely domestic transactions may result in domestic double taxation for the two locations concerned in China. Thus, domestic transactions are not our key focus. The Measures only target cross-border transactions or payments at the moment.

2) Illegal tax behaviors potentially related to avoiding tax payments, avoiding paying taxes due for recovery claim from tax authorities, cheating on taxes payable, refusing to pay taxes and provide forged tax invoices. These violations should be dealt with by the relevant provisions in the Tax Collection and Administration Law.

Q5: Article 92 of the Implementation Measures on Special Tax Adjustments (Trial) also sets out the scope of tax avoidance schemes subject to GAAR. What is the connection between Article 92 and the relevant provisions in the Measures?

A5: The Measures and the existing policies are complementary to each other, and they together form a comprehensive GAAR framework. The CIT Law and its DIRs together with the Implementation Measures on Special Tax Adjustments (Trial) provide the principles for the application of GAAR, while the Measures are to elaborate and explain the relevant provisions of existing policies and to provide detailed assessment criteria for invoking GAAR procedures in practice. Tax authorities and taxpayers should consider the principles under the entire GAAR framework in totality.

Q6: Under what circumstances should GAAR be evoked? How do you see its interactions with other anti-tax avoidance provisions?

A6: Chapter 6 of the CIT Law sets forth a series of anti-tax avoidance measures, including transfer pricing, thin capitalization, cost sharing, controlled foreign corporations, etc. These measures are formulated to target specific tax avoidance schemes respectively and should be applied first in the event that the scheme falls into one of these categories respectively. GAAR should only be evoked if a tax avoidance arrangement is properly dealt with by any of the other specific anti-tax avoidance measures. In other words, GAAR should be the last resort to counter tax avoidance schemes when all other anti-avoidance tools are exhausted.

Q7: How to make special tax adjustment once GAAR is invoked?

A7: Once GAAR is invoked, tax authorities are empowered to make special tax adjustments in accordance with the principle of “substance over form” by referring to similar arrangements with a reasonable commercial purpose and economic substance as the benchmark. The adjustment methods include re-characterizing the arrangement in part or entirely; disregarding the existence of a party to the transaction for tax purposes, or deem this party and the other party to the transaction as the same, one entity; relevant income, deduction, tax incentives and foreign tax credits etc. will be re-characterized or re-allocated among parties to the transaction; or any other reasonable methods.

Q8: Which level of tax authority is authorized to establish and conclude a GAAR case?

A8: Considering the complexity of GAAR cases, both the selection and final conclusion of cases are subject to the SAT’s approval. In-charge tax authority’s application to initiate a GAAR case, the proposal of making no adjustment, along with the preliminary opinion and final opinion for any adjustments should all be reported upwards, step by step, to the provincial-level tax authorities for their review and consensus, which then in turn are further submitted to the SAT for final assessment and determination. This is in line with the current regulations.

Q9: What are the roles and responsibilities of the different levels of tax authorities throughout the GAAR procedures?

A9: Local-level tax authorities should timely identify potential cases for GAAR examination when dealing with corporate income tax filing, tax assessment, contemporaneous documentation review, tax clearance for outbound payments, tax administration of equity transfer transactions and implementation of tax treaties etc.

Where the in-charge tax authority discovers that an enterprise is suspicious of tax avoidance, it shall report the case upwards through different levels to the provincial-level tax authorities for their review and consensus, who in turn further submit it to the SAT for approval to initiate the case for GAAR examination.

In reviewing the information provided by the enterprise, planning advisor, related parties and any other parties involved in a related party transaction examination, the in-charge tax authority may validate the information via field examination, requesting for joint examination with other in-charge tax authorities with formal written requests, or utilize publicly available information etc. Within nine months after SAT’s approval to initiate the case, the in-charge tax authority should, based on the information obtained from the examination, evaluate and assess the case, determine in totality whether the enterprise is involved in a tax avoidance scheme, whether the case should be subject to no adjustment or with an adjustment, the preliminary or final proposal together with the underlying reasons for the adjustment, and report gradually upwards to the SAT to conclude the case.

Q10: Throughout the process of case selection, examination and conclusion of a GAAR case, is it possible for the enterprise under examination to propose a different idea to safeguard its due rights and interests?

A10: Once a GAAR case is initiated, the enterprise being examined receives a “Tax Examination Notice”. The enterprise can provide information to the in-charge tax authority, within 60 days upon receiving the Notice (applicable to application for submission extension), explaining the commercial purpose of the scheme and demonstrating that it is not a tax avoidance scheme. Before the case is concluded, the enterprise being examined can respond in writing within seven days upon receiving the Preliminary Adjustment Notice for Special Tax Adjustment Examination (“Preliminary adjustment”) if it disagrees with the preliminary adjustment. The above timeline requirements are intended, on one hand, to ensure the efficient application of the GAAR procedures to the case and, on the other hand, to promote a better tax internal control and compliance within taxpayers.

Where the enterprise being examined disagrees with the GAAR assessment made by the in-charge tax authorities, it can apply for legal relief in accordance with the relevant laws and regulations.

Q11: Will the Measures also be applicable to indirect offshore equity transfer?

A11: If an indirect offshore equity transfer involves tax avoidance arrangements subject to GAAR, the Measures are also applicable.