Contents I. Latest News P.1 II. Recent Events P.2-5 III. Seminars Recent Seminars P.6 Forth-coming Seminars & Events P.7 IV. Tax Updates (A) Hong Kong

Transcription

1 2015 ISSUE No. 013

2 Contents I. Latest News P.1 II. Recent Events P.2-5 III. Seminars Recent Seminars P.6 Forth-coming Seminars & Events P.7 IV. Tax Updates (A) Hong Kong Tax Updates P (B) International Tax Updates P (C) PRC Tax Updates P Editorial Team Editor-in-Chief Editors Ho Chi Ming Jeremy Choi Patrick Kwong Vincent Lo Webster Ng Percy Wong Publisher The Taxation Institute of Hong Kong 21 Floor, Kam Sang Building, Des Voeux Road Central, Hong Kong Tel: (852) Fax: (852) Website: Disclaimer: The information provided by The Taxation Institute of Hong Kong (the Institute ) on this newsletter is for general information and reference only. Whilst the Institute will keep the contents of this newsletter accurate and up-to-date, no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, is given as to the accuracy and completeness of the information. The views expressed by contributors to this Newsletter are the personal views of the contributors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Institute. Neither the Institute nor any contributor or the editors shall assume liability for any statement, opinion or advice contained in this Newsletter. In no event shall the Institute, its members and council members be liable for any loss and damages arising from or related to the use of the contents of this newsletter.

3 President s Message Dear fellow members, It is a great honour and privilege for me to be elected as the President of the Taxation Institute of Hong Kong for the year Founded in 1972, our institute aims at promoting the study of taxation, providing venue for the exchange of taxation knowledge as well as enhancing the standard of tax professionals. As a responsible and professional institute of Hong Kong, we have gone beyond the designated goal and is now pacing ourselves to involve in the society in various aspects. With business globalization, it becomes more challenging for our fellow tax practitioners and business owners to manage their tax. Taxpayers are required to understand the tax policy of their own countries; yet it is essential for them to understand the tax policy where they operate and do trade with. In the recent years, governments are showing their concerns on the loss of tax revenue caused by the gaps created by the different policies. The issue is complicated by the new form of business for which the existing tax policies do not cater. Changes on the international tax policy and potential changes on local policy are expected promptly due to this external drive. Therefore, prepping ourselves for the unforeseeable future is crucial to maintain our competitiveness. In the coming year, the focus of our institute will be: 1) To promote the study of taxation it includes not only Hong Kong, but also China taxation and international tax development; 2) To raise the standard of our members and to nurture the next generation while taxation has become more complicated, businesses apparently require more professional tax advisors to assist them in complying with the rules and manage tax risk; 3) To encourage our members to serve our society our economic development requires a lot of professional services. We should make use of our knowledge to help the people in need and provide more opportunities to the next generation. All the above-mentioned have set the theme of the forthcoming year. The activities of our institute in will address the needs of different interest groups.

4 OUR MEMBERS To our members, continuous study and sharing are key to enable them to excel in their roles. In addition to the tax updates available on our websites, we will continue to organize tax seminars and workshops suitable for members with different level of experience. We will also bring in more international and China tax seminars to widen the knowledge of our members. Meanwhile, we will continue to co-organise seminars with different Chinese taxation institutes for our members. One of our signature events of the year will be the CTA conference. We will invite renowned tax professionals and government officials to speak for us on the latest policy development. Details of the event will be announced accordingly and members will receive our invitations to the various events in due course. OUR STUDENTS Back in 2010, the institute has successfully launched the Certified Tax Advisers exam. It has been tracking an increasing enrolment over the years. This year, we will open the CTA exam to students who have interest to advance in tax knowledge and to equip themselves for the future tax specialist career. To arouse students interest in selecting tax profession as a career, we organized a tax debate competition in 2015 and received overwhelmingly strong response from university students in Hong Kong. It was a very effective event to promote tax learning amongst students. The institute will proceed with the debate competition again in We will also design a mentorship program and involve our members in mentoring and nurturing the next generation. OUR SOCIETY A group of elite members in our institute with profound experience and knowledge in tax policy are willing to use their knowledge to contribute to the society in different ways. Every year, a taskforce is set up to make proposals on the tax policy to the Financial Secretary for his consideration of the new year budget. We have gained tremendous support from many members to make our annual Voluntary Tax Consulting services a great success. They have provided guidance and insights to the general public in preparing their own tax returns. This year, we will partner with the Wharf group in Project WeCan and adopt a secondary school. Through this project, we will provide opportunities and arrange programs to involve secondary students with an objective to inspire them and empower their confidence. Being an institute rooted deeply in HK for more than 40 years, we are committed to our society and we will welcome our members to share the same value and involve in our CSR events. Let me once again express my gratitude to work with a group of enthusiastic and devoted council members who are instrumental to lead the different committees and taskforce. Our objective could not be achieved without the support of our members and the students. I look forward to meeting all of you in the upcoming events. Yours sincerely, Karmen Yeung President The Taxation Institute of Hong Kong

5 I. Latest News CTA exam revision workshop (Oct 2015) To facilitate students preparing for the Certified Tax Adviser (CTA) examination, a revision workshop comprising of 15 hours per paper on each Friday, Saturday and Sunday will be held in October. In the workshop, the speakers will help you analyze past papers and tackle the exam. For more details, please refer to TIHK s website: AOTCA Tax Conference and meeting at Osaka (14-16 Oct 2015) The annual international tax conference and meeting of Asia-Oceania Tax Consultant s Association will be held at Osaka during Oct 2015 this year. A delegation head by the President, Ms Karmen Yeung will represent TIHK to join the conference and introduce TIHK as the organizer of AOTCA Tax Conference at Hong Kong in Halloween Party at Ocean Park (24 Oct 2015) To enable our members to have an enjoyable Halloween, you and your family members are invited to join the Halloween party the Walking Dead: Survival (Fox Channels edge-of-your-seat Global Hit TV Series The Walking Dead). For details, please refer to TIHK Website: or contact our Secretariat at P.1

6 II. Recent Events (July August) Beijing Visit The Institute has arranged a visit to Beijing during 6-7 July Our Council Members briefed officials from the the State Administration of Taxation, Beijing State Taxation Bureau, Beijing Local Taxation Bureau and members of the China Tax Society on the latest development of our Institute and exchanged on mutual corporation and collaborative fronts. Group photos with Beijing Municipal Office, SAT Meeting with Beijing Local Taxation Bureau Meeting with the State Administration of Taxation P.2

7 海南省地稅稅收征管與稅收資訊化建設專題交流團 The delegation of 海南省地稅稅收征管與稅收資訊化建設專題交流團 on 14 July Our Institute was pleased to share our organisation history, structure, on-going development plans and CTA exam. Whitehead BBQ at Shatin The BBQ gathering at Shatin was successfully held on 18 July Members and their families enjoyed the summer break as well as the tasty BBQ food. Group photo at Whitehead BBQ BBQ Gathering P.3

8 The 43rd Annual General Meeting and TIHK Council for The 43rd Annual General Meeting and dinner were successfully held on 1 September 2015 at the Chinese Club. We are pleased to announce that the President and Council of the Institute for the term of 2015/16 have been elected at the 43rd AGM. We would like to share with you the list of office bearers and Council Members enclosed. The list of Council Members and office bearers are set out below: President Vice-President Honorary Treasurer Honorary Secretary Immediate Past President Council Members Ms Yeung Ka Yin, Karmen Mr. Lau Kum Tao, Alan Mr. Lo Wing Cheong, Vincent Mr. Ng Kam Wah, Webster Mr. Chan Chung Wai, Bryan Mr. Pang Tsun Loy, Michael Mr. Yau Yin Kwun, Joseph Mr. Chau, Kenneth Mr. Cheng Kit Sun, Wilson Mr. Cheng Kwok Wai, David Mr. Cheung Hok Hin Alan Mr. Choi Heng Chio, Jeremy Mr. Choy Kuen On, Ben Mr. Ho Chi Ming Mr. Hui Chung Ying, Kevin Mr. Hung, Francis Philip Thaddeus Mr. Kung, Peter Mr. Kwong Shu Wing, Patrick Mr. Lee Ka Leung Daniel Mr. Lee Kang Bor, Thomas Mr. Ng Wing Fai, Simon Mr. Tam Kin Kwok Wilson Mr. Tang Wai Man, Raymond Mr. To Siu Lun, Dicky Mr. Wong Chun Nam, Duffy Mr. Wong Shun On, Caesar Mr. Wong Wai Wah, Percy Mr. Wong Yui Keung, Marcellus Mr. Wu Tak Lung, Bernard Mr. Yuen Tai Leung, Clement P.4

9 43rd Annual General Meeting and Dinner (From left to right) Mr. Alan Lau, our Vice -President, Ms. Karmen Yeung, our President, Mr. Webster Ng and Mr. Vincent Lo, our Vice-Presidents Group photo with guests from CLO Group photo with Council Members and guests (From left to right) Ms. Karmen Yeung, our President and Mr. Joseph Yau, our Immediate Past President P.5 At 43rd Annual General Meeting (Middle) Mr. Joseph Yau, Immediate Past President was chairing the AGM (Right) Mr. Kenneth Poon, our former Council Member

10 III. Seminars August 2015 Offshore PE Fund Exemption and AEoI in Hong Kong Co-organised by CPA Australia (12 Aug 2015) Speaker: Mr. Brian Chiu, Deputy Commissioner of Inland Revenue Department Mr. Marcellus Wong, Senior Advisor, PwC Hong Kong The Institute organized the joint seminar on the topic of Offshore PE Fund Exemption and AEol in Hong Kong by CPA Australia on 12 Aug 2015 with over 100 participants. We look forward to the next joint events with CPA Australia in future. Mr. Brian Chiu and Mr. Marcellus Wong giving their presentation Mr. Joseph Yau, Immediate Past President presenting a souvenir to Mr. Marcellus Wong, the Senior Advisor of PwC Hong Kong Tax Issues Arising from Business Transformation (9 September 2015) Speaker: Mr. Wilson Cheng, Partner, Tax and Business Advisory Services, EY Mr. Wilson Cheng shared overview of the common tax issues arising from pre- and post-restructuring activities P.6

11 Forthcoming Seminars & Events Seminars: Date & Time Venue Topic Speakers Mid Oct (For detail, please refer to TIHK website) For detail, please refer to TIHK website CTA Exam Revision Workshop For detail, please refer to TIHK website 7 October 2015 Unit 1, G/F, The Center, 99 Queen s Road Central, Hong Kong 19 October 2015 UR8, SCOPE, 8/F, United Centre, 95 Queensway, Admiralty, Hong Kong A recap on the BEPS Project and its development Handling IRD Queries Mr. Aska Li, Manager, International Tax Services, EY Ms. Sharon To, Manager, International Tax Services, EY Mr. Victor Lee, Partner, Tax & China Business Advisory Services, PwC 30 October 2015 UT, SCOPE, 8/F, United Centre, 95 Queensway, Admiralty, Hong Kong International Tax Ms. Becky Lai, Partner, EY P.7

12 V. Tax Updates (A) Hong Kong Tax Updates Reported by HO Chi Ming, FTIHK, CTA, Council Member 2015/16 Offshore Private Equity Funds 1. The Inland Revenue (Amendment) (No. 2) Ordinance 2015 ( the Amendment ) was enacted and gazetted on 17 July Exemption for offshore fund has already been conferred by s.20ac in respect of specified transactions carried out through or arranged by specified persons (see Departmental Interpretation and Practice Notes No. 43). Prior to the Amendment, the exemption did not extend to transactions in the securities in private companies. 2. The Amendment extends exemption to transaction in securities in an excepted private companies ie an offshore private company where at all times within 3 years before a transaction in securities, stock, debenture etc in the offshore private company is carried out, it: (a) did not carry on any business through or from a Permanent Establishment ( PE ) in Hong Kong; (b) falls within either of the following: (i) did not hold (whether directly or indirectly) share capital in one or more private companies carrying on any business through or from a PE in HK; (ii) held such share capital but the aggregate value of the holding is equivalent to not more than 10% of the value of its own assets; and (c) falls within either of the following descriptions - (i) neither held immovable property in Hong Kong, nor held (whether directly or indirectly) share capital in one or more private companies with direct or indirect holding of immovable property in Hong Kong; (ii) held such immovable property or share capital (or both), but the aggregate value of the holding of the property and capital was equivalent to not more than 10% of the value of its own assets. 3. To qualify for exemption, the offshore private equity fund must carry out specified transactions through corporations licensed by the Securities and Futures Commission or be a qualifying fund. To be a qualifying fund, at all times after the final closing of sale of interests - -the number of investors exceeds 4; and -the capital commitments made by investors exceed 90% of the aggregate capital commitments; and -the portion of the net proceeds to be received by the originator and the originator s associates, does not exceed 30% of the net proceeds arising out of the transactions of the fund. 4. Exemption is extended to the profits of a special purpose vehicle ( SPV ) derived from a transaction in securities in an interposed SPV or an eligible private company (new S.20ACA). For this purpose, the SPV may be a corporation, partnership, trustee of a trust estate or any other entity incorporated, registered or appointed in or outside Hong Kong and must be wholly or partly owned by a non-resident person and does not carry on any trade or business except solely for the purpose of holding, directly or indirectly, and administering one or more excepted private companies. 5. To prevent tax avoidance by round tripping (ie tax avoidance by a resident person using a non-resident as a facade), if a resident person (alone or jointly with his associates) holds a beneficial interest of 30% or more in a tax-exempt offshore private equity fund or any percentage if the fund is an associate of the resident person and the offshore private equity fund has a beneficial interest in a SPV which is exempt from tax under s.20aca, the assessable profits of the SPV are to be regarded as the assessable profits of the resident person (new s.20af). P.8

13 Report on Board of Review Decisions Volume 29 Third Supplement D14/14 Language of hearing The Taxpayer, a company, which was represented by solicitors and Counsel, expressed that it preferred to use Cantonese in the hearing. The Board pointed out that Cantonese is not specified as one of the official languages in s.3(1) of Official Languages Ordinance Cap 5 (which declares English and Chinese languages as the official languages of Hong Kong). For the purpose of the hearing before the Board, the oral element of Chinese in Hong Kong includes Cantonese or Punti and the written element in official communications in Chinese language is the written vernacular Chinese 白話 ie modern written Chinese, in contrast to Classical Chinese. This is not the written form of Cantonese colloquial style. In the instant case, the Commissioner s Determination, Submissions and Notice of Appeal were all in English. The taxpayer did not explain the reason for choosing the preference. The Board refused to adopt Cantonese as the language for the proceedings. Substantive Appeal The IRD disallowed interest payable by the Taxpayer to an associated company ( B ) for 1997/98 to 2002/03 which the Taxpayer contended was used to finance its property investment business. By a determination in 2007, the Commissioner confirmed assessments for some years ( the 2007 Determination ) disallowing interest payable to B. The taxpayer company did not appeal. Then for 2004/05 and 2006/07, the taxpayer claimed deduction of interest payable to a bank. The taxpayer company explained that: (1) as at 31 Mar 2003, the taxpayer company, a property investment company, owed B $30 million. the loan being used to finance its business (2) B demanded repayment of the loan (3) the taxpayer company was therefore forced to borrow $30 million from a bank to repay B. The Assessor disallowed the interest. The Taxpayer before the Board relied on Zeta Estates Ltd v CIR (2007) 10 HKCFAR 196 ( Zeta s Case ) to support that the interest fulfilled s.16(1)(a). In Zeta s Case, the taxpayer company paid interest to shareholders in respect of amounts due to them for dividends declared but remaining unpaid. The taxpayer contended that the said advances from shareholders obviated the need to sell profit earning assets, thus maintaining the profit earning capacity. The Court of Final Appeal eventually allowed deduction of the interest. The taxpayer s Counsel in the instant case contended that by merely looking at the quantum of current assets and liabilities of the balance sheet, one could determinate whether interest deduction would be justified. The Counsel also argued that by borrowing from the bank to repay B s loan, there was no need to sell profit generating assets. The CIR s Case was that there was no evidence that the loan from B was incurred in the production of chargeable profits of the Taxpayer. This case was therefore distinguishable from the Zeta Case where it was not disputed that the interest expenses were attributable to the payment of dividends. The failure to appeal against the 2007 Determination, although not constituting res judicata, argues the CIR s Counsel, by parity of reasoning, barred the Taxpayer to allege that the loan from B did exit or that it had been paying interest to service B s loans. There was no evidence that the loan from the bank was used to reply B s loan. The financial statement stated that B s loan was non-interest bearing. No witness was called in the hearing. The Taxpayer failed to answer IRD s letters relating to the matters under appeal. The Board responded to the Taxpayers Counsel s submission that deductibility of interest may be supported by merely looking at the balance sheet. It expressed that this formulation was too wide. For the instant case, one does not merely look at the balance sheet as suggested by the Taxpayer s Counsel. One still needs to ask why the loan was incurred. There was finding by the Board in Zeta Case that but for the dividend declaration the loans would not have been needed. P.9

14 S.61A The CIR identified the transaction as the borrowing of $30 million from B, the entering into of the loan agreement with the bank and the purported repayment of $30 million to B. Had B borrowed the loan from the bank itself, it could not have the immediate tax effect of interest deduction since it had an accumulated loss brought forward. The Taxpayer argued that the bank was not a member of the group. For every tax saving of 17.5 cents, the Taxpayer needed to pay $1 to the bank as interest. The Board stated Even applying the general principles one is confronted with the notion of whether it is artificial. We say it is. The Board found that the transactions were to be ignored by virtue of s.61 and s.61a. D4/14 The Assessor disallowed claims by the Taxpayer, a trading company, for deduction of directors and shareholders bonus, bonuses to directors wives and payments to directors and overseas corporations owned by the directors, firstly described as sales commission and later loan interest. The bonuses to wives of directors and shareholders were classified as entertainment expenses in the accounts. Regarding the alleged loan interest, the Deputy Commissioner of Inland Revenue ( DCIR ) ruled that the interest failed to fulfill s.16(2)(c). The DCIR also applied s.61 and s.61a to disallow the deductions. At the Board appeal, the Taxpayer adduced witness statements of the Chairman and 3 other directors but did not call them to give oral evidence. The Taxpayer s Counsel explained that the Chairman was over 80 while the other 3 directors were very busy at the time of the year and they were outside Hong Kong. The Board refused to attach weight to the witness statements on the ground that the IRD had no opportunity to cross examine them. No medical evidence was adduced to support the inability of the Chairman to attend. The date of hearing was fixed months ago by both the IRD and the Taxpayer s Counsel so that there no excuse for the non-attendance of the 3 directors. The Board agreed with the IRD that the Taxpayer should call the auditor and its accounting staff to examine the accounting treatments but failed to do so (Chinachem Investment Co Ltd V CIR (1987) 2 HKTC 261 per Macdougall J at 273 and 282, Sir Alan Huggins VP at 308). For example, why payments to some directors was described as loan interest in the accounts. The Taxpayer called its general manager and the project administrator to give oral evidence but the Board did not find their evidence helpful. One reason was that they were not involved in accounting. The Board found that the Chairman s explanation on how the sales rebates were determined, essentially by him in respect of how much each of the overseas corporations was to receive, suggested more of a familial decision by a patriarch than a commercial decision by an experienced businessman. The sales rebate bear no correlation with the sale of the overseas corporation. The Board nor the IRD was able to seek elaboration or explanation from the directors of how the sales rebates were agreed upon and did operate for the purpose described. The Taxpayer s Counsel sought to amend the grounds of appeal after the close of evidence. The Board refused. One reason was that the amendments sought to attack the reasoning of the Commissioner s Determination. The Board pointed out that this was not a valid ground of appeal. The Board s role was to hear the case afresh, to determine whether the assessment was incorrect or excessive, not to adjudicate on the Commissioner s reasoning. The Taxpayer s Counsel submitted that if an item of expenditure is treated as deductible under commercial accounting principles, the treatment would constitute evidence of the deductibility of the item under the IRO and that the audited accounts should not be outweighed by the supposed effect of some internal draft account records of the Taxpayer. The Board responded that tax appeals are decided by the Board, not by the professional accounts or audited accounts (Nice Cheer Investment Limited v CIR FACV 23 of 2012, per Lord Millet NPJ). The Board pointed out that there were shifting of the case of the Taxpayer. There were inconsistency between the explanation of its former tax representative and the next tax representative. For example earlier it was asserted that payments to one company was sales commission but before the Board, the nature was changed to financial P.10

15 guaranteed fees. Some payments to the overseas companies were asserted to be sales commission but later changed to sales rebates. The same amount of remuneration was paid to each director despite the explanation of the Taxpayer that their contributions were different. There were no documentation recording the duties of the family members in the Taxpayer, the terms of remuneration and how the remuneration were calculated. The business was done by the staff in Hong Kong, not by the directors. The Board found that the expenses failed to meet the requirements of s.16(1)(a). In such circumstances, s.61 and s.61a had no application since there was no tax benefits. Any tax benefit. P.11

16 (B) International Tax Updates Reported by Mr. Jeremy Choi, FTIHK, CTA, Council Member 2015/16 Ms. Anita Tsang, ATIHK, CTA, Member of the International Tax Committee 1. Updates on the OECD s Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) project Based on the information on the OECD s website, the final deliverables/reports on Actions 1 to 15 of the BEPS Action Plan will be released on 5 October 2015, prior to the G20 Finance Ministers meeting which will be held on 8 October 2015 in Peru. On 6 & 7 July 2015, a public consultation was held by the OECD on transfer pricing matters under BEPS Actions 8 to 10. During the meeting, the OECD announced various planned revisions to its proposed changes to the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines (the Guidelines), including those in relation to (1) intangibles (including hard-to-value intangibles); (2) risk, recharacterisation and special measures; and (3) the use of profit splits in the context of global value chains. Following the previous public consultations and comments received, the extent of the potential changes to the Guidelines has been scaled back and appears to be more aligned with the arm s-length principle of the Guidelines. In addition, the OECD confirmed the delivery timetable for the transfer pricing work as follows: (a) The final papers on intangibles and cost contribution arrangements, low value-adding services, and commodities under Actions 8 to 10 as well as the final package on transfer pricing documentation and country-by-country reporting under Action 13 are to be approved by the OECD in September (b) The work on attribution of profits to permanent establishments (focusing on commissionaires and the specific activity exemptions) is expected to be completed by the end of (c) Transfer pricing work on financial transactions, use of profit split methods and hard-to-value intangibles will be deferred to For more details, please refer to this link to the OECD s website: P Three reports on implementation of the global standard for automatic exchange of information (AEOI) released by the OECD As further steps to combat offshore tax evasion, the OECD released the following reports on 7 August 2015 to help jurisdictions and financial institutions to implement the global standard for automatic exchange of financial account information: (a) Common Reporting Standard (CRS) Implementation Handbook (the CRS Handbook), which sets out the necessary steps for implementation of the CRS and helps financial institutions and governments to implement the CRS more efficiently by identifying areas for alignment with the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) in the US and addressing the operational and transitional challenges resulting from the staggered implementation of the CRS. The CRS Handbook will be updated on a regular basis. (b) Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Programs (second edition), which contains the practical experience from 47 countries in relation to their voluntary disclosure programs. The guidance on the design and implementation of such disclosure programs is updated to reflect the OECD policy of encouraging countries to examine voluntary compliance strategies that enable non-compliant taxpayers to come forward for voluntary disclosure before the implementation of the CRS. (c) Model Protocol to the Tax Information Exchange Agreements (TIEAs), which provides the basis for jurisdictions wishing to extend the scope of their existing TIEAs to also cover the automatic and/or spontaneous exchange of tax information. For more details, please refer to this link to the OECD s website: the-oecd-takes-further-steps-to-putting-an-end-to-offshore-tax-evasion.htm

17 3. Tax reform action plan issued by the European Commission (EC) On 17 June 2015, the EC presented an action plan to fundamentally reform the corporate taxation in the European Union (EU) as the current rules for corporate taxation are regarded as no longer in line with the modern economic environment which has become more globalised, mobile and digital. The action plan aims at creating a fair and efficient corporate tax system. It sets out a series of initiatives to tackle tax avoidance, secure sustainable revenues and strengthen the Single Market for business in the following five key areas: (a) Re-launching the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB) the EC will re-launch the CCCTB previously proposed in 2011 as a holistic solution to corporate tax reform. The key changes to the 2011 proposals are: (1) making the CCCTB mandatory instead of optional, at least for multinational enterprises and (2) providing for a staged approach to implementing the CCCTB, with the introduction of cross-border loss relief initially and consolidation at a later stage. (b) Ensuring fair taxation where profits are generated - The action plan sets out the notion that companies should pay a fair share of tax in the country where they make their profits. To achieve this, the EC is proposing measures to close legislative loopholes, improve the transfer pricing system and implement stricter rules for preferential tax regimes, etc. (c) Creating a better tax environment for business Other than the re-launch of the CCCTB, proposed measures under this initiative include: (1) revising the transfer pricing or permanent establishment rules to better reflect modern business realities, (2) enabling offset of profits and losses made in the different Member States before the full CCCTB consolidation is introduced; and (3) improving the current mechanisms for resolving double taxation dispute within the EU by reviewing the existing multilateral Arbitration Convention. (d) Increasing tax transparency - The action plan sets out the next steps for greater tax transparency within the EU and vis-à-vis third countries. One of them is a public consultation on whether companies should have to publicly disclose certain tax information, including through country-by-country reporting. In addition, a list of third country (i.e. non-eu) non-cooperative tax jurisdictions (the pan-eu blacklist) has been published by the EC together with the action plan. Hong Kong is one of the jurisdictions on the list. For more details of the pan-eu blacklist and the response of the HKSAR Government, please refer to item 4 below. (e) Improving EU coordination The existing Code of Conduct for Business Taxation and Platform on Good Tax Governance are considered as playing an important role in EU tax policy. In this regard, the EC will (1) seek to improve Member States coordination on tax audits through discussion within the Platform on Good Tax Governance and (2) reform the Code of Conduct for Business Taxation and the Platform on Good Tax Governance by extending/ prolonging their mandates and enhancing their working methods. 4. The pan-eu blacklist published by the EC The EC published the pan-eu blacklist as part of the tax reform action plan on 17 June The aim of the pan-eu blacklist is to build a common approach to identifying and dealing with non-cooperative tax jurisdictions and create a strong EU stance against these jurisdictions. The pan-eu blacklist consists of 30 jurisdictions, including Hong Kong. The pan-eu blacklist was compiled from the EU Member States independent national blacklists. The jurisdictions included on the list were identified by at least 10 Member States as non-cooperative jurisdiction in their national blacklists. A variety of criteria were used by the Member States to identify the non-cooperative jurisdictions, including (1) lack of transparency and exchange of information, (2) the presence of harmful tax measures and (3) the use of a low or no tax rate. Going forward, the EC will amend the pan-eu blacklist periodically to reflect changes to the Member States own national blacklists. Hong Kong is included in the pan-eu blacklist because it is/was on the blacklists of Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Greece, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Portugal and Spain. Among these countries, Hong Kong has signed tax P.13

18 treaties with Italy, Portugal and Spain. While the pan-eu blacklist was compiled based on the information in late 2014, it is understood that Hong Kong has been removed from the blacklist of Spain since early Also, subsequent to the publication of the pan-eu blacklist, the tax treaty between Hong Kong and Italy (which includes an Exchange of Information article) was ratified and entered in force on 10 August On 18 June 2015, the HKSAR Government issued a press release to express its regret and disappointment over the inclusion of Hong Kong in the list. The press release stated that the allegation that Hong Kong is a non-cooperative jurisdiction is totally unfounded and the listing was unilateral and procedurally unfair. The HKSAR Government urged the EC to review with Member States their lists of non-cooperative tax jurisdictions in order to reflect the latest development of Hong Kong s tax co-operation with those jurisdictions. Please refer to this link for the press release issued by the HKSAR Government: info.gov.hk/gia/general/201506/18/p htm start with the jurisdictions that appear most frequently on Member States blacklists, with a view to assisting them in improving their good governance standards. The EC is ready to support Member States in this work, which should be completed within 24 months. (b) As a second step, the EC is willing to coordinate possible counter-measures towards non-cooperative tax jurisdictions to address situations of non-compliance with good governance principle in tax matters. For more details of the EC s tax reform action plan and the pan-eu blacklist, please refer to these links to the EC s website: en.htm info/good_governance_matters/lists_of_countries/index_en.htm The OECD has also expressed its concerns about the pan- EU blacklist. An open letter was jointly issued by the Director of the OECD Centre for Tax Policy and Administration and the Head of the Global Forum Secretariat in June to 126 members of the OECD Global Forum in relation to the pan-eu blacklist. The OECD noticed that a number of jurisdictions identified in the pan-eu blacklist are either fully or largely compliant with the Global Forum standard and have committed to AEOI, and even as early adopters in some cases. The OECD therefore confirmed that these jurisdictions are cooperative and casted doubt on how a jurisdiction s compliance with the OECD Global Forum standard is factored into either the national blacklists or the pan-eu blacklist. For more details of the open letter issued by the OECD, please refer to this link: Although the EC s action plan does not mention any concrete counter-measures that will be taken against those non-cooperative jurisdictions in the pan-eu blacklist, the following follow-up actions are stated in the action plan: (a) Further work in screening third countries for compliance with tax good governance standards should be performed on the basis of the list. The screening should P.14

19 (C) China Tax Updates 年頭 7 個月中國稅收為五年來同期最低 據報今年 1 至 7 月, 全國一般公共預算收入 93,8 49 億元, 為預算的 60.8%, 增長 7.5%, 考慮 11 項原政府性基金轉列一般公共預算因素後增長 5.4% 稅收收入 7,8793 億元, 為 2010 年以來同期最低水平 支出方面, 全國財政支出同比增長 12.1%, 完成預算的 52.5% 其中, 全國教育 社會保障和就業 醫療衛生與計劃生育 節能環保 農林水支出分別增長 16% 21.4% 19.2% 19.3% 15.4%, 均高於支出平均增長水平 總的看, 財政收支平衡壓力較大, 是預算執行和財政運行中的突出問題 2. 中華人民共和國環境保護法 ( 徵求意見稿 ) 國務院法制辦公室於 2015 年 6 月 10 日將財政部 稅務總局 環境保護部起草的 中華人民共和國環境保護法 ( 徵求意見稿 ) 及說明全文公佈, 徵求社會各界意見 本會提出的意見主要針對重點污染行業種類日後的調整 環境保護主管部門出具審核意見 非居民和第三方的納稅及購置環保專用設備的優惠 3. 國家稅務總局就 稅務行政覆議規則 有關修改徵求意見 國家稅務總局於近期發佈了 國家稅務總局關於修改 稅務行政覆議規則 的決定 ( 徵求意見稿 ), 徵求社會各界意見 這次建議的修改只針對 稅務行政覆議規則 的第十九條 第五十二條及第九十一條 本會提出的意見不單針對這三條, 還提出 稅務覆議規則 總體的修改思路應該朝著更方便申請人和規範稅務機關行政行為的方向發展並對 稅務覆議規則 其他部分提出具體修改意見 P.15

20 4. 香港稅務學會與國家稅務總局交流 學會於今年 7 月上中旬組織了年度的北京拜訪並與多個國內的政府部門及單位, 包括國家財政部 國家稅務總局 北京市國家稅務局 北京市地方稅務局 中國註冊稅務師協會 中國稅務學會及中國國際稅收研究會等會晤及交流 下文節錄與國家稅務總局領導進行的稅務課題交流內容, 以供會員閱覽 與國家稅務總局探討的題目 2015 年 7 月 6 日 一. 重組 / 股權轉讓 1. 問題 : 國家稅務總局公告 [2015]7 號 ( 7 號公告 ) 要求股權購買方作為扣繳義務人 一般來說買方通常都沒有足夠的資料來計算應在中國納稅的收益額 ( 如有 ) 以及判定賣方的交易安排是否有合理的商業原因 ( 即賣方是否試圖避稅 ) 7 號公告對購買方作為扣繳義務的要求構成一定的困難 一個可能的結果是無論任何股權轉讓, 買方將扣起部份轉讓價款和強逼賣方申報交易來保護自己 這意味著幾乎每個涉及中國的股權轉讓將會被申報到相關的地方稅局 不知總局有沒有一些可以給買家參考的指引? 稅總官員回應 : 對扣繳義務人的規定在征管法中就一直有相應規定, 便於稅務機關征管 類似的規定在其他國家也有 納稅人 / 扣繳義務人只要按時提交資料就會減少處罰 再者 7 號公告只要求扣繳義務人在未扣繳稅款時只按照企業所得稅法實施條例第一百二十一 一百二十二條規定 ( 特別納稅調整 ) 按日加收利息, 即是按基準利率加 5 個百分點計算利息 這比稅收征管法滯納金按稅款的 0.05% 計算為低 2. 針對國家稅務總局公告 [2015]7 號間接股權轉讓, 業界希望稅總出臺文件明確幾個很重要的問題 : 問題第一 :7 號公告首次要求股權購買方作為扣繳義務人報告交易, 對適用一般反避稅規則的交易扣繳稅款, 否則面臨罰款的風險 可是,7 號公告公佈前, 大多數購買方並不知道自己有這些義務, 也沒有做扣繳稅款的準備 建議稅總明確這些對購買方的責任和罰款不適用 7 號公告生效前發生的交易 稅總官員回應 :7 號公告對扣繳義務人的規定只是按征管法的一個明確, 不是新的文件, 相關的義務從 2008 年 1 月 1 日企業所得稅法實施就開始了 問題第二 : 根據 7 號公告, 間接轉讓交易的轉讓方和購買方可以自行向主管稅務機關申報交易 建議稅總明確 : 主管稅務機關收到申報後, 必須在一定期間內書面回復是否需要啟動一般反避稅調查, 否則交易雙方可能面臨永久的不確定性 稅總官員回應 : 目前沒有打算給出這樣的書面回復 稅務機關保留 10 年內追溯的權限 問題第三 : 若交易適用一般反避稅規則因而需要繳納企業所得稅, 希望稅總儘早出臺文件明確如何確定轉讓方的成本和所得, 以及受讓方取得股權的計稅基礎 稅總官員回應 : 間接轉讓交易的每個個案不一樣, 有時股權和債權一起轉, 不可能窮盡列出來所有情況 目前按個案分析確定轉讓的收入和成本 問題第四 :7 號公告有關判斷合理商業目的的第 ( 五 ) 項因素, 即 間接轉讓中國應稅財產交易在境外應繳納所得稅情況 對此, 稅總解讀解釋如下 : 境外應繳納所得稅情況包括股權轉讓方在其居民國應繳稅情況和被轉讓方所在地應繳稅情況 應繳稅情況不僅考慮間接轉讓交易在境外實際繳納的稅款, 還要考慮境外盈虧抵補 虧損結轉等影響境外所得稅稅基的境外稅收法律適用情況 如果在股權轉讓方居民國和被轉讓方所在地總體應繳納所得稅低於該間接轉讓交易在我國應繳稅數額, 那麼就可以證明間接轉讓中國應稅財產交易存在跨國稅收利益 一般來說, 股權轉讓方在其居民國對股權轉讓收益會計入其應稅所得, 按其適用所得稅稅率繳稅, 但如股權轉讓方當年有虧損, 在盈虧抵補後實際繳納的稅款金額可能大減, 甚至不用交所得稅 請問, 當考慮境外應繳納所得稅情況時, 總體應繳納所得稅是按法定稅率而定, 還是按實際稅負而定? 稅總官員回應 : 可以考慮按轉讓方彌補虧損前的收入應繳的稅額是否低於間接轉讓交易在我國應繳納的數額, 而非按轉讓方最終繳納的稅額 為了判定此因素, 如果一個美國公司出售了香港公司, 則按美國公司在美國繳納的稅款加上在香港繳納的稅款的總額來確定 境外應繳稅情況 3. 關於跨境重組業務的企業所得稅 問題 : 最近財政部和國家稅務總局陸續出臺了財稅 [2014]109 和財稅 [2014]116 文, 改進了企業重組的所得稅政策 這兩個文件主要適用于內地居民企業之間的交易, 但對跨境企業重組業務的政策沒有放寬 現在很多內資 ( 走出去 ) 和跨國企業出於商業原因需要對內地 P.16

21 投資架構作重組, 可是目前財稅 [2009]59 號文僅允許有限的三種跨境重組業務可以適用特殊性稅務處理 希望稅總可以擴大適用特殊性稅務處理的跨境業務的範圍 例如以下情況 : 情況一 : 被同一個境外母公司 100% 擁有的兩家外商獨資企業的合併 ; 情況二 : 外商投資企業的 100% 境外母公司被集團內其他具有 100% 股權關係的集團公司合併 ; 情況三 : 外商投資企業的 100% 境外母公司被清算 ; 情況四 : 中國居民企業走出去, 通過將國內非貨幣資產注入境外收購的或新設公司時, 必須就境內資產的增值額全額繳納企業所得稅, 對走出去企業的稅負太高 上述這些業務全部是出於商業原因的集團內部重組, 要求按公允價值繳納稅款的成本太高, 阻礙了企業重組業務 稅總官員回應 : 跨境重組目前只限于 59 號文第 7 條 3 種情形 問題 : 能否明確財稅 [2014]109 號第三條 關於股權 資產劃轉 中有幾個詞的意思 : 第一 : 股權 資產劃轉的 劃轉 是非貨幣資產轉讓的意思? 如果是母公司將資產 / 股權轉給 100% 控股的子公司, 就是用非貨幣資產向子公司注資? 相反的, 如果是子公司將資產 / 股權轉給其 100% 控股的母公司, 就是母公司從子公司撤資? 第二 : 文件中要求 按帳面淨值劃轉, 這是指會計上的折舊 / 攤銷後資產淨值, 還是稅務上的折舊 / 攤銷後資產計稅基礎? 第三 : 本條規定適用於 100% 控股關係的居民企業之間的資產 / 股權劃轉, 請問被劃轉的標的可以是境外企業的股權或位於境外的資產嗎? 稅總官員回應 : 上述第一 第二點已經在國家稅務總局公告 [2015] 年 40 號中明確了 關於第三點, 初步不考慮適用於標的是非居民的情況, 因為可能涉及到境外國家可能就該轉讓徵收預提所得稅, 回來中國要求所得稅抵免 問題 : 關於財稅 [2009]59 號文件, 如果企業的合併和分立業務涉及到個人股東的, 如果個人股東按個人所得稅法處理後, 被合併 / 分立的企業是否可按 59 號文適用特殊性稅務處理? 稅總官員回應 : 國家稅務總局公告 [2015] 年 48 號第一條已明確, 股權收購中轉讓方 合併中被合併企業股東和分立中被分立企業股東, 可以是自然人 只要符合 59 號文特殊性稅務處理條件的, 企業交易各方可以適用特殊性稅務處理 股權轉讓交易中, 個人認為企業股東轉讓的股權應該占到被轉讓企業 50% 才可適用特殊性稅務處理 4. 關於重組業務的個人所得稅 問題 : 內地中央政府鼓勵企業直接融資 ( 即通過股市融資 ) 做強做大 在公司上市前一般會調整企業股權架構, 經常的情況是將個人直接擁有的運營公司的股權放到新設的未來要上市的上市主體中 這種不涉及現金的股權置換在 59 號文下可以適用特殊性稅務處理 但是個人所得稅法規缺乏類似的特殊性稅務處理政策, 個人股東往往面臨個人所得稅的極大不確定性 希望稅總可以考慮在個人所得稅政策中也引入特殊性稅務處理的政策 稅總官員回應 : 個人不贊同對個人股東延遲納稅, 有幾個擔心 : - 目前的征管手段對個人監控困難, 個人流動性太大, 如果延緩了徵稅很難跟蹤 ; - 股權轉讓涉及地區稅源的轉移問題 ; - 稅款不入庫有風險 ; - 對高收入者徵稅可調節縮小收入差距 ; - 上市公司目前基本不做現金分配, 重組時再對個人股東減稅, 對其他納稅人不利 二. 企業所得稅 / 反避稅 5. 問題 : 在總局最近公佈與反避稅有關的條例規定中, 引用了 籌劃方 概念, 請問其定義和範圍為何? 稅總官員回應 : 國稅發 [2009]2 號文已對籌劃方作出說明, 有可能是企業也有可能是稅務代理, 可以是其中一方也可以是兩方 BEPS 專案的第 12 項行動也要求納稅人披露激進的稅務籌劃安排 P.17

22 6. 問題 : 國務院今年 2 月 24 日的國發 號文取消稅務機關對非居民企業適用行業及核定利潤率的行政審批, 日後由誰決定非居民服務業公司在國內提供服務時期服務歸類和合適的核定利潤率? 是否意味對非居民的核定徵收方法日後會被取消? 如預先想與稅務局達成共識, 稅局按新規定又不再有核定利潤率確定申請表格 如由公司先行自定而日後遇到稅務局持不同意見而調增前年度核定利潤率, 稅金和加收滯納金, 會令公司困惑而很難對董事會和投資者解析 請問有何建議避免上述情況發生? 稅總官員回應 : 國家稅務總局公告 [2015]22 號已明確在核定利潤率方面給納稅人更多的自主權 7. 問題 : 絕大部分香港公司在國內登記的代表處 (Representative Office), 不能從事經營性活動特別是盈利性項目, 按照國內傳統稅務規定, 依然被稅局歸類為提供應稅服務而需征企業所得稅和流轉稅, 全國能獲受理按避免雙重徵稅協定 / 安排最後享受免稅權利的代表處不知有多少? 香港公司的代表處在國內繳納的稅款, 由於是按核定徵收, 在香港申請抵扣時會產生難度, 結果造成 雙重徵稅 國內稅務部門對各行業內資中小企業採用的核定利潤率一般不超過 10%, 但對非居民企業 ( 不管是否中小企 ) 一律採用 15% 至 50% 或以上的核定利潤率, 其實一般服務性公司在競爭劇烈的市場上要獲得 10% 的淨利潤並不是容易的事 在裁定服務歸類和核定利潤率時地方的國稅局和地稅局也不一定一致 這些徵稅習慣會嚴重影響香港中小型企業透過代表處等方法到國內初期發展, 請問有可能改善以上情況嗎? 稅總官員回應 : 稅務機關一直鼓勵納稅人儘量用查帳徵收的方法計徵稅款 代表處如果主動採用查帳徵收的方法就不會有核定利潤率的問題了 關於核定利潤率可按國家稅務總局公告 [2015]22 號文件執行 關於查帳徵收, 應由總部劃分收入到代表處, 怎麼定價是一個轉讓定價問題 8. 問題 : 國家商務部與香港特區政府去年 12 月簽訂 關於內地在廣東與香港基本實現服務貿易自由化的協定, 今年 3 月 1 日起已生效, 請問國家會否儘快出臺相關稅收方便的稅負平衡政策, 支援粵港澳服務業的合作發展? 目前, 符合條件的香港非居民企業可透過避免雙重徵稅安排就來源於國內的營業收入申請免企業所得稅, 縱使交了稅也可申請在港抵扣 ; 如香港公司響應國家呼籲把相關經營活動轉為在廣東的新設子公司負責, 推動粵港服務業合作, 廣東子公司的企業所得稅率 25% 已比香港的 16.5% 利得稅高很多, 原香港公司也再不能申請所得稅抵扣, 原香港公司獲得的股息還要交 5% 或 10% 的預提所得稅, 令因為配合國家推動粵港合作的企業集團總稅負增加一倍 是否可考慮特別處理, 提供稅負平衡 照顧政策, 免去香港公司從廣東省內註冊的子公司獲得的股息的預提所得稅, 以助更多香港企業說服其投資者將香港部分業務轉移廣東省的子公司經營? 稅總官員回應 : 目前沒有對香港公司收取的股息免征預提所得稅的打算, 這樣做對其他協定國不公平 9. 國家稅務總局公告 2015 年第 16 號 問題 :16 號公告第一條規定 : 依據企業所得稅法第四十一條, 企業向境外關聯方支付費用, 應當符合獨立交易原則, 未按照獨立交易原則向境外關聯方支付的費用, 稅務機關可以進行調整 解讀文件也規定 : 企業向境外關聯方支付費用時, 應準備其與關聯方簽訂的合同或協議, 以及證明交易真實發生並符合獨立交易原則的相關資料 我們的問題是 : 除了服務合同或協議, 稅局還會要求提交什麼資料證明交易是真實發生並符合獨立交易原則? 會否出臺文件明確? 稅總官員回應 : 需要提供的材料不可能全部列舉, 可能包括服務記錄 報告 郵件和服務平臺的證明 要證明符合獨立交易原則, 需要提供收費標準 可比性分析 非關聯方服務收費標準等 稅總不會就資料明確需要的文件清單, 在 2 號文的修訂中可能會加些勞務劃分標準 問題 :16 號公告第三條規定 : 企業向未履行功能 承擔風險, 無實質性經營活動的境外關聯方支付的費用, 在計算企業應納稅所得額時不得扣除 實踐中, 稅務機關將會通過何種方式認定境外關聯方有無履行功能 承擔風險, 或有無實質性經營活動? 稅務總局是否會出臺進一步的操作性指引? 稅總官員回應 : 從經營項目 人員 資產等方面分析 問題 :16 號公告第五條規定 : 企業使用境外關聯方提供的無形資產需支付特許權使用費的, 應當考慮關聯各方對該無形資產價值創造的貢獻程度, 確定各自應當享有的經濟利益 企業向僅擁有無形資產法律所有權而未對其價值創造做出貢獻的關聯方支付特許權使用費, 不符合獨立交易原則的, 在計算企業應納稅所得額時不得扣除 如果有一家香港企業向境外關聯企業購買了無形資產的所有權, 然後向內地使用該無形資產的關聯公司按照獨立交易原則收取特許權使用費, 內地企業是否可以所得稅前扣除? 稅總官員回應 :16 號公告第五條是針對境外企業沒有對無形資產作任何貢獻, 沒有付出就收取特許權使用費的情況 上述情況是香港企業購買了無形資產, 所以相關支付也可以扣除 P.18

23 三. 稅收協議 / 安排 10. 問題 : 稅總會否出文明確認定受益所有人身份的具體要求文件及證明? 在認定申請人的受益所有人身份時, 除了國稅函 [2009]601 號的不利因素, 各地稅局往往要求很多其他資料, 例如特許權使同費 : 可要求提交外國企業在本國的商標或專利註冊證明與及外國企業在中國的商標或專利註冊證明, 有關該商標或專利的原始憑證和會計記帳憑證, 及外國企業的財務報表顯示該商標或專利資產等 可能由於該商標或專利是自行開發而非從外購入或因各地註冊登記需長時間, 未必能提供所有要求文件, 又或者稅務部門提出新的要求, 最終令受益所有人認定一直延續未能通過 這可影響外國企業合法使用稅收協定 稅總會否明確認定受益所有人身份的具體要求文件或證明, 從而讓各地稅局及受益所有人身份的申請人能更清楚掌握要求? 稅總官員回應 : 稅總沒有計劃針對特許權使用費出臺文件 按照國務院 2015 年 27 號公告要求, 受益所有人的審批要取消 124 號文件會取消, 稅總國際司正在做後續辦法 今後納稅人要自行申報, 扣繳義務人要做扣繳, 納稅人應支付少繳稅款, 而扣繳義務人的責任按征管法確定 文件會明確提交資料的清單 四. 流轉稅 11. 營改增 問題 : 對還未有推行營改增的行業, 會不會都在 2015 年底以前納入行營改增的範圍? 大致的進度如何? 稅總官員回應 :2008 到 2010 年之間財稅一起出臺了幾個文件, 可以根據文件判斷 五. 土地增值稅 13. 財稅 [2015]5 號和財稅 [2015]37 號關於財政部 國家稅務總局關於進一步支持企業事業單位改制重組有關土地增值稅和契稅政策的通知, 有兩點問題需要明確 : 問題第一 : 根據財稅 [2015]5 號的暫不徵收土地增值稅政策, 不適用於房地產開發企業 請問, 轉出企業和轉入企業都不可以是房地產開發企業嗎? 如果一家企業 A 自己開發了商業房地產沒有出售, 而是租給另一家集團內公司 B 經營酒店 現在 A 打算做重組, 將該房產投資入股到 B, 而 B 繼續經營酒店, 這樣的重組業務 A 可以適用暫不徵收土地增值稅政策嗎? 稅總官員回應 : 轉出和轉入方都必須是非房地產企業才能享受上述暫不徵收土地增值稅政策 因此上述情形中企業 A 應該繳納土地增值稅 問題第二 : 根據財稅 [2015]37 號第六條, 同一投資主體內部所屬企業之間土地 房屋權屬的劃轉, 包括母公司與其全資子公司之間, 同一公司所屬全資子公司之間, 同一自然人與其設立的個人獨資企業 一人有限公司之間土地 房屋權屬的劃轉, 免征契稅 請問本條裡的 劃轉 的意思? 是指土地 房屋的轉讓必須用股權支付嗎? 稅總官員回應 : 財稅 [2015]37 號第六條中的 劃轉, 劃出方必須以帳面淨值劃轉, 與財稅 [2014]109 號文的 劃轉 意義相似 稅總官員回應 : 爭取在 2015 年完成 對還未有推行營改增的行業, 可能分步推進 12. 問題 : 財稅 [2008]151 號文規定, 財政性資金包括 直接減免的增值稅 請問企業在營改增時, 提供免征增值稅的服務, 是否會被視為 直接減免的增值稅, 作為企業所得稅應稅收入處理? 如果需要繳納企業所得稅, 應該如何計算這部分應稅收入? 按照服務收款金額乘以增值稅適用稅率計算嗎? 需要注意的是,151 號文中, 財政性資金的基本定義為企業取得的來源於政府及其有關部門的財政補助 補貼 貸款貼息, 以及其他各類財政專項資金 企業享受增值稅免稅其實並未 取得 財政補助性質的款項 所以我們認為提供免征增值稅的服務, 免征的增值稅不應視為企業所得稅應稅收入 P.19

24