国家税务总局有关负责人就《一般反避税管理办法（试行）》有关政策问题答记者问

2014年11月16日，国家主席习近平在澳大利亚布里斯班举行的G20领导人第九次峰会第二阶段会议讨论世界经济抗风险能力议题时指出：“加强全球税收合作，打击国际逃避税，帮助发展中国家和低收入国家提高税收征管能力”。这是我国最高领导人首次在国际重大政治场合就税收问题发表重要意见。随后，为落实习主席“打击国际逃避税”的指示，国家税务总局迅速行动，发布了《一般反避税管理办法（试行）》（以下简称“办法”），进一步规范和明确税务机关采取一般反避税措施的适用范围、判断标准、调整方法、工作程序、争议处理等相关问题。近日，税务总局有关负责人就《一般反避税管理办法（试行）》有关政策问题回答了记者提问。

记者：为什么要出台《一般反避税管理办法（试行）》（以下简称“办法”）？

答：中国从2008年《企业所得税法》开始引入一般反避税条款，一般反避税在中国尚属较新的领域，目前《企业所得税法》及其实施细则、《特别纳税调整实施办法（试行）》等法律法规提供了一般反避税管理的原则性规定，但是至今尚缺乏一套全面、综合的管理办法来规范各地税务机关的操作流程和执行标准。中国税务机关在过去6年多的时间中，在一般反避税调查方面，积累了一定的实践经验，同时也迫切感受到出台一套统一管理办法的必要性。《办法》旨在为一般反避税条款提供详细的程序操作指引，以便建立更加透明、统一和公平的一般反避税机制。

记者：《办法》的主要内容是什么？

答：《办法》进一步明确了一般反避税的适用范围和判断标准，也明确了“税收利益”的含义、“避税安排”的主要特征等概念和问题，有助于税务机关在实践中更精准地掌握启动一般反避税的尺度。

此外，《办法》还制定了一套严谨的一般反避税管理程序，贯穿立案、调查、结案三个阶段，并对每个阶段中不同层级税务机关承担的职能和权限作出详细且具有操作性的规定，旨在通过严谨的程序来保证一般反避税措施能够透明、公平和公正地执行。《办法》也赋予被调查企业提出异议、申请救济、协调解决争议等权利，切实保护了纳税人的合法权利。

记者：一般反避税针对什么样的避税安排？

答：根据《企业所得税法》第四十七条及其实施条例第一百二十条的规定，一般反避税是针对企业实施的不具有合理商业目的而获取税收利益的安排。这里有两个要素，一个是不具有合理商业目的，在评估一项安排的合理商业目的时，需要根据个案的具体情况，综合考虑各方面因素，重点判断该安排的经济实质；另一个要素是获取税收利益，税收利益包括减少、免除或者推迟缴纳企业所得税应纳税额。当然，不能仅仅因为一项安排获取了税收利益，就认定其为一般反避税安排，因为《企业所得税法》为企业提供了法定的税收优惠，如果企业经济实质符合《企业所得税法》规定的相关条件而享受税收优惠政策的，不属于一般反避税的范畴。

此外，为便于基层税务机关判定及纳税人自我评估，《办法》也明确了避税安排的主要特征：一是以获取税收利益为唯一目的或主要目的；二是以形式符合税法规定但与其经济实质不符的方式获取税收利益。

记者：《办法》的适用范围是针对所有的境内以及跨境交易么？

答：《办法》不适用于下面两种情况：

一是与跨境交易或者支付无关的安排。跨境的避税安排会造成我国税款的流失，而境内交易的调整有可能会造成两地之间重复征税，因此境内交易不是我们关注的重点，现阶段本《办法》只针对跨境交易或支付。

二是涉嫌逃避缴纳税款、逃避追缴欠税、骗税、抗税以及虚开发票等税收违法行为。这些违法行为应根据《税收征收管理法》的相关规定处理。

记者：《特别纳税调整实施办法（试行）》第九十二条也提到了应当启动一般反避税调查的避税安排的范围，和《办法》里的相关规定有何联系？

答：本《办法》和现有的政策相辅相成，形成了一个完整的一般反避税法规体系。《企业所得税法》及其实施细则和《特别纳税调整实施办法（试行）》为一般反避税条款的适用提出了原则性规定，本《办法》在工作层面明确了启动一般反避税调查程序的具体判定要件，是对现有政策相关条款的细化和解释。税务机关和纳税人应当结合整个法规体系提供的原则性规定来综合考量。

记者：一般反避税通常是在什么情况下启用的？如何看待它和其它反避税条款的关系？

答：《企业所得税法》第六章规定了一系列反避税措施，包括转让定价、资本弱化、成本分摊、受控外国企业等，这些条款分别针对一些特定的避税安排。企业的避税安排如果属于这些反避税条款调整范畴时，应首先适用该反避税条款的相关规定。只有当一项避税安排不能够适用任何一项具体反避税条款时，我们才会启用一般反避税条款。也就是说，一般反避税条款是穷尽所有其他的反避税措施后的最后手段。

记者：一旦启用一般反避税条款，如何进行调整？

答：一旦启用一般反避税条款，税务机关应以具有合理商业目的和经济实质的类似安排为基准，按照实质重于形式的原则实施特别纳税调整。调整方法包括重新定性安排的全部或者部分交易；在税收上否定交易方的存在，或者将该交易方与其他交易方视为同一实体；对相关所得、扣除、税收优惠、境外税收抵免等重新定性或者在交易各方间重新分配；或其他合理方法。

记者：哪一层级的税务机关拥有决定一般反避税立案调查和结案的权限？

答：考虑到一般反避税案件的复杂性，一般反避税的立案调查和最终结案都需要经过税务总局的批准。主管税务机关的立案申请，以及不予调整或初步、最终调整方案都需要分别层报省级税务机关复核同意后，报税务总局审核决定。这与现有的政策规定也是一致的。

记者：基层税务机关在整个一般反避税程序中，行使怎样的职能和权限？

答：基层主管税务机关应结合企业所得税汇算清缴、纳税评估、同期资料管理、对外支付税务管理、股权转让交易管理、税收协定执行等工作，及时发现一般反避税案源。发现企业存在避税嫌疑的，层报省级税务机关复核同意后，报税务总局申请立案。在调查阶段，主管税务机关审核企业、筹划方、关联方以及与关联业务调查有关的其他企业提供的资料，可以采用现场调查、发函协查和查阅公开信息等方式核实。主管税务机关根据调查过程中获得的相关资料，自税务总局同意立案之日起9个月内进行审核评估，综合判断企业是否存在避税安排，形成案件不予调整或初步、最终调整方案的意见和理由，层报税务总局结案。

记者：在一般反避税案件的整个立案、调查和结案过程中，被调查企业能否提出异议维护企业权益？

答：当一般反避税案件立案后，被调查企业会收到《税务检查通知书》，此时企业可以在60日内（或申请延期）提供资料说明安排的商业目的等信息，证明其税收安排不属于避税安排。在结案阶段，被调查企业如果对《特别纳税调查初步调整通知书》存在异议的，可以在7日内提出异议，之所以提出这些时限要求，一方面是为了保证案件的高效处理，另一方面也是为了督促企业做好日常税务风险内控和合规工作。被调查企业对税务机关做出的一般反避税调整决定不服的，还可以按照有关法律法规的规定申请法律救济。

记者：《办法》是否适用于境外间接股权转让？

答：如果境外间接股权转让存在一般反避税规范的避税安排，本《办法》也适用于境外间接股权转让。

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.