The Study On The Legal Problems Of Anti-tax Avoidance In Indirect Transfer Of Equity Of Non-resident Enterprises

In recent years,China's economy has maintained a rapid growth trend.Cross-border tax revenues have grown rapidly,and companies are constantly looking for legal margins.The issue of non-resident enterprises' indirect equity transfer anti-tax avoidance has become a hot topic in the taxation field.To comply with the global trend of combating cross-border evasion of taxes,the State Administration of Taxation issued an announcement No.7 in 2015.In June2017,government representatives from 67 countries and regions,including China,signed the "BEPS Multilateral Convention." Although China ' s anti-avoidance capacity is becoming stronger and the anti-tax avoidance environment is becoming more and more optimized,the tax avoidance methods for non-resident companies ' indirect equity transfers are also becoming more and more complicated.China's regulatory system is lagging behind and lacks practical experience.There are still many issues that deserve our deep thought and improvement.This article consists of six parts.The first part is an introduction,including the research background and significance of the article,literature review,research methods,innovations and deficiencies.The first part focuses on the literature review.At present,most scholars study from the perspective of the overall tax collection and management risk of taxation agencies.However,there is a relative lack of research on indirect equity transfer of non-resident companies,and problems existing in the non-resident enterprise indirect equity transfer system and how to improve it.There is room for research.The second part of the article begins with a typical case,the Child's Primary Fund case.Through this case,the basic model of non-resident enterprise indirect equity transfer can be clearly seen.In addition,the main issues discussed in this paper are introduced by introducing the main contentious issue of the case,namely “whether the equity transfer of this case has a reasonable commercial purpose”.The third part deals with the general issues of non-resident enterprises' indirect transfer of equity.It mainly introduces basic concepts such as the basic concepts of non-resident enterprises and non-resident enterprise indirect equity transfer,and non-resident companies' indirect transfer of equity,followed by the principle of tax equity and From the perspective of the principle of quantitative taxation,taxability analysis was carried out.The fourth part introduces the current anti-avoidance taxation system for indirect equity transfer in China's non-resident enterprises.It clarifies the inadequacies of the current system in China,such as the incomplete legal system,the ambiguous standard for judging reasonable commercial purposes,and the fact that the substance in practice is less important than the legal effect of formal principles.The anti-tax avoidance ability of the judicial organs is weak.The fifth part describes two typical foreign cases: the Ramsey case in Britain and the Vodafone case in India.It also explains the statutory country's anti-tax avoidance regulations in Germany.The aim is to introduce advanced experiences from abroad through two cases in three countries and learn from them.The sixth part is based on the third part and the fourth part of the article,and puts forward some suggestions for the anti-tax avoidance status of non-resident enterprises in China.The specific content is as follows: China's general anti-tax avoidance legal system should be used for reference to improve foreign experience,implement the statutory principles of taxation;when judging reasonable commercial purposes,it should abide by the principle of overall judgment and standardize the review criteria for reasonable commercial purposes;for the principle of substance over form,It should be placed in an equally important legal status with legitimate commercial purposes;for the current situation of the dominant anti-avoidance model of China's administrative agencies,it is necessary to improve the anti-tax avoidance capacity of the judicial organs through the establishment of tax courts and personnel training.