Research On Cross-border Tax Dispute Resolution Mechanism Between China And Countries Along The Belt And Road

The Belt and Road Initiative was put forward against the background that the world economic recovery needs impetus.At the same time,overcapacity has emerged in some industries in China.To solve this problem,we need to explore new markets and open up more to the outside world.By investing in countries along the belt and Road,China can not only solve the problem of overcapacity,but also enable those countries in urgent need of foreign investment to attract relevant production factors for economic construction,so as to achieve reasonable allocation of resources and promote economic development.At the same time,the Belt and Road Initiative is in line with the trend of global development.It is a vision of the Chinese people on how the world should develop and how to achieve development.Over the past eight years,the Belt and Road Initiative has achieved remarkable results.However,due to differences in legal backgrounds and tax systems of countries along the Belt and Road,and uneven tax collection and administration capabilities,cross-border tax disputes are inevitable.A large part of China’s "going global" enterprises are facing problems related to taxation,and the tax disputes have caused serious losses to multinational enterprises.Cross-border tax disputes will not only discourage China’s "going global" enterprises from engaging in economic and trade activities,but also hinder economic exchanges and cooperation among countries along the Belt and Road.At the same time,the defects of mutual consultation procedures have gradually emerged,which can no longer meet the needs of effective,rapid and fair settlement of cross-border tax disputes.Therefore,improving the cross-border tax dispute resolution mechanism is in line with the needs of countries along the Belt and Road,and is beneficial to the economic prosperity of countries along the Belt and Road.Using normative research method,qualitative and quantitative methods,and case analysis method,this paper first expounds the basic theories of cross-border tax disputes,including the basic concepts and types of cross-border tax disputes,the basic concepts of cross-border tax dispute resolution mechanism,and the procedures of domestic law and international law involved,as well as the theoretical basis.Secondly introduced the typical case analysis,huaxin cement case focuses on tax dispute focus and program through mutual negotiation between China and tajikistan to the tax dispute resolution process,and to our country at present and "neighbourhood" all the way along the national tax treaty signed and generalizes the mutual consultation procedure for the construction of the situation,on this basis to summarize the case.In addition,it also introduces the basic situation of cross-border tax disputes in countries along the belt and Road,mainly including the subject,reason and time consuming of the disputes.Then,based on the analysis of relevant data and cases,it summarizes the problems existing in the cross-border tax dispute resolution mechanism between China and countries along the "Belt and Road".It includes the difficulties in the implementation of tax agreements,the low case settlement rate of mutual consultation procedures,the long time,the defects of low transparency,the few ways to settle tax disputes,the few taxpayers to choose tax relief measures,and the system connection problems of tax dispute settlement.Meanwhile,it deeply explores the causes of the above problems.Finally,the author draws lessons from foreign experience in the aspects of mutual consultation procedure,compulsory arbitration procedure and mediation mechanism,and puts forward six suggestions for improvement as reference.It mainly includes accelerating the renewal and negotiation of tax agreements,improving the law enforcement ability of tax personnel,improving mutual consultation procedures,broadening the ways of tax dispute settlement,increasing the publicity of tax agreements,and making it clear that multilateral agreements take precedence over bilateral agreements.