International Tax Review is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 8 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2023

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

China: Guidance on Chinese general anti-avoidance rule published for comment

ho.jpg

lu.jpg

Khoonming Ho


Lewis Lu

On July 3 2014 the Chinese State Administration of Taxation (SAT) released draft GAAR administrative measures for public comment. The draft GAAR administrative measures provide guidance on when a tax avoidance scheme is in point, on the internal tax authority protocols for selection of GAAR cases, on the documentation which may be demanded from taxpayers, and on the manner in which tax adjustments for unwarranted tax benefits can be made. The existing Chinese domestic GAAR principle is set out in the Corporate Income Tax Law and its Detailed Implmentation Rules (DIR). Further guidance is provided in Guo Shui Fa [2009] No2 (Circular 2), which directs the local tax authorties to evaluate potential tax avoidance arrangements with reference to the substance over form principle, while having regard to specific, enumerated aspects of the arrangement. However, Circular 2 does not explain the nature of the documentation required from taxpayers, or the manner in which a GAAR tax adjustment is to be conducted, nor does it explain which third parties may be pursued for further information. Existing guidance also leaves unclear the precise manner in which tax-avoidance arrangements are to be identified. The draft GAAR administrative measures provide for greater detail in this regard.

The draft GAAR administrative measures explain that the main features of a tax-avoidance arrangement are (i) that the sole or main purpose, or one of its main purposes, is to obtain tax benefits, and (ii) that the legal form of the arrangement is in compliance with the tax law and regulations, but not in conformity with economic substance. This reiterates the 'purpose' focus of the GAAR test set out in the DIR and the need to consider the form and substance of the arrangement in making the evaluation, as noted in Circular 2.

Rules on order of precedence are set out such that the application of domestic special tax avoidance rules (SAARs) comes before the GAAR, and the use of treaty SAARs comes before domestic anti-avoidance provisions. Under these rules, transfer pricing, cost-sharing arrangement, controlled foreign company and thin capitalisation provisions are to be applied in preference to the GAAR, and beneficial ownership and limitation on benefits (LOB) rules in treaties are to be applied before domestic anti-avoidance rules.

The draft GAAR administrative measures provide detailed documentation requirements for taxpayers. It is also explicitly stated that documentation may be demanded by the tax authorities from the taxpayer's tax advisers. It is provided that, beyond the 60 day limit for supplying documents set out in Circular 2, an extension of 30 days may be available in special circumstances.

The draft GAAR administrative measures shoud provide a greater degree of transparency for the procedures by which GAAR cases are administered. Where made final, the draft measures would apply to all arrangements concluded and executed after January 1 2008, except where GAAR disputes have already been settled before the measures taking effect. Notably, the measures do not apply to solely domestic transactions with no cross-border element, and are also not to apply to Circular 698 offshore indirect transfer cases, for which separate guidance is to be issued.

Khoonming Ho (khoonming.ho@kpmg.com)

KPMG, China and Hong Kong SAR

Tel: +86 (10) 8508 7082
Lewis Lu (lewis.lu@kpmg.com)

KPMG, Central China

Tel: +86 (21) 2212 3421

more across site & bottom lb ros

More from across our site

The German government unveils plans to implement pillar two, while EY is reportedly still divided over ‘Project Everest’.
With the M&A market booming, ITR has partnered with correspondents from firms around the globe to provide a guide to the deal structures being employed and tax authorities' responses.
Xing Hu, partner at Hui Ye Law Firm in Shanghai, looks at the implications of the US Uyghur Forced Labor Protection Act for TP comparability analysis of China.
Karl Berlin talks to Josh White about meeting the Fair Tax standard, the changing burden of country-by-country reporting, and how windfall taxes may hit renewable energy.
Sandy Markwick, head of the Tax Director Network (TDN) at Winmark, looks at the challenges of global mobility for tax management.
Taxpayers should look beyond the headline criteria of the simplification regime to ensure that their arrangements meet the arm’s-length standard, say Alejandro Ces and Mark Seddon of the EY New Zealand transfer pricing team.
In a recent webinar hosted by law firms Greenberg Traurig and Clayton Utz, officials at the IRS and ATO outlined their visions for 2023.
The Asia-Pacific awards research cycle has now begun – don’t miss on this opportunity be recognised in 2023
An intense period of lobbying and persuasion is under way as the UN secretary-general’s report on the future of international tax cooperation begins to take shape. Ralph Cunningham reports.
Fresh details of the European Commission’s state aid case against Amazon emerge, while a pension fund is suing Amgen over its tax dispute with the Internal Revenue Service.