China: Tax treaty relief on transferring land rich enterprises and substantial shareholding interests clarified

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Garden, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

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

China: Tax treaty relief on transferring land rich enterprises and substantial shareholding interests clarified

ho.jpg

lu.jpg

Khoonming Ho


Lewis Lu

On December 31 2012 the State Administration of Taxation (SAT) issued Announcement 59, clarifying the manner in which the capital gains tax articles of China's double tax agreements (DTAs) are to be applied. The existing guidance on the application of the capital gains article in Chinese DTAs is set out in Circular Guoshuifa [2010] No.75 (Circular 75). Circular 75 streamlines the interpretation and application of the PRC-Singapore DTA and, by extension, DTAs entered into by China with other jurisdictions to the extent that their provisions are consistent with the China-Singapore DTA. Announcement 59 serves to complement Circular 75 in respect of the following two matters.

  • Transferring a "land rich" Chinese company. Chinese DTAs typically define a "land rich" Chinese company as one that directly or indirectly derives more than 50% of its value from Chinese immovable property. Announcement 59 clarifies that, in determining whether a Chinese enterprise derives its value largely from immovable property, liabilities of the enterprise are disregarded, and regard solely had to the enterprise assets (gross asset approach), which is generally consistent with the OECD commentary. Furthermore, Announcement 59 states that such determination should be made using the values of the enterprise assets as recorded in the financial statements prepared in accordance with PRC GAAP.

  • Transferring a Chinese company that is not "land rich". Circular 75 provides examples to illustrate how to determine whether the "25% shareholding threshold" is met and introduces the "significant interest relationships" notion. In a nut shell, direct ownership, indirect ownership and "constructive ownership" should be combined in deciding whether the 25% threshold is breached. Announcement 59 provides additional refinement in this regard, saying that indirect holdings need only be included in the calculation where the holding in the intermediate holding company, through which equity in the Chinese enterprise is held, is at least 10% of the total share capital of that company. Announcement 59 also defines more clearly, for both non-resident individual and corporate disposers of Chinese equity, who is to be considered to be related persons with "significant interest relationships". The 10% threshold for including indirect holdings in the Chinese enterprise is equally relevant in determining the holdings of such related persons.

The clarifications on the 25% threshold determination should be viewed as helpful, as the definition of persons with "significant interest relationships" is now more precise, and the need to consider every minor holding in the Chinese enterprise (whether held indirectly by the disposer itself or constructively held) is mitigated by the exclusion o those indirect holdings through intermediate holding companies of which less than 10% are held.

However, the land-rich clarifications could prove problematic, depending on how they are actually applied by local tax authorities in practice. If Chinese enterprise asset values were to be generally determined on the basis of their accounting values, with solely immovable property stepped up to higher fair market value, more enterprises would fall into the "land rich" category. This could particularly be the case in light of the steadily increasing Chinese real estate prices of recent years.

Khoonming Ho (khoonming.ho@kpmg.com)

Tel: +86 (10) 8508 7082

Lewis Lu (lewis.lu@kpmg.com)

Tel: +86 (21) 2212 3421

KPMG

Website: www.kpmg.com

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

As the firm embarks on a major shakeup of its EMEA partnerships, some staff will be watching nervously
The buyout of Hucke and Associates continues Ryan’s streak of firm acquisitions; in other news, a UK appeal against VAT on private school fees was dismissed
Tax teams are responding to usual client demand in the region, albeit with increased working from home flexibility, local sources indicate
A 120-plus-day delay to refunds would cost taxpayers almost $3bn in additional interest, the Cato Institute warned; plus indirect tax updates from February
The Office for Budget Responsibility’s pessimistic pillar two forecast accompanied the UK chancellor’s muted Spring Statement, dubbed ‘as dull as possible’ by one adviser
Digital tax reform is dissolving the old ‘temporal buffer’, forcing systems, institutions, and professionals to adapt as real-time reporting reshapes governance, capability, and compliance
Our first instalment features analysis of Deloitte’s landmark EMEA merger, Donald Trump’s Supreme Court tariff showdown and Venezuela’s tax evolution
While some believe it could have a positive effect on the wider advisory landscape, others argue that HMRC’s ‘red tape’ exercise won’t deter bad actors
The political optics of the US’s carve-out deal are poor, but as the Fair Tax Foundation’s Paul Monaghan writes, it preserves pillar two’s guiding ethos
The big four firm reportedly sent ‘threatening’ correspondence to Unity Advisory over its hiring of ex-PwC partners; plus tax recruitment news from the week
Gift this article