2018年7月20日,长飞光纤光缆股份有限公司(以下简称“长飞光纤”)成功发行A股股票并在上海证券交易所上市(股票简称:长飞光纤,股票代码:601869)。长飞光纤本次发行的股份总数为75,790,510股,发行价格为每股人民币26.71元,募集资金总额为202,436.45 万元。2014年12月10日,长飞光纤即已在香港联交所主板挂牌上市(股票代码:06869.HK)。因此,本次A股发行完成后,长飞光纤成为国内首家光纤光缆“A+H”股上市企业。 Continue Reading 金杜协助长飞光纤完成A股上市,成为国内首家光纤光缆“A+H”股上市企业

2018年7月3日,金杜律师事务所作为美国知名共享单车公司Neutron Holding, Inc. (“Lime”) 的法律顾问,协助其顺利完成近3亿美元的C轮融资。作为成立仅一年的初创公司, Lime此次融资后估值高达11亿美元,成功迈入独角兽大门。 Continue Reading 金杜助力Lime共享单车完成C轮3亿美元融资,成就新一代独角兽公司

On July 3, 2018, King & Wood Mallesons (“KWM”) advised Neutron Holding, Inc. (“Lime”) on its successful Series C financing. The preferred equity financing raised approximately US$300 million.  Lime, only established for one year, passed a notable milestone as this round would value Lime at over $1.1 billion and Lime has since become a newest unicorn. Continue Reading King & Wood Mallesons Advises Lime on Its US$300 Million Series C Financing, and Lime Becomes a Newest Unicorn

随着十九大“坚持全面依法治国”,“营造良好营商环境”等要求提出,合规已逐渐成为企业关注的热点。广义的合规涵盖企业经营的方方面面,狭义的合规则主要指反商业贿赂。目前,中国反腐败力度不断加大,如何降低商业贿赂给企业带来的法律风险,已成为企业营商过程中必须关注的重中之重。

在这种背景下,金杜反商业贿赂合规团队借助威科先行法律数据库的支持,对近三年的反商业贿赂案例进行了大数据分析,并从中选取典型案例,结合多年的执业经验进行深入点评,撰写了《企业营商风险与合规指引——2018中国反商业贿赂大数据及典型案例分析》(下称“《报告》”)。

《报告》共分四章。第一章以大数据分析的方式还原了反商业贿赂领域刑事和行政执法现状及执法思路,结合对监察体制改革、新《反不正当竞争法》及反商业贿赂行政执法力量变化的分析,明确企业应当正视的合规新常态。第二章以典型案例为基础,以律师点评的方式阐述企业在日常经营的不同环节中应当注意的合规要点。例如,如何与公职人员、交易相对方及其员工交往,如何避免第三方引发的合规风险,如何做好上下游管理。此外,随着走出去及“一带一路”战略的稳步推进,越来越多的中国企业开始进军国际市场,《报告》第三章和第四章从全球化的的视角,对企业如何预防海外合规风险及如何建立有效合规制度给出了实用性建议。

《报告》以大数据分析、律师案例点评为特点,具有极强的专业性和实务参考价值,对企业困惑及实务中有争议的问题进行了重点分析,给企业法务人员建立有效合规管理制度提供了可以借鉴的范本,给反商业贿赂合规律师及理论研究者提供很好的学习及研究参考。

《报告》由吴巍律师牵头撰写,凝聚了金杜反商业贿赂团队全体合伙人和律师的智慧和执业感悟,是金杜反商业贿赂团队继《中国反商业贿赂合规实务指南》之后的又一力作。

2018年7月18日,金杜律师事务所与荷兰威科集团联合举办《报告》发布会。发布会上,吴巍律师、常俊峰律师及韩旸律师围绕《报告》中的重点话题做了进一步分享和解析。本次发布会的参会嘉宾逾百人,汇集了各大跨国企业、大型央企、国企的法律总监、首席合规官、高级法律顾问、法务经理以及英国金融时报、澳大利亚驻华大使馆商务处等诸多媒体及政府官员。发布会现场讨论热烈,《报告》受到了与会嘉宾的极大认可和好评。

【金杜反商业贿赂合规团队】

金杜是国内极少数建立固定律师团队专门从事反商业贿赂法律服务的中国律师事务所之一。金杜反商业贿赂合规团队中有资深的前任检察官、前公安干警,以及执业多年的刑事诉讼律师,对中国法律有着更加深刻的理解,也能更好地从实务角度给企业以指导或建议。金杜反商业贿赂合规团队可以为客户提供合规制度审查、制定,合规培训,应对国内外政府调查,开展公司内部调查,以及反商业贿赂行政、刑事法律服务。如此全面、优质的“一站式”服务,赢得了客户的高度评价和广泛的社会认可。

by:Feng MaAndrew DeszczDavid LamMolly Su 、Andrew Fei

King & Wood Mallesons

 

 

 

 

As the Chinese economy enters the “new normal”, the Chinese government has been adjusting its industrial and credit-related policies and strengthening regulation of Chinese financial institutions. A large number of non-performing loans (NPLs) as well as actual loan defaults have started to surface. The risks associated with rising levels of NPLs require Chinese banks to enhance their ex ante and ex post credit risk management practices.  They also need to strategically and effectively navigate complex domestic and cross-border loan recovery, debt restructuring and insolvency processes.

Careful planning and effective decision-making is required for banks to manage their NPLs and strategically engage in debt restructuring and insolvency processes.  Our recent experience in advising Chinese banks in connection with NPLs indicates that, while insufficient cash flow is the main cause of a borrower’s inability to repay its debts, certain other events may also adversely affect the borrower’s overall business and financial condition, such as:

  • misappropriation of the borrower’s funds by its controlling shareholder;
  • poor local management; and
  • domestic or foreign government investigations involving the controlling shareholder or the borrower’s other affiliates.

Although these events may not immediately result in a payment default, they may constitute breaches of representations or undertakings under the finance documents, which may trigger defaults under the loan in question or cross-defaults under other financing arrangements.

Drawing on our extensive experience in domestic and cross-border NPL recovery, security perfection, enforcement, debt restructuring and insolvency matters, this article provides a high-level, step-by-step guide on how Chinese banks can effectively manage their NPLs, develop a strategy for loan recoveries and navigate complex multi-jurisdictional debt structuring and insolvency processes.

Step 1:  Review finance documents

Banks should actively monitor their outstanding loans and, at the first sign of trouble in respect of a particular borrower, guarantor, security provider (each an “Obligor”) or any of their material affiliates, a bank (hereafter referred to as the “lender”) should assess:

  1. the amount of all outstanding debts including how much has become due and payable and how much is not yet due for payment;
  2. whether all finance documents were duly executed and whether the existing deal structure and security package are sufficient to protect the lender’s interests as a creditor;
  3. whether the relevant signatories of the finance documents were duly authorized at the time of execution;
  4. cross-default clauses in the finance documents;
  5. whether an event of default has occurred and if so, whether to immediately send an event of default notice to the Obligors and to accelerate some or all of the outstanding debt;
  6. whether the lender is entitled to (and whether it should) prevent:
    1. further drawdowns under the facility; and/or
    2. further dealings with the secured property (such as preventing withdrawals from the relevant bank accounts); and
  7. in cases involving a syndicated loan, the lender’s voting rights and voting percentage and whether it needs to work with other lenders in order to instruct the agents as the majority lender.

Step 2:  Assess the existing security package

The lender should assess:

  1. whether it has effective control over the secured property under existing security arrangements;
  2. whether the securities have been duly perfected under applicable laws;
  3. whether any security has not yet been registered, and if so whether the lender has everything it needs (including any power of attorney granted to the lender) to complete such registration under applicable laws; and
  4. whether the lender should immediately notify banks, securities brokers and other custodians to freeze relevant bank accounts, securities accounts or other secured property belonging to each Obligor.

Step 3:  Actively monitor the Obligors and conduct due diligence on their assets and current financial position

The lender should:

  1. consider the extent to which each Obligor’s controlling shareholder or authorized signatory is cooperative and able to sign additional documents, and whether the relevant company seal is readily available and accessible to that person;
  2. assess whether the controlling shareholder or authorized signatory can travel abroad to execute foreign securities documents and attend foreign securities registration (where onsite and in-person signing and notarization are required under applicable foreign laws);
  3. determine whether any Obligor intends to convene a board meeting or shareholder meeting and pass resolutions to dispose of material assets (if so, the lender should consider notifying the attendees or attending the meeting to state its rights); and
  4. conduct litigation and insolvency searches as well as other legal and financial due diligence in respect of each Obligor and its material assets.

Step 4:  Obtain additional security or initiate debt restructuring

The lender should:

  1. conduct legal and financial due diligence in respect of each Obligor to determine whether it has valuable assets (e.g. shares, real estate, receivables, equipment, other contractual rights and projects which can generate cash flow) that could be used to provide additional security to the lender;
  2. review the applicable legal requirements for perfection of security and any relevant restrictions imposed by the Obligor’s articles of association or agreements to which the Obligor is a party. In some foreign jurisdictions, the process for granting and perfecting security over bank accounts, securities and certain other types of movable property may be relatively straightforward, whereas the process in respect of real property may be more complicated. Notarization and certification requirements may also apply to certain types of collateral;
  3. where an Obligor has valuable assets or projects, the lender may work with the Obligor to dispose of them at a reasonable market price (or even at a premium), and the sale proceeds would be used to repay the borrower’s debt. It may also be possible for a third party to acquire equity or debt interests in the borrower in order to be involved in the borrower’s debt restructuring process; and
  4. assess the risk of insolvency proceedings being initiated against an Obligor and possibility of claw-back or similar claims in relation to any payments received by the lender, any additional security provided by the Obligor or any asset disposals by the Obligor.

Step 5:  Develop effective litigation strategies

The lender should, at an early stage, engage its in-house and external legal teams to:

  1. investigate whether an Obligor is engaged in any fraudulent activity, and take preventative measures (including court proceedings) where appropriate;
  2. investigate whether any Obligor is implicated in criminal activities such as loan fraud or money laundering, and take into account the impact of potential criminal proceedings involving the Obligor and their interaction with civil proceedings to recover debt or enforce security;
  3. develop specific litigation strategies with respect to each Obligor, including tailored asset preservation and enforcement strategies; and
  4. prepare relevant litigation materials in advance so the lender stands ready at any time to commence civil proceedings (or report suspected criminal activity to the relevant authorities).

Step 6:  Formulate effective insolvency strategies

The lender should:

  1. prepare a list of key jurisdictions where insolvency proceedings may be commenced against an Obligor; and
  2. with the assistance of external counsel, investigate how different stages of an insolvency proceeding may affect the lender’s rights, including:
    1. before the commencement of insolvency proceedings (e.g. whether transactions entered into by the Obligor prior to insolvency might be subject to challenge by an insolvency official, creditor or other third party)
    2. understanding the position immediately after the commencement of insolvency proceedings (e.g. whether creditors’ rights may be subject to a moratorium)
    3. understanding the position during the medium to long-term (some insolvency proceedings can last many years)
    4. In some jurisdictions, courts are not actively involved in the insolvency process, and a group of creditors (e.g. a creditors’ committee) will need to make important decisions. The lender should consider which senior officers within its organization should be authorized to make decisions for the lender and who should represent the lender on the creditors’ committee.
  3. Formulate strategies against potential insolvency proceedings

Step 7:  Effectively dealing with other creditors

The lender should:

  1. determine whether the borrower has other major creditors and obtain key information about the borrower’s other debts (e.g. amount, due date, whether in default and the security package);
  2. closely monitor the protective and enforcement measures that other creditors have taken or are taking in relation to the Obligors or collateral, and assess whether other creditors are likely to initiate insolvency proceedings against any Obligor; and
  3. consider whether it is strategically advantageous for the lender to work with other creditors (e.g. similarly situated lenders or other members of the loan syndicate) to achieve win-win outcomes for these creditors (including the lender).

In addition to the steps outlined above, we recommend that lenders consider whether there are instances of non-compliance with respect to its credit and lending processes and conduct internal investigations into relevant procedures and personnel. This may help the lender understand and gather relevant evidence for potential legal proceedings.

Debt restructuring, asset recovery, enforcement and insolvency proceedings are fast-moving and incredibly complex, especially if they involve cross-border elements and multiple legal jurisdictions. These processes require close cooperation and coordination at all levels within the bank. They also demand decisive decision-making from the bank’s leadership and swift execution and implementation of those decisions.

External counsel play a critical role in helping banks navigate these complex processes. In addition to their expertise in banking and finance matters and familiarity with the finance documents, external counsel can also provide strategic and practical advice in connection with domestic and foreign security perfection, enforcement, litigation and insolvency proceedings. With the able assistance of external legal and other advisers, Chinese banks can effectively manage their NPLs, maximize loan recoveries and minimize potential or actual losses.

作者:马峰Andrew DeszczDavid Lam苏萌

 

 

 

 

近年来,我国宏观经济增长放缓,国家调整产业和信贷政策,并逐渐加强金融监管,商业银行的资产质量压力有所增加,十亿甚至百亿级别的债务逾期或潜在违约浮出水面。这些巨无霸级别的潜在不良贷款风险,迫切要求商业银行审查并改善贷前贷后管理中的遗漏和问题,也对商业银行的危机处理能力提出了更高的挑战。 Continue Reading 贷款逾期,商业银行如何打好危机处理的第一仗

作者:夏东霞,杨婷,王琦   金杜律师事务所  争议解决部

2018年7月17日,北京市高级人民法院(下称“北京高院”)对苏嘉鸿诉中国证券监督管理委员会(下称“证监会”)行政处罚和行政复议决定上诉案(下称“苏嘉鸿案”)进行公开宣判,以事实不清、程序违法为由判决撤销被诉行政处罚决定及行政复议决定,一并撤销此前驳回苏嘉鸿诉讼请求的一审判决。 Continue Reading 深度解析 | 首例证监会行政处罚决定被撤销案

作者:萧乃莹陈运马绍基,薛嘉聪,汪镕 ,牟牧  

金杜律师事务所    金融资本部

根据最近发布的《证券基金经营机构使用香港机构证券投资咨询服务暂行规定》(“《暂行规定》”)[1],从今年7月开始,香港特别行政区(“香港”)证券投资咨询机构可以与内地证券公司及公募基金管理人(合称为“证券基金经营机构”)互惠合作,向港股通项下的内地投资者提供证券投资咨询服务。 Continue Reading 中国证监会就港股通交易中使用香港机构证券投资咨询服务的行为发布新规

作者:叶永青、赵文祥     金杜律师事务所  商务合规部


一、引子:为什么争议这么大——以房地产个税征管为例

十八大以来,收入分配改革一直是经济制度改革的重中之重。由于利益错综复杂,改革的难度也超乎想象。税收对于收入分配能够起到重要的调节作用,其优化的目标应当是充分反映社会对效率与公平的权衡,将社会分配不公平与对经济的扭曲都降至最低,并促进经济的健康稳定增长。这其中,个人所得税无疑是最重要的税种之一。正因为如此,目前个税修正草案征求意见已经超过11万条。

在中国,多数人的感觉应该都会指向一个事实——中国现阶段财富和收入分配的离散度正在加大,劳动形成的收入增长赶不上资本创造的财富增长。而与此不相协调的是,无论是税法规则还是征管层面,资本性财产的税负都低于劳动所得。以房地产的个人所得税为例。民间段子戏说“辛苦工作不如买房”,这不仅指房地产本身给个人带来的财富效应,很多人大概还没有意识到,房产买卖所得适用的税率其实也远低于相同收入水平的工薪税。

根据现行个税规定,财产转让所得,按转让财产的收入额减除财产原值和合理费用后的余额,适用20%的税率,这原本就低于工薪税的累进税率。而在实践中,纳税人多数选择了核定征收。本来核定征收,是税务机关在纳税人未能提供准确、完整的房屋原值时,所采取的带有惩罚性质的替代征管手段(国税发[2006]108号),因此核定征收的核定率应该是高于正常的收益率的,否则反而成了逆向激励。

但现实中,财税部门确定的核定征收率(1%-3%的浮动幅度)一直未能根据不动产价格变动及时调整。这反而将核定征收变成了税收优惠措施。在房价上涨20%的时候,1%的征收率只相当于6%的实际税率,房价上涨越多,核定征收的实际税率就越低。如果通过辛苦劳动取得与此相当的收入,适用税率很可能早已超过30%。另外,其他资本性财产的转让收入,如二级市场取得的股票转让所得和与之对应的基金转让所得,也都暂免征收所得税。整体而言,资本性收入的实际税负远低于工薪税。

二、现行个税制度的反思

个税制定初期,商业业态简单,经济发展程度不高。居民收入主要来源于劳动所得,且整体收入偏低,适用累进税率争议不大。在当时,工薪收入适用30%以上税率的也非常少见,主要都是外企金领或各行业中的领军人物。随着经济的高速发展和与之相伴随的物价变化,收入的绝对数和费用支出的绝对数都有了大幅上升。相比之下,个税的费用扣除数虽有提升,仍相比于实际生活支出显得难以为继(仅为3500元/月)。

另一方面,国内高收入人群,其收入和财富的来源早已从劳动所得转向了与资本性财产相关的所得。但这类所得的实际税负低于劳动所得,使得税收对于收入分配和财富分配的调节作用被大大弱化。认真工作的基层白领现在已经变成了个税的主力军。如果我们从制度和实践的角度来分析现有的个人所得税制,可以发现存在的问题有以下这些:

  1. 纳税主体规定不完整

没有引入完整的税收居民概念,对于高净值人士通过改变国籍进行税收安排缺乏明确的法律制约,也没有类似美国的退籍税制度。

  1. 征税对象不周延

目前分类征收税制下,对于高收入人群经常涉及的一些明显应当征税的所得类型没有明确,实践征管中也往往未成为征税对象。比较典型的有以下几类:1)投资型保险产品的收益;2)信托产品收益;3)特殊类型财产转让收益(例如新三板股权);4)财产赠予所得等。

  1. 缺乏反避税规则

目前个人所得税缺乏像企业所得税法一样的反避税条款,仅能依靠税收征管法中的核定权条款。这使得税法规则存在漏洞时,税务机关业没有充足法律依据对自然人的相关交易进行税务调整。

  1. 税收征管实践

除了个税规定不完善,配套的征管制度也存在一些问题和局限,使得个税在实施过程中又被打了折扣。如前所述,这些问题包括;(1)涉税信息获取缺乏制度安排;(2)核定征收的使用缺乏合理有效的限制等等。

  1. 税收优惠

个人所得税的税收优惠制度也缺乏系统性的思考。一方面,对于资本性收益存在大量法律和实践中的优惠,弱化了收入分配的效果;另一方面,对于确实需要鼓励和激励的个人应税行为(比如知识产权相关的创新),优惠的力度仍然较为有效,没有明显的激励效果。

三、展望:未来个税应该怎么改?

基于以上分析结合本次个人所得税修正草案,不难发现草案很大程度上回应了存在的问题。从纳税主体的确定遵从国际惯例,到征税对象和方式的综合平衡,都做出了调整,也代表着个税立法的一次重大突破。

如果现行个税的问题出在劳动性所得和资本性所得税负失衡,那么解决的思路也很简单,就是围绕着再平衡展开。结合个人所得税制的整体框架,有以下制度要点还需要进一步捋清。本文仅作简单提示,未来我们将结合草案的具体条款以及各主要国家立法例进行逐一评析。

纳税主体的确认与完善

税收居民的认定是个人所得税的基础与起点。如何结合个人身份的管理制度,构建出完整的税收居民体系是这次税改中的关键点。CRS信息交换即将全面推开,税收居民的判定规则,税收居民身份的冲突与协调,都直接制约税收征管有效开展与实施。草案已经迈出了关键一步。然而,仍有很多问题需要明确。随着居民身份的认定,所得来源规则就成为另一个自然衔接的问题,草案对此该如何给予明确的指引也是令人期待的。

综合与分类税制如何结合?

个税的基础内容是要解决如何对个人所得进行征税的问题。即一国如何确定哪些类型的收入计入所得,哪些费用可以扣除,损失如何处理,计算所得适用哪些规则等。

原来的个税采用分类征税的方式征管简便,但存在以下问题:(1)因为是对各类所得分别征税,难以根据量能课税原则对个人所有所得适用累进税率,也难以给予合理的税收扣除或者减免(如免征额、费用扣除);(2)税收筹划空间大且给税务机关带来征管负担。因为分类所得的税率和扣除额不一样,纳税人有很强的避税动机对所得的性质进行转换(将高税率所得包装成低税率所得),对于税务机关而言,面对一些新类型的所得如何归类也带来困扰;(3)对社会的家庭单元考虑不足,难以反映以家庭为单位的实际支出与消费状况。而综合税制下,因为将纳税人的所有收入都纳入考量,更为公平。

草案将工资、薪金所得,劳务报酬所得,稿酬所得,特许权使用费所得等4项所得(以下称综合所得)纳入综合征税范围,进行了综合税制的初步尝试,应当说是一个重大进步。但需要进一步思考的是,综合征税的范围设置是否合理?另一方面,经济发展带来的费用扣除变化是否也应当反映在累进税率结构的调整中?这其中最大的基础性问题还是劳动所得和资本所得的区分与平衡,因为基于不同性质的所得适用不同的税率也是量能课税与税收公平的应有之义。

例如,如何认定特许权使用费?基于无形资产权利的许可和使用所得更类似资本所得(具有明显的消极所得特征),许多国家基于这点将特许权使用费归类为投资所得进行税务处理。另一方面,和稿酬类似,特许权来源于人的智力劳动成果,也自然具有劳务所得的属性。因此,视具体交易的情形,判定一项知识产权相关的所得属于劳务所得还是特许权使用费所得,无论在理论还是实践中都有重要意义。其不仅仅涉及国内税法,还可能涉及税收协定不同条款的适用问题。

如果基于特许权的部分特点就将其完全纳入劳动所得与劳务所得适用相同的累进税率,而不考虑特许权使用费也具有被动所得的性质,显得有些武断。特别是税率提高后,又没有匹配合理的费用扣除和优惠,还可能对个人知识产权创造产生负面影响。税收制定具有国别性特点,但是背后的税法原理是类似的。违背原理的规则,必将产生负面后果。如何在理论和实践中结合具体国情,协调综合税制设计是个技术活。

税基范围的确定

税基范围是所得税制的核心,明确了个人所得税的征税范围。我国现行个税采取分类征收的方式,对征税的所得类型进行了列举,并通过“其他所得”进行了兜底,但什么是其他所得,需要经过国务院财政部门确定。草案延续了这一方式,暂未明确什么是所得,也没有明确“其他所得”中信托财产所得、保险产品投资收益等与高收入人群相关所得是否征税。所得的内涵与外延其实是所得税法必须回答的问题之一,否则就会出现行政机关限缩或者扩大解释的情形,有违税收法定与税收公平。

资本财产的税务处理

现行个税缺乏对资本财产的税务处理规定,使得个人与企业的税务处理差异较大,有违税收公平。例如个人资产发生损失不予承认,个人股东在出资以及并购重组活动中也不能适用特殊性税务处理,这加大了个人从事商事活动的税收成本,不利于科技创新和市场资源优化。草案应当对此也予以合理的关注。毕竟完整税制体系的建设也有助于未来个人所得税征管制度的建设与协调。

净所得与税率适用

个税的计算,是对总所得额扣除免征额以及各项成本、费用及损失后的净所得适用相应税率予以征税。其原理很简单,因为是针对纳税人的“可支配所得”来征税。但为了避免纳税人滥用费用和损失,各国税法都发展出了各种费用扣除的原则与标准。如与业务经营相关、扣除的分摊规则(如仅限于同类型所得)等。

目前,很多讨论将中国个税税率与其他国家做简单对比,但其实这样单纯的数字比较意义不大。因为所得税是对净所得(所得减去成本费用等扣除项)征税,而税制成熟国家的费用扣除标准远远高于中国(并随通货膨胀率上浮),还有各类附加扣除。另外,施行综合税制的国家,其费用扣除额一般与单项类型所得不直接相关,而是设置一个总的数额。导致这些国家纳税人的实际有效税率可能会显著低于税法上的名义税率。

草案适当上调了综合所得的费用扣除额(客观上仍然偏低,相比原工资薪金扣除数每月提升1500元),并且增加了专项附加扣除是一大亮点。不过,考虑到现行消费和物价水平,从拉动消费以及税收公平的角度考虑,草案中确定的该项费用扣除额数额是否具有合理性,有无相关经济数据支持?税率和级距是否有进一步优化空间,是否允许地方根据情况增加灵活性考量(缴纳个税的主要人群在发达地区),还值得再细细研究。

税法规则的讨论需要具体,并关注细节。因为魔鬼都在这些细节里。最后的初衷是一定要让人民群众切身感受到个税改革带来的实惠,而不能停留在纸面的优惠上。

税收优惠

每个国家的税收制度,都会基于各种政治、经济和社会目标的考量,给予部分经济活动/交易特殊的税务处理。从灵活性和专业性的角度,赋予行政机关一定的自由裁量权确有必要。但是税法需要对税收优惠有基础的保留性规定,从而确保税收优惠的施行在法律允许的有限范围和幅度内进行,这也是税收公平的应有之义。

税收征管与反避税

草案在涉税信息制度完善方面也做了有益尝试,如明确了相关政府部门对于纳税人信息的协助义务。在不动产登记以及股权转让登记时需要查验相关个税的完税凭证。但将完税凭证与资产转让登记事项挂钩一事值得认真推敲。因为这本来就是两个独立的法律关系。财产权变动的效力并不取决于是否完税,且公示登记的作用在于维护权利人和与交易有关第三人的合法权益。将完税凭证与财产权登记挂钩,可能反而会对市场交易安全和稳定起到负面作用。企业股东的股权交易,也没有类似制度安排。值得考虑的替代方案和思路应当是部门之间涉税信息共享制度的建立,即相关财产登记部门应与税务机关及时建立信息交换和沟通机制。

另外,我们很高兴看到草案中增加了反避税条款,这对于自然人的偷漏税行为将起到很大震慑。但作为税务律师也隐隐担忧,纳税人的合法权益如何保护?毕竟现在纳税人寻求争议解决已经阻力巨大(如纳税前置)。税制成熟国家的反避税条款除了有诸多细节规定限制税务机关权力,更重要的是还有司法机关居中裁判,发挥平衡征纳双方争议的功能。在个人所得税法赋予了税务机关反避税条款这一武器后,未来围绕纳税人权益保护的配套制度建设刻不容缓。

作者:夏东霞,杨婷,王琦   金杜律师事务所  争议解决部

 

【摘要】以中国证监会《行政和解试点实施办法》于2015年生效为标志,我国正式建立了证券行政执法和解制度的探索型试点。然而,自生效至今三年有余,我国并未发生一例真正意义上适用《实施办法》、达成证券行政执法和解并结案的案例,这种结果应当不符合“试点”的意义及立法者的期待。本文认为,《实施办法》规定的和解适用条件可能过于严格,限制了和解的启动,尤其是其中的消极条件更值得重新审视。同时,证券行政执法和解制度的解决制度供给不足或缺陷的功能应当得到充分重视。在此意义上,几类在证券执法实践中普遍存在争议的案件可以作为试行证券行政执法和解制度的重点考虑对象。 Continue Reading 对我国证券行政执法和解制度适用条件的反思与展望(上)