作者：郭钟泳 金杜律师事务所金融资本部

我与金杜的结缘， 可以追溯至2010年的夏天。 那时我还是个在金杜实习的在校研究生， 穿着套装、 提着电脑包每天从大学城向西穿行整个广州市区到项目组现场。 从此， 我在金杜展开了从学生到律师的蜕变之旅。 Continue Reading 感悟丨从学生到律师的蜕变之旅

作者：金杜律师事务所

感谢各位读者对金杜文章以及“金杜说法”的厚爱与支持。我们再次与大家分享一则好消息！在刚刚结束的北京市律师协会优秀所刊、微信公众号颁奖典礼上，金杜律师事务所共荣获4项大奖：

  • 《金杜》荣获所刊综合类金奖；
  • 《金杜》荣获所刊最佳设计奖；
  • “金杜说法”微信公众号荣获律所微信公众号一等奖；
  • 《金杜·公益特刊》荣获人文类铜奖。

 

全文阅读，请点击这里

作者：赵炎 刘响 金杜律师事务所商务合规部

赵炎顾客走进面包店买面包，时间允许就坐下来吃，更多情况是直接外带，作为纳税人的面包店一定要注意，顾客“坐下吃”和“带走吃”在纳税上是有差异的。

稽查案件中，反映出具体问题

2015年，某稽查局在对某连锁面包店进行检查时发现，该面包店只将直接购进、不经过任何加工即进行销售的礼品糕点的销售收入计算缴纳了增值税，其他所有面包、糕点未区分堂食和外带，全部计算缴纳了营业税。检查人员认为根据《国家税务总局关于旅店业和饮食业纳税人销售食品有关税收问题的公告》（国家税务总局公告2011年第62号）、《国家税务总局关于旅店业和饮食业纳税人销售非现场消费食品增值税有关问题的公告》（国家税务总局公告2013年第17号）的规定，饮食业纳税人销售非现场消费的食品应当缴纳增值税，不缴纳营业税。也就是说，该面包店作为饮食业纳税人应将销售的食品区分为现场消费（即堂食）和非现场消费（即外带）两部分，并分别缴纳营业税和增值税。经沟通，该面包店参考同行业类似规模的八家企业现场消费与非现场消费收入划分的平均比例，调整了增值税和营业税申报数据，补缴了增值税并办理了对应部分营业税的退税。补缴税款时，纳税人表示希望早日全面推开营改增，在申报上不用再去区分缴纳增值税还是营业税，化繁为简。

全文阅读 请点击这里

by Wu Ye King &Wood Mallesons Shenzhen,China

wu_yeA new “filing and negative list” regulatory system for FIEs has now been officially launched in China.

On October 8th, 2016, the Ministry of Commerce (“MOFCOM”) issued the Interim Measures for the Administration of Establishment and Change Filings of Foreign-invested Enterprises (“Interim Measures”), 34 days after the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (“NPC”) amended the “Three FIE Laws” (namely, the Sino-foreign Equity Joint Ventures Law, the Sino-foreign Cooperative Joint Ventures Law, and the Wholly Foreign-owned Enterprises Law) MOFCOM had published the Interim Measures for the Administration of Establishment and Change Filings of Foreign-invested Enterprises (Draft for Public Comment) (“Draft for Public Comment”) on September 3rd, 2016.

Read the Full article please click here 

By Yang Xiaoli  Zhang Jiaqi  and Kang Lifang King &Wood Mallesons Beijing,China

杨晓莉I. Case facts

On January 18, 2012, the government of the Republic of Fiji (the “Fijian Government”) applied to register three certification marks “FIJI PURE MAHOGANY” (No. 10437014), “FIJI PURE” (No. 10437015) and “FPM” (No. 10437016) at the Trademark Office of China, all for “plantation grown mahogany timber” in Class 19.

After examination, the Trademark Office refused registration of the three marks on the grounds that (1) the first two applied-for marks were devoid of distinctiveness; (2) the third mark was similar to the cited markFIJI证明商标三案评述 (No. 6119374); and (3) the applicant, the Fijian Government, did not submit effective Rules for the Use of Certification Marks for all of the three applications. Dissatisfied with the decisions, the Fijian Government filed a  review with the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (“TRAB”).

Read the Full article please click here

作者：叶永青 兰孟 宋丹丹 金杜律师事务所商务合规部

Ye Yongqing (Bill)首先，对于又一篇和国庆兄商榷的文章，必须承认我有借助国庆兄的巨大影响力开道的不当目的存在。考虑到我们之间的深厚感情和认识，我认为他是必然不介意的。然后，一如既往的，另一个国庆兄会用他的超强人气为我背书。得友如国庆，幸甚而无他求尔。

在我们开始讨论实习生取得所得的征税问题之前，先平抑一下感情问题。在引发热议和关注的背后，其实这是一个老问题，对于实习生的现有制度上，从实质公平角度肯定是存在问题的。虽然从一开始转发段文涛老师的文章就是对这种实质公平探讨的认同，但是，如同之前和国庆兄商讨的概念一样，从法律的稳定和信仰出发，不能因为现有制度存在缺陷而在不改变税收制度的基础上，通过随意扩大解释来解决问题。应然和实然不能自然替代，情感偏向不能代替分析，因此，虽然从感情上我和国庆兄始终在一起，更加支持我可爱用功的实习生们，我还是要说，对国庆之前的讨论，赞赏问题，认同立场方向，理解答案的实质，但不同意得出答案的形式和逻辑过程。 Continue Reading 致国庆兄的一封信：再谈税法解释问题

作者：杨晓莉 张家绮 康立芳 金杜律师事务所知识产权部

杨晓莉一、案情简介

2012年1月18日，斐济共和国政府（下称“斐济政府”）向我国商标局申请将“FIJI PURE MAHOGANY”（第10437014号）、“FIJI PURE” （第10437015号）和“FPM” （第10437016号）注册为证明商标，指定使用的商品为第19类“人工种植的红木木材”。商标局经审查，以前两件申请商标缺乏显著特征，后一件申请商标与引证商标（第6119374号）近似，且斐济政府在三件商标申请均未提交有效的《证明商标使用管理规则》为由，驳回了以上三件商标注册申请。斐济政府不服，向商标评审委员会提出复审申请。

全文阅读，请点击这里

By Ian Borman and Lorraine Vaz, King & Wood Mallesons London

Ian Borman Lorraine VazThe Bail-In Clause has been causing lawyers to scratch their heads for some time.  Will Brexit mean that English-law contracts have to include a Bail-in Clause? What  happens if a counterparty refuses to incorporate the Bail-In wording?

 Bail-In – a reminder

What does the clause do? – A Bail-In Clause requires counterparties to an  agreement entered into with an EEA financial institution to acknowledge that a Regulator’s rescue plan may involve the cancellation, conversion or write-down of that institution’s liabilities. Broadly speaking, all EEA banks and major investment firms together with their branches, EEA parents and certain EEA subsidiaries must ensure that a Bail-In Clause is included in any agreement they enter into which is governed by non-EEA law and contains in-scope liabilities. The EEA consists of the EU, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway.

Read the Full article please click here

By Zhang Yunwei (Mark) , Yao Jinchuang and Zhan Jia King & Wood Mallesons Shanghai ,China

张运帷With the rapid development of information network technology, healthcare system reform and M-health policy support from the PRC[1] government, the Chinese mobile health market which emerged in 2014 has grown quickly. More and more pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers and trading companies (“Healthcare Companies”) are actively seeking to engage in the Chinese mobile health market. This trend which affects the relationship between Healthcare Companies and patients, may result in the reform of the current product sale and promotion models of Healthcare Companies. However, when the “fire” of Healthcare Companies’ investment passion meets the “ice” of Chinese regulators regarding online medical services, internet driven hospitals and data privacy, how will Healthcare Companies tackle the challenges to ascend the “Iron Throne” of the “Westeros” of Chinese M-Health market.

Read the Full article please click here

By Chen Yun (Robert)  Wang Rong  King &Wood Mallesons Shanghai,China

陈运The Consultation Paper issued by SAT on 14 October 2016 is essentially the operating rules for the implementation of CRS within PRC mainland territory by converting the international applicable CRS into detailed requirements suitable for PRC national conditions and providing legal basis and operational guideline for such implementation.

In accordance with the Consultation Paper, commercial banks, securities companies, fund management companies, specified insurance companies, trust companies and other entities fall within the definition of “Financial Institution” thereunder located in PRC are required to undertake due diligence obligation in respect of their clients (i.e. account holders) for purpose of identifying non-resident financial accounts and obtaining account information necessary for reporting.  The Consultation Paper has set out the minimum due diligence requirements in detail.

The period for soliciting public comments will elapse on 28 October 2016 and the final regulation is supposed to be promulgated by the end of 2016 and is expected to take effect from 1 January 2017.

Read Full article please click here