本文主题是从海外经济实质法案及中国新个税法角度浅析海外控股公司架构,本文将围绕开曼、BVI的经济实质法案及开曼最新出台的经济实质法案实施指南,结合新个税法及我们近期相关项目经验,浅谈对海外经济实质法案的应对及税务筹划思路,望抛砖引玉,与大家共同探讨。
Continue Reading

By James Rowland  King & Wood Mallesons Dispute Resolution Group

I.    Background

The Claimants were three Singaporean companies which had been set up to hold shares in a number of sino-foreign joint ventures established under JV contracts governed by PRC law (the “JVs”). The fourth claimant was the parent company of the first three claimants, and had entered into a Services Agreement with the general manager of the JVs (the “Services Agreement”). He was in turn the chairman and legal representative of each of the JVs and of each of their Chinese shareholders. The Service Agreement was governed for the most part by PRC law, although it contained a non-competition clause governed by English law.

The Defendants were the BVI shareholders in a number of Chinese enterprises (the “Non-JVs”) which had been gradually assimilated into the JVs’ manufacturing supply-chain. After many years both the JVs and Non-JVs were operating as an integrated manufacturing and sales business.


Continue Reading

作者:罗必成 金杜律师事务所争议解决

一、    背景

在达能亚洲诉金朝有限公司案中,原告为三家新加坡公司,设立这三家公司的目的是为了通过其进而持有多家中外合资公司的股份,这些中外合资公司依照中国法律签订中外合资合同而设立(“合资公司”)。第四位原告是上述三家公司的母公司,其与合资公司的总经理签订立了“服务协议”。协议签订后,该总经理同时担任各家合资公司及其中方股东的董事长及法人代表。服务协议中除了竟业禁止条款适用英国法,其它大部分内容仍适用中国法。

被告为多家中国公司(“非合资公司”)的英属维京群岛(British Virgin Islands,“BVI”)的股东, 这些非合资公司逐渐被合资公司的制造供应链吸收,多年来这些合资公司与非合资公司一直以生产销售一体化的方式运营。


Continue Reading