非居民企业股权重组的后顾之忧与破题之术

在企业重组及搭红筹、拆红筹等跨境股权交易过程中，经常遇到的税务问题是非居民企业跨境股权转让能否适用特殊性税务处理以实现递延纳税，此时，对“税法规定的特定条件”的理解与适用就成为无法回避的问题。随着税务征管“放、管、服”的落地，特殊性税务处理不再执行事前审批，而是要求纳税人自行判断、事后申报或备案，税务机关通过后续管理的方式进行监管。这对企业正确理解和执行税收政策提出了更高的要求、带来了更大的挑战，甚至面临事后被追缴税款、滞纳金的风险，为企业重组带来严重的“后顾之忧”。本文根据我们的实务观察，就非居民企业股权重组特殊性税务处理适用条件中的“造成以后预提税负担变化”应如何判断与权衡这一实践中的争议难题，提供一些“破题”的思路，以供探讨。

在适用特殊性税务处理方面，针对重组中的跨境股权转让交易，《关于企业重组业务企业所得税处理若干问题的通知》（财税〔2009〕59号，“59号文”）将可能适用特殊性税务处理的交易严格限定在三种情形：“非居民企业向其100%直接控股的另一非居民企业转让其拥有的居民企业股权”，“非居民企业向与其具有100%直接控股关系的居民企业转让其拥有的另一居民企业股权”以及“居民企业以其拥有的资产或股权向其100%直接控股的非居民企业进行投资”。同时，跨境股权交易也需要满足适用特殊性税务处理的基础性条件。

针对第一种情形“非居民企业向其100%直接控股的另一非居民企业转让其拥有的居民企业股权”，59号文进一步要求：“非居民企业向其100%直接控股的另一非居民企业转让其拥有的居民企业股权，没有因此造成以后该项股权转让所得预提税负担变化，且转让方非居民企业向主管税务机关书面承诺在3年（含3年）内不转让其拥有受让方非居民企业的股权。”《关于非居民企业股权转让适用特殊性税务处理有关问题的公告》（国家税务总局公告2013年第72号）进一步规定，“税务机关在调查核实时，如发现此种股权转让情形造成以后该项股权转让所得预提税负担变化，包括转让方把股权由应征税的国家或地区转让到不征税或低税率的国家或地区，应不予适用特殊性税务处理。”

实践中可能出现的一种重组交易是：BVI公司向其100%持股的香港子公司转让其持有的境内某公司100%的股权，该境内公司的财产不是主要直接或者间接由位于境内的不动产所组成。

重组前，BVI公司转让境内公司股权所得需要在中国缴纳预提税（税率为10%）；重组后，香港公司转让该境内公司股权所得是否缴纳预提税则与持股比例有关，根据《内地-香港双边税收安排》，如果香港公司在转让前的12个月内曾经直接或间接持有境内公司25%以上的股权，则香港公司转让股权需要缴纳预提税（税率为10%），反之则可免于缴纳预提税。

这样的重组交易，是否“造成以后该项股权转让所得预提税负担变化”，从而不适用特殊性税务处理？

假设未来香港公司一次性减持境内公司100%的股权，那么仍然需要缴纳预提税，没有造成以后该项股权转让所得预提税负担变化；如果未来香港公司分多次减持境内公司股权，对于12个月内持股比例不到25%的股权转让，则可免于缴纳预提税，该项股权转让所得的预提税负担减小了，即重组股权中低于25%的股权转让得以免税。

那么，是否可以基于未来潜在的分拆转股减少预提税负的可能性，就认定当下本次重组交易无法适用特殊性税务处理，这是一个值得思考的问题。

现行税法没有对此做出明确规定，实践中不同税务机关也有不同的口径。我们认为，一种更为符合税法原则和行政法原则的可能的解释是，此种重组交易没有“造成以后该项股权转让所得预提税负担变化”，从而应允许适用特殊性税务处理，具体可以从以下三个方面分析：

其一，“导致该项股权转让所得预提税负担变化”宜理解为预提税负担必然减少的情形。

从文义解释看，一是59号文的措辞为“造成以后该项股权转让所得预提税负担变化”，而非“造成以后该项股权转让所得预提税负担可能变化”；二是72号文措辞为“把股权由应征税的国家或地区转让到不征税或低税率的国家或地区”，而非“把股权由应征税的国家或地区转让到可能不征税或低税率的国家或地区”。从文义理解，“预提税负担变化”应当是确定的情形，而不是可能的情形。

如果上述重组案例中的香港公司变为韩国公司，那么未来该项股权转让所得预提税负担必然减少。根据《中国-韩国双边税收协定》，韩国公司转让中国境内公司股权，应仅在韩国征税，除非境内公司财产主要直接或者间接由位于中国境内的不动产所组成。由此，该项重组股权的未来转让预提税负担必然减少，而不论未来韩国公司转让股权比例的高低。此种情形属于“造成以后该项股权转让所得预提税负担变化”，从而无法适用特殊性税务处理。

其二，退一步而言，如果税收规则的意义与内容不明确，宜作出有利于纳税人的法律解释。

在2015年广州德发房产建设有限公司诉广州市地方税务局第一稽查局税务处理决定案（“德发案”）中，最高人民法院指出，“根据依法行政的基本要求，没有法律、法规和规章的规定，行政机关不得做出影响行政相对人合法权益或者增加行政相对人义务的决定；在法律规定存在多种解释时，应当首先考虑选择适用有利于行政相对人的解释。”

在《内地-香港双边税收安排》下，未来再转让重组股权税负是否减少，视未来转股的比例而定。在有不同转股比例可能性的情况下，如果其中某些可能性有利于纳税人的主张（即预提税负不会减少），而某些可能性不利于纳税人的主张（即预提税负会减少），根据最高人民法院在德发案中确立的适用有利于行政相对人的解释的原则，税务机关应做出有利于纳税人的解释，不应基于众多转股可能性中的其中一种不利于纳税人主张的可能性而做出不利于纳税人的解释。

其三，行政行为应当符合比例原则，如果税务机关仅以对重组的100%股权中的25%以内部分的潜在免税待遇存在顾虑，而对重组的100%股权全部征税，则显失公平，明显违背行政行为的比例原则。

比例原则要求行政机关在实施行政行为时，应兼顾行政目标的实现和保护相对人的权益。2012年国家税务总局印发的《关于规范税务行政裁量权工作的指导意见》（国税发〔2012〕65号）第二条第（二）款规定：“合理裁量。税务机关行使行政裁量权应当符合立法目的和法律原则……可以采取多种方式实现行政目的的，应当选择对纳税人权益损害最小的方式，对纳税人造成的损害不得与所保护的法定利益显失均衡。”

在司法实践中，最高人民法院曾在（2013）行监字第460号杨军校诉曲阳县国家税务局行政扣押案中运用了比例原则，指出：“税务机关核定、征收税款，应平等对待纳税义务人，不偏私、不歧视，不得受不相关因素的干扰，不能违背《税收征收管理法》的立法目的。税务机关采取强制执行措施应合理适当，符合比例原则，不违反法律法规的规定……”

回到我们列举的BVI公司将境内公司股权转让给香港子公司的案例，如果税务机关出于对重组的100%股权当中的25%以内部分未来可能享受协定免税待遇的顾虑，而否定特殊性税务处理的适用，继而对本次重组的100%股权全部征税，可能会导致对纳税人造成的损害与所保护的法定利益显失均衡，存在违背行政行为比例原则的问题。

During corporate restructuring and certain cross-border equity transactions, such as the set-up or dismantling of "red-chip" structure, a frequently encountered tax issue is whether non-resident enterprises are entitled to "special tax treatment" for cross-border equity transfers so that a tax deferral applies. Thus, the interpretation and application of the "specific conditions" as stipulated by tax law comes to be an unavoidable issue. With the implementation of the tax administration reform of "delegating power, improving regulation, and providing services", "special tax treatment" no longer requires prior approval by tax authorities; instead, taxpayers are required to make self-assessments, and subsequently make self-reports or filings, and the tax authorities supervise through post-transaction administration. This requires a much better understanding and implementation by enterprises of tax policies, and brings greater challenges, even exposes them to the risk of overdue taxes and late payment interests, thus causing significant "concerns" for corporate restructuring. This article, based on our practical observations, provides insights on how to evaluate the controversial issue of "changes in future withholding tax burdens" to determine the applicability of "special tax treatment" for non-resident enterprise restructuring.

In terms of the application of "special tax treatment" for cross-border equity transfers in a restructuring, the Notice on Several Issues Concerning the Enterprise Income Tax Treatment of Corporate Restructuring (Circular Cai Shui [2009] No. 59, "Circular No. 59") strictly limits the transactions eligible for "special tax treatment" to three scenarios: "A non-resident enterprise transfers the equity of a resident enterprise it owns to another non-resident enterprise that it directly controls 100%", "A non-resident enterprise transfers the equity of another resident enterprise it owns to a resident enterprise with which it has a 100% direct controlling relationship", and "A resident enterprise invests its owned assets or equity into a non-resident enterprise that it directly controls 100%". At the same time, cross-border equity transactions must also meet the fundamental criteria for the application of "special tax treatment".

With respect to the first scenario where a "non-resident enterprise transfers its equity in a resident enterprise to another non-resident enterprise which is 100% directly held by it", Circular No. 59 stipulates "[t]hat the transfer of equity in a resident enterprise from a non-resident enterprise to another non-resident enterprise, which is 100% directly held by the transferring entity, does not result in any changes to the withholding tax burden on income from future transfers of that equity, and that the transferor (non-resident enterprise) provides a written commitment to the competent tax authority not to transfer the equity it holds in the transferee (non-resident enterprise) within three years (inclusive of the three years)". The Announcement on Special Tax Treatment Applicable to Equity Transfers by Non-Resident Enterprises (State Taxation Administration Announcement No. 72 of 2013, "Bulletin 72") further provides that, "[s]hould the tax authority discover during an audit that such equity transfer results in a change in the withholding tax burden on income from future transfers of that equity, including cases where the transferor moves the equity from a taxable jurisdiction to a non-taxable or low-tax jurisdiction, special tax treatment shall not apply".

One possible type of restructuring transactions in practice is the transfer of 100% equity interests in a domestic company held by a BVI company to its wholly-owned Hong Kong subsidiary, where the assets of such domestic company are not primarily composed of real properties located within China.

Prior to the restructuring, the BVI company was required to pay PRC withholding tax on income derived from the transfer of equity interests in the domestic company at a rate of 10%; after the restructuring, whether the Hong Kong company would be liable for withholding tax on income derived from any future transfer of equity interests in the domestic company will depend on its ownership percentage in such domestic company. Under the PRC-HK Double Tax Arrangement, if the Hong Kong company owns directly or indirectly more than 25% of the equity interests in the domestic company within 12 months preceding the transfer, the Hong Kong company will be liable for PRC withholding tax at a rate of 10%. Otherwise, it may be exempt from withholding tax.

Does this type of restructuring transactions "result in a change in the withholding tax burden on the future transfer of equity", thereby rendering “special tax treatment” inapplicable?

Assuming that in the future, the Hong Kong company disposes of 100% of its equity in the domestic company in one go, it will still be required to pay PRC withholding tax, which will not cause any change in the withholding tax burden on the future transfer of equity; however, if the Hong Kong company disposes of its equity in the domestic company in multiple installments, a transfer of equity where the shareholding ratio is below 25% within 12 months can be exempt from PRC withholding tax, thereby reducing the PRC withholding tax burden on that equity transfer, meaning that the transfer of less than 25% of the equity in the restructuring can be tax-exempt. 

Therefore, can it be concluded that the restructuring transaction in question is ineligible for "special tax treatment" based on the possibility of future reduction in PRC withholding tax burden? This is a question worth consideration.

The current tax law does not provide explicit provisions on this matter, and in practice, different tax authorities may hold varied interpretations. We believe that a more principled interpretation consistent with tax law principles and administrative law principles is that this type of restructuring transactions does not "result in subsequent changes to the withholding tax burden on the income from the transfer of the equity", and thus should allow for the application of "specific tax treatment", which can be specifically analyzed from the following three aspects:

Firstly, "resulting in changes to the withholding tax burden on the income from the transfer of the equity" should be understood as a situation where the withholding tax burden will inevitably decrease.

From a literal reading of Circular 59, first, it uses the phrase "results in subsequent changes to the withholding tax burden on the income from the transfer of the equity", rather than "may result in subsequent changes to the withholding tax burden on the income from the transfer of the equity"; Secondly, Bulletin No. 72 states that "transferring equity from a tax jurisdiction to a non-tax or low-tax jurisdiction", rather than "transferring equity from a tax jurisdiction to a jurisdiction that may be non-tax or low-tax". Accordingly, from a linguistic understanding, "changes in withholding tax burden" should indicate a certain situation, rather than a possible situation.

If the Hong Kong company in the afore-mentioned restructuring case were to change to a South Korean company, the future withholding tax burden on the income from any future transfer of that equity will undoubtedly decrease. According to the PRC-Korean Double Tax Treaty, a South Korean company transferring equity in a company situated in China should only be taxed in South Korea, unless the assets of that company are primarily composed of real estate located within China, either directly or indirectly. Therefore, the future withholding tax burden on the transfer of the restructured equity will inevitably decrease, regardless of the proportion of equity to be transferred by the South Korean company in the future. This situation falls under "resulting in subsequent changes to the withholding tax burden on the income from the transfer of the equity", and thus cannot apply "specific tax treatment".

Secondly, if the meaning and content of tax rules are ambiguous, a legal interpretation that is favorable to the taxpayer should be adopted.

In the case of Guangzhou Defa Real Estate Construction Co., Ltd. vs. Guangzhou Local Taxation Bureau First Inspection Bureau (the "Defa Case") in 2015, the Supreme People's Court stated in the judgement that "[a]ccording to the fundamental requirement of lawful administration, without explicit provisions from the laws, regulations or rules, the government authorities shall not make decisions that affect the legitimate rights and interests of administrative counterparts or increase their obligations; when a legal provision allows for multiple interpretations, priority should be given to the interpretation that benefits the administrative counterparts".

Under the PRC-HK Double Tax Arrangement,whether the tax burden on the future transfer of the restructured equity will decrease depends on the proportion of future equity transfers. In circumstances where there are different possible proportions of equity transfers, if certain possibilities favor the taxpayer's claims (i.e., the withholding tax burden will not decrease) while others are detrimental (i.e., the withholding tax burden will decrease), according to the principle established by the Supreme People’s Court in the Defa Case of adopting interpretations that benefit the administrative counterpart, the tax authorities should adopt an interpretation that favors the taxpayer, rather than making an unfavorable interpretation based on a potentially unfavorable scenario among numerous possibilities of equity transfer.

Thirdly, administrative actions must comply with the principle of proportionality. If the tax authority has concerns only about the potential tax-exempt treatment of up to 25% out of the 100% equity involved in the restructuring, but imposes taxes on the entire 100% equity, this would be grossly unfair and clearly violates the principle of proportionality for administrative actions.

The principle of proportionality requires the government authorities to consider both the achievement of administrative objectives and the protection of the rights and interests of the affected parties when implementing administrative actions. Article 2, paragraph (2) of the Guiding Opinions on Regulating Tax Administrative Discretion (Guo Shui Fa [2012] No. 65) issued by the State Taxation Administration in 2012 provides "[r]easonable discretion. The tax authority exercising administrative discretion must comply with legislative objectives and legal principles... If multiple methods can be used to achieve administrative objectives, the method that causes the least harm to taxpayers' rights and interests shall be chosen, and the harm to taxpayers must not be obviously imbalanced with the legal interests being protected".

In judicial practice, the Supreme People's Court applied the principle of proportionality in the administrative case (2013) Xing Jian Zi No. 460, Yang Junxiao vs. the Taxation Bureau of Quyang County, stating that, "[w]hen the tax authority assesses and collects taxes, it must treat all taxpayers equally, without bias or discrimination, and shall not be influenced by irrelevant factors, nor violate the legislative purposes of the Tax Collection and Administration Law. The tax authority's enforcement measures must be reasonable and appropriate, comply with the principle of proportionality, and not violate legal regulations..."

Coming back to the case we mentioned above regarding the BVI company transferring the equity of a domestic company to its Hong Kong subsidiary, if the tax authorities, with the concern that 25% out of the 100% equity could potentially qualify for treaty-exempt benefits in the future, deny the applicability of "special tax treatment", and therefore impose tax on the entirety of the 100% equity involved in the restructuring, this may result in a disproportionate harm to the taxpayer compared to the statutory interests being protected, thus raising concerns of the violation of the principle of proportionality in administrative actions.

*本文对任何提及“香港”的表述应解释为“中华人民共和国香港特别行政区”。

转载声明：好文共赏，如需转载，请直接在公众号后台或下方留言区留言获取授权。

封面图源：种子计划-发芽·杜飞辰