消除混合金融工具错配影响的反避税规制研究
Research on Anti Tax Avoidance Regulations to Eliminate the Mismatch of Mixed Financial Instruments
摘要: 混合金融工具种类多、变化快、设计复杂,通常税务机关很难通过其合同条款等法律形式对其股债性质做出合理的判断,且不同国家的国内法对混合金融工具定性的规定也有所不同。这些都将引发金融工具混合错配问题,这也是BEPS行动计划高度关注的问题之一。本文阐述了金融混合错配安排的原理,规范地定义了混合金融工具的概念及主要类型,接着列举出混合金融工具的避税形式及其影响,归纳世界各国在金融混合错配的反避税措施。最后本文总结经验,结合我国国情,提出我国在金融工具混合错配的反避税的建议:对于可扣除支付不再给予股息豁免,补充说明双重居民身份的扣除,积极与其他国家进行税收合作,建立起反避税联动。
Abstract: Mixed financial instruments have a wide variety of types, rapid changes, and complex designs. Usually, tax authorities find it difficult to make a reasonable judgment on the nature of their stocks and bonds through legal forms such as contract terms. Moreover, domestic laws in different countries have different provisions for the qualitative analysis of mixed financial instruments. These will all lead to the problem of mixed mismatches in financial instruments, which is also one of the highly concerned issues in the BEPS action plan. This article elaborates on the principle of financial mixed mismatch arrangements, defines the concept and main types of mixed financial instruments in a standardized manner, and then lists the tax avoidance forms and their impacts of mixed financial instruments. It summarizes the anti tax avoidance measures taken by countries around the world in financial mixed mismatch. Finally, this article summarizes the experience and proposes suggestions for anti tax avoidance in the mixed mismatch of financial instruments in China, based on the national conditions. For deductible payments, dividend exemptions will no longer be granted, and the deduction of dual resident status will be supplemented. We will actively cooperate with other countries in taxation and establish anti tax avoidance linkage.
文章引用:刘嘉宁. 消除混合金融工具错配影响的反避税规制研究[J]. 争议解决, 2024, 10(3): 27-34. https://doi.org/10.12677/DS.2024.103162

参考文献

[1] 黄晓里. 消除混合错配安排的影响[J]. 国际税收, 2014(10): 18-20.
[2] 朱大旗. 税法[M]. 北京: 中国人民大学出版社 ,2014: 210.
[3] 穆雷∙罗斯巴德. 权力与市场[M]. 刘云鹏, 戴忠玉, 李卫公, 译. 北京: 新星出版社, 2007: 106.
[4] 高健敏. 完善我国税收政策体系以消除混合错配安排的影响[J]. 国际税收, 2020(12): 37-42.
[5] 叶佳艺, 彭启蕾. 对税务案件“实质重于形式”原则的探讨——以“明股实债”的税收争议为例[J]. 国际税收, 2018(8): 48-51.
[6] 沈伟. 后金融危机时代的全球反避税措施: 国别差异路径和全球有限合作[J]. 比较法研究, 2018(1): 122-142.
[7] 查尔斯∙沃尔夫. 市场, 还是政府[M]. 陆俊, 谢旭, 译. 重庆: 重庆出版社, 2007: 7-9.
[8] 张泽平. 全球治理背景下国际税收秩序的挑战与变革[J]. 中国法学, 2017(3): 184-201.