本文選題：非居民企業(yè) + 間接股權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓��； 參考：《上海社會(huì)科學(xué)院》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：公司人格否認(rèn)是與公司人格獨(dú)立相對(duì)應(yīng)的法律概念,該制度首先產(chǎn)生于20世紀(jì)初的美國(guó),在1905年美國(guó)訴密爾沃基冷藏運(yùn)輸公司(U.S.vMi]waukee Refrigerator Transit Co)—案中,法官Sanborn的判決正式確立了公司人格否認(rèn)制度。1公司人格否認(rèn)制度是指在公司擁有法人人格的前提下,為阻止公司獨(dú)立人格的濫用,就特定法律關(guān)系中的具體事實(shí),否認(rèn)公司的獨(dú)立人格和股東的有限責(zé)任,從而責(zé)令公司背后的股東對(duì)公司債權(quán)人或公共利益直接負(fù)責(zé)的一種法律制度。2我國(guó)修訂后的《公司法》明確規(guī)定了公司人格否認(rèn)制度,第二十條第三款規(guī)定:"公司股東濫用公司法人獨(dú)立地位和股東有限責(zé)任,逃避債務(wù),嚴(yán)重?fù)p害公司債權(quán)人利益的,應(yīng)當(dāng)對(duì)公司債務(wù)承擔(dān)連帶責(zé)任。"既確立了公司人格獨(dú)立地位和股東有限責(zé)任原則,又規(guī)定了禁止股東濫用權(quán)利,同時(shí)還對(duì)股東濫用公司法人制度的法律后果做出了明確規(guī)定。這標(biāo)志著我國(guó)公司人格否定制度以成文法的方式得到確認(rèn),至此公司人格否認(rèn)制度在我國(guó)的基本結(jié)構(gòu)得到確立。我國(guó)早在2008年就出現(xiàn)了重慶國(guó)家稅務(wù)局否認(rèn)新加坡控股公司追繳稅款的案件,這是我國(guó)公司人格否認(rèn)原理首次應(yīng)用于非居民企業(yè)間接轉(zhuǎn)讓境內(nèi)居民企業(yè)財(cái)產(chǎn)交易領(lǐng)域。為了應(yīng)對(duì)國(guó)內(nèi)此類(lèi)避稅案例的層出不窮以及避稅方式的多種多樣,國(guó)家稅務(wù)總局于2009年12月出臺(tái)了《國(guó)家稅務(wù)總局關(guān)于加強(qiáng)非居民企業(yè)股權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓所得企業(yè)所得稅管理的通知》(即698號(hào)文件),通過(guò)規(guī)范性文件的形式正式確立了非居民企業(yè)間接轉(zhuǎn)讓境內(nèi)居民企業(yè)股權(quán)交易領(lǐng)域中的公司人格否認(rèn)制度。稅法領(lǐng)域的公司人格否認(rèn)制度作為一項(xiàng)具體的制度被寫(xiě)入我國(guó)稅法之前,理論界曾有較大分析。但利弊相較,該制度的引入無(wú)疑是明智之舉。隨著國(guó)際反避稅的不斷發(fā)展與對(duì)國(guó)內(nèi)法要求的不斷提高,在我國(guó)稅法領(lǐng)域確立公司人格否認(rèn)制度也越來(lái)越有必要。它以稅收債權(quán)債務(wù)關(guān)系與稅收公平原則為理論基礎(chǔ),合理合法,亦能很好地適應(yīng)我國(guó)的法律環(huán)境。稅法領(lǐng)域中的公司人格否認(rèn)制度與我國(guó)公司法中的公司人格否認(rèn)制度有著諸多相似之處,然而二者并不盡相同,作為一項(xiàng)特殊的稅法制度,稅務(wù)機(jī)關(guān)在適用該制度時(shí)應(yīng)當(dāng)謹(jǐn)慎。雖然目前稅法中已明確規(guī)定了我國(guó)稅務(wù)機(jī)關(guān)可以利用公司人格否認(rèn)制度來(lái)約束非居民企業(yè)間接轉(zhuǎn)讓境內(nèi)居民企業(yè)財(cái)產(chǎn),但規(guī)范的數(shù)量較少且僅為概括性規(guī)定,對(duì)該制度的構(gòu)成要件、適用范圍等規(guī)定并不明確,個(gè)別情況還只能由國(guó)家稅務(wù)總局審核并發(fā)布個(gè)案指導(dǎo),已有的法律法規(guī)等難以應(yīng)對(duì)變幻莫測(cè)的企業(yè)避稅行為。因此,有必要結(jié)合具體的案例以更好得明確該制度的適用范圍,為國(guó)內(nèi)稅務(wù)機(jī)關(guān)的反避稅活動(dòng)指明方向。
[Abstract]:The denial of corporate personality is a legal concept corresponding to the independence of corporate personality. This system first emerged in the United States in the early 20th century, in the case of the United States v. Milwaukee Refrigeration Transportation Company U.S.VMi] waukee Refrigerator Transit Coan- in 1905. Judge Sanborn's judgment formally establishes the corporate personality denial system.1 the corporate personality denial system refers to the specific facts in the specific legal relationship in order to prevent the abuse of the independent personality of the company under the premise that the company has the personality of the legal person. Denying the independent personality of the company and the limited liability of the shareholders, thus ordering the shareholders behind the company to be directly responsible for the creditors or public interests of the company. The third paragraph of article 20 states: "if the shareholders abuse the independent status of the company as a legal person and the limited liability of the shareholders, evade the debts and seriously damage the interests of the creditors of the company, they shall be jointly and severally liable for the debts of the company." It not only establishes the principle of independent personality and limited liability of shareholders, but also prohibits the abuse of rights by shareholders. At the same time, the legal consequences of abuse of corporate system by shareholders are clearly stipulated. This indicates that the system of negation of corporate personality has been confirmed by written law, and thus the basic structure of the system of denial of corporate personality has been established in our country. As early as 2008, the Chongqing State Taxation Bureau denied that the Singapore holding Company had recovered the tax. This is the first time that the principle of corporate personality denial has been applied to the field of indirect transfer of property of domestic resident enterprises by non-resident enterprises. In order to cope with the endless emergence of such tax avoidance cases and the variety of tax avoidance methods, In December 2009, the State Administration of Taxation issued the Circular of the State Administration of Taxation on strengthening the Administration of Enterprise income tax on the transfer of shares in Non-resident Enterprises (I. e., document No. 698), which was formally established through the form of normative documents. The system of denial of corporate personality in the field of equity trading of domestic resident enterprises is indirectly transferred by civil enterprises. As a specific system, the system of corporate personality denial in the field of tax law was analyzed by the theorists before it was written into the tax law of our country. But compared with the pros and cons, the introduction of this system is undoubtedly a wise move. With the development of international anti-tax avoidance and the increasing requirement of domestic law, it is more and more necessary to establish the system of corporate personality denial in the field of tax law of our country. It is based on the relationship between tax creditor's rights and debts and the principle of tax fairness. It is reasonable and legal and can adapt to the legal environment of our country. There are many similarities between the denial of corporate personality system in the field of tax law and the denial system of corporate personality in our company law. However, the two systems are not identical. As a special tax law system, tax authorities should be careful in applying the system. Although it has been clearly stipulated in the present tax law that the tax authorities of our country can use the denial of corporate personality system to restrict the indirect transfer of the property of domestic resident enterprises by non-resident enterprises, the number of norms is relatively small and is only general. The requirements of the system, the scope of application and other provisions are not clear, individual cases can only be examined by the State Administration of Taxation and issued case guidance, existing laws and regulations are difficult to cope with the unpredictable enterprise tax avoidance behavior. Therefore, it is necessary to better clarify the scope of application of the system and point out the direction of anti-tax avoidance activities of domestic tax authorities.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：上海社會(huì)科學(xué)院
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D922.291.91

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 張超;;非居民企業(yè)間境外間接股權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓所得稅征管問(wèn)題淺析[J];吉林工商學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2015年05期

2 陳晴;張濤;;中國(guó)非居民企業(yè)間接股權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓反避稅規(guī)則的反思與完善[J];重慶大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2015年05期

3 歐陽(yáng)天健;;非居民企業(yè)間接股權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓反避稅法律問(wèn)題研究——以“合理商業(yè)目的”認(rèn)定為視角[J];商丘師范學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2015年07期

4 周懷世;;非居民企業(yè)間接轉(zhuǎn)讓財(cái)產(chǎn)避稅安排和稅收應(yīng)對(duì)[J];國(guó)際稅收;2015年02期

5 王宗濤;;我國(guó)一般反避稅條款:法律性質(zhì)及其立法建構(gòu)[J];稅務(wù)研究;2014年08期

6 李嘉明;閆彥彥;;稅收征管效率研究述評(píng)[J];重慶大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2014年02期

7 白濤林;;非居民企業(yè)所得稅管理存在的問(wèn)題和建議[J];國(guó)際稅收;2013年12期

8 董晨;;論公司法人格否認(rèn)制度在反避稅中的適用[J];經(jīng)營(yíng)管理者;2013年28期

9 張松;;在我國(guó)設(shè)立稅收事先裁定制度的探討[J];稅務(wù)與經(jīng)濟(jì);2013年02期

10 吳廷高;;國(guó)家稅務(wù)總局首次與大企業(yè)簽訂稅收遵從合作協(xié)議[J];中國(guó)稅務(wù);2012年11期

，

本文編號(hào)：1893898