New Rules For Non-Resident Enterprise Income Tax
March 24, 2010
On February 20, 2010, the State Administration of Tax (the “SAT”) issued “Measures on the Administration of Approval and Collection of Non-resident Enterprise Income Tax” (the “Measures”). Non-resident corporations, defined in Article 3, Paragraph 2 of the Enterprise Income Tax Law of China, are governed by the Measures regarding enterprise income tax (EIT) issues. The EIT of representative offices of foreign enterprises is covered by Circular 18 [2010] issued by SAT on the same day. The Measures went into effect of the date of issuance.
Under the Measures, non-resident enterprises shall: set up their account books in accordance with the Law on the Administration of Tax Collection and relevant laws and regulations; record and settle their accounts in accordance with legal and valid invoices; and, in accordance with the principle of correspondence of actual functions to assumed risks, accurately calculate their taxable income, and report and pay the EIT for their actual situation.
If a non-resident corporation has not properly kept account books and cannot calculate the amount of its taxable income, the tax authority will use one of the following methods to decide the amount of payable EIT.
(1) Gross Income-Based Method — This method should be applied when a non-resident corporation calculates its gross income correctly but cannot accurately compute its costs and expenses. The formula is as follows:
Deemed taxable income = Gross income * Deemed profit rate
(2) Cost-Based Method – This method applies when a non-resident corporation calculates its costs and expenses accurately but cannot correctly compute its gross income. The formula is as follows:
Deemed taxable income = The total of costs and expenses / (1 – Deemed profit rate) * Deemed profit rate
(3) Expenditures-Based Method – This method applies when a non-resident corporation accurately calculates its expenditure for operations but cannot correctly compute its gross income or its costs and expenses. The formula is as follows:
Deemed taxable income = Total of expenditure for operations / (1 – Deemed profit rate – EIT rate) * Deemed profit rate
The tax authority should use the deemed profits rate below when calculating the deemed taxable incomes:
(i) The deemed profit rate for income from project construction, design and consulting is 15% to 30%;
(ii) The deemed profit rate for income from management service is 30% to 50%;
(iii) The deemed profit rate for income from other business activities should be no less than 15%.
The tax authority may raise the profit rate if it reasonably holds, with good grounds, that the actual profit rate of a non-resident corporation is higher than the corresponding deemed profit rate. Where a non-resident corporation generates income from more than one type of the activities listed above, the tax authority shall divide the income from the different types of activities and apply appropriate deemed profit rate to the different elements of the income. If the income cannot be divided accurately, the higher deemed profit rate will be applied.
When a non-resident corporation provides equipment installment, training, management and other services to a Chinese resident buyer of its equipment or other goods, the sales contract of such equipment or goods may not stipulate the price of such related services, or the price of service may be unreasonable. In those cases, the tax authority can refer to the general price in the same or similar industry and decide the deemed income from the services provided. In case where there is no general price to refer to, the tax authority may decide the deemed income from the service, which should be no less than 10% of the total price of the sales contract.
With regard to non-resident enterprises providing labor services for customers located in China, if the entire service is provided within China, the revenue in full shall be subject to EIT in China. If the service is provided both inside and outside of China, then the revenue shall be divided by services provided within China and outside of China, and the revenue derived inside China shall be subject to EIT.
Source: Jingyuan Sun
www.sheppardmullin.com
Related Posts:
New Customs Enforcement Process Regarding IPR
January 31, 2010
The General Administration of China Customs passed several new regulations that aim to strike a balance between IPR holders and those who import and export goods. Under old regulations, China Customs officials were allowed to “dispose” of confiscated counterfeit goods by removing unlawfully affixed trademarks, and auctioning off the goods. These goods commonly reappeared in the market and thus caused monetary harm to the rights owner. The new regulations now require customs officials to seek the opinion of the relevant IPR owners before it may dispose of any confiscated counterfeit goods.
This regulation is a direct attempt to bring China up to the WTO agreement standard, which specifically states that sized goods should be disposed of “outside the channels of commerce in such manner as to avoid any harm caused to the right holder, or destroyed” and “the simple removal of the trade mark unlawfully affixed shall not be sufficient.” While this move is undoubtedly a step in the right direction, it is important to note that the regulation requires Chinese Customs officials to seek the “opinion” rather than the “consent” of the relevant IPR owners. It thus does not give IPR owners the right to demand the destruction of counterfeit goods rather than the auctioning off of such products.
Another salient feature of these new regulations is that IPR owners will now be able to seek settlements with the infringing party without undergoing a formal customs investigation. It is hoped that this will allow IPR owners to gain valuable information regarding the supply and distribution chains of such counterfeit items while also substantially reducing the resources required of the China Customs Department to investigate each and every claim.
The new regulations also contained several smaller modifications such as changes to the notification protocol, the processing of renewal applications, and the cancellation of recordal. All of these modifications are designed to streamline and expedite the customs enforcement process.
Tags: customs, IPR, TrademarkRelated Posts:
Manufacturing maintains growth arc
July 2, 2009
Related Posts:
Contract Damages
June 20, 2009
Chinese contract law is far more flexible with respect to remedies than the common law since it is based on civil law. China makes no distinction between law and equity. As a result, in addition to money damages, Chinese law provides for specific performance, contract liquidated damages, deposit, loss of bargain damages and incidental damages. Most importantly, the use of one remedy does not exclude the application of another remedy. For example, if contract damages are not sufficient to compensate for a party’s actual damages, Article 114 of the Contract Law provides that the injured party can request that the court order payment of an amount sufficient to allow for complete relief. However, to prevent abuse, the reverse is also true. Contract Law Article 114 provides that where stipulated contract damages are “excessively higher than actual damages”, the defendant may request a reduction in the amount. Explanation 29 provides that an amount 130% higher than actual damages will generally be considered “excessively high.” However, the burden of proof in establishing the amount of actual damages is on the defendant. In the absence of clear proof, there is a strong tendency for Chinese courts to accept the stipulated contract damage amount.
Tags: contract damages, chinese courts, chinese lawRelated Posts:
The Contract Law Provides for a Series of Highly Restrictive Rules Relating to Form Contracts
June 20, 2009
The Contract Law provides for a series of highly restrictive rules relating to form contracts. Many foreign parties ignore these provisions and then are surprised when their contracts are not enforced by Chinese courts. This often happens even when the contracts provide that they are governed by foreign law, because the Chinese courts take the position that the Chinese form contract rules are a matter of public policy that cannot be waived. Any such waiver will not be enforced by Chinese courts.
The form contract rules are similar to consumer contract rules that have been adopted in Europe. However, there is a major difference that causes even Europeans to make mistakes in this area. The European rules protect only consumers. The Chinese rules are much broader and apply to all contracts, regardless of the status of the parties. Since Chinese companies have a strong tendency to use form contracts, these rules are very important within the Chinese system.
The basic form contract rules are as follows:
* The party making use of the form contract must use reasonable means to clearly identify those provisions of the contract that limit or eliminate its liability to the other party. Upon request, such provisions must be explained.
* The following provisions of a form contract are void:
o To eliminate one’s own liability.
o To increase the liability of the other party.
o To exclude the important rights of the other party.
o To exclude liability for physical injury to the other party.
o To exclude liability for negligence or intentional damage.
In the event of a dispute in interpretation, form clauses are interpreted against the drafter.
These provisions are contradictory and quite difficult to apply in practice.
If a form contract meets all of the above requirements, then it is a valid contract. This prevents lower courts from dismissing form contracts out of hand.
If the party that provides the form contract fails to explain an exculpatory provision and the other party requests that such a provision be invalidated, the court shall comply with such request. This then raises the following question: how is it possible to prove conclusively that an exculpatory provision has been explained? It appears to me that it will be virtually impossible to offer such proof, which suggests that all such provisions should be considered to be voidable under Chinese law. Perhaps the only way to do this would be to provide a written explanation and to require the other party to sign something indicating that it received and read that explanation.
Any provision of a form contract that fails to comply with the provisions of the Contract Law governing form contracts should be declared void by the court. This applies only to the offending provision, not the entire contract. That is, the obligations remain in place, only the exclusions are voided. Where a party has priced its contract obligations assuming that the form exculpatory provisions will be enforced, the result can be an unexpected and disadvantageous shift in the bargain.
Tags: public, chinese law, chineseRelated Posts:
