Revisit offshore SPVs to avoid taxation
March 11, 2010 | BY
clpstaff &clp articles &Counsel are again highlighting the importance of two recent changes in Chinese law: the PRC's new tax Circular 698, and the Supreme People's Court's…
Counsel are again highlighting the importance of two recent changes in Chinese law: the PRC's new tax Circular 698, and the Supreme People's Court's nominal clarification of material adverse change clauses.
“Investors should consider that holding vehicles in treaty jurisdictions may not have the benefit of reduced withholding rates under the treaties, and that transactions in shares of offshore holding vehicles may also be subject to PRC tax,” said Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton's Filip Moerman while speaking about Circular 698 at IFLR's 2010 M&A Forum. “A purchaser may be at risk post-closing of challenge by the tax authorities that it should have withheld capital gains tax at closing.”
Tax Circular 698, the full name of which is the Circular on Strengthening the Administration of Enterprise Income Tax on Income Derived from the Transfer of Equity of Non-tax-resident Enterprises (关于加强非居民企业股权转让所得企业所得税管理的通知), was released in December 2009. It “was issued to tighten the administration for enterprise income tax collection on equity transfer gains derived by Non-TREs from China,” according to Danny Po of PricewaterhouseCoopers, who analysed the Circular in a recent issue of China Law & Practice (see CLP February 2010, page 18).
To reduce potential challenge from Chinese tax authorities, Po advises clients to review their existing corporate structures, confirm that their holding vehicles have “reasonable commercial purpose”, and “maintain accurate and timely documentation of relevant business activities and operational processes of their holding vehicles”.
Moerman added: “Foreign investors should consider using entities that hold several investments and that are based in a jurisdiction where they have real activities that the [holding company] can get involved in.”
During the panel session at the IFLR Forum, Moerman also spoke about the Supreme People's Court recent interpretation of Material Adverse Change (MAC) clauses.
The Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the 《PRC Contract Law》(2) (关于适用《中华人民共和国合同法》若干问题的解释(二)) has been effective since May 13 2009. The main difference between the provisions of Article 26 and a typical MAC clause is the inclusion of the ambiguous “principle of fairness”.
“The guidelines give judges significant power to intervene in contract relationships and even revise or terminate agreements,” said Moerman.
See CLP December/January 2009 for more on the MAC clause clarification issue. CM
This premium content is reserved for
China Law & Practice Subscribers.
A Premium Subscription Provides:
- A database of over 3,000 essential documents including key PRC legislation translated into English
- A choice of newsletters to alert you to changes affecting your business including sector specific updates
- Premium access to the mobile optimized site for timely analysis that guides you through China's ever-changing business environment
Already a subscriber? Log In Now