财税与公共管理学院知识库

       在全球经济深度融合的时代背景下，国际贸易活动及资本流动日益频繁。 随着数字经济的蓬勃发展，跨国数字企业所采用的商业模式日益多样化。传统 的以“实体存在”为基础的常设机构原则，为这些企业提供了利用复杂组织架构 和精心设计的税收策略来规避常设机构构成的机会。作为对跨国企业征税的依 据，常设机构认定标准将直接影响居住国与所得来源国之间的税收利益分配。 我国在跨境业务中作为主要的收入来源国，现有的机构规则在跨境征税中仍存 在诸多不足，使得对非居民企业构成常设机构的税收管辖权行使受限。这些不 足不仅影响了税收的公平性和有效性，也对我国的税收收入造成了潜在的损失。 此外，我国《企业所得税法》中未引入常设机构的概念，在实务中，企业需要 先遵循国内法，判断其是否在国内设立了“机构、场所”，再依据国际法的规定 判断，进一步评估该“机构、场所”是否构成常设机构，然而我国现有规范性文 件中对于“机构、场所”的定义也并不统一，这为企业和税务部门的操作带来了 一定的挑战。 因此，为了保护我国税基，维护国际税收公平，形成统一的常设机构标准。 本文基于国际社会数字经济下常设机构的发展历程和未来的发展方向，为国内 法的完善提供理论支持。

      本文将首先描述我国现阶段国内税法中“机构、场所” 和税收协议中常设机构认定规则的现状进行描述，对比分析两者的异同，找出 其中不适应时代变化的一个或几个要素，明晰现阶段国际社会对常设机构认定 规则的研究现状。并以戴尔案为例，探索分析数字经济下常设机构认定规则在 理论和应用中的局限，总结方法和经验教训，最后结合我国国情和《OECD 范 本》、《UN 范本》、BEPS 第七项行动计划以及支柱一方案进行甄别分析，构建 我国常设机构认定规则的设想。对于与国际通行标准或我国实际国情不符的部 分，我们应审慎对待，避免盲目采纳。而对于那些符合我国国情、具有实际可 操作性的内容，我们同样需要依据具体情境进行深入的剖析与探讨，以确保其 适应性和可行性。

    In the era of global economic integration and trade integration, international trade activities and capital flows are becoming more and more frequent. With the vigorous development of the digital economy, the business models adopted by multinational digital enterprises are increasingly diversified. The traditional principle of a permanent establishment based on a "physical presence" provides these businesses with the opportunity to circumvent the composition of a permanent establishment using complex organizational structures and elaborate tax strategies. As the basis for the taxation of multinational enterprises, the standard of recognition of permanent establishment will directly affect the distribution of tax benefits between the country of residence and the country of origin. As the main source of income in cross-border business, China's existing institutional rules still have many deficiencies in cross-border taxation, which limits the exercise of tax jurisdiction over non-resident enterprises constituting permanent institutions. These deficiencies not only affect the fairness and effectiveness of tax revenue, but also cause potential loss to our tax revenue. In addition, China's Enterprise Income Tax Law does not introduce the concept of permanent establishment, in practice, enterprises need to follow the domestic law, judge whether it has established an "institution, place" in the country, and then judge according to the provisions of international law, and further assess whether the "institution, place" constitutes a permanent establishment. However, the definition of "institution and place" in China's existing normative documents is not uniform, which brings certain challenges to the operation of enterprises and tax departments.

    Therefore, in order to protect our tax base, maintain international tax fairness, the formation of a unified standard of permanent institutions. Based on the development process and future development direction of permanent institutions under the international digital economy, this paper provides theoretical support for the improvement of domestic law. This paper will first describe the current status of "institutions, places" in China's current domestic tax law and the identification rules of permanent institutions in tax agreements, compare and analyze the similarities and differences between the two, find out one or several elements that do not adapt to the changes of The Times, and clarify the current research status of the international community on the identification rules of permanent institutions. Taking the Dell case as an example, this paper explores and analyzes the limitations of the rules for the recognition of permanent institutions in the digital economy, summarizes the methods and lessons learned, and finally analyzes China's national conditions, the OECD Model, the UN Model, the seventh action plan of BEPS and the Pillar I plan to construct the assumption of the rules for the recognition of permanent institutions in China. As for the parts that do not conform to the prevailing international standards or the actual conditions of our country, we should treat them cautiously and avoid blindly adopting them. For those that are in line with our national conditions and have practical operability, we also need to conduct in-depth analysis and discussion according to the specific situation to ensure its adaptability and feasibility.