财税与公共管理学院知识库

在研究避税手段时，利用金融工具混合错配是一种常见的方法。这种方法涉及两个或更多税务管辖区，它们依据各自的税法规定，对同一金融工具下的资金流动进行差异化的税务处理。在款项支付者的税务体系中，该笔款项得以在税前进行扣除。在款项接受者的税务体系中，由于该笔款项具有特定的收益属性，它并不被纳入应税收入的范畴。这种情况导致了一个现象：款项的流出方将其从应税收入中扣除，而流入方则未将其视为应税收入。这种双重不征税的现象，不仅影响了税收的公平性，而且削弱了多国税收制度的稳健性。具体来说，它侵蚀了“参与其中的国家税收基础”，对国际税收秩序构成了潜在的威胁。为保障税收管辖区内税收利益的稳固与公平，各国政府应致力于深入探索金融工具混合错配的反避税研究，力求探索出有效的反避税策略。
随着房地产行业调控政策的出台，提高了房地产企业融资的门槛，房地产企业资金需求得不到满足，转而开始寻找可以隐藏债务从而满足融资条件能继续融资的方法，于是催生了“明股实债”、“优先股”，即以股权的形式投资，但实质上签署的是保本保收益的类似债权的合同，这种融资模式不仅可以帮助房地产企业将负债转移至表外，还可以帮助企业降低资产负债率、优化财务报表及减轻资金压力。合同双方也达到了双重不征税的效果。
本文运用税收学和法学，从BEPS行动计划2的具体建议和国内相关法律规定介绍我国混合金融工具错配的反避税制度现状。详细解释了房地产企业利用金融工具进行混合错配安排的原理。选取跨国房地产企业G集团作为案例，深入剖析其通过运用明股实债的混合错配进行信托融资以规避税收的具体操作。通过对G集团这一避税案例的细致梳理，分析了通过运用此类金融工具进行交易，最终达到双重不征税的避税效果。对跨国企业利用金融工具避税的行为进行全面而深入的探讨，归纳跨国房地产企业金融工具混合错配的避税问题。即债权股权定性标准不统一、税务处理原则不一致、跨境税收情报交换机制不完善，根据我国税收体系的实际情况，提出我国在防范金融工具混合错配避税行为上的建议。

   The utilization of mixed mismatching of financial instruments is a common approach in the study of tax avoidance techniques. This method involves two or more tax jurisdictions that, based on their respective tax regulations, conduct differentiated tax treatments for the flow of funds under the same financial instrument. In the tax system of the payer, the payment is deductible before tax. In the tax system of the recipient, however, due to the specific income attributes of the payment, it is not included in the taxable income category. This results in a situation where the outbound party deducts the payment from its taxable income, while the inbound party does not treat it as taxable income. This double non-taxation phenomenon not only affects the fairness of taxation but also undermines the robustness of the tax systems of multiple countries. Specifically, it erodes the tax base of participating countries and poses a potential threat to the international tax order. To ensure the stability and fairness of tax revenues within tax jurisdictions, governments of various countries should strive to delve deeper into the anti-tax avoidance research on mixed mismatching of financial instruments and seek effective anti-tax avoidance strategies.
     With the introduction of regulatory policies for the real estate industry, the threshold for financing has been raised for real estate enterprises. Unable to meet their financial needs, these enterprises began to search for ways to conceal debts in order to meet financing conditions and continue to raise funds. This gave birth to financing methods such as "nominal equity but actual debt" and "preferred stock". These methods involve investing in the form of equity, but essentially signing contracts similar to debt contracts that guarantee principal and returns. This financing model not only helps real estate enterprises transfer their liabilities off the balance sheet, reduce asset-liability ratios, optimize financial statements, and alleviate financial pressure. It also achieves a double non-taxation effect for both parties to the contract.
     This article utilizes knowledge from law, and economics to introduce the current status of China's anti-tax avoidance system for mixed financial instrument mismatches, based on specific recommendations from Action 2 of the BEPS Action Plan and relevant domestic legal provisions. It provides a detailed explanation of the principles underlying the mixed mismatch arrangements employed by real estate enterprises using financial instruments. By selecting the multinational real estate enterprise G Group as a case study, this article delves into the specific operations of its trust financing through the use of mixed financial instruments such as equity with debt features and preferred stock to avoid taxes. Through a thorough examination of the G Group's tax avoidance case, we reveal the basic facts of its transactions using such financial instruments to achieve the goal of double non-taxation. This article comprehensively and deeply explores the tax avoidance practices of multinational enterprises utilizing financial instruments and summarizes the tax avoidance issues related to mixed mismatches of financial instruments in multinational real estate enterprises. These issues include inconsistent standards for qualifying debt and equity, shortcomings in tax collection and management, and inadequacies in cross-border tax information exchange. Based on the actual situation of China's tax system, this article proposes several suggestions for China in addressing anti-tax avoidance in mixed mismatches of financial instruments.