china tax update asia tax executives forum china tax panel 9 th may 2012, singapore peter guang chen...

China Tax UpdateAsia Tax Executives ForumChina Tax Panel

9th May 2012, Singapore

Peter Guang Chen (Vice President, Asia Pacific)Charles River Associates

Jocelyn Lam (Executive Director)Goldman Sachs

Baker Lihua Li (Senior Tax Manager, North Asia)Damco (part of A P Moeller / Maersk)

1

Copyright © 2012 CRA International

Agenda

2

CHINA: What you can do to keep in step with rule changes

The move towards GST; the Shanghai VAT pilot programme

China’s tax treaties - new developments

Indirect Transfers and Circular 698

The experience of China’s direct tax reform in 2008 v India’s in 2012

Recent Transfer Pricing Developments

The move towards GSTShanghai’s VAT pilot programme

3


Shanghai’s Pilot VAT Programme

On Nov 17 2011, Caishui [2011] No.110 and Caishui [2011] No.111 were jointly issued by the SAT and MOF

The implementation and transitional rules has taken effect since 1 January 2012

At current stage, only certain industries in Shanghai are subject to the pilot program

The concept is that for services and other types of income which are now subject to the Business Tax (“BT”), they will now be subject to the Value Added Tax (“VAT”)

4



Pilot Industries Applicable VAT Rate

Tangible movable property leasing services 17%

Transportation Service Industry 11%

Research, development and technical services

6%Information technology services

Cultural creative services

Logistic auxiliary services

Certification and consulting services

Other than the above, other services or activities which are now under the existing Business Tax (BT) regime are still subject to BT

5



For overseas entities providing services to customers in China, and who are subject to the Pilot VAT programme:

The VAT withholder is generally the service recipient, if the overseas entity does not have an agent in ChinaThis is consistent with the existing rules on Business Tax

VAT liability = (total amount to be paid by service recipient) ÷ (1+ VAT rate) x VAT rate

The VAT withheld will become an “input credit” which the service recipients in China are allowed to claim the VAT withheld for the overseas entities as its own input VAT credit

6



Perspectives from the financial services industry

Although FS is outside the scope of the Shanghai Pilot VAT programme, it is nevertheless affected through its dealings with vendors which are in the pilot programme

Discussions between the MOF / NPC with various industry groups as to relevant rules for the financial services industry

How should the industry be preparing itself, in anticipation of the VAT Pilot program to be adopted by Beijing as early as 1st July 2012, and the nationwide roll out by 2015

7



Perspectives from the forwarding / shipping industry

The forwarding / shipping industry is one which is directly affected by the Pilot VAT programme in Shanghai

Practical issues due to the pilot programme on the transportation / shipping industry

VAT exemption on service export, Import activity from overseas party

the financial subsidy programme which local government aim to offer to the company whose tax burden is negatively affected.

8

China:Tax Treaties Development

9


China – Tax Treaties & TIEA – Recent Developments

In the last 12 months

Income Tax Treaties / Arrangements:

o 7 income tax treaties “entered into force” or became “effective: Uzbekistan, Zambia, Syria, Macau, Czech Republic, Malta, Turkmenistan

o 2 protocols / treaties were “signed”: United Kingdom, Latvia

o 1 protocol’s “negotiation was finalized”: Canada

Tax Information Exchange Agreements (“TIEA”):

o 5 TIEAs “entered into force” or became “effective”: Bermuda, Jersey, Argentina, BVI, Guernsey

o 1 TIEA was “signed”: Cayman Islands

10


China – Treaties/Protocols signed/negotiated within last 15 months

Country Treaty / Protocol Negotiation Concluded Signed Entry into

Force Effective

Uzbekistan Protocol to 1996 treaty Apr 18 2011 Dec 30 2011 Dec 30 2011

Canada Protocol to 1986 treaty Feb 11 2012 Pending Pending Pending

Botswana New treaty Apr 11 2012 Pending Pending

Zambia New treaty Jul 26 2010 Jun 30 2011 Jan 1 2012

Syria New treaty Oct 31 2010 Sep 1 2011 Jan 1 2012

Macau Protocol to 2003 arrangement Apr 26 2011 Oct 8 2011 Jan 1 2012

United Kingdom New treaty (to replace 1984 treaty) Jun 27 2011 Pending Pending

Latvia Protocol to 1996 treaty Aug 24 2011 Pending Pending

Czech Republic

New treaty (replaces the 1987 treaty between China and the former Czechoslovakia)

Aug 28 2009 May 4 2011 Jan 1 2012

Malta New treaty (replaces 1993 treaty)

Oct 18 2010 Aug 25 2011 Jan 1 2012

Turkmenistan New treaty May 14 2009 Mar 30 2010 Jan 1 2011

11


China – Treaties/Protocols signed but not yet “EOF” or in effect

Country Treaty / Protocol Signed Entry into Force Effective

Belgium New treaty to replace 1985 treaty Oct 7 2009 Pending Pending

Ethiopia New treaty May 14 2009 Pending Pending

S. Korea Protocol to 1994 treaty Mar 23 2006 Pending Pending

Latvia Protocol to 1996 treaty Aug 24 2011 Pending Pending

New Zealand Protocol to 1986 treaty Oct 7 1997 Pending Pending

United Kingdom New treaty to replace 1984 treaty Jun 27 2011 Pending Pending

As of 9th May 2012

12


China – Income Tax Treaties – Recent Developments

The: “beneficial ownership” requirement of Circular 601 in claiming treaty benefits

o Is “beneficial ownership” requirement applicable in Treaty / Double Taxation Agreements (DTA) capital gains tax relief claims, despite the fact that neither the Chinese domestic law nor the Circulars issued by the SAT treat “beneficial ownership” as a qualifying criterion for treaty capital gains relief

o May “substance” within the “group” support a claim for treaty benefits?

In mid-2011, a draft to clarify Circular 601 was released by the SAT to the tax industry and outlined certain situations where a claim can be made on the basis of substance in group holding companies. The draft circular, is still under discussion and it is uncertain when it will be finalized and made official

13


China – Income Tax Treaties – Recent Developments

Practical experience in audit situations after the issuance of Circular 75 - the triggering of “permanent establishment” status in secondment arrangements

o Interpretation of PE concept o Service PE:

Connected projects Calculation of 183 days/6 months

The 12 month holding period requirement for entitlement to reduced rate dividend withholding tax rate – the reason why a Luxembourg company’s application for treaty benefit was denied by the SAT in September 2011

o Circular 81 (Guoshuihan [2009] 81] laid out the 12 month rule in 2009. Then, Circular 75 (Guoshuifa [2010] 75) was issued to interpret the China – Singapore tax treaty, and discussed the 12 month rule of Circular 81 at length. However, Circular 75’s interpretation can apply to any treaty with similar provisions to the Singapore treaty, such as the one China has with Luxembourg, which has the almost identical language as the Singapore treaty on the dividend withholding rate.

14


Update on Circular 24

Bulletin No. 24, issued by China SAT in 2011

Circular 24 was issued to clarify withholding tax obligation of nonresident taxpayer

o Impact on passive income (e.g. dividend declaration) o Impact on service income (e.g. central charges)

15

16

China:Indirect Transfers and Circular 698

16


Indirect Share Transfers – Circular 698

Background

Historically, transfers of FIE shares among affiliates were permitted at cost

EITL: FIE equity shares transferred in restructurings must now be effected at fair value

Circular 698

Targets practice of transferring intermediate holding companies that hold interest in FIE shares

Imposes extensive reporting requirements in certain cases SAT can disregard intermediate holding company

17


Implications of the Vodafone Decision

Vodafone as potential inspiration for Circular 698

Overview of Indian Supreme Court decision in favor of taxpayer

Certain distinctions minimize importance of decision for Chinese tax

Potential reference for SAT regarding prospect of competent authority disputes


18


Update on enforcement actions by SAT

January 2012 (published) case from Shanxi resulting in RMB 403m in PRC tax collected from a transfer of HK company

SAT’s 4th May 2012 meeting on supplementary circulars in Xiamen

Trends and impact on existing and future planning of investment structures by MNCs


19

China:Tax Reform Experienceof China as compared to India’s Proposals

20


Tax Reform – China vs India

Thoughts from our panelists:

Differences: China is to align the foreign and domestic tax regimes and lower tax rates. India does not have same objective

Similarities: codifying GAAR which leads to controversies and industry lobbying in treaty claim context

Impact on how fund investment/ market access products should be structured, and leading to increased need for treaty/ competent authority

China’s focus: more on quality than speed in economy development

o MNCs VS. SOEs o High-tech and certain encouraged industry (e.g. offshore service

sourcing)

21

ChinaRecent Transfer Pricing Developments

22


China – Transfer Pricing Highlights

Audit Targets Announced by Jibianhan [2012] 1. An internal document that instructs the local tax authorities to perform mandatory and voluntary tax investigations in 2012, specifically including:

o taxpayers that conduct capital transactionso enterprises that receive VAT special invoices from purchases of refined oilo nonresident enterprises engaged in financial industryo real estate developers and construction and installation companieso local commercial banks o high-income individuals

Local tax authorities instructed to close more than 90 percent of selected investigation cases and to collect more than 90 percent of unpaid tax audit income this year

Audit Targets for 2012

23


China – Transfer Pricing Highlights – recent events

Nationwide transfer pricing database project

Started In 2012, SAT is establishing a system which will contain nationwide information on related-party transactions and contemporaneous documentation. It will allow the SAT to conduct comparative analyses on related-party transactions conducted in different industrial sectors, tax years, and geographical areas

APA statistics and performance

At the end of 2011, 120 companies have applied for bi-lateral APAso In 2011 China has conducted 10 bilateral discussions with seven countries

including the US, Japan and Korea on 29 APAs and corresponding adjustment cases

oHowever, only seven of them have reached consensus through MAP

On April 12, 2012, the SAT released the second annual APA report, covering periods from 2005 to 2010

24



SAT Propensity to Attribute Premium Value to Chinese Assets

Valuation analyses may need to address “premiums” assigned to Chinese assets by the SAT

SAT rationales for premiums may include:

o Location savings

o Marketing intangibles associated with Chinese customers

o High expected growth rates

25


China – Transfer Pricing Highlights – recent events

China’s first Thin Capitalization Audit Case Concluded

In Dec 2011, it was reported that the SAT concluded its first thin capitalization case in Shanxi Province made a tax adjustment of more than CNY 30 million (about US$4.72 million)in enterprise income tax on a Chinese subsidiary of a Japanese multinational companyThe Chinese subsidiary of Japan MNC maintained debt-to-asset ratios of 91.26 percent in 2007, 87.32 percent in 2008, and 93.86 percent in 2009

SAT’s Transfer Pricing headquarters – personnel shortage

Self Assessment requested of many multinational companies by the SAT

26


China – Transfer Pricing Highlights – Cost Sharing Arrangements

Cost Sharing Arrangements (CSA) in China

Regulatory Background

Enterprise Income Tax Law (EITL)

Article 41, paragraph 2 provided statutory basis for Cost Sharing arrangements . Also see the EITL’s Implementation Regulations (EITL.IR Article 112)

Special Tax Adjustments (STA) – Implementation Measures

Chapter 7 provides detailed regulations on the administration of Cost Sharing arrangements in China

Within thirty (30) days from date that CSA (cost sharing agreement) is reached, CSA to be submitted to the SAT. SAT to submit for examination and approval.

Contemporaneous Documentation requirement for CSA, provided for in Article 74 of the STA Implementation Measures. Documentation to be submitted by June 20th after year end.

27



Cost Sharing Arrangements in China

Many companies are transferring R&D and service functions to China, establishing global R&D and shared service centers

China is also now seen as a desirable market for many MNCs

MNC’s subsidiaries in China increasingly performing marketing and brand building of their products for the China market

Cross border payment of royalty fees and service fees are subject to income tax (ie. the EIT) withholding at 10% and also Business Tax 5.5%*

Cost sharing can reduce inter-company royalty and service fee payments – Resulting in lower income tax (EIT) and Business Tax withholdings

Cost sharing can also reduce capital requirements of China subsidiary in some cases

Special challenges in calculating payments under CSAs in China

28



Cost Sharing Arrangements in China – the buy in payment issue

In China, the SAT’s regulations do not provide guidance on how to use specific methods to determine arm’s length transaction value (转让定价方法，以确定市场价格 )

Buy In payments

o Comparable uncontrolled price method is generally not preferred by tax authorities

o In the USA, the income method is commonly used and accepted by the IRS

o Under income method: calculate NPV (net present value) of future stream of non-routine cash flows from use of pre-existing IP

29

Copyright © 2012 CRA International30


In China, SAT does not list specific methods to compute buy in payment

No current consensus of what will best satisfy the SAT, however, following factors are much focused on:

o How future economic benefit is predicted and measured

o Costs pool allocation – excluding stewardship expenses, and costs which are not of direct benefit to IP development

o China’s cost advantage and market premium (成本优势和市场溢价 ) to be considered as to effect on buy in payment and cost sharing contribution payment

Cost Sharing Arrangements in China – the buy in payment issue

Copyright © 2012 CRA International31


Cost Sharing Arrangements in China

Subsidiary(China)

Subsidiary(China)

Parent(USA)

Parent(USA)

Licensing agreement- use of IP

Licensing fees / royalties payment

EITBT / VAT

CSAentered into

Buy In payments

No CSA CSA

AppendixIntercompany Payments

32


When structuring an inter-company charge with an affiliated company in China, many factors have to be considered in advance

Regulatory restrictions on particular economic activitieso Examples: Financing activities / Outbound Lending

o Dividend distribution limitation (i.e., accounting profit requirement)

o Capital repatriation generally not permitted

Foreign exchange controlo Only permitted categories of payments are remittable

o Various document requirements

Taxo Requirement to obtain tax clearance certificate in many cases

o Cost: income tax (EIT), Business Tax (BT), Value Added Tax (VAT)

Inter-Company Charges with Affiliates in China

33


The extremely restrictive regulatory environment governing repatriation of cash out of China leads to the following phenomenon:

o “trapped cash” at many multinationals in China

o Because of the perceived difficulty of repatriating cash from affiliated companies in China, there is a tendency for multinationals to “keep profits low” at their China subsidiaries through transfer pricing arrangements and various type of inter-company charges against the China subsidiary / affiliated company


34



35

Accounting Profits

Settle Income Tax

Offset prior year loss, if any

Provide for statutory after-tax reserves

Distributable Profits

Common Misconception:

It is difficult to take profits out of China!

To remit dividends to parent company, the following are to be submitted to the bank:

Tax return copy

CPA audited financial report

Resolution of Board of Directors

Foreign Exchange registration certificate

Credit report prepared by accounting firm

Profits Repatriation – Conditions for Dividend Declaration


The major objectives to achieve, when structuring inter-company charges with an affiliated company in China are:

The payor (ie. the China affiliate) can claim a deduction against its corporate income tax (the Enterprise Income Tax “EIT”)

The payee (ie. the non-Chinese recipient) is not subject to excessive tax in China

The China tax paid can, if possible, be credited against the payee (ie. the non-Chinese recipient)’s home country tax

Payment can be remitted by the payor out of China through the banking system, clearing the hurdles of foreign exchange controls (as administered by SAFE “State Administration of Foreign Exchange”)


36


How transfer pricing arrangements can affect or be affected by the structuring of inter-company payments in China?

For inter-company payments other than the buying and selling of merchandise, the inter-company pricing can be challenged when a tax clearance certificate is required. The result can be that if the tax authority is not satisfied with the inter-company price (for example, a royalty charged against the Chinese affiliate), then the payment simply cannot be remitted outside of China

Due to the imposition of both income tax (EIT) and other turnover taxes (such as Business Tax and/or VAT), there is pressure on multinationals to re-characterize certain outbound payments by affiliates in China

Getting the “transfer pricing” arrangement wrong, will be costly not just because of “corporate income tax” (EIT), but as a result of the turnover taxes also


37

38

AppendixRecent Cases on Intercompany Payments

38


Example 1 – the “G-UK” Company

Facts

G company is a UK company which owns valuable technology, some of which has been patented. It has a subsidiary in China “G-China”, which has in the past manufactured the products for G-UK, and then immediately sold the manufactured products to G-UK. G company is part of a large multinational group, and is subject to financial reporting in the US.

In the last 2 years, however, G-China began selling some of G-UK’s products in China. However, G-UK has not charged G-China any royalty / license fees for the sale of its products (ie. the G-UK brands and the embedded technology, etc).

G-China has been profitable in the last few years, and has paid EIT in China at the rate of 25% on its net profit.

Inter-Company Charges with Affiliates in China - Examples

39


Example 1 – the “G-UK” Company (continued)

Problem:From a TP standpoint, G-China should have been paying royalties to G-UK when it began selling G-UK’s products in China. The risk is that the UK Inland Revenue may, under UK’s TP rules, impute royalty income to G-UK, and therefore G-UK will be liable for additional UK corporate income tax. However, there is no ready mechanism in place for G-China to amend its prior years’ tax returns, to adjust and get a refund for prior year taxes.

Consequences:Immediate : G-UK and its parent company group is under pressure from its auditors to provide for a tax expense provision reserve, for FIN 48 reporting purposes in the USLonger term: If G-UK is assessed additional UK corporate income tax, and if it cannot readily obtain a refund of the EIT G-China has paid in China, then it will be double taxed on the same income, for the group as a whole

Solution: Is a competent authority proceeding / mutual agreement procedure (“MAP”) a realistic possibility in this case, under the UK-China tax treaty ?


40


Example 1 – the “G-UK” Company (continued)

Competent Authority proceeding / MAP under the UK-China tax treaty

Under the existing UK-China tax treaty (1984), Article 25 provides for a competent authority proceedingThere is a new UK-China tax treaty, signed but not yet effective. Article 25 in new treaty has essentially the same provisions, except that there is statute of limitation relief.In theory, MAP proceeding can be initiated in the UK, or possibly, in ChinaIf MAP proceeding is initiated in China, then Guoshuifa [2005] 115 (“GSF 115” issued1st July 2005) will govern.However, a competent authority proceeding is discretionary as to whether the tax authorities will agree to commence one. Also, not all competent authority proceedings result in agreement.


41


Example 2 – the “L-US” Company

Facts

The L-US company is a multinational group in the software language localization business, and is very profitable in its home country, USA. It has a subsidiary in China, the L-China company. The L-China company provides services to various customers, performing the Chinese localization of various major software programs. Some of its customers are affiliated companies outside of China within the L-US group. The L-China company is required to prepare contemporaneous transfer pricing documentation, because it’s intercompany transactions with affiliates exceed the threshold requirement ( > RMB 40 million in fees payments), and has done so since 2008. Under its TP documentation, L-China is described as not engaged in “software development”, bur rather as simply engaged in certain programming functions, and to perform minor modifications to certain parts of the software.In 2010, under a circular Caishui [2010] 64, a company which performs outsourcing in certain types of industry/functions, can obtain an exemption from Business Tax (BT), on its “outsourcing business revenue”.


42


Example 2 – the “L-US” Company (continued)

Facts (continued)

The “software development” business is one type of qualifying industry / function which can qualify a company to have the Business Tax exemption under Caishui [2010] 64. This is the only possibility for L-China if it wants to get the BT exemption.

Problem

As the Business Tax (BT) rate is 5% (effectively 5.6%, if local surcharges are added) on gross revenue, the tax exemption under Caishui [2010] 64 can provide significant tax savings for L-China. Can L-China maintain that it is in the “software development” business for purposes of Caishui [2010] 64, without changing its TP documentation’s position that it is not engaged in “software development” for EIT purposes?


43


Example 3 – the “M” Company

Facts The M Company is engaged in the design, development and manufacturing of integrated circuits (IC’s) and other electronic equipment. It has a subsidiary in China, M-China, which has been in operation since 2009. M-China provides design services solely for its parent the M Company. The M Company has not paid any service fees to M-China since its inception. Therefore, M-China has not shown any revenue for the 2009, 2010 years, and therefore operated at a loss for those two years. It is now February 2012, and the management of M company decided that it should compensate M-China for the year 2011 on a cost-plus basis (around cost + 10%). There is no inter-company service agreement in place. The management is wondering whether they can do so, and what problems, if any, should they anticipate.

ProblemWith the year 2011 year completed, and it is already February, it means that the interim accounts of M-China have already been submitted to the local tax bureau, without showing any revenue. Further, if service fees should have been charged by the M Company against M-China during 2011, then invoices should have been issued during the year, with the requisite Business Tax (BT) of 5.5% collected from the customer, the M Company.


44


Example 3 – the “M” Company (continued)

ProblemSince the 2011 year is over, and it is already February, the interim accounts of M-China have already been submitted to the local tax bureau, showing zero revenue. Further, if service fees should have been charged by the M Company against M-China during 2011, then invoices should have been issued during the year, with the requisite BT of 5.5% collected from the customer, the M CompanyIf M-China now pays M-China a service fee of cost + 10%, for the year 2011, then there can be late penalty and interest for the EIT tax and BT tax which should have been collected and paid over during 2011Also is it possible to, on the one hand, adjust M-China’s 2011 for financial statement and taxable income, but yet without having the billings / official invoices to show for it during 2011?

SolutionOfficial invoices showing the correct amount of BT or VAT should be issued as soon as possible for 2012, based on an agreement for intercompany services effective for the year 2011. A meeting should be arranged with the tax official in charge at the local tax bureau, for a discussion of the matter on 2011 and prior years.


45


Example 4 – the “P” Company

Facts

The P Company is engaged in the sale of pet related products to customers within Continent E. It obtains almost all of its products from unrelated factories and suppliers in China. It has done its procurement through two Representative Offices (RO) the P Company has in China. The P Company owns a number of patents and trademarks it has developed for its products over the years. P Company believes that there will be a significant increase in the consumer demand for pet related products in China and the rest of Asia in the future. In 2012, the P Company will establish a WFOE (Wholly Foreign Owned Enterprise) in China, P-China, to replace the two ROs It will also set up a new company in Hong Kong, P-HK. The plan is that the new WFOE will provide procurement services to the P Company and P HK, and also will develop products and brands for the China market, to which P-China will sell. P-HK is to develop products and brands for the markets outside of China and the E Continent, and will be responsible to sell to customers in those areas.


46


Example 4 – the “P” Company Issues

What intercompany agreements are needed as between the P Company, P-China and P-HK?

Possible solutions

Procurement Services contract between P-China, as the service provider, and the P Company and P-HK as the service recipientsThe P Company should consider structuring a Cost Sharing Agreement (CSA) between itself and P-China and P-HK, as to existing intellectual property and on future products development costsIf designed properly, a cost sharing agreement (CSA) arrangement can provide both income tax and turnover tax advantages in China and in HK


47


Example: New IP/Product Development/Exploitation Model in China

P Company(in Continent E)

Holding Company

P-HK(Hong Kong

Limited Company)

P-China(China WFOE)

Cost-Sharing Agreement sourcing

services

Customers in Continent Esales

Continent E rights, ex PRC rights and

rest of world

Owns rights to rest of world, ex Continent E

and PRC rights

PRC rights

To customers in rest of the world, excluding Continent E and PRC

sales

PRC customerssales

Example 4 – the P Company

Diagram

Procurement Services Agreement between P-China WFOE and P Co. and P-HKo P Co. and P-HK to pay service fees to P-China

Cost Sharing Agreement between P Co., P-China, P-HKo P-HK to pay P Co buy in payment

License Agreement between (a) P Co. and P-China and (b) P Co. and P-HK

Intercompany Agreements and Payments

48

Contact Information

Notice / Disclaimer

49


Contact Information

50

Peter Guang Chen (Hong Kong)

Email: [email protected]

Phone: +852 8127.7500 +852.3927.5222 (direct) +852.6587.9097 (mobile)

Joshua Wan (Hong Kong)

Email: [email protected]

Phone: +852 8127.7500 +852.3927.5333 (direct) +852.5688.1570 (mobile)

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

This presentation contains general information only and is based on the experiences and research of individual professional(s) / practitioner(s) on the China Tax Panel of the TEI Asia Tax Executives Forum 2012 Singapore. The materials contained here and the comments made during the life presentation of the China Tax Panel are the opinion(s) of the respective individual professionals / practitioners of the China Tax Panel (“China Tax Panel Members”), and do not represent the opinion(s) or position(s) of the companies / firms which the China Tax Panel Members are employed or affiliated with. Neither the China Tax Panel Members nor the companies / firms employing (or affiliated with) the China Tax Panel Members are, by means of this presentation, rendering business, financial, investment, or other professional advice or services. This presentation is not a substitute for such professional advice or services, nor should it be used as a basis for any decision or action that may affect your business. Before making any decision or taking any action that may affect your business, you should consult a qualified professional advisor. The China Tax Panel Members, and the companies / firms employing (or affiliated with) the China Tax Panel members, their affiliates, and related entities shall not be responsible for any loss sustained by any person who relies on this presentation.

Important Notice / Disclaimer

51

china tax update asia tax executives forum china tax panel 9 th may 2012, singapore peter guang chen...

Documents

shanghai pilot vat programme

vat withholder

vat rate x vat rate

pilot programme discussions

business tax vat liability

input vat credit

financial services industry

technical services