外文翻譯--中國企業(yè)所得稅的稅收法律體系的結(jié)構(gòu)研究

1、<p><b>　　中文3685字</b></p><p><b>　　畢業(yè)設計/論文</b></p><p>　　外 文 文 獻 翻 譯</p><p>　　院 系 經(jīng)濟管理學院 </p><p>　　專 業(yè) 班 級 財務管理08

2、02 </p><p>　　姓　 名 </p><p>　　原 文 出 處 </p><p>　　評 分 </p><p>　　指 導 教 師

3、 </p><p>　　2012年1月11日</p><p>　　中國企業(yè)所得稅的稅收法律體系的結(jié)構(gòu)研究 </p><p><b>　　摘要</b></p><p>　　中華人民共和國企業(yè)所得稅法于2008

4、年1月1日起頒布實施，根據(jù)這部法律，企業(yè)所得稅法律制度已經(jīng)改變。這部法律經(jīng)歷了較長時間才得以頒布，并且需要一定時間對該法從憲制性法律到稅收政策進行系統(tǒng)地整合。憲法約束下的征稅權(quán)力的缺乏，基本稅法的沉默，以及稅收政策的任意頒布導致了企業(yè)所得稅法體系的不穩(wěn)定。立法者應宣布根據(jù)憲法法律的征稅權(quán)力，形成一個一般的稅收法律，一段時間來篩選稅收政策，使稅收系統(tǒng)得到進一步的完善。</p><p>　　關(guān)鍵詞：企業(yè)所得稅法 重

5、組 比較</p><p>　　作者： SJD·麥迪遜 美國威斯康星 - 麥迪遜大學法學院</p><p>　　出處： 北京法律評論</p><p><b>　　1.簡介</b></p><p>　　公司所得稅是一個針對公司每一納稅年度的應納稅所得額而征收稅款的稅種。它長期、廣泛地被應用于世界各國，例如美國的公

6、司稅。而中國長期實行的公司所得稅是“企業(yè)所得稅”，2008年最新頒布的法律被命名為“中華人民共和國企業(yè)所得稅法”（以下簡稱“企業(yè)所得稅法”）。它針對企業(yè)的各項收入，如銷售、服務、利息，或出租所得進行征稅，稅收是在中國起著越來越重要的作用。</p><p>　　然而中國的所得稅結(jié)構(gòu)是不穩(wěn)定的，主要有兩個原因。首先，企業(yè)所得稅的稅收法律體系正在建設中。在過去的幾十年里，為滿足社會和經(jīng)濟發(fā)展的需要，法律和法規(guī)不斷地被制

7、訂、修改和修訂，企業(yè)所得稅法律制度也經(jīng)歷著相同的發(fā)展歷程。法律界不僅做出巨大努力填補企業(yè)所得稅法領域的空白，如在2008年頒布的“企業(yè)所得稅法”，同時也廢除了部分法規(guī)和規(guī)章，以適應WTO的要求，例如，國家稅務總局發(fā)布分別于2006年和2008年下發(fā)了兩個通知以規(guī)范企業(yè)相關(guān)稅法規(guī)定。特別是第二個通知尤為重要，因為新的企業(yè)所得稅法已經(jīng)頒布，致使舊法下的舊政策不適用了。這種調(diào)整是一個持續(xù)的過程，并且會一直持續(xù)下去。</p>&l

8、t;p>　　其次，經(jīng)濟的高速發(fā)展導致了稅收政策和裁決的任意發(fā)布。中國每年都在進步，并且伴隨市場的變化變得越來越復雜。同時，問題在不斷地涌現(xiàn)，其中有一些類似的情況，而另一些則是特別的或獨特的案例。因為制訂一項新的法律需要復雜的過程，同時要耗費大量的時間，因而制訂相關(guān)法規(guī)條例就稱為了快速有效的方式。此外，制訂法規(guī)條例也不需要像法律那樣針對每種情況都進行規(guī)定，除非該問題已經(jīng)在全國漫延。這就是很多的解釋、措施、通知排除個別案件或只處理特定

9、的法律適用問題的原因。</p><p>　　在下面的章節(jié)中，我將通過引進其他國家更為復雜的企業(yè)所得稅，如美國和英國的法律制度為中國提供的可能的重組方案。當征稅權(quán)力受制于憲法性法律，一部基礎法律被制訂，同時稅收規(guī)定被統(tǒng)一和簡化，企業(yè)所得稅法律制度中的不協(xié)調(diào)部分將會被完善。</p><p>　　2．征稅權(quán)力需由“憲法”規(guī)定</p><p>　　稅權(quán)是一種基本的主權(quán)的事件

10、。稅收是提高收入的主要手段，同時稅收的權(quán)力也涉及摧毀。鑒于這樣的特點，這種權(quán)力通常是受到憲法、境內(nèi)最高的法律權(quán)威，或是最高立法機關(guān)的限制，例如國會或一些國家政府的分支機構(gòu)。這種安排的目的是降低民主社會中濫用權(quán)力的可能性。企業(yè)所得稅的征稅權(quán)力也是它的一部分。但是，這種機制在中國還沒有出現(xiàn)。</p><p>　　在古代，國王或皇帝很容易通過發(fā)號施令征收稅款或?qū)Χ惙ㄟM行更改，因為他的命令是所有公民都必須絕對尊崇的，這就

11、阻止了權(quán)力限制制度的建立。高度集中的政府往往任意使用征稅的特權(quán)。當時，普遍的觀念認為本國之內(nèi)的一切事物都屬于國王。因此，他可以決定何時以及如何從他的子民手中獲取什么，稅收就包括在內(nèi)。人們沒有合法的權(quán)利對事物的所有權(quán)進行斗爭，因為其所有權(quán)不受保護。無能為力的下層社會的民眾只能服從命令，照章納稅。</p><p>　　一直到近代，這種情況才得到改善。政府第一次試圖規(guī)范征稅權(quán)力，沒有專門規(guī)定憲法下的企業(yè)所得稅權(quán)力。然而

12、，軍閥時代的政治斗爭沒有使中國進入民主社會。結(jié)果，第一次的嘗試以失敗告終。嚴峻的社會環(huán)境缺乏民主，不甚健全的法律和秩序大大推遲了理想權(quán)力在憲法性法律下的實現(xiàn)。</p><p>　　中央集權(quán)越高，對權(quán)力進行限制的可能性越小。類似的情況再次出現(xiàn)在新中國成立后的計劃經(jīng)濟體制時代。在那種情況下，沒有其他的權(quán)力可以平衡它。任何方式，如通過憲法來限制中央權(quán)力對稅法的控制都是不可能的。</p><p>

13、　　“改革開放政策”于1978年開始改變這個國家的經(jīng)濟和社會結(jié)構(gòu)，但直到今天，征稅權(quán)力在憲法性法律中沒有得到規(guī)范的情況仍未改善。中華人民共和國憲法中，只明確規(guī)定了繳納稅款是公民的義務，而對企業(yè)進行征稅的權(quán)力并沒有體現(xiàn)。</p><p>　　憲法性法律在一個國家的所有法律中是至高無上的，它規(guī)定了權(quán)力的來源，包括基本原則，國家事務，人的基本權(quán)利和政府部門的關(guān)系。一個限制人民權(quán)利的行使或個人財產(chǎn)的使用權(quán)的權(quán)力，應在憲法

14、性法律中予以規(guī)定。稅收，尤其是企業(yè)所得稅，作為對人們的收入進行強制性征收的手段，屬于此類。如果沒有最高級別法律的授權(quán)，權(quán)力很容易被濫用，后果則是民不聊生，歷史上類似的情況不斷重演。因此，憲法性法律，作為一國的母法，應當肩負起通過正當程序規(guī)定稅收權(quán)力的責任。</p><p>　　大憲章限制了國王的權(quán)力，包括對稅收法律，從而打開了英國憲法新的一頁。它頒布于1215年，是第一個由議員們強制當時的英國國王約翰一世而簽署的

15、文件，他們想通過法律來限制國王的特權(quán)并使自己的權(quán)利得到保障。這使得國王約翰一世授予所有民眾大憲章上所描述的權(quán)利和自由，同時也使他自己和英格蘭未來的國王和地方法官都置身于大憲章的約束之下。它說，“任何自由人，如未經(jīng)其同級貴族之依法裁判，或經(jīng)國法判決，皆不得被逮捕，監(jiān)禁，沒收財產(chǎn)，剝奪法律保護權(quán)，流放，或加以任何其他損害。不得向任何人出售，拒絕，或延擱其應享之權(quán)利與公正裁判。這意味著任何人，包括國王或國會議員，都不得凌駕于法律之上。在這種情

16、況下，稅金就不再由國王任意征收，二是由法律和被征稅的人來規(guī)定。</p><p>　　不同于英國，美國將征稅權(quán)力授予憲法約束下的國會。第1條第8條第1條被稱為稅收條款，其中說，國會有權(quán)鋪設和收集的稅收、捐稅、關(guān)稅和消費稅，支付債務和提供共同防務和美國的一般福利;但一切捐稅、關(guān)稅和消費稅應在全美均勻分配。美國國會代表美國人民，因此，稅權(quán)是在人民的手中。</p><p>　　除了一般稅收條款，聯(lián)

17、合美國憲法授權(quán)國會的權(quán)力，奠定并收集第十六次修訂通過稅收對收入。它的地址，國會有權(quán)鋪設和收集收入稅，從什么了派生源，沒有幾個國家之間的分攤，不考慮任何人口普查或枚舉。</p><p>　　除英國和美國，在稅收權(quán)力的規(guī)定上有另外兩種方式。一個是意大利憲法中提到人民繳納稅款的義務，但沒有對征稅權(quán)力進行明確規(guī)定。它類似于中國的現(xiàn)行憲法。另一種是以日本憲法為代表的，其中包括人繳納稅款的義務以及沒有凌駕于法律之上的稅收的原

18、則。但相比美國或英國的憲制性法律授權(quán)制定法律來征收稅款，地方政府部門的規(guī)定顯然讓人不放心。</p><p>　　在我看來，憲法作為一個國家的母法，其中的條例應該具有普遍性、通俗性及高度濃縮的特點，而并不必要因稅收的特別需要而制定稅務事項。公平，透明，效率或沒有凌駕于法律之上的稅收原則是合適的，但其他如基本程序或三權(quán)分立等則過于詳細。另一個非常重要的問題是，對稅收立法的司法審查必須寫入憲法性法律，司法回顧稅收立法理

19、由關(guān)系。這對現(xiàn)代政府制度的權(quán)力分離的運作是一個很好的例子。然而，在目前中國的稅收法律制度中，它仍然是空白的。</p><p>　　3. 稅收政策和裁決的篩選</p><p>　　大部分企業(yè)所得稅的政策或裁決是由官方意見所領導的國家稅務部門發(fā)布的，他們整合個別納稅人的要求和應用規(guī)則來制定意見。當企業(yè)所得稅個案在稅法中找不到法律依據(jù)時，就由暫行條例來裁決如何處理。在找不到其他方法來解決問題時，

20、就要求發(fā)布裁決來填補空白。</p><p>　　在中國，國家稅務總局主要以 “通知”或“回復”的形式發(fā)布稅收政策和規(guī)則。由于稅法中的不足，本應由稅法規(guī)定的規(guī)則、條例、稅務裁決等都由法規(guī)來規(guī)定，這使得法規(guī)擔負起了本不屬于它的職責。</p><p>　　至于企業(yè)所得稅，制訂大量稅務條例導致了矛盾和不穩(wěn)定。2008年1月1日之前，雙重規(guī)定是不穩(wěn)定因素的原因。也就是說，國內(nèi)企業(yè)適用1994年頒布的

21、“中國企業(yè)所得稅的暫行規(guī)定”，而國外企業(yè)適用1991年4月頒布的“中華人民共和國外商投資企業(yè)和外國企業(yè)所得稅法”，因此發(fā)出了很多通知來協(xié)調(diào)兩部法律之間的差異。</p><p><b>　　4．重組體系的建議</b></p><p>　　從理論上說，中國在完善憲法體系的第二和第三級層面中面臨困難?！岸愂照鞴芊ā睂儆谔厥夥?，而不是基本法，它是由全國人大常委會制訂的。它為什

22、么能和稅收基本法并行呢？另一方面，企業(yè)所得稅法屬于第二層級而不是第三層級的法律，是由全國人民代表大會制訂的。這是否意味著它與稅收基本法是屬于同一級別呢？如果是這樣，它又怎么被基本稅法領導呢？個人所得稅法是在適當?shù)奈恢贸霈F(xiàn)，但大多數(shù)其他具體的稅收規(guī)則則處于較低水平。</p><p>　　另外，可以重新定義體系，使其不致陷入僵局，就是把第二和第三層級合并到一起。我認為，雖然法律是由全國人大還是全國人大常委會制訂應有所

23、差異，但至少它們都是法律，因此無需將它們進一步劃分為其是否是基本法。這是一個簡單的方法，但并非是最佳選擇。在我看來，應堅持完善體系的結(jié)構(gòu)，并將其作為一個最終目標。該國應該制訂的基本稅法以及稅收征管法，同時修訂“企業(yè)所得稅法”。中國完善企業(yè)所得稅法律體系的項目已經(jīng)啟動，我們很高興看到這樣良好的開端。然而還需要耗費更多的時間和經(jīng)歷去努力工作，我們期待看到中國立法機構(gòu)為解決這些問題而取得跨越式的進步。</p><p>

24、　　Research on the Structure of China’s Enterprise Income Tax Law System</p><p>　　Abstract：The PRC enterprise income tax law was enacted on January 1, 2008, with accordance to which the enterprise income tax

25、law system has been changing. It took a long time to promulgate the law just as it takes and will take certain period to integrate the system from the constitutional law to tax polices. The lack of taxing power under con

26、stitutional law, the silence of a basic tax law, and the arbitrary of tax policy issuance lead to an unstable structure of enterprise income tax law syste</p><p>　　Key words: Enterprise, Income Tax Law, Rest

27、ructure, Comparison </p><p>　　Author： S.J.D., Madison </p><p>　　University of Wisconsin-Madison, Law School, USA</p><p>　　Source： Beijing Law Review, 2011, 2, 63-73</p><p

28、>　　1. Introduction</p><p>　　Corporate income tax is a tax imposed for each taxable year on the taxable income of every corporation [1]. It is the term that widely used in the world, for example, known as

29、Corporate Tax in the US. However, the term China adopts for the corporate income tax is “enterprise income tax”, and it named the new law promulgate in 2008 the “Enterprise Income Tax Law of People’s Re-public of China”

30、(hereinafter “EIT Law”). Imposed on various incomes of enterprises such as incomes from sales, services,</p><p>　　However, the enterprise tax structure in China is unstable. There are two major reasons. Firs

31、t, the enterprise income tax law system is under construction. Laws and regulations have been made, amended, or revised to meet the needs of society or economic development in the past decades. The same to the history of

32、 enterprise income tax law system development. Not only have great efforts been made to fill the blank of enterprise income tax law field such as the EIT Law was promulgated in 2008, but </p><p>　　Second, th

33、e quick economic development involves arbitrary issuance of tax policies and rulings. China is making progress each year, accompany with which the market changes and becomes more and more sophisticated. Meanwhile, proble

34、ms have appeared case by case, some of which have similar situation while others are particular or unique. Since making a new law requires complicated processes and is time-consuming, a quick and effective way instead is

35、 to issue policies. Moreover, it is unlikely to ma</p><p>　　Three aspects compose the incompleteness of the structure of enterprise income tax law system: the lack of taxing power under constitutional law, t

36、he silence of a basic tax law, and the arbitrary of tax policy issuance. In the following sections, each aspect is discussed one after anther through introduction of countries with comparatively more sophisticated corpor

37、ate income tax law sys-tem such as the US and the UK for the purpose of pro-viding China with possible options for the restructure of</p><p>　　2. Taxing Power under the Constitutional Law</p><p>

38、;　　The power to tax is a basic incident of sovereignty. A tax is primarily a means of raising revenue, and the power to tax involves the power to destroy. Given such a characteristic, this power is normally controlled an

39、d limited by the constitutional law, the highest legal authority within the territory, and is exercised by the top legislature, such as the Congress or the perspective governing branch in individual countries. The purpos

40、e of such arrangement is to lower the possibility of power abus</p><p>　　In ancient times, it was easy for the King or Emperor to issue orders to levy taxes or to make changes because his orders were absolut

41、e regulation that all citizens had to obey, which prevented power limitation from being established. Highly centralized government tended to the arbitrary use of tax privilege. At that time, the dominant concept was that

42、 all things within the country be-longed to King. Therefore, he could decide when and how to take what from his people. Taxes were among these. Pe</p><p>　　The situation had not changed until the foundation

43、of Modern China. It was the first time that the government attempted to regulate taxing power, not specifically enterprise income taxing power, under the constitutional law. However, the warlord era and the political str

44、uggle did not bring China into a democratic era. As a result, the first trial failed. The harsh social climate that lacked democracy, law and order substantially delayed the embodiment of ideal power in the constitutiona

45、l law.</p><p>　　The stronger the centralized power was, the less possibility the limitation of power appeared. The similar situation appeared again under the planned economy after the country was founded. No

46、 other power had the chance to balance it under such circumstances. To limit the central power’s ability to impose taxes in any way such as through the Constitution was not possible.</p><p>　　The “reform and

47、 open-up policy” in 1978 began to change the country’s economic and social structures, but it has not made any difference in regulating taxing power in the constitutional law till today. Only the obligation of citizens t

48、o pay taxes can be found under PRC Constitution. The power to tax enterprises is not under the constitution.</p><p>　　Constitutional law is supreme to all laws in a country and it regulates sources of powers

49、. Basic principles, national affairs, fundamental rights of people and authorities of the government are included. A power that may limit the exercise of people’s rights or the use of personal properties shall be declare

50、d under the constitutional law. The tax, especially the enterprise income tax, as the means of collecting revenue from people without considerations, belongs to this kind. Without the highest</p><p>　　Magna

51、Carta opens a new page of UK constitution by limiting king’s power including imposing taxes to the law. Originally issued in the year 1215, it was the first document forced onto an English King John I by a group of the b

52、arons in an attempt to limit his powers by law and protect their privileges. It bound the king to grant to all freemen the rights and liberties the great charter described, and with Magna Carta, King John placed himself

53、and England’s future sovereigns and magistrates within</p><p>　　Unlike the arrangement in United Kingdom, United States authorizes taxing power to the Congress under the codified Constitution. Article 1 sect

54、ion 8 Clause 1 was known as Taxation Clause, which says, the congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the

55、 United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States. The Congress represents the people of </p><p>　　Except the UK and the US, there are two more types in regula

56、ting taxing power. One is the Italian Constitution that mentions people’s obligation to pay taxes but without the clause stating the power to tax. It is similar to China’s current Constitutional Law. The other type is re

57、presented by Japan’s Constitutional Law, which includes people’s obligation to pay taxes as well as the principle of no tax above the law. But compare to the US or the UK constitutional laws, the government branch that i

58、</p><p>　　In my opinion, articles in the constitutional law should be general, simple and highly condensed since it is the mother law in a country’s legal system. There is no need to specify any tax matters

59、due to the particular need of taxation. Principles of fairness, transparent, efficiency or no tax above the law is suitable, but others such as basic procedures or separation of powers are too detailed to fit in. Another

60、 subject is very important that has to be put in the constitutional law, the judici</p><p>　　3. The Screening of Tax Policies and Rulings</p><p>　　Most enterprise income tax policies or rulings

61、are issued by national tax administrations upon official opinions of applying rules. They are bridging over demands of individual taxpayers and the application of rules. When an enterprise income tax issue arises without

62、 recognized by laws, a ruling is used to explain how the case shall be dealt with. In the case that nowhere else could find any opinion on the situation, and then rulings are required to fill the blank in the area. Count

63、ries like the</p><p>　　In China, State Administration of Taxation (SAT) mainly takes charge of publishing tax policies and rules in form of “Notice” or “Reply”. Since tax laws are in lack and rules that are

64、supposed to be regulated by tax laws are now included in regulations, tax rulings are taking the position of both regulations as well as rulings. That makes rulings more than it should have.</p><p>　　As for

65、enterprise income taxes, inconsistency and instability are results of issuing a huge number of tax rulings. The inconsistency is due to the two -tier system before January 1, 2008. That is, domestic enterprises are regul

66、ated by the PRC Interim Regulation on Enterprise Income Tax, enacted in the beginning of 1994, while foreign enterprises are ruled by the PRC Income Tax Law of Enterprise with Foreign Investment and Foreign Enterprise, p

67、ublished in April 1991. Many notices were issued for </p><p>　　4. Suggestions of Restructuring the System</p><p>　　Theoretically, China confronts difficulties to complete the system designed by

68、the constitutional law in the second and third level. The tax collection law was made by NPC Standing Committee, which sits it in the category of the law rather than the basic law. How can it parallel with the basic tax

69、law? On the other hand, the enterprise income tax law was made by National People’s Congress, which categorized it into the second level instead of the third. Does this mean it is categorized in the sa</p><p&g

70、t;　　Alternatively, redefine the system to make it feasible and not fall in the trap. That is to merge the second and the third level, at least they are all “l(fā)aws” and no need to further divide them into basic or not basi

71、c, although there should be difference between the law made by the National People’s Congress and that made by its standing committee, I think. This is an easy way but not the best choice. In my opinion, stick to the des

72、igned structure and consider it as a final goal. The country sha</p><p>　　蚆羆蒅螂羄羅膄薅袀羅芇螀袆羄葿薃螂羃薁蒆肁羂芁蟻羇羈莃蒄袃羀蒆蝕蝿聿膅蒂蚅聿羋蚈羃肈莀蒁罿肇薂螆裊肆節(jié)蕿螁肅莄螅蚇肄蒆薇羆肅膆螃袂膃羋薆螈膂莁螁蚄膁蒃薄肅膀芃莇罿腿蒞螞裊膈蕆蒅螁膈膇蟻蚇膇艿蒃羅芆莂蠆袁芅蒄蒂螇芄膄蚇蚃芃莆蒀肂節(jié)蒈螅羈節(jié)薀薈襖芁芀螄螀袇莂薆蚆羆蒅螂羄

73、羅膄薅袀羅芇螀袆羄葿薃螂羃薁蒆肁羂芁蟻羇羈莃蒄袃羀蒆蝕蝿聿膅蒂蚅聿羋蚈羃肈莀蒁罿肇薂螆裊肆節(jié)蕿螁肅莄螅蚇肄蒆薇羆肅膆螃袂膃羋薆螈膂莁螁蚄膁蒃薄肅膀芃莇罿腿蒞螞裊膈蕆蒅螁膈膇蟻蚇膇艿蒃羅芆莂蠆袁芅蒄蒂螇芄膄蚇蚃芃莆蒀肂節(jié)蒈螅羈節(jié)薀薈襖芁芀螄螀袇莂薆蚆羆蒅螂羄羅膄薅袀羅芇螀袆羄葿薃螂羃薁蒆肁羂芁蟻羇羈莃蒄袃羀蒆蝕蝿聿膅蒂蚅聿羋蚈羃肈莀蒁罿肇薂螆裊肆節(jié)蕿螁肅莄螅蚇肄蒆薇羆肅膆螃袂膃羋薆螈膂莁螁蚄膁蒃薄肅膀芃莇罿腿蒞螞裊膈蕆蒅螁膈膇蟻蚇膇艿蒃羅