|
参考文献——
[1] 陈晶晶《避税与反避税博弈进入拐点》，《法制日报》2007年8月29日。
[2] David A. Weisbach《Formalism in the Tax Law》, The University of Chicago Law Review, 1999.
[3] Brian J. Arnold《The Canadian General Anti-Avoidance Rule》//Graeme S. Cooper《Tax Avoidance and the Rule of Law》, Amsterdam: IBFD Publications, 1997.
[4] Leif Mutén《The Swedish Experiment with a General Anti-Avoidance Rule》//Graeme S. Cooper《Tax Avoidance and the Rule of Law》, Amsterdam: IBFD Publications, 1997.
[5]Roy Rohatgi《Basic International Taxation》, Graham & Trotman LTD: Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers,Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2002.
[6] David Hariton《When and How Should the Economic Substance Doctrine Be Applied》, Tax Law Review, 2006.
[7]Michael L. Scheler《Ten More Truths about Tax Shelters: The Problem, Possible Solutions, and a Reply to Professor Weisbach》, Tax Law Review, 2002.
[8] Zachary Nahass《Codifing the Economic Substance Doctrine: A Proposal on the Doorstep of Usefulness》, Administrative Law Review, 2006.
[9] Yoram Keinan《The Many Faces of the Economic Substance’s Two-Prong Test, Time for Reconciliation》, NYU Journal of Law and Business, 2005.
[10] Jeff Rector《A Review of the Economic Substance Doctrine》, Stanford Journal of Law, Business & Finance, 2005.
[11] Allen D. Madison《The Tension between Textualism and Substance-Over-Form Doctrine in Tax Law》, Santa Clara Law Review, 2003.
[12] Christopher M. Pietruszkiewicz《Economic Substance and the Standard of Review》, AlabamaLaw Review, 2009.
[13] Daniel J. Glassman《”It’s Not a Lie If You Believe It”: Tax Shelters and the Economic Substance Doctrine》, Florida Law Review, 2006.
[14] Alvin C. Warren《The Requirement of Economic Profit in Tax Motivated Transactions》, The Tax Magazine, 1981.
[15] Joseph Bankman《The Economic Substance Doctrine》, Southern California Law Review, 2000.
[16] David Hariton《When and How Should the Economic Substance Doctrine Be Applied》, Tax Law Review, 2006.
[17] Charlene D. Luke《Risk, Return, and Objective Economic Substance》, Virginia Tax Review, 2007 -2008.
作者简介——汤洁茵，中国青年政治学院法律系讲师，法学博士。
文章出处——《现代法学》2012年9月第34卷第5期
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1]陈晶晶《避税与反避税博弈进入拐点》，《法制日报》2007年8月29日。
[2]David A. Weisbach《Formalism in the Tax Law》, The University of Chicago Law Review, 1999.
[3]当前规定一般反避税条款的国家和地区主要包括比利时、加拿大、法国、德国、爱尔兰、荷兰、新西兰、葡萄牙、新加坡、西班牙、瑞典。
[4]参见：《特别纳税调整实施办法（试行）》第1条。
[5]Section 245, Income Tax Act (Canada).
[6]Brian J. Arnold《The Canadian General Anti-Avoidance Rule》//Graeme S. Cooper《Tax Avoidance and the Rule of Law》, Amsterdam: IBFD Publications, 1997.
[7]The Tax Avoidance Act (Sweden), 1998. 但该条同时要求交易的形式不能与税收立法的目的存在冲突。
[8]Leif Mutén《The Swedish Experiment with a General Anti-Avoidance Rule》//Graeme S. Cooper《Tax Avoidance and the Rule of Law》, Amsterdam: IBFD Publications, 1997.
[9]David Hariton《When and How Should the Economic Substance Doctrine Be Applied》, Tax Law Review, 2006.
[10]Section 177D, Income Tax Act (Australia) 1997.
[11]ACM Partnership, 157 F. 3d at 247.
[12]H.R, 2520, 107th Cong. (1st Sess. , July 17, 2001); America Competitiveness and Corporate Accountability Act of 2002, H.R. 5095, 107th Cong. (2d Sess. 2002); Jumpstart Our Business Strength (JOBS) Act. S. 1637, 108th Cong. (1st Sess. , Nov. 7. 2003); S. Rep. No. 108-192 (2003) (Reporting on JOBS Act).
[13]David Hariton《When and How Should the Economic Substance Doctrine Be Applied》, Tax Law Review, 2006.
[14]有学者认为，避税安排还包括另一种形式，即从总体上看具有盈利性的交易，但如税收从一般投资活动中分离出来，则不具有商业目的或经济实质，但同时认为，这种类型的避税安排实质上与纯粹的套利工具相同。
[15]Michael L. Scheler《Ten More Truths about Tax Shelters: The Problem, Possible Solutions, and a Reply to Professor Weisbach》, Tax Law Review, 2002.
[16]Zachary Nahass《Codifing the Economic Substance Doctrine: A Proposal on the Doorstep of Usefulness》, Administrative Law Review, 2006.
[17]Generally ASA Investerings, 201 F. 3d at 513; Saba P’ship, 271 F. 3d 1135.
[18]Rice’s Toyota World v. Comm’r, 752 F. 2d 89, 92-95 (4th Cir. 1985); ACM P’ ship v. Comm’r, F. 3d at 231 (3d Cir. 1988).
[19]我国《特别纳税调整实施办法》第95条规定：“税务机关启动一般反避税调查时，应按照征管法及其实施细则的有关规定向企业送达《税务检查通知书》。企业应自收到通知书之日起60日内提供资料证明其安排具有合理的商业目的。企业未在规定期限内提供资料，或提供资料不能证明安排具有合理商业目的的，税务机关可根据已掌握的信息实施纳税调整，并向企业送达《特别纳税调查调整通知书》。”
[20]在涉及避税安排认定的案件中，由纳税人承担举证责任，其合法性与合理性都有待于进一步考证，但这已超出本文探讨的内容范围。
[21]Yoram Keinan《The Many Faces of the Economic Substance’s Two-Prong Test, Time for Reconciliation》, NYU Journal of Law and Business, 2005.
[22]Smith’s Potato Estates Ltd v. Bolland HL 1948 3O TC 267 (1948) AC 508 (UK); IRC v. Brebner (1967) 2 AC 182 (UK).
[23]Jeff Rector《A Review of the Economic Substance Doctrine》, Stanford Journal of Law, Business & Finance, 2005.
[24]Yoram Keinan《The Many Faces of the Economic Substance’s Two-Prong Test, Time for Reconciliation》, NYU Journal of Law and Business, 2005.
[25]TIFD III-E inc. , 342 F. Supp. 2d at 109.
[26]Frank Lyon Co. , 435 U.S. at 583-584.
[27]Allen D. Madison《The Tension between Textualism and Substance-Over-Form Doctrine in Tax Law》, Santa Clara Law Review, 2003.
[28]IRC v. Plummer (1979) STC 793 (UK).
[29]Michael L. Scheler《Ten More Truths about Tax Shelters: The Problem, Possible Solutions, and a Reply to Professor Weisbach》, Tax Law Review, 2002.
[30]Bail Bonds by Marvin Nelson, Inc. , 820 F. 2d at 1549; Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. , 113 T. C. at 285.
[31]Johnson v. United States, 32 Fed. C1. 709, 716-717 (1995).
[32]Goldstein v. Commissioner 66-2 USTC 9561, 364 F. 2d 734 (CA-2); Barnett v. Commissioner, 66-2 USTC 9563, F. 2d 742 (CA-2), aff’g CCH Dec. 27, 414, 44 TC 61 (1965); Rothschild v. United States 69-1 69-1 USTC 9224, 407 F. 2d 404 (Ct. Ci)
[33]Christopher M. Pietruszkiewicz《Economic Substance and the Standard of Review》, Alabama Law Review, 2009.
[34]Daniel J. Glassman《”It’s Not a Lie If You Believe It”: Tax Shelters and the Economic Substance Doctrine》, Florida Law Review, 2006.
[35]Alvin C. Warren《The Requirement of Economic Profit in Tax Motivated Transactions》, The Tax Magazine, 1981.
[36]Joseph Bankman《The Economic Substance Doctrine》, Southern California Law Review, 2000.
[37]Michael L. Scheler《Ten More Truths about Tax Shelters: The Problem, Possible Solutions, and a Reply to Professor Weisbach》, Tax Law Review, 2002.
[38]Merryman v. Comm’r, 873 F. 2d 879, 881 (5th Cir. 1999) ; CM Holding, Inc. , 254 B. R. at 600; CM Holding, F. 3d at 108; Andantech L. L. C. v. Comm’r, 83 T. C. M. (CCH) 1476, 1505 (2002).
[39]Yoram Keinan《The Many Faces of the Economic Substance’ s Two-Prong Test, Time for Reconciliation》, NYU Journal of Law and Business, 2005.
[40]例如，ASA Investerings Partnership v. Commissioner案、Saba Partnership v. Commissioner案以及Boca Investerings Partnership v. Uinited States案中的CINS交易，在具体交易条件上存在细微的差异，仍可能导致其经济实质上的差异。（参见：ASA Investerings Partnership v. Commissioner, 201 F. 3d 505 (D. C. Cir. 2000); Saba Partnership v. Commissioner, 273 F. 3d 1135 (D. C. Cir. 2001) ; Boca Investerings Partnership v. Uinited States, 314 F. 3d 625 (D. C. Cir. 2003); Jason Quinn《Being Punished for Obeying the Rules: Corporate Tax Planning and the Overly Broad Economic Substance Doctrine》, George Mason Law Review, 2008.）
[41]David Hariton《When and How Should the Economic Substance Doctrine Be Applied》, Tax Law Review, 2006. |
