China: Tax treaty relief on transferring land rich enterprises and substantial shareholding interests clarified

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

China: Tax treaty relief on transferring land rich enterprises and substantial shareholding interests clarified

ho.jpg

lu.jpg

Khoonming Ho


Lewis Lu

On December 31 2012 the State Administration of Taxation (SAT) issued Announcement 59, clarifying the manner in which the capital gains tax articles of China's double tax agreements (DTAs) are to be applied. The existing guidance on the application of the capital gains article in Chinese DTAs is set out in Circular Guoshuifa [2010] No.75 (Circular 75). Circular 75 streamlines the interpretation and application of the PRC-Singapore DTA and, by extension, DTAs entered into by China with other jurisdictions to the extent that their provisions are consistent with the China-Singapore DTA. Announcement 59 serves to complement Circular 75 in respect of the following two matters.

  • Transferring a "land rich" Chinese company. Chinese DTAs typically define a "land rich" Chinese company as one that directly or indirectly derives more than 50% of its value from Chinese immovable property. Announcement 59 clarifies that, in determining whether a Chinese enterprise derives its value largely from immovable property, liabilities of the enterprise are disregarded, and regard solely had to the enterprise assets (gross asset approach), which is generally consistent with the OECD commentary. Furthermore, Announcement 59 states that such determination should be made using the values of the enterprise assets as recorded in the financial statements prepared in accordance with PRC GAAP.

  • Transferring a Chinese company that is not "land rich". Circular 75 provides examples to illustrate how to determine whether the "25% shareholding threshold" is met and introduces the "significant interest relationships" notion. In a nut shell, direct ownership, indirect ownership and "constructive ownership" should be combined in deciding whether the 25% threshold is breached. Announcement 59 provides additional refinement in this regard, saying that indirect holdings need only be included in the calculation where the holding in the intermediate holding company, through which equity in the Chinese enterprise is held, is at least 10% of the total share capital of that company. Announcement 59 also defines more clearly, for both non-resident individual and corporate disposers of Chinese equity, who is to be considered to be related persons with "significant interest relationships". The 10% threshold for including indirect holdings in the Chinese enterprise is equally relevant in determining the holdings of such related persons.

The clarifications on the 25% threshold determination should be viewed as helpful, as the definition of persons with "significant interest relationships" is now more precise, and the need to consider every minor holding in the Chinese enterprise (whether held indirectly by the disposer itself or constructively held) is mitigated by the exclusion o those indirect holdings through intermediate holding companies of which less than 10% are held.

However, the land-rich clarifications could prove problematic, depending on how they are actually applied by local tax authorities in practice. If Chinese enterprise asset values were to be generally determined on the basis of their accounting values, with solely immovable property stepped up to higher fair market value, more enterprises would fall into the "land rich" category. This could particularly be the case in light of the steadily increasing Chinese real estate prices of recent years.

Khoonming Ho (khoonming.ho@kpmg.com)

Tel: +86 (10) 8508 7082

Lewis Lu (lewis.lu@kpmg.com)

Tel: +86 (21) 2212 3421

KPMG

Website: www.kpmg.com

more across site & bottom lb ros

More from across our site

In-house teams who want a balance of internal control and external expertise for pillar two should seriously consider co-sourcing models, Russell Gammon of Tax Systems argues
The OECD has vowed to continue working with the US despite the president effectively pulling the country out of the organisation’s global minimum tax deal
Norton Rose Fulbright highlights a Brazilian investment fund as a practical example of how new Dutch tax rules will require significant attention from foreign companies
Thomson Reuters now has ‘end-to-end capability’ for its tax workflow business, according to its president for tax accounting and audit professionals
Patrick O’Gara, who is rated as a ‘highly regarded practitioner’ by World Tax, had spent over 20 years at Baker McKenzie
If approved, it would become the first ‘big four’ firm to practise law in the US; in other news, Morrison Foerster hired a new global tax co-chair
The ‘birth date’ of the service, which will collect tariffs, duties and other foreign revenue, will be January 20
Awards
Submit your nominations to this year's WIBL Americas Awards by February 28
Awards
Research for the annual Women in Business Law Awards has begun – submit your entries by February 28
In-house counsel across a number of regions are unimpressed with their tax advisers’ CSR efforts, according to ITR+ research
Gift this article