公司法人人格否认制度在反避税中的适用研究

传播影响力
本库下载频次:
本库浏览频次:
CNKI下载频次:0

作者:

原田田

导师:

淦未宇

导师单位:

商学院(监察审计学院)

学位:

硕士

语种:

中文

关键词:

避税;反避税;公司法人人格否认

摘要:

改革开放以来,为促进市场经济主体的发展,我国公司法确立了公司法人人格独立 及股东有限责任制度。然而,这一制度在促进公司快速发展的同时,也日益成为公司股 东逃避缴纳税款的工具,给社会经济的发展带来诸多不利影响,损害了相关国家应有的 税收权益。为解决股东滥用公司法人独立人格逃避缴纳税款的问题,大多数国家将公司 法人人格否认制度适用于一般反避税的立法与实践中,即税务机关、司法机关对于股东 滥用公司法人人格独立制度规避缴纳税款的行为,在必要的时候,可以直接穿透公司这 层法律上的面纱来追究其背后股东的责任,以维护国家作为债权人的税收债权。我国现 有的税收法律中已有相关法律条文表明税务机关可以在反避税活动中利用公司法人人 格否认制度进行税收征管,但对该制度适用于反避税工作中的核心问题的规定仍比较模 糊,如合理商业目的的确定仍不够客观化、经济实质的认定标准仍不够全面、举证责任 分配不清晰等,进而导致税务机关在实务工作中适用该制度时缺乏实际操作性,而从现 有案例来看在大多数情况下税务机关适用公司法人人格否认制度进行税收征管的直接 执法依据仅仅是国家税务总局发布的相关公告和个别指导案例,与该制度相关的法律规 定的立法位阶较低,使得各地税务机关在进行税收征管活动时对于股东滥用公司法人人 格的避税行为的判别标准难以统一,难免造成执法不一的征管结果,也容易加大税务机 关的自由裁量权。 为切实发挥公司法人人格否认制度在税务机关反避税工作中的积极效能,本文结合 凯雷投资集团转让股权案、儿童投资主基金案等来研究公司法人人格否认制度在我国的 适用现状,分析该制度适用于我国反避税工作中所存在的不足,并通过比较研究英美法 系国家(地区)与大陆法系国家(地区)对于公司法人人格否认制度的理论现状针对相 关问题从微观内容、宏观立法角度提出量化合理商业目的的认定标准、细化如何判定股 东滥用公司组织形式的方式、合理分配举证责任等完善建议,以期为立法理论研究提供 参考,希望司法机关、税务机关能够及时有效地维护国家的税收利益。

学科:

税务*

提交日期

2025-12-31

引用参考

原田田. 公司法人人格否认制度在反避税中的适用研究[D]. 西南政法大学,2023.

全文附件授权许可

知识共享许可协议-署名

  • dc.title
  • 公司法人人格否认制度在反避税中的适用研究
  • dc.contributor.schoolno
  • 20210253000092
  • dc.contributor.author
  • 原田田
  • dc.contributor.affiliation
  • 商学院(监察审计学院)
  • dc.contributor.degree
  • 硕士
  • dc.contributor.childdegree
  • 管理学硕士
  • dc.contributor.degreeConferringInstitution
  • 西南政法大学
  • dc.identifier.year
  • 2023
  • dc.contributor.advisor
  • 淦未宇
  • dc.contributor.advisorAffiliation
  • 商学院(监察审计学院)
  • dc.language.iso
  • 中文
  • dc.subject
  • 避税;反避税;公司法人人格否认
  • dc.subject
  • tax-avoidance;anti-tax-avoidance;disregard of corporate personality
  • dc.description.abstract
  • 改革开放以来,为促进市场经济主体的发展,我国公司法确立了公司法人人格独立 及股东有限责任制度。然而,这一制度在促进公司快速发展的同时,也日益成为公司股 东逃避缴纳税款的工具,给社会经济的发展带来诸多不利影响,损害了相关国家应有的 税收权益。为解决股东滥用公司法人独立人格逃避缴纳税款的问题,大多数国家将公司 法人人格否认制度适用于一般反避税的立法与实践中,即税务机关、司法机关对于股东 滥用公司法人人格独立制度规避缴纳税款的行为,在必要的时候,可以直接穿透公司这 层法律上的面纱来追究其背后股东的责任,以维护国家作为债权人的税收债权。我国现 有的税收法律中已有相关法律条文表明税务机关可以在反避税活动中利用公司法人人 格否认制度进行税收征管,但对该制度适用于反避税工作中的核心问题的规定仍比较模 糊,如合理商业目的的确定仍不够客观化、经济实质的认定标准仍不够全面、举证责任 分配不清晰等,进而导致税务机关在实务工作中适用该制度时缺乏实际操作性,而从现 有案例来看在大多数情况下税务机关适用公司法人人格否认制度进行税收征管的直接 执法依据仅仅是国家税务总局发布的相关公告和个别指导案例,与该制度相关的法律规 定的立法位阶较低,使得各地税务机关在进行税收征管活动时对于股东滥用公司法人人 格的避税行为的判别标准难以统一,难免造成执法不一的征管结果,也容易加大税务机 关的自由裁量权。 为切实发挥公司法人人格否认制度在税务机关反避税工作中的积极效能,本文结合 凯雷投资集团转让股权案、儿童投资主基金案等来研究公司法人人格否认制度在我国的 适用现状,分析该制度适用于我国反避税工作中所存在的不足,并通过比较研究英美法 系国家(地区)与大陆法系国家(地区)对于公司法人人格否认制度的理论现状针对相 关问题从微观内容、宏观立法角度提出量化合理商业目的的认定标准、细化如何判定股 东滥用公司组织形式的方式、合理分配举证责任等完善建议,以期为立法理论研究提供 参考,希望司法机关、税务机关能够及时有效地维护国家的税收利益。
  • dc.description.abstract
  • Since the reform and opening up, in order to promote the economic development of market entities, the company law of our country has established the system of independent corporate personality and limited liability of shareholders. However, while promoting the rapid development of companies, this system has increasingly become a tool for shareholders to evade paying taxes, which had brought adverse effects on social and economic development and harmed the tax rights and interests of various countries. In order to solve the problem of shareholders abusing the independent personality of the company to evade paying taxes, most countries apply the denial of corporate personality system to general anti tax legislation and practice. In other words, tax authorities and judicial authorities can directly penetrate the legal veil of the company to hold shareholders accountable for their behavior of abusing the independent personality system of the company to evade tax obligations when necessary, to safeguard the national tax claims of the state as a creditor. There are already relevant legal provisions in China's existing tax laws that indicate that tax authorities can use the system of denying corporate legal personality for tax collection and management in anti tax avoidance activities. However, the provisions on the core issues applicable to anti tax avoidance work are still relatively vague, such as the determination of reasonable commercial purposes are still not objective enough、the identification standards of economic substance are still not comprehensive enough、and the allocation of burden of proof is not clear, these further lead to a lack of actual operation in the application of the system by tax authorities in practical work, and from existing cases ,it can be seen that the direct law enforcement basis for tax collection and management by tax authorities applying the company's legal personality denial system are only relevant public notices and individual guidance cases issued by the State Administration of Taxation, and the legislative level of legal provisions related to the system are relatively lower. This makes it difficult for tax authorities in various regions to unify the criteria for identifying shareholder abuse of corporate legal personality in tax collection and management activities, which inevitably leads to inconsistent enforcement results and increases the discretion of tax authorities. In order to effectively leverage the positive effectiveness of the corporate personality denial system anti tax avoidance work of the tax authorities , this article studies the currentapplication status of the corporate personality denial system in China by combining the case of Carlyle Investment Group's equity transfer and the case of Children's Investment Fund, and analyzes its effects. It also analyzes the shortcomings of the system in China's anti tax avoidance work. And through a comparative study of the theoretical status of the denial of corporate personality system between Anglo American legal system countries (regions) and continental legal system countries (regions), in the end, from the perspective of substantive law content and applicable procedures, propose quantitative and reasonable commercial purpose recognition standards, refine how to determine shareholders' abuse of corporate organizational form, and reasonably allocate the burden of proof, in order to provide reference for legislative theoretical research, I hope that judicial and tax authorities can promptly and effectively safeguard the country's tax interests.
  • dc.date.issued
  • 2025-12-31
回到顶部