中国企业所得税的税收法律体系的结构研究
摘要
中华人民共和国企业所得税法于2008年1月1日起颁布实施，根据这部法律，企业所得税法律制度已经改变。这部法律经历了较长时间才得以颁布，并且需要一定时间对该法从宪制性法律到税收政策进行系统地整合。宪法约束下的征税权力的缺乏，基本税法的沉默，以及税收政策的任意颁布导致了企业所得税法体系的不稳定。立法者应宣布根据宪法法律的征税权力，形成一个一般的税收法律，一段时间来筛选税收政策，使税收系统得到进一步的完善。
关键词：企业所得税法 重组 比较
作者： SJD·麦迪逊 美国威斯康星 - 麦迪逊大学法学院
出处： 北京法律评论
1.简介
公司所得税是一个针对公司每一纳税年度的应纳税所得额而征收税款的税种。它长期、广泛地被应用于世界各国，例如美国的公司税。而中国长期实行的公司所得税是“企业所得税”，2008年最新颁布的法律被命名为“中华人民共和国企业所得税法”（以下简称“企业所得税法”）。它针对企业的各项收入，如销售、服务、利息，或出租所得进行征税，税收是在中国起着越来越重要的作用。
然而中国的所得税结构是不稳定的，主要有两个原因。首先，企业所得税的税收法律体系正在建设中。在过去的几十年里，为满足社会和经济发展的需要，法律和法规不断地被制订、修改和修订，企业所得税法律制度也经历着相同的发展历程。法律界不仅做出巨大努力填补企业所得税法领域的空白，如在2008年颁布的“企业所得税法”，同时也废除了部分法规和规章，以适应WTO的要求，例如，国家税务总局发布分别于2006年和2008年下发了两个通知以规范企业相关税法规定。特别是第二个通知尤为重要，因为新的企业所得税法已经颁布，致使旧法下的旧政策不适用了。这种调整是一个持续的过程，并且会一直持续下去。
其次，经济的高速发展导致了税收政策和裁决的任意发布。中国每年都在进步，并且伴随市场的变化变得越来越复杂。同时，问题在不断地涌现，其中有一些类似的情况，而另一些则是特别的或独特的案例。因为制订一项新的法律需要复杂的过程，同时要耗费大量的时间，因而制订相关法规条例就称为了快速有效的方式。此外，制订法规条例也不需要像法律那样针对每种情况都进行规定，除非该问题已经在全国漫延。这就是很多的解释、措施、通知排除个别案件或只处理特定的法律适用问题的原因。
在下面的章节中，我将通过引进其他国家更为复杂的企业所得税，如美国和英国的法律制度为中国提供的可能的重组方案。当征税权力受制于宪法性法律，一部基础法律被制订，同时税收规定被统一和简化，企业所得税法律制度中的不协调部分将会被完善。
2．征税权力需由“宪法”规定
税权是一种基本的主权的事件。税收是提高收入的主要手段，同时税收的权力也涉及摧毁。鉴于这样的特点，这种权力通常是受到宪法、境内最高的法律权威，或是最高立法机关的限制，例如国会或一些国家政府的分支机构。这种安排的目的是降低民主社会中滥用权力的可能性。企业所得税的征税权力也是它的一部分。但是，这种机制在中国还没有出现。
在古代，国王或皇帝很容易通过发号施令征收税款或对税法进行更改，因为他的命令是所有公民都必须绝对尊崇的，这就阻止了权力限制制度的建立。高度集中的政府往往任意使用征税的特权。当时，普遍的观念认为本国之内的一切事物都属于国王。因此，他可以决定何时以及如何从他的子民手中获取什么，税收就包括在内。人们没有合法的权利对事物的所有权进行斗争，因为其所有权不受保护。无能为力的下层社会的民众只能服从命令，照章纳税。
一直到近代，这种情况才得到改善。政府第一次试图规范征税权力，没有专门规定宪法下的企业所得税权力。然而，军阀时代的政治斗争没有使中国进入民主社会。结果，第一次的尝试以失败告终。严峻的社会环境缺乏民主，不甚健全的法律和秩序大大推迟了理想权力在宪法性法律下的实现。
中央集权越高，对权力进行限制的可能性越小。类似的情况再次出现在新中国成立后的计划经济体制时代。在那种情况下，没有其他的权力可以平衡它。任何方式，如通过宪法来限制中央权力对税法的控制都是不可能的。
“改革开放政策”于1978年开始改变这个国家的经济和社会结构，但直到今天，征税权力在宪法性法律中没有得到规范的情况仍未改善。中华人民共和国宪法中，只明确规定了缴纳税款是公民的义务，而对企业进行征税的权力并没有体现。
宪法性法律在一个国家的所有法律中是至高无上的，它规定了权力的来源，包括基本原则，国家事务，人的基本权利和政府部门的关系。一个限制人民权利的行使或个人财产的使用权的权力，应在宪法性法律中予以规定。税收，尤其是企业所得税，作为对人们的收入进行强制性征收的手段，属于此类。如果没有最高级别法律的授权，权力很容易被滥用，后果则是民不聊生，历史上类似的情况不断重演。因此，宪法性法律，作为一国的母法，应当肩负起通过正当程序规定税收权力的责任。
大宪章限制了国王的权力，包括对税收法律，从而打开了英国宪法新的一页。它颁布于1215年，是第一个由议员们强制当时的英国国王约翰一世而签署的文件，他们想通过法律来限制国王的特权并使自己的权利得到保障。这使得国王约翰一世授予所有民众大宪章上所描述的权利和自由，同时也使他自己和英格兰未来的国王和地方法官都置身于大宪章的约束之下。它说，“任何自由人，如未经其同级贵族之依法裁判，或经国法判决，皆不得被逮捕，监禁，没收财产，剥夺法律保护权，流放，或加以任何其他损害。不得向任何人出售，拒绝，或延搁其应享之权利与公正裁判。这意味着任何人，包括国王或国会议员，都不得凌驾于法律之上。在这种情况下，税金就不再由国王任意征收，二是由法律和被征税的人来规定。
不同于英国，美国将征税权力授予宪法约束下的国会。第1条第8条第1条被称为税收条款，其中说，国会有权铺设和收集的税收、捐税、关税和消费税，支付债务和提供共同防务和美国的一般福利;但一切捐税、关税和消费税应在全美均匀分配。美国国会代表美国人民，因此，税权是在人民的手中。
除了一般税收条款，联合美国宪法授权国会的权力，奠定并收集第十六次修订通过税收对收入。它的地址，国会有权铺设和收集收入税，从什么了派生源，没有几个国家之间的分摊，不考虑任何人口普查或枚举。
除英国和美国，在税收权力的规定上有另外两种方式。一个是意大利宪法中提到人民缴纳税款的义务，但没有对征税权力进行明确规定。它类似于中国的现行宪法。另一种是以日本宪法为代表的，其中包括人缴纳税款的义务以及没有凌驾于法律之上的税收的原则。但相比美国或英国的宪制性法律授权制定法律来征收税款，地方政府部门的规定显然让人不放心。
在我看来，宪法作为一个国家的母法，其中的条例应该具有普遍性、通俗性及高度浓缩的特点，而并不必要因税收的特别需要而制定税务事项。公平，透明，效率或没有凌驾于法律之上的税收原则是合适的，但其他如基本程序或三权分立等则过于详细。另一个非常重要的问题是，对税收立法的司法审查必须写入宪法性法律，司法回顾税收立法理由关系。这对现代政府制度的权力分离的运作是一个很好的例子。然而，在目前中国的税收法律制度中，它仍然是空白的。
3. 税收政策和裁决的筛选
大部分企业所得税的政策或裁决是由官方意见所领导的国家税务部门发布的，他们整合个别纳税人的要求和应用规则来制定意见。当企业所得税个案在税法中找不到法律依据时，就由暂行条例来裁决如何处理。在找不到其他方法来解决问题时，就要求发布裁决来填补空白。
在中国，国家税务总局主要以 “通知”或“回复”的形式发布税收政策和规则。由于税法中的不足，本应由税法规定的规则、条例、税务裁决等都由法规来规定，这使得法规担负起了本不属于它的职责。
至于企业所得税，制订大量税务条例导致了矛盾和不稳定。2008年1月1日之前，双重规定是不稳定因素的原因。也就是说，国内企业适用1994年颁布的“中国企业所得税的暂行规定”，而国外企业适用1991年4月颁布的“中华人民共和国外商投资企业和外国企业所得税法”，因此发出了很多通知来协调两部法律之间的差异。
4．重组体系的建议
从理论上说，中国在完善宪法体系的第二和第三级层面中面临困难。“税收征管法”属于特殊法，而不是基本法，它是由全国人大常委会制订的。它为什么能和税收基本法并行呢？另一方面，企业所得税法属于第二层级而不是第三层级的法律，是由全国人民代表大会制订的。这是否意味着它与税收基本法是属于同一级别呢？如果是这样，它又怎么被基本税法领导呢？个人所得税法是在适当的位置出现，但大多数其他具体的税收规则则处于较低水平。
另外，可以重新定义体系，使其不致陷入僵局，就是把第二和第三层级合并到一起。我认为，虽然法律是由全国人大还是全国人大常委会制订应有所差异，但至少它们都是法律，因此无需将它们进一步划分为其是否是基本法。这是一个简单的方法，但并非是最佳选择。在我看来，应坚持完善体系的结构，并将其作为一个最终目标。该国应该制订的基本税法以及税收征管法，同时修订“企业所得税法”。中国完善企业所得税法律体系的项目已经启动，我们很高兴看到这样良好的开端。然而还需要耗费更多的时间和经历去努力工作，我们期待看到中国立法机构为解决这些问题而取得跨越式的进步。
Research on the Structure of China’s Enterprise Income Tax Law System
Abstract：The PRC enterprise income tax law was enacted on January 1, 2008, with accordance to which the enterprise income tax 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 constitutional 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 system. Lawmakers shall announce the taxing power under the constitutional law, form a general tax law, and take time to screen tax policies to improve the system.
Key words: Enterprise, Income Tax Law, Restructure, Comparison
Author： S.J.D., Madison
University of Wisconsin-Madison, Law School, USA
Source： Beijing Law Review, 2011, 2, 63-73
1. Introduction
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 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” (hereinafter “EIT Law”). Imposed on various incomes of enterprises such as incomes from sales, services, interests, or the rental property [2], the tax is playing a more and more important role in China.
However, the enterprise tax structure in China is unstable. There are two major reasons. First, 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 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 also regulations and rules have been expelled or organized to meet the WTO requirements, for instance, the State Administration of Taxation issued two notices to screen enterprise related tax rules, one in the year 2006 [10] and the other in 2008 [11], especially the second notice because the EIT law was en-acted so that old policies under old laws could not be applied anymore. Such kind of adjusting is an ongoing process and will continue into the future.
Second, the 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, problems 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 to issue policies. Moreover, it is unlikely to make laws for each case unless the problem goes wild in the country. That is the reason many explanations, measures, and notices have been issued to rule individual cases or to deal with particular law application problem.
Three aspects compose the incompleteness of the structure of enterprise income tax law system: the lack of taxing power under constitutional law, the 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 corporate 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 the system. When the taxing power is announced under the constitutional law, a basic tax law is made, and tax rulings are simplified and consistent, the disproportionate layer of enterprise income tax law system will be fixed.
2. Taxing Power under the Constitutional Law
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 and 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 purpose of such arrangement is to lower the possibility of power abuse in the democratic society. The enterprise income taxing power shall be part of it. However, such mechanism has not appeared in China.
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 absolute 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 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. People had no legal right to fight for ownership against the authority because their ownership was not protected. The powerless mass could only obey the order and pay taxes.
The situation had not changed until the foundation 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 struggle 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 constitutional law.
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 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.
The “reform and 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 to pay taxes can be found under PRC Constitution. The power to tax enterprises is not under the constitution.
Constitutional law is supreme to all laws in a country and it regulates sources of powers. 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 declared 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-level legal authorization, power is easily abused and the people would have been suffered, similar to the situation in the history. Therefore, the constitutional law, as the mother law in a country, has to take the responsibility to draw lines of imposing taxes with the due process.
Magna 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 barons 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 and England’s future sovereigns and magistrates within the rule of law. It says, “No freemen shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land. To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay, right or justice”. That means the principle that no one, including the king or a lawmaker, is above the law was established. In that case, no tax should be levied by the king arbitrarily but by the law and the people that being taxed on.
Unlike the arrangement in United Kingdom, United States authorizes taxing power to the Congress under the codified Constitution. Article 1 section 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 United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States. The Congress represents the people of the United States. Therefore, the right to tax is in the hands of its people.
Except the UK and the US, there are two more types in regulating 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 represented 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 is authorized to make laws to impose taxes is not assured.
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 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 subject is very important that has to be put in the constitutional law, the judicial review over tax legislations. It is a good example of the functioning of separation of powers in a modern governmental system. Nevertheless, it is left blank in current China’s tax law system.
3. The Screening of Tax Policies and Rulings
Most enterprise income tax policies or rulings 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 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. Countries like the US, the UK, Germany, and France circulate tax policies although forms and authorities in charge are different.
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 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.
As for 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 regulated 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, published in April 1991. Many notices were issued for both laws, and even more to fill the gap between the two.
4. Suggestions of Restructuring the System
Theoretically, China confronts difficulties to complete the system designed by 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 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 same level with the basic tax law? Then how could it lead by the basic law? Individual income tax law is appeared in the appropriate position but most other specific tax rules are under the lower level.
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 “laws” and no need to further divide them into basic or not basic, 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 designed structure and consider it as a final goal. The country shall make the basic tax law as well as tax collection law while amend the enterprise income tax law. The project of improving China’s enterprise income tax law system has been launched. We are happy to see the good beginning. However, it requires further contribution of work, time and costs. We look forward to further big leaps China’s legislature will make in the future to solve the problem.
