A Study On The Legal Problems Of General Anti-tax Rules

Taxation is a compulsory method for the state to obtain social wealth free of charge in accordance with the standards set by law.The significance of taxation lies in the country's ability to achieve macro-control,and it is also the specific relationship formed when the state participates in the distribution of national income.The country's main fiscal revenue depends on taxation.Taxation is the economic guarantee for the state to exercise administrative power.At the same time,the state uses taxation as a tool to guide the overall economic development of the country and rationally allocate social resources.Tax avoidance is the taxpayer's reduction or exemption from tax payable through certain transactions or arrangements.In the intensely competitive commercial society,some people try to obtain more benefits by avoiding state taxes.Tax avoidance is extremely unfair to other taxpayers and is a violation of the tax fair principle and the statutory principle of taxation.At the national level,the proliferation of tax avoidance actions has made it impossible to guarantee state finance,and the macroeconomic control of the country's multi-society economy will also be biased.Therefore,all countries in the world are making every effort to curb tax avoidance.With the development of the economic society,especially the deepening of economic globalization,tax avoidance behavior has also exhibited a full range of innovative capabilities.Various complicated and complicated tax avoidance methods have emerged in an endless stream,making taxation offices in various countries unable to handle it.The birth of general anti-tax avoidance rules is aimed at responding to new and unpredictable tax avoidance methods in the future,but it has suffered a lot of controversy since it emerged.In particular,there are some abstractions such as “reasonable business purposes” in the general anti-avoidance rules.The generalization of the statement,it is even more difficult to implement the general anti-tax avoidance rules in practice.In addition to the introduction and conclusion,the paper is divided into the following sections:In the first part,through introducing the famous “Vodafone Tax” tax case in India and several similar cases in China,it was found through comparison that the domestic series of tax cases and the “Vodafone” tax case were very similar in time and mode of transaction,but from the processing conclusions,The results of the two processes are quite different.Theformer is defined as having no reasonable commercial tax avoidance,while the latter is considered as reasonable tax planning.In addition to dealing with differences in conclusions,there are many differences in the processing.The domestic series of tax cases and "Vodafone" have quite different conclusions when the time and the type of transaction are similar.This has led to fierce debate in China and has been directed at the Chinese tax authorities and the general anti-avoidance rules.The second part elaborates the status quo and problems of China's general anti-tax avoidance rules,and first considers the legal nature of the general anti-tax avoidance clauses from the perspective of legislation.Whether it is an all-embracing authorizing norm or merely a declarative clause,then elaborates on the specific application perspective.The application of "reasonable commercial purposes" needs to be further improved and the "economic essence" is not unified in the specific application of two issues.The third part is about some suggestions for improving China's general anti-avoidance rules.In light of the legal nature of general anti-tax avoidance,the author believes that it should be defined as an authoritative norm;and a specific application of the “reasonable business purpose” should be put forward.It should be defined in terms of means,effects and motivation.Business purpose;in the application of "economic essence" put forward the idea of ??concrete analysis,to avoid a one-size-fits-all approach;Finally,it is proposed to enhance the role of the judiciary in China's general anti-tax avoidance practice.