| After the asset management products are included in the scope of VAT,it is the core problem whether the manager or the investor are the taxpayers of VAT.In judicial practice,the choice of VAT payers for asset management products is different with the legal clause.By combing the legal provisions and judicial cases of VAT payers for asset management products,it is found that the difference lies in whether the value-added tax of asset management products should be borne by the legal administrator or the agreed investor.On this issue,legislation and judicature have different value judgments.Based on this analysis,this paper finds that the reasons behind the differences lie in the dispute over the legal form of tax law caused by the different definition of "law",the conflict between the tax burden contract and the tax law provisions,and how to balance the substantive taxation and tax law formalism This paper expounds in detail and puts forward the corresponding opinions.At the same time,it draws lessons from the legislative experience of VAT payers of asset management products in the European Union and Singapore,and the value orientation behind the regulations,which gives enlightenment to the construction and improvement of the relevant system in China.In response to the theoretical construction,we should return to the requirements of real taxation and tax neutrality of value-added tax on asset management products.On this basis,we put forward the scheme to supplement the loopholes in the taxpayer system of value-added tax on asset management products at the present stage and the assumption of future system reconstruction. |
