外文翻譯--中國(guó)企業(yè)所得稅的稅收法律體系的結(jié)構(gòu)研究

中文 3685 字 畢業(yè)設(shè)計(jì) /論文 外 文 文 獻(xiàn) 翻 譯 院 系 經(jīng)濟(jì)管理學(xué)院 專(zhuān) 業(yè) 班 級(jí) 財(cái)務(wù)管理 0802 姓 名 原 文 出 處 評(píng) 分 指 導(dǎo) 教 師 2012 年 1 月 11 日 中國(guó)企業(yè)所得稅的稅收法律體系的結(jié)構(gòu)研究 摘要 中華人民共和國(guó)企業(yè)所得稅法于 2008 年 1 月 1 日起頒布實(shí)施，根據(jù)這部法律，企業(yè)所得稅法律制度已經(jīng)改變。這部法律經(jīng)歷了較長(zhǎng)時(shí)間才得以頒布，并且需要一定時(shí)間對(duì)該法從 憲制性法律 到稅收政策進(jìn)行系統(tǒng)地整合。憲法約束下的征稅權(quán)力的缺乏 ，基本稅法 的沉默 ， 以及 稅收政策 的任意頒布 導(dǎo)致 了企業(yè) 所得稅法體系 的不穩(wěn)定 。立法者應(yīng)宣布根據(jù)憲法法律的征稅權(quán)力，形成一個(gè)一般的稅收法律，一段時(shí)間 來(lái)篩選 稅收政策， 使稅收 系統(tǒng) 得到進(jìn)一步的完善 。 關(guān)鍵詞： 企業(yè)所得稅法 重組 比較 作者： SJD麥迪遜 美國(guó)威斯康星 - 麥迪遜大學(xué)法學(xué)院 出處： 北京法律評(píng)論 2 1.簡(jiǎn)介 公司 所得稅 是一個(gè)針對(duì)公司每一納稅年度的應(yīng)納稅所得額而征收稅款的稅種。 它長(zhǎng)期 、 廣泛 地被 應(yīng)用于世界 各國(guó) ，例如美國(guó)的公司稅。 而 中國(guó)長(zhǎng)期實(shí)行 的公司 所得稅 是 “ 企業(yè)所得稅 ” ， 2008年最新頒布的法律被命名為 “ 中華人民共和國(guó)企業(yè)所得稅法 ” （以下簡(jiǎn)稱(chēng) “ 企業(yè)所得稅法 ” ）。 它針對(duì)企業(yè)的各項(xiàng)收入， 如銷(xiāo)售 、 服務(wù) 、利息， 或出租 所得進(jìn) 行征稅， 稅收是在中國(guó) 起著 越來(lái)越重要的作用。 然而中國(guó)的所得稅結(jié)構(gòu)是不穩(wěn)定的，主要有兩個(gè)原因 。首先，企業(yè)所得稅的稅收法律體系正在建設(shè)中。在過(guò)去的幾十年里， 為 滿足社會(huì)和經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展的需要 ，法律和法規(guī)不斷地被制訂、修改和修訂， 企業(yè)所得稅法律制度 也經(jīng)歷著相同的發(fā)展歷程 。 法律界不僅做出巨大努力填補(bǔ) 企業(yè)所得稅法領(lǐng)域 的空白 ，如在 2008年頒布的 “ 企業(yè)所得稅法 ” ， 同時(shí)也廢除了部分 法規(guī)和規(guī)章，以 適應(yīng) WTO的要求 ， 例如，國(guó)家稅務(wù)總局發(fā)布 分別于 2006年和 2008年下發(fā)了 兩個(gè) 通知以規(guī)范 企業(yè)相關(guān)稅法規(guī)定 。 特別是 第二個(gè)通知尤為重要， 因?yàn)?新的 企業(yè)所得稅法 已經(jīng)頒布 ， 致使 舊法下的舊政策不適用了。這種調(diào)整是一個(gè)持續(xù)的過(guò)程， 并且會(huì)一直持續(xù)下去。 其次， 經(jīng)濟(jì)的高速發(fā)展導(dǎo)致了 稅收政策和裁決的任意 發(fā)布 。 中國(guó)每年都在進(jìn)步，并且 伴隨市場(chǎng)的變化變得越來(lái)越復(fù)雜。同時(shí) ，問(wèn)題在不斷地涌現(xiàn) ，其中有一些類(lèi)似的情況，而另一些 則是 特別的或獨(dú)特的案例。因?yàn)?制訂 一項(xiàng)新的法律需要復(fù)雜的過(guò)程， 同時(shí)要耗費(fèi)大量的時(shí)間 ， 因而制訂相關(guān)法規(guī)條例就稱(chēng)為了快速有效的方式 。此外 ，制訂法規(guī)條例也不需要像法律那樣針對(duì)每種情況都進(jìn)行規(guī)定 ，除非 該 問(wèn)題 已經(jīng)在全國(guó)漫延 。這 就 是很多的解釋 、 措施 、 通知排除個(gè)別案件 或 只 處理特定的法律適用問(wèn)題的原因。 在下面的章節(jié) 中 ， 我將 通過(guò)引進(jìn) 其他 國(guó)家 更為 復(fù)雜的企業(yè)所得稅，如美國(guó)和英國(guó)的法律制度為中國(guó)提供的可能的重組方案。當(dāng)征稅權(quán)力 受制于憲法性法律 ，一部基礎(chǔ)法律被制訂，同時(shí)稅收規(guī)定被統(tǒng)一和簡(jiǎn)化， 企業(yè)所得稅法律制度 中的 不協(xié)調(diào)部分將會(huì)被完善 。 2 征稅權(quán)力 需由“憲法”規(guī)定 稅權(quán)是一種基本的主權(quán)的事件。稅 收 是提高收入的 主要 手段， 同時(shí) 稅收的權(quán)力 也 涉及摧毀。鑒于這樣的特點(diǎn)，這種權(quán)力通常是 受到憲法、 境內(nèi)最高的法律權(quán)威， 或 是最高立法機(jī)關(guān) 的限制 ， 例如 國(guó)會(huì) 或一些 國(guó)家 政府 的分支 機(jī)構(gòu) 。這種安排 3 的目的是 降 低 民主社會(huì)中濫用權(quán)力的可能性。企業(yè)所得稅的征稅權(quán)力 也 是它的一部分。但是，這種機(jī)制在中國(guó)還沒(méi)有出現(xiàn)。 在古代，國(guó)王或皇帝很容易 通過(guò) 發(fā)號(hào)施令 征收稅款 或 對(duì)稅法進(jìn)行 更改，因?yàn)樗拿?是所有公民都必須絕對(duì)尊崇的 ， 這就阻止了權(quán)力限制制度的建立 。高度集中的政府往往任意使用 征 稅的特權(quán)。當(dāng)時(shí)， 普遍的觀念認(rèn)為本 國(guó)之內(nèi)的一切事物 都屬于 國(guó)王。因此，他可以決定何時(shí)以及如何 從他的子民手中獲取什么，稅收就包括在內(nèi) 。人們沒(méi)有合法 的 權(quán)利 對(duì)事物的所有權(quán)進(jìn)行斗爭(zhēng) ，因?yàn)槠渌袡?quán)不受保護(hù)。無(wú)能為力 的下層社會(huì)的民眾 只能服從命令，照章納 稅。 一直到近代 ，這種情況才得到改善。 政府 第一次 試圖規(guī)范征稅權(quán)力 ，沒(méi)有專(zhuān)門(mén)規(guī)定憲法下的企業(yè)所得稅權(quán)力。然而，軍閥時(shí)代的政治斗爭(zhēng)沒(méi)有使中國(guó)進(jìn)入民主社會(huì)。結(jié)果，第一次的嘗試以失敗告終。嚴(yán)峻 的社會(huì) 環(huán)境 缺乏民主， 不甚健全的 法律和秩序大大推遲 了理想權(quán)力 在憲法性法律 下的實(shí)現(xiàn) 。 中央集權(quán)越高，對(duì)權(quán)力進(jìn)行限制的可能性越小 。類(lèi)似的情況再次出現(xiàn) 在新中國(guó)成立后的 計(jì)劃經(jīng)濟(jì) 體制時(shí)代 。 在那種情況下， 沒(méi)有其他的權(quán)力 可以 平衡它。 任何方式，如通過(guò)憲法來(lái)限制中央權(quán)力對(duì)稅法的控制都是不可能的 。 “改革開(kāi)放政策”于 1978年開(kāi)始改變這個(gè)國(guó)家的經(jīng)濟(jì)和社會(huì)結(jié)構(gòu)，但直 到今天，征稅權(quán)力在憲法性法律中沒(méi)有得到規(guī)范的情況仍未改善。中華人民共和國(guó)憲法中，只明確規(guī)定了繳納稅款是公民的義務(wù)，而對(duì)企業(yè)進(jìn)行征稅的權(quán)力并沒(méi)有體現(xiàn)。 憲法性法律 在一個(gè)國(guó)家的所有法律中 是至高無(wú)上的， 它規(guī)定了權(quán)力的 來(lái)源 ，包括基本原則，國(guó)家事務(wù)，人的基本權(quán)利和政府部門(mén)的關(guān)系。一個(gè)限制人民 權(quán)利的行使 或個(gè)人財(cái)產(chǎn)的使用權(quán) 的權(quán)力 ，應(yīng) 在 憲法性法律 中予以規(guī)定 。稅收，尤其是企業(yè)所得稅， 作為對(duì)人們的收入進(jìn)行強(qiáng)制性征收的手段 ，屬于此類(lèi)。如果沒(méi)有最高級(jí)別法律 的 授權(quán)，權(quán)力 很 容易被濫用 ，后果則是民不聊生，歷史上類(lèi)似的情況不斷重演 。因此， 憲法性法律， 作為一國(guó)的母法 ， 應(yīng)當(dāng)肩負(fù)起通過(guò)正當(dāng)程序規(guī)定稅收權(quán)力的責(zé)任 。 大憲章限制了國(guó)王的權(quán)力，包括對(duì)稅收法律，從而打開(kāi)了英國(guó)憲法新的一頁(yè)。它頒布于 1215年，是第一個(gè)由議員們強(qiáng)制當(dāng)時(shí)的英國(guó)國(guó)王約翰一世而簽署的文件，他們想通過(guò)法律來(lái)限制國(guó)王的特權(quán)并使自己的權(quán)利得到保障。這使得國(guó)王約翰一世授予所有民眾大憲章上所描述的權(quán)利和自由，同時(shí)也使他自己和英格蘭未 4 來(lái)的國(guó)王和地方法官都置身于大憲章的約束之下。它說(shuō)，“ 任何自由人，如未經(jīng)其同級(jí)貴族之依法裁判，或經(jīng)國(guó)法判決，皆不得被逮捕，監(jiān)禁，沒(méi)收財(cái)產(chǎn)，剝奪法律保護(hù)權(quán)，流放，或 加以任何其他損害 。 不得向任何人出售，拒絕，或延擱其應(yīng)享之權(quán)利與公正裁判 。這意味著任何人，包括國(guó)王或國(guó)會(huì)議員，都不得凌駕于法律之上。在這種情況下，稅金就不再由國(guó)王任意征收，二是由法律和被征稅的人來(lái)規(guī)定。 不同于英國(guó) ，美國(guó) 將 征稅權(quán)力 授予 憲法 約束下的國(guó)會(huì) 。第 1條第 8條第 1條被稱(chēng)為稅收條款，其中說(shuō)，國(guó)會(huì)有權(quán)鋪設(shè)和收集的稅收 、捐稅、關(guān)稅 和消費(fèi)稅，支付債務(wù)和提供共同防務(wù)和美國(guó)的一般福利 ;但一切 捐稅、關(guān)稅 和消費(fèi)稅 應(yīng)在全美均勻分配 。美國(guó)國(guó)會(huì)代表美國(guó)人民 ， 因此，稅權(quán)是在人民的手中。 除了一般稅收條款，聯(lián)合美國(guó)憲法授權(quán)國(guó)會(huì)的權(quán) 力，奠定并收集第十六次修訂通過(guò)稅收對(duì)收入。它的地址，國(guó)會(huì)有權(quán)鋪設(shè)和收集收入稅，從什么了派生源，沒(méi)有幾個(gè)國(guó)家之間的分?jǐn)?，不考慮任何人口普查或枚舉。 除英國(guó)和美國(guó)， 在稅收權(quán)力的規(guī)定上有另外兩種方式 。一個(gè)是意大利憲法中提到人民 繳納稅款 的義務(wù) ，但沒(méi)有對(duì)征稅權(quán)力進(jìn)行明確規(guī)定 。它類(lèi)似于中國(guó)的現(xiàn)行憲法。另一種是 以 日本憲法 為 代表 的 ，其中包括人繳納稅款的義務(wù)以及沒(méi)有凌駕于法律之上的稅收的原則。 但 相比美國(guó)或英國(guó)的憲制性法律授權(quán)制定法律來(lái)征收稅款， 地方 政府部門(mén) 的規(guī)定顯然讓人 不放心。 在我看來(lái)， 憲法作為一個(gè)國(guó)家的母法，其中的條例應(yīng) 該具有普遍性、通俗性及高度濃縮的特點(diǎn)，而并不必要因稅收的特別需要而制定稅務(wù)事項(xiàng)。 公平，透明，效率或沒(méi)有凌駕于法律之上的稅收原則是合適的，但其他如基本程序或三權(quán)分立等則 過(guò)于詳細(xì) 。另 一個(gè) 非常重要的 問(wèn)題是，對(duì)稅收立法的司法審查必須 寫(xiě)入 憲法性法律，司法回顧稅收立法理由關(guān)系。這 對(duì) 現(xiàn)代政府制度的權(quán)力分離的運(yùn)作是一個(gè)很好的例子 。 然而，在目前中國(guó)的稅收法律 制度中， 它 仍然 是空白的。 3. 稅收政策和裁決的篩選 大部分企業(yè)所得稅的政策或裁決 是由官方意見(jiàn)所領(lǐng)導(dǎo)的國(guó)家稅務(wù)部門(mén)發(fā)布的，他們整合個(gè)別納稅人的要求和應(yīng)用規(guī)則來(lái)制定意見(jiàn)。 當(dāng)企業(yè)所得稅個(gè)案在稅法中找不到法律依據(jù)時(shí)，就由暫行條例來(lái)裁決如何處理。在找不到其他方法來(lái)解 5 決問(wèn)題時(shí)，就要求發(fā)布裁決來(lái)填補(bǔ)空白。 在中國(guó)，國(guó)家稅務(wù)總局主要 以 “ 通知 ” 或 “ 回復(fù) ” 的形式發(fā)布稅收政策和規(guī)則。由于稅法中的不足， 本應(yīng) 由稅法規(guī)定的規(guī)則 、條例、 稅務(wù)裁決 等都由法規(guī)來(lái)規(guī)定， 這使得 法規(guī)擔(dān)負(fù)起了本不屬于它的職責(zé)。 至于企業(yè)所得稅， 制訂大量稅務(wù)條例導(dǎo)致了矛盾和不穩(wěn)定。 2008年 1月 1日 之前，雙重規(guī)定是不穩(wěn)定因素的原因。 也就是說(shuō)，國(guó)內(nèi)企業(yè) 適用 1994年頒布 的“ 中國(guó)企業(yè)所得稅的暫行規(guī)定 ”， 而 國(guó)外 企業(yè) 適用 1991年 4月 頒 布的“中華人民共和國(guó)外商投資企業(yè)和外國(guó)企業(yè)所得稅法”，因此發(fā)出了很多通知來(lái)協(xié)調(diào)兩部法律之間的差異。 4重組體系的建議 從理論上說(shuō)，中國(guó) 在完善憲法體系的第二和第三級(jí)層面中 面臨困難 ?！岸愂照鞴芊ā睂儆谔厥夥?，而不是 基本法， 它是由全國(guó)人大常委會(huì)制訂的。它為什么能和稅收基本法并行呢？另一方面， 企業(yè)所得稅法 屬于第二層級(jí)而不是第三層級(jí)的法律，是由 全國(guó)人民代表大會(huì) 制訂的。 這是否意味著它 與稅收基本法是屬于同一級(jí)別呢？如果是這樣，它又怎么被基本稅法領(lǐng)導(dǎo)呢？ 個(gè)人所得稅法是在適當(dāng)?shù)奈恢贸霈F(xiàn)，但大多數(shù)其他具體的稅收規(guī)則 則處于較 低水平。 另外， 可以 重新定義 體系，使其不致陷入僵局，就是把第二和第三層級(jí)合并到一起。我認(rèn)為，雖然法律是由全國(guó)人大還是全國(guó)人大常委會(huì)制訂應(yīng)有所差異，但至少它們都是法律，因此無(wú)需將它們進(jìn)一步劃分為其是否是基本法。這是一個(gè)簡(jiǎn)單的方法，但并非是最佳選擇。在我看來(lái)，應(yīng)堅(jiān)持完善體系的結(jié)構(gòu)，并將其作為一個(gè)最終目標(biāo)。該國(guó)應(yīng)該制訂 的基本稅法以及稅收征管法，同時(shí)修訂 “ 企業(yè)所得稅法 ” 。 中國(guó) 完善企業(yè)所得稅法律 體系 的項(xiàng)目已經(jīng)啟動(dòng) ，我們很高興看到這樣良好的開(kāi)端。然而還需要耗費(fèi)更多的時(shí)間和經(jīng)歷去努力工作， 我們期待 看到中國(guó)立法機(jī)構(gòu)為解決這 些問(wèn)題而取得跨越式的進(jìn)步。 Research on the Structure of Chinas 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 2 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 Peoples 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. 3 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 powers 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 countrys 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 peoples 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 4 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 kings 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 Englands 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 peoples obligation to pay taxes but without the clause stating the power to tax. It is similar to Chinas current Constitutional Law. The other type is represented by Japans Constitutional Law, which includes peoples 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 countrys 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 Chinas tax law 5 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 Peoples 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 “l(fā)aws” and no need to further divide them into basic or not basic, although there should be difference between the law made by the National Peoples 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 6 project of improving Chinas 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 Chinas legislature will make in the future to solve the problem. 蚆羆蒅螂 羄羅膄薅袀羅 芇螀袆羄葿 薃螂羃薁蒆 肁羂芁蟻羇 羈莃蒄袃羀蒆 蝕蝿聿膅蒂 蚅聿