国家税务总局


关于中外合作开发房地产征收营业税问题的批复(附英文)
国家税务总局



广东省国家税务局：
近接广州市税务局税一〔1994〕327号《关于合作开发房地产征收营业税问题的请示》，反映该市部分国内企业将土地三通一平后以土地与外商合作建商品房，双方成立合作公司，领取营业执照，中方将土地使用权转移到合作公司，外方负责兴建商品房的一切资金并负责商品房
在境外销售，双方采取分建筑面积、分销售收入、提取固定利润等分配形式。并对上述经营活动中涉及的转让土地使用权的行为如何计征营业税问题，要求予以明确。经研究，现批复如下：
一、关于中外双方合作建房的征税问题
中方将获得的土地与外方合作，办理土地使用权转移后，不论是按建成的商品房分配面积，还是按商品房销售后的收入进行分配，均不符合现行政策关于“以无形资产投资入股、参与接受投资方的利润分配、共同承担投资风险的行为，不征营业税”的规定，因此，应按“转让无形资产
”税目征收营业税；其营业额为实际取得的全部收入，包括价外收费；其纳税义务发生时间为取得收入的当天。
同时，对销售商品房也应征税。如果采取分房（包括分面积）各自销房的，则对中外双方各自销售商品房收入按“销售不动产”征营业税；如果采取统一销房再分配销售收入的，则就统一的销售商品房收入按“销售不动产”征营业税；如果采取对中方支付固定利润方式的，则对外方销
售商品房的全部收入按“销售不动产”征营业税。
二、关于中方取得的前期工程开发费征税问题
外方提前支付给中方的前期工程的开发费用，视为中方以预收款方式取得的营业收入，按转让土地使用权，计算征收营业税。对该项已税的开发费用，在中外双方分配收入时如数从中方应得收入中扣除的，可直接冲减中方当期的营业收入。
三、对中方定期获取的固定利润视为转让土地使用权所取得的收入，计算征收营业税。

WRITTEN REPLY ON THE QUESTION CONCERNING THE LEVY OF BUSINESS TAXON SINO-FOREIGN COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT OF REAL ESTATE

(State Administration of Taxation: 6 December 1994 Coded Guo ShuiHan Fa [1994] No. 644)

Whole Doc.

To the Guangdong Provincial State Tax Bureau:
We have recently acknowledged the receipt of a letter from the
Guangzhou Municipal Tax Bureau asking for Instructions on the Question
Concerning the Levy of Business Tax on Cooperative Development of the Real
Estate Sector, a document coded Shui Yi [1994] No. 327. The letter says
that some domestic enterprises have cooperated with foreign businessmen in
building commodity houses on the land where the supply of water,
electricity and gas has been made available and the ground has been
levelled, both parties set up cooperative companies and received business
license, with the Chinese party transferring the land-use right to the
cooperative companies, while the foreign party being responsible for all
funds needed for the building of commodity houses and for the sales of
commodity houses abroad, both sides adopted the distribution methods of
distributing construction area and sales income and drawing fixed profits.
The letter demanded that the question as to how to calculate and levy
business tax related to the behavior of the transfer of land-use right
involved in the above-mentioned business activities. After study, we now
give the written reply as follows:

I. The taxation question concerning tax on Sino-foreign cooperative
construction of houses.
After the Chinese side performs the procedures for the transfer of
the land-use right in its cooperation with the foreign party on the land
it obtains, the method of whether distributing the area of the completed
commodity house, or distributing the income from the sales of the
commodity house does not conform with the stipulations of the current
policy that "business tax is exempt from the behavior of investing and
buying shares with invisible assets, participating in and accepting the
investor's profit distribution and jointly undertaking the investment
risk"; therefore, business tax shall be levied in accordance with the tax
category of "transferring invisible assets"; its business volume should be
all the income actually gained, including charges not included in the
calculated prices; the tax paying time should be the very day when the
income is gained.
At the same time, tax shall also be levied on the sales of commodity
houses. If the method of distributing houses (including the distribution
of area) which are then sold respectively by each party is adopted, then
business tax shall be levied on the incomes from the sales of commodity
houses by both Chinese and foreign parties in accordance with the
stipulation of "selling immovable property"; if the method of unified
sales of houses and redistribution of sales income is adopted, then
business tax is levied on the income from unified sales of commodity
houses in accordance with the stipulation of "selling immovable property";
if the method of paying fixed profits to the Chinese party is adopted,
then business tax is levied on all the incomes gained by the foreign party
from the sales of commodity houses in accordance with the stipulation of
"selling immovable property".
II. The taxation question concerning the development expenses gained
from the first-phase project by the Chinese party
The development expenses for the first-phase project paid in advance
by the foreign party to the Chinese party shall be regarded as the
business income gained by the Chinese party by the method of receiving the
money in advance, business tax is calculated and levied in line with the
stipulation of the transfer of land-use right. With regard to this already
taxed development expense, which shall be accurately deducted from the due
income of the Chinese party, may directly eat up the current business
income of the Chinese party.
III. The fixed profits gained regularly by the Chinese party shall be
regarded as the income gained by the transfer of the land- use right, on
which business tax is calculated and levied.



1994年12月6日
打知识产权官司，我们为何而战

知识产权战争的火药味使得律师们警觉了起来。在一项调查中表明，美国有48％的律师称知识产权将是未来十年最热门的案件多发领域。难道知识产权越多，纠纷和官司就会越多吗？激烈竞争的知识产权界真的会成为充满血腥的战场吗？打官司漫长，如果是个人一个官司打下来，无疑会觉得身心疲惫，那么我们打知识产权官司究竟是为何而战呢？

为了生存而战

高额专利费费用的支付严重制约我国电子产品的发展，中国电子音响工业协会(简称CAIA)证实已经在1月13日正式上书国家有关部门，要求就数字影院系统有限公司(简称DTS)在中国的违法经营行为进行调查。CAIA认为DTS违规经营有“四大罪状”：将专利与商标捆绑销售、限制中国DVD企业产品销售渠道、强取被许可企业的技术成果、不保证其专利不侵犯第三方权益。DTS曾经要求中国的DVD制造商为使用它的数字影院系统技术和商标，为每台DVD付出11美元的费用。由于此前与3C、6C进行的DVD相关专利谈判都是由CAIA出面，因此此次它对DTS的违规调查显得意味深长。

为确定性而战

在科技和商业的新领域中一般难以确切地划分合法与非法的界限。从法院直接获得的合法保护不仅仅对直接当事人双方是非常重要的，而且对形成整个行业的商业惯例也很重要。举例来说，生物工艺技术早已成为专利侵权的众矢之的了，这不足为奇。这一新技术正在引起新的法律问题的产生。而如何界定非法与合法的界线，还需要有人指导。另一个例子是，英国有很多诉讼案牵扯到超级市场上出售的热销品牌产品的仿制品。这里需要解决的法律问题是：这种仿制什么时候才能被算作是侵权，这个度该如何划分。法院是处理合法与不合法问题的好地方，特别是对于那些科技和商业新兴领域出现的问题。在相对较早、已经很完善的领域里，法律规范已经约定成俗，法院起不了太大的作用。合法性十分明确的案件也很少需要诉诸法律，除非有其它的因素影响。

为发展空间而战

有时一家公司需要借助一些外力才能将侵权者从他们的垄断领域中赶走。法院的禁令即是一股很强大的外力。许多国家已制定出一套简易的或临时的诉讼程序来保证法院快速，有时甚至是提前发出禁令来对抗侵权人。也许这些诉讼程序在案件事实相对明确、且侵权者只是愿意冒险的机会主义者时最为有效。在这些情况下，协商很可能是没有什么结果的，而法院判决的效率是很重要的。有时候你想占领某一块知识产权领域时却发现它已经被一个相当有竞争力的知识产权所占据了。说不清是为什么，你总觉得该知识产权是无效的。也许它不是真正的具有创新意识的新专利，更不是已使用了五年的商标。你可能希望法院声明该项知识产权无效，这样你就可以高枕无忧地占据这一领地。但是仔细想一想，法院有规定的程序需要按部就班地完成这一项工作。如果真的是无效的，就要改变企业的战略对其不予理会。若是你被起诉，在这一阶段你还可以胸有成竹地进行反诉。

为赔偿金而战

报纸上经常报道那些大宗的赔偿损失案。如，宝丽来（Polaroid）从柯达那里获得了接近10亿美元的赔偿。原因是柯达侵犯了它的“立拍立现摄影”技术的专利权。媒体也常常报道美国法院处理大宗的侵权案时，如何在法律许可范围内判罚三倍损失赔偿金。按照我国的法律，商标侵权赔偿可以侵权方因为侵权而获得的利益作为赔偿依据，专利的赔偿标准也相近，那么侵权人侵权行为所得将全部作为赔偿，从另一个方面来看，可以说侵权人实际在为权利人打工，而著作权赔偿可以要求惩罚性赔偿，可以要求稿费的2－5倍来赔偿。我国知识产权诉讼案件的赔偿要求也行情大涨，要求赔偿过亿元的案子已经不再稀奇，即使是在软件最终用户侵权案件中，北京的法院也判决赔偿金近二百万元。在我国打知识产权官司不再是得不偿失的事情。

为打击假冒而战

对于普通民众，很难说这些假冒产品有什么大的害处，可能有的人更加喜欢假冒（盗版）的东西，几乎一样的使用，价格却要低出几倍甚至是几十倍，这些热销品牌商品的商标被盗用有时会使人幸灾乐祸。可是如果你生活和工作在这样一个环境里，付出一样的价钱，买的东西却是假冒的，你会做何感想。由于假冒的存在，使真正的商品却收到严重的冲击，自己辛苦培养的商标被别人傍名牌，多年的心血开发的软件，被人随意复制，再以极低的价格出售，而软件开发者自己的软件却无法销售……假冒者的祸害不仅侵蚀了正当权利人的市场空间，他们最大的祸害是严重搅乱了市场，打击假冒这是我们面临的共同挑战。

作者：王律师，王路（北京）知识产权公司首席律师，
电话：010－51662214，电子邮件：68498888@sohu.com。