CRS下“全球反避税”十大误区

链客，专为开发者而生，有问必答！

此文章来自区块链技术社区，未经允许拒绝转载。

CRS下“全球反避税”十大误区
Common Misunderstandings
About Anti Tax Evasion Rules
文/科林 翻译/魏凌波（中国外汇）
自从2016年10月国家税务总局发布《非居民金融账户涉税信息尽职调查管理办法（征求意见稿）》 以来，有关经合组织（OECD）《统一报告标准》（CRS）的讨论就成为中国财富管理市场的热点话题，媒体报道、专家解读，可谓是沸沸扬扬。
In October 2016, the State Administration of Taxation released the draft version of the Measures for the Administration of Due Diligence on Tax Information of Non-resident Financial Accounts and asked for public comments. It was an effort to conform to the requirements of the CRS.
CRS是经济全球化的必然产物，其实质属于跨国之间的税收情报交换制度，即通过跨国之间的金融账户涉税信息自动交换，打击纳税人通过在别国藏匿资产和收入以逃避本国税收的行为。笔者结合自身在欧洲实际从事国际税收信息交换的相关执业经验，归纳总结了对CRS下“全球反避税”的十大常见误区。
The CRS is an outgrowth of economic globalization. It facilitates the automatic exchange of tax-related information from financial accounts across borders in an effort to combat tax evasion. In the following article, the author relies on the European experience of international tax data exchanges to examine 10 areas of frequent misunderstandings of the CRS framework and the worldwide effort to prevent tax evasion.
误区一：CRS等同于全球征税
所谓全球征税（Worldwide Taxation），是指纳税人如果是某国的税收居民，则其在全球的收入都应当在该国申报和缴纳所得税。纳税人担负的这种全球纳税义务也称“全面纳税义务”或者“无限纳税义务”。全球征税本质上是一个所得税范畴的概念。而CRS实施的目的就是通过跨国之间的金融账户涉税信息的自动交换，实现一国纳税人在海外所持有账户的“透明化”，以便该国税务机关能准确把握其税收居民在海外的收入是否在本国依法履行了纳税义务。但是，这并不等于一国纳税人在海外的资产都要被全球征税。因为从所得税尤其是个人所得税的角度看，其征税对象是该个人的所得或者收入，而并非纳税人所拥有的资产本身。如果只是持有资产，但并没有所得，自然也不会存在所得税上的全球征税问题。
Misunderstanding 1: The CRS is Global Taxation
Global taxation means that a taxpayer’s worldwide income should be declared in the country where he or she resides. This worldwide tax liability is also described as full or unlimited tax liability. Worldwide taxation refers to income tax, and the CRS is designed to increase the transparency of overseas accounts held by a country’s taxpayers through cross-border automatic exchanges of tax-related information on financial accounts. This is to allow tax authorities to accurately apply taxes on overseas income in accordance with the law of the land. However, a taxpayer’s assets held overseas are not the objective of the CRS guidelines. The objective is to assess the taxable income, and assets that do not produce income should not trigger worldwide taxation.
案例
王先生是中国税收居民，其在瑞士某银行持有存款账户。假设2019年12月31日该账户的余额为150万美元，2019年该存款产生利息收入4万美元，那么按照CRS下的账户信息交换规则，王先生的存款账户信息会被申报和交换给中国税务机关。但是，这并不代表这150万美元存款就要被中国税务机关按照个人所得税法的规定征收所得税。因为从所得税的角度，税务机关所关心的是该150万美元现金存款所产生的应税收入（即利息收入4万美元）是否向中国主管税务机关进行了申报和纳税，根据财政部、国家税务总局《关于储蓄存款利息所得有关个人所得税政策的通知》（财税〔2008〕132号）的规定，个人取得的储蓄存款利息所得免征个人所得税。但是该文件并未明确从境外取得的储蓄存款利息收入是否可以同等享受免税。
Case Study
In the following case, an individual we will call Mr. Wang is a tax resident in China who has deposits in a Swiss bank. Assuming his bank account balance is US$1.5 million when the standard takes effect and it generates interest income of US$40,000 in the same tax year. Under the CRS information exchange rules, Mr. Wang’s account information would be declared and exchanged with China’s tax authorities. However, this does not mean that the US$1.5 million would be subject to income tax levied by Chinese tax authorities. Tax authorities would be concerned with ensuring the taxable income of US$40,000 generated from the US$1.5 million is in fact taxed in China.
According to requirements of the Notice on Income Individual Income Tax Policy on Savings Deposit Interest (issued by the Ministry of Finance and the State Administration of Taxation in 2008, Tax Document No.132), interest income on individual savings deposits are exempt from individual income tax. However, the document does not specify whether interest income on offshore savings deposits are entitled to the same tax treatment.
误区二：企业账户余额小于25万美元都不会被申报
对于企业账户或者机构账户来说，金融机构应当按照存量机构账户和新增机构账户来分别进行尽职调查。而“存量”和“新增”的划分时间节点，通常是金融机构所在国家开始执行CRS的日期。对于存量机构账户来说，如果其在该时间节点的账户余额或价值小于25万美元，那么金融机构可以选择豁免对其进行尽职调查和申报，但是需要对其进行持续监控；如果该账户的余额或价值在其后的申报期末超过25万美元，那么该金融机构需要对其进行尽职调查，识别其是否属于需要申报的账户。
Misunderstanding 2: Corporate Account Balances of Less than US$250,000
For business or institutional accounts, financial institutions should conduct due diligence inspections on existing balances and the extent of increases in funds in those accounts. This requirement starts from the time when the country where the financial institutions are based begins to implement the CRS provisions. A financial institution may choose to exempt itself from due diligence and filing requirements if the balance in the account is less than US$250,000. If the account balance exceeds US$250,000, the financial institution needs to conduct due diligence and determine whether it is an account that requires a declaration.
对于账户持有人来说，其是否可以享受25万美元的豁免门槛规定，首先要考虑金融机构所在国家的法规是否有该豁免门槛的规定；其次，由于该豁免门槛并非强制性规定，金融机构可以根据其实际需要来决定是否适用该25万美元的门槛（参见经合组织《统一报告标准实施手册》〔CRS Implementation Handbook〕第14页第9项规定）。在实践中，一些金融机构为了避免对豁免门槛下的账户进行持续监控带来的合规麻烦，可能会考虑不适用该25万美元的门槛，而选择将所有的存量机构账户进行尽职调查和信息申报。
Whether account holders can enjoy the US$250,000 cutoff depends on whether there are corresponding tax exemptions in the financial institution’s home country. Moreover, the exemption threshold is not mandatory, and the financial institutions can decide to apply the US$250,000 threshold according to the actual situation. In practice, some financial institutions may consider not applying this threshold and instead conduct due diligence on all deposits in order to avoid regulatory complications.
误区三：个人账户余额100万美元以上的才会被尽职调查和申报
在CRS下，对于个人持有的账户，不论是新增账户还是存量账户，也不论账户余额是多少（包括余额为0或负数的情形），均需要进行尽职调查，并没有规定100万美元以上的账户才需要申报。
Misunderstanding 3: Individual Accounts of Less than US$1 Million
Under the CRS, due diligence is required for individual accounts, whether new or existing, and regardless of the balance, including zero or negative balances. There are no provisions for excluding accounts of less than US$1 million.
对于具有申报义务的金融机构来说，通常其管理的存量个人账户数量庞大，强制要求金融机构采取统一的标准进行账户的尽职调查，合规成本较大。鉴此，CRS规定以100万美元为界点，将个人持有的存量账户区分为高价值个人账户和低价值个人账户，而且分别适用不同的尽职调查程序。对于存量低价值个人账户，金融机构可以选择适用相对简化的尽职调查程序（例如适用“居住地址测试”等），以减轻金融机构的合规负担。同时，对于存量低价值个人账户的尽职调查时限通常要比高价值个人账户晚一年，让金融机构有更多的时间去完成存量低价值个人账户的合规义务。
Financial institutions often have a large number of individual accounts. This means they must adopt a uniform standard for account due diligence, resulting in significant compliance costs. In view of this, the CRS provides the threshold of US$1 million for the division of individual accounts into high-value individual accounts and low-value ones as these are subject to different due diligence procedures. Financial institutions may choose to apply relatively simplified due diligence procedures (such as residence address testing) for low-value individual accounts, in order to reduce the compliance burden on financial institutions. Due diligence on low-value individual accounts usually lags that of high-value individual accounts by one year, allowing financial institutions more time to meet their compliance obligations with their low-value individual accounts.
但需要注意的是，金融机构也可选择不适用上述以减轻其合规负担为目的的程序规定，而是对所有的账户采用统一适用于高价值个人账户的合规程序（即更高要求的合规程序），而且有可能在CRS的第一个申报期内即完成了所有存量高、低价值个人账户的尽职调查和信息申报。实践中具体应当以金融机构的内部政策为准。
However, it should be noted that financial institutions may also choose not to apply the above-mentioned procedural requirement. Instead, they may adopt a uniform compliance procedure for all accounts. It is possible to complete due diligence and information declarations on all high and low-value individual accounts in the first declaring period of the CRS. In practice, the internal policies of the financial institutions take precedence.
误区四：房产、古董字画和珠宝等非金融资产不需要申报
在CRS下，金融账户涉税信息自动交换的核心是“账户”，也就是说跨国之间共享的信息是金融账户信息，而并非金融资产信息，因为一个金融账户有可能同时涉及金融资产和非金融资产。其中，金融资产的概念与金融机构身份属性以及金融账户类别的判定密切相关，单从金融资产本身无法判定其是否需要申报。一个金融账户如果属于需申报的账户，那么该账户下所持有的所有资产，不论是金融资产还是非金融资产，均需要申报和交换。
Misunderstanding 4: Non-financial Assets
Under the CRS, the core of automatic exchanges of tax information is the sharing of financial account information, not financial asset information. A financial account may involve both financial assets and non-financial assets. The need for a declaration does not depend solely on the financial assets themselves. If a financial account requires declaration, all assets held under the account, financial or non-financial, must be declared and the information exchanged.
案例
王先生是中国税收居民，其在开曼群岛设立了一家私人投资公司（Private Investment Company, “PIC”）A公司。A公司持有的资产中80%为金融资产，20%为非金融资产。那么在CRS下，如果该A公司属于金融机构（如投资机构），那么A公司在申报其金融账户（即投资机构的股权权益或者债权权益）时，其所持有的金融资产和非金融资产的价值全都应当作为账户余额来进行申报。
Case Study
Another individual whose surname is Wang is a tax resident of China. He owns a private investment company set up in the Cayman Islands, and 80% of the assets held by this company are financial while 20% are non-financial. Under the CRS guidelines, if the company belongs to a financial institution (such as an investment company), when the same company declares its financial account the financial and non-financial assets must be declared.
误区五：CRS实施以后，设立离岸信托没有任何意义
离岸信托在资产分离和保全、税收优化以及信息隐秘性上具有其他投资架构不可比拟的优势，因此在资产配置方面受到世界上很多高净值个人和家庭的青睐。在CRS下，信托也有可能被判定为是金融机构，而需要对其账户持有人（例如委托人和受益人等）进行尽职调查；或者被判定为是消极非金融机构，如果其在金融机构持有账户，则会被要求提供信托实际控制人（例如委托人和受益人）的信息。
Misunderstanding 5: Offshore Trusts
Offshore trusts have incomparable advantages over other investment frameworks in terms of asset segregation and preservation, tax optimization and privacy of information. Therefore, they are favored by many high net worth individuals and families in their global asset allocation. Under the CRS, a trust may be treated as a financial institution with due diligence required on its account holder (including the principal and beneficiaries), or it may be treated as a passive non-financial institution. If a financial institution holds an account, there is a requirement that information be provided on the person who actually controls the trust, such as the principal and the beneficiary.
但是信托被纳入到CRS下的申报体系，并不会导致信托丧失其本身具有的资产分离和保全、税收优化以及信息隐秘等优势。从中国的角度，尽管CRS实施后，理论上中国税收居民在海外所设立信托的相关金融账户信息会被申报和交换到中国税务机关，但是这并不代表信托就失去了隐秘性。因为，CRS下的所谓“资产曝光”只是相对税务机关来说，而且CRS下跨国之间交换的信息具有十分严格的保密性要求，信托本身的隐秘性仍然存在，并不会公之于众。
However, the inclusion of a trust in the declaration system under the CRS does not result in the trust losing its key advantages. From the point of view of China’s tax authorities, although the relevant financial account information of China’s tax residents’ overseas trusts will be declared and exchanged with Chinese authorities, this does not mean that the trusts will lose their secrecy. Only the tax authorities have access to the asset information under the CRS, and there are strict confidentiality requirements for information exchanges.
误区六：既然CRS是申报“非居民”的信息，那把钱存在中国境内最“安全”
有一些观点认为，CRS实施以后，对于中国税收居民来说，只要把钱存在中国的金融机构就可以高枕无忧了，不会受到CRS下信息申报的影响，中国税务机关也不会知道这些账户的信息。的确，根据中国的CRS法规，金融机构只需要申报非居民（非中国税收居民）所持有账户的信息，但是不妨试想一下，非居民的信息都需要申报了，居民的信息申报还会远吗？
Misunderstanding 6: The Safety of Deposits in China
Some people believe that after the implementation of CRS, tax residents in China can sit back and relax as long as they deposit their money in a Chinese financial institution. They believe their money will not be affected by the declaration of information under the CRS and that Chinese tax authorities will not be aware of the information regarding these accounts. Indeed, under China’s CRS regulations, financial institutions need only declare information about accounts held by non-Chinese tax residents. However, even though information exchanges apply to non-residents now, Chinese residents will no doubt be included in the future.
国务院法制办公室于2015年1月公布的《中华人民共和国税收征收管理法修订草案（征求意见稿）》专门增设了第四章有关涉税信息披露的问题。其第三十二条就规定，“银行和其他金融机构应当按照规定的内容、格式、时限等要求向税务机关提供本单位掌握的账户持有人的账户、账号、投资收益以及账户的利息总额、期末余额等信息。对账户持有人单笔资金往来达到5万元以或者一日内提取现金5万元以上的，银行和其他金融机构应当按照规定向税务机关提交相关信息”。金融资产的账户信息与税务机关纳税征管信息的互联互通机制在西方发达国家早已开始实施。如今在CRS下，国外金融机构与国内税务机关的信息互动机制已在建立之中，笔者有理由相信，国内金融机构与国内税务机关也会很快建立互联网络。世界上没有所谓的“安全”之地，唯有合法、合规才是最大的“安全”。
The State Council’s Legislative Affairs Office promulgated the draft version of the Revised Tax Collection and Management Law of the People’s Republic of China in January 2015, and that specifically added more provisions on tax information disclosure. Article 32 of the tax provisions stipulates that banks and other financial institutions shall provide tax authorities with the account holders’ account numbers, balance, investment income and total interest income and the like. Any information regarding single transactions of 50,000 yuan or withdrawals of 50,000 yuan in a single business day should be reported by the financial institutions to tax authorities. The interconnection mechanism between the account information of financial assets and the tax administration has already been implemented in developed countries in the West. Now under the CRS, the information exchange mechanism between foreign financial institutions and domestic tax authorities has been established. There are reasons to believe that domestic financial institutions and domestic tax authorities will soon establish an Internet network. There are no longer any secure havens for hiding money.
误区七：美国不是CRS参与国，所以把钱放在美国最“安全”
美国的确不是CRS参与国，但这是否意味着钱都放到美国去就可以绝对“安全”了呢？
尽管美国没有加入CRS，不属于CRS参与国，但是美国与中国在2014年就已经就《海外税务合规法案》（FATCA）的政府间协议达成实质一致。虽然中美FATCA政府间协议目前只是属于草签状态，但是中国已经被美国财政部列入“作为存在有效政府间协议”的国家名单中。基于此，中国的金融机构不实际进行FATCA下的合规工作，仍然可以不受FATCA下对于不合规金融机构30%预提所得税的处罚。此外，基于美国财政部和国税局2016年7月发布的《税收程序规定（2016-27号）》的规定，美国政府已经开始“催促”草签FATCA的国家正式签署FATCA协议并予以实施，同时要求这些国家必须在2016年12月31日之前向美国财政部提交有关FATCA实施的具体安排和解释，否则从2017年1月1日起将会把该国从“作为存在有效政府间协议”的国家名单中除名。根据目前美国财政部网站的信息，中国仍属于“作为存在有效政府间协议”的国家，因此可以推断，中美之间签署正式的FATCA协议将指日可待。
Misunderstanding 7: The US Is Not a CRS Participant, So Putting Money in the US is Safe
The US is indeed not a CRS participant, but that does not mean it is absolutely safe to deposit money in the United States.
Although the US does not participate in the CRS, the US and China reached an intergovernmental agreement called the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) in 2014. Although the FATCA agreement is still in the drafting stage, China has been listed by the US Treasury as a participant in valid intergovernmental agreements. Based on this, China’s financial institutions will not be subject to mandatory compliance under FATCA and will be exempt from a penalty of 30% withholding income tax on non-compliant financial institutions. In addition, the US government has started to urge countries that signed on to FATCA via a draft document to formally adopt and implement the FATCA agreement based on the Provisions on Tax Procedures (No.2016-27) promulgated by the US Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service in July 2016, These countries were required to submit specific arrangements and interpretations to the US Department of the Treasury on implementing FATCA by December 31, 2016. According to the US Treasury Department, China remains on the list of countries participating in valid intergovernmental agreements and it can be concluded that the signing of a formal FATCA accord with the US is not far off.
此外，有关FATCA下双边信息互换的问题，根据美国财政部和国税局的《税收程序规定（2016-56号）》，美国的金融机构已经开始收集包括中国在内的相关国家居民在美金融机构的存款利息信息。同时根据美国财政部和国税局2017年9月发布的《税收程序规定（2017-46号）》，外国居民在美金融机构开户和填写W8表格时，必须提交其纳税人识别号等信息。笔者认为，这一系列的税法规定都是为FATCA下美国与FATCA伙伴国的双边对等涉税信息自动交换进行铺垫和准备。
In addition, regarding the bilateral exchange of information under FATCA, according to the US Treasury and IRS Tax Regulations (No. 2016-56), US financial institutions have begun to collect data on institutional deposit interest information in the US from residents of related countries, including China. At the same time, according to the Taxation Procedure Provisions (No.2017-46) issued by the US Treasury Department and the IRS in September 2017, foreign residents must submit their taxpayer identification number and other information when opening an account at US financial institutions. The author believes that such tax laws and regulations are in preparation for the automatic exchange of bilateral mutual tax-related information between the US and FATCA partner countries.
误区八：设立在“避税天堂”的离岸壳公司属于积极非金融机构而不需要被“穿透”
金融机构在识别机构账户持有人时，如果该机构账户持有人属于消极非金融机构（即不属于金融机构类别，不从事积极的经营活动，且大部分的收入都来源于利息、股息等消极收入），那么金融机构需要“穿透”该机构账户持有人，识别其实际控制人。
Misunderstanding 8: An Offshore Shell Company Set up in a Tax Haven Need Not to Be Inspected
When a financial institution identifies an institutional account holder, if the holder does not engage in positive business activities whose majority of income is passive income derived from interest, dividends and the like, then the institutional account holder is a passive non-financial institution (i.e., it is not considered a financial institution). In such cases, the financial institutions need to identify the actual controlling party of such an account.
实际上，设立在“避税天堂”的离岸壳公司大多属于上述消极非金融机构。因为这些公司设立的目的大多是避税或者逃避外汇管制，通常不会有实质性的经营活动。尤其是很多设立在离岸避税地的外贸公司，其主要的功能就是“与境外签合同”和“收款”，公司本身并没有任何雇员和经营场所，而仅仅持有能够产生消极收入的资产（例如现金存款）。因此，在CRS下，其应当属于消极非金融机构，是需要被“穿透”的。
In fact, the majority of offshore shell companies that are based in tax havens are passive non-financial institutions. Most of these companies are set up to avoid tax or evade foreign exchange controls and have no substantive business activities. In particular, many foreign trade companies established in offshore tax havens have the main function of signing contracts with overseas companies and collecting payments. The company itself merely holds assets that generate passive income instead of having employees or an actual place of business. Therefore, under the CRS, it should belong to passive non-financial institutions which need to be inspected.
当然也有些公司设立在离岸避税地并非出于单纯的避税目的。例如红筹上市架构中，有些上市公司的上市主体就设立在开曼群岛等离岸避税地。对于这类公司，在CRS下通常应当按照积极非金融机构来处理，因为此类上市公司都会定期对外披露其财务信息，其被个人用来进行跨国避税的可能性很小，识别其实际控制人并无实质意义。
To be sure, tax evasion is not the only reason for setting up offshore tax havens. For example, in the red chip market structuring, some listed companies registered their business in the Cayman Islands. Such companies, under the CRS, usually should be considered active non-financial institutions. They regularly disclose their financial information, so there is little possibility of cross-border tax evasion. Identifying the actual controlling party has no real meaning.
误区九：投资移民获得小国护照和税收居民身份就可以规避CRS
由于CRS下的账户信息交换是以账户持有人的税收居民身份为基础进行的，因此一些人考虑是否可以通过改变国籍和税收居民身份来达到规避CRS的目的。
Misunderstanding 9: Investment Immigrants
The exchange of account information under the CRS is based on the tax resident status of the account holders. Some people see changing nationality and tax resident status as a convenient way to bypass the CRS.
的确，如果一个人将其税收居民从CRS需申报国（如中国、加拿大等）转变为非CRS参与国或者低税率国家和地区，即可以做到不受CRS影响，或者所受影响很小。例如，一个中国税收居民搬到非洲或者加勒比海地区的非CRS参与国居住，成为当地的税收居民，同时也不构成其他任何CRS参与国的税收居民，那么其在CRS参与国金融机构所持有的账户就不会受到CRS的影响，因为他们作为非CRS参与国税收居民，不属于CRS下的需申报对象。
Indeed, if individuals convert their tax residence from CRS declaring countries to non-CRS participating or to low-tax countries and territories, they can avoid the CRS requirement. A Chinese tax resident who becomes a tax resident of a non-CRS participating country in Africa or the Caribbean and is not a tax resident of another CRS participating country, for example, would not be covered by the CRS for his or her accounts held by a CRS participating financial institution. The individual would be considered tax-exempt.
然而，现实生活中，让意图规避CRS申报的富豪们举家搬到非洲或者加勒比海地区的非CRS参与国实际居住，从而成为当地的税收居民显然不太现实。于是，像塞浦路斯、马耳他以及其他一些太平洋岛国开发了一种专供富人规避CRS的所谓“居民投资计划 （Residence by investment scheme）”，即富豪通过在当地购置房产或者投资并满足相关条件后，可以获得当地的国籍以及税收居民身份，甚至有的还可以提供当地的居住地址证明，但富豪本人大部分时间仍生活在中国或者其他CRS需申报国家。这些人在CRS参与国持有金融账户时可以直接出示其在“居民投资计划”下所获得的税收居民身份和居住地址，同时隐瞒自己的中国税收居民身份，试图 “完美”地规避CRS
However, in real life, it is impractical for taxpayers to move their family to a non-CRS participating country just to sidestep the CRS provisions. There are some ways to get around this hurdle, however. For example, Cyprus, Malta and some Pacific island countries have developed so-called “residence by investment” programs for wealthy individuals which permit the bypassing of CRS obligations. Wealthy individuals can obtain local citizenship as well as tax resident status by acquiring real estate or investing locally. In addition, some regions may even provide local residential documents, even while the individual actual resides elsewhere. These individuals, when holding financial accounts in the CRS participating countries, are able to present their tax resident status and residential address obtained under a “residence by investment” program that helps bypass the CRS framework.
笔者以为，这种想象中的“完美”方案实则有两个巨大的潜在风险。首先，在CRS下，账户持有人需要在其提交给金融机构的《税收居民身份自我声明》中申报其所有的税收居民身份所在国。也就是说，如果一个中国居民通过参与“居民投资计划”获得了小国的护照和居民身份，但是其本人仍然大部分时间都居住在中国境内且构成中国的税收居民，则仍需对中国居民身份信息进行申报，如果故意隐瞒，则可能会面临金融机构所在国家CRS法规下的民事或者刑事处罚；其隐瞒和伪造身份的行为，甚至还会触发反洗钱法律中的洗钱等金融犯罪条款。其次，经合组织作为CRS全球执行的“总协调人”，早已经注意到这类“居民投资计划”的规避方案，并且已经着手进行协调和处理。2016年12月，经合组织税务中心主任帕斯卡尔·阿曼在接受英国《金融时报》采访时就曾表示，“我们目前正在处理（‘居民投资计划’），它不会存在太久。”
In the author’s opinion, there are two major risks in the above mentioned scenario. First, under the CRS, the account holders need to declare all their tax resident status in the Tax Resident Identity Self-declaration they submit to a financial institution. Although a Chinese resident may obtain a passport and resident status from a small country by participating in the “residence by investment” program, he or she still must declare such information based on his Chinese residency if the individual’s actual residence is China or another CRS compliant country. Any concealment of the information may result in civil or criminal penalties for the financial institution in such cases. Concealment or falsification of identity may mean the financial institution runs afoul of anti-money laundering laws.
Additionally, as the general coordinator of the CRS worldwide implementation, the OECD has long been aware of tax avoidance through these investment schemes, and has already started to take countermeasures. In an interview with the UK’s Financial Times in December 2016, Pascal Oman, director of Centre for Tax Policy and Administration of the OECD, said that steps to address this issue were already being taken and such schemes would not last much longer.
误区十：全球102个CRS参与国之间都会进行CRS下的账户信息自动交换
截至2017年10月，全球已有102个国家和地区承诺将在2018年9月之前实现第一次CRS下的金融账户涉税信息自动交换，并且已经有95个国家签署了有关实施CRS的多边国际法律准则——《多边主管当局间协议》（MCAA）。但这并不意味着金融账户信息就一定会在这么多国家之间自动进行交换和传递。各国之间进行CRS下的账户信息自动交换，在具备了多边国际法律条约以及相关数据安全制度等的基础上，还需要一个额外的“激活”程序，即各国在提交给经合组织秘书处的“愿意交换国家名单”中列明伙伴国。只有那些相互交换关系被“激活”成功的国家之间，才会切实进行CRS下的账户信息交换。根据经合组织在其官方网站公布的信息，截至2017年8月7日，全球已经有超过2000个CRS下的交换关系被“激活”，其中中国已经与包括加拿大、根西岛、泽西岛、列支敦士登和马耳他在内的47个国家和地区“激活”了CRS下的交换关系。笔者预计，到2018年5月31日中国金融机构的第一次CRS信息申报截止日期之前，还会有更多国家与中国之间的交换关系被激活。
Misunderstanding 10:World’s 102 CRS Participating Countries
As of the end of October 2017, 102 countries and regions around the globe had promised to execute the first automatic exchange of tax of information on the financial accounts under the CRS by September 2018. Ninety-five countries have already signed the Multilateral Competent Authority Agreement. However, this does not mean that financial account information will be exchanged among so many countries automatically. The automatic exchange of account information between countries under the CRS will require an additional activation process based on multilateral treaties and related data security systems. Only those countries where the mutual exchange relations are activated successfully can there be an automatic exchange of account information under the CRS.
According to information released by the OECD on its official website, more than 2,000 CRS exchange relations have been activated worldwide. China has activated exchange relationships with 47 countries and regions including Canada, Guernsey, Jersey, Liechtenstein and Malta under the CRS. The author expects that by the end of May 2018 as the first CRS declaration deadline, more countries will activate their exchange relations with China.