财政部 国家税务总局 等


关于转让国有房地产征收土地增值税中有关房地产价格评估问题的通知
财政部、国家税务总局、国家国有资产管理局



各省、自治区、直辖市和计划单列市财政厅（局）、国家税务局、地方税务局、国有资产管理局：
为了加强土地增值税的征收管理，促进对国有房地产转让价格评估的管理，维护国有资产权益，现根据《中华人民共和国土地增值税暂行条例》（以下简称《条例》）及《中华人民共和国土地增值税暂行条例实施细则》（以下简称《细则》）和《国有资产评估管理办法》的有关规定，
对国有房地产转让中有关价格评估等问题通知如下：
一、凡转让国有土地使用权、地上建筑物及其附属物（以下简称房地产）的纳税人，按照土地增值税的有关规定，需要根据房地产的评估价格计税的，可委托经政府批准设立、并按照《国有资产评估管理办法》规定的由省以上国有资产管理部门授予评估资格的资产评估事务所、会计师
事务所等各类资产评估机构受理有关转让房地产的评估业务。
二、对于涉及土地增值税的国有房地产价格评估，各评估机构必须严格按照《条例》和《细则》中规定的方法进行应纳税房地产的价格评估。其评估结果经同级国有资产管理部门审核验证后作为房地产转让的底价，并按税务部门的要求按期报送房地产所在地主管税务机关，作为确认计
税依据的参考。
房地产所在地主管税务机关要求从事房地产评估的资产评估机构提供与房地产评估有关的评估资料的，资产评估机构应无偿提供，不得以任何借口予以拒绝。
房地产所在地主管税务机关应根据《条例》和《细则》的有关规定，对应纳税房地产的评估结果进行严格审核及确认，对不符合实际情况的评估结果不予采用。
三、房地产评估机构在执业过程中必须遵守职业道德，坚持独立、客观、公正的原则，对评估结果的真实性、合理性负法律责任。任何房地产评估机构在房地产转让的评估过程中有隐瞒事实，提供虚假评估结果，或与有关当事人串通作弊等违法行为，一经发现坚决取消执业资格。
房地产评估机构因不向主管税务机关提供有关的、真实的房地产评估资料，或有意提供虚假评估结果，造成纳税人不缴或少缴土地增值税的，房地产评估机构应承担相应的法律和经济责任；对因上述行为而造成国家税收和国有资产严重流失的，要提请司法机关追究有关当事人的刑事责
任。
四、各级财政、税务和国有资产管理部门要密切配合、相互协作，加强土地增值税的各项征收管理工作。为此，各有关部门应对各房地产评估机构进一步加强监督管理，使房地产评估为保证国家税收收入和维护国有资产权益发挥应有的作用。



1995年6月23日
Expansion of Applicable Sphere: A way to Uniformity
——Compare and Contrast between UNIDROIT and UNCITRAL Conventions
By Dongsheng Lu, Chen Yan

I. Introduction

Financing is paramount for the promotion of commerce. It has been noted that “in developed countries the bulk of corporate wealth is locked up in receivables”. As the economy develops, this wealth increasing is “unlocked by transferring receivables across national borders”. With the prompt and great increases in international trade, receivables financing now plays a more and more important role. Yet under the law of many countries, certain forms of receivables financing are still not recognized. Even transactions are involved in countries where the form of receivables financing is permitted, determining which law governs will be difficult. The disparity among laws of different jurisdiction increases uncertainty in transactions, thus constitutes obstacles to the development of assignments of receivables. To remove such obstacles arising from the uncertainty existing in various legal systems and promote the development of receivables financing cross-boarder, a set of uniform rules in this field is required. The international community has made great efforts in adopting uniform laws. Among those efforts, the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) drafted, on 12 December, 2001, “United Nations Convention on the Assignment of Receivables in International Trade” (hereinafter referred to as the “UNCITRAL Convention”), with its aim to “establish principles and to adopt rules relating to the assignment of receivables that would create certainty and transparency and promote the modernization of the law relating to assignments of receivables”. UNCITRAL is not the first international organization attempting to resolve the problems associated with receivables. As early as in May 1988, the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (UNIDROIT) has already adopted a convention known as the “UNIDROIT Convention on International Factoring” (hereinafter referred to as the “UNIDROIT Convention”).

When compare and contrast between the UNIDROIT Convention and the UNCITRAL Convention, one might see a lot of inconsistency in detailed regulations, e.g. sphere of application, relations between parties, priorities, and choice of law, etc. Given the limited space available in this article, the author may only focus on the difference in “sphere of application” of these two conventions, as sphere of application is perhaps the most fundamental issue of a convention.

The purpose of an international convention is to create uniformity in its covered matter, thus the broader a convention’s sphere of application is, the higher could uniformity reach. This article will try to make compare and contrast the sphere of application between the UNIDROIT Convention and the UNCITRAL Convention, illustrate the differences exist between these two conventions, and demonstrate the expansion of sphere of application in the UNCITRAL Convention and its progress on the way to uniformity.

II. Sphere of Application: Subject Matter

As its title indicates, the subject matter of the UNIDROIT Convention is of course international factoring. Article 1(1) says, “this Convention governs factoring contracts and assignments of receivables as described in this Chapter.”

For “factoring contract”, the UNIDROIT Convention provides the following 4 characteristics:

(1) purpose of the contract is to assign receivables;

(2) receivables to be assigned arises from contracts of sale of goods made between the supplier and its customers (debtors), other than those of sale of goods bought primarily for personal, family or household use;

(3) the factor is to perform at least two of the four functions: (i) finance for the supplier; (ii) maintenance of accounts (ledgering) relating to the receivables; (iii) collection of receivables; and (iv) protection against default in payment by debtors;

(4) notice of the assignment of the receivables is to be given to debtors.

As about “assignments of receivables as described in this Chapter”, article 2 (1) describes assignments of receivables as assignment of receivables pursuant to a factoring contract.

Factoring is just a subset of the receivables financing, and perhaps the oldest and most basic one. Besides factoring, receivables financing still entail the following forms,

(1) Forfeiting, similar to factoring, involves the purchase or discounting of documentary receivables (promissory notes, for example) without recourse to the party from whom the receivables are purchased;

(2) Refinancing, also known as secondary financing, involves the subsequent assignment of receivables. In its basic form, one bank or financier will assign to another bank its interest, with the potential for further assignment;

(3) Securitization, in which both marketable (for example, trade receivables) and non-marketable (consumer credit card receivables) asset cash flows are repackaged by a lender and transferred to a lender-controlled company, which will issue securities, sell and then use the proceeds to purchase the receivables;

(4) Project Finance, in which repayment of loans made by banks or financiers to project contractors for the financing of projects are secured through the future revenues of the project.

The first draft of the UNCITRAL Convention has stated to cover factoring, forfeiting, refinancing, securitization and project finance. Somehow, the working group decides that rather than emphasize the form in which the receivables appear, it would instead concentrate on the way in which the receivables might be transferred (contractual or non-contractual) and the purpose of the transaction (for financing or non-financing purposes). It decides the contractual receivables and assignment made to secure financing and other related services would be covered. The non-contractual receivables such as insurance and tort receivables, deposit bank accounts, or claims arising by operation of law seems are not within the ambits of the UNCITRAL convention.

III. Sphere of Application: Special Requirements

Both of the conventions contain a series of requirements. Only when those requirements are satisfied, could the convention be applied. The higher and stricter the requirements are, the smaller the chance to apply the convention is.

a) Internationality requirement

Both the two conventions indicate their sphere of application is of internationality requirement, but the same word in these two conventions has different legal meaning. The internationality requirement of UNIDROIT Convention is exclusively based upon the parties to the underlying contract, i.e. the contract of sale of goods (the supplier and the debtor) having their place of business in different countries. In other words, where the receivables arise from a contract of sale of goods between a supplier and a debtor whose places of business are in the same State, the UNIDROIT Convention could not apply, no matter the following assignment of receivables is to assignee in the same or different State. Thus leaving the international assignment of domestic receivables untouched. The problem, at its simplest, is twofold: first, inconsistency. For instance, in the case where a bulk assignment is made and where part of the receivables are domestic (supplier and debtor are in the same State) and part are international (supplier and debtor are in different State), if the supplier assigns the receivables to a party which is located in another State, the bulk assignment between the same supplier and the same assignee will be governed by two sets of laws and regulations: the portion of international receivables may be governed by the UNIDROIT Convention while the domestic one will be left to the jurisdiction of certain domestic law.

Secondly, leaving the international assignment of domestic receivables to the jurisdiction of various law systems of different States can make “commercial practice uncertain, time-consuming and expensive”. The assignee of receivables from a foreign State may not know which State’s law governs the transaction, and, if the law of the assignor’s State applies, the assignee’s rights would be subject to the vagaries of that foreign law. This no doubt would greatly impede the development of such transaction.