论文部分内容阅读
《OECD税收协定范本》“代理人常设机构”条款的主体要件规定没有兼顾大陆法系与普通法系代理制度之间的差异。由于《OECD税收协定范本》英法版本的差异,其第5条第5款与第6款的关系也成为学者争论的话题。我国代理制度本身存在立法失误,相关法律概念也处于混乱状态,加之我国税收协定条文及其解释与范本及其注释之间存在不同之处,这些因素共同造成我国税收协定“代理人常设机构”条款需得到明确解释。
The main requirements of the “Model OECD Model Tax Agreement,” “Agency Permanent Agency,” did not take into account the differences between the civil law system and the common law agency system. Due to the differences between the English and French versions of the “OECD Model Tax Agreement Model,” the relationship between Article 5, paragraph 5, and paragraph 6 has also become a topic of debate among scholars. In our country, there are legislative mistakes in the agency system itself and the related legal concepts are also in chaos. Besides, there are differences between the provisions of our tax treaties and their interpretations and models and their annotations. All of these factors cause our tax treaties Terms need to be clearly explained.