预约定价应税事实确认制度的法理探析--基于理性商谈理论的考察  

A Legal Analysis of the System Confirming Taxable Facts for Advance Pricing:An Examination Based on the Theory of Rational Discourse

作　　者：张世明[1] ZHANG Shiming(School of Law,Renmin University of China)

机构地区：[1]中国人民大学法学院

出　　处：《中国人民大学学报》2022年第2期144-157,共14页Journal of Renmin University of China

基　　金：国家社会科学基金后期资助重点项目“税法方法贯通论”(20FFXA004)阶段性成果。

摘　　要：预约定价安排并非逸出税收法定主义框架范围之外的异化物,但其对法的安定性构成的挑战亦非杞人忧天。与已然“应税事实”的认定或者推定不同,预约定价安排确切地说是对尚未完结的未然“应税事态”进行预设和制约的协定。但是,由于在中国的法学文献中,作为事实关系的应税法律已然事态一般不加区别地被视同为应税法律事实,实际上采取的是一种广义的“事实”概念,因此,将预约定价税制作为应税事实认定制度也未尝不可。从哈贝马斯的理性商谈理论来看,基于预约定价安排的事实认定是一种“主体间性”的认知结果,属于“合意论”或者说“共识论”。预约定价安排确定的法律事实其实是建构的制度事实。中国作为一个发展中大国的空间特性决定了其需要从自身独特的经济条件和市场环境出发探索创新预约定价实操方法。Advance pricing arrangements(APAs)are not alienated from the framework of tax legalism,but the challenges that they pose to the stability of the law are not unfounded.Different from the identification or presumption of existing taxable facts,APAs amount to be an agreement that presupposes and restricts the unfinished future taxable cases.However,because in Chinese legal literature the state of taxable cases as the results of factual relationship is indiscriminately regarded as legal taxable facts that in reality reflect a broad concept of“facts,”it is reasonable to make the convention of advance pricing tax as part of the system of identifying taxable facts.According to Habermas’s theory of rational discourse,determining a fact on the basis of advance pricing arrangements constitutes a cognitive result of“intersubjectivity”consistent with the“consensus theory.”In reality,the legal facts determined by APAs are constructed institutional facts.China is a large developing country.Its spatial characteristics require the exploration of innovative advance pricing practices based on its own unique economic conditions and marketing environment.

关 键 词：预约定价安排 应税事实 理性商谈理论 税收法定主义 

分 类 号：D912.2[政治法律—民商法学]