It should be emphasized that the mere statement that the posted worker is employed by the U.S. unit under an employment contract or a posting contract is unlikely to prevent the non-U.S. company from being treated as a permanent establishment in the United States. As already noted, an analysis of all the particular facts and circumstances is necessary to determine which enterprise is the true employer and whether the non-U.S. enterprise has a permanent establishment in the United States. These new provisions make it easier for international companies dealing with China to send their employees from Switzerland to China. Nevertheless, in the interests of social security, posting leads to a permanent establishment (PE) under the double taxation agreement between Switzerland and China. In the event that a posting agreement is considered by the tax authorities as a provision of services in China, the Home Entity will be suspended from 1 August 2013 as part of the VAT reform from 1 August 2013 bt or vat, and if the Home Entity is a PE in China, it will also be subject to the CIT for profit. Staff working for pe are subject to the IIT from the first day of their deployment in China. All tax liabilities could be significant compared to those of the discharge agreement. It is therefore recommended that companies review their existing cross-border exploration agreements, prepare appropriate documentation to provide strong evidence of the authenticity of the shipping regimes or restructure the shipping regimes to minimize potential tax risks.
The tax authorities and the host unit may have different views due to the ambiguity of the tax rules as regards the assessment of taxable presence or the EP for cross-border posting agreements. As a result, the host company often has difficulty obtaining the tax security certificate and cannot make the payment to its foreign-origin company. The situation is expected to change from 1 June 2013. (i) the contract or agreement between the Chinese subsidiary, the U.S. company and the Second; Perhaps in response to the lack of implementation of Opinion 75 and the fact that local tax authorities, which have direct responsibility for taxpayers, are generally unaware of bilateral tax agreements, the SAT issued relevant questions last April regarding the collection of corporate tax for non-resident enterprises that send staff to provide services in the People`s Republic of China. (SAT Announcement  no. . . .