【作者】 应燕；

【导师】 王乔；

【作者基本信息】 江西财经大学 ， 财政学， 2009， 博士

【摘要】 预约定价是一种特别的税收制度安排。通过近20年的实践证明,实施预约定价对解决转让定价税务管理中存在的问题具有积极的创造性作用。预约定价强调各相关主体的合作,倡导用非对抗方式解决跨国税收冲突,各方通过协调、妥协达成意见一致,实现征纳双方长期共赢,无疑具有理论与实践双重价值。预约定价的产生源于各国政府对跨国公司转让定价税务规制实践中存在的困难。本文以现有的研究成果为基础,理论结合实践,站在制度存在合理性的高度,对预约定价进行深入分析:论证了预约定价是多个利益主体博弈并最后达到税收利益均衡的机制,是建立在纳税人和税务当局间相互协商与合作的基础上,通过适当妥协和利益让渡,最终谋求征纳双方长期共赢的新型国际税收管理理念。本文分为六章:绪论、跨国公司及其转让定价、预约定价及其理论基础、预约定价规则、特别问题分析和合作解决冲突—国际税收管理新机制。第一章绪论。近30年,跨国公司在全球迅速扩张,催生了转让定价税制的建立并使其逐步完善。跨国公司凭借设在世界各地的子(分)公司,在世界范围内拥有、控制并调度生产要素,实现利益最大化目标。随着跨国公司的发展,其内部分工日益细化,经营模式越来越复杂,经营范围也从单一化走向多样化,形成了企业经营的纵向一体化。交易是有成本的,跨国公司为了节省交易成本,避免中间产品的不完全性,导致了内部化趋势。内部化的显著特征就是利用企业内部控制代替市场规则。跨国公司关联企业之间的内部交易定价,即转让定价。第二章跨国公司及其转让定价。转让定价客观存在,是跨国企业进行内部交易的一个至关重要的调节机制。跨国公司利用转让定价,在跨国公司集团内部人为操纵利润,实现集团整体利益最大化目标。跨国公司转让定价可能出于经营策略、扩大市场份额、合理配置资源、避免外汇风险、避税等目的。虽然避税不是转让定价的首要目的,但客观上却对相关国家的税收造成了扭曲:一方面使税法效力受到减损,主要表现在“价格操纵”侵蚀了税基,使相关国家税收利益流失,还可能使国内税法目的落空;另一方面,转让定价会造成各主体利益失衡,由于转让定价的滥用,破坏了正常的税收秩序,不利于企业之间公平竞争。为此,各国相继在国内税法中引入转让定价税制,规制跨国企业的转让定价行为。公平交易原则是转让定价税制的核心原则,如果跨国公司在关联交易中没有遵循该原则,税务机关有权依据国内税法的有关规定对其进行纳税调整。转让定价调整方法主要有两大类:一类是以价格调整为基础的可比方法,差要包括可比非受控价格法、再销售价格法和成本加成法;另一类是以利润调整为基础的比较利润法,包括可比利润法、利润分割法和交易净利润法。前者对可比性要求很高,对价格信息依赖很强,说服力强,纳税人易于接受,但在实践中,很难找到完全可比的企业和价格;后者对可比性的要求相对较低,合理价格区间的值域取得主要依赖企业经营的历年数据资料和财务指标,该方法适用于产品种类繁多、功能复杂、行业跨度大的企业。目前,各国税务当局都倾向于选择使用利润法进行调整。在实际运用中,税务当局要防止不做可比性分析;直接简单武断地核定利润的做法,切实避免滥用利润法进行纳税调整,防止侵害纳税人的合法利益。转让定价调整困难重重。OECD关联交易转让定价指南提供的调整方法只是理论原则,难以操作。转让定价调整是一项耗时工作,税务当局和纳税人都要投入大量精力并支付昂贵的审计成本;转让定价调整可能导致对纳税人双重征税;可能引起纳税人的争议,甚至国与国之间的税收冲突。预约定价作为转让定价税制的补充机制,应运而生。第三章预约定价及其理论基础。预约定价体现了全新的现代税收征纳关系。在传统理念中,税务当局代表国家实施征税行为,站在公权强势地位,纳税人的合法权益容易被忽视。预约定价,建立在纳税人主动申请、提供资料、与税务当局进行磋商、合作等程序机制上,通过双(多)边谈判,找到利益平衡点,进而达成意见一致。预约定价真正体现了征纳双方的平等关系。预约定价是指从事关联交易的纳税人在受控交易发生之前,和相关税务当局就一些定价标准,如定价方法、可比性、关键假设等进行事先分析,以确定在未来一段时间(通常是3-5年)关联交易的定价方法。预约定价的内涵,包括三个层面:最低层次是把预约定价作为一种转让定价调整方法,是将事后调整变为事前约定的方法;中间层次是把预约定价作为税务当局和纳税人签订的协议,这种协议是具体针对个案的,没有普遍适用性,具有契约性质;最高层次是认为预约定价是一系列制度安排的总称,包括立法、执法和司法过程,是完整的制度规范。预约定价要实现其制度目标,必须有严格的法律程序加以保护。从三个层面理解预约定价内涵的作用在于:在目前各国预约定价相关法律尚不健全的情况下,可以找到在较低位阶的法律框架下实施预约定价的依据,便于预约定价的推行。罚则的引入是纳税人接受预约定价的首要动因。预约定价之所以能被税务当局和纳税人接受,已有的研究认为有两个方面原因:从税务当局的角度,是为了更好地解决转让定价调整中存在的问题;从纳税人的角度,是为了避免被事后审计调查的风险和支付高昂的审计成本。笔者认为,导致纳税人乐于接受预约定价最重要的原因是各国陆续出台的罚则。一般而言,避税并不属于违法行为,不属于税法中规定的处罚对象。所以各国在制定转让定价税制的初期,都只就所调整的应纳税额补税,不处罚。这意味着跨国企业利用关联交易转让定价避税,是没有额外税务风险的:如果税务当局没有审计调整,纳税人独享避税利益;如果被审计调整,纳税人也只是延迟履行其本来的纳税义务。随着各国对转让定价监管力度加大,罚则的引入加大了纳税人转让定价避税的风险成本:一旦被审计调整,纳税人不仅要补税款,还要承担高额罚款。关于罚则,各国具体规定和力度不同,但却是推动纳税人选择预约定价的直接原因。预约定价按照行为主体的不同分为两类:一是单边预约定价,二是双(多)边预约定价。单边预约定价的主体是纳税人和一国税务当局,谈签相对简单,容易达成一致,但却没有完全避免纳税人被双重征税的风险。双(多)边预约定价的主体是纳税人和两国以上的税务当局,前提是各相关国家间已经签订了税收协定,即只有在协定缔约国之间才能启动相互协商程序,实施预约定价。双(多)边预约定价涉及多个国家税收管辖权问题,磋商时间长、程序复杂,达成一致的难度较大。总体来说,预约定价具有一定优势,表现在:纳税人对关联交易的税收负担有了比较明确的预期,有利于纳税人安排经营;双(多)边预约定价避免了对跨国纳税人的双重征税;信息透明,节省了税务当局获取纳税人生产经营情况等资料的成本、也节省了纳税人被事后审计的成本;提供了征纳双方在合作的条件下,协商解决税务问题的机制。但预约定价也不是一个完美的制度,仍然存在以下缺陷:首先单边预约定价并不能完全消除双重征税;其次,预约定价的程序并非简单,效率也不一定很高,仍然是一项费时的工作;再次,信息收集是预约定价的关键环节,没有强大的信息共享和情报交换系统,预约定价只能成为税务腐败和纳税人不遵从税法的合法“幌子”;最后,预约定价还会带来逆向选择。但预约定价是在对关联交易税收管理没有更好办法之前的一个次佳选择,特别是双(多)边预约定价,用合作的方式来解决转让定价争议,有利于保护各相关国家合理的税收利益。在预约定价签定中,要遵循以下原则:公平交易原则、自愿性原则、便于运用原则、诚实信用原则、不公开披露资料原则等。预约定价能否顺利达成,关键性因素即信息资料的准备情况。税务当局对纳税人提供的资料要履行保密义务,不公开披露资料原则是对税务当局权力的约束,也体现了对纳税人合法权益的保护的理念。从法律性质角度看,单边预约定价属于国内法范畴,调整的是相关国家国内税收征纳关系,具有契约特征;而双(多)边预约定价,要求在税收协定框架下启动相互协商程序,属于国际法范畴,调整的是缔约国之间的国际税收关系。预约定价符合税收基础理论。预约定价强调的是征纳主体通过相互配合和有原则的谈判寻求转让定价问题的公平解决办法,实质上并没有改变税收无偿性、固定性和强制性的本质属性。预约定价所约定的是关联交易的定价方法,纳税人的法定纳税义务并没有因为预约定价而得到豁免。同时,预约定价不仅体现了税收中性原则,而且也更好地兼顾了效率和公平原则。第四章预约定价规则。预约定价制度的突出特色在于其程序规则创新。对纳税人关联交易转让定价方法采取事先约定,并以此为依据征税,只要纳税人在实际经营过程中,没有违背签定协议时提出的关键假设,税务当局就不再对其进行事后审计调整。这是在税收管理领域的一个特例。一套预约定价程序分为预备、磋商和执行三个阶段,包括预备会议、正式申请、调查与评估、协议签署和跟踪管理五个步骤,分别属于谈签和执行程序。解决单边预约定价的争议,可以采用税务行政复议或税务行政诉讼;解决双(多)边预约定价的争议,主要依靠相互协商程序。资料和文件的提供,是预约定价中的重要环节。决定预约定价合理价格值域的关键在于信息收集,只有在充分的信息基础上,经过比较、分析,才能使定价趋于公平和合理。而信息取得的一个重要途径是纳税人的配合:纳税人及时准备并提供公司有关生产、经营、财务等方面的同期资料和文件,必要时还要提供关于证明转让定价符合公平交易原则的举证文件。对同期资料的提供,按各国要求不同,大体可以分为以下四类:(1)要求准备同期资料并且需要注册会计师的证明;(2)要求准备同期资料,在年度纳税申报时一并报送或仅在接到税务机关要求时才提交;(3)税务机关鼓励纳税人准备文档;(4)提交有限的同期文档准备。为保证预约定价顺利实施,税务当局和纳税人都必须遵守各自的权利义务。单边预约定价中,纳税人的权利包括申请权、退出磋商权、提出预备会谈权、要求溯及既往权、要求重新协商权、提出合理调整权、草案内容建议权、要求保密权、申请续签权、提出争议解决权,并可享有单边预约定价约定的权利;纳税人义务包括信息提供义务、提出草案建议的义务、配合谈签的义务,并应履行单边预约定价约定的义务。税务当局的主要权利包括是否接受预约定价申请(续签)的权力、退出磋商权、审核和评估草案权、谈判和磋商草案权、撤销权、取消权、调整权,并可享有预约定价约定的权力;税务当局的主要义务是保密义务,还包括举行预备会谈的义务、接受申请后磋商的义务、谈判和磋商草案的义务,并应履行单边预约定价约定的义务。在双(多)边预约定价中,税务当局有义务应纳税人的申请启动相互协商程序,并保证生效的双(多)边预约定价与本国国内税法衔接。第五章特别问题分析。在预约定价实践中,一些预约定价制度比较完善的国家对签定和实施预约定价中的几个关键问题都有明确规定。文章介绍了美国对小企业适用预约定价的规定,并对关键假设、追溯适用、举证责任、罚则等具体规定进行了国际比较,便于在我国的相关立法中借鉴。第六章用合作解决冲突——国际税收管理新机制。预约定价是关于税收利益关系协调的规则,体现的是利益均衡理念。税制的建立应该有利于推进经济社会发展,而不能成为发展的障碍。特别是在经济全球化时代,传统的税收管辖界限变得日益模糊:跨国公司可以利用转让定价轻易地将收入、成本、费用在国与国之间进行调整,各相关国家分得的“应税所得”是多少?征纳双方莫衷一是。转让定价税务管理陷入了“剪不断、理还乱”的窘境。预约定价中蕴含了利益均衡理念:多方利益主体协商、妥协,就是一个经过合作博弈达到利益均衡的过程。在这个过程中,尽管每个税收利益主体都会始终基于自身利益最大化的角度作出选择,但是这种选择会受到其他税收利益主体的抗衡,从而能最终趋向于合理均衡,实现税法的分配性价值,并最大限度保障相对稳定、公平的税收秩序。预约定价改善了税收征纳各方定价信息不对称的状况,降低了利益博弈成本,明显改善了博弈效果。博弈过程是寻找纳税人在遵从税法和利益最大化中的均衡点。预约定价是在遵守国内税法和税收协定共同约束下,有限度的合作和妥协,以纳税人权利为起点,在社会公益基础上,对税收利益进行综合平衡,从而达致均衡。单边预约定价监督了相关国家国内税收收入的合理分配,双(多)边预约定价是国际税收征管合作的结果。税权是国家主权在税收领域的体现,一国仅享有在本国范围内独立制定税收制度的排他性权力。在经济全球化趋势下,税收协调难度越来越大,而短期内的税制融合是不可能的,通过协定、指南、范本等形式,实现各国在一些重大问题上处理方式趋同。税收协调机制向更为切合实际、灵活的方式发展。各相关国家都会根据本国国情权衡以何种方式、在多大程度和范围上让渡国家税收主权,而权衡的结果会直接影响税收协调的程度。一味强调税收主权而丧失经济发展机遇,或一味强调发展,以税收减让为代价的行为都不可取。国际税收协调经过若干年的发展,已经逐步从重宏观协调转变为讲求实效地重视微观协调,因为设想建立国际税收组织和无边界税制无法实现,更现实的方式是相关国家就具体税收问题,如税收征管问题、税收政策等问题进行协调和磋商。各国税务当局只有在合作的基础上,启动相互协商程序,建立广泛的情报交换机制,通过各相关利益主体之间的谈判,达到税收利益均衡,建立稳定、和谐的国际税收征纳关系,一方面打击和遏制国际避税,同时还确保税收利益在各相关国家间的合理分配,实现国与国之间、征纳双方的长久共赢。我国作为发展中大国家,积极参与国际税收合作是我国发展的自身需要,也是我们应该履行的社会责任。更多还原

【Abstract】 As a special tax system arrangement, Advanced Pricing Agreement (APA) has been proved positive and innovative in dealing with transfer pricing issues by practices during past 20 years. APA focuses on cooperation between relevant parties to solve international tax disputes in a non-resisting way. It is definitely valuable both theoretically and practically to achieve long-term win-win situation for tax authority and taxpayers based on coordination and compromise.APA was generated due to difficulties in dealing with transfer pricing issues of multinationals. Based on current research and practices, this paper makes an in-depth analysis on APA from a point of view of rationality: it proves that APA is a mechanism in which balanced tax interests are achieved through gaming among multiple interest subjects, and it is also a new concept in international tax administration based on coordination and cooperation between taxpayers and tax authorities after appropriate compromise. This paper consists of six chapters: Introduction, multinationals and related transactions, APA and its theoretical basis, analysis on special issues and solution to international tax disputes through cooperation.Chapter 1 Introduction Transfer pricing mechanism has been introduced and improved in the past 30 years due to the rapid expansion of multinationals who own, control and dispatch production factors in the whole world through its subsidiaries or branches to maximize their profits. With their development, internal division of labor in these multinationals has been more and more sophisticated with business model being increasingly complicated and business scope being diversified, leaving vertical integration of the business. Multinationals lead the trend of internalization by saving transaction costs and avoiding incomplete middle products. Internalization is featured by internal control rather than market rules. Internal transaction pricing among the associated enterprises of a multinational is transfer pricing which has become an essential regulatory mechanism and a tool for multinationals to maximize their group interests through factitious control.Chapter 2 Multinationals and Related Transactions Transfer pricing is used by multinationals for the sake of their business strategy to expand market, allocate resources rationally, avoid foreign exchange risks and avoid tax, etc. Although it does not top the list, tax avoidance distorts taxation of relevant jurisdictions: on one hand, it reduced force of tax law since tax base is eroded by "control on price", leading to loss of tax interests and failure to implement tax law; on the other hand, transfer pricing causes imbalance of interests among different subjects. Normal taxation regulations and fair competition are breached by abuse of transfer pricing, therefore, tax mechanism on transfer pricing has been introduced in internal tax law by many countries.Arms-length principle is the core of tax mechanism on transfer pricing, namely, transactions between associated enterprises should be priced according to the arms-length transactions between independent enterprises, otherwise tax authorities are entitled to make adjustments.Two major means of TP (transfer pricing) adjustments are available: one targets to the price adjustments including comparable uncontrolled price method, resale price method and cost-plus method; the other focuses on comparable profits based on profit adjustments including comparable profit method, profit split method and transactional profit method. The former is very demanding on comparability and price information which is very difficult to obtain in reality due to lack of totally comparable enterprises and prices; by contrast, the later requires a reasonable range of price which is available from years of data and financial index of an enterprise, it is therefore used to target enterprises producing multiple products with complicate functions and extensive coverage of business. Being the most commonly used method by countries in making adjustment, profit method should not be abused to decide adjusted profit without careful consideration.TP adjustment is very demanding and time-consuming, requiring tax authorities and taxpayers to spend huge energy and auditing cost. It is possible to lead to double taxation, disputes of taxpayer, even tax disputes between countries. APA is therefore introduced as a supplementary mechanism for TP system.Chapter 3 APA and Its Theoretical Basis APA embodies a new and modern relationship between tax authority and taxpayer. Traditionally, tax authority imposes tax as an organization of power on behalf of a state, leaving legal rights of taxpayers neglected. APA is a mechanism to which taxpayer applies and provide information to negotiate and cooperate with tax authority for balanced interest and final agreement. It therefore contributes to equality between the two.APA means that taxpayers involved in associated transactions reach agreements with tax authorities before the controlled transactions in terms of pricing standards, including methods, comparability, suitable adjustments and key assumptions, aiming to decide the pricing method for associated transactions in a period of time in the future (usually 3-5 years). Three levels are introduced to interpret meaning of APA: at the primary level, APA is interpreted as a method of TP adjustment in advance; at the middle level, it is interpreted as an agreement between tax authority and taxpayer case by case, not applicable in other cases, but the procedure and nature of agreement is the same; at the high level, it is referred as a whole of regulations and arrangements, including legislation, law enforcement and jurisdiction. Strict law protection must be at place to realize the aim of APA. It is important to understand APA from the above-mentioned three levels because a legal foundation could be available to apply APA in a lower stage of law framework when laws concerning APA have not yet been sound in many countries.Introduction of punitive provision is the major reason for taxpayers to accept APA. Two major reasons that two parties accept APA have been established by the previous studies: for tax authority, TP problems could be solved more effectively, and for taxpayer, risks of being investigated and high cost in audit could be avoided. This paper stands that the most important driving force for taxpayers to accept APA is punitive provisions since all the countries do not include punitive measures prescribing tax avoidance as illegal in their tax law drafting, instead, it only requires taxpayer to pay the overdue tax. This means that multinationals do not have extra tax risks to avoid tax by TP: they will benefit from tax avoidance if tax authority does not audit and make adjustment, and they’re only required to pay the overdue tax even after audit. As more strict measures against TP being taken by countries, taxpayers have higher risks in avoiding tax through TP because they must pay the overdue tax and be fined heavily. It is worth noticing that this kind of fine is not in its traditional means, rather it is default interest, namely, a fee for taking up tax. Different punitive measures have been made in different countries, and they became a direct driving force for taxpayer to choose APA.APA is classified into two types based on types of subjects: unilateral APA and bilateral (multilateral) APA. The former, having taxpayer and tax authority of one country as its subjects, is relatively easy to be accessed but cannot help taxpayers to avoid risks of double taxation. The later has its subjects as taxpayer and tax authorities from at least two contracting states of tax treaties, this is the prerequisite to initiate mutual agreement procedure and apply APA. Access to the bilateral (multilateral) APA is poor due to time consumed and procedure required. Advantages of APA are as follows: taxpayers can clearly know their future tax burden before arranging their business; bilateral (multilateral) APA can help taxpayer to avoid double taxation; information is transparent, saving tax authorities from collecting information on business of taxpayers and taxpayers from being audited; a mechanism of cooperation and negotiation is provided to solve tax issues. However, it is not yet a perfect system due to the following shortcomings: first, unilateral APA can not save taxpayer from double taxation; second, APA is still time-consuming and relatively inefficient thanks to its procedures; second, without powerful information sharing and exchanging system, APA will be a legal "mask" for corruption and tax law breach since information collection is a key stage in APA; finally, APA will cause reverse choice. But APA, bilateral (multilateral) APA in particular, is the second best choice before a best one is introduced in order to solve TP caused disputes and protect legal tax interest of relative countries.Chapter 4 Ruling of APA Following principles should be followed in APA negotiation: arms length principle, principle of voluntaries, principle of being pragmatic, principle of honest and credibility, principle of binding effects on two parties, principle of secrecy, etc. Reaching APA depends on information preparation to a large extent. Tax authority is obligated to keep secrecy of information offered by taxpayer to ensure legal interest of taxpayers.As far as its legal nature is concerned, unilateral APA has the nature of contract within the framework of internal law, adjusting relations between internal tax authority and taxpayers of a country. Bilateral (multilateral) APA belongs to international law to adjust relations of international taxation between contracting states.APA is consistent with basic taxation theory since it emphasizes on searching for a fair solution to TP issues based on cooperation and negotiation with principles being followed, maintaining the essential attribute of taxation of being gratuitous, fixed and mandatory. Taxpayer’s obligation is not exempted due to APA, which only defines pricing methods for associated transactions. APA embodies the principles of neutrality, efficiency and equality.APA is featured by its procedure innovation. It is a special mechanism in taxation system to agree on TP method applied to associated transactions by taxpayers in advance and impose tax accordingly. Three stages are necessary to achieve APA including preparation, negotiation and implementation, and five steps are required during the last two stages, namely, preparatory meeting, formal application, investigation and assessment, negotiation and signature, and tracking management. Disputes in unilateral APA could be solved through administrative reviews or administrative proceedings, while bilateral (multilateral) APA disputes are solved through mutual agreement procedure.Provision of information and documents is essential in APA because it is the basis for consideration and analysis to determine a reasonable pricing range, and therefore taxpayers are required to cooperate by providing simultaneous documents timely and accurately concerning its business running and financial information, and even prove that their TP methods are consistent with Arms length principle if necessary.Different countries require differently concerning provision of simultaneous documents, but this basically falls into four types: (1) simultaneous documents and proof of registered accountants; (2) required simultaneous documents should be submitted along with annul tax returns or when tax authority requires; (3) tax authority encourages taxpayers to prepare documents; (4) limited simultaneous documents preparation should be submitted.Both tax authority and taxpayer are required to abide by their obligations and rights to ensure smooth implementation of APA. Rights of taxpayer in unilateral APA are: application, withdrawal from negotiation, proposal of holding preparatory meeting, demands on retroactivity, demands on renegotiation, proposal on reasonable adjustment, suggestion on drafts made, demands on secrecy, application for renewal, demands on dispute solution, demands for compensation, and right of enjoy the unilateral APA; taxpayers obligations are: disclosure of information, suggestion on drafts, cooperation in negotiation and signature, and implementation of other obligations defined in the unilateral APA. Tax authority has the following rights: accept or reject application (renewal) of APA, withdrawal from negotiation, audit and assessment of draft, negotiation on drafts, rescission, cancellation and adjustment, and other rights defined in APA; and tax authority has following obligations, including: keeping secrecy, holding preparatory meeting, accepting negotiation after application, negotiating on drafts and implementing other obligations defined in unilateral APA. In bilateral (multilateral) APA, tax authority is obligated to initiate mutual agreement procedure at the request of taxpayer and ensure consistency between bilateral (multilateral) APA entering into force and domestic law.Chapter 5 Analysis on Special Issues Countries with sound APA system have explicit regulations targeting common problems with implementation of APA. This paper introduces regulations on small-sized enterprises in the United States and makes comparison among countries in terms of critical assumptions, rollback, proof of burden, penalties and other detailed regulations.Chapter 6 Solution to International Tax Disputes Through Cooperation. APA embodies a concept of balanced interest as it is an arrangement and rule of adjustment concerning tax interest. This paper, for the first time, argues that the concept of balanced interest should be introduced in tax field. Tax system should be conducive to economic and social development particularly in a time of globalization when the boundary of tax jurisdiction is gradually vague: multinationals can easily adjust their income, cost and expenses through transfer pricing among countries, so how much taxable income should each of the relevant countries be entitled to? Both tax authority and taxpayers have their own views. It is therefore fair to say that administration on transfer pricing falls into embarrassment. However, APA is a mechanism containing a concept of balanced interest and asking multiple stakeholders to negotiate and compromise to realize balanced interest after cooperation and gaming. During this course, each tax stakeholder will make choice aiming to maximized interest while being counterbalanced by other stakeholders, hence a final reasonable balance between interest and realization of value of tax law in terms of attribution and a stable and fair tax system. APA reduces information asymmetry between tax authority and taxpayer and improves result of gaming. The course of gaming is to look for balance between tax law compliance and interest maximization. APA means cooperation and compromise to certain extent under combined constrains of both domestic tax law and tax treaty, it helps to achieve balance of tax interest based on taxpayers rights and public interest. Unilateral APA monitors distribution of tax income of relevant countries and bilateral (multilateral) APA is the achievement of cooperation between countries.Tax rights embody national sovereignty from tax perspective that one country has exclusive right to make tax regulations inside its boundary. However, economic globalization tends to harm tax sovereignty. Therefore one country cannot afford to neither focusing on tax sovereignty at the expense of economic development nor emphasizing on development while ignoring tax income. Tax authorities throughout the world should make efforts to achieve tax interest balance and stable, harmonious relations with taxpayers based on cooperation, mutual agreement, and extensive information exchange network and negotiations between relevant stakeholders. Only by so doing can the long-term win-win situation be possible by cracking down on tax avoidance while ensuring reasonable tax interest among relevant countries. We are the biggest developing country in the world, participating the international tax cooperation positively is our own needs and our social responsibility.更多还原