Wine And Taxes And How To Do Business In China.
Evan Osnos's most recent New Yorker article [this is just an abstract, you will need to pay $4.99 or subscribe to see the full story] is so chock full of juicy China law and business (and even tax) tidbits I just know I am going to be rambling a bit in this post. So to make it at least somewhat readable, I am going to take the unprecedented step of breaking this post into sections so I can really ramble, completely guilt free, yet with some semblance of cohesion. Please do not turn away for fear of rambling, for if you stay, I guarantee you will learn plenty. I guarantee it.
SECTION I. I Love Writ Large. I have said it before and I will say it again: the best articles on how to do business in China are those that talk about the trials and tribulations and successes of a particular business. It is easy and not unimportant to say something like how one must conduct due diligence on your China partner, but if that sort of advice is going to stick with you, you need some great story as to why. At least I do.
I got a complimentary email just yesterday from a reader who touted our "anecdotes" that he "would not be able to get any other way." I emailed back with the following:
I just wish I could share more of them [anecdotes]. As it is, I usually need to wait a long time and then camouflage them so nobody knows of whom I am speaking, especially the clients/near clients.The funny thing is that we’ve had only one complaint and that was from some tiny American company in China that told Steve (my co-blogger based in China) it was pissed off at me for having talked about them in a post. The weird thing is that I had NEVER once communicated with this company and Steve had done so only once and he had NEVER told me anything about that conversation (not even that it had taken place) and I never even knew this company existed, much less knew anything about them that would be blog-worthy. So to this day I have no clue even what they are talking about or to which post they have their beef. But that’s what’s so great about the anecdote posts -- they absolutely apply to far more people/companies than just the one or two or three companies of which we am writing.
SECTION II. China Taxes and Going Offshore. We seldom discuss taxes on this blog because they tend to be boring and they tend to be so particularized to one's own particular situation that posts would end up having to be super long to be very helpful. It also bothers me how many small and start-up companies focus too much on taxes and not enough on setting up a strong and legal foundation for generating profits. One of my mentors when I first started practicing law used to tell me that the start-up company that wants to talk more about taxes than anything else never makes it. He would analogize it to the wide receiver in football who starts running away from defenders before he has caught the ball. I too am always surprised/unimpressed by companies that seem more concerned about how to avoid paying taxes on money they have yet to earn and may never earn than on how to set themselves up so that their operations can thrive.
And going "offshore" plays into this. Many years ago, a company came to us with forty or so offshore companies. Yes, forty. I asked them how all these companies were working for them and they said they were a "pain." I asked why they had set up so many companies and got a somewhat convoluted explanation that I translated to mean that this company's previous lawyers and accountants had, over time, convinced them of the need for each of them. Note that lawyers and accountants have a bias for advising you form lots of companies. They/wenot only make money in the formation, once the companies have been formed, their upkeep becomes a virtual annuity. To make a short story even shorter, we consolidated the forty companies into five and we get "thanks" for this nearly every time we speak with this client for having saved them considerable time, headache, and money.
Anthony Noto, a Shanghai based Financial Planner for expats (mostly) recently sent me an article he wrote for CFA magazine on the potential perils of investing offshore, entitled, "Siren Songs: offshore investors are sailing in treacherous waters." and "Offshore Misconceptions."
I am NOT saying there is no place for offshore investments and offshore companies, because there most certainly is. But you should be wary of an adviser who seems overeager to set you up "offshore" or who touts going offshore as a panacea. Always weigh the costs against the benefits.
SECTION III. China Taxes.Yes, Again. But This Time With Even More Feeling. In the last six months or so, China has become so serious about collecting taxes that I estimate my firm's work on such matters has tripled. My firm does nearly all its work on a flat fee basis. And about half the time when we do not flat fee a matter, we do it hourly with a billing cap. We were doing this before the BigLaw crash and we are used to it. Being used to it means we are usually really good at figuring out a fee that is fair for both our clients and for us.
But what we are finding on our more recent China tax/customs matters is that they are taking about twice as much time as we anticipated and that is because they have become not so routine as China is really starting to crack down on foreign company tax reporting. In particular, China is auditing/not trusting valuations and it is holding up all sorts of things to confirm pricing. We are especially seeing this in transfer pricing, where the Chinese tax authorities have been told from above (Beijing) to generate more taxes and they are absolutely seeking to do so by questioning transfer prices between foreign companies and their related Chinese entities. China seems to be issuing a new circular on transfer pricing every other week. We will write more later on how China's massively increased enforcement of its tax laws is having profound impacts on foreign companies doing business in China, but for now, suffice it to say that it really really is.
SECTION IV. China in the Mainstream Media. I used to complain fairly often about the quality of reporting on China, but then things started to improve, I started confining my reading to only the better publications, and I also may even have mellowed out a bit. But the overly harsh and uninformed criticisms of President Obama's trip to China made me realize anew how so many of the people writing for the MSM do not know much about that which is outside their own countries. Three things really bothered me about much of the reporting on Obama's trip. One, that the stories purported to know what was going on behind closed doors and that Obama had achieved nothing. Two, that they failed to understand that using a bludgeon against China has a long history of ineffectiveness. Three, many of them sought to contrast Obama's conciliatory approach with the ineffective bludgeoning approach used by GW Bush, but Bush did NOT use a bludgeoning approach with China during his second term.
Anyway, if you want really good writing on China, you should be reading the Atlantic for James Fallows, and the New Yorker for Peter HesslerandEvan Osnos. You should also be reading the Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times, Forbes, Business Week, The Washington Post, the Economist, and the China Economic Review as those are the places in the mainstream media where you will consistently see well-written, accurate and informative writing on China. The New York Times is fine too, but its "when in Shanghai, one must dine at Jean-Georges approach" tends to turn me off.
And speaking of Osnos, and speaking of the main purpose of this post:
SECTION V. China Business Today, As It Really Is. Taxes Too. The November 23 issue of the New Yorker has an absolutely great article by Evan Osnos, in his Letter from China series, entitled, "Reds" [this is just an abstract, you need to subscribe for the full article]. The article is both fascinating and informative. If I could write like Osnos, I could have and would have written ten such articles, it is that true to life.
The article is about Donald St. Pierre, Sr., who founded A.S.C. Fine Wines in Beijing in 1996, and has taken that company to amazing heights, but who also faced (and mostly beat off) serious customs claims/charges of "falsifying prices" for customs purposes. The article does a great job explaining how A.S.C. so deftly managed to market its wines in China and should be read for that alone. But the parts on how the legal landscape of doing business in China has changed so drastically over the years were what really grabbed me.
The article talks about how it was believed that many (most?) in the wine business were under-reporting the prices they were paying for their product and of how the wine industry, like so many others, had grown too fast for Chinese regulators "to keep pace." When China really stepped up enforcement against those in the wine business, it secured "punishment" in 29 cases (presumably against 29 different, mostly foreign(?) China wine importers).
Why did so many companies think they could get away with violating China's laws? Donald St. Pierre has the absolute right answer:
When you first start doing business in China, "No one sits you down and says, 'You've arrived in China. These are the laws.' Because people just don't think they apply to them! And they do now.
Donald St. Pierre's son, Donald Jr., makes a similarly prescient comment:
I think what we went through clearly shows that if you are engaged in business you are subject to the same rules as everybody else.
SECTION VI. It is Very Relevant. Trust Me. The next time somebody insists to me that they do not need to abide by China's laws (and trust me, there will be such a next time and it will no doubt be fairly soon) because they have such a great reservoir of guanxi or because some local official will be giving them cover or because they are aware of some other company that has gotten away with doing the same thing for years, I am going to tell them to spend $4.99 to download Osnos's article from the New Yorker. Donald St. Pierre had massive guanxi yet he ended up spending time in a Chinese detention center and his company incurred a six figure fine.
China has laws (plenty of them and they are ever changing as well) and they do apply to foreign companies and individuals (more so than to domestic companies) and a failure to abide by them can lead to trouble. And this has become particularly true in the tax and customs arena.
I guarantee it.
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.chinalawblog.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/3369
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Wine And Taxes And How To Do Business In China.:


Comments
Great post. I laughed my head off at your links, all the while nodding my head at your advice.
Posted by: Jason | November 30, 2009 10:01 AM
Based on what you're saying about China examining its taxation policies as pertaining to foreign companies, many people will think about cutting off or moving their businesses with China. I think many American businesses move into China because they assume it is largely unregulated and untaxed and therefore cheaper for them to operate. If they're losing that, what motivation will they have to stay?
Posted by: Joe | November 30, 2009 3:48 PM
Joe,
In my view businesses (particularly American) very rarely move to Chinese because of low taxation. Rather, companies go to China for two main reasons (from what I have seen):
1. cheap labour and associated manufacturing costs;
2. access to a domestic market of 1.3billion.
The arguments you make are the reason why it has taken the Chinese government so long to reform its tax system so that it is comparable with most developed nations. However, they were never overly convincing arguments and China has moved past the stage where taxation would ever be a determining reason to base a business here.
Further, as I understand, the US taxes its companies on income earned worldwide, accordingly there is really no overall tax benefit (apart from deferral) in choosing to base your business in a low tax jurisdiction.
Posted by: Matthew | November 30, 2009 5:18 PM
Dan,
On your more substantive point in relation to crude use of off-shore companies, this is a point that I have made time and again. I actually recently posted on this issue at my blog - http://chinataxinsights.com/?p=164
As a tax lawyer, I see it from a slightly different angle - the problem is primarily caused by lawyers who don't truly under the interrelationship between countries' tax laws.
Posted by: Matthew | November 30, 2009 9:42 PM
Jason,
Thanks.
I just hope everyone follows the links...
Posted by: Dan | November 30, 2009 11:37 PM
Joe,
If you are asking whether companies should come to China thinking they can get away without paying taxes, I would agree with you that they should not. If you are going to have a successful company in China with more than a few employees, the days of operating off the gird are over. I think the impact of these companies no longer coming to China or remaining in China is downright negligible however.
Posted by: Dan | November 30, 2009 11:42 PM
Matthew,
You make a good point re deferral of taxes versus avoidance. The problem is that many (most?) people think having an offshore structure equals automatic tax avoidance; they do not understand that the money gets taxed once it is brought into the United States.
I agree with you that many who endlessly tout the benefits of offshore vehicles do not fully understand the interrelationship between countries' tax laws, which is all the more reason why they should not be trusted.
Again, I am not saying there is no place for offshore companies, but that place is not everywhere.
Posted by: Dan | November 30, 2009 11:46 PM
An example of where an off-shore company could be useful is if you set up a Delaware company that does business in China, any tax rebates that you have in China don't have any benefit to you because you end up paying US federal tax on the difference.
The structure that gets around that issue is to have an offshore company that owns both the US company and the Chinese company (note here that having the US company own the offshore company that owns the Chinese company won't work because then you have Controlled Foreign Corporation rules).
The other issue here is how much you are going to save on taxes versus how much you are going to spend with tax lawyers and accountants. Really, really good tax lawyers and accountants are expensive. If you are going to invest a billion dollars, then yes, you can and should spend a million for top notch accountants and lawyers to make sure all of the i's are dotted and t's are crossed. (As well as compliance officers and extra managers.)
If you are going to invest ten million, then it's probably going to hurt you to make things more complex, and SME's need to keep things as simple as possible.
One problem with things like off-shore corporations is that people often see them as status symbols. Being complex is like having a corporate jet. The trouble is that for a lot of SME's, complexity is bad.
One of the misconceptions that people have is that things like off-shore companies, and complex structures let big corporations and the hyper-rich get away with paying nothing in taxes. This isn't the case because:
1) If you are a big company with deep pockets, you are going to be under the microscope so you have to hire a ton of lawyers anyway.
2) You really don't save a huge relative amount of money with these sorts of structures. If you are investing $1 billion, and you save 5% on your taxes, this is enough to hire a ton of lawyers. If you are investing $10 million, a 5% tax savings is probably not worth the trouble.
Posted by: Twofish | December 1, 2009 9:25 AM