Labor: Are U.S. companies tempting the China tax authorities over seconding?
In cases where employees are considered to have permanent establishment, seconding arrangements could have corporate income tax and business tax implications for a U.S. employer.
October 07, 2013 at 05:00 AM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
It has been a common practice for U.S. employers to send foreign employees to work for subsidiaries in China on a secondment basis. A secondment arrangement is where the employee maintains his or her employment relationship with the U.S. employer, but provides services to the Chinese subsidiary. In many locations in China, the foreign employee is able to obtain a work permit on this basis. The main advantages of a secondment arrangement over having the subsidiary hire the foreign employee is that it avoids bringing the employment relationship under Chinese law, which is very employee friendly, and it allows the employee to continue to participate in home country benefits.
However, in recent years, the Chinese tax authorities have scrutinized secondment arrangements more closely to determine if the U.S. employer has created a permanent establishment in China. If the tax authorities determine that a permanent establishment has been created, this will have Chinese tax implications for the U.S. employer.
The State Administration of Taxation recently released Bulletin [2013] No. 19, “Announcement on Issues Concerning Levying Corporate Income Tax on Services Provided by Non-residents through Seconding Personnel to China” (Bulletin 19) to provide guidance regarding permanent establishment issues arising from secondment arrangements. This went into effect on June 1, 2013.
If a secondee is deemed in substance to be the employee of an overseas entity instead of the Chinese entity to which he or she is seconded to during the period of secondment, the business activities are treated as a taxable establishment (what is called a permanent establishment, or PE) in China. In such case, the income generated from the permanent establishment is subject to corporate income tax in China.
Bulletin 19 sets out a primary factor and several reference factors for determining whether a PE exists. The primary factor focuses on the employment relationship. If the overseas entity bears any portion of the responsibilities and risks for the work performed by a secondee, and regularly evaluates his or her performance, the arrangement will, in principle, be considered to create a PE.
The following are the five reference factors that focus on the financial arrangement of a secondment arrangement:
- The Chinese subsidiary pays the U.S. employer management fees or makes payments in the nature of service fees
- The payments made by the Chinese subsidiary exceeds the secondees' wages, salaries, social security contributions, and other expenses borne by the U.S. employer
- The U.S. employer does not pass on all the related payments made by the Chinese subsidiary to the secondee
- Individual income tax in China is not paid on the full amount of the secondee's wages and salaries borne by the U.S. employer
- The U.S. employer decides the number, qualification, remuneration and working locations of secondees in China
If the primary factor and any one of the reference factors are satisfied, the secondee will likely be considered an employee of the overseas entity providing services in China. In such case, this arrangement could have corporate income tax and business tax implications for a U.S. employer.
Given the tax risks, should U.S. employers abandon secondment arrangements?
Absolutely not. There are risks associated with putting employees under a Chinese law governed employment contract as well. It is extremely difficult to terminate employees in China and in most cases, employers need to mutually agree the termination with an employee. This involves a discretionary financial payment to get the employee to agree to the termination, which is often a multiple of an employee's monthly salary. If the employee is a senior level employee, as often is the case with secondment arrangements, a termination will be very expensive for a U.S. employer. Each individual secondment arrangement needs to be evaluated to balance the tax and employment risks.
Bulletin 19 is essentially indicating that if a seconded employee is in substance over form an employee of a Chinese subsidiary, then despite the continued employment relationship with an overseas company, this is not the type of arrangement the tax authorities are targeting. Secondment arrangements continue to be a viable option for sending U.S. employees to China subsidiaries if structured correctly.
Bulletin 19 indicates that the tax authorities will look at the following to determine if the primary factor and any reference factors have been satisfied:
- The contract or agreement between the Chinese subsidiary, the U.S. company and the secondee
- Rules for the management of the secondee, including those regarding their responsibilities, job description and performance reviews
- Payments made by the Chinese subsidiary to the U.S. employer relating to the secondment and how they were treated from an accounting perspective
- Chinese individual income tax paid by a secondee
- Hidden payments made by the Chinese subsidiary that could be related to the secondment arrangement (offsets, forgiving debt or third party transactions)
Secondment arrangements continue to be an important option for U.S. companies sending their employees to work for their Chinese subsidiaries. However, given the increased scrutiny of secondment arrangements by Chinese tax authorities, it is now more important to carefully structure these correctly than it has been in the past.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllInternal Whistleblowing Surged Globally in 2024, So Why Were US Numbers Flat?
6 minute readLawyers' Phones Are Ringing: What Should Employers Do If ICE Raids Their Business?
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1We the People?
- 2New York-Based Skadden Team Joins White & Case Group in Mexico City for Citigroup Demerger
- 3No Two Wildfires Alike: Lawyers Take Different Legal Strategies in California
- 4Poop-Themed Dog Toy OK as Parody, but Still Tarnished Jack Daniel’s Brand, Court Says
- 5Meet the New President of NY's Association of Trial Court Jurists
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250