International Tax Planning: China's New Regime for Taxing Expatriate Income: Tightening the Screws or Vintage Wine in a New Bottle?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Expatriates have been fundamental to China's economic growth, contributing to the country's socioeconomic development and modernization. The second-largest group of expatriates in China are North Americans. Personal income taxation concessions for expatriate workers have been an important instrument to attract and retain skilled foreign labour since China opened its doors to foreign investment and an income tax was adopted four decades ago. A recent overhaul of the law on individual income tax introduced a number of changes to expatriate income taxation, including the winding back of some preferential concessions previously offered only to expatriates. A literal reading of these changes suggests that the new regime has led to harsher tax treatment of expatriates and increased their tax liability. This article considers whether this view holds up, by closely analyzing the new system's major features relating to individual income tax as they affect expatriates. The authors challenge the literal reading of the law and argue that the recent changes have not fundamentally altered the underlying policy on expatriate income taxation. Further, an economically stronger China has not observed any diminishment of the role of personal income taxation as an instrument of government policy, despite the recent changes. A generous interpretation of the legal terms and rules, and of the application of concessions under the amended system, may encourage more lenient treatment of Canadians and other expatriates working and living in China.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".