欢迎扫描下方二维码关注： 4.已发生或将发生的销售方的成本能够可靠地核算。 申税小微，我们公司一直是开票后申报缴纳企业所得税，想问下企业所得税上什么时候确认收入？可以具体给我介绍一下吗？ 答 （二）符合上款收入确认条件，采取下列商品销售方式的，应按以下规定确认收入实现时间： 1.销售商品采用托收承付方式的，在办妥托收手续时确认收入。 2.销售商品采取预收款方式的，在发出商品时确认收入。 3. 销售商品需要安装和检验的，在购买方接受商品以及安装和检验完毕时确认收入。如果安装程序比较简单，可在发出商品时确 收入。 4.销售商品采用支付手续费方式委托代销的， 在收到代销清单时确认收入 。 三 提供劳务的收入确认时间是如何规定的？ 根据《国家税务总局关于确认企业所得税收入若干问题的通知》（国税函〔2008〕875号）规定："企业在各个纳税期末， 供劳务交易的结果能够可靠估计的，应采用 完工进度（完工百分比）法 确认提供劳务收入。 （一）提供劳务交易的结果能够可靠估计，是指同时满足下列条件： 1 收入的金额能够可靠地计量； 2 交易的完工进度能够可靠地确定； 3 交易中已发生和将发生的成本能够可靠地核算。 （二）企业提 ...

Core Viewpoint - The Hong Kong High Court issued a historic ruling on September 16, 2025, imposing a global injunction against the assets of Evergrande's founder Xu Jiayin, prohibiting the disposal of assets valued up to $7.7 billion (approximately 55 billion RMB) [2] Group 1: Asset Seizure Details - The court allowed the liquidators of China Evergrande to take control of Xu Jiayin's assets, which include properties in Hong Kong, the UK, and the US, as well as luxury items such as private jets and yachts [7] - The assets under seizure involve 33 offshore companies and seven bank accounts directly held by Xu Jiayin, with accounts frozen at major banks including Bank of China Hong Kong, HSBC, and DBS [6][3] Group 2: Family Trust Structure - Xu Jiayin and his wife, Ding Yumei, reportedly established a substantial offshore trust structure for their children before the Evergrande crisis, with a single-family trust fund amounting to $2.3 billion set up around 2019 [8][9] - The trust was designed with strict distribution rules, allowing the eldest son to receive periodic income while preserving the principal for future generations, indicating a strategy for long-term wealth preservation [11] Group 3: Legal Principles Behind the Ruling - The court's ability to penetrate the family trust was supported by four legal principles, including the substance-over-form principle, which examines the true intent and control behind the trust [13] - The fraudulent conveyance principle was applied, as evidence showed that Xu Jiayin transferred significant personal assets to the trust while being aware of Evergrande's financial troubles [17] - The court also highlighted the lack of independence in the trust, determining that Xu Jiayin retained excessive control, undermining the trust's intended asset protection function [19] Group 4: Implications for Offshore Trusts - The ruling challenges the perception of offshore trusts as "absolutely safe," emphasizing that trusts can be vulnerable to legal scrutiny if used to evade debt obligations [20][21] - The case reflects a broader trend where courts are willing to disregard the protective veneer of trusts when they are perceived as tools for asset concealment [24]

Core Insights - The Hong Kong High Court's landmark ruling on September 16, 2025, authorized liquidators to take control of Xu Jiayin's assets, including those in his offshore family trust, leading to the freezing of $7.7 billion (approximately 55 billion RMB) in assets across 12 countries and regions [1][5][6] Group 1: Legal and Financial Implications - The ruling dismantled the myth that offshore trusts are a foolproof means of asset protection, emphasizing that actual control over assets negates the independence of the trust [6][12] - The court's decision was based on principles of "substance over form" and "fraudulent asset transfer," indicating that debtors cannot shield wealth from creditors through trusts while incurring massive debts [6][12] - Xu Jiayin's family trust, established in 2019 with $2.3 billion (approximately 1.64 billion RMB) in assets, was found to be under his control, undermining its intended protective function [5][6] Group 2: Financial Condition of Evergrande - Evergrande's total liabilities reached 2.38 trillion RMB, with 320.3 billion RMB overdue domestically and $19.1 billion overseas, resulting in 750,000 unfinished housing projects and numerous suppliers trapped in debt [3][5] - The company's market capitalization plummeted from over 370 billion HKD at its peak to just 2.15 billion HKD, reflecting a loss of over 99% in value [3][5] - Following its delisting from the Hong Kong Stock Exchange on August 25, 2025, Evergrande faced a complete lack of funding options in the capital market, with retail investors left holding worthless shares [3][5] Group 3: Asset Details and Recovery Efforts - The liquidators initiated a global asset recovery operation, targeting Xu Jiayin's luxury properties, including 33 high-end residences in central London and a commercial building in Manhattan valued at $750 million [8][12] - The assets were structured through offshore companies, but investigations revealed that Xu Jiayin retained decision-making power, rendering the trust ineffective for asset protection [8][12] - The ongoing legal battles within Xu Jiayin's family, particularly involving his ex-wife, highlight the complexities and potential conflicts arising from asset distribution within the trust [9][12] Group 4: Lessons and Broader Implications - The case serves as a cautionary tale for business leaders about the risks of using legal loopholes for asset protection, emphasizing the importance of legitimate wealth planning [12][14] - The increasing scrutiny of offshore trusts and the legal frameworks surrounding them indicate a shift towards protecting creditor rights over debtor interests in financial crises [6][12] - The downfall of Evergrande illustrates the consequences of poor financial management and the need for a balanced approach to risk and reward in business operations [14]

Core Viewpoint - Recent news regarding Xu Jiayin's overseas family trust being "pierced" has gained significant attention, but the actual court ruling is less dramatic than portrayed online [1][8] Summary by Sections Court Ruling Details - The Hong Kong High Court's ruling on September 16 was in response to Evergrande Group's application for a receiver to manage Xu Jiayin's assets, following a previous court order for liquidation [1][4] - The ruling confirmed that the receiver would oversee Xu Jiayin's assets, but did not explicitly mention the overseas family trust in the scope of the takeover [4][7] Asset Management and Disclosure - Xu Jiayin was previously ordered to disclose assets valued at over 50,000 HKD, but failed to comply, leading to the appointment of a receiver to ensure enforcement of the injunction [2][4] - The receiver has the authority to access information about the assets but does not have the power to dispose of them [4] Trust and Legal Implications - The court's references to "trust" were primarily in the context of legal precedents and did not directly address Xu Jiayin's trust [5][7] - Legal experts argue that the notion of the trust being "pierced" is premature, as the ruling is procedural and does not affect the substantive rights to the assets [8][9] Factors Influencing Trust Validity - The potential for the family trust to be "pierced" depends on various factors, including the design of the trust, legal jurisdiction, and whether there are indications of fraudulent behavior [9][10] - Common scenarios for trust "piercing" include intentional misuse of trust assets or procedural failures in trust management [10]

Core Viewpoint - The recent ruling by the Hong Kong High Court regarding Xu Jiayin's overseas family trust has sparked significant public interest, but the interpretation that the trust has been "pierced" is premature [1][8]. Group 1: Court Ruling Background - The Hong Kong High Court's ruling is part of the ongoing liquidation process of China Evergrande Group, which was ordered in January last year, and a lawsuit was filed against Xu Jiayin and others in March [2]. - A previous injunction prohibited Xu Jiayin from disposing of assets valued at up to $7.7 billion, requiring him to disclose assets worth over 50,000 HKD within a week [2][3]. - Xu Jiayin's non-compliance with the disclosure order led to the appointment of a liquidator to manage his assets to ensure the injunction's enforcement [2]. Group 2: Scope of the Receivership - The receivership order includes a list of companies and bank accounts owned or controlled by Xu Jiayin, allowing the receiver to access information but not to dispose of the assets [3][4]. - The court did not explicitly mention Xu Jiayin's offshore family trust in the receivership scope, indicating that the trust's status remains unaddressed in the ruling [4][8]. Group 3: Legal Interpretation of Trusts - Legal experts argue that the notion of the offshore family trust being "pierced" is unfounded, as the ruling is procedural and does not affect the substantive rights to the assets [8][9]. - The determination of whether a trust can be pierced requires a substantive judgment, which has not been made in this case [8][10]. - The effectiveness of family trusts in asset protection depends on various factors, including the design of the trust, legal jurisdiction, and the presence of fraudulent activities [9][10].

Group 1 - The article discusses the collapse of Xu Jiayin's family trust, which was intended to protect his wealth from corporate risks and debt disputes, following a court ruling in Hong Kong that allowed liquidators to take control of his assets [4][8]. - The family trust, established in 2019 with $2.3 billion, was funded by dividends from Evergrande, but the court found that Xu retained too much control over the trust, leading to its classification as a fraudulent asset transfer [9][10]. - The ruling is based on principles such as "substance over form," "fraudulent transfer," and "creditor protection," indicating that trusts cannot be used to evade debt obligations [10][11]. Group 2 - Following the court's decision, a global asset recovery operation was initiated, freezing $7.7 billion in assets across 12 countries, including luxury properties and yachts [12][13]. - The liquidators are seeking to challenge the validity of the family trust in U.S. courts, arguing that it was established to evade debt responsibilities, which could lead to further legal complications for Xu [13][14]. - The case serves as a cautionary tale for entrepreneurs, emphasizing the importance of legal compliance and ethical business practices over attempts to exploit legal loopholes [15].

Core Viewpoint - The case of Xu Jiayin's family trust highlights the limitations of offshore trusts as a means of asset protection, demonstrating that legal frameworks prioritize creditor rights over perceived asset isolation strategies [3][6][8]. Group 1: Xu Jiayin's Family Trust Breach - Xu Jiayin established a family trust in the U.S. in 2019, funded by over 50 billion RMB in dividends from Evergrande, with a structure designed to ensure wealth transfer to his sons [5][9]. - The Hong Kong court ruled that the trust was not a legitimate asset protection mechanism due to Xu retaining control over key decisions, leading to the classification of the asset transfer as fraudulent [6][9]. - The court's decision was based on principles emphasizing substance over form, anti-fraud measures, and prioritizing creditor protection in debt crises [6][8]. Group 2: Global Asset Recovery Actions - Following the court ruling, a global asset recovery initiative was launched, freezing $7.7 billion in assets across 12 countries, including luxury properties and yachts [11][13]. - The liquidators filed a request in a U.S. court to annul the $2.3 billion family trust based on fraudulent transfer claims, which could challenge the trust's validity under U.S. law [13][14]. - The outcome of the U.S. court's recognition of the Hong Kong ruling will significantly impact the trust's status, with potential implications for Xu's ex-wife, who is also involved in legal disputes over asset division [14][15].

Core Viewpoint - The case of Xu Jiayin's family trust illustrates the limitations of offshore trusts as a means of asset protection, highlighting that legal frameworks prioritize creditor rights over perceived asset isolation strategies [1][5][10]. Group 1: Xu Jiayin's Family Trust Structure - In 2019, Xu Jiayin and his wife established a family trust in the U.S. with $2.3 billion, funded by over 50 billion RMB in dividends from Evergrande between 2009 and 2022 [2][6]. - The trust was designed to ensure wealth transfer, with the eldest son, Xu Zhijian, receiving only income while the principal was reserved for future generations, reflecting a controlled wealth management strategy [2][6]. - The younger son, Xu Tenghe, was not included in the same trust arrangement and faced legal issues related to Evergrande, indicating a disparity in family wealth distribution [2][6]. Group 2: Legal Principles and Court Rulings - The Hong Kong court's decision was based on the principles of "substance over form" and "fraudulent asset transfer," asserting that if the grantor retains control over the assets, the trust cannot be considered independent [3][5]. - The court emphasized that using a trust to shield assets from creditors while incurring significant debts is not permissible, prioritizing the rights of ordinary creditors in debt crises [3][5]. - The ruling demonstrated that the trust lacked independence due to Xu Jiayin's retained decision-making powers and the questionable origins of the trust's funding [6][10]. Group 3: Global Asset Recovery Efforts - Following the court ruling, a global asset recovery initiative was launched, leading to the freezing of $7.7 billion in assets across 12 countries, including luxury properties and yachts [7][9]. - The liquidators filed a request in a U.S. court to annul the $2.3 billion family trust under fraudulent transfer laws, which could challenge the trust's validity based on the intent to evade debt obligations [9][10]. - The outcome of the U.S. court's recognition of the Hong Kong ruling will significantly impact the future of Xu Jiayin's family trust and its assets [10]. Group 4: Implications for Wealth Management - The case serves as a cautionary tale for entrepreneurs, emphasizing that legal loopholes cannot safeguard wealth, and that legitimate business practices are essential for long-term asset protection [10]. - The increasing global regulatory scrutiny indicates that offshore trusts are not immune to legal challenges, and attempts to evade debt through such structures may lead to asset freezes and reputational damage [10].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the implications of a non-listed company conducting a targeted issuance of capital reserves to a corporate shareholder, questioning whether individual shareholders are subject to personal income tax in this scenario [1][2]. Group 1: Tax Implications - The targeted issuance, despite its sophisticated terminology, essentially involves the transfer of equity from individual shareholders to a corporate shareholder, which may trigger personal income tax obligations for individual shareholders [1][5]. - Individual shareholders may agree to this arrangement to avoid the 20% personal income tax on dividend income, which corporate shareholders do not incur [2][3]. Group 2: Tax Avoidance Strategies - The primary motive behind this seemingly irrational behavior is tax avoidance, even if only temporarily, as tax regulations in China are becoming increasingly stringent against such practices [3][4]. - The article highlights two foundational principles for anti-tax avoidance measures: the substance-over-form principle and the commercial purpose standard, which allow tax authorities to scrutinize transactions for their economic substance rather than their formal appearance [4]. Group 3: Legal and Regulatory Considerations - The article emphasizes that any arrangement lacking a reasonable commercial rationale and primarily aimed at tax reduction may be disregarded by tax authorities, leading to potential penalties [4][6]. - The legitimacy of the business rationale provided by the company is questioned, suggesting that elaborate justifications may not withstand scrutiny under strict regulatory environments [6].

中勤万信会计师事务所（特殊普通合伙） 地址：北京西直门外大街 112 号阳光大厦 10 层 电话：（86-10）68360123 传真：（86-10）68360123-3000 邮编：100044 关于对博爱新开源医疗科技集团股份有限公司 关注函的回复 深圳证券交易所创业版公司管理部： 贵部《关于对博爱新开源医疗科技集团股份有限公司的关注函》（创业板关 注函【2023】第 20 号）收悉，对于贵部询问的有关事项，我所非常重视，经认 真查询，现将核查情况回复如下： 2023 年 1 月 13 日，你公司披露《关于前期股权处置收益调整的公告》，前 期你公司与 Abcam 达成和解，Abcam 对你公司的股权处置款最终结算减少 1,800 万美元，你公司调整前期股权处置收益，将该事项会计处理计入 2021 年。 交易价格分为交易基础对价以及交易价格调整项。交易基础对价为 3.4 亿美 元。交易价格调整项为在交易基础对价 3.4 亿美元基础上加净营运资本差额；加 现金及现金等价物；减应付而未付的交易费用；减有息负债。除交易价格调整项 外，《股权收购协议》还约定了在保证金交付期间的赔偿事项，赔偿事项包含主 要为公司提交 ...