租赁期覆盖资产剩余使用期时，是否必然被认定为融资租赁呢？ 解答： 这个问题需要结合具体会计准则来分析。租赁期覆盖资产剩余使用期，并不必然被认定为融资租赁，但 这是一个非常强的判断指标，需要分情况讨论： 一、一般情况下的判定标准 根据《企业会计准则第21号——租赁》，当租赁期占租赁开始日租赁资产剩余使用寿命的75%以上（含 75%）时，通常应分类为融资租赁。 如果租赁期完全覆盖资产的剩余使用寿命（即100%），在正常情况下大概率会被认定为融资租赁，因 为这意味着承租人实质上获得了资产在整个剩余经济寿命期间的使用权和经济效益。 二、关键的例外情形 即使租赁期覆盖剩余使用期，存在以下重要例外情况时，可能不构成融资租赁： 1. 旧资产的特殊规定 （1）租赁期满所有权是否转移给承租人； （2）承租人是否有优惠购买选择权； （3）租赁付款额现值是否几乎相当于资产公允价值（通常90%以上）； （4）租赁资产是否具有专用性。 三、会计处理实例 比如，某挖掘机剩余使用寿命4年，租赁期4年，虽然所有权未转移，但因租赁期覆盖了资产的全部剩余 使用寿命，可认定为融资租赁。 结论 租赁期覆盖剩余使用期 ≠ 必然构成融资租赁。虽然这是强 ...

Group 1 - The article outlines the definition of service income as per the Corporate Income Tax Law, which includes various sectors such as construction, transportation, finance, and education [2] - It emphasizes the principles of revenue recognition, specifically the accrual basis and the substance over form principle, as mandated by the State Administration of Taxation [4] - The article details the conditions under which service transaction results can be reliably estimated, including the ability to measure income, determine completion progress, and account for costs [5] Group 2 - It provides methods for determining the completion progress of service provision, such as measuring completed work, the proportion of services provided, and the ratio of costs incurred to total costs [5] - The total service income is to be determined based on the contract price, adjusted for previously recognized income, and the current period's service costs are calculated similarly [5] - The article mentions that certain service provisions meet the income recognition criteria, although specific examples are not provided [6]

Group 1 - The article discusses tax policies aimed at supporting small and micro enterprises, including a reduction in various taxes for small-scale taxpayers and individual businesses from January 1, 2023, to December 31, 2027 [2] - It highlights the taxation method for transferring non-listed company shares, which is based on the amount listed in the property transfer document, excluding VAT, with a tax rate of 0.05% [2] - The article also mentions the taxation method for transferring listed company shares, which is based on the transaction amount with a tax rate of 0.1%, and notes a recent announcement to halve the securities transaction stamp duty starting from August 28, 2023 [3] Group 2 - The article references the implementation of the Corporate Income Tax Law, specifying that income from providing services includes various sectors such as construction, transportation, and consulting [11] - It outlines the principles for recognizing sales revenue, emphasizing the accrual basis and the substance over form principle, and details the conditions under which service income can be reliably estimated [13] - The article provides methods for determining the progress of service completion, which include measuring completed work and the proportion of costs incurred [14]

为什么租赁准则中只有未实现融资收益确认为租赁收入，而租赁收款额不确认？ 解答： 同时，结转成本： 以融资租赁直租为例，出租方的业务实质，跟分期付款销售商品其实是一样的，出租方其实是以融资租 赁的形式销售商品。 按照新租赁准则的应用指南，生产商或经销商出租人的融资租赁会计处理，其实跟分期付款销售商品的 会计处理实质上也是一样的，只是换了一些会计科目。 对于以融资租赁形式销售商品，按照"实质重于形式原则"，在租赁开始日就按照现销商品一次性确认收 入，对于现销价格与总收款之间的差异就确认为"未确认融资收益"。 （一）生产商或经销商出租人的融资租赁会计处理 1、租赁开始日 借：应收融资租赁款-租赁收款额 银行存款等（首笔收款等） 贷：主营业务收入（现销价格） 应收融资租赁款-未确认融资收益 应交税费-应交增值税（销项税额） 借：主营业务成本 贷：库存商品、产成品 2、在租赁期间按照实际利率分摊 借：应收融资租赁款-未确认融资收益 贷：租赁收入 3、在租赁期间收到租金 借：银行存款等 贷：应收融资租赁款-租赁收款额 应交税费-应交增值税（销项税额） （二）生产商或经销商分期收款销售商品 生产商或经销商分期收款销售商品， ...

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the principles and regulations regarding the recognition of corporate income tax, emphasizing the importance of the accrual basis and the substance over form principle in determining when income should be recognized for tax purposes [2][3]. Group 1: Principles of Income Recognition - The corporate income tax should be calculated based on the accrual basis, meaning that income and expenses are recognized in the period they occur, regardless of cash transactions [2]. - The recognition of sales revenue must adhere to the accrual basis and the substance over form principle, as outlined in the relevant tax regulations [3]. Group 2: Sales Revenue Recognition - For sales of goods, income is recognized when specific conditions are met, including the transfer of risks and rewards to the buyer, the absence of continued management rights, reliable measurement of income, and the ability to account for costs [3]. - Different sales methods have specific income recognition timings, such as recognizing income upon completion of collection procedures for consignment sales or upon shipment for prepaid sales [5]. Group 3: Service Revenue Recognition - For service transactions, income should be recognized based on the percentage of completion method when the outcome can be reliably estimated [5]. - Various service types have distinct recognition criteria, such as installation fees recognized based on completion progress, advertising fees recognized when the advertisement is public, and membership fees recognized over the membership period [5].

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].