R eview
C
erebrovasc Dis 2009;27:280–289 DOI:10.1159/000199466
T
he Evaluation of Anosognosia in Stroke Patients
M.D.Orfei a C. Caltagirone a, b G. Spalletta a, b
a
I RCCS Santa Lucia Foundation and b D epartment of Neuroscience, University of Rome Tor Vergata, R ome , Italy
Introduction A
nosognosia is a self-awareness disorder which pre-vents brain-damaged patients from recognizing the pres-ence or appreciate the severity of deficits in sensory, per-ceptual, motor, behavioural or cognitive functioning,
which are evident to clinicians and caregivers
[1, 2].In particular, anosognosia following stroke
[3]has gained importance for its striking phenomenology, its incidence in the stroke population and because it is detrimental to
the recovery and rehabilitation course
[4–6].Thus,the assessment of anosognosia is fundamental. In fact, mod-ern conceptualizations of awareness deficits in brain-damaged patients highlight the complex and multilevel
nature of these clinical phenomena
[3] . For instance, the pyramidal model proposed by Crosson et al.
[7] hypoth-esizes 3 possible levels of awareness deficits, with specific clinical and rehabilitative implications for each. In the last 30 years, a number of high-quality measures have been proposed, but most of them focus on specific as-pects, leaving other dimensions of anosognosia unex-plored. Thus, at present no single scale is able to fully explore all the components of poor awareness of deficit. This is a relevant issue from a clinical perspective, be-cause a lack of exhaustive diagnostic procedures may po-tentially affect the development of specific and efficient rehabilitation programmes. In addition, heterogeneous selection criteria and assessment modalities contribute to
gather highly variable epidemiological data
[3]and pre-vent a deeper knowledge of awareness processes and im-pairments.
K
ey Words A nosognosia, assessment ? Stroke rehabilitation
Abstract
B ackground: Anosognosia in stroke patients showed a rel-evant detrimental effect on the rehabilitation course and patients’ quality of life, especially in those with brain injury. Although a number of reliable scales for the assessment of anosognosia in stroke and traumatic brain injury have been developed, at present no single measure fully explores the multifaceted nature of the phenomenon. M ethod: A Pub-Med search with appropriate terms was carried out in order to critically review the issue. R esults: The main dimensions to consider in the investigation of anosognosia in brain-in-jured patients are (a) awareness of deficit and related func-tional implications, (b) modality specificity, (c) causal attribu-tion, (d) expectations of recovery, (e) implicit knowledge and (f) differential diagnosis with psychological denial. Time elapsed from stroke, aetiology, laterality, aphasia and clinical complications may influence all these characteristics and must be taken into consideration. Finally, an adequate asso-ciation of the anosognosia evaluation with other neuropsy-chological and behavioural aspects is relevant for a modern holistic approach to the patient.
C onclusions: This review is meant to stimulate the development of a new comprehen-sive assessment procedure for anosognosia in brain injury and particularly in stroke, in order to catch the multidimen-sionality of the phenomenon and to shape rehabilitation programmes suitable to the specific clinical features of every single patient.
C opyright ? 2009 S. Karger AG, Basel R
eceived: December 17, 2007 A ccepted: October 21, 2008 P ublished online: February 6, 2009
T his paper aims to draw attention to a number of is-sues to be considered in the assessment of anosognosia and to encourage the development of new and more ef-ficient diagnostic procedures able to fit modern knowl-edge on awareness phenomena. Thus, on the basis of the recent studies in this area, the most remarkable method-ological issues and specific clinical factors are listed and debated.
F or our purposes, the database was selected using Pubmed Services utilizing the key words ‘stroke’, ‘trau-matic brain injury’ and ‘anosognosia’. The bibliographies of all related articles were searched. All the pertinent lit-erature considered to be of relevant scientific interest by MDO and GS concerning the assessment of diagnosis and severity of anosognosia was selected. We chose a sample of studies, spanning from 1986 to 2007, to exam-ine some salient methodological issues ( t able 1 ).
C lassical versus More Recent Approach to the
Assessment of Anosognosia in Stroke
T he modern concept of anosognosia concerns a mul-tidimensional phenomenon which includes a wider range of related factors. This is quite evident in research on im-paired self-awareness in other medical conditions. For instance, causal attribution of the deficit, evaluation of functional implications in activities of daily living, ex-pectations of recovery, changes in various ability domains (sensorimotor, but also cognitive, behavioural and inter-personal) and adherence to the treatment are part and parcel of the definition of poor awareness of illness in traumatic brain injury (TBI), dementia and schizophre-nia, and as such they are commonly investigated [50]
.In
contrast, these dimensions are mostly disregarded in
stroke, where the best-known questionnaires for anosog-
nosia in stroke, such as Cutting’s questionnaire [51],Bisi-
ach’s Scale [43] , the Anosognosia Questionnaire [8] ,the
Anosognosia for Hemiplegia Questionnaire [52] and the
Structured Awareness Interview [18] , are polarized on
the awareness of sensorimotor deficit per se, consistently
with the original definition of anosognosia [53] . In addi-
tion, the complexity of an awareness deficit is supported
by neuro-anatomic studies, which suggest that anosog-
nosia is due to the impairment of a wide neural net in-
cluding a number of cerebral circuits [54–57] .
T hus, the development of a wider diagnostic perspec-
tive on anosognosia in stroke, consistent with the recent
evolution of the concept of anosognosia, is required. To
date, the measures for anosognosia in stroke, although
quite reliable, are not very diversified, as they are all based
on the clinician’s judgement, provide very similar items Table 1. Studies on anosognosia in relationship to different aetiopathogeneses
and focus on nearly the same few themes. In contrast, in other medical conditions, such as TBI and dementia, more flexible anosognosia trials allow clinicians to mon-itor the evolution of the phenomenon under a number of aspects and also in daily living after discharge. Of course, given proper operational adjustments, the structure of these measures and the general issues they investigate can provide fruitful suggestions to improve the assess-ment of anosognosia in stroke.
Sp ecific Methodological Issues
W hat to Assess?
I n a multifaceted perspective, the main dimensions of anosognosia to investigate are as follows.
M odality Specificity.It refers to the unawareness of specific aspects of the illness but not of others [58].For instance, the patient can be aware of a cognitive deficit but not of a more evident sensorimotor deficit. This is why, unlike present questionnaires for anosognosia in stroke, we suggest the inclusion of a number of specific items to assess the awareness of various deficits, specifi-cally sensorimotor, cognitive, affective and behavioural deficits.
C ausal Attribution.The patient can be aware of the deficit but disregard the real causes, attributing the im-pairment to other factors (e.g. a flu or laziness) or judging the pathological event as less severe than its real nature.
A wareness of Functional Implications, Expectations of Recovery and Need for Treatment.In fact, the patient can admit verbally to suffer from a deficit but not realize its pragmatic consequences, asserting that he/she is capable of doing everything he/she could do before the injury. Also, anosognosic patients can ask insistently to be dis-charged because they are sane [59] or can refuse to attend the rehabilitative programmes and clinicians’ prescrip-tions.
I mplicit Knowledge.This implies an inconsistency be-tween the patient’s verbal answers and behaviours [4, 18].
A frequent contradiction in anosognosic hemiplegic pa-tients is the verbal assertion that they are able to walk but at the same time refuse to leave the wheelchair. Thus, the inclusion of both verbal and non-verbal items is essential to reveal a possible dissociation between explicit and im-plicit knowledge [18, 10, 60] . For instance, with regard to motor deficits, the request to perform some actions, such as to lift the paralysed arm/leg and to compare it with the sound one, to choose between unimanual and bimanual/ bipedal tasks, can be very informative. In fact, an anosog-nosic patient is expected to choose a bimanual task, while an underlying implicit knowledge of the deficit would compel him/her to privilege unimanual tasks [10].Ta-ble 2 points out that 70% of studies on anosognosia in stroke adopted a combined (i.e. verbal and non-verbal) strategy of assessment, although only 29% of them actu-ally required more articulated motor procedures. In or-der to let the implicit knowledge emerge, the alternate use of first/third-person questions about the deficit can also be used. In fact, some anosognosic patients tend to an-swer more correctly when asked to evaluate the deficit as referred to another person than when referred to him/ herself. In the present study, only one study adopting this approach was found [18] . With specific regard to cogni-tive deficits, the patient’s discrepancy between predicted and actual performance in a cognitive task can be very informative, since it does not require any significant in-tervention of others [61, 62] .
C oncurrent Awareness Phenomena.These include ne-glect, confabulations, bodily delusions, misoplegia or anosodiaphoria. Some classical anosognosia scales in-clude items about these issues, but they are generally not sufficiently thorough or discriminating. In particular, the diagnosis of neglect requires attention, given the high co-occurrence with anosognosia and the partial overlap of brain areas involved [20] . Also, it is important to eval-uate the various forms of neglect (e.g. visual, tactile, per-sonal, spatial, extinction) [63] , in order to clarify whether some of them are related to specific dimensions of anosog-nosia and to better define the still debated matter of the co-occurrence of these two phenomena.
D ifferential Diagnosis between Anosognosia and De-nial.This issue should not be undervalued, especially in case of a mild to moderate deficit. At first glance, anosog-nosia and denial produce the same effect, that is the dis-avowal or the minimization of the deficit, but at a deeper analysis some salient behavioural differences emerge [46, 64] .
W ho to Assess?
T he present review stresses a fair variability in the characteristics of the populations considered in different studies. This can account for the high variability in find-ings and makes data hard to compare. In particular, when selecting a sample, the following aspects have to be con-sidered.
M ixed Brain Injury Aetiology.Of the total sample of studies on anosognosia that we considered, 47% recruited only stroke patients, 37% only TBI subjects and 16% com-bined various medical conditions, such as stroke, TBI or
neoplastic pathologies ( t able 1 ). Indeed, data from differ-ent aetiologies, if analysed separately, can be very infor-mative to highlight possible similarities and differences in awareness impairments. In contrast, the study of a het-erogeneous sample can blur data, since in spite of phe-nomenological similarities, unawareness deficits can im-ply very different processes in different patient popula-tions
[50]
.
T ime Elapsed from the Acute Event. Anosognosia can evolve rapidly, within a few days or months and more rarely can last for several years after injury [29, 33, 36, 65].Since anosognosia is more frequent in the acute than in
the chronic phase [51, 66] , the high variability in inci-dence rates
[3] could be partially due to heterogeneous times of testing in different studies. Thus, it is necessary to stress target temporal terms and to discriminate be-tween acute and chronic patients. In addition, these re-quire differential assessment trials, and findings from the two subgroups should be analysed separately. In their
meta-analysis, Pia et al.
[66] defined as acute the patients tested within 29 days after stroke and as chronic those tested after the 30th postinjury day, and found 48% of studies focusing on acute patients, 30% on chronic pa-tients, 9% on both acute and chronic patients, and in 13%
of studies data about time of testing were not available. Given the high and rapid fluctuations of anosognosia in stroke, very acute cases, ranging from 1 to 7 days from injury, should be further discriminated from acute and subacute ones, ranging from 8 to 29 days after stroke. Consistently, in the sample of studies on stroke selected in the present paper, 35% of studies recruited very acute patients only, 25% chronic subjects only, while 40% com-bined subjects with variable time of testing. L aterality of Lesion. I n the present review, most of the studies considered (60%) included patients with both right and left strokes, 35% right only and no study re-cruited exclusively subjects with injury on the left. One study did not report information about laterality of le-sion. Indeed, patients injured on the left can be more dif-ficult to assess because of possible aphasic deficits, so they
tend not to be included
[4, 6, 66, 67] . However, the exclu-sion may cause some confusion due to the underestima-tion of rates of anosognosia in the total brain injury pop-ulation.
A phasia. P atients with global or severe comprehen-sion aphasia cannot be tested on their awareness of lan-Table 2. Characteristics of studies on anosognosia in stroke
guage disorders, but mere behavioural observation can provide information about awareness of sensorimotor deficits. In contrast, productive aphasia can be handled with some specific administration devices. For instance, the clinician can read the answer alternatives aloud and ask the patient to indicate his/her own choice with ges-tures or make him/her fill in the questionnaires on his/ her own. In the present review, 55% of selected studies excluded stroke patients with language disorders, often generally mentioning inadequate linguistic abilities or severe language impairment, while 40% of studies did not mention the issue at all, with a definite loss of informa-tion for the reader.
H ow to Assess?
S ome methodological aspects play a relevant role in the assessment of anosognosia. In particular, differ-ent clinical conditions require different assessment ap-proaches.
P atient Estimation. O bviously, patient estimations of their deficits have to be compared to an objective stan-dard. Clinical judgement is the most frequently adopted criterion in classical anosognosia scales, while awareness questionnaires for TBI and dementia mostly rely upon the direct comparison between patient answers and in-formant/staff reports. In fact, the total difference score, obtained by subtracting patient from caregiver evalua-tions, is supposed to reflect the degree of awareness of the patient. Self/significant other comparisons can be quite informative, due to a daily and long-lasting knowledge of the patient [4] . However, in the acute stage following stroke, this methodology is not fully reliable, since rela-tives and significant others can still have little informa-tion; as well, stress, anxiety [68] and denial coping strat-egy can alter their judgement [4, 33, 69] . In TBI, some measures which specifically examine these aspects have been developed, such as the Revised Patient Competency Rating Scale [68] , a subsequent 3-item addition to the original Patient Competency Rating Scale and the Head Injury Behaviour Scale [69] . Both of them ask the care-giver how stressful the patient’s problematic behaviours are. While recently a trial to test the differential efficacy of various methodologies in anosognosia assessment in dementia has been carried out [70] , to our knowledge an analogous study to determine which approach is more ef-ficient in stroke has not been performed.
C ourse of Anosognosia.Longitudinal studies can be very informative to follow the course of anosognosia that usually evolves as time goes by. In addition, the frequen-cy of assessment has to be rather high, especially in the acute phase. In spite of this, 30% of studies on stroke in-cluded in our review provided a follow-up and, similarly, Jehkonen et al. [71] reported that in 70% of studies no fol-low-up was carried out. However, some pragmatic factors preventing a frequent assessment approach have to be stressed. Firstly, clinical practice and ward routine hard-ly deal with frequent questionnaire administrations, es-pecially in the very acute stage. Analogously, fatigability, patient’s pain and reduced concentration can be salient problems. Thus, in the first days after stroke, assessment should focus strictly on only a few definite issues, not to outwear the subject, and should always explore implicit knowledge of sensorimotor deficits, since the patient may have difficulty in expressing verbally his/her condition. Secondly, early after stroke the patient often has not yet had the chance to put his/her abilities to the test. Analo-gously, questions about functional implications of the deficit can be misleading, and therefore they should be limited. Finally, at this stage, questions about prognosis can be avoided because of the objective lack of informa-tion. In summary, in the acute stage the assessment of awareness deficits has to concern only evident impair-ments, while it can be too early for a reliable self-evalua-tion of cognitive abilities, which can be less salient to the patient than a physical deficit.
S cale Type.Dichotomous scales, such as yes/no or aware/unaware, are not very fruitful, since anosognosia is not an all-or-nothing phenomenon. In contrast, Likert scales seem to be the most appropriate to measure depth of awareness and are adopted in most tools. In addition, separate domain scores should be provided to better highlight possible modality specificities.
A Holistic Approach to Anosognosia
A number of studies showed that awareness of deficits cannot be conceived as an isolated disorder, it must rath-er be integrated in a holistic view of the patient [3, 50]. Thus, in association with the assessment procedure spe-cific to anosognosia, we suggest investigating other con-current dimensions ( t able 3 ): (a) general level of cognitive impairment; indeed, the relationship between anosogno-sia and global cognitive level, as measured for instance by the Mini-Mental State E xamination [81]or Wechsler scales [82] is still controversial, since some authors assert that cognitive impairment is not a causal factor of anosog-nosia, rather a worsening condition[8, 18, 33, 83, 84];
(b) mnestic functions; because anosognosia has been in-terpreted in some studies as the result of a mnestic failure,
Fundamental issues of assessment of anosognosia in stroke
Table 3.
specifically of the inability to integrate new episodic ex-periences into long-term memory or the image of oneself [18, 49] ; (c) language functions. In some studies, phone-mic and semantic abilities in verbal fluency were related to anosognosia [8, 18, 33, 49] , although the nature of this relationship is still unclear; (d) executive functions. The relationship between anosognosia deficits and attention-al control and inhibition function [85] on the one hand, and set-shifting or cognitive flexibility [86] on the other hand, are to be investigated, given their relevance in oth-er self-awareness disorders [33, 49, 87–90] ; (e) psychopa-thology; as it is necessary to ascertain the relationship between anosognosia and neuropsychiatric symptoms. For instance, in anosognosic patients depression and/or anxiety [8, 30, 91] , apathy [92, 93] , anger and hostility [94, 95] and alexithymia [26, 96] require further investigation, given their frequency in stroke patients and their contro-versial role in awareness of illness and patient outcome [24, 30, 46, 49, 64] .
T he administration of these neuropsychological and psychopathological instruments is thought to be neces-sary on the one hand as a diagnostic procedure to de-scribe the complete clinical picture of the patient, and on the other hand to make possible correlations between anosognosia and neuropsychiatric features in stroke pa-tients. In t able 3 , some examples of neuropsychiatric scales validated in stroke patients are given.
F inally, neuro-imaging studies should be part of the diagnostic trial. In fact, a combination of data from con-ventional or, more interestingly, non-conventional mag-netic resonance imaging measures, such as diffusion ten-sor imaging or tractography, with behavioural data, could provide relevant information about brain circuits in-volved in specific dimensions of self-awareness and their deficits, analogously to the investigations carried out in other pathological conditions [97–99] .Currently, these methods are still not completely automated and require the supervision of technical experts. However, despite the time they require, the information they provide may help clinicians to optimize individual rehabilitation pro-grammes in the near future. Also, advanced methods for studying structural indices in the cortex, such as thick-ness, in association with methods for studying function-al activation, permit to follow the process of cerebral plas-ticity following the recovery from awareness deficits [100] . This might explain, if appropriately validated, rea-sons why patients may fully recover within a few hours or may become chronic cases.
Conclusions
A nosognosia represents a stimulating challenge for clinicians, due to its remarkable incidence in stroke pop-ulations [3] , phenomenological variability and effect on the rehabilitation course and the patient’s quality of life. Given the complexity of this phenomenon, similar to oth-er multidimensional fields such as neuropsychology or psychopathology, a reliable assessment procedure for anosognosia is necessary. In spite of their good reliability, present diagnostic questionnaires are not fully exhaus-tive in catching the multifaceted anosognosic phenome-na. In fact, as the model of Crosson et al. [7]illustrates, awareness is not a unitary function, and the deficit can regard different components which can determine im-portant features for the development of a specific reha-bilitation treatment. In addition, anosognosia is no lon-ger conceived merely as the unawareness of a deficit per se but implies a number of related factors, such as attribu-tion, expectations of recovery, psychological denial, need for rehabilitation and estimation of functional limita-tions. Such a wide perspective on anosognosia requires an articulated assessment in order to gain a more definite diagnosis, to develop specific rehabilitation programmes and to understand more deeply awareness and related su-perior neuropsychological processes. Thus, we have out-lined the main dimensions to include them in a flexible and comprehensive assessment procedure for anosogno-sia. Our approach aims to take into consideration the pa-tient in his/her wholeness, in accordance with modern holistic perspectives in medicine, and therefore also in-volves cognitive, neuropsychiatric and behavioural fac-tors.
A nother remarkable issue is the specificity of various clinical situations which require partially different as-sessment modalities. For instance, for acute-phase sub-jects and in general for patients showing vigilance defi-cits, severe cognitive impairment, non-compliance, se-vere language disturbances or behavioural disorders, a more basic set of measures is suitable. Thus, a few instru-ments focusing on awareness of sensorimotor impair-ments, possible implicit knowledge, somatoparaphrenias, global cognitive assessment, language functions and ne-glect could be administered. On the other hand, patients showing persistent anosognosia have to be monitored regularly and as frequently as possible to detect any evo-lution of anosognosia, which in brain-injured subjects can be very sudden. For instance, a very acute-stage ad-ministration, such as within 3 days from stroke, has to be followed by regular consecutive administrations.
A nother frequent problem is represented by aphasia. In our opinion, aphasia should not necessarily be an ex-clusion criterion for the assessment of anosognosia, since in productive and moderate language disorders specific non-verbal assessment methods can be adopt-ed.
I n conclusion, this paper is intended to be a first step towards a more definite, reliable and valid diagnostic methodology, which should be structured ex novo con-sidering the multifaceted expression of anosognosia and the complexity of its interaction with behaviour, cogni-tion and with general clinical aspects.
References
1 Antoine C, Antoine P, Guermonprez P, Frig-
ard B: Awareness of deficits and anosognosia
in Alzheimer’s disease. E ncéphale 2004; 30:
570–577.
2 Prigatano G, Johnson S: The three vectors of
consciousness and their disturbances after brain injury. Neuropsychol Rehabil 2003; 13:
13–29.
3 Orfei MD, Robinson RG, Prigatano GP,
Starkstein S, Rüsch N, Bria P, Caltagirone C,
Spalletta G: Anosognosia for hemiplegia af-
ter stroke is a multifaceted phenomenon: a systematic review of the literature. Brain 2007; 130: 3075–3090.
4 Fleming JM, Strong J, Ashton R: Self-aware-
ness of deficits in adults with traumatic brain
injury: how best to measure? Brain Inj 1996;
10: 1–15.
5 Gialanella B, Monguzzi V, Santoro R, Rocchi
S: Functional recovery after hemiplegia in patients with neglect: the rehabilitative role of anosognosia. Stroke 2005; 36:2687–2690.
6 Pedersen PM, J?rgensen HS, Nakayama H,
Raaschou HO, Olsen TS: Frequency, deter-
minants and consequences of anosognosia in acute stroke. J Neurol Rehabil 1996; 40:
367–377.
7 Crosson C, Barco PP, Velozo C, Bolesta MM,
Cooper PV, Werts D, Brobeck TC: Aware-
ness and compensation in postacute head in-
jury rehabilitation. J Head Trauma Rehabili-
tation 1989; 4:46–54.
8 Starkstein SE, Fedoroff JP, Price TR, Leiguar-
da R, Robinson RG: Anosognosia in patients with cerebrovascular lesions: a study of caus-
ative factors. Stroke 1992; 23:1446–1453.
9 Stone SP, Halligan PW, Greenwood RJ: The
incidence of neglect phenomena and related disorders in patients with an acute right or left hemisphere stroke. Age Ageing 1993;
22:46–52.
10 Ramachandran VS: Anosognosia in parietal
lobe syndrome. Conscious Cogn 1995; 4:22–
51.
11 Maeshima S, Dohi N, Funahashi K, Nakai K,
Itakura T, Komai N: Rehabilitation of pa-
tients with anosognosia for hemiplegia due to intracerebral haemorrhage. Brain Inj 1997;11:691–697.
12 Jehkonen M, Ahonen JP, Dastidar P, Laippa-
la P, Vilkki J: Unawareness of deficits after right hemisphere stroke: double-dissocia-
tions of anosognosias. Acta Neurol Scand 2000;102:378–384.13 Hartman-Maeir A, Soroker N, Katz N:
Anosognosia for hemiplegia in stroke re-
habilitation. Neurorehabil Neural Repair
2001;15:213–222.
14 Appelros P, Karlsson GM, Seiger A, Nydevik
I: Neglect and anosognosia after first-ever
stroke: incidence and relationship to disabil-
ity. J Rehabil Med 2002;34:215–220.
15 Appelros P, Karlsson GM, Seiger A, Nydevik
I: Prognosis for patients with neglect and
anosognosia with special reference to cogni-
tive impairment. J Rehabil Med 2003;35:254–
258.
16 Hartman-Maeir A, Soroker N, Oman SD,
Katz N: Awareness of disabilities in stroke
rehabilitation – a clinical trial. Disabil Reha-
bil 2003;25:35–44.
17 Farnè A, Buxbaum LJ, Ferraro M, Frassinet-
ti F, Whyte J, Veramonti T, Angeli V, Coslett
HB, Ladavas E: Patterns of spontaneous re-
covery of neglect and associated disorders in
acute right brain-damaged patients. J Neurol
Neurosurg Psychiatry 2004;75:1401–1410.
18 Marcel AJ, Tegner R, Nimmo-Smith I: An o-
sognosia for plegia: specificity, extension,
partiality and disunity of bodily unaware-
ness. Cortex 2004; 40:19–40.
19 Baier B, Karnath HO: Incidence and diagno-
sis of anosognosia for hemiparesis revisited.
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2005;76:358–
361.
20 Berti A, Bottini G, Gandola M, Pia L, Smania
N, Stracciari A, Castiglioni I, Vallar G,
Paulesu E: Shared cortical anatomy for mo-
tor awareness and motor control. Science
2005; 309:488–491.
21 Karnath HO, Baier B, Nagele T: Awareness of
the functioning of one’s own limbs mediated
by the insular cortex? J Neurosci 2005;25:
7134–7138.
22 Nimmo-Smith I, Marcel AJ, Tegner R: A di-
agnostic test of unawareness of bilateral mo-
tor task abilities in anosognosia for hemiple-
gia. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2005;
76:1167–1169.
23 Barskova T, Wilz G: Psychosocial function-
ing after stroke: psychometric properties of
the patient competency rating scale. Brain
Inj2006;20:1431–1437.
24 Santos CO, Caeiro L, Ferro JM, Albuquerque
R, Luisa Figueira M: Anger, hostility and ag-
gression in the first days of acute stroke. Eur
J Neurol 2006; 13: 351–358.
25 Appelros P, Karlsson GM, Hennerdal S:
Anosognosia versus unilateral neglect. Co-
existence and their relations to age, stroke
severity, lesion site and cognition. Eur J Neu-
rol2007;14:54–59.
26 Spalletta G, Serra L, Fadda L, Ripa A, Bria P,
Caltagirone C: Unawareness of motor im-
pairment and emotions in right hemispheric
stroke: a preliminary investigation. Int J
Geriatr Psychiatry 2007; 22:1241–1246.
27 Prigatano GP, Altman IM: Impaired aware-
ness of behavioral limitations after traumat-
ic brain injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil
1990;71:1058–1064.
28 Sherer M, Bergloff P, Boake C, High W Jr,
Levin E: The Awareness Questionnaire: fac-
tor structure and internal consistency. Brain
Inj 1998; 12: 63–68.
29 Leathem JM, Murphy LJ, Flett RA: Self and
informant-ratings on the Patient Competen-
cy Rating Scale in patients with traumatic
brain injury. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 1998;
20:694–705.
30 Fleming JM, Strong J, Ashton R: Cluster
analysis of self-awareness levels in adults
with traumatic brain injury and relationship
to outcome. J Head Trauma Rehabil 1998; 13:
39–51.
31 Ranseen JD, Bhaska LA, Schmitt FA: An in-
vestigation of anosognosia following trau-
matic head injury. Int J Clin Neuropsychol
1990;12:29–36.
32 Sherer M, Hart T, Nick TG: Measurement of
impaired self-awareness after traumatic
brain injury: a comparison of the Patient
Competency Rating Scale and the Awareness
Questionnaire. Brain Inj 2003;17:25–37.
33 Bogod NM, Mateer CA, MacDonald SWS:
Self-awareness after traumatic brain injury:
a comparison of measures and their relation-
ship to executive functions. J Int Neuropsy-
chol Soc 2003; 9:450–458.
34 Hart T, Sherer M, Whyte J, Polansky M, No-
vack TA: Awareness of behavioral, cognitive,
and physical deficits in acute traumatic brain
injury. A rch P hys M ed R ehabil 2004;85:1450–
1456.
35 Evans CC, Sherer M, Nick TG, Nakase-Rich-
ardson R, Yablon SA: E arly impaired self-
awareness, depression, and subjective well-
being following traumatic brain injury. J
Head Trauma Rehabil 2005;20:488–500.
36 Murrey GJ, Hale FM, Williams JD: Assess-
ment of anosognosia in persons with frontal
lobe damage: clinical utility of the Mayo-
Portland adaptability inventory (MPAI).
Brain Inj 2005; 19: 599–603.
37 Sawchyn JM, Mateer CA, Suffield JB: Aware-
ness, emotional adjustment, and injury se-
verity in postacute brain injury. J Head Trau-
ma Rehabil 2005;20:301–314.
38 Sherer M, Hart T, Whyte J, Nick TG, Yablon
SA: Neuroanatomic basis of impaired self-
awareness after traumatic brain injury. J Head Trauma Rehabil 2005;20:287–300.
39 Kurtz JE, Putnam SH: Patient-informant
agreement on personality ratings and self-
awareness after head injury. Clin Neuropsy-
chol 2006;20:453–468.
40 Schmitz TW, Rowley HA, Kawahara TN,
Johnson SC: Neural correlates of self-evalu-
ative accuracy after traumatic brain injury.
Neuropsychologia 2006;44:762–773.
41 Pagulayan KF, Temkin NR, Machamer JE,
Dikmen SS: The measurement and magni-
tude of awareness difficulties after traumat-
ic brain injury: a longitudinal study. J Int Neuropsychol Soc 2007;13:561–570.
42 Dirette DK, Plaisier BR: The development of
self-awareness of deficits from 1 week to 1 year after traumatic brain injury: prelimi-
nary findings. Brain Inj 2007;21:1131–1136.
43 Bisiach E, Vallar G, Perani D, Papagno C,
Berti A: Unawareness of disease following lesions of the right hemisphere: anosogno-
sia for hemiplegia and anosognosia for hemi-
anopia. Neuropsychologia 1986; 24:471–
482.
44 Teasdale TW, Christensen AL, Willmes K,
Deloche G, Braga L, Stachowiak F, Vendrell JM, Castro-Caldas A, Laaksonen RK, Le -
c l ercq M: Subjective experience in brain-in-
jured patients and their close relatives: a Eu-
ropean Brain Injury Questionnaire study.
Brain Inj 1997;11:543–563.
45 Borgaro SR, Prigatano GP: Modification of
the Patient Competency Rating Scale for use
on an acute neurorehabilitation unit: the PCRS-NR. Brain Inj 2003;17:847–853.
46 Kortte KB, Wegener ST, Chwalisz K: Anosog-
nosia and denial: their relationship to coping
and depression in acquired brain injury. Re-
habil Psychol 2003; 48:131–136.
47 Fischer S, Gauggel S, Trexler LE: Awareness
of activity limitations, goal setting and reha-
bilitation outcome in patients with brain in-
juries. Brain Inj 2004;18:547–562 .
48 Fischer S, Trexler LE, Gauggel S: Awareness
of activity limitations and prediction of per-
formance in patients with brain injuries and
orthopedic disorders. J Int Neuropsychol Soc 2004;10:190–199.
49 Noé E, Ferri J, Caballero MC, Villodre R,
Sanchez A, Chirivella J: Self-awareness after acquired brain injury: predictors and reha-
bilitation. J Neurol 2005; 252:168–175. 50 Orfei MD, Robinson RG, Bria P, Caltagirone
C, Spalletta G: Unawareness of illness in
neuropsychiatric disorders: phenomenolog-
ical certainty versus etiopathogenic vague-
ness. Neuroscientist 2008; 14: 203–222.
51 Cutting J: Study of anosognosia. J Neurol
Neurosurg Psychiatry 1978; 41: 548–555.
52 Feinberg TE, Roane DM, Ali J: Illusory limb
movements in anosognosia for hemiplegia. J
Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2000; 68:511–
513.
53 Babinski J: Contribution à l’étude de trou-
bles mentaux dans l’hémiplégie organique
cérébrale. Rev Neurol 1914; 27: 845–847.
54 Frith CD, Blakemore SJ, Wolpert DM: Ab-
normalities in the awareness and control of
action. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci
2000; 355: 1771–1788.
55 Heilman KM, Barrett AM, Adair JC: Possi-
ble mechanisms of anosognosia: a defect in
self-awareness. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B
Biol Sci 1998; 353: 1903–1909.
56 Vallar G, Ronchi R: Anosognosia for motor
and sensory deficits after unilateral brain
damage: a review. Restor Neurol Neurosci
2006; 24:247–257.
57 Vuilleumier P: Anosognosia: the neurology
of beliefs and uncertainties. Cortex 2004; 40:
9–17.
58 Bach LJ, David AS: Self-awareness after ac-
quired and traumatic brain injury. Neuro-
psychol Rehabil 2006; 16: 397–414.
59 Fischer S, Gauggel S, Trexler LE: Awareness
of activity limitations, goal setting and reha-
bilitation outcome in patients with brain in-
juries. Brain Inj 2004; 18: 547–562.
60 Schacter DL: Toward a cognitive neuropsy-
chology of awareness: implicit knowledge
and anosognosia. J Clin E xp Neuropsychol
1990; 12: 155–178.
61 Fischer S, Trexler LE, Gauggel S: Awareness
of activity limitations and prediction of
p erformance in patients with brain injuries
and orthopedic disorders. J Int Neuropsy-
chol Soc 2004; 10: 190–199.
62 Hart T, Giovannetti T, Montgomery MW,
Schwartz MF: Awareness of errors in natu-
ralistic action after traumatic brain injury. J
Head Trauma Rehabil 1998; 13: 16–28.
63 Brozzoli C, Dematte ML, Pavani F, Frassi-
netti F, Farne A: Neglect and extinction:
within and between sensory modalities. Re-
stor Neurol Neurosci 2006; 24:217–232.
64 Prigatano GP, Klonoff PS: A clinician’s rat-
ing scale for evaluating impaired self-aware-
ness and denial of disability after brain in-
jury. Clin Neuropsychol 1998; 12: 56–67.
65 Prigatano GP, Schacter DL: Awareness of
Deficit after Brain Injury: Clinical and The-
oretical Issues. New York, Oxford University
Press, 1991.
66 Pia L, Neppi-Modona M, Ricci R, Berti A:
The anatomy of anosognosia for hemiplegia:
a meta-analysis. Cortex 2004; 40:367–377.
67 Jehkonen M, Laihosalo M, Kettunen JE: Im-
pact of neglect on functional outcome after
stroke: a review of methodological issues and
recent research findings. Restor Neurol Neu-
rosci 2006; 24:209–215.
68 Prigatano GP, Borgaro S, Baker J, Wethe J:
Awareness and distress after traumatic brain
injury: a relative’s perspective. J Head Trau-
ma Rehabil 2005; 20:359–367.
69 Godfrey HP, Harnett MA, Knight RG, Marsh
NV, Kesel DA, Partridge FM, Robertson RH:
Assessing distress in caregivers of people
with a traumatic brain injury (TBI): a psy-
chometric study of the Head Injury Behav-
iour Scale. Brain Inj 2003; 17: 427–435.
70 Hannesdottir K, Morris RG: Primary and
secondary anosognosia for memory impair-
ment in patients with Alzheimer’s disease.
Cortex 2007; 43:1020–1030.
71 Jehkonen M, Laihosalo M, Kettunen J:
Anosognosia after stroke: assessment, oc-
currence, subtypes and impact on functional
outcome reviewed. Acta Neurol Scand 2006;
114: 293–306.
72 Lindell AB, Jalas MJ, Tenovuo O, Brunila T,
Voeten MJ, Hamalainen H: Clinical assess-
ment of hemispatial neglect: evaluation of
different measures and dimensions. Clin
Neuropsychol 2007; 21: 479–497.
73 Marin RS, Biedrzycki RC, Firinciogullari S:
Reliability and validity of the Apathy Eval-
uation Scale. Psychiatry Res 1991; 38:143–
162.
74 Prigatano GP, Fordyce DJ, Zeiner HK,
Roueche JR, Pepping M, Wood BC: Neuro-
psychological Rehabilitation after Brain In-
jury. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University
Press, 1986.
75 Bagby RM, Taylor GJ, Parker JD: The Twen-
ty-Item Toronto Alexithymia Scale. II. Con-
vergent, discriminant, and concurrent valid-
ity. J Psychosom Res 1994; 38:33–40.
76 Levine J, Warrenburg S, Kerns R, Schwartz
G, Delaney R, Fontana A, Gradman A, Smith
S, Allen S, Cascione R: The role of denial in
recovery from coronary heart disease. Psy-
chosom Med 1987; 49:109–117.
77 Hamilton M: A rating scale for depression. J
Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1960; 12: 56–
62.
78 Hamilton M: The assessment of anxiety
states by rating. Br J Med Psychol 1959; 32:
50–55.
79 Spielberger CD, Gorsuch RL, Lurshene
RE: Test Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety
Inventory. Palo Alto, CA, Consulting Psy-
chologists Press, 1970.
80 Spielberger CD: State-Trait Anger E xpres-
sion Inventory, Research E dition – Profes-
sional Manual. Odessa, Psychological As-
sessment Resources, 1988.
81 Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR: ‘Mini-
Mental State’: a practical method for grading
the cognitive state of patients for the clini-
cian. J Psychiatr Res 1975; 12: 189–198.
82 Wechsler D: WAIS-R Manual: Wechsler
Adult Intelligence Scale – Revised. San An-
tonio, Psychological Corporation, 1981.
83 Davies M, Davies AA, Coltheart M: Anosog-
nosia and the two-factor theory of delusions.
Mind Lang 2005; 20:209–236.
84 Levine DN, Calvanio R, Rinn WE: The
pathogenesis of anosognosia for hemiplegia.
Neurology 1991; 41: 1770–1781.
85 Stroop JR: Studies of interference in serial
verbal reactions. J Exp Psychol 1935; 12: 643–
662.
86 Heaton R: Wisconsin Card Sorting Test
Manual. Odessa, Psychological Assessment Resources, 1981.
87 Kashiwa Y, Kitabayashi Y, Narumoto J, Na-
kamura K, Ueda H, Fukui K: Anosognosia in
Alzheimer’s disease: association with patient
characteristics, psychiatric symptoms and cognitive deficits. Psychiatry Clin Neurosci 2005; 59: 697–704.
88 Michon A, Deweer B, Pillon B, Agid Y, Du-
bois B: Relation of anosognosia to frontal lobe dysfunction in Alzheimer’s disease. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1994; 57: 805–
809. 89 Subotnik KL, Nuechterlain KH, Irzhevsky
V, Kitchen CM, Woo SM, Mintz J: Is un-
awareness of psychotic disorder a neuro-
cognitive or psychological defensiveness
problem? Schizophr Res 2005; 75: 147–157.
90 Shad MU, Muddasani S, Prasad K, Sweeney
JA, Keshavan MS: Insight and prefrontal
cortex in first-episode schizophrenia. Neu-
roimage 2004; 22:1315–1320.
91 Spalletta G, Ripa A, Bria P, Caltagirone C,
Robinson RG: Response of emotional un-
awareness after stroke to antidepressant
treatment. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry 2006;
14: 220–227.
92 Brodaty H, Sachdev PS, Withall A, Alten-
dorf A, Valenzuela MJ, Lorentz L: Frequen-
cy and clinical, neuropsychological and
neuroimaging correlates of apathy follow-
ing stroke – the Sydney Stroke Study. Psy-
chol Med 2005; 35: 1707–1716.
93 Hama S, Yamashita H, Shigenobu M, Wata-
nabe A, Hiramoto K, Kurisu K, Yamawaki
S, Kitaoka T: Depression or apathy and
functional recovery after stroke. Int J Geri-
atr Psychiatry 2007; 22:1046–1051.
94 Ghika-Schmid F, Bogousslavsky J: Affec-
tive disorders following stroke. Eur Neurol
1997; 38:75–81.
95 Kim JS, Choi S, Kwon SU, Seo YS: Inability
to control anger or aggression after stroke.
Neurology 2002; 58:1106–1108.
96 Spalletta G, Pasini A, Costa A, De Angelis
D, Ramundo N, Paolucci S, Caltagirone C:
Alexithymic features in stroke: effects of
laterality and gender. Psychosom Med 2001;
63:944–950.
97 Flashman LA, McAllister TW, Johnson SC,
Rick JH, Green RL, Saykin AJ: Specific
frontal lobe subregions correlated with un-
awareness of illness in schizophrenia: a pre-
liminary study. J Neuropsychiatry Clin
Neurosci 2001; 13: 255–257.
98 Ruby P, Schmidt C, Hogge M, D’Argembeau
A, Collette F, Salmon E: Social mind repre-
sentation: where does it fail in frontotem-
poral dementia? J Cogn Neurosci 2007; 19:
671–683.
99 Shad MU, Muddasani S, Keshavan MS: Pre-
frontal subregions and dimensions of in-
sight in first-episode schizophrenia – a pi-
lot study. Psychiatry Res 2006; 146: 35–42.
100 Schaechter JD, Moore CI, Connell BD,
Rosen BR, Dijkhuizen RM: Structural and
functional plasticity in the somatosensory
cortex of chronic stroke patients. Brain
2006; 129: 2722–2733.
股权转让涉及的税收文件 （一）、企业所得税的筹划 税法依据： 1.《财政部国家税务总局关于企业重组业务企业所得税处理若干问题的通知》财税[2009]59号，企业重组符合本通知第五条规定条件的，交易各方对其交易中的股权支付部分，可以按以下规定进行特殊性税务处理： 股权收购，收购企业购买的股权不低于被收购企业全部股权的75%，且收购企业在该股权收购发生时的股权支付金额不低于其交易支付总额的85%，可以选择按以下规定处理： A. 被收购企业的股东取得收购企业股权的计税基础，以被收购股权的原有计税基础确定。 B. 收购企业取得被收购企业股权的计税基础，以被收购股权的原有计税基础确定。 C. 收购企业、被收购企业的原有各项资产和负债的计税基础和其他相关所得税事项保持不变。 2.《关于促进企业重组有关企业所得税处理问题的通知》财税〔2014〕109号。 3、关于股权收购将《财政部国家税务总局关于企业重组业务企业所得税处理若干问题的通知》（财税〔2009〕59号）第六条第（二）项中有关“股权收购，收购企业购买的股
权不低于被收购企业全部股权的75%”规定调整为“股权收购，收购企业购买的股权不低于被收购企业全部股权的50%” 4、《财政部国家税务总局关于企业重组业务企业所得税处理若干问题的通知》财税[2009]59号 5、《财政部国家税务总局关于非货币性资产投资企业所得税政策问题的通知》财税2014年116号规定。（二）、个人所得税的筹划 个人以非货币性资产投资，应按评估后的公允价值确认非货币性资产转让收入，非货币性资产转让收入减除该资产原值及合理税费后的余额为应纳税所得额，按照“财产转让所得”项目缴纳个人所得税。后期转让公司股权时，按照公允价值确认转让收入，以股权转让溢价为应纳税所得额，按“财产转让所得”缴纳个人所得税。 税法依据： 1、《财政部国家税务总居关于个人非货币性投资有关个人所得税政策的通知》财税【2015】41号规定。一、个人以非货币性资产投资，属于个人转让非货币性资产和投资同时发生。对个人转让非货币性资产的所得，应按照“财产转让所得”项目，依法计算缴纳个人所得税。二、个人以非货币性资产投资，应按评估后的公允价值确认非货币
解读财税【2009】167号 字体：【大中小】发布时间：2010-10-14 10:02:10 【打印】【关闭】点击数： 据Wind资讯统计，2010年两市共有688家上市公司合计3830亿股的限售股解禁，市值近6万亿元，是我国资本市场历史上最大的年解禁规模。而对限售股征税是否能够遏制住大小非的减持行为，遏制抛售冲动，理论界和实务界存在不少纷争。 《关于个人转让上市公司限售股所得征收个人所得税有关问题的通知》（财税[2009]167号），明确了个人转让上市公司限售股所得将要征收个人所得税。 鱼和熊掌兼得的预期 2005年股权分置改革后，股票市场不再有非流通股和流通股的划分，只有限售流通股与非限售流通股之别，限售流通股解除限售后都将进入流通。这些限售股都不是从上市公司公开发行和转让市场上取得的，却与个人投资者从上市公司公开发行和转让市场购买的上市公司股票转让所得一样享受个人所得税免税待遇，这加剧了收入分配不公的矛盾。 为进一步完善股权分置改革后的相关制度，更好地发挥税收对收入的调节作用，对个人转让上市公司限售股取得的所得征收
个人所得税。可见此次个税新政的目的是在保持资本市场稳定基础上，期望未来减轻限售股股东大肆抛售带来二级市场的压力，同时发挥税收对收入的调节作用。 遏制抛售冲动说 很多投资者和机构都认为，由于限售股减持可能面临更高的边际成本，征收20%税收显然可能将大大减少限售股的转让收入，从这个角度来看可以遏制个人限售股（小非）的减持冲动。因此，对个人转让限售股征税这项政策调整将对中国资本市场发展构成制度性利好。该政策将鼓励战略投资者长期持有公司股票，有利于缓解2010年限售股解禁压力，稳定市场运行。 简单推理反对遏制抛售说 由于对个人转让从上市公司公开发行和转让市场取得的上市公司股票所得继续实行免征个人所得税政策。反对遏制抛售说就采用了简单分析认为限售股征个税刺激抛售冲动。 假设，某投资者拥有100万股限售股，成本价是1元，解禁时价格是20元。如果投资者预期股价会上涨，假设能涨到40元，很显然考虑个税因素卖出再买入是最好的策略。因为此时卖出，应缴纳个税380万元[（20-1）×100×20%=380]，对卖出后再买入（假设20元能买入），待40元卖出的部分，则属于二级市场的股票买卖，暂免个税。否则，如果解禁时不卖，待40元时卖出，应缴纳个税高达780万元[（40-1）×100×20%=780].卖出后买进策略税负减少400万元，理性投资者肯定会选择该策略。就是长
财税2020年36号文件解读 一、四大行业增值税税率确定为6%、11% 新政：增值税税率： (一)纳税人发生应税行为，除本条第(二)项、第(三)项、第(四)项规定外，税率为6%。 (二)提供交通运输、邮政、基础电信、建筑、不动产租赁服务，销售不动产，转让土地使用权，税率为11%。 (三)提供有形动产租赁服务，税率为17%。 (四)境内单位和个人发生的跨境应税行为，税率为零。具体范围由财政部和国家税务总局另行规定。 华税：相比较于营业税制下的3%、5%等税率，房地产、建筑增值税税率确定为11%，在使用一般计税办法(销项税额-进项税额)下，如果进项不足，同时议价能力有限，可能面临税负大幅增加的风险。 二、可以抵扣项目与不可抵扣项目 新政：下列进项税额准予从销项税额中抵扣： (一)从销售方取得的增值税专用发票(含税控机动车销售统一发票，下同)上注明的增值税额。 (二)从海关取得的海关进口增值税专用缴款书上注明的增值税额。 (三)购进农产品，除取得增值税专用发票或者海关进口增值税专用缴款书外，按照农产品收购发票或者销售发票上
注明的农产品买价和13%的扣除率计算的进项税额。计算公式为： 进项税额=买价×扣除率 买价，是指纳税人购进农产品在农产品收购发票或者销售发票上注明的价款和按照规定缴纳的烟叶税。 购进农产品，按照《农产品增值税进项税额核定扣除试点实施办法》抵扣进项税额的除外。 (四)从境外单位或者个人购进服务、无形资产或者不动产，自税务机关或者扣缴义务人取得的解缴税款的完税凭证上注明的增值税额。 新政：下列项目的进项税额不得从销项税额中抵扣： (一)用于简易计税方法计税项目、免征增值税项目、集体福利或者个人消费的购进货物、加工修理修配劳务、服务、无形资产和不动产。其中涉及的固定资产、无形资产、不动产，仅指专用于上述项目的固定资产、无形资产(不包括其他权益性无形资产)、不动产。 纳税人的交际应酬消费属于个人消费。 (二)非正常损失的购进货物，以及相关的加工修理修配劳务和交通运输服务。 (三)非正常损失的在产品、产成品所耗用的购进货物(不包括固定资产)、加工修理修配劳务和交通运输服务。 (四)非正常损失的不动产，以及该不动产所耗用的购进
财政部国家税务总局关于企业重组业务企业所得税处理若干问题的通知财税〔2009〕59号全文有效成文日期：2009-04-30根据《企业所得税法》第二十条和《企业所得税法实施条例》（国务院令第512号）第七十五条规定，现就企业重组所涉及的企业所得税具体处理问题通知如下： 一、本通知所称企业重组，是指企业在日常经营活动以外发生的法律结构或经济结构重大改变的交易，包括企业法律形式改变、债务重组、股权收购、资产收购、合并、分立等。 （一）企业法律形式改变，是指企业注册名称、住所以及企业组织形式等的简单改变，但符合本通知规定其他重组的类型除外。（二）债务重组，是指在债务人发生财务困难的情况下，债权人按照其与债务人达成的书面协议或者法院裁定书，就其债务人的债务作出让步的事项。 （三）股权收购，是指一家企业（以下称为收购企业）购买另一家企业（以下称为被收购企业）的股权，以实现对被收购企业控制的交易。收购企业支付对价的形式包括股权支付、非股权支付或两者的组合。 （四）资产收购，是指一家企业（以下称为受让企业）购买另一家企业（以下称为转让企业）实质经营性资产的交易。受让企业支付对价的形式包括股权支付、非股权支付或两者的组合。 （五）合并，是指一家或多家企业（以下称为被合并企业）将其全部资产和负债转让给另一家现存或新设企业（以下称为合并企业），
被合并企业股东换取合并企业的股权或非股权支付，实现两个或两个以上企业的依法合并。 （六）分立，是指一家企业（以下称为被分立企业）将部分或全部资产分离转让给现存或新设的企业（以下称为分立企业），被分立企业股东换取分立企业的股权或非股权支付，实现企业的依法分立。 二、本通知所称股权支付，是指企业重组中购买、换取资产的一方支付的对价中，以本企业或其控股企业的股权、股份作为支付的形式；所称非股权支付，是指以本企业的现金、银行存款、应收款项、本企业或其控股企业股权和股份以外的有价证券、存货、固定资产、其他资产以及承担债务等作为支付的形式。 三、企业重组的税务处理区分不同条件分别适用一般性税务处理规定和特殊性税务处理规定。 四、企业重组，除符合本通知规定适用特殊性税务处理规定的外，按以下规定进行税务处理：（备注：正常的税务处理：按公允价值确认资产或股权价值） （一）企业由法人转变为个人独资企业、合伙企业等非法人组织，或将登记注册地转移至境外（包括港澳台地区），应视同企业进行清算、分配，股东重新投资成立新企业。企业的全部资产以及股东投资的计税基础均应以公允价值为基础确定。 企业发生其他法律形式简单改变的，可直接变更税务登记，除另有规定外，有关企业所得税纳税事项（包括亏损结转、税收优惠等权益和义务）由变更后企业承继，但因住所发生变化而不符合税收
财政部国家税务总局 关于企业重组业务企业所得税处理若干问题的通知 财税[2009]59号 字体：【大】【中】【小】 各省、自治区、直辖市、计划单列市财政厅（局）、国家税务局、地方税务局，新疆生产建设兵团财务局：根据《中华人民共和国企业所得税法》第二十条和《中华人民共和国企业所得税法实施条例》（国务院令第512号）第七十五条规定，现就企业重组所涉及的企业所得税具体处理问题通知如下： 一、本通知所称企业重组，是指企业在日常经营活动以外发生的法律结构或经济结构重大改变的交易，包括企业法律形式改变、债务重组、股权收购、资产收购、合并、分立等。 （一）企业法律形式改变，是指企业注册名称、住所以及企业组织形式等的简单改变，但符合本通知规定其他重组的类型除外。 （二）债务重组，是指在债务人发生财务困难的情况下，债权人按照其与债务人达成的书面协议或者法院裁定书，就其债务人的债务作出让步的事项。 （三）股权收购，是指一家企业（以下称为收购企业）购买另一家企业（以下称为被收购企业）的股权，以实现对被收购企业控制的交易。收购企业支付对价的形式包括股权支付、非股权支付或两者的组合。 （四）资产收购，是指一家企业（以下称为受让企业）购买另一家企业（以下称为转让企业）实质经营性资产的交易。受让企业支付对价的形式包括股权支付、非股权支付或两者的组合。 （五）合并，是指一家或多家企业（以下称为被合并企业）将其全部资产和负债转让给另一家现存或新设企业（以下称为合并企业），被合并企业股东换取合并企业的股权或非股权支付，实现两个或两个以上企业的依法合并。 （六）分立，是指一家企业（以下称为被分立企业）将部分或全部资产分离转让给现存或新设的企业（以下称为分立企业），被分立企业股东换取分立企业的股权或非股权支付，实现企业的依法分立。 二、本通知所称股权支付，是指企业重组中购买、换取资产的一方支付的对价中，以本企业或其控股企业的股权、股份作为支付的形式；所称非股权支付，是指以本企业的现金、银行存款、应收款项、本企业或其控股企业股权和股份以外的有价证券、存货、固定资产、其他资产以及承担债务等作为支付的形式。 三、企业重组的税务处理区分不同条件分别适用一般性税务处理规定和特殊性税务处理规定。 四、企业重组，除符合本通知规定适用特殊性税务处理规定的外，按以下规定进行税务处理： （一）企业由法人转变为个人独资企业、合伙企业等非法人组织，或将登记注册地转移至中华人民共和国境外（包括港澳台地区），应视同企业进行清算、分配，股东重新投资成立新企业。企业的全部资产以及股东投资的计税基础均应以公允价值为基础确定。 企业发生其他法律形式简单改变的，可直接变更税务登记，除另有规定外，有关企业所得税纳税事项（包括亏损结转、税收优惠等权益和义务）由变更后企业承继，但因住所发生变化而不符合税收优惠条件的除外。 （二）企业债务重组，相关交易应按以下规定处理： 1.以非货币资产清偿债务，应当分解为转让相关非货币性资产、按非货币性资产公允价值清偿债务两
财税2016年47号文件全文解读【财税2019年36号文件全文 解读】 与融资租赁行业相关的政策解读 财税【2016】36号文对融资租赁行业中不同性质的业务从税目、税率、销售额、以及承租方进项税的抵扣方面做了相关规定，与全面营改增之前融资租赁行业的税收政策存在一定的差异，差异简表如下： 税目的变化: 全面营改增之前，有形动产融资租赁业务(包括直租和售后回租业务)属于现代服务中的有形动产租赁服务，缴纳增值税;不动产融资租赁业务属于金融保险业，缴纳营业税。全面营改增后，租赁服务仍然属于现代服务业，但融资性售后回租业务的税目不再界定为“现代服务业”，而是属于“金融服务”中的“贷款服务”。 财税[2016]36号发布，全面解读房地产等4大行业营改增热点问题 一、四大行业增值税税率确定为6%、11% 新政：增值税税率： (一)纳税人发生应税行为，除本条第(二)项、第(三)项、第(四)项规定外，税率为6%。 (二)提供交通运输、邮政、基础电信、建筑、不动产租赁服务，销售不动产，转让土地使用权，税率为11%。 (三)提供有形动产租赁服务，税率为17%。 (四)境内单位和个人发生的跨境应税行为，税率为零。具体范围由财政部和国家税务总局另行规定。 华税：相比较于营业税制下的3%、5%等税率，房地产、建筑增值税税率确定为11%，在使用一般计税办法(销项税额-进项税额)下，如果进项不足，同时议价能力有限，可能面临税负大幅增加的风险。 二、可以抵扣项目与不可抵扣项目 新政：下列进项税额准予从销项税额中抵扣： (一)从销售方取得的增值税专用发票(含税控机动车销售统一发票，下同)上注明的增值税额。 (二)从海关取得的海关进口增值税专用缴款书上注明的增值税额。 (三)购进农产品，除取得增值税专用发票或者海关进口增值税专用缴款书外，按照农产品收购发票或者销售发票上注明的农产品买价和13%的扣除率计算的进项税额。计算公式为：进项税额=买价×扣除率 买价，是指纳税人购进农产品在农产品收购发票或者销售发票上注明的价款和按照规定缴纳的烟叶税。 购进农产品，按照《农产品增值税进项税额核定扣除试点实施办法》抵扣进项税额的除外。 (四)从境外单位或者个人购进服务、无形资产或者不动产，自税务机关或者扣缴义务人取得的解缴税款的完税凭证上注明的增值税额。 新政：下列项目的进项税额不得从销项税额中抵扣： (一)用于简易计税方法计税项目、免征增值税项目、集体福利或者个人消费的购进货物、加工修理修配劳务、服务、无形资产和不动产。其中涉及的固定资产、无形资产、不动产，仅指专用于上述项目的固定资产、无形资产(不包括其他权益性无形资产)、不动产。纳税人的交际应酬消费属于个人消费。 (二)非正常损失的购进货物，以及相关的加工修理修配劳务和交通运输服务。
解读《关于企业重组业务企业所得税处理若干问题的通知》（财税[2009]59号） 作者：李利威首发：中国税网 2009年4月30日财政部和国家税务总局联合出台了《关于企业重组业务企业所得税处理若干问题的通知》（财税[2009]59号）（以下简称59号文），明确了企业重组所得税政策。在当前经济危机形势下，企业并购活动异常活跃，但因此前国家相关税收政策尚未明确，很多企业的重组行动暂被搁置，59号文的出台明确了国家对重组税收优惠政策，将刺激企业加快并购重组的步伐，可谓意义深远。为了使广大企业深入了解该政策，作为税务律师笔者现将59号文解读如下。 一、明确了“企业重组”的定义 我国以前的税收文件从未给予“企业重组”明确定义。对于企业重组的相关税收政策也散见于各税收文件中。59号文的出台，不仅明确了“企业重组”的概念，同时划分了企业重组的六种主要类型。根据59号文的相关规定，企业重组将分为企业法律形式改变、债务重组、股权收购、资产收购、合并、分立六种，该六种类型基本上涵盖了资本运作的所有基本形式。 1、企业法律形式改变 企业法律形式改变是指企业注册名称改变、住所以及企业组织形式等的简单改变，但符合本通知规定其他重组的类型除外。例如北京金陵房地产开发有限公司更名为北京海运房屋开发有限公司；某公司将住所地由北京市迁移至上海市；原有限责任公司变更为股份有限公司，或者原有限责任公司变更为个人独资企业、合伙企业等等均属此类重组。 2、债务重组 债务重组是指债务人发生财务困难的情况下，债权人按照其与债务人达成的书面协议或者法院裁定书，就其债务人的债务作出让步的事项。例如：A公司因向B 公司销售产品而拥有B公司10万元债权，合同期已届满，B公司因经营不善无
财政部、国家税务总局关于企业重组业务企业所得税处理若干问题的 通知 2009-04-30 财税[2009]59号 ( 企业重组业务企业所得税管理办法国家税务总局公告2010年第4 号 ) 各省、自治区、直辖市、计划单列市财政厅（局）、国家税务局、地方税务局，新疆生产建设兵团财务局： 根据《中华人民共和国企业所得税法》第二十条和《中华人民共和国企业所得税法实施条例》（国务院令第512号）第七十五条规定，现就企业重组所涉及的企业所得税具体处理问题通知如下： 一、本通知所称企业重组，是指企业在日常经营活动以外发生的法律结构或经济结构重大改变的交易，包括企业法律形式改变、债务重组、股权收购、资产收购、合并、分立等。 （一）企业法律形式改变，是指企业注册名称、住所以及企业组织形式等的简单改变，但符合本通知规定其他重组的类型除外。 （二）债务重组，是指在债务人发生财务困难的情况下，债权人按照其与债务人达成的书面协议或者法院裁定书，就其债务人的债务作出让步的事项。 （三）股权收购，是指一家企业（以下称为收购企业）购买另一
家企业（以下称为被收购企业）的股权，以实现对被收购企业控制的交易。收购企业支付对价的形式包括股权支付、非股权支付或两者的组合。 （四）资产收购，是指一家企业（以下称为受让企业）购买另一家企业（以下称为转让企业）实质经营性资产的交易。受让企业支付对价的形式包括股权支付、非股权支付或两者的组合。 （五）合并，是指一家或多家企业（以下称为被合并企业）将其全部资产和负债转让给另一家现存或新设企业（以下称为合并企业），被合并企业股东换取合并企业的股权或非股权支付，实现两个或两个以上企业的依法合并。 （六）分立，是指一家企业（以下称为被分立企业）将部分或全部资产分离转让给现存或新设的企业（以下称为分立企业），被分立企业股东换取分立企业的股权或非股权支付，实现企业的依法分立。 二、本通知所称股权支付，是指企业重组中购买、换取资产的一方支付的对价中，以本企业或其控股企业的股权、股份作为支付的形式；所称非股权支付，是指以本企业的现金、银行存款、应收款项、本企业或其控股企业股权和股份以外的有价证券、存货、固定资产、其他资产以及承担债务等作为支付的形式。 三、企业重组的税务处理区分不同条件分别适用一般性税务处理规定和特殊性税务处理规定。
财税2016年36号文件全文解读【专业分析】 财税2016年36号文件全文解读第一章纳税人和扣缴义务人 第一条在中华人民共和国境内(以下称境内)销售服务、无形资产或者不动产(以下称应税行为)的单位和个人，为增值税纳税人，应当按照本办法缴 (以 应 能够按照国家统一的会计制度规定设置账簿，根据合法、有效凭证核算。第五条符合一般纳税人条件的纳税人应当向主管税务机关办理一般纳税 人资格登记。具体登记办法由国家税务总局制定。除国家税务总局另有规定外，一经登记为一般纳税人后，不得转为小规模纳税人。本条是关于试点增值税一般纳税人资格登记的规定。一、本条所称符合一
般纳税人条件，是指纳税人应税行为年销售额超过500万元，且不属于《试点实施办法》第三条规定的不登记为一般纳税人情况的;符合一般纳税人条件的纳税人应当向主管税务机关申请资格登记，未申请办理一般纳税人资格登记手续的，应按销售额依照增值税税率计算应纳税额，不得抵扣进项税额，也不得使用增值税专用发票(含税控机动车销售统一发票)。 三、 外) 人。本条与原来政策最大的不同，是取消了代理人扣缴增值税的规定。 二、理解本条规定的扣缴义务人时需要注意，其前提是境外单位或者个人在境内没有设立经营机构，如果设立了经营机构，应以其经营机构为增值税纳税人，就不存在扣缴义务人的问题。第七条两个或者两个以上的纳税人，经财政部和国家税务总局批准可以视为一个纳税人合并纳税。具
体办法由财政部和国家税务总局另行制定。本条是对两个或者两个以上的纳税人，可以视为一个纳税人合并纳税的规定。合并纳税的批准主体是财政部和国家税务总局，具体办法由财政部和国家税务总局制定。 第八条纳税人应当按照国家统一的会计制度进行增值税会计核算。本次营改增后，所有营业税业务全部改为征收增值税。在增值税会计处理上， (财会 本条 收费; 3. 的员工提供服务。(四)财政部和国家税务总局规定的其他情形。本条是应税行为以及非经营活动的规定。一、应税行为应税行为，是指有偿销售服务、无形资产或者不动产。有偿，是指取得货币、货物或者其他经济利益。二、非经营活动非经营活动中销售服务、无形资产或者不动产不属于发生应税行为，不征收增值税。非经营活动包
关于出口货物劳务增值税和消费税政策的通知 财税[2012]39号 各省、自治区、直辖市、计划单列市财政厅（局）、国家税务局，新疆生产建设兵团财务局： 为便于征纳双方系统、准确地了解和执行出口税收政策，财政部和国家税务总局对近年来陆续制定的一系列出口货物、对外提供加工修理修配劳务（以下统称出口货物劳务，包括视同出口货物）增值税和消费税政策进行了梳理归类，并对在实际操作中反映的个别问题做了明确。现将有关事项通知如下： 一、适用增值税退（免）税政策的出口货物劳务 对下列出口货物劳务，除适用本通知第六条和第七条规定的外，实行免征和退还增值税［以下称增值税退（免）税］政策：（一）出口企业出口货物。 本通知所称出口企业，是指依法办理工商登记、税务登记、对外贸易经营者备案登记，自营或委托出口货物的单位或个体工商户，以及依法办理工商登记、税务登记但未办理对外贸易经营者备案登记，委托出口货物的生产企业。
本通知所称出口货物，是指向海关报关后实际离境并销售给境外单位或个人的货物，分为自营出口货物和委托出口货物两类。 本通知所称生产企业，是指具有生产能力（包括加工修理修配能力）的单位或个体工商户。 （二）出口企业或其他单位视同出口货物。具体是指： 1.出口企业对外援助、对外承包、境外投资的出口货物。 2.出口企业经海关报关进入国家批准的出口加工区、保税物流园区、保税港区、综合保税区、珠澳跨境工业区（珠海园区）、中哈霍尔果斯国际边境合作中心（中方配套区域）、保税物流中心（B型）（以下统称特殊区域）并销售给特殊区域内单位或境外单位、个人的货物。 3.免税品经营企业销售的货物[国家规定不允许经营和限制出口的货物（见附件1）、卷烟和超出免税品经营企业《企业法人营业执照》规定经营范围的货物除外]。具体是指：（1）中国免税品(集团)有限责任公司向海关报关运入海关监管仓库，专供其经国家批准设立的统一经营、统一组织进货、统一制定零售价格、统一管理的免税店销售的货物；（2）国家批准的除中国免税品(集团)有限责任公司外的免税品经营企业，向海关报关运入海关监管仓库，专供其所属的首都机场口岸海关隔离区内的免税
公司分立中的所得税的处理 所得税法上的公司分立的定义来自《财政部国家税务总局关于公司重组业务公司所得税处理若干问题的通知》(财税[2009]59号)。 按其规定：分立，是指一家公司(被分立公司)将部分或全部资产分离转让给现存或新设公司(分立公司)，被分立公司股东换取分立公司的股权或非股权支付，实现公司的依法分立。 被分立公司失去的是标的资产，标的资产的接受者是分立公司。被分立公司本身不会获得转让资产标的的对价，标的资产对价的接受者是被分立公司的股东。被分立公司能够继续存在，也能够不再继续存在。 公司分立有两种基本类型，三种实现分立的技术方式： 即存续分立(让产分股式分立、让产赎股式分立)和新设分立(股本分割式分立)。 起初从大类上，根据被分离公司分立后是否存在将分立分为存续分立和新设分立。 存续分立是指分立后，被分立公司仍存续经营，而且不改变公司名称和法人地位，同时分立公司作为另一个独立法人而存在。存续分立后"分立公司的股份由被分立公司的股东持有。新设分立则是将被分立公司分设成两个或两个以上的公司，被分立公司依法注销。 存续分立一般采用让产分股式和让产赎股式两种技术方式。让产分股式分立是指将部分资产分离转让出去成立新的公司或转让给现存的公司，将接受资产的子公司的股权分给被分立公司的全部股东。同时，全部股东在被分立公司的股本按比例减少，有时也能够保持不变。 注：让产分股式分立的后果是公司分家但股东不分家，分立后被分立公司和分立公司的股东是一致的。让产赎股式分立是指将被分立公司部分资产分立出去成立新的子公司或现存的公司，将新公司的股权分配给被分立公司的部分股东，换回其在被分立公司的股份，从而使这部分股东在被分立公司不再保有股份。 注：让产赎股式分立的后果不仅是公司分家，股东也跟着分家，’一部分股东依然占有被分立公司，一部分股东占有分立公司。 新设分立一般采用股本分割式分立，是将公司分割组成两家以上新的公司，原公司解散。股本分割可分为两种典型做法，第一类属于公司分家，股东不分家。被分立公司的全部股东按原持股比例均衡地同时取得全部分立公司的股权，原持有的被分立公司的股票依法注销，被分立公司依公司法规定解散。第二类属于公司分家、股东也分家。被分立公司的不同部分股东取得不同分立公司的股票，同样，被分立公司根据公司法规定解散，股票依法注销。公司分立需要解决的所得税问题 根据财税[2009]59号文件，公司重组的税务处理区分不同条件分别适用一般性税务处理规定和特殊性税务处理规定，分立亦是这样。本文为了方便起见，将适用一般性税务处理规定的分立称为一般分立，将适用特殊性税务处理规定的分立称为特殊分立。 公司发生分立业务时。涉及的主要所得税问题有以下四个方面：
财税[2009]59号出台后境外股权收购的筹划分析 一起境外收购筹划案例 英属离岸公司B拥有一家中国大陆境内注册的100%控股的全资子公司C，2009年B 公司决定在香港注册一家全资子公司A，并由A公司收购B公司所拥有的C子公司100%的股权，收购完成后C公司变成A公司100%控股的全资子公司。 对于以上的筹划案例，大多数人认为，香港注册成立的A公司在香港收购英属离岸公司B所持有的中国大陆境内C公司的股权，收购行为在香港完成，与中国大陆境内税法没有遵从关系，股权转让所得适用英属离岸公司B注册地的税收政策，假如英属离岸公司B 注册地适用的是免税政策，则上述股权收购行为没有产生纳税义务。 境外收购的筹划目的 香港公司A和英属离岸公司B按照《中华人民共和国企业所得税法》均属于依照外国（地区）法律成立且实际管理机构不在中国境内，但有来源于中国境内C公司所得的非居民企业，为什么要作没有意义的股权跨国跨境大收购呢？很明显目的就是避税，避什么税？避的就是企业所得税，国家税务总局关于下发《协定股息税率情况一览表的通知》（国税函[2008]112号）规定，根据《中华人民共和国企业所得税法》及其实施条例的规定，2008 年1月1日起，非居民企业从我国居民企业获得的股息将按照10%的税率征收预提所得税，但是，我国政府同外国政府订立的关于对所得避免双重征税和防止偷漏税的协定以及内地与香港、澳门间的税收安排（以下统称“协定”），与国内税法有不同规定的，依照协定的规定办理。根据这一规定，香港公司A只要对境内子公司C控股25%以上，其从境内取得股息就可以按照协定股息税率5%计算预提所得税，而英属离岸公司B从境内取得的股息收入则要按照10%税率计算预提所得税(截止到目前，中国与BVI没有签订任何税收协定。香港是5%（按照税收协定），BVI是10%（无税收协定，按照企业所得税法及其实施条例）)，税率相差5%，以人民币1亿元计算，即相差500万元税款，这确实是一个非常可观的数字。 境外收购的筹划风险
附件4： 视同自产货物的具体范围 一、持续经营以来从未发生骗取出口退税、虚开增值税专用发票或农产品收购发票、接受虚开增值税专用发票（善意取得虚开增值税专用发票除外）行为且同时符合下列条件的生产企业出口的外购货物，可视同自产货物适用增值税退（免）税政策： （一）已取得增值税一般纳税人资格。 （二）已持续经营2年及2年以上。 （三）纳税信用等级A级。 （四）上一年度销售额５亿元以上。 （五）外购出口的货物与本企业自产货物同类型或具有相关性。 二、持续经营以来从未发生骗取出口退税、虚开增值税专用发票或农产品收购发票、接受虚开增值税专用发票（善意取得虚开增值税专用发票除外）行为但不能同时符合本附件第一条规定的条件的生产企业，出口的外购货物符合下列条件之一的，可视同自产货物申报适用增值税退（免）税政策：（一）同时符合下列条件的外购货物： 1.与本企业生产的货物名称、性能相同。 2.使用本企业注册商标或境外单位或个人提供给本企业使用的商标。 3.出口给进口本企业自产货物的境外单位或个人。 （二）与本企业所生产的货物属于配套出口，且出口给进口本企业自产货物的境外单位或个人的外购货物，符合下列条件之一的： 1.用于维修本企业出口的自产货物的工具、零部件、配件。 2.不经过本企业加工或组装，出口后能直接与本企业自产货物组合成成套设备的货物。 （三）经集团公司总部所在地的地级以上国家税务局认定的集团公司，其控股（按照《公司法》第二百一十七条规定的口径执行）的生产企业之间收购的自产货物以及集团公司与其控股的生产企业之间收购的自产货物。 （四）同时符合下列条件的委托加工货物： 1.与本企业生产的货物名称、性能相同，或者是用本企业生产的货物再委托深加工的货物。 2．出口给进口本企业自产货物的境外单位或个人。 3.委托方与受托方必须签订委托加工协议，且主要原材料必须由委托方
企业重组有关企业所得税处理问题的通知 财税〔2014〕109号 为贯彻落实《国务院关于进一步优化企业兼并重组市场环境的意见》（国发〔201 4〕14号），根据《中华人民共和国企业所得税法》及其实施条例有关规定，现就企业重组有关企业所得税处理问题明确如下： 一、关于股权收购 将《财政部国家税务总局关于企业重组业务企业所得税处理若干问题的通知》（财税〔2009〕59号）第六条第（二）项中有关“股权收购，收购企业购买的股权不低于被收购企业全部股权的75%”规定调整为“股权收购，收购企业购买的股权不低于被收购企业全部股权的50%”。 二、关于资产收购 将财税〔2009〕59号文件第六条第（三）项中有关“资产收购，受让企业收购的资产不低于转让企业全部资产的75%”规定调整为“资产收购，受让企业收购的资产不低于转让企业全部资产的50%”。 三、关于股权、资产划转 对100%直接控制的居民企业之间，以及受同一或相同多家居民企业100%直接控制的居民企业之间按账面净值划转股权或资产，凡具有合理商业目的、不以减少、免除或者推迟缴纳税款为主要目的，股权或资产划转后连续12个月内不改变被划转股权或资产原来实质性经营活动，且划出方企业和划入方企业均未在会计上确认损益的，可以选择按以下规定进行特殊性税务处理： 1、划出方企业和划入方企业均不确认所得。 2、划入方企业取得被划转股权或资产的计税基础，以被划转股权或资产的原账面净值确定。 3、划入方企业取得的被划转资产，应按其原账面净值计算折旧扣除。 四、本通知自2014年1月1日起执行。本通知发布前尚未处理的企业重组，符合本通知规定的可按本通知执行。
解读财税[2009]59号：跨境重组企业所得税政策解析 一、“境外——境外”模式 此种模式主要是指境外非居民企业将其持有的境内居民企业股权转让给境外另一非居民企业。根据《关于企业重组业务企业所得税处理若干问题的通知》（财税[2009]59号）（以下简称“59号文”）第七条第（一）项的规定，此类跨境重组如享受特殊重组待遇，除应满足第五条规定的境内特殊重组五个条件外，还须符合以下三项要求：（一）收购方为被收购方100%直接持股子公司 早在1997年，国家税务总局曾出台《关于外商投资企业和外国企业转让股权所得税处理问题的通知》（国税函[1997]第207号）（以下简称207号文），该文件规定，在以合理经营为目的进行的公司集团重组中，外国企业将其持有的中国境内企业股权，或者外商投资企业将其持有的中国境内、境外企业的股权，转让给与其有直接拥有或者间接拥有或被同一人拥有100%股权关系的公司，包括转让给具有上述股权关系的境内投资公司的，可按股权成本价转让，由于不产生股权转让收益或损失，不计征企业所得税。59号文与207号文相比较，规定更加严格，将收购双方为间接拥有和被同一人拥有两种情形排除在特殊重组适用范围外。 （二）重组未导致股权转让所得预提税负担变化 为了防止跨国集团利用重组避税，导致我国税款流失，59号文将股权转让所得预提税税负未发生变化作为适用特殊重组条件之一。笔者在此提醒企业测算预提所得税税负时，须考虑税收协定因素。 我国《企业所得税法》将纳税人分为居民企业和非居民企业，其中在我国未设立机构场所的非居民企业应就来源于中国境内所得交纳预提所得税。《企业所得税法实施条例》第七条规定，权益性投资资产转让所得按照被投资企业所在地作为境内外所得的划分标准。在境
解读财税[2009]59号：企业重组业务企业所得税处理若干问题 2009年4月30日财政部和国家税务总局联合出台了《关于企业重组业务企业所得税处理若干问题的通知》（财税[2009]59号）（以下简称59号文），明确了企业重组所得税政策。在当前经济危机形势下，企业并购活动异常活跃，但因此前国家相关税收政策尚未明确，很多企业的重组行动暂被搁置，59号文的出台明确了国家对重组税收优惠政策，将刺激企业加快并购重组的步伐，可谓意义深远。为了使广大企业深入了解该政策，笔者现解读如下。 一、明确了“企业重组”的定义 我国以前的税收文件从未给予“企业重组”明确定义。对于企业重组的相关税收政策也散见于各税收文件中。59号文的出台，不仅明确了“企业重组”的概念，同时划分了企业重组的六种主要类型。根据59号文的相关规定，企业重组将分为企业法律形式改变、债务重组、股权收购、资产收购、合并、分立六种，该六种类型基本上涵盖了资本运作的所有基本形式。 1、企业法律形式改变 企业法律形式改变是指企业注册名称改变、住所以及企业组织形式等的简单改变，但符合本通知规定其他重组的类型除外。例如北京金陵房地产开发有限公司更名为北京海运房屋开发有限公司；某公司将住所地由北京市迁移至上海市；原有限责任公司变更为股份有限公司，或者原有限责任公司变更为个人独资企业、合伙企业等等均属此类重组。 2、债务重组 债务重组是指债务人发生财务困难的情况下，债权人按照其与债务人达成的书面协议或者法院裁定书，就其债务人的债务作出让步的事项。例如：A公司因向B公司销售产品而拥有B公司10万元债权，合同期已届满，B公司因经营不善无力还款，于是双方达成书面协议，同意A公司的债权转为对B公司拥有的股权，即属债务重组。 3、股权收购 股权收购，是指一家企业（以下称为收购企业）购买另一家企业（以下称为被收购企业）的股权，以实现对被收购企业控制的交易。收购企业支付对价的形式包括股权支付、非股权支付或两者的组合。例如：A公司与B公司达成协议，A公司收购B公司60%的股权，A公司支付B公司股东的对价为50万元银行存款以及A公司控股的C公司10%股权，A公司收购股权后实现了对B公司的控制。在该股权收购中A公司为收购企业，B公司为被收购企业。 4、资产收购 资产收购，是指一家企业（以下称为受让企业）购买另一家企业（以下称为转让企业）实质经营性资产的交易。受让企业支付对价的形式包括股权支付、非股权支付或两者的组合。例如：A公司与B公司达成协议，A公司购买B公司经营性资产（包括固定资产、存货等），该经营性资产的公允价值为1000万元，A公司支付的对价为本公司10%股权、100万元银行存款以及承担B公司200万元债务。在该资产收购中A公司为受让企业，B公司为转让企业。 5、合并
的，企业不得申报免抵退税。 外贸企业：（国税函 [2007]1150 号）外贸企 业在 2008年 1月 1日后申报出口退税的，申 财政部、国家税务总局日前发出《关于出口货物劳务增值税和消费税政策的通知》 （ 财税 [2012]39 号，以下简称通知 ） ，对近年来陆续制定的一系列出口货物、对外提供加工修理修 配劳务 （以下统称出口货物劳务，包括视同出口货物 ） 增值税和消费税政策进行了梳理归类， 并对在实际操作中反映的个别问题作了明确。 国家税务总局同时发布 《出口货物劳务增值税 和消费税管理办法》 （国家税务总局公告 2012 年第 24号，以下简称公告 ），新规定自 2012 年 7 月 1 日起执行。 一、放宽出口退税申报期限 （一）出口企业出口货物免抵税申报和免退税申报期限为货物报关出口之日起至次年 4 月增值税纳税申报期截止之日。具体新旧对照如下： 申 报 新管理办法 内容 办理增值税纳税申报， 将适用退 （免） 税 政策的出口货物销售额填报在增值税纳 税申报表的“免税货物销售额”栏。 旧政策规定 自 营 《管理办法》第四条、第五条： 国税发 [2005]51 号国家税务总局关于印发 出口 生产企业：企业当月出口的货物须在次月 销售 的增值税纳税申报期内， 向主管税务机关 申报 办理增值税纳税申报、 免抵退税相关申报 《出口货物退（免）税管理办法（试行）》 的通知 出口商自营或委托出口的货物，除另有规定 及消费税免税申报。 者外，可在货物报关出口并在财务上做销售 外贸企业：企业当月出口的货物须在次月 的增 值税纳税申报期内， 向主管税务机关 核算后，凭有关凭证报送所在地国家税务局 （以下简称税务机关）批准退还或免征其增 值 税、消费税。 出 口 《管理办法》第四条、第五条： 生产企业：出口企业应在货物报关出口之日 单证 生产企业：企业应在货物报关出口之日 收齐 （以出口货物报关单 〈出口退税专用〉 申报 的出口日期为准，下同） 次月起至次年 （以出口货物报关单〈出口退税专用〉上注 明的出口日期为准）起 90 日内，向退税部门 上 申报办理出口货物退（免）税手续。如果其 4 到期之日超过了当月的“免、抵、退”税申 月 30 日前的各增值税纳税申报期内收齐 有关凭证，向主管税务机关申报办理出口 货物增值税免抵退税及消费税退税。 逾期 报期，生产企业应当在次月“免、抵、退” 税申报期内申报“免、抵、退”税。
解读财税[2009]59号文:统一内、外资企业重组及清算事项的所得税处理 中国税务报 一直以来，企业重组清算的所得税纳税，是业内关注的重点，更是难点。 今年5月中旬，被期盼已久的《财政部国家税务总局关于企业重组业务企业所得税处理若干问题的通知》(以下简称“59号文”)终于出台了，其中包含十三大点，众多小点，应该说比较复杂，需深入理解掌握。 为帮助企业准确解读，记者专访了在59号文制定过程中，参与讨论并提供重要建议的，德勤华永会计师事务所企业并购税务服务北方区主管合伙人朱桉先生。 突破 “应该说此次59号文的内容，是一个突破，不仅对我国所得税法相关内容做了重要的明晰和补充，同时也与国际上通行的做法接轨，”朱桉如是说，“例如，59号文中大概有80%的内容与美国的相关法规相似。” 谈到59号文对企业重组将产生的具体影响，朱桉总结道：首先，59号文的出台统一了内、外资企业重组及清算事项的所得税处理方法，体现了公平性的税法精神，使内、外资企业重组税务成本得以统一；其次，59号文的出台弥补了新企业所得税法未就特定的企业重组类型规定具体的税务处理方式的空白，为企业特定重组业务的税务处理提供了指引；再次，59号文规定在特殊重组中，无论是国内投资者还是国外投资者，满足一定条件的股权或资产出让方可以选择对重组相关的收益或损失暂时递延确认，这将有助于推动跨境重组活动。
那么，与之前的政策相比，59号文存在哪些异同呢？ 据朱桉介绍，对外资企业而言，国税函[1997]207 号文件(以下简称“207号文”)是“两法合并”前涉及重组税务处理的重要文件之一。而59号文与207号文都允许对符合特定条件的重组交易给予税收递延处理并以成本作为相关的计税基础，新旧政策的一致性，使企业不产生相应的应税所得或损失。 大家知道，207号文仅适用于外国企业将其持有的中国境内企业股权，或者外商投资企业将其持有的中国境内、境外企业的股权，转让给与其有直接拥有或者间接拥有或被同一人拥有100%股权关系的公司，包括转让给具有上述股权关系的境内投资公司。而59号文对适用特殊性重组税务处理的基本条件则予以了具体说明，还对跨境重组作了更明确的规定。 此外，207号文没有对支付对价的形式予以限制，而根据59号文的规定，支付对价形式的不同将直接影响重组行为是否属于特殊重组。因此在新的政策下，支付对价的形式显得十分重要。 新意 朱桉认为，59号文提出的最大的创新和亮点有两个：一是特殊重组，二是计税基础。 在特殊重组中，满足一定条件的股权或资产出让方可以选择对重组相关的收益或损失暂时递延确认。对此，朱桉解释道：在有些情况下，重组相关的收益可在10年内均匀计入各年度应纳税所得。这些政策其实就是给了企业在重组税务成本上的一个递延或达到类似“分期付款”的效果，从而为具有合理商业目的的企业重组提供优惠的税务待遇。 在当前金融危机的背景下，一些大型企业集团内部已经或多或少地出现不良