[i]滕祥志。稅法的交易定性理論.[J].法學(xué)家.2012.(1)

[ii]Section 42 Abuse of tax planning schemes(1) Itshall not be possible to circumvent tax legislation by abusing legal optionsfor tax planning schemes. Where the element of an individual tax law’sprovision to prevent circumventions of tax has been fulfilled, the legalconsequences shall be determined pursuant to that provision. Where this is notthe case, the tax claim shall in the event of an abuse within the meaning ofsubsection (2) below arise in the same manner as it arises through the use oflegal options appropriate to the economic transactions concerned.

(2) An abuse shall be deemed to exist where an inappropriate legaloption is selected which, in comparison with an appropriate option, leads totaxadvantages unintended bylawfor the taxpayer or a third party. This shallnot apply where the taxpayer provides evidence of non-tax reasons for theselected option which are relevant when viewed from an overall perspective.

[iii]《稅捐稽征法》第十二條之一（課稅構(gòu)成要件之認(rèn)定及明訂舉證之責(zé)任 ）

涉及租稅事項之法律，其解釋應(yīng)本於租稅法律主義之精神，依各該法律之立法目的，衡酌經(jīng)濟上之意義及實質(zhì)課稅之公平原則為之。

稅捐稽徵機關(guān)認(rèn)定課徵租稅之構(gòu)成要件事實時，應(yīng)以實質(zhì)經(jīng)濟事實關(guān)係及其所生實質(zhì)經(jīng)濟利益之歸屬與享有為依據(jù)。

納稅義務(wù)人基於獲得租稅利益，違背稅法之立法目的，濫用法律形式，規(guī)避租稅構(gòu)成要件之該當(dāng)，以達(dá)成與交易常規(guī)相當(dāng)之經(jīng)濟效果，為租稅規(guī)避。

前項租稅規(guī)避及第二項課徵租稅構(gòu)成要件事實之認(rèn)定，稅捐稽徵機關(guān)就其事實有舉證之責(zé)任。

納稅義務(wù)人依本法及稅法規(guī)定所負(fù)之協(xié)力義務(wù)，不因前項規(guī)定而免除。

稅捐稽徵機關(guān)查明納稅義務(wù)人及交易之相對人或關(guān)係人有第二項或第三項之情事者，為正確計算應(yīng)納稅額，得按交易常規(guī)或依查得資料依各稅法規(guī)定予以調(diào)整。

納稅義務(wù)人得在從事特定交易行為前，提供相關(guān)證明文件，向稅捐稽徵機關(guān)申請諮詢，稅捐稽徵機關(guān)應(yīng)於六個月內(nèi)答覆。

[iv]陳佳函。稅捐規(guī)避與稅捐逃漏之區(qū)別【D】中國財稅法學(xué)研究會2015年會暨第23屆海峽兩岸財稅法學(xué)術(shù)研討會論文集。2015.12

[v]本部分內(nèi)容基于美國國會聯(lián)合稅收委員會（Joint Committee on Taxation）撰寫的一份文獻DescriptionandAnalysis of Present-law Tax Rules and Recent Proposals Relating toCorporate TaxShelters (JCX-84-99)。在其中II. PRESENT LAWRELATING TOCORPORATE TAX SHELTERS中2. Judicial doctrines applicableto tax shelters部分，歸納了美國反避稅的五大原則

[vi]在實質(zhì)重于形式的法庭判例中，美國最高法院的Gregory v. Helvering一案最具里程碑意義, Gregory v. Helvering293 U.S. 465 (1935), was a landmark decision by the UnitedStates Supreme Court concerned with U.S.incometaxlaw

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_v._Helvering【2016-1-3】

[vii] 26 U.S. Code § 7701-Definitions（o）Clarification of economic substance doctrine

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/7701

本處翻譯（1）與（5）為巴特所譯（2）（4）為筆者譯，見巴特《美國法典第7702(o)條：經(jīng)濟實質(zhì)原則》一文http://blog.sina.cn/dpool/blog/s/blog_6fc0c5cb0101i0bi.html

[viii]中華人民共和國企業(yè)所得稅法實施條例立法起草小組?！綧】中華人民共和國企業(yè)所得稅法實施條例釋義及適用指南。北京。中國財政經(jīng)濟出版社。2007.12