(3) How to apportion the land cost for underground buildings

The above four factors actually have certain conflicts and contradictions, so it is necessary for tax authorities to consider various factors comprehensively to determine the policy caliber of whether underground construction apportionment land cost. For simple underground garages and parking Spaces that do not affect the floor area ratio, the author always prefers not to share the land cost. But according to the tax regulations of the Soviet Union2015:8According to the document, there seems to be an intention that underground buildings should share the land cost in Jiangsu region (which has not been explicitly issued), and some prefecture-level cities in Jiangsu have required or have been requiring underground garage parking Spaces to share the land cost. In the author's opinion, if the underground building must apportionment land cost, it should also establish apportionment criteria according to different situations, fully consider the rationality of apportionment results, and prevent the phenomenon of abnormally high and uneven tax burden. In the author's opinion, the following factors should be fully considered in the allocation of land cost for underground construction:

First, the agreement of land transfer contract. If the land transfer contract has separately stipulated the transfer fee for the above-ground part and the transfer fee for the underground part, the land cost should be apportioned according to the principle of "direct collection".

Second, the weight of income above and below ground. If the land transfer contract does not clearly agree on the transfer fee of the underground part, it will cause the problem of calculating and apportioning the land cost between the above-ground building and the underground building. The author believes that under normal circumstances, the value of underground buildings will be significantly lower than that of above-ground buildings, and the value of underground land will be significantly lower than that of above-ground buildings. If the same standard apportionment method (such as building area method and occupied area method) is adopted for the land cost of above-ground buildings, the apportionment result is likely to be unfair. The author suggests that, according to the matching principle, the "income weight method" can be adopted to apportion the land cost of the above-ground or underground part. That is, the total selling price of above-ground or underground buildings (the unsold part can be calculated according to the average price) is taken as the numerator, and the sum of the total selling price of above-ground and underground buildings is taken as the denominator to calculate the land cost of the above-ground or underground part.

Third, the comparison of revenue and cost. The total cost of underground construction includes the cost of land and development which should be apportioned. If the selling price of the underground building is lower than the development cost, then according to the matching principle, the author suggests not to share the land cost, so as to avoid the serious upside down between income and cost. If the selling price of underground building is higher than its development cost but lower than the sum of land cost and development cost, the author suggests that the actual land cost should be divided by the difference between the selling price and development cost. If the selling price of the underground building is higher than the sum of its land cost and development cost, the land cost can be apportioned according to the regulations. The third point is a revision of the apportionment results from the first and second points.

One final caveat: This is just discussion.

CycloseThe company is committed to providing domestic and foreign customers in Hong Kong, Singapore, Dubai and other areas of the company account audit, registration annual inspection and domestic and foreign tax planning business. Efficient, rigorous, intimate service has been favored by many private enterprises, listed companies and large state-owned enterprises.