财政部、环境保护部关于调整环境标志产品政府采购清单的通知
作者:法律资料网 时间:2024-07-01 01:39:19 浏览:8260
来源:法律资料网
下载地址: 点击此处下载
财政部、环境保护部关于调整环境标志产品政府采购清单的通知
财政部、环境保护部关于调整环境标志产品政府采购清单的通知
财库[2010]107号
党中央有关部委，国务院各部委、各直属机构，全国人大常委会办公厅，全国政协办公厅，高法院，高检院，有关人民团体，各省、自治区、直辖市、计划单列市财政厅（局）、环保厅（局），新疆生产建设兵团财务局、环保局：
为加大环境标志产品政府采购工作力度，我们对已发布的“环境标志产品政府采购清单”（以下简称环保清单）进行了调整。现将调整后的第六期环保清单印发你们，并将有关事项通知如下：
一、采购人购买的产品属于政府强制采购节能产品范围的，应当按照《国务院办公厅关于建立政府强制采购节能产品制度的通知》（国办发[2007]51号）和财政部、发展改革委公布的第八期“节能产品政府采购清单”，在强制采购节能产品范围内购买。对于其中同时列入环保清单和“节能产品政府采购清单”的产品，应当优先于只获得其中一项认证的产品。
二、采购人购买轻型汽车产品时，应当按照中共中央办公厅、国务院办公厅关于党政机关汽车配备使用标准的有关规定执行。国家公布新的党政机关汽车配备使用标准时，财政部将会同环境保护部及时调整环保清单中的相关产品。
三、环保清单将于2011年1月再次调整并公布，财政部将会同环境保护部对2010年11月底前获得环境标志认证的产品进行审核和公示。
四、相关企业应当保证环保清单所列型号的产品在本期环保清单有效期内稳定供货，凡发生制造商及其代理商不接受参加政府采购活动邀请、列入环保清单的产品无法正常供货以及其他违反《承诺书》内容情形的，采购人及其他相关当事人应当及时将有关情况向财政部反映，财政部经核实，根据具体违规情形，对制造商做出列入不良供应商行为记录、暂停列入环保清单三个月至两年的处理，并在中国政府采购网（http://www.ccgp.gov.cn/）、国家环境保护部网（http://www.sepa.gov.cn/）、中国绿色采购网（http://www.cgpn. org/）上公告。
五、各级政府机构和采购代理机构在执行优先采购环境标志产品制度时，应当以本期环保清单中所列产品为准，不再执行此前公布的环保清单。未列入本期环保清单的产品不属于政府优先采购的环境标志产品范围。凡违反上述规定的，财政部门将依照有关规定予以处理。
六、政府采购工程项目应当严格执行环境标志产品政府优先采购制度。在确定工程总包单位时，采购人及其委托的采购代理机构应当明确落实环境标志产品政府采购政策要求。
七、环保清单在中国政府采购网、国家环境保护部网、中国绿色采购网上发布，请各采购当事人到上述网站查阅、下载。为确保上述信息的准确性，未经财政部、环境保护部允许，不得转载。
八、环保清单中产品的相关销售渠道和联系方式将在上述网站公布。
请遵照执行。
附件：环境标志产品政府采购清单（第六期）
二○一○年九月三十日
下载地址: 点击此处下载
Risks and challenges of the EU expansion
周大勇 (Zhou,Dayong)
I. Introduction
For several years now the European Union is discussing a possible enlargement, because several European countries have applied for membership in the EU. These are especially the former socialist countries in Eastern Europe, that have clearly turned towards the west since the collapse of the iron curtain. These countries are Bulgaria, the Baltic countries Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, Poland, Romania, the Slovak Republic, the Czech Republic, Slovenia and Hungary.
In addition Turkey, Cyprus and Malta are trying for quite some time already to join the EU. These application are not to be accepted without any further deliberation because they do bring along some risks and the consequences are hard to distinguish therefore these countries are not very expected joining the European Union in the near future and will therefore not be included in the following evaluation.
II. Risks and challenges
If we wants to evaluate the risks and challenges of an upcoming enlargement of the EU, we should first take into account experiences gained during previous expansion which were to some extent comparable. Here the southern expansion from 1986 should be mentioned where two economically pathetic countries sought admission to the then European Community. The admission procedure of these two candidates, being Spain and Portugal, were lengthy and considered very problem bearing. Especially the amount of produce that would add to the already existing agricultural over-production of the Community was seen to be a problem since it would increase the load on the European budget.
But seen from a global economical perspective the joining of Spain and Portugal was overall positive for the EC and the two countries, although Spain struggled with a further rise of unemployment and disparities within the Community were further amplified.
The disparities within the Union will most certainly increase when it comes to an eastern expansion, but the agricultural problem will not be an issue, because the candidates have not got their focus on agriculture, already because of their communist heritage which focused on industry rather than on agriculture or the tertiary sector.
In case of the approaching expansion towards Eastern Europe the Union will have to resolve several problems, the most severe being without any doubt the financial one that will go along with the extension, estimated to be ?5 - ?6 billion annually, just for the technologically underdeveloped agriculture in the new member states.
The financial problem will also lead to a temporary discontent among the population of the existing members, since the financial load on the countries will cause budget cuts because the new members will undoubtedly belong to the payees rather than the payers. Especially the Mediterranean members, for instance Italy, Spain etc. fear cuts in their subsidies particularly the agricultural ones, and agriculture is already making up the biggest part of the EU′s budget.
Of course it is also to be questioned whether with the joining of economically weak countries the economies of the "richer" members are not weakened.
What should be taken into consideration as well is the impact the joining will have on the population of the candidates, especially considering the rights they will gain when they are citizens of the European community. They do then have the right to settle and work anywhere within the community, this could lead to a large amount of people pouring into the old member countries trying to seek work there and make their living. And since most of the European countries are already struggling with high unemployment the high rates could be pushed up further and the discontent among the population could worsen, especially against the background of Neo-Nazis in Germany and other countries such as Britain or Italy. Off course this would only be a temporary problem, which would solve itself over time as the new members develop economically, but still this could prove to be a major issue.
Of course their comes also a minor problem along with the expansion, this problem being even more languages than the twelve, already being used, in which EU communications would have to be carried out adding to the already huge administrative body of the European Union and also causing further costs of the EU.
But because the expansion represents a political necessity one should also take into account the positive aspects caused by such a historic event. With the expansion the continent would take a huge step towards the ethnic integration within Europe, different cultures would be facing each other and could also profit from each other. Also the global competitiveness of the EU against the USA and Asia would improve and another step towards global peace would be undertaken.
III. Changes in administration
It is obvious that an expansion potentially including ten countries would not be feasible without fundamental institutional reforms.
For instance with the existing structure of the Union which allocates most of the power to the European Council, where each member state has one vote, it would be imaginable that smaller members would have a majority over the larger members. Except for Poland, which is by population comparable to Spain and would consequently be a large member, all other candidates are relatively small in size an population.
Another point is that with more than twenty members the decision finding and making process needs to be completely reconsidered, so it represents the actual size of the member countries in terms of population rather than giving each member a veto and especially one single vote. The existing voting and weighting system is also already making the decision finding process a painfully and lengthy one, another ten different opinions added to this would make it virtually impossible to come to an agreement that at least partially satisfies all members and is therefore being supported and not vetoed against.
A changed "legislature" would also keep the democratic thought that the entire EU is based on alive and not vanish it like the existing system.
What should also be pointed out is the fact that an increase in members could lead to new coalitions within the Union and also increase competition among the individual countries. There are even critics that fear that an eastern expansion could lead to a shift in power towards the reunified Germany, since the potential new members are already heavily bound and leaning towards Germany.
What should also be considered is a change in European agricultural policy, which should actually be reformed already. The system of milk quotas, subsidies etc. which subsidises an over-production in many areas, just not to infuriate the farmers, because smaller farms would not be able to survive without the subsidies and the entire face of the European primary sector would change is completely outdated. This system could definitely no longer be kept up with even more farmers to support.
IV. Successful without absorbing the new members?
It is obvious that this question needs to be answered with a clear no. The existing members of the EU are already being absorbed by it and they have all chosen this faith. The goals of the European Union do state the loss of sovereignty in the areas of economic and currency politics, the latter one already realized, also in the political areas of social politics, education, research, consumer protection, health and also environmental issues. Now one could argue how many of these goals need to be realized in order for the EU to be successful, from the British point of view for example the cooperation in economic issues and the creation of the single market have already been enough, considering their opinion towards the Maastricht treaty.
If one would see it from the British point of view the EU could be successful without absorbing the new members, but since most other countries would like to see the above mentioned goals implied and would like to realize the dream of de Gaulle, Adenauer and others of "the United States of Europe", the new members would surrender a huge part of their sovereignty and consequently would be absorbed by the EU, especially considering that they will join in a couple of years at the earliest when European integration will hopefully have advanced beyond the point it is today.
Another point one could consider is what would happen if the European integration would further advance up to the point of the United States of Europe without any new countries joining. This would create another superpower alongside the USA and the then non-members would live in the shadow of the EU or whatever its name would be by that time and also be absorbed by the enormous power, in any terms, of their big neighbour just like the Caribbean, Canada and Mexico, even the entire Americas are by the USA. So the conclusion drawn by this could be that the central and eastern European countries would be better off in any case if they joined the EU even if they had to surrender much of their sovereignty.
Sources:
(1) http://www.europa.eu.int/ (March 17th, 2001)
(2) http://idw.tu-clausthal.de/public/zeige_pm.html?pmid=26445 (April 5th, 2001)
(3) Informationen zur politischen Bildung: Europäische Union (BpB, 1995)
(4) Microsoft Encarta 98
(5) Mittel- und Osteuropa auf dem Weg in die Europäische Union (Werner Weidenfeld, Verlag Bertelsmann Stiftung, 1996)
(6) http://www.e-politik.de/beitrag.cfm?Beitrag_ID=559 (April 1st, 2001)
国家税务总局
国家税务总局关于加强外国企业税收征管协调配合的通知
国家税务总局
各省、自治区、直辖市和计划单列市国家税务局、地方税务局：
为贯彻落实《国务院办公厅转发国家税务总局关于调整国家税务局、地方税务局税收征管范围意见的通知》（国办发〔1996〕4号）精神，加强外国企业的税收控管，防止税款流失，现就国家税务局、地方税务局对外国企业税收征管中的有关协调配合问题通知如下：
一、关于税源控制的协调问题
为了有效地控制税源，最大限度地减少漏管、漏征现象，国税局、地税局要加强与主管外国企业常驻代表机构、承包商、海运、空运业务的经贸、工商、海关、边防等部门的联系，注意税源资料的搜集、整理和分析。国税局、地税局两局之间要加强协作配合，建立有效的税源资料交换
制度，对通过各种途径所掌握的外国企业机构、场所情况应定期进行交换、分析比较；对日常管理或税务检查中发现的漏管户要及时将有关情况通知对方。
二、关于外国企业常驻代表机构纳税义务判定的协调问题
（一）凡在这次征管范围调整前已判定为纳税户的外国企业常驻代表机构，国税局、地税局统一按纳税户进行征管。
（二）对尚未判定为纳税户及新增的外国企业常驻代表机构，国税局、地税局可以联合依照有关规定判定是否为纳税户。凡国税局、地税局分别判定的，应及时将各自的判定结果填制《外国企业常驻代表机构税务管理情况交换表》（式样附后）按月通报对方。对于对方已做出判定而本
局尚未做出判定的外国企业常驻代表机构应及时做出相应的判定；凡一方与另一方判定结果有不同意见的，应及时进行沟通协商，协商不一致的，应分别将情况和意见逐级行文上报国家税务总局审批，两局统一按总局批复的意见执行。
三、关于确定外国企业常驻代表机构计算纳税方法问题
国税局、地税局应根据外国企业常驻代表机构的实际管理和会计核算情况确定采用“核实”、“核定”或“经费换算收入”方法计算征税，在确定外国企业常驻代表机构计算征税的方法时，国税局、地税局应加强协调，及时沟通情况，并按月填制《外国企业常驻代表机构税务管理情况
交换表》通报对方。凡采用按经费支出换算收入征税的，国税局、地税局均应依照国家税务总局规定的外国企业常驻代表机构按经费支出额换算收入计算征税方法的有关条件审核认定，并分别将审核认定意见逐级上报国家税务总局审批，国税局、地税局统一按总局批复的意见执行。
四、关于从事海运、空运的外国企业征税问题
从事海运、空运的外国企业，凡按4．65％（营业税3％，企业所得税1．65％）的综合征收率征收营业税和企业所得税并由代收代缴义务人代缴税款的，国税局、地税局两局指定的代收代缴义务人应一致；代缴税款由代收代缴义务人按国税局、地税局所管税种的税额分别缴入国
税局、地税局指定的银行；应付的代收代缴手续费，由国税局、地税局按企业所得税和营业税入库金额乘以规定的手续费比例分别退给代收代缴义务人。
五、关于外国承包商及零散税源控管问题
国税局、地税局对外国承包商及体育文艺演出、展览展销、广告、讲学、培训等零散税源应加强协调控管。一方面对查出的漏管户应及时通知另一方，另一方应及时做出相应的税务处理。
六、关于判定外国企业在我国境内是否构成常设机构问题
为保证执行税收协定的一致性，对外国企业在我国境内的经营活动是否构成常设机构，原则上由国税局负责判定。国税局应及时将判定为构成常设机构的外国企业书面通知地税局。
七、关于外国居民享受协定待遇申请表和中国居民证明表的使用问题
国税局、地税局应统一执行《国家税务总局关于修改〈外国居民享受避免双重征税协定待遇申请表〉的通知》（国税函发〔1995〕089号）和《国家税务总局关于印制、使用〈中国居民身份证明〉的通知》（国税发〔1994〕255号）。具体办理时暂按以下原则处理：凡涉
及外商投资企业或外国企业法人的证明事项统一由国税局负责；凡涉及居民个人的证明事项，统一由地税局负责；凡涉及内资企业法人的，按其所得税归属管理分别由国税局或地税局负责办理。各地可根据上述规定按照统一格式自行印制申请表格。
附件：外国企业常驻代表机构税务管理情况交换表
填制日期： 填制所属期间：
－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－
｜ 企 业 ｜ 纳税户判定情况 ｜ 确定计税方法 ｜
｜ ｜－－－－－－－－－－－－－－｜－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－｜
｜ 名 称 ｜ 是 ｜ 否 ｜ 尚未判定 ｜ 核实 ｜ 核定 ｜ 经费换算｜
｜－－－－－－｜－－－｜－－－｜－－－－－－｜－－－－｜－－－－｜－－－－－｜
｜ ｜ ｜ ｜ ｜ ｜ ｜ ｜
｜－－－－－－｜－－－｜－－－｜－－－－－－｜－－－－｜－－－－｜－－－－－｜
｜ ｜ ｜ ｜ ｜ ｜ ｜ ｜
｜－－－－－－｜－－－｜－－－｜－－－－－－｜－－－－｜－－－－｜－－－－－｜
｜ ｜ ｜ ｜ ｜ ｜ ｜ ｜
｜－－－－－－｜－－－｜－－－｜－－－－－－｜－－－－｜－－－－｜－－－－－｜
｜ ｜ ｜ ｜ ｜ ｜ ｜ ｜
－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－
填制单位（印章）
1996年4月19日
周大勇 (Zhou,Dayong)
I. Introduction
For several years now the European Union is discussing a possible enlargement, because several European countries have applied for membership in the EU. These are especially the former socialist countries in Eastern Europe, that have clearly turned towards the west since the collapse of the iron curtain. These countries are Bulgaria, the Baltic countries Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, Poland, Romania, the Slovak Republic, the Czech Republic, Slovenia and Hungary.
In addition Turkey, Cyprus and Malta are trying for quite some time already to join the EU. These application are not to be accepted without any further deliberation because they do bring along some risks and the consequences are hard to distinguish therefore these countries are not very expected joining the European Union in the near future and will therefore not be included in the following evaluation.
II. Risks and challenges
If we wants to evaluate the risks and challenges of an upcoming enlargement of the EU, we should first take into account experiences gained during previous expansion which were to some extent comparable. Here the southern expansion from 1986 should be mentioned where two economically pathetic countries sought admission to the then European Community. The admission procedure of these two candidates, being Spain and Portugal, were lengthy and considered very problem bearing. Especially the amount of produce that would add to the already existing agricultural over-production of the Community was seen to be a problem since it would increase the load on the European budget.
But seen from a global economical perspective the joining of Spain and Portugal was overall positive for the EC and the two countries, although Spain struggled with a further rise of unemployment and disparities within the Community were further amplified.
The disparities within the Union will most certainly increase when it comes to an eastern expansion, but the agricultural problem will not be an issue, because the candidates have not got their focus on agriculture, already because of their communist heritage which focused on industry rather than on agriculture or the tertiary sector.
In case of the approaching expansion towards Eastern Europe the Union will have to resolve several problems, the most severe being without any doubt the financial one that will go along with the extension, estimated to be ?5 - ?6 billion annually, just for the technologically underdeveloped agriculture in the new member states.
The financial problem will also lead to a temporary discontent among the population of the existing members, since the financial load on the countries will cause budget cuts because the new members will undoubtedly belong to the payees rather than the payers. Especially the Mediterranean members, for instance Italy, Spain etc. fear cuts in their subsidies particularly the agricultural ones, and agriculture is already making up the biggest part of the EU′s budget.
Of course it is also to be questioned whether with the joining of economically weak countries the economies of the "richer" members are not weakened.
What should be taken into consideration as well is the impact the joining will have on the population of the candidates, especially considering the rights they will gain when they are citizens of the European community. They do then have the right to settle and work anywhere within the community, this could lead to a large amount of people pouring into the old member countries trying to seek work there and make their living. And since most of the European countries are already struggling with high unemployment the high rates could be pushed up further and the discontent among the population could worsen, especially against the background of Neo-Nazis in Germany and other countries such as Britain or Italy. Off course this would only be a temporary problem, which would solve itself over time as the new members develop economically, but still this could prove to be a major issue.
Of course their comes also a minor problem along with the expansion, this problem being even more languages than the twelve, already being used, in which EU communications would have to be carried out adding to the already huge administrative body of the European Union and also causing further costs of the EU.
But because the expansion represents a political necessity one should also take into account the positive aspects caused by such a historic event. With the expansion the continent would take a huge step towards the ethnic integration within Europe, different cultures would be facing each other and could also profit from each other. Also the global competitiveness of the EU against the USA and Asia would improve and another step towards global peace would be undertaken.
III. Changes in administration
It is obvious that an expansion potentially including ten countries would not be feasible without fundamental institutional reforms.
For instance with the existing structure of the Union which allocates most of the power to the European Council, where each member state has one vote, it would be imaginable that smaller members would have a majority over the larger members. Except for Poland, which is by population comparable to Spain and would consequently be a large member, all other candidates are relatively small in size an population.
Another point is that with more than twenty members the decision finding and making process needs to be completely reconsidered, so it represents the actual size of the member countries in terms of population rather than giving each member a veto and especially one single vote. The existing voting and weighting system is also already making the decision finding process a painfully and lengthy one, another ten different opinions added to this would make it virtually impossible to come to an agreement that at least partially satisfies all members and is therefore being supported and not vetoed against.
A changed "legislature" would also keep the democratic thought that the entire EU is based on alive and not vanish it like the existing system.
What should also be pointed out is the fact that an increase in members could lead to new coalitions within the Union and also increase competition among the individual countries. There are even critics that fear that an eastern expansion could lead to a shift in power towards the reunified Germany, since the potential new members are already heavily bound and leaning towards Germany.
What should also be considered is a change in European agricultural policy, which should actually be reformed already. The system of milk quotas, subsidies etc. which subsidises an over-production in many areas, just not to infuriate the farmers, because smaller farms would not be able to survive without the subsidies and the entire face of the European primary sector would change is completely outdated. This system could definitely no longer be kept up with even more farmers to support.
IV. Successful without absorbing the new members?
It is obvious that this question needs to be answered with a clear no. The existing members of the EU are already being absorbed by it and they have all chosen this faith. The goals of the European Union do state the loss of sovereignty in the areas of economic and currency politics, the latter one already realized, also in the political areas of social politics, education, research, consumer protection, health and also environmental issues. Now one could argue how many of these goals need to be realized in order for the EU to be successful, from the British point of view for example the cooperation in economic issues and the creation of the single market have already been enough, considering their opinion towards the Maastricht treaty.
If one would see it from the British point of view the EU could be successful without absorbing the new members, but since most other countries would like to see the above mentioned goals implied and would like to realize the dream of de Gaulle, Adenauer and others of "the United States of Europe", the new members would surrender a huge part of their sovereignty and consequently would be absorbed by the EU, especially considering that they will join in a couple of years at the earliest when European integration will hopefully have advanced beyond the point it is today.
Another point one could consider is what would happen if the European integration would further advance up to the point of the United States of Europe without any new countries joining. This would create another superpower alongside the USA and the then non-members would live in the shadow of the EU or whatever its name would be by that time and also be absorbed by the enormous power, in any terms, of their big neighbour just like the Caribbean, Canada and Mexico, even the entire Americas are by the USA. So the conclusion drawn by this could be that the central and eastern European countries would be better off in any case if they joined the EU even if they had to surrender much of their sovereignty.
Sources:
(1) http://www.europa.eu.int/ (March 17th, 2001)
(2) http://idw.tu-clausthal.de/public/zeige_pm.html?pmid=26445 (April 5th, 2001)
(3) Informationen zur politischen Bildung: Europäische Union (BpB, 1995)
(4) Microsoft Encarta 98
(5) Mittel- und Osteuropa auf dem Weg in die Europäische Union (Werner Weidenfeld, Verlag Bertelsmann Stiftung, 1996)
(6) http://www.e-politik.de/beitrag.cfm?Beitrag_ID=559 (April 1st, 2001)
国家税务总局关于加强外国企业税收征管协调配合的通知
国家税务总局关于加强外国企业税收征管协调配合的通知
国家税务总局
各省、自治区、直辖市和计划单列市国家税务局、地方税务局：
为贯彻落实《国务院办公厅转发国家税务总局关于调整国家税务局、地方税务局税收征管范围意见的通知》（国办发〔1996〕4号）精神，加强外国企业的税收控管，防止税款流失，现就国家税务局、地方税务局对外国企业税收征管中的有关协调配合问题通知如下：
一、关于税源控制的协调问题
为了有效地控制税源，最大限度地减少漏管、漏征现象，国税局、地税局要加强与主管外国企业常驻代表机构、承包商、海运、空运业务的经贸、工商、海关、边防等部门的联系，注意税源资料的搜集、整理和分析。国税局、地税局两局之间要加强协作配合，建立有效的税源资料交换
制度，对通过各种途径所掌握的外国企业机构、场所情况应定期进行交换、分析比较；对日常管理或税务检查中发现的漏管户要及时将有关情况通知对方。
二、关于外国企业常驻代表机构纳税义务判定的协调问题
（一）凡在这次征管范围调整前已判定为纳税户的外国企业常驻代表机构，国税局、地税局统一按纳税户进行征管。
（二）对尚未判定为纳税户及新增的外国企业常驻代表机构，国税局、地税局可以联合依照有关规定判定是否为纳税户。凡国税局、地税局分别判定的，应及时将各自的判定结果填制《外国企业常驻代表机构税务管理情况交换表》（式样附后）按月通报对方。对于对方已做出判定而本
局尚未做出判定的外国企业常驻代表机构应及时做出相应的判定；凡一方与另一方判定结果有不同意见的，应及时进行沟通协商，协商不一致的，应分别将情况和意见逐级行文上报国家税务总局审批，两局统一按总局批复的意见执行。
三、关于确定外国企业常驻代表机构计算纳税方法问题
国税局、地税局应根据外国企业常驻代表机构的实际管理和会计核算情况确定采用“核实”、“核定”或“经费换算收入”方法计算征税，在确定外国企业常驻代表机构计算征税的方法时，国税局、地税局应加强协调，及时沟通情况，并按月填制《外国企业常驻代表机构税务管理情况
交换表》通报对方。凡采用按经费支出换算收入征税的，国税局、地税局均应依照国家税务总局规定的外国企业常驻代表机构按经费支出额换算收入计算征税方法的有关条件审核认定，并分别将审核认定意见逐级上报国家税务总局审批，国税局、地税局统一按总局批复的意见执行。
四、关于从事海运、空运的外国企业征税问题
从事海运、空运的外国企业，凡按4．65％（营业税3％，企业所得税1．65％）的综合征收率征收营业税和企业所得税并由代收代缴义务人代缴税款的，国税局、地税局两局指定的代收代缴义务人应一致；代缴税款由代收代缴义务人按国税局、地税局所管税种的税额分别缴入国
税局、地税局指定的银行；应付的代收代缴手续费，由国税局、地税局按企业所得税和营业税入库金额乘以规定的手续费比例分别退给代收代缴义务人。
五、关于外国承包商及零散税源控管问题
国税局、地税局对外国承包商及体育文艺演出、展览展销、广告、讲学、培训等零散税源应加强协调控管。一方面对查出的漏管户应及时通知另一方，另一方应及时做出相应的税务处理。
六、关于判定外国企业在我国境内是否构成常设机构问题
为保证执行税收协定的一致性，对外国企业在我国境内的经营活动是否构成常设机构，原则上由国税局负责判定。国税局应及时将判定为构成常设机构的外国企业书面通知地税局。
七、关于外国居民享受协定待遇申请表和中国居民证明表的使用问题
国税局、地税局应统一执行《国家税务总局关于修改〈外国居民享受避免双重征税协定待遇申请表〉的通知》（国税函发〔1995〕089号）和《国家税务总局关于印制、使用〈中国居民身份证明〉的通知》（国税发〔1994〕255号）。具体办理时暂按以下原则处理：凡涉
及外商投资企业或外国企业法人的证明事项统一由国税局负责；凡涉及居民个人的证明事项，统一由地税局负责；凡涉及内资企业法人的，按其所得税归属管理分别由国税局或地税局负责办理。各地可根据上述规定按照统一格式自行印制申请表格。
附件：外国企业常驻代表机构税务管理情况交换表
填制日期： 填制所属期间：
－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－
｜ 企 业 ｜ 纳税户判定情况 ｜ 确定计税方法 ｜
｜ ｜－－－－－－－－－－－－－－｜－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－｜
｜ 名 称 ｜ 是 ｜ 否 ｜ 尚未判定 ｜ 核实 ｜ 核定 ｜ 经费换算｜
｜－－－－－－｜－－－｜－－－｜－－－－－－｜－－－－｜－－－－｜－－－－－｜
｜ ｜ ｜ ｜ ｜ ｜ ｜ ｜
｜－－－－－－｜－－－｜－－－｜－－－－－－｜－－－－｜－－－－｜－－－－－｜
｜ ｜ ｜ ｜ ｜ ｜ ｜ ｜
｜－－－－－－｜－－－｜－－－｜－－－－－－｜－－－－｜－－－－｜－－－－－｜
｜ ｜ ｜ ｜ ｜ ｜ ｜ ｜
｜－－－－－－｜－－－｜－－－｜－－－－－－｜－－－－｜－－－－｜－－－－－｜
｜ ｜ ｜ ｜ ｜ ｜ ｜ ｜
－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－
填制单位（印章）
1996年4月19日
