Jinyan Li (Osgoode Hall Law School) has posted two tax papers on SSRN:

• Fundamental Enterprise Income Tax Reform in China: Motivations and Major Changes:

On 16 March 2007, the National People’s Congress of China promulgated a new Enterprise Income Tax Law (EIT Law) to take effect on 1 January 2008. It is the first law in Chinese history that imposes an income tax on all forms of enterprise. It replaces the current FIE Income Tax Law applicable to enterprises with foreign direct investment and the Interim Enterprise Income Tax Regulations (Interim EIT Regulations) applicable to Chinese-owned enterprises. Most notably, the EIT Law abolishes the tax incentives applicable only to foreign-investment enterprises (FIEs) and introduces a general tax rate that is internationally competitive. The promulgation of the EIT Law symbolizes the maturity of China’s tax policy, China’s commitment to the principles of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and China’s confidence in its economic development policy. This article provides some background on this fundamental tax reform and an overview of the key changes and their implications.

• Reviving the Modern Rule in the Interpretation of Tax Statutes: Baby Steps Taken in Canada Trustco, Mathew, Placer Dome and Imperial Oil (with David Piccolo (Osgoode Hall Law School)):

Canada Trustco, Mathew, Placer Dome and Imperial Oil are landmark decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada in terms of their illumination on the principle of statutory interpretation. In these cases, the Court stated that the Income Tax Act should be interpreted in accordance with a “textual, contextual and purposive” approach. This amounts to a revival of the “modern rule” of statutory interpretation and a move away from the “plain meaning” approach previously adopted by the Court. This article argues that the steps taken by the Court in reviving the modern rule are merely baby steps, as many key questions remain inadequately addressed. The article first discusses the rise and fall of the modern rule in Canadian tax jurisprudence. It then analyzes each of the four decisions and highlights the contribution of each case to the development of the textual, contextual and purposive interpretation. The article concludes with some thoughts on the challenges facing the courts in establishing the “purpose” of provisions of the Act and offers some suggestions for moving forward.