國(guó)際商法課件2

1、 第二章 國(guó)際商法的主體 n 本章要點(diǎn)：本章要點(diǎn)： n 介紹國(guó)際商事交易活動(dòng)的主體，包 括國(guó)家、獨(dú)資企業(yè)、合伙企業(yè)與公司 n 學(xué)習(xí)要求：學(xué)習(xí)要求： n 1、了解國(guó)家的司法豁免權(quán)； n 2、掌握獨(dú)資、合伙及公司的法 律特征。 n 參考書目：參考書目： n 1、（美）、（美）R.H. 佛羅森，佛羅森，M.W. 戈登，戈登，J.A.斯帕諾格著，國(guó)際商事斯帕諾格著，國(guó)際商事 交易，人民大學(xué)出版社2001年版。 n 2、滕威著：合伙法理論研究，人 民法院出版社2013年版。 n 3、趙旭東主編：新公司法講義， 人民法院出版社2005年版。 n 第一節(jié) 國(guó)家 n 國(guó)家國(guó)家是指以國(guó)家名義參加國(guó)際商事 流轉(zhuǎn)活

2、動(dòng)和管理本轄區(qū)內(nèi)國(guó)際商事活 動(dòng)的國(guó)家代表和政府機(jī)關(guān)。 n 一、司法豁免權(quán)（一、司法豁免權(quán)（immunity from immunity from njurisdictionjurisdiction） 即在國(guó)際商事活動(dòng)中國(guó)家的行為 和財(cái)產(chǎn)不受另一國(guó)家法院的管轄。 n （一）內(nèi)容 n 1、管轄豁免，即未經(jīng)一國(guó)同意， 不得在他國(guó)法院對(duì)其起訴或以其財(cái)產(chǎn) 作為訴訟標(biāo)的。 n 2、訴訟程序豁免，即使一國(guó)同意 n在他國(guó)作為被告或作為原告提起訴 訟，其仍享有訴訟程序上的豁免。 n 例如，未經(jīng)該國(guó)同意，不得對(duì)其 財(cái)產(chǎn)采取訴訟保全措施。 n 3、強(qiáng)制執(zhí)行豁免，即一國(guó)在外 國(guó)法院參加訴訟，無論充當(dāng)原告或 自愿做被告

3、，未得到其同意，不能 n根據(jù)外國(guó)法院的判決對(duì)它及其財(cái)產(chǎn)實(shí) 施強(qiáng)制執(zhí)行。 n（二）理論根據(jù)（二）理論根據(jù) n 1、平等者間無管轄權(quán)原則 n 2、所有物從屬于物主的原則 n （三（三）兩種學(xué)說）兩種學(xué)說 n 1、絕對(duì)豁免權(quán)學(xué)說：所有行為 n 2、相對(duì)豁免權(quán)學(xué)說： n 非商業(yè)交易行為 商業(yè)交易行為 n 劃分標(biāo)準(zhǔn)：交易性質(zhì)或 交易目的 n（四）我國(guó)態(tài)度（四）我國(guó)態(tài)度 n 絕對(duì)豁免權(quán)： n 1、相對(duì)豁免權(quán)的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)不科學(xué)； n 2、放棄剝奪； n 3、國(guó)有企業(yè)是獨(dú)立的法人； n 4、國(guó)內(nèi)法院不是唯一的途徑 n n相對(duì)豁免權(quán)： n 1、適應(yīng)世界法律環(huán)境 n 2、市場(chǎng)經(jīng)濟(jì)的需要 n 3、建設(shè)法制社會(huì)的需要 n

4、案例案例3 3、仰融案（、仰融案（20032003年）年） n 案例案例4 4、莫里斯案（2005年） n 美國(guó)1976年的外國(guó)主權(quán)豁免 法：國(guó)家的商業(yè)行為，不享有國(guó) 家豁免權(quán)。 n 美國(guó)法院對(duì)下列商業(yè)行為有管 轄權(quán)： （1）外國(guó)政府在美國(guó)而為的商業(yè) 行為； n （2）在美國(guó)發(fā)生的與該外國(guó)國(guó)家 在美國(guó)之外的商業(yè)行為有關(guān)的行為； n （3）在美國(guó)之外發(fā)生的外國(guó)商 業(yè)行為與發(fā)生在美國(guó)領(lǐng)土之外的行 為有關(guān)的，并且該行為對(duì)美國(guó)產(chǎn)生 直接影響的。 n n 二、外交保護(hù)權(quán)（外交保護(hù)權(quán)（diplomatic diplomatic protectionprotection） n 即本國(guó)國(guó)民在國(guó)外遭到損害，依

5、該外國(guó)國(guó)內(nèi)法程序得不到救濟(jì)時(shí)，本 國(guó)可通過外交手段向該外國(guó)要求適當(dāng) 救濟(jì) 。 n 須具備下述條件： n （一）本國(guó)僑民在他國(guó)的合法權(quán)利 遭到了該國(guó)的非法侵害 n （二）受害人持續(xù)具有保護(hù)國(guó)的國(guó) 籍國(guó)籍持續(xù)原則 （doctrine of continuing nationality） n 1、受害人具有保護(hù)國(guó)的國(guó)籍 n 案例5、巴塞羅那公司案 n (1)自然人國(guó)籍的確定 n 國(guó)籍國(guó) n 雙重國(guó)籍 n 1）平等國(guó)籍原則：國(guó)籍國(guó)不能互 相行使。但2002年通過的草案規(guī)定， 除非其中一國(guó)在受害人受害時(shí)和正式提 出求償之日都是主要國(guó)籍國(guó)。 n 2）有效國(guó)籍優(yōu)先原則 n 案例6、諾特鮑姆案 n 草案允許國(guó)

6、籍國(guó)共同行使。 n 無國(guó)籍：草案規(guī)定，一國(guó)可為 無國(guó)籍人行使外交保護(hù)，但該人在受 到損害之時(shí)和正式提出求償之日在該 國(guó)須有合法的慣常居所。 n（2）法人國(guó)籍的確定 成立地標(biāo)準(zhǔn) 住所地標(biāo)準(zhǔn) 主要利益地標(biāo)準(zhǔn) 復(fù)合標(biāo)準(zhǔn) 2、受害人持續(xù)具有保護(hù)國(guó)的國(guó)籍 即請(qǐng)求外交保護(hù)的當(dāng)事人必須 在受到損害時(shí)以及提出求償之日 屬于被請(qǐng)求國(guó)的國(guó)民。但是草 案也規(guī)定了例外，即如果在受 到損害時(shí)不是被請(qǐng)求國(guó)國(guó)民， n也可以向求償時(shí)的國(guó)籍國(guó)提出外交保 護(hù)，但前提是，原國(guó)籍國(guó)已經(jīng)喪失并 正當(dāng)獲得被請(qǐng)求國(guó)的國(guó)籍。 n （三）用盡當(dāng)?shù)鼐葷?jì)（三）用盡當(dāng)?shù)鼐葷?jì)（exhaustion exhaustion of local remedi

7、esof local remedies） 1、充分使用 n行政救濟(jì) 司法救濟(jì) n 地方救濟(jì) 中央救濟(jì) n2、正確使用 n 案例案例7 7：阿姆巴提耶洛斯案 卡爾沃主義（Calvo Dotrine)： （1）不能濫用外交或武力干涉別 國(guó)內(nèi)政； （2）只能尋求東道國(guó)的救濟(jì)； （3）國(guó)民待遇。 第二節(jié) 商事組織 n一、商事組織一、商事組織 n 指在商事活動(dòng)中，能夠以自己名 義從事營(yíng)利性活動(dòng)，并具有一定規(guī) 模的經(jīng)濟(jì)組織。 n 商事組織必須具備以下法律要件： n（1）有自己的商號(hào)； n（2）有固定的場(chǎng)所； n（3）擁有自主支配的財(cái)產(chǎn)； n（4）以營(yíng)利為目的； n（5）具有一定的組織形式； n（6）設(shè)立手

8、續(xù)符合法律規(guī)定。 n 二、選擇商事組織形式應(yīng)注意的因素二、選擇商事組織形式應(yīng)注意的因素 n（一）投資者承擔(dān)債務(wù)責(zé)任的形式 n（二）投資者的納稅負(fù)擔(dān) n（三）商事活動(dòng)的性質(zhì)是否適合此類 企 業(yè)形式投資者的數(shù)目及其相互關(guān)系 （四）其內(nèi)部運(yùn)作的有效性及從事業(yè)務(wù) 活動(dòng)的費(fèi)用 （五）在成立企業(yè)前籌措資金及其他經(jīng) 濟(jì)資源的可能程度 （六）企業(yè)未來發(fā)展是否方便融資 n 三、個(gè)人獨(dú)資企業(yè)（三、個(gè)人獨(dú)資企業(yè)（Individual Proprietorship） n 指由一名出資者單獨(dú)出資經(jīng)營(yíng)，并 由其承擔(dān)全部盈虧，實(shí)行無限責(zé)任的 企業(yè)。 n （一）它是一個(gè)自然人企業(yè)，不具有 法人資格（承擔(dān)無限責(zé)任） （二）企業(yè)

9、的所有權(quán)與管理權(quán)合二 為一 （三）資金來源有限，資本數(shù)額較 少 （四）稅賦較輕 n 四、合伙企業(yè)（四、合伙企業(yè)（Partnership） n （一）合伙企業(yè)的概念 n 指依法設(shè)立的，由各合伙人訂立合 伙協(xié)議，共同出資經(jīng)營(yíng)、共享利潤(rùn)及 共擔(dān)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)，并對(duì)合伙企業(yè)債務(wù)承擔(dān)無 限連帶責(zé)任的營(yíng)利性組織。 nPartnership is profit-making organization, nand all the partners in which conclude a partnership agreement ,make joint capital contributions, conduct bu

10、siness jointly share incomes and risks and bear unli- mited joint and several liabilities for debts of the partnership enterprise. n 1、合伙人共有的營(yíng)利組織 原告曾與他人訂立了一份 購(gòu)買某車行制造的汽車的書面合同。 但原告付清車款后，該人未交貨即 不見了蹤影。原告認(rèn)為被告與該人 是合伙人，遂要求被告賠償。 n 原告為此舉證證明，被告曾向該 車行無息投入8.5萬美元，并以為車 行購(gòu)買汽車元件和其他設(shè)備的方式 參與了經(jīng)營(yíng)，原告到車行如遇與其 訂合同的那個(gè)人不在時(shí)，便

11、常與被 告打交道。此外，被告還從汽車銷 售中取得利潤(rùn)。 n 被告則辯稱，其所投入的8.5萬 美元屬“貸款”，取得汽車銷售款 是貸款的償還和購(gòu)買部件等勞務(wù)的 報(bào)酬。 原告與被告簽訂了一份 合伙經(jīng)營(yíng)水果的合同。合同規(guī)定： 雙方聯(lián)合購(gòu)買水果制成果脯出售， n原告投資100萬，購(gòu)買水果；制作及 銷售果脯由被告負(fù)責(zé)，一年后由被 告一次付原告100萬及利潤(rùn)20萬。 n 合同簽定一個(gè)月后，原告即投 入100萬。被告因購(gòu)不到水果，便將 原告投資的100萬挪作他用。 n 原告得知，遂訴至法院，要求被 n告履行合伙合同，返還100萬投資并 付利潤(rùn)20萬。 n2、合伙企業(yè)基于合伙人之間訂立的 合伙合同而成立( co

12、ntractual rela- tionship) n3、合伙企業(yè)是“人的組合” n4、合伙人享有平等參與管理合伙事務(wù) 的權(quán)利(sharing management of a business) n5、合伙人對(duì)企業(yè)債務(wù)負(fù)無限連帶責(zé)任 n 6、合伙企業(yè)一般不是法人，原 則上不能以合伙企業(yè)的名義擁有財(cái) 產(chǎn)，享受權(quán)利和承擔(dān)義務(wù)。 （二）合伙的內(nèi)部關(guān)系 n 指合伙成員之間的權(quán)利與義務(wù)的 關(guān)系。 1、合伙人的權(quán)利 n（1）分享利潤(rùn)的權(quán)利 n（2）參與經(jīng)營(yíng)管理的權(quán)利 n（3）獲得補(bǔ)償?shù)臋?quán)利 n（4）監(jiān)督和檢查帳目的權(quán)利 n 原告與被告簽訂了合伙經(jīng) 營(yíng)服裝干洗店的協(xié)議。協(xié)議規(guī)定：原 告負(fù)責(zé)全部設(shè)備和技術(shù)投資

13、，被告負(fù) 責(zé)經(jīng)營(yíng)管理，盈利由二人對(duì)半分成。 n 此后，原告出資送被告去某市學(xué)習(xí) 服裝干洗技術(shù)，并購(gòu)買了所需的一切 設(shè)備。但在干洗店開業(yè)經(jīng)營(yíng)后，原告 n發(fā)現(xiàn)被告未按協(xié)議約定建立正規(guī)帳 目，不及時(shí)結(jié)帳分成，便要求自己 到店開票收活。被告不同意，以干 洗店系自己勞動(dòng)經(jīng)營(yíng)，錢只是向原 告借的為由，拒絕分成和賠償損失。 n2、合伙人的義務(wù) n（1）繳納出資義務(wù)（contributions） n（2）忠實(shí)義務(wù)（duty of loyalty） n 1）Duty to make disclosure： n partners are bound to render true accounts and full

14、 information of all things affecting the partnership to any partner . n2） Duty to account for benefits derived from dealings with partner- nship: nThat prohibits a partner from having dealings with the partnership without disclosing the nature of those dealings to the other partners. n n3） Duty to a

15、ccount for use of part- nership assets: That prohibits a partner from deriving a benefit from the partnership name, property or business connec- tion without the consent of the other partners. n 4） Duty not to compete with part- nnership: n If a partner without the consent of the other partners carr

16、ies on any busi- ness of the same nature as and com- peting with that of the firm he must naccount for and pay over to the firm nall profits made by him in that busi- ness. n（3）謹(jǐn)慎和注意義務(wù)（duty of care） n（4）不得隨意轉(zhuǎn)讓出資的義務(wù) n（三）合伙的外部關(guān)系 n 指合伙企業(yè)與第三人的關(guān)系。合 伙人間的相互代理規(guī)則決定了合伙 企業(yè)同第三人的關(guān)系有以下特點(diǎn)： 1、Every partner is an ag

17、ent of the firm and his other partners for the purpose of the business of the partner- ship, and the acts of every partner who does any act for carrying on in the usual way business of the kind carried on by the firm of which he is na member bind the firm and his partners, unless the partner so acti

18、ng has in fact no authority to act for the firm in the parti- cular matter and the person with whom he is dealing either knows that he has no authority or does not know or believe him to be a partner. nFacts Mr and Mrs Lamb and Mr and Mrs Newell conducted a partnership under the name Moruya Furnitur

19、e and Bedd-ing. The business was operated from leased premises which were owned by Young. The partnership had operated from the same premises since n1989. Mrs Newell did most of the lease negotiations. She always paid the rent to Youngs agent. In 1995 Mrs Newell negotiated a new three-year lease wit

20、h an option for a further lease. In 1998 Mrs Newell sent a letter to Youngs agent stating that the partnership intended to exercise the noption. She had no actual authority from the other partners to do this.The partners argued that the partnership was not bound by Mrs Newells letter. nDecision Whet

21、her one partners act can be said to be done in the usual course of carrying on a particular nbusiness depends on the nature of the business, the duration of the partner- ship and the practices normally adopt- ed by persons engaged in carrying on businesses of that type. Leasing pre- mises was a nece

22、ssary act for carrying on the partnership business. The pre- mises had been used by the business nsince 1989. Mrs Newell had negoti- ated the lease. Mrs Newell was the contact between the partnership and Youngs agent.The letter in 1989 pur- ported to speak for the partnership. In all the circumstanc

23、e, therefore, Mrs Newells act in sending the letter taking up the option was an act nrelating to the business of the firm , done in the firms name, revealing an intention to be bound The partner- ship was bound by Mrs Newells act. nCase 12 nFacts Jenkins, a partner in a busi- ness, borrowed money in

24、 the partner- nship name and supposedly on behalf of the partnership at an exorbitant rate of interest(60%). In fact, the borrow- ings were for Jenkins himself. His partner was unaware of Jenkins activities. Jenkins defaulted in pay- ment and the lender sued the partner- ship. Jenkinspartner denied

25、that the ndebt was a partnership debt. nDecision The court held that borrow- ing money fell within the normal scope of conducting a partnership of the kind in question . However, borrowing at exorbitant rates was not within the usual way and, therefore, the other partners were not bound. n2、合伙人間如對(duì)某一

26、合伙人的權(quán)利 有所限制，不得用以對(duì)抗不知情的 第三人。 n3、partners are jointly and severally liable for wrongful acts or omissions committed by a partner in the ordinary course of the business of the firm. n4、A partner who has retired remains liable for partnership debts incurred when the partner was a member of the firm. nAn

27、 incoming partner become liable for the firm incurred prior to becom- ning a partner(according to Chinese law, and the civil law system). n 企業(yè)成立后，為擴(kuò)大經(jīng)營(yíng)，同年 6月向銀行貸款人民幣30萬元，期限 為1年。 n 同年8月甲提出退伙，鑒于當(dāng)時(shí) 企業(yè)贏利，乙、丙表示同意。甲遂 于當(dāng)月辦理了退伙手續(xù)。同年9月， 丁入伙。但后因企業(yè)經(jīng)營(yíng)惡化，出 n現(xiàn)嚴(yán)重虧損，2006年5月，乙、丙、 丁決定解散合伙企業(yè)，并將合伙企 業(yè)財(cái)產(chǎn)予以分配，但未對(duì)銀行貸款 進(jìn)行清償

28、。 n 2006年6月，銀行貸款到期后， 銀行要求合伙企業(yè)清償，發(fā)現(xiàn)該合 伙企業(yè)已解散，遂向甲要求償還全 n部貸款。甲稱自己已經(jīng)退伙，不應(yīng)負(fù) 責(zé)清償。銀行即要求乙償還全部貸款， 乙表示只按照合伙合同約定的比例清 償相應(yīng)數(shù)額。銀行又要求丙償還全部 貸款，丙表示自己以勞務(wù)出資，不應(yīng) 負(fù)責(zé)償還。銀行再向丁要求償還全部 貸款，丁表示該貸款是自己入伙 n前發(fā)生的，不負(fù)責(zé)清償。 n 法律問題： n （1）甲、乙、丙、丁各自的主張能否 成立？ n （2）合伙企業(yè)所欠銀行貸款應(yīng)如何清 償？ n2、Plummer and Thomas entered into an arrangement which Plum

29、mer claimed amounted to a partnership. The joint enterprise involved opening up a work- shop for the manufacture and sale of ceramics and other craft items. Plummer was a ceramicist. Thomas was a farmer who wanted to set up a business which nwould involve his four adult children. nAccording to the a

30、rrangement, profit were to be shared 50/50. Otherwise Thomas arranged the lease in his name and paid the bond, registered the business name in his name, opened the bank accounts in his own name, paid nall the debts, decided who would be hired and fired , and decided who the accountant would be and w

31、hat form the financial records would take. Plummer brought a number of special- ty items to the workshop. However, when the relationship broke down she claimed these back and Thomas agreed. n 習(xí)題：習(xí)題： n 1、2005年1月，甲、乙、丙共同設(shè) 立了一家合伙企業(yè)，合伙合同約定： 甲以人民幣30萬元、乙以房屋作價(jià)人 民幣40萬元、丙以勞務(wù)作價(jià)人民幣20 萬元出資；各合伙人平均分配利潤(rùn)、 平均承擔(dān)虧損。 n

32、Plummer argued that there was a part- nership . Thomas denied this. n3、The partnership was described as a firm of importers. Goods were pur- chased in Paris by one partner , trans- ported to Australia and sold in Melbourne by another partner. Contra- ry to agreement, the Melbourne part- nner bought

33、stock in Melbourne but was unable to pay for it . The Parisian partner visited Melbourne for the pur- pose of winding up the partnership . He examined all the transactions, took possession of the stock bought by the Melbourne partner and arranged for its nsale. He paid some of the debts incurr- ed b

34、y the Melbourne partner. Others, however, he refused to pay , arguing that he had no ability to do so . The unpaid creditors argued that he was liable. n4、 Holland, Whittington and Harold Holland conducted a solicitors office nas partners. Harold advised a client of the partnership (Polkinghorne) to

35、 sell government bonds and invest in a company run by an acquaintance of Harolds. The company had no assets and the whole scheme was designed to defraud the client. The other two part- ners were not aware of Harolds acti- nvities. Polkinghorne sued the partners. n The partners argued that they were

36、not responsible for the actions of Harold because his activities were not within the scope of the kind of busi- ness carried on by the partnership. The argument was based on the fact that nHarold gave investment advice rather than legal advice. n 五、公司五、公司 n （一）公司的概念 n 公司是指依法定程序設(shè)立的，以營(yíng) 利為目的的社團(tuán)法人。 n 1、

37、公司的法人性 n 2、股東責(zé)任的有限性 n3、股東的股權(quán)與管理權(quán)相分離 4、公司的永續(xù)性 （二）（二）Piercing the corporate veil n 指為阻止公司獨(dú)立人格的濫用， 就具體法律關(guān)系中的特定事實(shí)，否 認(rèn)公司與其背后的股東各自獨(dú)立的 n人格和股東的有限責(zé)任，責(zé)令公司 的股東對(duì)公司債權(quán)人或公共利益直 接負(fù)責(zé)的一種法律制度。 nA corporation is a legal entity separate from its shareholders. Corporation law erects an imaginary wall between a ncorporatio

38、n and its shareholders that protects shareholders from liability for a corporations actions. Once share- holders have made their promised ca- pital contributions to the corporation, they have no further financial liability. This means that contracts of a corpo- ration are not contracts of its share-

39、 nholders, and debts of a corporation are not debts of its shareholders. nCase 13 nSalomon was a boot manufacturer who originally operated the business as a sole trader. He converted the business into a company, as several of nhis sons worked in the business and he wished to give each a share. The s

40、ubscribers to the memorandum were Salomon, his wife and five child- ren. They each took up one share . However, evidence was raised to show that the wife and five children held ntheir shares as nominees for Salomon with the result that Salomon and Co Ltd was in reality a one man com- pany . He was a

41、lso appointed the managing director of the company and two of his sons were appointed as directors. nSalomon sold his business to the company and received more shares nand securities in the form of deben- tures and secured loans from the com- pany in payment. The company then experienced financial d

42、ifficulties and eventually went into liquidation. nThe creditors of the company sued Salomon for the companys debts. They argued that Salmon should be liable for the companys debts as the Company was just an alias （化名） for Salomon himself. Salmon , on the other hand, argued that was nnot the company

43、 and therefore could not be made liable for its debts. nDecision The court held that the com- pany was a separate entity from its shareholders. It had conducted busi- ness in its own right and was not just an alias of Salomon.Therefore, salmon nwas not liable to indemnify（賠償） the company. n Salmons

44、case established the prin- ciple that control and management of a company remain distinct from its ownership. The courts do not look be- hind the corporate structure to see who nreally controls it, and as a consequen- ce, persons behind the company do not become personally liable for the companys de

45、bts. nNonetheless, in order to promote justi- ce and to prevent inequity, courts will sometimes ignore the separateness of a ncorporation and its shareholders by Piercing the corporate Veil. The pri- mary consequence of piercing the cor- porate veil is that a corporation s shareholders may lose thei

46、r limited liability. nTwo requirements must exist for a court to pierce the corporate veil: do- mination of a corporation by its share- holders, and use of that domination for an improper purpose. n 1、公司資本顯著不足 n 2、利用公司回避合同義務(wù) n3、利用公司規(guī)避法律義務(wù) n4、公司法人人格的形骸化 n（三）有限公司與股份有限公司的（三）有限公司與股份有限公司的 異同異同 n 1、相同 n （

47、1）法人 n （2）股東對(duì)公司承擔(dān)有限責(zé)任,公 司對(duì)公司債權(quán)人承擔(dān)有限責(zé)任 n 2、區(qū)別 （1）有限公司為人合性與資合性公司； 股份有限公司為資合性公司。 （2）有限公司的資本不分為等額股份； 股份有限公司的全部資本分為等額股 份。 （3）有限責(zé)任公司不對(duì)外發(fā)行股份， n股份也不允許隨便轉(zhuǎn)讓；股份有限公 司可對(duì)外發(fā)行股份，股份也可自由轉(zhuǎn) n讓。 （4）有限公司股權(quán)與管理權(quán)合而為一； 股份有限公司股權(quán)與管理權(quán)相分離。 （5）有限公司不需公開財(cái)務(wù)；股份有限 公司必須公開財(cái)務(wù)。 n（四）母公司（四）母公司（parent company ）、）、 子公司子公司 （subsidiary ）和分公司）和分

48、公司 （branch） n 1、母公司 n 指在其子公司中擁有多數(shù)股權(quán)或通過 合約、協(xié)議等形式對(duì)子公司實(shí)際行使決 定性控制權(quán)的公司。 n 母公司一般是依照母國(guó)的法律規(guī)定 設(shè)立的，其權(quán)利義務(wù)依照母國(guó)的法律 和公司的章程確定，具有獨(dú)立的法律 人格。 n 2、子公司 n 指受母公司控制，但在法律上是獨(dú) 立的法人組織。 （1）子公司的優(yōu)勢(shì) n 1）在稅收方面，當(dāng)子公司的利潤(rùn)匯 回母公司時(shí)，才在母公司所屬國(guó)納稅。 n 2）在所在國(guó)獲得股權(quán)式投資的靈活 性。 n 3）母公司對(duì)子公司以其出資為限承 擔(dān)有限責(zé)任。 n（2）子公司的弊端 n 1）設(shè)立手續(xù)相對(duì)分公司復(fù)雜，費(fèi)用 較高 n 2）公開財(cái)務(wù) n 3）經(jīng)營(yíng)

49、受到當(dāng)?shù)毓蓶|的制約 n 4）行政費(fèi)用較高 n 3、分公司 n 指總公司或母公司的一種分支機(jī)構(gòu) 或僅僅是母公司的一個(gè)附屬機(jī)構(gòu)，它 本身在法律上和經(jīng)濟(jì)上沒有獨(dú)立性。 n （1）分公司的優(yōu)勢(shì) n 1）設(shè)立手續(xù)簡(jiǎn)便 n 2）總公司能直接和全面地領(lǐng) 導(dǎo)與控制分公司的經(jīng)營(yíng)。 n 3）在稅收方面，國(guó)外分公司 的所得或虧損并入總公司的盈虧 額一起計(jì)算應(yīng)納所得稅額；匯出 的利潤(rùn)不納匯出稅。 n澳大利亞稅法：分公司稅率為51%, n子公司為46%；子公司就匯出利潤(rùn)額 的30%納匯出稅。 n子公司納稅：46% + 30% （146%） =62。2% n （2）分公司的弊端 n 1）總公司對(duì)分公司債務(wù)負(fù)無限連帶 責(zé)任 n 2