The year 2026 brings a number of regulatory challenges for Chinese companies with business relationships in the EU: the EU is fundamentally reforming its customs legislation for small consignments, China has passed its first formal VAT law, and the European Court of Justice has, in a series of landmark rulings, provided important clarifications on the VAT treatment of intra-group transfer pricing. We provide a concise overview and highlight where action is required.

Chinese VAT Law – a new legal framework

The People’s Republic of China’s first formal VAT Act (PRC VAT) has been in force since 1 January 2026, supplemented by implementing regulations (Regulation No. 826) that came into force at the same time. The reform repeals the provisional VAT regulations dating from 1994 and, for the first time, places the existing tax rate system (13%, 9%, 6%, as well as 3% and 0%) on a comprehensive statutory basis.

Of particular relevance to foreign companies with business dealings in China: foreign suppliers will in future be subject to Chinese VAT regulations regardless of whether they have a permanent establishment in China; in such cases, the Chinese recipient of the supply is generally responsible for withholding VAT (Article 15(1) of the PRC VAT). A zero tax rate applies to exports, provided that the procedural requirements of Article 33 of the PRC VAT have been successfully met. The tax authorities’ expanded powers of correction (Article 20 of the PRC VAT) and the digitised fapiao invoicing system underscore the increased compliance requirements. Many detailed issues – such as the treatment of intra-group asset transfers or contractual penalties in the context of input tax deduction – remain unresolved despite the enactment of the implementing provisions and are therefore subject to supplementary implementing regulations.

EU customs reform: End of the €150 duty-free allowance

Under EU Regulation 2026/382 of 18 February 2026, duty-free status for small consignments with a value of up to 150 EUR will come to an end. The reform will have a direct impact on many Chinese online retailers, marketplace operators, fulfilment service providers and logistics companies in several stages:

The following measures will be introduced in parallel: the EU Customs Data Hub as a central data platform for consignment and product data, extended pre-declaration requirements under the Import Control System 2 (ICS2), and a revised Combined Nomenclature (CN) with updated customs tariffs and classification criteria.

In practical terms, this means the following for affected businesses: simplified procedures for small consignments will be abolished without replacement. Tariff codes must be checked regularly, as incorrect classifications can result in additional payments, delays in customs clearance and increased audit risks. Returns management will become more complex, as customs duties paid must be correctly accounted for or refunded. End customers can expect rising prices and longer delivery times. It is strongly recommended that logistics, procurement, legal and IT departments coordinate promptly, and that customs-related responsibilities along the supply chain are clearly set out in contracts.

ECJ case law: VAT on intra-group transfer pricing

Four recent ECJ rulings set out important guidelines for the VAT treatment of intra-group pricing arrangements – which are also relevant for Chinese groups with EU subsidiaries.

In the Arcomet Towercranes case (ECJ, 4 September 2025, C-726/23), the Court clarified the concept of a ‘supply of services for consideration’ under VAT law for the first time in the context of intra-group transfer pricing adjustments. The facts of the case centred on the letting and sale of cranes by a subsidiary, with the parent company assuming responsibility for procurement, administration and the economic risk, whilst the subsidiary was responsible for local marketing. If the subsidiary’s profit margin fell outside the arm’s length range, the parent company made a corresponding adjustment payment. The ECJ confirmed its established case law: A supply for consideration only exists if there is a direct link between the supply and the consideration, arising from a legal relationship involving reciprocal obligations to perform. The decisive factor is whether the payment can be attributed to a specifically identifiable supply. Payments that are only made if an agreed profit margin has not been achieved lack this direct link – and are therefore not subject to VAT.

In the Stellantis case (ECJ, 13 May 2026, C-603/24), the Court clarified that retrospective transfer pricing adjustments motivated by income tax considerations are relevant for VAT purposes only if they constitute direct consideration for a specifically identifiable supply. Pure profit margin adjustments without a direct link to a service, on the other hand, are not subject to VAT. Rather, these should be classified as retrospective changes to the VAT taxable amount. However, the ruling leaves open questions regarding the treatment of administrative corrections. In practice, this means that the contractual basis for transfer pricing adjustments should be carefully examined and structured – particularly where the recipient of the service is not entitled to a full input tax deduction, as adjustments may then lead to an additional tax burden.

In the Högkullen case (ECJ, 3 July 2025, C-808/23), the ECJ ruled that a single lump-sum payment for several intra-group services (management, IT, human resources) does not render them a single composite service. Each service retains its own identifiable character – with consequences for the applicable tax rate and the taxable amount.

Finally, in the Weatherford case (ECJ, 12 December 2024, C-527/23), the ECJ confirmed the right to deduct input VAT on intra-group administrative allocations (IT, HR, marketing, accounting), provided that the allocation keys used realistically reflect the actual scope of services and the subsidiaries benefit from specific services that are incorporated into their own output.

Conclusion

The developments outlined above demonstrate that regulatory changes are no longer merely a legal challenge, but are increasingly becoming a strategic factor for internationally active companies. An integrated approach to transfer pricing, VAT and customs clearance is becoming significantly more important – inconsistencies can lead to additional tax claims, supply chain delays and compliance risks. We would be happy to advise you on the implications for your specific business model.

Mandarin version below.

与中国相关的增值税和关税法新动向

对于与欧盟有业务往来的中国企业而言，2026年带来了多重监管挑战：欧盟正在对小额货物运输的海关法律制度进行根本性改革；中国首次通过了《增值税法》；欧盟法院（ECJ）通过一系列具有指导意义的判决，对集团内部转让定价的增值税处理问题确立了重要裁判规则。 本文将对此进行简要概述，并指出需要采取应对措施的重点领域。

中国增值税法——新的法律基础

自2026年1月1日起，《中华人民共和国增值税法》（PRC VAT）正式生效。该法由同期生效的实施条例（第826号条例）予以贯彻实行。 此次改革废除了1994年开始施行的临时增值税规定，并首次为现行增值税税率结构（13%、9%、6%以及3%和0%）奠定了全面的法律基础。

对于与中国有业务往来的外国企业而言，以下内容尤其值得关注：外国供应商不论是否在中国设有固定经营场所，今后均适用中国增值税规定。在此类情况下，根据《中华人民共和国增值税法》第15条第1款的规定，原则上由购买方履行代扣代缴义务，按照国务院的规定委托境内代理人申报缴纳税款的除外。 对于出口业务，只要符合及履行《中华人民共和国增值税条例》第33条规定的程序性要求，即可适用零税率政策。税务机关核查权限的扩大（《中华人民共和国增值税条例》第20条）以及电子发票系统的积极推广，凸显了合规要求的提升。 尽管相关实施条例已经公布实行，但许多具体问题——例如集团内部资产转让的增值税处理、进项税抵扣中的违约金的处理——仍有待通过配套规定进一步明确。

欧盟海关改革：取消150欧元免税门槛

随着2026年2月18日颁布的《欧洲联盟理事会条例（EU）2026/382号》自同年7月1日的生效，商品价值不超过150欧元的小额包裹将不再享受关税免征待遇。此次制度改革将以分阶段措施根据不同的时间节点直接地影响众多中国在线零售商、电商平台运营商、订单履行服务商和物流企业。

重要条款的如下：

作为配套性制度措施，欧盟将实施一系列海关制度改革，包括：构建欧盟海关数据中心（EU Customs Data Hub）作为统一整合货运及商品数据的中央数据基础设施、在进口管制系统2（ICS2）框架下扩大预申报义务，以及修订后的包含关税税率和商品归类更新后标准的《欧盟组合命名法》（Combined Nomenclature，简称 CN）。该制度的调整将对相关企业的海关合规产生实质性影响，特别体现在以下方面：针对小额进口货物的简化通关程序将被无替代地废止。分类错误可能会导致补缴关税、清关延误以及审查风险的增加，因此企业必须定期核查商品归类编码。 由于已缴纳的关税必须予以正确核算和退还，退货管理将变得更加复杂。终端客户预计将面临价格上涨和交货时间延长的风险。鉴于此，强烈建议物流、采购、法务和IT部门及时协调，并通过明确的合同条款，对供应链各环节的海关及关税责任进行清晰的界定。

欧盟法院判例：集团内部转让定价的增值税处理

欧盟法院(ECJ) 近期作出的三项裁决，为集团内部定价的增值税处理提供了重要的指导原则。这对在欧盟设有子公司的中国企业集团同样具有参考意义。

在Arcomet Towercranes案（欧盟法院2025年9月4日判决，案号C-726/23）中，法院首次在集团内部转让定价调整的情形背景下，具体阐明了增值税法中“有偿服务”的概念。 该案事实基础涉及一家子公司的起重机租赁及销售的业务。其中母公司负责采购、管理和承担经济风险，子公司则负责当地的市场推广。如果子公司的利润率偏离独立交易原则的合理范围，母公司将支付相应的补偿款。欧盟法院在此重申了其一贯的判例立场： 只有当服务提供与对价之间存在直接关联关系，且该关联源于具有互惠履行义务的法律关系时，才构成有偿服务。判断关键在于该款项能否与具体可确定的服务相对应。对于仅在约定利润水平未能实现时才发生的支付行为，因其并不对应于某项具体服务，所以不具备上述直接关联关系。因此此类支付不属于增值税征税范围。

在Stellantis案（欧盟法院2026年5月13日判决，案号C-603/24）中，法院明确指出：只有当事后基于所得税法目的进行的转让定价调整构成针对一项具体可确定服务的直接对价时，才涉及增值税。 相反，单纯基于利润率调整且不存在直接服务关联的支付，则不属于增值税征税范围。此类调整应被归类为对增值税计税基础的事后调整。然而，该判决在税务机关实施转让定价调整时的具体处理方式方面仍留下了未解决的问题。 该判决对实务的启示在于企业应当对转让定价调整的合同依据进行审慎的制定与审查。尤其是当服务接受方无权享有全部进项税额抵扣的情况下，应特别警惕相关调整可能导致的额外税收负担风险。

在Högkullen案（欧盟法院2025年7月3日判决，案号C-808/23）中，欧盟法院裁定，对于企业集团内部提供的多项服务（经营管理、IT、人事管理）即使各项服务以统一总价形式计费，也不能据此认定其构成一项统一服务。各项服务仍分别保有可识别的独立性质，并因此对适用税率及计税基础产生影响。

在Weatherford（欧洲法院2024年12月12日判决， C-527/23）中，欧盟法院确认，对于企业集团内部的管理费用分摊（包括IT、人事、市场营销、会计服务），只要所采用的分配标准真实反映了实际服务范围，而且子公司能够从相关服务中获得具体利益，并且该等服务实际用于其自身的对外经营交易，则相关进项税额可予以抵扣。

结论

上述发展表明：监管环境的变化已不再局限于法律层面的挑战，并且日益成为跨国企业需要关注的战略性因素。于此同时，转让定价、增值税及海关申报与通关流程进行一体化考量的重要性也显著提升。特别是相关领域之间的不一致可能导致补缴税款、供应链延误以及合规风险。我们非常希望及乐意结合贵公司的具体商业模式给您提供针对性的专业咨询，评估相关监管变化可能产生的影响，并制定符合贵企业需求的应对方案。