Update: treaty access between Hong Kong Mainland

Treaty access across the Hong Kong–Mainland corridor has never operated on autopilot. But a pattern our desk sees with increasing frequency is this: a structure that looked clean at the point of formation is quietly failing the substance and source tests that determine whether treaty benefits apply at all. For groups with dividends, royalties or interest flowing through Hong Kong holding entities, the risk sits at the intersection of the Arrangement between the Mainland of China and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region for the Avoidance of Double Taxation on Income (the Mainland–HK tax arrangement, the governing bilateral instrument) and Hong Kong's territorial tax system.

Treaty access between Hong Kong and Mainland China turns on whether the Hong Kong entity is the beneficial owner of the income and whether it can demonstrate genuine economic substance on the Hong Kong side of the corridor – two conditions that Mainland tax authorities examine with increasing rigour at the point of withholding-tax refund or treaty-rate application.

This briefing sets out what has sharpened in practice, who is affected, and the steps to take now.

What Has Changed in Practice

The Mainland–HK tax arrangement has not been amended. The text has not changed. What has shifted is enforcement posture and administrative scrutiny on the Mainland side.

Mainland tax authorities are looking more closely at the substance of Hong Kong entities claiming reduced withholding tax rates on dividends, interest and royalties paid upstream. The question they are asking is not simply whether a Hong Kong company exists. They are asking whether it has the capacity to decide, receive and use the income – the standard the arrangement requires for beneficial ownership (the concept of economic entitlement to income, not mere legal receipt).

At the same time, Hong Kong's foreign-sourced income exemption (FSIE) regime – the set of economic-substance conditions attached to the tax exemption for certain passive income received in Hong Kong – has brought a second lens to the same facts. Under the FSIE regime, in force from 1 January 2023, income within scope that cannot meet the substance conditions is no longer exempt in Hong Kong. The implication for treaty-access planning is direct: a holding entity that fails the FSIE substance test is also a weaker candidate for beneficial-owner status on the Mainland side.

These two pressures now run in parallel. A Hong Kong intermediate holding company faces a bilateral substance review, not a unilateral one. Groups that structured their holding entities before the FSIE regime took effect should not assume the position is still sound.

Who Is Affected Across the Corridor

The immediate concern falls on three categories of cross-border structure.

First, Hong Kong holding companies receiving dividends from Mainland operating entities and claiming the arrangement's reduced withholding rate. The standard Mainland withholding rate on dividends is higher than the reduced rate available under the arrangement; the gap is material for any dividend of scale.

Second, Hong Kong entities receiving royalties or interest from Mainland counterparties. These income categories carry their own beneficial-owner analysis and their own reduced rates under the arrangement. Both are actively scrutinised.

Third, groups that have placed Hong Kong entities in the chain principally for treaty access, without building commensurate commercial substance in Hong Kong. Substance in this context means genuine management decisions taken in Hong Kong, adequate personnel, and a documented decision-making trail – not a registered address and a set of annual accounts. Our cross-border practice sees this gap regularly when reviewing inherited structures ahead of a dividend declaration or a refinancing.

The issue is not confined to large groups. A mid-sized offshore-backed structure with a single Hong Kong topco (top holding company) receiving Mainland profits faces the same analysis. The arrangement does not have a size threshold for the beneficial-owner inquiry.

For a comparative read on how treaty-access dynamics work across a different bilateral corridor, our analysis of the Hong Kong–United Kingdom treaty-access position sets out the substance and source principles that apply in that context.

The Immediate Action

There are three practical steps for any group with Mainland-source income flowing through a Hong Kong entity.

The first is a substance audit of the Hong Kong entity against both the FSIE regime conditions and the beneficial-owner standard applied by Mainland tax authorities. These two tests are not identical, but they overlap significantly. A review that covers both at once is more efficient and surfaces the gap, if there is one, before a withholding-tax position is taken.

The second is a review of the source characterisation of income received in Hong Kong. Hong Kong taxes profits on a territorial basis – meaning only profits that arise in or derive from Hong Kong are assessable. Where income is Mainland-sourced but flows through Hong Kong, the interaction between the FSIE regime and the arrangement requires careful mapping. Our practice on tax positions addresses this mapping as a standard step in holding-structure reviews.

The third is documentation. A beneficial-owner position that cannot be evidenced in a written record is difficult to defend if the Mainland tax authority raises a challenge. Meeting notes, board resolutions, management accounts and substance records should be current and consistent with the position being taken.

For a practical illustration of how management and control issues intersect with Hong Kong holding structures in a cross-border fact pattern, the matter note on tax residence, management and control in a holding-company context is relevant background.

The sequence matters. Taking a withholding-tax position on a dividend before the substance review is complete creates the harder problem to solve.

For a structured assessment of your Hong Kong entity's treaty-access and FSIE position across the Mainland–Hong Kong corridor, write to us at info@lockhartyip.com.

Frequently asked questions

How does the cross-border element affect treaty access between Hong Kong and Mainland China?

The cross-border element means the Hong Kong entity must satisfy two parallel tests simultaneously. The Mainland side applies the beneficial-owner standard under the Arrangement between the Mainland of China and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region for the Avoidance of Double Taxation on Income. The Hong Kong side applies the economic-substance conditions of the foreign-sourced income exemption regime. Both tests focus on the same underlying facts – substance, decision-making and economic connection – but they are administered by different authorities. A position that satisfies one without satisfying the other is vulnerable. In our practice, the substance gap is most common in holding entities that were established before the FSIE regime took effect on 1 January 2023.

How long does treaty access between Hong Kong and Mainland China usually take?

Establishing or confirming treaty access is not a single filing event. The substance position must exist and be documentable before a withholding-tax rate is applied or a refund is claimed on the Mainland side. Building or remedying substance – personnel, decision-making records, management infrastructure – takes time that cannot be compressed once a dividend has been declared. We recommend beginning the review well in advance of any distribution or income event. The Mainland refund process, where a withholding tax has already been deducted, involves a separate administrative track and can extend over several months; parties should verify the current position before acting.

Do I need a Hong Kong adviser for treaty access between Hong Kong and Mainland China?

The bilateral nature of the issue means that the Hong Kong analysis and the Mainland analysis must be conducted together. A Mainland tax adviser alone will assess the beneficial-owner position from the receiving jurisdiction's side, but cannot map the FSIE position or advise on the Hong Kong source and substance question. An international counsel operating across the corridor can co-ordinate both angles and identify where the two tests diverge. Lockhart & Yip works alongside locally licensed Hong Kong firms and allied counsel in the relevant Mainland jurisdictions to cover the full bilateral position. This co-ordination model is particularly important where the structure involves an offshore entity – BVI, Cayman or similar – above the Hong Kong topco.

Speak with Lockhart & Yip

For a scoped view of your matter, contact info@lockhartyip.com. Discuss your matter →

This publication is general information and does not constitute legal advice. For advice on your situation, contact info@lockhartyip.com.

Update: treaty access between Hong Kong and Mainland China

What Has Changed in Practice

Who Is Affected Across the Corridor

The Immediate Action

Frequently asked questions

Speak with Lockhart & Yip

Related