Information date: 10 October 2026 — Under China's Stamp Duty Law, effective 1 July 2022, a purchase-and-sale contract is taxed at 0.3 per thousand of the contract amount, that is 0.03 percent. On a supply contract of RMB 10,000,000 excluding VAT, the duty is RMB 3,000. If the contract states one VAT-inclusive figure, the full amount becomes the tax base. Knowing that statement is not enough for an operating, research or compliance decision. The team must first establish who and what it applies to, how the effect reaches the real process, and which evidence would justify action.
Verified facts and scope
Under China's Stamp Duty Law, effective 1 July 2022, a purchase-and-sale contract is taxed at 0.3 per thousand of the contract amount, that is 0.03 percent. On a supply contract of RMB 10,000,000 excluding VAT, the duty is RMB 3,000. If the contract states one VAT-inclusive figure, the full amount becomes the tax base.
Applies to written contracts listed in the annex to the law and signed by entities in China. First confirm the contract type, whether VAT is separately stated, whether it is signed electronically or on paper, whether it is a framework agreement without a stated amount, and whether the counterparty is a non-resident requiring withholding.
How the effect reaches operations
Stamp duty is a documentary tax: liability attaches to the contract, not to profit or payment. Different clauses fall under different headings, with sale of goods, processing, transport and technology contracts at 0.03 percent, leases at 0.1 percent and loans at 0.005 percent. Where one contract mixes taxable items and the amounts are not separated, the higher rate applies to the mixed portion.
Common mistakes are applying the rate to a VAT-inclusive figure when VAT is separately listed, assuming instalment payment reduces the base, assuming no duty arises because no invoice was issued, and relabelling a priced supply arrangement as a framework agreement that still states an amount.
For “Case: Computing Stamp Duty on a China Supply Contract — Which Clauses Trigger Tax and at What Rate”, official rules or published findings, direct evidence from the relevant product or process, and assumptions that remain untested should be recorded separately. A broad source defines the external boundary; it does not replace batch records, protocols, contracts, labels or direct observations.
Decision
Draft contracts so VAT is separately stated and each taxable item is priced separately; where amounts cannot be split, budget for the highest applicable rate. Where the counterparty is offshore, confirm which party withholds and remits before signature, and recalculate whenever a contract is amended upward.
Implementation checklist
- Split supply, installation, transport and technology fees into separate priced line items.
- State the VAT amount separately so the base excludes it.
- Log every amendment, since an increased amount creates additional duty.
- Assign one decision owner, one implementation owner and a dated review point for “Case: Computing Stamp Duty on a China Supply Contract — Which Clauses Trigger Tax and at What Rate”.
- For “Case: Computing Stamp Duty on a China Supply Contract — Which Clauses Trigger Tax and at What Rate”, archive the source page, access date, applicable population or entity, and internal evidence both supporting and opposing the current decision.
- When a rule, formulation, supplier, protocol or observed result changes, reopen only the affected question in “Case: Computing Stamp Duty on a China Supply Contract — Which Clauses Trigger Tax and at What Rate”.
Evidence and review
For “Case: Computing Stamp Duty on a China Supply Contract — Which Clauses Trigger Tax and at What Rate”, start with one real case rather than an abstract checklist. Record the input version, responsible owner, start time, observed result and stop condition. If the team cannot complete “Split supply, installation, transport and technology fees into separate priced line items.” with current evidence, it should not expand the process to more products, patients, suppliers or markets. The first review should focus only on facts capable of changing the decision.
The second control follows “State the VAT amount separately so the base excludes it.”. Keep the source date, applicable population or entity, deadline, cost effect and owner in the same evidence file. A wording preference does not justify a new version. A repeated discrepancy, an unsupported health claim or a regulatory mismatch does: correct that point and hold release until the evidence is available.
After “Log every amendment, since an increased amount creates additional duty.”, compare the intended outcome with what actually happened. Apply the same success criteria to each later expansion. If only one number, date or responsibility changes, update that field and the affected conclusion instead of recreating evidence that remains valid. This keeps the decision traceable without turning review into an open-ended rewrite cycle.
Limits of the conclusion
This worked example illustrates general stamp duty mechanics and is not a tax opinion; the applicable rate and base depend on the signed documents and should be confirmed with the competent tax authority.
