Data asset capitalization has been discussed for two years. What truly plagues the finance and tax community are these four unresolved gaps.
Data asset capitalization has evolved from the "inaugural year" in 2024 to the "water removal phase" in 2026. While numerous regulations have been issued and the number of companies recording assets has surpassed 130, key challenges remain: how to adjust amortization periods, handle impairment provisions, and define boundaries for R&D super deductions. These are essentially standard homework problems every company must solve, complete with clear answers and actionable paths.
The real debate in the tax and finance sector that remains unresolved isn't about high-level principles—it's about the cracks that emerge when rules are implemented. These issues involve disputes, reversals, cautionary tales, and even cases where doors have been shut. Here are the four topics you need to watch closely right now.
1. Data Asset ABS Halts: The Logic Between "Capitalization" and "Financing" Is Broken
In 2026 and 5, the Shanghai and Shenzhen Stock Exchanges fully halted all data asset ABS submissions and issuances. This wasn't a tightening; it was an immediate, full-chain stoppage.
The reason is straightforward: many data declaration projects have become mere "data labeling exercises" to facilitate debt financing, with very few actually supported by genuine cash flows from data operations. After traditional financing channels for local government financing vehicles (LGFVs) tightened, data asset capitalization offered a policy-compliant narrative, making it an attractive conduit for raising funds.
The interesting part is that it directly contradicts the optimistic narrative that "including assets in the balance sheet revitalizes them." Challenges such as difficult asset ownership verification, pricing difficulties, and cash flows' inability to independently support operations are amplified at the ABS stage. The regulator's choice is to close the door first.
For tax and finance professionals, the signal is clear: capitalizing data assets does not automatically create financing capabilities. Between the capitalized figures and underlying assets suitable for securitization lie three hurdles: ownership verification, cash flow validation, and regulatory approval. Adding an asset to the balance sheet does not equate to creating a tradable instrument in the market.
II. Disconnect Between Books and Reality in Bankruptcy Liquidation: Assets on the books may become worthless upon bankruptcy.
In 2026, People's Justice launched a special issue on "Disposal of Data Assets in Bankruptcy Proceedings," addressing this very issue.
The core contradiction lies in the misalignment of two frameworks: accounting standards recognize assets based on "control," while bankruptcy law defines property by "ownership." Given that data assets heavily depend on specific business contexts and operational systems, their book value can plummet to zero once a company enters bankruptcy proceedings. Worse still, ongoing compliance and maintenance costs may transform them from "assets for debt repayment" into "liabilities."
A more pressing issue is that the current Enterprise Bankruptcy Law and its judicial interpretations largely lack provisions on whether data assets can be treated as bankruptcy property. As a result, many courts and bankruptcy administrators do not include data assets in the debtor's estate for unified disposal.
What does this mean? When an asset is recognized upon capitalization, there are virtually no guidelines on how to write it off for accounting and tax purposes if the enterprise encounters difficulties, or whether it can be deducted as a capital loss for tax purposes. This is one of the most pressing unresolved issues in current practice. While recognition draws significant attention, no one can provide a definitive answer on whether the figures recorded on the books will translate into deductible tax losses upon liquidation.
III. Unintended Effects of Fiscal and Tax Incentives: The More We Encourage, the Higher Compliance Costs Become
Research highlights a paradox in tax and financial policies for data assets: VAT deduction incentives drive transaction growth but also raise compliance costs, while lagging risk controls exacerbate base erosion and double taxation.
This isn't abstract theory; real-world performance is concrete.
To apply the 6% tax rate for intangible asset transfers, companies must structure their invoice categories and contract classifications carefully. However, local enforcement practices vary; if reclassified as "data services" or "technical services," the rate could jump to 13%. This may turn prior tax planning into a liability for back taxes.
The incentive policy itself is creating new uncertainty. This is a sharp criticism circulating in the tax and finance sector: while the policy's intent was to reduce transaction costs, its implementation has raised compliance costs due to vague definitions and inconsistent standards. Companies aren't unwilling to comply; they simply don't know which standard to follow.
IV. Revenue Allocation in Public Data Authorized Operations: From Theory to Local Political Dynamics
The Ministry of Finance launched a pilot program for collecting costs associated with public data resource governance in 2026 provinces and cities in 5 10. Hunan issued an interim measure on the allocation of revenues from authorized operations of public data resources in 8.
The significance of this issue lies not in the "pilot" itself, but in a more fundamental question: how to allocate revenue generated from public data among the government, operating entities, and fiscal authorities, and how to integrate taxation into the process.
Some argue that public data should be taxed across multiple stages of authorized operations, with tax incentives used to guide market growth. However, the boundaries of "government as a redistributive entity" remain undefined. Hangzhou is already exploring the inclusion of public data authorized operations within the scope of paid use of state-owned resources, using fees to support fiscal revenue. With local jurisdictions experimenting independently and lacking unified rules, this issue has become a hot topic.
Last
Looking at these issues together reveals a common thread: the problem isn't how rules are enforced, but that the rules haven't caught up with reality.
The suspension of ABS reveals a logical disconnect between assets eligible for securitization and financing instruments; the gap in bankruptcy resolution exposes a misalignment between accounting recognition and bankruptcy law determinations; the paradox of incentive policies highlights the tension between tax neutrality principles and industrial policy objectives; and local competition over public data revenue distribution underscores fragmented efforts under the absence of top-level rules.
Amortization periods and impairment provisions are routine tasks that enterprises will eventually master. However, these four cracks currently have no standard answers. It is precisely in these areas without clear solutions that finance and tax professionals should focus their attention on the most significant changes today.