为应对现实中层出不穷的避税手段，2018年《中华人民共和国个人所得税》纳入一般反避税规则。但由于一般条款的概括性和开放性；平移企业所得税反避税条款；征税权与纳税人权利保护的价值冲突；法律具有滞后性和立法惰性等原因，给个人所得税领域的一般反避税的实体认定和程序适用带来问题。首先，在实体认定方面，“合理商业目的”标准可操作性差，“商业目的”不能有效涵盖个人所得税领域的民事行为，加之“合理商业目的”概念抽象，不能准确指引执法和守法行为；其次，反避税规则类型化不足，部分典型性的避税行为没有进行类型化规定，“一般+类型化”的反避税模式有待完善。最后，在程序适用方面，存在举证责任分配不明确、适用程序规定欠缺的问题。作为裁判规则，其让税务机关产生适用上的困惑，容易造成自由裁量权的任意扩张。作为行为规则，其不确定性不利于纳税人准确指引和预测自己的行为，不利于保护合法税收权利。因此，需要完善一般反避税规则。具体而言，首先，通过明确“合理商业目的”的含义、引入“实质重于形式”的客观标准与“合理商业目的”的主观标准相结合，从而明确认定标准。其次，建立具体避税规则，使其从一般反避税条款的适用中脱离出来，消减一般条款带来的不确定性。最后，合理分配纳税人和税务机关的证明责任，完善税收征收管理法律制度，建立案例指引制度，来完善一般反避税规则的适用程序。如此，实现税收公平，又让税收公平以看得见的方式实现。

To cope with the reality of endless tax avoidance techniques, the 2018 PRC Individual Income Tax incorporates general anti-avoidance rules. However, the generalization and openness of the general provisions; the leveling of the anti-avoidance provisions of the EIT; the conflict of values between the right to tax and the protection of taxpayers' rights; and the fact that the law is lagging behind and legislatively inert, etc., have created problems in the substantive determination and procedural application of general anti-avoidance in the field of individual income tax. First of all, in terms of entity determination, the standard of "reasonable commercial purpose" is not operable, and "commercial purpose" cannot effectively cover civil behaviors in the field of individual income tax, coupled with the fact that the concept of "reasonable commercial purpose" is abstract and cannot be applied in the field of individual income tax. In addition, the abstract concept of "reasonable commercial purpose" cannot accurately guide law enforcement and law-abiding behavior; secondly, the typology of anti-avoidance rules is insufficient, and some typical tax avoidance behaviors have not been typed, and the anti-avoidance model of "general+typology" needs to be improved. Finally, in terms of procedural application, there are problems of unclear allocation of the burden of proof and lack of applicable procedural provisions. As a rule of law, it makes the tax authorities confused about its application and easily leads to the arbitrary expansion of discretionary power. As a behavioral rule, its uncertainty is not conducive to taxpayers' accurate guidance and prediction of their own behavior, and is not conducive to the protection of legitimate tax rights. Therefore, it is necessary to improve the general anti-avoidance rules. Specifically, firstly, by clarifying the meaning of "reasonable business purpose" and introducing the objective standard of "substance over form" combined with the subjective standard of "reasonable business purpose". This will clarify the determination criteria. Secondly, specific tax avoidance rules should be established, so that they can be separated from the application of general anti-avoidance provisions and the uncertainty brought by general provisions can be reduced. Finally, the burden of proof between taxpayers and tax authorities should be reasonably distributed, the legal system of tax collection and management should be improved, and a case guideline system should be established to improve the application procedures of the general anti-avoidance rules. In this way, tax fairness is realized, and tax fairness is realized in a visible way.