Article 51 of the Tax Administration Law stipulates that taxes paid by taxpayers in excess of the taxable amount shall be refunded immediately upon discovery by the tax authorities, and the Interpretation of the Tax Administration Law summarizes the circumstances of this article as "various reasons, such as incorrect understanding of the tax law, calculation error, wrong application of the tax rate, increase of the tax amount, or improper financial and technical processing". That is to say, the Tax Administration Law and its interpretation only provides for the refund of "tax paid by the taxpayer in excess of the taxable amount", which only covers the situation of overpayment of tax caused by the lack of legal basis from the beginning, and does not provide for the refund of overpayment of tax arising from the revocation of taxable acts and other circumstances. In practice, there are many disputes on whether the paid tax should be refunded after the taxable act is revoked. In this paper, the author will cite two cases to analyze the refund of paid tax after the taxable act is revoked for readers' reference.

In July this year, Fuzhou Municipal Tax Bureau served a Decision on Tax Treatment by way of announcement. The tax authorities determined that the company involved in the case obtained invoices from a company in Beijing to inflate the cost, and then violently invoiced to the outside world within a short period of time, and characterized the invoices issued by the company involved in the case as false invoicing. With the development of the Internet, the network live broadcasting industry has emerged, but some live broadcasting platforms, network anchors, MCN organizations and other subjects have not paid sufficient attention to tax compliance in the operation and development, resulting in a surge of tax-related risks. In view of this, this article takes the case as a starting point to analyze the tax-related risks of all parties in the live broadcast industry and puts forward tax compliance suggestions for readers' reference.

On July 11, 2003, the Ministry of Finance and the State Administration of Taxation (SAT) issued the Circular of the Ministry of Finance and the State Administration of Taxation on Regulating the Administration of Individual Investor's Individual Income Tax Collection (Cai Shui [2003] No. 158), which treats the "long-term non-reimbursement of individual shareholders' loans" as a distribution of dividends and bonuses, and collects individual income tax. Although the document has been in force for more than 20 years, there are still big controversies in the implementation, especially in the scope of the borrower, the judgment of the time of occurrence of the tax obligation, the connection with the system of "no profit, no distribution" of the Company Law, and the question of whether to levy tax or refund the tax for the repayment of the borrowed money across the years, etc., the tax authorities around the world have different understandings. This article is intended to analyze the disputes in the application of Circular 158 in the light of four cases and make suggestions for taxpayers to cope with the relevant risks.

The system of necessary detention review is an effective recourse granted by the Criminal Procedure Law to crime suspects and defendants for safeguarding their legal rights. Recently, the Supreme People's Procuratorate and the Ministry of Public Security jointly issued the "Provisions on the Review and Assessment of the Necessity of Detention by People's Procuratorates and Public Security Organs" (referred to as the "Provisions"), refining issues existing in the current work of detention necessity review and further implementing the criminal judicial policy of "fewer arrests, cautious prosecution, and prudent detention." This article interprets the changes in these regulations and their impact on tax-related crimes for the reference of readers.

As an emerging road transportation model, the network freight platform has been around tax-related risks since its birth. Recently, a province announced a major network freight case that is still in the review stage, involving a total price of more than 20 billion yuan, affecting nearly 30 provinces and municipalities across the country, involving more than 500 ticket recipients. The case is huge and wide-ranging, and if the above accusations are confirmed, the platform faces extremely heavy criminal liability. However, through the analysis of the news and the cases related to the transportation industry handled in the past, the author believes that there are still three doubts in the handling of suspected false invoice-issued cases in the transportation industry, especially in the network freight industry. This article takes the above case as an example, analyzes and discusses it from the perspective of theory and practice, and talks about some of the author's personal superficial views.

The recycling business of recyclable resources is prone to the risk of false invoicing. In practice, to strengthen tax management, some tax bureau in certain regions require recycling enterprises to sign affiliation agreements face-to-face with individual sellers affiliated under their name to be recognized as affiliated. This requirement aims to clarify the criteria for determining affiliation relationships and prevent the occurrence of phenomena such as forged affiliations. However, this requirement may exacerbate the contradictions in the operation of affiliated businesses in the recycling industry, leading to further increases in tax risks for recycling enterprises. This article intends to analyze the causes of the affiliated operating model in the recycling industry and introduce two perspectives on the establishment of affiliated relationships in practice. This analysis aims to provide insights into the practical challenges and business risks of the "face-to-face signing" requirement.

Recently, a local tax bureau in Fujian Province issued a notice to characterize the tax evasion and impose a fine of more than RMB 20 million on a local real estate enterprise for inflating operating costs and sales expenses and underpaying enterprise income tax and land value-added tax. This case is typical and reflects four types of tax risks common to real estate enterprises, i.e., business authenticity risk, cost accounting risk, cost deduction risk and account management risk. This paper intends to combine the illegal facts and characteristics of the enterprises involved in this case to reveal the relevant tax risks of housing and development enterprises.

In practice, the enterprise in the purchase of goods, accept services completed, at that time can not obtain input invoices, obtain non-compliant invoices and other reasons, and then made up invoices, its tax risks in where? This article is intended to combine an enterprise from the flexible employment platform after the invoice and to be red-flush still be punished case, after the legality of the invoice behavior and red-flush false invoices whether to assume legal responsibility for analysis, for the reader's reference.