Recycling of renewable resources is an important part of the comprehensive utilization of resources. Under the policy background of "accelerating the green transformation of the development mode" and "comprehensively implementing the strategy of saving", the construction of the institutional system of China's renewable resources industry has been continuously improved. In the field of taxation, all policies are constantly adjusted with the changes in the macro environment and the reality. In recent years, the renewable resources industry has witnessed a number of cases of false invoicing involving a large amount of subject matter and a wide scope, and the business model of renewable resources recycling enterprises has triggered a large amount of controversy. In this paper, we will firstly sort out the tax policies and practical dilemmas of renewable resources recycling enterprises, discuss the tax risks under the common business model, and focus on analyzing the new model that has changed after the implementation of No. 40, and analyze the risk points therein for readers' reference.

The means to make the declared value of goods higher than their actual value by fraud has long been regarded as a typical behavior of defrauding export tax drawbacks because it obtains more national export tax drawbacks fraudulently. However, if the crime of fraudulent export tax drawback is identified as a consequential offense, it must be accomplished by the realization of result of the constitutive requirement, that is, the perpetrator must actually obtain the benefits of the fraudulent tax drawback. In practice, in some cases, the amount of tax fraud is determined based on the amount of tax refund applied by taxpayers, which is contrary to the purpose of Article 204. The Criminal Judgment [(2017)Qiong Xing Zhong No.60] of Hainan Provincial Higher people’s court adjudicated that the amount of tax fraud must be analyzed in combination with the authenticity of the exported goods and the tax payment situation, and the amount of tax fraud cannot be determined only by the amount of tax refund, which has established a good precedent rule for clarifying the constitutive requirement of the crime of tax fraud. Through the in-depth analysis of this case, this article hopes to provide suggestions for the majority of foreign trade enterprises.

Recently, a number of medical device enterprises have not only been subject to tax recovery and late payment fees, but also administrative penalties and lower tax ratings due to concealment of income, false listing of expenditures and other illegal acts, triggering a series of tax risks. Serious cases will face criminal sanctions. In view of this, this paper will take the pharmaceutical enterprises tax evasion, false opening as a starting point, through the case form to summarize the pharmaceutical enterprises tax evasion, false opening of common situations, and legal risk analysis, in order to provide suggestions for pharmaceutical enterprises to prevent tax risks.

Recently, a municipal tax bureau served 10 transportation companies with the Decision on Tax Treatment. According to the information contained in the document, the 10 companies had fled and lost contact, had no operating qualifications, and had no transportation vehicles under their names, but had issued external transportation invoices and obtained invoices for fuel and road transportation fees. The tax authorities will characterize their external invoices and invoices obtained as false invoicing. In view of this, this paper takes the case of false invoicing by the transportation enterprises as the starting point, analyzes the risk of transportation enterprises in carrying out the business of transporting without their own vehicles, and provides the defense space for the transportation enterprises for the reference of the transportation enterprises.

Recently, a local tax bureau issued two Notices of Tax Matters, ordering the individual who acquired the land use right and transferred it to the outside world to declare and pay the taxes and late fees involved in the two transactions. Based on the background of this case, this article will analyze the differences between civil law and tax law, the tax basis of the transactions involved, and whether the recovery period is applicable.

Recently, the material of a listed company issuing A shares to a specific target was officially accepted by Shenzhen Stock Exchange. Previously, the Shenzhen Stock Exchange had inquired about the fact that the paid-in capital of its subsidiaries had not been withheld and remitted to the natural person shareholders for a tax of 16.47 million yuan. Based on this case, this paper intends to distinguish between the tax violations of withholding agents "withholding but not withholding" and "withholding but not paying", and analyze the taxpayer's responsibility when withholding agents fail to fulfill their withholding obligations according to law.

There are many controversies about how to deal with the enterprise tax allowance in bankruptcy proceedings. Bankrupt enterprises usually do not meet the conditions of tax refund due to insolvency and other reasons, and they generally have no output tax to deduct because of the suspension of business. In practice, in the case that the bankrupt enterprise has no VAT arrears, some managers advocate offsetting the tax arrears of other taxes of the bankrupt enterprise with the tax credits, while some tax authorities think that the tax credits of VAT can only offset the tax arrears of other taxes. This involves the connection and application of tax legal rules and civil and commercial laws. Starting from a judicial case, the author will discuss the definition of the nature of the value-added tax allowance in bankruptcy procedures, and further discuss the application of the right of set-off in the bankruptcy field for readers' reference.

Since the Criminal Law Amendment (VII) added the administrative predicate of tax evasion, the issue of the convergence of execution and punishment of tax evasion has been a hot topic of discussion in practice.2023 On October 10, the Supreme Court issued a typical case involving the protection of the property rights of private enterprises and the legitimate rights and interests of entrepreneurs in retrial, and the fifth case of the acquittal of Meng Mou in a retrial of tax evasion, which provided a more clear interpretation of the provisions of the fourth paragraph of the crime of tax evasion, while the defendant initiated the retrial procedure through the form of protest by the procuratorate, which demonstrated the importance of safeguarding the defendant's right to judicial remedy. At the same time, this case was initiated by the defendant through the form of the Procuratorate's protest, which plays a good role as a model for safeguarding the defendant's right to judicial remedies. This paper intends to start from the case, the administrative preliminaries of tax evasion and the relevant provisions of the initiation of retrial procedures.