Supplier verification has always been a key verification program of the regulatory bodies of enterprises to be listed, after a number of enterprises to be listed have been terminated due to supplier issues, and recently a company to be listed was questioned and eventually terminated due to the existence of a large number of individual entrepreneurs in the supplier, and the existence of the relevant subject of the "flash setup and flash sales". So, how should the proposed listed company deal with the relevant input risks involved in supplier verification? This article combines the company's response to the supplier compliance points to explain.

Value-added tax invoice is the legal evidence of value-added tax input deduction, "Invoice Management Measures" clearly stipulates the requirements of invoicing, but in practice, there are many cases in which the payer's rights and interests of deduction are impaired due to the payee's failure to issue invoices, and some of the payers have filed a civil lawsuit, or requested the payee to issue invoices or requested the payee to compensate for the losses arising from the invoices not being issued for deduction. Judicial practice of such cases are not consistent, the author will analyze the referee case as an entry point, and discuss how to protect the rights and interests of the payee deduction, for readers' reference.

On December 31, 2021 the Ministry of Transport and the State Administration of Taxation (SAT) issued an announcement that, in order to further implement the State Council's decision-making and deployment of promoting the standardized and healthy development of the platform economy, the Interim Measures for the Management of Road Cargo Transportation Operations of Network Platforms, which had expired, would be extended for another two years. From truckless transportation to network freight, this new transportation business has been more than six years of exploration, development and reform, but some irregularities still have not been eradicated, network freight platforms, logistics intermediary platforms, major cases are exposed from time to time, in which the risk of tax-related invoices is still serious. This article will analyze with readers the dilemmas and problems faced by the network freight industry.

How to recognize the loss of national tax in false invoicing cases is always a controversial topic. Recently, Changsha Municipal Taxation Bureau announced six tax audit cases, and determined that six companies have falsely issued VAT invoices to the outside world, because there is no real production and operation business, and in essence, no VAT taxable behavior occurs, therefore, no corresponding VAT tax obligation arises, and the falsely issued VAT invoices are not subject to VAT. In this paper, we will analyze the root cause of national tax loss in the false invoicing cases.

Since 2012, the pilot work of approved deduction of input tax credits for agricultural products has been carried out in a number of industries nationwide, and is currently at the stage of authorizing provinces to select the scope of products to be piloted on their own. In practice, it is found that localities have the right to independently delineate the scope of agricultural products to which the policy of approved deduction of input tax amount can be applied, but these provisions are rather sketchy, and there will be deviation in the interpretation and cognition between tax authorities and taxpayers within a province as to whether a product belongs to the scope of approved deduction, which leads to great uncertainty in the application of approved deduction by taxpayers, and may result in the application of approved deduction being The tax authorities may deny the application of the approved deduction, which may result in the payment of back taxes, late payment fees or even the risk of tax evasion.

A real estate development enterprise obtains the land use right to develop and construct a real estate project, which may not be able to start or may be stalled for a number of reasons, and then the government will take back the land. According to the Urban Real Estate Management Law, urban land resumption can be categorized into compensated and uncompensated. As to whether enterprises need to pay land value-added tax when the government resumes the land with compensation and the land compensation is higher than the cost of land acquisition and development, the results of the current cases are different. This article will analyze whether land value-added tax should be levied under different circumstances when land is resumed by the government.

Equity holding, also known as entrusted shareholding, anonymous investment or pseudonym, refers to the actual contributor and others agreed to the name of the other person on behalf of the actual contributor to fulfill the rights and obligations of shareholders, a kind of equity or share disposal. Shareholding is a relatively common mode of shareholding in the capital market, but if the "shares held on behalf of" is transferred, the actual shareholders, the nominal shareholders of the "shares held on behalf of" part of the tax payable without tax, the tax obligation and avoidance of payment of taxes. The issue of whether the criminal liability should be borne by the actual shareholders or the nominal shareholders is controversial. In this article, we will start from the case to explore the normative differences among the civil and commercial law, tax law and criminal law in the field of nominee shareholding, and suggest the relevant tax-related risks under the mode of nominee shareholding and provide suggestions to cope with them.

Recently, China Tax Lawyer received a tax consultation in which a real estate development enterprise expected to settle the land value-added tax (LVAT) at zero after the completion and acceptance of the project, so it applied to the local government for a temporary non-declaration of payment of pre-payment of land value-added tax (LVAT), and was granted permission to do so. Later, with the reform of consolidation of tax authorities, the consolidated tax authority denied the previous determination that the taxpayer had not declared the prepayment and demanded the taxpayer to pay late fees for the non-payment of prepayment. The question is whether the taxpayer is still required to pay the late payment fee when the land value added tax is already zero. And can the behavior of the pre-reform tax authority constitute a reasonable reliance interest of the taxpayer?