In order to solve the problem of ‘source tickets’, a large number of platform enterprises have appeared in the transport, human resources, medicine, renewable resources, non-ferrous metals and other industries, and these platform enterprises, due to the high tax burden, need to rely on the fiscal refund policy to carry out their operations, and obtain the fiscal refund is usually related to the taxes paid in the course of their operations. However, due to the intangible nature of the services provided by the platform enterprises in the transport, human resources and pharmaceutical industries, the platform enterprises in the renewable resources and non-ferrous metals industries have a long trade chain, and the enterprises do not participate in transport, etc., the business authenticity of these platform enterprises is often questioned by the judicial authorities, which in turn leads to the risk of false invoicing, and it has become a difficult problem in the practice of how to evaluate the financial rebates obtained from the taxes paid by the enterprises due to the false invoicing. How to evaluate the financial rebate obtained from the tax paid by the false invoices has also become a difficult problem in practice. In the past, the judicial authorities usually determined that the enterprises used the financial rebate as a tool for profit-making through false invoicing and only pursued the responsibility for the crime of false invoicing of VAT special-purpose invoices. However, some cases now show a different logic of conviction, and the judicial authorities have started to prosecute and adjudicate on the crimes of fraud and false VAT invoices or illegal sale of VAT invoices, which has steeply increased the criminal risk of the platform enterprises. How should they respond to the criminal charge of fraud? This article intends to explore.

On October 25, the Ministry of Finance released the fiscal revenue and expenditure situation in the first three quarters of 2024, and the statistics show that the national tax revenue from January to September decreased by 5.3% year-on-year, and the property tax among the land and real estate-related taxes was 311.8 billion yuan, an increase of 19.9% year-on-year, and the land value-added tax (VAT) was 400 billion yuan, a decrease of 7.8% year-on-year. VAT, land value-added tax and other transaction-related taxes and fees are hotspots of long-term concern for the real estate industry, and in the context of significant changes in the supply and demand relationship in the housing market at present, enterprises should also focus on property tax, urban land use tax and other taxes and fees in the real estate holding segment. Recently, a listed company in Inner Mongolia announced that its subsidiaries conducted self-inspection and verification of property tax returns according to the requirements of the local tax bureau, and due to the inconsistent understanding of the tax basis, the subsidiaries were required to make up for a total of 111,059,700 yuan of property tax and late payment fees from December 2018 to June 2024, which was expected to affect the net profit attributable to shareholders of the listed company for the year 2024 of approximately 80.69 million yuan. Based on the main controversial issues of property tax in practice, this article selects three typical cases to analyze the application and understanding of policies and other issues by cases for readers' reference.

Recently, through a special tax information exchange between China and the United States, China's tax authority investigated a case of a company evading corporate income tax by fabricating overseas equity transactions and falsely reporting equity investment losses. The tax authorities have recovered more than 10 million yuan of corporate income tax that the enterprise evaded, and imposed a fine of 0.5 times the amount of underpaid tax on the enterprise. In recent years, the act of evading taxes through overseas asset allocation has not only received attention from international tax management cooperation, but also been a focus of inspection by China's tax authorities. This article combines a tax bureau disclosure case to share the current situation of tax information exchange practices between China and the United States, and combines the dynamic of tax inspections on high net worth individuals in China's taxation sy

The Decision of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China on Further Comprehensively Deepening Reform and Promoting Chinese Modernisation, adopted at the Third Plenary Session of the Twentieth Central Committee of the CPC, stresses the need to improve the system of two-way convergence between administrative and criminal penalties. The system of two-way convergence of administrative and criminal penalties (hereinafter referred to as "convergence of execution and punishment") includes both forward and reverse convergence. The linkage between administrative and criminal penalties is particularly important in the tax-related field. Crimes against tax collection and management are typical administrative offences, which require administrative qualification before discussing criminal offences and misdemeanours. Therefore, it is of great significance to fight for a favourable characterisation in administrative procedures such as tax audit to prevent the risk of criminal liability. In this paper, from the analysis of the connotation of the system of linkage between the execution and punishment, we analyse the significance of administrative risk prevention and control of taxation in the prevention of criminal risk for the reference of the readers.

Recently, Hubei Provincial Tax Bureau issued a penalty announcement, the basic case of the announcement of the case is that Zhang Mou sold a batch of leather to enterprise A. However, because Zhang Mou did not apply for tax registration, he could not issue invoices, therefore, Zhang Mou negotiated with the legal representative of enterprise A, so that Zhang Mou entrusted his friend's enterprises B and C to issue VAT invoices to enterprise A. During the period from January 2020 to August 2023, the Enterprise A accepted a total of 235 invoices from B and C, with a total price and tax of more than 25.23 million yuan and a tax amount of more than 2.9 million yuan, all of which were deducted by Enterprise A after receiving the invoices. All of the above 235 invoices were recognized as false invoices by the competent tax authorities of enterprises B and C. Enterprise A, as the recipient of the invoices, was recognized as tax evasion, and was required to make up for the underpayment of tax totaling more than RMB 3,040,000, and was imposed a penalty of 50% of the underpayment of tax, which amounted to more than RMB 4,560,000 in total.

Tax forensics, which sounds like the "Sherlock Holmes" of the tax world, is actually a rigorous and specialized field. It involves tax experts examining, identifying and judging tax issues in court proceedings and providing authoritative appraisal opinions. An objective, fair and scientific judicial appraisal report is like a key to solving tax disputes, which is very important for safeguarding the fairness and justice of criminal law, tax law and the legitimate rights and interests of the parties concerned.

For a long time, the pharmaceutical industry in general shows the characteristics of the “buyer's market”, medical institutions and doctors enjoy the absolute right to say about the drugs, coupled with the existence of a large number of generic drugs in the pharmaceutical industry, drug substitutability is strong, the pharmaceutical companies have to promote the way to complete the sale of drugs. In the process of purchasing promotion services for pharmaceutical enterprises, their intention is to sell drugs to the terminal medical institutions through legal and compliant promotion, but the promoter deviates from the agreement with the pharmaceutical enterprises, taking the means of sales with gold to complete the promotion, in this case, the pharmaceutical enterprises to obtain the promotion of invoices can be deducted for pre-tax deduction? This article is intended to combine a real case to discuss.

The decentralization of the source of waste materials has led to the dilemma of the lack of invoices at source in the renewable resources industry, and some recycling enterprises have solved the problem of pre-tax deduction for enterprise income tax by making their own vouchers for booking. In recent years, some regional tax authorities no longer recognize the behavior of enterprises' homemade vouchers for booking, and based on the provisions of Measures for the Administration of Vouchers for Pre-tax Deduction of Enterprise Income Tax (State Administration of Taxation Announcement No. 28 of 2018), they consider that the enterprises' acquisition of waste materials have not obtained legal and valid deduction vouchers, and make the treatment of reissuing and exchanging invoices and adjusting the supplementary tax for the enterprises, and the relevant enterprises face a huge economic burden. Based on the tax policy in the field of renewable resources and the relevant provisions on pre-tax deduction of enterprise income tax, this article analyzes the pre-tax deduction vouchers of renewable resources recycling enterprises for the reference of the majority of enterprises in the renewable resources industry.