Recently, the State Administration for Market Supervision and Administration (SAMSA) issued the Implementation Measures for the Regulations on Fair Competition Review (hereinafter referred to as the Implementation Measures) to further refine the Regulations on Fair Competition Review (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations), which came into effect on August 1 last year. Under the framework of the Regulations, the Implementation Measures have refined and improved the general requirements for fair competition review, departmental responsibilities, review standards, review mechanism, review procedures and supervision and safeguard measures. In terms of tax-related aspects, business models relying on fiscal and tax incentives are common in industries such as renewable resources and flexible labor, and after the Implementing Measures have further clarified the requirements for fair competition review, the related tax-related risks need to be emphasized. This article analyzes the three major tax-related risks based on the Implementing Measures' refinement of the scope of fair competition review and the review criteria for readers' reference.

Insolvency expenses and co-beneficial debts arise in the course of insolvency proceedings and are different from insolvency claims arising before the commencement of insolvency proceedings. In practice, tax authorities and insolvency administrators have different views on whether the new tax and its late payment belong to insolvency expenses and co-beneficial debts, and disputes arise frequently. This article takes a judicial case as a guide, combines the relevant provisions and spirit, analyzes the qualification of the claim of new tax and late payment after the bankruptcy acceptance, and aims to provide ideas for the resolution of this kind of dispute for readers' reference.

In practice, the invoices issued by the upstream enterprises are characterized as false invoices, and the tax authorities will generally send the Notice of Confirmed False Invoicing and related materials to the downstream tax authorities of the invoiced party enterprises, and the tax authorities of the invoiced party enterprises will use this as evidence to determine that the invoices obtained by the invoiced parties are false invoices, and the invoiced party enterprises may face the legal consequences of paying back taxes, late payment fees and fines as a result. This article starts from a case of administrative litigation filed by an invoiced enterprise against the tax processing decision made by the competent tax authority of the invoicing party, and briefly analyzes the remedial measures that can be taken by the invoiced enterprise under different circumstances.

Mergers and reorganizations help enterprises integrate resources, achieve rapid development and improve competitiveness, and are of great significance in promoting the transformation and upgrading of economic structure and realizing high-quality economic development. In terms of enterprise income tax policy, the Ministry of Finance and the State Administration of Taxation (SAT) have issued tax incentives for deferred tax on special tax treatment of mergers and reorganizations to reduce the tax burden of enterprises. However, in practice, due to the complexity of mergers and reorganizations, the special tax treatment procedure requirements are more detailed, some enterprises meet the entity elements of special tax treatment, but did not report the series of special tax treatment information to the tax authorities, in this case, whether the enterprise can still enjoy the special tax treatment deferred tax incentives, this paper intends to discuss with a case.

In recent years, the number of bankruptcy cases has continued to rise, and bankruptcy-related tax disputes have become more and more frequent. Whether the ordinary claims for late payment declared by the tax authorities can exceed the principal amount of tax is one of the focuses of the disputes. This involves the connection between the enterprise bankruptcy law and the tax administration law, and also concerns the coordination between the tax administration law and the administrative coercive law. This article takes the People's Court casebook a case included in as an entry point, analyzes the focal point in depth and draws conclusions, aiming to provide for the resolution of tax-related disputes in bankruptcyclear ideas and useful references .

With the development and improvement of company law and securities law, employee stock ownership plan and equity incentives have become an important tool for employees of listed companies to hold shares. In terms of tax policy, the Ministry of Finance and the State Administration of Taxation (SAT) have followed the pace of the capital market and formulated a more complete policy on equity incentives for listed companies, however, no clear regulations have been issued in respect of the employee shareholding plan, which has led to the listed companies in the implementation of the employee shareholding plan being caught up in the "maze" of how to apply the tax policy and encountering the "reef" of inconsistent understanding of the enforcement of the law. This has led listed companies to fall into the "fog" of how to apply tax policies and encounter the "reef" of different understanding of law enforcement. This article is intended to analyze the differences between equity incentives and employee stock ownership plan from a tax dispute case of employee stock ownership plan for listed companies, and provide suggestions for the implementation of employee stock ownership plan to prevent tax risks.

Due to the special nature of missing invoices at the source and the operation practice, the renewable resources industry has generally formed the business pattern of “multi-link transaction”, “one-stop transportation” and “one pound bill to the end”. As a result, cases of false invoicing and tax evasion based on the rationality of the mode and the doubt of the authenticity of the business occur frequently. The Approval Reply of the State Administration of Taxation on the Relevant Taxation Issues of Waste Materials Recycling Business (Guo Shui Han [2002] No. 893) is based on the special situation of the renewable resources industry, and specifies that under the basic mode of “retailer-recycling enterprise-producer”, the recycling enterprise will issue invoices to the producer. The legality of the invoice issued by the recycling enterprise to the production enterprise is clarified under the basic model of “retailer-recycling enterprise-producing enterprise”. With the development of the industry and the change of tax policy, the business model of renewable resources recycling continues to evolve, and more diversified business chains have been derived on the basis of the basic model, in which the legitimacy of the invoicing behavior is worth further discussion. This paper takes the kernel of No. 893 as the entry point to analyze the key points that should be grasped in dealing with tax-related cases of renewable resources enterprises at present.

Primary processing of agricultural products is an important foundation for modern agriculture to strengthen the industrial chain, optimise the supply chain and enhance the value chain, and promoting the development of primary processing of agricultural products is of great significance to the development of the ‘three rural areas’. In terms of tax policy, the state stipulates that eligible agricultural products processing can enjoy enterprise income tax exemption policy, boosting the primary processing of agricultural products enterprises bigger and stronger. However, at the same time, due to the scope of agricultural products processing tax law is not clear, vague issues, triggering disputes between the two sides of the tax enterprises, agricultural products processing enterprises on the road to development of the roadblock. Recently, a local tax authority determined that the potato fries and potato flour produced and sold by the enterprise do not belong to the scope of tax-free primary processing of agricultural products, and it is proposed to require the enterprise to pay back taxes and late payment fees. This article is intended to start from the case, for the face of such problems in the primary processing of agricultural products enterprises to provide countermeasures.