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.

In March this year, the Supreme Court and the Supreme Prosecutor jointly issued the Interpretation of Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Handling Criminal Cases of Endangering Tax Collection and Administration (Legal Interpretation [2024] No. 4, hereinafter referred to as the Interpretation). The following month, the Supreme Court, the Supreme Prosecutor of the relevant judges, prosecutors were written on the Interpretation of the understanding and application of the Interpretation of which the distinction between the crime of false VAT invoicing and the crime of illegal sale of VAT invoices triggered a controversy, but also affects the direction of the practical decision, a number of cases were re-sentenced to the crime of illegal sale of VAT invoices. I learned that, following the case of Zhejiang Shen's Provincial Logistics, the case of false VAT invoicing of a network freight platform in Sichuan was also settled, and the Offense of false VAT invoicing was re-sentenced to the Offense of illegal sale of VAT invoices, and the two main culprits were sentenced to more than ten years. This article takes this as an entry point to discuss whether it is appropriate to re-sentence this kind of case for platform enterprises and analyze how the “activation” of the crime of illegal sale of VAT invoices will affect the development of platform enterprises in practice.

At present, the capacity indicator has become a necessary condition for steel enterprises to carry out construction projects, and China's capacity replacement activities are more active. Recently, the author received a steel production enterprise consulting, the local tax authorities believe that the enterprise in 2019 to retreat from the city relocation in the capacity replacement should be regarded as sales, requiring the enterprise to make up for the value-added tax, urban construction tax, education surcharges, local education surcharges and enterprise income tax totaling hundreds of millions of dollars. In the author's view, the steel production capacity indicator belongs to the administrative license qualification or intangible asset is controversial, whether the capacity replacement activity belongs to the scope of value-added tax and enterprise income tax also needs to be analyzed on a case-by-case basis. Taxation should be in line with the principle of substantive taxation and the principle of tax law, and the taxability of the act of production capacity removal should be judged on the basis of accurately grasping the legal nature of the iron and steel production capacity indexes and the nature of the production capacity replacement activities, and combining with the various elements of the tax entities stipulated in the tax law.

In the past, many high net worth individuals (HNWIs) have built partnership shareholding platforms in tax depressions in order to enjoy tax incentives such as approved levies and fiscal refunds to realize tax savings. However, with the Notice on Administration of Collection of Individual Income Tax on Income from Equity Investments (Notice No. 41 of the Ministry of Finance and the State Administration of Taxation of 2021) coming into effect, coupled with the strict investigation of illegal financial rebates in recent years, the original tax advantages of partnership-type shareholding platforms have gradually disappeared, and HNWIs have chosen to dismantle their shareholding platforms and return to the original state of direct shareholding. The dismantling of the shareholding platform will also generate a high tax burden, what kind of dismantling can HNWIs choose to realize the optimal tax saving effect? This article is intended to discuss.

This year, the tax policy of the renewable resources industry has undergone significant changes, and on 24 April, the State Administration of Taxation (SAT) introduced the policy of "reverse invoicing", under which recycling enterprises meeting the conditions can obtain invoices from natural person sellers of end-of-life products ("sellers") and then make corresponding VAT deductions and pre-deductions before enterprise income tax (EIT). The State Administration of Taxation (SAT) introduced the "reverse invoicing" policy, under which recycling enterprises meeting the conditions can obtain invoices from natural person sellers of end-of-life products (hereinafter referred to as "sellers"), and then carry out the corresponding VAT deduction and EIT pre-deduction. At present, the policy has been implemented for 5 months, and while the "reverse invoicing" policy has solved the pain point of "the first ticket" in the renewable resources industry, there are some issues that need to be clarified in the process of its practice. In this paper, four representative issues are selected for analysis, aiming to help enterprises in the renewable resources recycling industry apply the "reverse invoicing" policy more accurately and improve tax compliance.

The two high tax-related judicial interpretations make it clear that the crime of false invoicing is not punishable if the purpose is not to fraudulently offset the tax, and if there is no fraudulent loss of tax due to offsetting. At the same time, the interpretation of the Supreme Law pointed out that the behavior of invoicing party charging “invoicing fee” and “tax point” and then invoicing others is essentially selling VAT invoices as commodities, and it is an illegal sale of VAT invoices. Influenced by this, the cases involving platform enterprises are basically characterized according to the crime of illegally selling VAT invoices. According to the main data of judicial trial work in the first half of this year published by the Supreme Court, the number of cases received in the first instance for the crime of illegal sale of VAT invoices increased by 190% year-on-year, which also reflects a significant shift in the judicial thinking of handling cases involving invoices. This article intends to combine a real case to analyze how the enterprises involved in the case should break the situation.

Among the types of offences for which administrative penalties are imposed through tax inspection procedures, tax evasion accounts for a high proportion, has heavy consequences and is controversial, and various factors make the determination of tax evasion a hot tax issue that has attracted much attention. For the understanding of some tax laws and regulations, tax enterprises often have deviations, imperfections in tax laws, the emergence of new business models, etc., which will inevitably cause disputes between tax enterprises. Such as the ‘Tax Administration Law,’ Article 63, ‘does not list less income’ behaviour, such as taxpayers due to disputes over the understanding of tax policy and law, can a blanket qualification for tax evasion? Based on a case of tax evasion penalty being revoked, this paper discusses the constitutive elements of tax evasion, the burden of proof, the standard of proof and other issues, and points out that cases in which there are cognitive differences between the two sides of tax enterprises on a tax-related matter should not be unilaterally qualified as tax evasion, which can make the determination of tax evasion and the penalty more in line with the requirements of the principle of equal responsibility and punishment.