Correctly determining the tax recovery period, penalty statute of limitations, and criminal prosecution statute of limitations is of great significance to ensuring that national taxes are fully deposited in accordance with the law, urging tax authorities to actively perform their duties of investigating and dealing with tax violations, and safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of taxpayers. In practice, the tax authorities and enterprises have different understandings on the identification of the three periods, which leads to disputes between tax authorities and enterprises. This article intends to analyze how to determine the three deadlines one by one from a real case for readers 'reference.

On April 18, Teng Wei and other judges of the Supreme Court issued the “Understanding of the Two Supremes' Interpretation of Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Handling Criminal Cases of Hazardous Tax Collection and Administration” (hereinafter referred to as the “Interpretation and Application”), which was published, and which gave a clear interpretation of the relationship between the crime of illegally purchasing special invoices for value-added tax (VAT) and that of falsely opening VAT invoices. The Interpretation and Application (hereinafter referred to as the Interpretation and Application) was published, in which a clear interpretation of the relationship between the crime of illegal purchase of VAT invoices and the crime of false VAT invoices was given. This interpretation has set up a certain obstacle to the way of criminalization of the crime of false invoicing, and it is difficult to obtain acquittal for cases that do not constitute the crime of false invoicing, and the number of cases in which the defendant is convicted of the crime of illegal sale of invoices has been rising. A total of 41 cases involving the purchase of invoices by defendants have been decided, 12 cases have been convicted of illegal purchase of invoices, 29 cases have been convicted of false invoicing, no cases have been convicted of false invoicing and tax evasion, and there have been no acquittal cases. In this context, whether there is still room for acquittal of enterprises suspected of false invoicing? In this article, we will take the practice cases as an entry point to discuss how the invoiced enterprises should go on the way of getting out of the crime.

Due to the lack of invoices at the source, the problem of pre-tax deduction of enterprise income tax vouchers in the renewable resources recycling sector has existed for a long time, and the homemade vouchers have become a “stopgap measure” for most of the resource recycling enterprises to solve the voucher problem in practice. In recent years, especially since last year, the “reverse invoicing” policy has been formally implemented, the tax risk of resource recycling enterprises with homemade vouchers gradually appeared, and many enterprises are faced with the problem of adjusting and paying the enterprise income tax, and charging late fees. This paper takes the predicament of invoices at source in the renewable resources industry as the entry point, based on the actual situation of the industry, combs through the policies and measures related to the pre-tax deduction of vouchers for enterprise income tax, and analyzes the legitimacy and reasonableness of the homemade vouchers of the resource recycling enterprises for the readers' reference.

In recent years, in the wave of economic development and market change, China's refined oil circulation field industry regulation has gone through a number of major reforms. 2025, February 5, the General Office of the State Council issued the "Opinions on Promoting the High-quality Development of the Circulation of Refined Oil Products" (State Council [2025] No. 5), put forward five aspects of the 21 specific initiatives, the refined oil industry tax-related regulation has also made four important deployments. This article analyzes the key points of the new policy in light of the evolution of the policy. Under the new regulatory environment, enterprises need to actively respond and establish a sound tax compliance system to adapt to the new situation where wide access and strong regulation coexist.

In practice, it has been controversial as to whether tax administrative penalties need to take the subjective state of the parties into account. There is a view that as long as the perpetrator has committed a tax offence and caused the result of tax administrative offence, then no matter whether his subjective state is intentional or negligent, he should be administratively punished; there is also a view that subjective fault is one of the constituent elements for the qualification of tax offence, and the perpetrator should not be administratively punished if he is not subjectively at fault. For the latter, the tax authorities should bear the burden of proof on the subjective elements of the parties, if they fail to prove or insufficient evidence, or will bear unfavourable results. In this paper, we will briefly analyse whether the subjective state of the parties should be taken into account in the administrative tax penalty.

In the article "Eight Cases Reveal Series of Tax Risks of Tax Evasion, False Opening and Tax Fraud in Agricultural Products Industry", we summarized the types of tax-related cases in the agricultural products industry, and analyzed and revealed the risks of tax evasion, false opening and tax fraud in the agricultural products industry. In this issue, we will analyze in detail the common manifestations of the criminal risk of false opening in agricultural products from the perspective of VAT input credit policy for agricultural products, and put forward the defense strategies to deal with the crime of false opening in conjunction with the tax-related judicial interpretations of the two high courts for readers' reference.

On December 31, 2024, the Supreme People's Court issued a retrial administrative judgment around an urban land use tax dispute case, revoking an 11-year-old tax penalty decision. In the author's view, in the case of cognitive differences between the taxpayer and the enterprise on a tax-related matter, it should not be unilaterally characterized as tax evasion, and the taxpayer's right of administrative appeal in administrative and criminal cross-case should be protected in accordance with the law. The judgment of this case is of typical significance and important value, the tax enforcement behavior of the tax authority in the form of mechanical law was not supported by the court, and the taxpayer finally won the lawsuit after more than ten years of twists and turns, and the legitimate rights and interests of the taxpayer were effectively safeguarded.

From December 20, 2024 to January 19, 2025, the State Administration of Taxation issued the “Provisions on the Submission of Tax-related Information of Internet Platform Enterprises (Draft for Comments)”. (hereinafter referred to as the “Provisions”) to solicit opinions from the public. The draft of the Provisions was jointly drafted by the State Administration of Taxation and the State Administration for Market Regulation, aiming to further regulate the information submitted by Internet platform enterprises and promote the standardized, healthy and sustainable development of the platform economy. In view of this, we have interpreted the Provisions and put forward a number of suggestions for amendments based on the perennial observation and summary of the operation and development of Internet platforms.