Editor's Note: In recent years, with the acceleration of urban renewal, infrastructure construction has witnessed constant innovation in various regions. However, in the planning of infrastructure projects, the occupation of corporate land is often involved, leading to frequent situations of land requisition and acquisition. After receiving compensation from the government, companies usually enjoy preferential policies in value-added tax (VAT), but there are often disputes between enterprises and tax authorities in terms of the application of tax exemption. This article takes the example of approval document disputes over tax exemption to delve into the relevant procedures and applicable conditions for tax exemption during land requisition process, and provide practical suggestions for relevant enterprises.

On August 1, 2024, the Regulation on Fair Competition Review will come into effect, making it clear that the formulation of policies and measures containing elements that affect the cost of production and business is prohibited without a legal or administrative regulatory basis or without the approval of the State Council. Recently, in order to implement the Audit Office, the Municipal Supervision Bureau, the Ministry of Justice and other departments to focus on cleaning up the spirit of the documents that impede the unification of the market and fair competition policies and measures, a number of places to clean up the illegal financial rebates, standardize investment policies to formulate a work program. However, due to the lack of accurate grasp of laws and regulations and specific standards, enterprises may be difficult to judge the legitimacy of the relevant policies and measures, which leads to some enterprises in the conduct of daily business in the center of the hidden worries. This article compiles recent cases of government subsidies and support funds being withdrawn in several places, and provides tax compliance suggestions for enterprises based on the new regulatory situation.

Recently, "Safe Ulanhot" publicized a case of large-scale false invoicing in the field of pharmaceuticals. The Ulanhot Public Security Bureau investigated and found that more than 30 companies had frequently issued false VAT invoices for pharmaceutical manufacturers without actual business dealings. Ulanhot Municipal Public Security Bureau utilized the independently developed "five, three, four, four" method of false invoicing in the pharmaceuticals field and the "rapid identification of shell companies in the field of pharmaceuticals" data model to comprehensively analyze and evaluate the case, confirming that the actual shell companies involved in the case were as high as 1171 companies, involving an amount of 5 billion yuan. The case was fully analyzed and evaluated, and it was confirmed that the actual shell companies involved in the case were as high as 1171, involving an amount of 5 billion yuan. This is the second time that Ulanhot Public Security Bureau has successfully investigated a large-scale case of false invoicing in the pharmaceuticals field. As early as 2022, Ulanhot Public Security Bureau had successfully detected the shocking "7.22" medical field large false invoicing case, which involves 22 provinces across the country, a total of 47 suspects were arrested, the amount of money involved is up to 6 billion yuan.

In March 2022, the Inspection Bureau of Xiantao Municipal Taxation Bureau received a piece of information on a major risk case source passed from the higher level. The information showed that three energy trading companies in Xiantao City, Company F, Company R and Company T, had inconsistent names of goods purchased and sold and were suspected of false invoicing. Inspectors of the three companies associated with the investigation found that there is a company named J company energy trading company and T company for the same address, the same time registered, and its situation is very similar to the above three companies, but also engaged in petroleum and related petrochemical products wholesale business, and there is a discrepancy between purchase and sale of goods and other cases.

Editor's Note: Recently, the case of falsely issuing special invoices for value-added tax on the online freight platform of "Shen Shi Sheng Xin logistics platform", which has attracted much attention, ushered in the judgment of the second instance. The court of second instance changed the original crime of falsely issuing special invoices for value-added tax to the crime of illegally selling special invoices for value-added tax, which triggered many thoughts on the handling of tax-related cases on the online freight platform. This paper holds that the behavior of "paying invoices later" on the network freight platform does not constitute tax loss under the background of real transportation business, and should not be regarded as the crime of falsely issuing special VAT invoices, but it should not be punished as the crime of illegally selling special VAT invoices. If criminal responsibility needs to be investigated, the "late compensation" behavior of the platform is more suitable for the crime of false invoicing, which is more in line with the legislative purpose and legal interest protection principle of the crime.

Editor's Note: By combing through cases in practice, there are two main types of business models for Flexible employment platforms, namely, the "Agent Invoicing" model, which controls the invoicing of enterprises in the park, or the "Self-invoicing" model, which directly invoices in its own name. However, whether it is the "Agent Invoicing" model or the "Self-invoicing" model, Flexible employment platforms are subject to greater tax risks, and can easily be considered by public prosecutors and law enforcement authorities as having committed crimes of false invoicing. In the context of the increasingly strict regulation of tax rebate policy and the gradual strengthening of the national authority's crackdown on tax-related crimes, how should Flexible employment platforms deal with the tax-related risks? This article will focus on two invoicing modes and comment on them from the perspective of tax law principles and practices.

Since the implementation of the value-added tax policy, in order to strengthen the comprehensive utilization of resources and protect the environment, China has given preferential tax policy support to enterprises engaged in the recycling and operation of waste materials, and has successively implemented preferential policies such as tax exemption, immediate refund, first levy and then return, and simple levy. Changes in policy have led to changes in the business model of enterprises. In the past, under the tax exemption policy, the industry did not need to bear the VAT, the design and construction of the transaction mode need not consider the tax factor, steel mills and other waste enterprises usually directly grasp the first-hand source of goods, from the local operation of the recycling of waste materials from the retailer to purchase. In the context of taxation, the sale of goods need to pay 13% value-added tax, but due to the general low willingness of the retailer to pay taxes on their own, not willing to declare taxes and issue invoices, resulting in the procurement of goods with the waste enterprises at the same time can not obtain legal and effective input credit and pre-tax deduction vouchers, which bear the overall sales of 13% of the tax burden, the emergence of a fundamental obstacle to the purchase of enterprises with the waste of the tax link, the first-hand The sourcing model fails to satisfy the demand of enterprises using waste to obtain input invoices.

Since the implementation of the "Interim Regulations on Land Appreciation Tax," the preferential tax policy for ordinary residential properties has always been in effect: taxpayers who construct and sell ordinary standard residential properties, with the appreciation amount not exceeding 20% of the deductible project amount, are exempt from land appreciation tax. For real estate development enterprises, controlling the selling price and appreciation rate of ordinary residential properties can enjoy tax exemption incentives, provided that different types of real estate are accounted for separately as required. In practice, some real estate enterprises have found that abandoning the preferential tax policy for ordinary residential properties in the same project is more conducive to reducing tax liability, but subsequent disputes have arisen with tax authorities during the review of land appreciation tax settlement. This article will discuss this issue and provide suggestions for the readers.