High-tech enterprises are the state's key support for enterprises, not only can enjoy the enterprise income tax rate of 15% preferential tax rate, can also enjoy the loss carry-forward years to extend the tax incentives, the enterprise's technical staff to obtain the transformation of scientific and technological achievements of the equity awards can also enjoy the policy of installment payment of personal tax. This year, many high-tech enterprises to identify institutions to increase the supervision of high-tech enterprise qualification, issued one after another to cancel the high-tech enterprise qualification announcement, for enterprises sounded the alarm. In practice, what circumstances will be canceled high-tech enterprise qualification, what kind of tax risk enterprises face? This article is intended to reveal and provide ideas for prevention and response.

After the introduction of the new judicial interpretation of the Supreme Law and the Supreme Prosecutor's Office (Legal Interpretation [2024] No. 4), there are cases in judicial practice in which the crime of falsely issuing special invoices has been reclassified as the crime of illegal sale, which in turn triggered a heated discussion on the application of the crime of illegal sale of special invoices for value-added tax (VAT). In the author's opinion, from the perspective of the historical origin and legislative background of the crime of illegal sale of VAT invoices, the object of the crime only includes blank VAT invoices, and the legal interest infringed by the crime is the franchise of invoices, which cannot be simply understood as illegal sale of false invoices by charging the invoicing fee, and the undue enlargement of the application of the crime should be guarded against, or it will be contrary to the spirit of the Supreme Court and Supreme Prosecutor's restriction of the circle of crimes, and will cause confusion in the criminal law system.

Recently, Huashui has observed a number of cases of tax-related risks arising from “compensation planning”. For example, when a capital management company paid out bonuses to its employees in 2017, the amount of bonuses was too high and the tax burden increased. In order to save tax for its employees and avoid its own withholding obligations, the company accepted an employee remuneration planning service provided by a tax planning platform enterprise. The tax planning platform enterprise is set up in a tax depression with financial incentives, through investment and financing consulting service business with the enterprise involved in the case, so that the enterprise involved in the case will pay the funds to the platform enterprise, and then the platform enterprise directly through the form of “public-to-private”, the funds will be paid to the enterprise employees. The tax planning platform charged a certain amount of “planning fees” in the process of capital return, and then issued an invoice for consulting fees for the enterprise involved in the case.

On 1 July 2024, the new Company Law of the People's Republic of China (the "New Company Law") came into force, clarifying the simplified cancellation system and adding a mandatory cancellation system on top of the original ordinary cancellation system for companies, providing convenience for the exit of market entities. Enterprises with ordinary cancellation should pay tax in a timely manner and register for tax cancellation; enterprises with simplified cancellation should make a written commitment that they have settled the tax payable, and those with untrue commitments will be held jointly and severally liable. In practice, if the tax authorities find that the cancelled enterprise owes tax or evades tax, they may recover the tax from the enterprise by resuming the tax registration or business registration, or they may recover the tax from the shareholders by filing a civil lawsuit or taking an administrative action, and the responsibilities and risks faced by the enterprise and shareholders are different in different cases, which will be briefly analysed in this article.

In recent years, many enterprises have begun to reshape the original employment relationship through the unique mechanism of Internet platform enterprises (e.g., flexible employment platforms, network freight platforms, etc.), forming a new employment model of “laborer-platform-employer”. However, the reshaping of this employment model may cause the tax authorities to doubt the authenticity of the business and the legitimacy of the invoice. This article will combine two cases of platform enterprises suspected of false invoicing to analyze whether it is reasonable and legal for the tax authorities or judicial authorities to determine the invoices as false invoicing on the ground that “the platform did not organize its own personnel” when the business involved in the case is equipped with real labor services and there is no return flow of funds, and put forward corresponding opinions and countermeasures.

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.

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.