Recently, China Tax Lawyer received a tax consultation in which a real estate development enterprise expected to settle the land value-added tax (LVAT) at zero after the completion and acceptance of the project, so it applied to the local government for a temporary non-declaration of payment of pre-payment of land value-added tax (LVAT), and was granted permission to do so. Later, with the reform of consolidation of tax authorities, the consolidated tax authority denied the previous determination that the taxpayer had not declared the prepayment and demanded the taxpayer to pay late fees for the non-payment of prepayment. The question is whether the taxpayer is still required to pay the late payment fee when the land value added tax is already zero. And can the behavior of the pre-reform tax authority constitute a reasonable reliance interest of the taxpayer?

With the reply of the Research Office of the Supreme People's Court and the clarification of the guiding cases, the behavior of dependence and truthful issuance is not recognized as the criminal act of false issuance because it does not cause the loss of tax. However, the practice of "truthful opening" behavior, the caliber is still narrow. In the face of the defendant and his defense put forward belongs to the "truthful opening" claim, the judicial organs is how to identify the actual transaction mode, on what grounds to deny, there is no space for defense, it is worth studying.

Many enterprises, especially sole proprietorships and partnerships, require employees to provide invoices of not less than the amount of wages when they are paid, on the one hand out of the need to help employees avoid personal income tax, and on the other hand in order to inflate the cost of the enterprise and increase the pre-tax deduction. Recently, an enterprise was sentenced for accepting false invoices for wages, and the court found that the enterprise constituted the crime of false invoicing and sentenced the main responsible person to 2 years and 6 months of imprisonment. As a matter of fact, invoice-for-salary has become an open secret to avoid payroll tax, which is characterized by the fact that it is not legal and compliant in itself, and bets entirely on the intensity of the tax authorities' audit, hiding serious administrative and criminal risks.

The epidemic has promoted the development of the digital economy, and new types of business such as Internet taxation, flexible labor, network freight, cloud crowdsourcing, etc. are rapidly developing on the wind of favorable national policies. However, capital disordered expansion buried hidden dangers, digital economy, platform economy compliance still has a fairly long way to go, especially tax compliance should be paid attention to. And in this process from disorder to standardization, some unscrupulous elements use the digital economy, platform economy coat to engage in illegal and criminal behavior and the whole industry has a negative impact, and some platforms in the operation process of non-compliance behavior is also gradually exposed. This article will analyze the prevention and resolution of tax risks under the digital economy and platform economy by taking recent cases as an entry point for the readers.

Because most of the cases of false VAT invoices are accompanied by the phenomenon of fund return, the tax authorities pay special attention to the flow of funds when dealing with this type of cases, but does it necessarily belong to false invoicing as long as there is the apparent behavior of fund return? If it is really difficult for enterprises to obtain input invoices, how should they respond? In the situation of the tax authorities to crack down on the case of false invoicing, how should enterprises carry out risk prevention?

VAT levied or not levied on a company's investment in an intangible asset at value

Article 201 of the Criminal Law of China provides for the provision of the reasons for tax evasion, i.e., after the tax authorities have issued the notice of recovery according to the law, the person shall not be held criminally liable for making up for the tax due, paying the late payment penalty, and has already been subject to the administrative penalty. However, in judicial practice, how to apply the tax evasion blocking provisions for individual cases is still controversial, this paper intends to analyze the application of the tax evasion blocking provisions through a typical case.

In recent years, the heavy tax burden in the manufacturing industry has become a common problem faced by many enterprises, and the iron and steel industry, as an important basic industry of the national economy, is also similarly faced with a high tax burden pressure. Since April 1, 2019, the central government has opened a tax reduction initiative, and the value-added tax of the manufacturing industry has been reduced from 16% to 13%. So what is the current tax burden situation of China's steel industry? What tax-related problems do steel enterprises face in the development process? This article will analyze these issues.
In recent years, the international political and economic situation is complex and severe, and the downward pressure on the domestic economy has increased. The country continues to implement a proactive fiscal policy and prudent monetary policy, maintaining the general tone of seeking progress while maintaining stability. Counter-cyclical regulation has been adopted, and a series of "stable growth" policies have been introduced and are being implemented with increasing vigour. The fundamentals of the long-term economic improvement has not changed; promote consumption, tax cuts and fee reductions, "make up for short boards" and other policy effects gradually appeared, is conducive to stimulate demand and reduce costs. Steel industry continues to promote in-depth structural reform of the supply side, vigorously energy saving and emission reduction, the operation of the overall stability, but also facing a significant decline in efficiency, tax pressure and environmental protection pressure to increase the difficulties.