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.

Guarantee is a common means of credit enhancement in civil and commercial legal relations, which has the functions of reducing transaction risks and guaranteeing the realization of claims, and is of great significance to the financing of enterprises. In the field of tax administration, the role of tax guarantee should not be ignored, especially in the tax disputes that need to pay tax before starting the reconsideration procedure, the tax guarantee can be used as the “equalizer” for the payment of tax and late payment fee to protect the legitimate rights and interests of taxpayers while safeguarding the collection of national tax. The Trial Measures on Tax Guarantee have made relatively systematic provisions on tax guarantee, but it has not been revised since its promulgation in 2005, and it has not responded to the disputes such as the scope of collaterals and the period of confirmation of guarantee, etc., which existed in practice, and there exists a certain degree of lagging, and due to the requirement of the pre-positioning of tax payment for reconsideration, based on the justiciable nature of the tax guarantee, some of the disputed cases have undergone litigations on the establishment or otherwise of the tax guarantee before the filing of the rights and remedies. The tax guarantee is established or not, the formation of the “case within a case”. In this paper, two common disputes related to the confirmation of tax guarantee are discussed to analyze how enterprises can effectively complete the requirement of tax payment prior to tax payment through tax guarantee and successfully initiate relief procedures.

Split-accounting system is favored by the booming platform enterprises in the Internet era because of its convenient settlement, fund security and high flexibility. However, in practice, some platform enterprises lack compliance awareness, and the invoicing or fund settlement method is unreasonable, which easily puts them into tax risk. In this article, the author will combine two cases in which platform enterprises were required by tax authorities to bear the full amount of VAT tax obligations for all the money received, analyze the tax risks under the split account mode of platform enterprises, and give the defense ideas and compliance suggestions to help platform enterprises to prevent and resolve tax risks.

With the emergence of new forms and modes of business in various industries, the characterisation and handling of cases involving fraudulent invoices have shown a trend of complexity. According to the relevant provisions of tax law, criminal law and judicial interpretations, enterprises obtaining fraudulently issued VAT invoices are exempted from the criminal punishment of tax evasion if they are qualified as tax evaders by the tax authorities if they pay the tax, late payment fees and fines in a timely manner. However, in recent law enforcement practice, there are cases in which the enterprises obtaining the invoiced special invoices are still filed by the judicial authorities for the offence of false VAT invoices after being qualified as tax evasion by the tax authorities. Based on this, this article will discuss the issue of whether the invoiced enterprises will still constitute the offence of false invoicing after being qualified as tax evasion by the tax authorities, starting from the current situation of the invoiced enterprises obtaining false invoices.

The filing and review of laws and regulations is an important system for maintaining the unity of the rule of law in the country.2024 On August 30, the State Council promulgated the newly revised Regulations on the Filing and Review of Laws and Regulations (hereinafter referred to as the “Regulations”), which put forward new requirements for the filing and review and supervision of the filing and review of local laws and regulations, departmental rules and regulations of local governments. Currently, the form of tax laws is heavily represented by departmental rules, normative documents and local regulations, and it will be difficult to change them for a long period of time in the future, and the Regulations will undoubtedly have a direct impact on the tax legislation. In addition, the local financial subsidy policy will face a more severe filing review situation, and the industries relying on higher financial subsidies will also be affected.

Tax evasion, smuggling and fraudulent export tax rebate behavior will cause the loss of national tax, but the constitutive elements of the three crimes are not consistent, resulting in the loss of national tax for different reasons. However, in judicial practice, these three crimes are often intertwined, difficult to distinguish, for example, the newly introduced “two high” “on the handling of criminal cases of endangering the tax collection and management of the interpretation of a number of issues in the application of the law,” the provisions of the “cycle of export” fraudulent tax behavior, at the same time Involving smuggling behavior. Does circular export behavior constitute tax fraud, and does import through smuggling after export necessarily constitute tax fraud? In this paper, we will analyze a typical case and try to return to the legal basis of tax fraud, identify the threshold and core of circular export tax fraud, and define the boundaries of tax fraud, smuggling, tax evasion and other series of behaviors.

At the end of 2019, faced with the sudden outbreak of COVID-19, the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China made a decisive decision and adopted the most comprehensive prevention and control measures. Local governments took active actions and purchased a large number of masks, protective clothing, goggles, thermometers, and testing reagents, effectively guaranteeing the supply of epidemic prevention materials. According to a speech by Liu Kun, former Minister of Finance, at the 2020 National Finance Work Conference, by the end of November 2020, the expenditure on epidemic prevention and control funds by fiscal departments at all levels had exceeded 400 billion yuan. It can be said that national financial support has made an indelible contribution to overcoming the epidemic. However, after the epidemic, we have successively received consultations and learned that several procurement units of epidemic prevention materials have been investigated by tax authorities for suspected fraudulent invoices. Based on the latest case information we have, this article will analyze the five major tax risks hidden in the supply chain of epidemic prevention materials

In the current judicial practice, resources recycling industry, coal, non-ferrous metals and other bulk trade enterprises often due to the business chain is too long, not actually involved in the transportation of goods and other leading to the authenticity of the goods doubt, network freight, flexible labor and other platform type of enterprises due to the business operation is not standardized, the business process is not a solid existence of the possibility of being found to be false opening, and these industry enterprises due to the lack of invoices of the source, often relying on the financial rebate to conduct business. Under the background of the current strict investigation of tax rebates, the mode of this type of enterprises based on financial rebates for external business, issuing invoices is more likely to be questioned, and there are local judicial authorities believe that the enterprise will be financial rebates as a tool for profit-making by fraudulent invoicing, and will be the purchase and sale of enterprises to the crime of fraudulent invoicing for investigation, and the relevant enterprises, persons in charge, and financial and business personnel are facing serious risks of criminal liability. Relying on the financial return business model means a greater risk of false opening? How can the relevant enterprises effectively prevent the risk of being characterized as false opening and requesting the return of financial rebates? This article will further analyze.