Criminal compliance system since the pilot, in the “false” cases have been used in a large number of cases, once became the lawyers defense work of the law. However, with the accumulation of judicial practice experience, criminal compliance cases have exposed some problems, the necessity of the system, the feasibility of the need for further reflection and discussion, in the case of whether the criminal compliance can be initiated in the face of greater uncertainty, the urgent need for a new defense program. On the other hand, the two high tax-related new judicial interpretations of the composition and sentencing of the crime of “false opening” has been significantly amended, providing new opportunities for lawyers' defense work. Under the guidance of the new judicial interpretation, the judicial authorities to collect evidence, determine the facts, the overall thinking of the application of the law has changed, whether the defense lawyer can correctly understand the content of the new judicial interpretation, accurately identify the current “false opening class” case focus of controversy, accurately grasp the core points of the defense, is the key to the case can be properly dealt with.

Recently, the Ministry of Finance and the State Taxation Administration issued the "Guidelines on Major Tax Incentive Policies for Enterprise Merger and Reorganization", which is of great significance in guiding enterprises to apply tax policies legally and reasonably and reduce tax costs. At the same time, it has also attracted the attention of individual investors. According to the current tax policy, individual shareholders are not applicable to special tax treatment, so, do individual shareholders inevitably fulfill tax obligations in M&A transactions? This article intends to discuss this issue based on the cases of listing announcements in recent years.

As goods or services are mostly provided by a large number of individuals, there is a widespread shortage of source invoices for flexible labor, platforms such as network freight transport, and enterprises in the bulk commerce industry such as resources recycling industry, many local governments have given various industrial support funds and financial incentives in order to support the development of these industries, which in turn reduces the tax costs that are fully borne by enterprises due to the impossibility of obtaining invoices, and maintains the enterprises and the industries Continuous operation. This year, the audit, tax, development and reform commission and other departments issued a letter requiring strict investigation of illegal tax rebates, especially with the August 1 “fair competition review regulations” landing, around the financial incentives to clean up the policy and tighten the supervision, there have been many enterprises were required to return the financial incentives, and even local judicial authorities that enterprises will be the financial incentives as a false open profit-making tool, the enterprise purchase and sale of business to the crime of false open for investigation! The relevant enterprises, persons in charge, financial and business personnel are facing serious criminal liability risks. In this context, the relevant enterprises, personnel should be how to prevent tax-related administrative and criminal risks, this article will be further analyzed.

Recently, the frequent occurrence of financial counterfeiting cases has attracted great attention from the relevant authorities, with the Supreme Court, the Supreme Prosecutor and many other departments striving to crack down on financial counterfeiting, and the regulation continues to tighten. Usually, financial counterfeiting boosts corporate profits, thus contributing to more tax revenue, so the tax bureau generally does not intervene. However, financial counterfeiting is inevitably accompanied by false invoicing, inflated costs and other circumstances, under the surface of the false prosperity of the enterprise still lurks a great tax risk. This paper analyzes the tax risks behind financial counterfeiting by combining recent cases and regulatory trends of relevant departments for the benefit of readers.

Paragraph 2 of Article 33 of the Rules for Administrative Review of Taxation stipulates that a taxpayer shall pay the tax within the period prescribed by the tax authorities or provide tax guarantee before applying for administrative review within 60 days. In practice, some tax authorities will not accept the taxpayer's application for reconsideration on the ground that the taxpayer pays the tax late. So the taxpayer late payment of taxes, whether it is inevitable to lose the right to administrative reconsideration? This article combines a brief analysis of the case.

In the previous issue, we analyzed the overall situation of the epidemic prevention material supply chain and the tax risks faced by various entities in the chain. Among them, epidemic prevention material procurement units face legal risks of tax adjustments and tax evasion due to the upstream enterprises being characterized as falsely issuing special VAT invoices. In practice, there are many cases where the invoice recipient is implicated due to problems with the issuer. If the tax audit cannot be effectively dealt with, it will not only bear huge economic losses, but also face intangible losses such as a downgrade of tax credit and damage to reputation. This article intends to provide suggestions for procurement units to deal with tax audits.

Since this year, tax cases related to invoicing by natural persons have occurred frequently, involving both enterprises of the invoiced party and natural persons of the invoicing party. For the invoicing party, the invoicing party should pay VAT and income tax according to the law, otherwise, it will face the risk of tax evasion or even tax evasion; for the invoiced enterprise which accepts the natural person to provide services, whether it can obtain the invoice issued on behalf of the invoicing party or whether the invoices are legally compliant, etc., will have different impacts on the invoicing party. This article will analyse and sort out the risks faced by the invoicing party and the invoiced party under different circumstances, so as to help enterprises improve tax compliance and safeguard their legitimate rights and interests.

Article 204(2) of the Criminal Law stipulates that the crime of tax evasion is to be dealt with when a person fraudulently obtains the tax he or she has paid. There is a big controversy in the field of practice about what is meant by “taxes paid”, which leads to a huge difference in the understanding between the case-handling authorities and the persons involved in the case when calculating the amount of money involved in the case as well as determining the offense in some of the cases and makes it difficult to stop the dispute. Recently, I observed that Ningbo Procuratorate issued a typical case of fraudulent export tax rebate, in which the procuratorate explicitly applied Article 204(2) of the Criminal Law and pointed out that “the tax paid in the case should be deducted from the amount of the crime of fraudulent export tax rebate”. This case has certain practical significance in defining “paid tax”, but undeniably there are still many problems that need to be further clarified. This article will take the case as an entry point to analyze and elaborate the author's viewpoints in depth for the benefit of the readers.