ecently, the Procuratorate Daily reported a case in which the real controller of a coal-using enterprise purchased coal from a small coal kiln without a ticket, and then found a third party to issue an invoice on his behalf, and the real controller was eventually convicted and sentenced for the crime of illegally issuing VAT invoices. However, in judicial practice, many judicial authorities have convicted and sentenced the person for the crime of illegally purchasing VAT invoices in the same case. The maximum penalty for the crime of false invoicing is life imprisonment, while the maximum penalty for the crime of illegal purchase is five years. The difference in the characterization of the two crimes is so great that "different sentences for the same case" undermines the fairness and authority of the judiciary and damages the legitimate rights and interests of the defendants. After the two high judicial interpretation, for the behavior of truthfulness on behalf of the characterization, the supreme law and the supreme prosecutor successively issued "understanding and application" of the viewpoints and there are different. Based on this, this paper intends to start from the two cases, in the two high judicial interpretation of the background, and strive to clarify the truth on behalf of the act of crime and non-crime, the crime and the crime, with a view to make the criminal law of the basic principle of criminal responsibility and criminal punishment in the tax-related crimes can be truly realized.

Document No.30 of Fa [1996], which has expired, once classified the crime of falsely issuing special invoices for VAT into three categories.They are false opening without goods, false opening with goods with inconsistent quantity or amount, and truthful opening on behalf of others.The first paragraph of Article 10 of the tax-related judicial interpretation of the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate, which came into effect on March 20 this year, is "enumeration + bottom-up".The way reconstructs the different situations of the crime of falsely issuing special invoices for VAT.It clearly lists four types of criminal acts, namely, false opening without goods, false opening with goods, false opening of fictitious subjects and false opening of tampering with electronic information.It can be said that the understanding and application of the first paragraph of Article 10 of the judicial interpretation of the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate.It is the key to accurate conviction.

Recently, the author's team received a consultation case on whether tax planning has tax risks. A power generation enterprise needs to purchase a large amount of straw for power generation but cannot obtain a compliant invoice. The tax company provided a tax planning solution for it, i.e., to let the power generation enterprise's affiliate recycling enterprise to set up a cooperative in the front-end, and then the cooperative will purchase and sell the straw to the recycling enterprise and issue invoices for agricultural products, and then the recycling enterprise will sell the straw to it and issue VAT invoices to it. Accordingly, the power generation enterprises can obtain legal invoices for cost deduction and input credit for straw procurement. However, in the author's opinion, there is a big loophole in this program, and once this program is adopted, the power generation enterprises will face a very high tax risk. Based on this, this article is intended to analyze the tax risks of this tax planning scheme in detail from this case and put forward a brief solution idea for it, in order to provide useful suggestions for the enterprises facing the same dilemma.

The "Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Handling Criminal Cases of Endangering Tax Collection and Administration" (hereinafter referred to as the "Interpretation of the Two High Courts") (Fashi [2024] No. 4) has undergone nearly five years of research and drafting work since it was jointly initiated by the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate in 2019. During this period, opinions were solicited from central units such as the National People's Congress Law Working Committee, the Ministry of Public Security, and the State Administration of Taxation, as well as the national legal inspection system. This has created high expectations among practitioners and scholars for this interpretation.Various sectors are hoping that the new interpretation can effectively guide judicial practice in crimes of falsely issuing invoices, resolve issues such as inconsistent judgments in similar cases, inadequate adaptation of criminal responsibility and punishment, and inadequate rules for entering and exiting crimes that do not meet the changing needs of economic activities. These are long-standing and difficult problems and maladies that urgently need to be addressed.

In order to encourage the development of specific industries and regions, the State and some localities have introduced preferential fiscal and tax policies, such as giving enterprises engaged in encouraging industries a preferential income tax rate of 15%, and exempting or reducing the local sharing portion of the income tax and other tax incentives. Some enterprises in the application of preferential fiscal and tax policies in the process, due to misunderstanding, the application of the risk of paying back taxes, late fees, and with the recent crackdown on illegal tax return action, some of the application of preferential fiscal and tax policies also greatly increased the risk. This article takes four actual cases as the entry point to analyze the four major tax-related risk points that enterprises should pay attention to when applying preferential policies on finance and tax, and puts forward suggestions to deal with them for readers' reference.

The repeated outbreak of cases of false invoicing on network freight platforms is due to the inherent difficulties of the industry. That is, part of the consignment enterprises and individual drivers have completed the transport services, found that individual drivers can not issue invoices, so find network freight platform invoicing. These irregularities are recognised as false invoicing by the case-handling authorities due to the subsequent recording of documents and the appearance of the return of funds. In the past, the platform is mainly based on the Law Research [2015] No. 58, arguing that the behaviour of truthful invoicing does not have social harm. However, after the introduction of the two new judicial interpretations, the act of truthful opening has fallen into the dispute of understanding again. Recently, with the Supreme Court judge issued on the two high interpretation of the "understanding and application", clear truthful opening is not a crime. In view of this, this article combines the recent network freight platform of the latest cases, to explore the two high judicial interpretation of the introduction of network freight platform how to defend, for readers' reference.

Affiliated transactions are common transactions between group companies, and business transactions such as equity transfer, capital lending and borrowing, and purchase and sale of goods or services between affiliated enterprises are relatively common. At present, China's legislation on anti-avoidance procedures between related enterprises is mainly based on the field of cross-border related transactions, and has already formed a more professional and complete methodology as well as handling procedures, but how to investigate and adjust related transactions of domestic enterprises has not yet been formed into clear provisions. In practice, there are certain disputes on whether the special tax adjustment procedures can be applied to domestic connected transactions, and there are different views on whether the transactions between connected entities with the same effective tax burden in China can not be adjusted. Based on the recent case of a listed company's subsidiaries being adjusted to pay back tax, the author analyzes the common controversial issues of domestic connected transactions and puts forward risk prevention suggestions.

It is a common structural arrangement for most enterprises to implement equity incentive to build a shareholding platform through partnerships, limited liability companies and other organizational forms. The shareholding platform has great advantages in controlling the number of direct shareholders, ensuring the founder's control rights and improving the convenience of changes in equity. In addition, in the past, some places adopted the approved levy policy for shareholding platforms, which greatly reduced the tax burden compared with direct shareholding. However, in recent years, there have been cases of tax evasion by using the approved collection policy to split income and transfer profits. The "tax depression" formed based on the approved collection policy has also been controversial because of its lack of legal basis, undermining fair competition in the market and leading to competition for tax sources. In 2021, in the interpretation of Opinions on Further Deepening the Reform of Tax Collection and Management, State Taxation Administration of The People's Republic of China Inspection Bureau pointed out that the use of "tax depressions" to evade taxes was one of the key areas to be cracked down. At the end of 2021, the Announcement on the Collection and Management of Personal Income Tax from Equity Investment Management made it clear that all equity investment partnerships are subject to audit and collection, and recently, auditing and taxation departments have also clearly put forward the "small policy" to clean up the irregularities in attracting investment. Based on the aforementioned collection and management situation, the application space of the approved collection policy has been tightened, and the tax burden advantage of building a shareholding platform through partnerships and limited liability companies is no longer available. Therefore, in recent years, there have been many transactions that cancel the shareholding platform and change to direct shareholding. In the cancellation of shareholding platforms such as partnerships or limited liability companies, many issues such as whether the non-trading transfer of shares requires tax, and the joint liability of shareholders when the cancelled enterprises owe taxes have caused heated discussions. Based on two cases of dismantling the shareholding platform, this paper analyzes the tax liability and tax-related risks of non-transaction transfer for readers' reference.