Recently, an enterprise was required by the tax authorities to pay back the tax and pay the corresponding late payment fee due to the non-payment of land use tax for the construction of farms in the administrative villages under the jurisdiction of the established towns, which involves a huge amount of money. It is understood that this kind of controversial case occurs all over the country, and the regulations on whether the scope of land use tax of formed towns includes administrative villages are not the same in different places. In this paper, we would like to briefly analyze the scope of land use tax in relation to this case for the reference of enterprises.

In M&A and reorganization, the use of partnership structure to implement equity transfer is a common operation, and its tax treatment follows the principle of "share first, tax later". In the past, it was common to use this structure for tax planning. Starting from 2022, according to the Announcement on the Administration of Individual Income Tax Collection on Income from Equity Investments (Announcement No. 41 of the Ministry of Finance and the State Administration of Taxation of 2021), equity investment partnerships have been subject to the full application of checking and collection of income tax. This article reveals, through a case study, the risks and coping strategies faced by enterprises encountering false tax declarations by "black intermediaries" in the context of M&A under this policy, with the aim of alerting taxpayers and intermediaries to pay attention to tax compliance and avoiding losses due to irregularities in operation.

The Measures for the Administration of Vouchers for Pre-tax Deduction of Enterprise Income Tax (State Administration of Taxation Announcement No. 28 of 2018) clarifies the requirement of using invoices as vouchers for pre-tax deduction of enterprise income tax. However, in practice, in the case of real cost expenditure, there are numerous problems such as homemade vouchers accounted for due to industry specificity or invoices obtained by the downstream due to upstream false invoicing being recognized as non-compliant, etc., and the vouchers according to which the enterprises make pre-tax deductions are usually facing the risk of adjusting the back-taxes due to non-compliance with the requirements of Announcement No. 28. For the enterprises involved in the case, under the aforementioned circumstances, in addition to striving for full deduction in accordance with the substantive requirements for pre-tax deduction under Article 8 of the Enterprise Income Tax Law, applying the approved levy and properly selecting the approved method is also a way of adjusting the balance between the recovery of tax and safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of the taxpayers. Based on the policy provisions, this article analyzes the applicable conditions of the approved levy and the statutory adjustment methods, and analyzes the solution to the problem of pre-tax deduction vouchers for the readers' reference.

Recently, many domestic individuals who opened financial accounts in Hong Kong to speculate on U.S. stocks have received SMS notifications from tax authorities around the world, suggesting that they have overseas income that has not been declared as taxable in accordance with the law and requesting them to self-examination and declaration of back taxes. How do China's tax authorities obtain information on the financial accounts opened by domestic individuals in Hong Kong or abroad, and how do they grasp the behavior and income from overseas stock investments? Does a domestic individual need to declare tax in China for the income from investment and wealth management in overseas securities market using financial accounts outside of Mainland China, what legal responsibility will he/she face if his/her income from overseas stock speculation is discovered by the tax authorities without tax declaration, and how to

In the first half of this year, some local tax authorities have started to implement risk countermeasures against the alleged violation of tax preferential policies for corporate venture capital enterprises. Up to now, the enterprise consultation received by Huatax shows that the tax incentives that are accused of enjoying in violation of the law are mainly the 15% tax rate of enterprise income tax for western development and the 15% tax rate of enterprise income tax for Hainan Free Trade Port, and the reason for violation is that the VC enterprises have not filed in accordance with Interim Measures for Administration of Venture Capital Enterprises, and do not have the qualification for enjoying the above mentioned tax incentives. The reason for denying the qualification of VC enterprises to enjoy the tax incentives is obviously the lack of clear and accurate tax law basis, which is difficult to be justified. This paper analyzes the rules related to the filing of Venture Capital Enterprises and the preferential policies of Hainan Free Trade Port.

Although land use tax is a small tax, its tax compliance cannot be ignored. In practice, there are few cases in which enterprises did not actually use the land after being granted the land for various reasons, which triggered disputes between the tax authorities and enterprises. Recently, a real estate enterprise has not paid the land use tax because the land is idle due to government reasons, and the tax authorities require it to pay the tax and the corresponding late payment fee, which involves a huge amount of tax. This article is intended to start from the case, the tax enterprise dispute points to make a brief analysis, for the reference of enterprises in similar cases.

According to the law, in general, the statute of limitations for penalties imposed by tax authorities for tax violations does not exceed five years; the period for collection of overdue taxes and late fees also does not exceed five years. However, for cases involving tax evasion, fraud, resistance, or arrears, the collection period can be indefinite. For enterprises that obtain fictitious invoices, different administrative determinations correspond to different periods for collection and penalties. In practice, due to ongoing disputes over how to define the starting and ending points of the collection and penalty periods, as well as how to determine the continuity or ongoing nature of the violation, this article will provide a brief analysis of whether enterprises obtaining fictitious invoices can defend themselves regarding the collection and penalty periods, and how they should defend themselves.

Individual business is an important part of the private economic organization, plays a unique role in promoting economic development, driving employment, solid livelihoods, and facilitating the lives of the masses. Recently, the fourteenth session of the fifteenth meeting of the National People's Congress voted to adopt the “Private Economy Promotion Law” will help individual business households sustained, healthy, high-quality development. It is foreseeable that self-employed businessmen will have great potential. However, we have also observed that recently, a number of cases of tax evasion and false invoicing by individual entrepreneurs have erupted in industries such as renewable resources, pharmaceuticals, and online entertainment, implicating downstream enterprises. This organization has been abused by “people with good intentions” and become a tool for “tax planning”. Based on this, this paper intends to analyze the causes of the abuse of the individual industrial and commercial enterprises and suggest the corresponding tax risks from the cases of individual industrial and commercial enterprises' tax evasion and false opening.