Recently, a tax platform has been implicated in the case of pharmaceutical enterprises. At present, the platform has been investigated by the public security, if the case is not handled properly, the invoiced pharmaceutical enterprises are very likely to be transferred to the judicial organs, facing the criminal responsibility of the crime of false VAT invoices. In fact, after the reform of the “two-invoice system”, the pharmaceutical field through the establishment of CSOs, CSPs and other organizations to obtain funds through false invoicing cases are few, and in recent years, CSOs, CSPs and other organizations have been frequently subject to tax audits, and they have been upgraded to online consulting platforms, in an attempt to add a veneer to hide the act of false invoicing. However, now pharmaceutical companies through the online platform to inflate sales costs with the intention of reducing the tax burden, the means of arbitrage funds by the tax authorities and judicial organs are also concerned. At the same time, since last year's anti-corruption storm is still continuing, this year, the Health Commission issued a number of departments to correct the unhealthy wind in the field of medicine notice, the pharmaceutical industry tax risk should not be underestimated, the pharmaceutical enterprises should be in the end, this paper is intended to explore.

China's partnership tax payment method is "share first and tax later", therefore, when the investment and financing platform type partnership obtains profits by transferring equity and other capital operation methods and distributes them to individual partners, if the individual partners who obtain the profits are tax residents of China, they are usually required to pay an individual income tax at a rate ranging from 5% to 35% of the operating income. Individual Income Tax. If the individual partner is a non-resident outside China, it is controversial in practice as to whether he/she should be taxed as a resident individual or whether he/she should be subject to preferential treatment or preferential tax rate under a tax treaty. This article briefly analyses this difficult practical issue and puts forward tax-saving compliance suggestions.

As tax authorities continue to strengthen the supervision of personal tax, the tax-related risk of natural persons is also getting higher. At the same time, the two high judicial interpretations will be the past double high people through the signing of “yin and yang contract” and other forms of hiding or dismantling the income of tax evasion of the usual tricks clearly included in one of the tax evasion behavior, for the judicial organs to combat the double high people to evade taxes to provide a clear and operable guidelines, resulting in a higher criminal risk. Based on this, this paper intends to analyze the causes of the severe tax risk of double-high individuals from the common forms of tax risk of double-high individuals in practice as a starting point and reveal the changes of the tax risk of double-high individuals after the introduction of the two high judicial interpretations, with a view to providing the double-high individuals with strategies to cope with the situation.

Recently, there have been frequent occurrences of companies falling into operational difficulties and being unable to repay debts, leading creditors to apply to the court for forced auction of the debtor's assets. During the execution of auctions by the people's courts, disputes over the tax and fee obligations of the transferor have arisen continuously due to the clause in the bidding announcement formulated by the executing court stating that "all taxes and fees related to the transfer of real estate shall be borne by the buyer." This article takes a case of tax recovery for the forced auction of real estate by the court as an example, analyzes the tax obligations and collection difficulties in judicial auctions based on legal principles and policy regulations, and finally provides suggestions to buyers to help them reduce tax risks and minimize similar disputes.

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.