Flexible employment platforms play an important role in promoting employment and protecting people's livelihood. However, the special features of flexible employment platforms' business model and tax policies make the platforms' tax-related risks quite high, and the tax authorities have become more and more stringent in scrutinizing the authenticity of flexible employment services. Under the upgrading of technical means and the tightening of supervision, false invoicing by flexible employment platforms will surely lead to tax risks. However, even if the business is real, the tax authorities may deny the authenticity of the business if the evidence is not properly retained. Against this background, how should flexible employment platforms adhere to the authenticity of their business and cope with the strong regulation of the industry? In this article, we will take this as a clue to understand the tax-related status quo of the flexible labor industry and the solutions to deal with it.

In the process of production and operation, enterprises may have difficulties in cash flow, or due to improper tax treatment, etc., and under the current regulatory model of "double random, one open", the past tax non-compliance of enterprises may easily lead to the risk of tax reimbursement. Article 203 of the Criminal Law provides for the crime of evading the recovery of tax arrears, which is a "crime of refusing to execute" in the field of taxation. In the state of tax arrears, it is worth paying attention to what behaviors of taxpayers may face the accusation of the crime of evading the recovery of tax arrears. In March this year, the two high judicial interpretations for the first time clearly defined the crime of evading the recovery of tax debts, providing a legal basis for the application of the crime, activating this long-dormant crime, and its related elements of the crime, the circumstances of the crime are worth further discussion. This paper analyzes the boundary between the crime and non-crime of tax-defaulting enterprises evading the recovery of tax arrears in conjunction with cases, with a view to providing reference for enterprises to prevent and respond to criminal risks.

On August 1, 2024, the Regulation on Fair Competition Review will come into effect, making it clear that the formulation of policies and measures containing elements that affect the cost of production and business is prohibited without a legal or administrative regulatory basis or without the approval of the State Council. Recently, in order to implement the Audit Office, the Municipal Supervision Bureau, the Ministry of Justice and other departments to focus on cleaning up the spirit of the documents that impede the unification of the market and fair competition policies and measures, a number of places to clean up the illegal financial rebates, standardize investment policies to formulate a work program. However, due to the lack of accurate grasp of laws and regulations and specific standards, enterprises may be difficult to judge the legitimacy of the relevant policies and measures, which leads to some enterprises in the conduct of daily business in the center of the hidden worries. This article compiles recent cases of government subsidies and support funds being withdrawn in several places, and provides tax compliance suggestions for enterprises based on the new regulatory situation.

In March 2022, the Inspection Bureau of Xiantao Municipal Taxation Bureau received a piece of information on a major risk case source passed from the higher level. The information showed that three energy trading companies in Xiantao City, Company F, Company R and Company T, had inconsistent names of goods purchased and sold and were suspected of false invoicing. Inspectors of the three companies associated with the investigation found that there is a company named J company energy trading company and T company for the same address, the same time registered, and its situation is very similar to the above three companies, but also engaged in petroleum and related petrochemical products wholesale business, and there is a discrepancy between purchase and sale of goods and other cases.

Editor's Note: Recently, the case of falsely issuing special invoices for value-added tax on the online freight platform of "Shen Shi Sheng Xin logistics platform", which has attracted much attention, ushered in the judgment of the second instance. The court of second instance changed the original crime of falsely issuing special invoices for value-added tax to the crime of illegally selling special invoices for value-added tax, which triggered many thoughts on the handling of tax-related cases on the online freight platform. This paper holds that the behavior of "paying invoices later" on the network freight platform does not constitute tax loss under the background of real transportation business, and should not be regarded as the crime of falsely issuing special VAT invoices, but it should not be punished as the crime of illegally selling special VAT invoices. If criminal responsibility needs to be investigated, the "late compensation" behavior of the platform is more suitable for the crime of false invoicing, which is more in line with the legislative purpose and legal interest protection principle of the crime.

Editor's Note: By combing through cases in practice, there are two main types of business models for Flexible employment platforms, namely, the "Agent Invoicing" model, which controls the invoicing of enterprises in the park, or the "Self-invoicing" model, which directly invoices in its own name. However, whether it is the "Agent Invoicing" model or the "Self-invoicing" model, Flexible employment platforms are subject to greater tax risks, and can easily be considered by public prosecutors and law enforcement authorities as having committed crimes of false invoicing. In the context of the increasingly strict regulation of tax rebate policy and the gradual strengthening of the national authority's crackdown on tax-related crimes, how should Flexible employment platforms deal with the tax-related risks? This article will focus on two invoicing modes and comment on them from the perspective of tax law principles and practices.

In recent years, the real estate industry has been experiencing an economic downturn, and real estate enterprises, serving as debtors and mortgagors, have simultaneously become tax debtors. On the one hand, when the debtor is unable to repay debts, the real estate mortgagee may have the priority to be compensated for the debts through discounted sale or auctioning or selling the mortgaged property, as stipulated in the Civil Code. On the other hand, after obtaining auction proceeds through the auction of real estate conducted by the people's court, it becomes possible for the tax authorities to pursue unpaid taxes and auction corresponding tax payments, thus creating a conflict between taxes and mortgage claims. So, what is the order of repayment for auction proceeds in such cases? This article will discuss the distribution order of auction proceeds between real estate mortgage rights and the state's tax collection rights to satisfy the readers' curiosity.

Capital financing is crucial to the normal operation of enterprises, in order to improve the efficiency of capital utilization, reduce financing costs, the situation of capital borrowing between related enterprises is more common, some groups of companies also through the establishment of capital pools to enhance the liquidity of internal funds, minimize the cost of external borrowing. From a tax perspective, the borrowing behavior between enterprises involves the recognition of interest income of one party and the cost of the other party, in order to prevent the use of capital borrowing between related parties for profit transfer, illegal cost deduction, the tax authorities are usually based on the principle of deemed sales or arm's length principle of the capital borrowing between related parties to make adjustments, and some enterprises have "one in and one out of a borrowing mode between related parties". Some enterprises have the improper understanding that "the lending mode between related parties does not involve tax obligations, and the gratuitous lending without obtaining actual income is not subject to tax", which leads to the consequences of paying back taxes, charging late fees and even characterizing tax evasion. This paper analyzes the pre-tax deduction of interest cost under interest-free lending between related parties and compensated lending and the tax risk of individual shareholder's borrowing from practical cases and puts forward preventive and responsive suggestions for readers' reference.