On March 28, 2025, the State Administration of Taxation (SAT) heavily released the Tax Collection and Administration Law of the People's Republic of China (Revised Exposure Draft) and the Explanation on <The Tax Collection and Administration Law of the People's Republic of China (Revised Exposure Draft)> for public comment.2025 The Tax Collection and Administration Law (Revised Exposure Draft), on the basis of On the basis of "retaining the collection and management system that has been tested and proven in practice for many years" and "maintaining the basic structure of the current tax collection and management law", the 2025 Tax Collection and Management Law (Draft Revision for Public Opinion) is less innovative than the 2015 Tax Collection and Management Law (Draft Revision for Public Opinion), but it still brings many Significant Changes. Huatax lawyers have analyzed the key provisions of the current tax administration law, the 2015 Tax Administration Law (Draft Revision for Public Opinion) and the 2025 Tax Administration Law (Draft Revision for Public Opinion), summarized twenty-one important changes, analyzed the impacts of these changes on both the taxpayers and the taxpayers, and put forward targeted suggestions for revising and perfecting some of the provisions, which are expected to be discussed together with the readers.

In order to enhance the independent innovation ability of enterprises, to promote enterprises to increase R & D investment, to realize the development of industrial upgrading, as early as in the last century, China has introduced tax incentives to support the development of high-tech enterprises, but also formulated the conditions and methods for the identification of high-tech enterprises. With the increasingly fierce international competition in science and technology, China's high-tech enterprises and their development has put forward new requirements, high-tech enterprise identification conditions and methods have changed to increase policy support for science and technology-based enterprises, especially small and medium-sized enterprises. At present, enterprises must meet the eight conditions stipulated in Article 11 of the Administrative Measures for the Recognition of

In recent years, tax-related disputes have arisen frequently in enterprise bankruptcy cases, and one of the disputes is whether the education surcharge and local education surcharge declared by the tax authorities can be recognized as tax claims. The tax authorities claimed that the education fee surcharge and local education surcharge should be recognized as tax claims, while the bankruptcy administrators believed that they were ordinary claims. In this regard, this paper takes the typical judicial case as the starting point and argues that the determination of the claim of education fee surcharge and local education surcharge should follow the principle of distinction between tax and fee, and the State Administration of Taxation Announcement No. 48 of 2019 cannot be used as the basis for the characterization of the claim, and ultimately comes to the conclusion that the education fee surcharge and local education surcharge do not belong to the tax claim, which is aimed at providing a clear idea and a useful reference to the resolution of the problem of the determination of the natu

In practice, in the case where the relative only sues on the tax penalty decision, due to the high degree of consistency between the tax penalty decision and the tax processing decision, there are different views in the judicial trial as to whether the court should review the facts identified in the penalty decision, and there are views that the two should be heard at the same time and make a judgment, and there are also views that the facts underlying the tax penalty decision are the facts identified in the tax processing decision, and the court should no longer review the facts identified in the penalty decision. There are also views that the facts on which the tax penalty decision is based are the facts determined by the tax processing decision, and the court should not review the facts determined by the penalty decision. In this paper, the tax processing decision and tax penalty decision are two separate administrative acts, the court shall review the facts of the violation of law determined by the penalty decision, briefly analyzed as follows.

The development of new internet business models has spawned a large number of online influencers, whose internet traffic generates substantial income. However, some of these influencers exhibit weak legal awareness and poor tax compliance, leading to involvement in tax evasion scandals. In recent years, China’s State Taxation Administration has repeatedly exposed multiple cases of tax evasion by live-streamers and celebrities, making taxation a recurring "high-risk zone" for online celebrities and content creators. Today, tax authorities announced another high-profile case of tax evasion by a renowned online influencer, sparking widespread discussion. This article will dissect typical tax evasion tactics, their legal consequences, and provide concrete compliance recommendations based on the case, for our readers’ reference.

Recently, the State Administration for Market Supervision and Administration (SAMSA) issued the Implementation Measures for the Regulations on Fair Competition Review (hereinafter referred to as the Implementation Measures) to further refine the Regulations on Fair Competition Review (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations), which came into effect on August 1 last year. Under the framework of the Regulations, the Implementation Measures have refined and improved the general requirements for fair competition review, departmental responsibilities, review standards, review mechanism, review procedures and supervision and safeguard measures. In terms of tax-related aspects, business models relying on fiscal and tax incentives are common in industries such as renewable resources and flexible labor, and after the Implementing Measures have further clarified the requirements for fair competition review, the related tax-related risks need to be emphasized. This article analyzes the three major tax-related risks based on the Implementing Measures' refinement of the scope of fair competition review and the review criteria for readers' reference.

Insolvency expenses and co-beneficial debts arise in the course of insolvency proceedings and are different from insolvency claims arising before the commencement of insolvency proceedings. In practice, tax authorities and insolvency administrators have different views on whether the new tax and its late payment belong to insolvency expenses and co-beneficial debts, and disputes arise frequently. This article takes a judicial case as a guide, combines the relevant provisions and spirit, analyzes the qualification of the claim of new tax and late payment after the bankruptcy acceptance, and aims to provide ideas for the resolution of this kind of dispute for readers' reference.

In practice, the invoices issued by the upstream enterprises are characterized as false invoices, and the tax authorities will generally send the Notice of Confirmed False Invoicing and related materials to the downstream tax authorities of the invoiced party enterprises, and the tax authorities of the invoiced party enterprises will use this as evidence to determine that the invoices obtained by the invoiced parties are false invoices, and the invoiced party enterprises may face the legal consequences of paying back taxes, late payment fees and fines as a result. This article starts from a case of administrative litigation filed by an invoiced enterprise against the tax processing decision made by the competent tax authority of the invoicing party, and briefly analyzes the remedial measures that can be taken by the invoiced enterprise under different circumstances.