VAT levied or not levied on a company's investment in an intangible asset at value

There are various ways to cheat export tax rebates, but it is difficult to disguise and change the nature of tax cheating, and once the amount of cheating export tax rebates reaches the legal prosecution standard, which is in line with the criminal composition stipulated in Article 204 of the Criminal Law, criminal liability will be investigated in accordance with the crime of cheating export tax rebates. At the same time, in order to achieve the purpose of cheating the state tax rebate, the tax fraud case may also involve the situation of forging the flow of funds and invoices, and thus may be suspected of the crime of false VAT invoices and other crimes. Therefore, the tax-related risks faced in the case of fraudulent export tax rebates are extremely high, and taxpayers should familiarize themselves with the potential risks common to the export tax rebate business and adopt effective defense strategies to safeguard their legitimate rights and interests.

Article 201 of the Criminal Law of China provides for the provision of the reasons for tax evasion, i.e., after the tax authorities have issued the notice of recovery according to the law, the person shall not be held criminally liable for making up for the tax due, paying the late payment penalty, and has already been subject to the administrative penalty. However, in judicial practice, how to apply the tax evasion blocking provisions for individual cases is still controversial, this paper intends to analyze the application of the tax evasion blocking provisions through a typical case.

In recent years, the heavy tax burden in the manufacturing industry has become a common problem faced by many enterprises, and the iron and steel industry, as an important basic industry of the national economy, is also similarly faced with a high tax burden pressure. Since April 1, 2019, the central government has opened a tax reduction initiative, and the value-added tax of the manufacturing industry has been reduced from 16% to 13%. So what is the current tax burden situation of China's steel industry? What tax-related problems do steel enterprises face in the development process? This article will analyze these issues.
In recent years, the international political and economic situation is complex and severe, and the downward pressure on the domestic economy has increased. The country continues to implement a proactive fiscal policy and prudent monetary policy, maintaining the general tone of seeking progress while maintaining stability. Counter-cyclical regulation has been adopted, and a series of "stable growth" policies have been introduced and are being implemented with increasing vigour. The fundamentals of the long-term economic improvement has not changed; promote consumption, tax cuts and fee reductions, "make up for short boards" and other policy effects gradually appeared, is conducive to stimulate demand and reduce costs. Steel industry continues to promote in-depth structural reform of the supply side, vigorously energy saving and emission reduction, the operation of the overall stability, but also facing a significant decline in efficiency, tax pressure and environmental protection pressure to increase the difficulties.

In recent years, the petrochemical enterprises to change the invoice suspected of false billing criminal cases continue to break out across the country, the judicial processing and refereeing results around the world are different, and the practical world is very controversial. The core of the dispute is whether changing the invoice name of "heavy oil", "crude oil", "residual oil" and other types of component oils to "fuel oil" and then using it to offset consumption tax constitutes a violation of the law. After the invoice name of "heavy oil", "crude oil", "residual oil" and other types of component oils was changed to "fuel oil", the act of using the invoice name for false offsetting of consumption tax constituted a tax evasion crime or a false VAT invoice crime. The core of solving this controversial issue is to clarify the essential difference between the crime of false invoicing and the crime of tax evasion. The author starts from a case of a petrochemical enterprise in Hainan Province that changed its invoices.

In practice, due to the difficulty in obtaining input invoices for bulk commodities, some enterprises chose to obtain VAT invoices by opening or purchasing on behalf of others in order to make up for the shortfall of inputs, and a large number of criminal cases broke out as a result. The author searched such tax-related cases and found that there were similarities in the business mode and behavior involved in such cases, but the final court judgment was "different judgments for the same case", in which most of the judgments were that it constituted the crime of falsely issuing VAT invoices, and some of the judgments were that it constituted the crime of illegally purchasing VAT invoices, while the crime of falsely issuing VAT invoices was that it constituted the crime of illegally purchasing VAT invoices. Most of the judgments are considered to constitute the crime of false invoicing of VAT, and some of them are considered to constitute the crime of illegal purchase of VAT invoices, while the maximum penalty for the crime of false invoicing of VAT is life imprisonment and the maximum penalty for the crime of illegal purchase of VAT invoices is five years' imprisonment, which is a big difference between the two. The author searches for the public cases, sorts out the views of the courts and combines them with the objective problems in practice, in order to give the enterprises certain reference suggestions for the benefit of the readers.

Iron and steel industry is an important pillar industry of China's national economy. With the tightening of tax control, tax-related risks will bring greater negative impact on the development of iron and steel enterprises. In order to realize the sustainability of iron and steel enterprises' operation, it is necessary to strengthen the control of tax-related risks of iron and steel enterprises' own procurement. The raw materials of steel enterprises are mainly iron ore and steel scrap, of which steel scrap is a renewable resource. Compared with the production of steel from iron ore, the production of steel from steel scrap can effectively save iron ore, coke and raw coal, and at the same time, reduce carbon dioxide and solid waste emissions. However, the large tax risk in the procurement of steel scrap has become a bottleneck affecting the large-scale use of steel scrap by steel enterprises. In order to help steel enterprises to enhance their risk prevention awareness and improve their ability to deal with tax-related risks, this paper summarizes the four tax-related legal risks in the procurement process in light of the actual situation of procurement business of steel enterprises for reference.

Recently, a trading company was audited by the tax authorities for obtaining "proved false" invoices, and the case reflects a common risk faced by trading companies: the downstream recipient company is implicated because the upstream invoicing party issued invoices that were proved to be false. Then, the competent tax authorities of the upstream enterprise issued the Notice of Tax Co-operation and Notice of Proven False Invoicing, can the competent tax authorities of the downstream invoiced enterprise make different determinations and come to the opposite conclusion that the business is real? Does the invoiced enterprise have to pay back the tax? Can the real costs be deducted? This article takes a case as an introduction to analyze the above issues for readers' reference.