Recently, the frequent occurrence of financial counterfeiting cases has attracted great attention from the relevant authorities, with the Supreme Court, the Supreme Prosecutor and many other departments striving to crack down on financial counterfeiting, and the regulation continues to tighten. Usually, financial counterfeiting boosts corporate profits, thus contributing to more tax revenue, so the tax bureau generally does not intervene. However, financial counterfeiting is inevitably accompanied by false invoicing, inflated costs and other circumstances, under the surface of the false prosperity of the enterprise still lurks a great tax risk. This paper analyzes the tax risks behind financial counterfeiting by combining recent cases and regulatory trends of relevant departments for the benefit of readers.

Paragraph 2 of Article 33 of the Rules for Administrative Review of Taxation stipulates that a taxpayer shall pay the tax within the period prescribed by the tax authorities or provide tax guarantee before applying for administrative review within 60 days. In practice, some tax authorities will not accept the taxpayer's application for reconsideration on the ground that the taxpayer pays the tax late. So the taxpayer late payment of taxes, whether it is inevitable to lose the right to administrative reconsideration? This article combines a brief analysis of the case.

In the previous issue, we analyzed the overall situation of the epidemic prevention material supply chain and the tax risks faced by various entities in the chain. Among them, epidemic prevention material procurement units face legal risks of tax adjustments and tax evasion due to the upstream enterprises being characterized as falsely issuing special VAT invoices. In practice, there are many cases where the invoice recipient is implicated due to problems with the issuer. If the tax audit cannot be effectively dealt with, it will not only bear huge economic losses, but also face intangible losses such as a downgrade of tax credit and damage to reputation. This article intends to provide suggestions for procurement units to deal with tax audits.

Since this year, tax cases related to invoicing by natural persons have occurred frequently, involving both enterprises of the invoiced party and natural persons of the invoicing party. For the invoicing party, the invoicing party should pay VAT and income tax according to the law, otherwise, it will face the risk of tax evasion or even tax evasion; for the invoiced enterprise which accepts the natural person to provide services, whether it can obtain the invoice issued on behalf of the invoicing party or whether the invoices are legally compliant, etc., will have different impacts on the invoicing party. This article will analyse and sort out the risks faced by the invoicing party and the invoiced party under different circumstances, so as to help enterprises improve tax compliance and safeguard their legitimate rights and interests.

On August 1, 2024, the Regulations on Fair Competition Review (Decree No. 783 of the State Council of the People's Republic of China) (herein after referred to as "Regulations") came into force, clarifying for the first time in the form of administrative regulations the object of fair competition review, review standards, review mechanism and supervision and guarantee, filling the legislative gap of the fair competition review system. It fills the legislative gap of the fair competition review system. Chapter II of the Regulations sets out the review criteria for local governments to formulate financial incentive policies, which also suggests that enterprises obtaining financial incentives should pay attention to the compliance of the policies and measures they enjoy. The fiscal subsidy policy has a facilitating effect on the development of the renewable resources industry, and its compliance and stability will have an impact on the business model of renewable resources enterprises. In the period of high-quality development, renewable resources enterprises should take into account the relevant provisions of the Regulations to sort out potential risks and actively adapt to the new development model.

In March 2024, the “two high courts” announced eight typical cases together with the much-anticipated “Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Handling Criminal Cases of Endangering Tax Collection and Administration”, in which the case of Shi 's tax fraud through low-value and high-value declarations was exemplary for clarifying the definition of crimes and non-crimes of export tax rebates. Recently, many cases of tax fraud by under-reporting have broken out in practice. In view of this, this paper analyzes the core of the frequent low-value overstatement tax fraud cases by analyzing the tax fraud case of Shi , and gives the ideas of defending the low-value overstatement tax fraud cases for the benefit of the readers.

With the release of the “two high” tax-related judicial interpretations, as well as the Supreme Prosecutor in conjunction with the Ministry of Public Security and other departments jointly issued the “handling of the use of agricultural products export tax fraud criminal cases joint meeting minutes”, the current export enterprises due to the acquisition of agricultural products invoices false open, high open, open, fill in the list of errors and other factors outbreak of the risk of tax fraud is increasingly high! . However, due to the decentralized nature of agricultural production and the characteristic of “self-invoicing and self-counterbalancing” of agricultural products purchase invoices, the phenomenon of non-compliance and mis-invoicing is not uncommon in practice. In order to deeply analyze the mode of agricultural export industry and its key points of defense, this article will take the case as the entry point, deeply analyze two common export modes and their risks, and give suggestions to effectively reduce the tax-related risks according to the previous case experience.

Article 204(2) of the Criminal Law stipulates that the crime of tax evasion is to be dealt with when a person fraudulently obtains the tax he or she has paid. There is a big controversy in the field of practice about what is meant by “taxes paid”, which leads to a huge difference in the understanding between the case-handling authorities and the persons involved in the case when calculating the amount of money involved in the case as well as determining the offense in some of the cases and makes it difficult to stop the dispute. Recently, I observed that Ningbo Procuratorate issued a typical case of fraudulent export tax rebate, in which the procuratorate explicitly applied Article 204(2) of the Criminal Law and pointed out that “the tax paid in the case should be deducted from the amount of the crime of fraudulent export tax rebate”. This case has certain practical significance in defining “paid tax”, but undeniably there are still many problems that need to be further clarified. This article will take the case as an entry point to analyze and elaborate the author's viewpoints in depth for the benefit of the readers.