In practice, some construction enterprises have their previously obtained invoices identified as abnormal vouchers because the upstream construction contractors have escaped or lost contact. Consequently, they receive handling and penalty decisions from the tax inspection bureau, facing obligations to pay back taxes, late payment fees, and being characterized as having evaded taxes. Combining current tax policies and practical operations, this article sorts out the response measures for enterprises and provides tax compliance guidance.

Recently, the 62nd executive meeting of the State Council passed the "Regulations on Housing Rental" (hereinafter referred to as the "Regulations"). The "Regulations" put forward new requirements for housing rental filing, providing a higher-level legal basis for the sharing mechanism of housing rental information data, and providing a powerful tool for the tax authorities to accurately identify taxpayers' undeclared rental income. This article intends to analyze the regulations on housing rental filing and how taxes should be paid for rental housing in the "Regulations" in order to help taxpayers accurately identify their tax obligations, achieve tax compliance, and prevent tax risks.

As an important part of the real estate tax system, the liquidation and recovery of land value-added tax often lead to disputes between tax authorities and enterprises due to the application of rules. This article takes a final case of land value-added tax liquidation dispute of a real estate development enterprise ruled by Tianjin Higher People's Court (2024) Jin Xing Zhong No. 32 as the starting point, focusing on three core controversial issues: the determination of the submission of liquidation materials, the definition of the nature of taxes, and the starting point of the tax recovery period. Combined with local tax administration rules and basic principles of tax law, it conducts an analysis to provide a reference for clarifying the adjudication logic of similar cases.

Editor's Note: Recently, the State Taxation Administration Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region Tax Bureau issued the Announcement on Clarifying Issues Related to Land Value-Added Tax (2025 No. 2), which clearly stipulates core issues such as the land value-added tax liquidation unit, the time for collecting revenue and costs, and the method for allocating costs and expenses, responding to many disputes in practice. Previously, Xinjiang implemented the Announcement on Clarifying Issues Related to Land Value-Added Tax (2016 No. 6). The new regulation comes nine years after the old one, and the changes deserve close attention from real estate development enterprises. Combining with the practice of land value-added tax collection and management, the author selects seven key points in the new regulation for interpretation, for readers' reference.

Editor's Note: In December 2018, the Ministry of Natural Resources issued the Letter on Policies Concerning the Compensated Recovery of Idle Land Due to Government Reasons through Agreement (Ziranzi Banhan [2018] No. 1903), which clarifies that when grassroots governments, in accordance with the Measures for the Disposal of Idle Land, investigate and confirm that land is idle due to government reasons and decide to recover it with compensation, they shall follow the principles of consensus through consultation and reasonable compensation, and require that the compensation amount be determined by both parties through joint consultation with reference to market prices. Since then, the compensation standards for the recovery of idle land due to government reasons nationwide have no longer been limited to the land bidding costs but generally follow market premium compensation. This raises a tax administration issue: whether the land compensation received when land, idle due to government reasons, is recovered by the land reserve center at market prices can be exempt from Land Value Increment Tax. This article analyzes this issue.

Recently, an enterprise was required by the tax authorities to pay back the tax and pay the corresponding late payment fee due to the non-payment of land use tax for the construction of farms in the administrative villages under the jurisdiction of the established towns, which involves a huge amount of money. It is understood that this kind of controversial case occurs all over the country, and the regulations on whether the scope of land use tax of formed towns includes administrative villages are not the same in different places. In this paper, we would like to briefly analyze the scope of land use tax in relation to this case for the reference of enterprises.

Although land use tax is a small tax, its tax compliance cannot be ignored. In practice, there are few cases in which enterprises did not actually use the land after being granted the land for various reasons, which triggered disputes between the tax authorities and enterprises. Recently, a real estate enterprise has not paid the land use tax because the land is idle due to government reasons, and the tax authorities require it to pay the tax and the corresponding late payment fee, which involves a huge amount of tax. This article is intended to start from the case, the tax enterprise dispute points to make a brief analysis, for the reference of enterprises in similar cases.

On October 25, the Ministry of Finance released the fiscal revenue and expenditure situation in the first three quarters of 2024, and the statistics show that the national tax revenue from January to September decreased by 5.3% year-on-year, and the property tax among the land and real estate-related taxes was 311.8 billion yuan, an increase of 19.9% year-on-year, and the land value-added tax (VAT) was 400 billion yuan, a decrease of 7.8% year-on-year. VAT, land value-added tax and other transaction-related taxes and fees are hotspots of long-term concern for the real estate industry, and in the context of significant changes in the supply and demand relationship in the housing market at present, enterprises should also focus on property tax, urban land use tax and other taxes and fees in the real estate holding segment. Recently, a listed company in Inner Mongolia announced that its subsidiaries conducted self-inspection and verification of property tax returns according to the requirements of the local tax bureau, and due to the inconsistent understanding of the tax basis, the subsidiaries were required to make up for a total of 111,059,700 yuan of property tax and late payment fees from December 2018 to June 2024, which was expected to affect the net profit attributable to shareholders of the listed company for the year 2024 of approximately 80.69 million yuan. Based on the main controversial issues of property tax in practice, this article selects three typical cases to analyze the application and understanding of policies and other issues by cases for readers' reference.