In order to cope with the shortage of cash flow to postpone the fulfillment of debts, or to successfully raise funds, real estate development enterprises may choose to use the commercial properties they have developed to enter into a sale and purchase contract with creditors, and adopt the method of granting guarantees to guarantee the fulfillment of debts. Although the transfer guarantee is not intended to be a transfer of real estate, if a change in property ownership occurs during the transfer guarantee process, there is a risk that the tax authorities will recognize it as a transfer of real estate and levy a land value-added tax (LVAT) on it.

Since 2023, a number of local tax bureaus have focused on issuing a number of notices on tax matters, requiring real estate enterprises to make liquidation declarations on their land value-added tax (LVAT) or to approve their taxable amount, which may result in a concentrated eruption of tax-related risks for the enterprises. For projects eligible for liquidation, real estate enterprises should organize timely liquidation and pay close attention to the risk of land value-added tax.

In tax enforcement and judicial practice, the deduction of land value-added tax costs and expenses focuses on the two key points of "deduction vouchers" and "actual occurrence". Compared with the authenticity, legality and relevance requirements of "substance over form" for pre-tax deduction of enterprise income tax, the caliber of deduction of land value-added tax costs and expenses is narrow. In this paper, we will compare the requirements, scope and consequences of deduction of land value-added tax costs and expenses with those of deduction before enterprise income tax from the perspective of deduction vouchers, and reveal the risk of land value-added tax settlement and its solution if no deduction vouchers have been obtained or the deduction vouchers are not in compliance with the current system conditions.

In practice, some local governments, in order to attract investment, grant the land use right through auction and listing in accordance with the law, and then return the land grant payment in the form of support, incentives, subsidies, etc. However, due to the huge amount of land grant payment, whether to offset the land price has a significant impact on the capital cost of enterprises. However, due to the huge amount of land rebate, whether or not to offset the land price in the land value-added tax settlement has a significant impact on the capital cost of enterprises. At present, the national level has not yet clarified the land value-added tax treatment of land rebates, but some localities have made provisions for the deduction of land rebates from the corresponding land costs. Enterprises that do not deduct the land value from the rebates and include the full amount of the land premiums paid in the land costs are exposed to the risk of recovering the land value-added tax.

According to the land value-added tax (VAT) regulations, different tax rules apply to the sale of newly-built houses and the transfer of old houses; the sale of newly-built houses is subject to land value-added tax clearance, while the transfer of old houses is not subject to clearance, and there are differences between the two rules in terms of deduction items, filing procedures, and filing time. In large-scale real estate projects, it is often difficult to sell all the completed commercial houses at one time, and some of them need to be transferred to self-holding first, and the phenomenon of "using before selling" or "renting before selling" is becoming more and more common, and what kind of taxation rules are applicable to such self-built and self-used houses before transferring? The tax rules applicable to such self-constructed and self-utilized houses and then transferred houses have a direct impact on the land value-added tax payment obligations of real estate enterprises.

There is a big difference between ordinary standard residential houses and high-end villas and other residential houses with relatively high value in terms of sales revenue and construction cost, etc. In order to control the selling price of ordinary standard residential houses, promote and ensure their healthy development, and protect the basic investment return of real estate enterprises, the State has introduced a preferential land value-added tax policy for ordinary standard residential houses. In order to control the selling price of ordinary standard residence and to promote and ensure its healthy development, the State has introduced preferential land value-added tax policies for ordinary standard residence to protect the basic investment return of real estate development enterprises. From the viewpoint of the comprehensive legal practice in different regions, the legal concepts adopted in the provision of tax exemption policy for "ordinary standard residence" and the identification standards are different, which make real estate development enterprises face the tax risk of misidentifying the type of real estate and misusing preferential policies.

Recently, SOHO China released its 2023 interim results announcement, disclosing that: as of the date of the announcement, its subsidiary, Beijing Wangjing Sohou Real Estate Company Limited, owed nearly $2 billion in land value-added tax (LVAT) and late fees, and may be at risk of fines and tax enforcement. For large real estate development enterprises, land value-added tax often occupies a very high proportion of the overall tax burden, is a tax cost that cannot be ignored, if not well in advance of the tax planning, resulting in unpaid land value-added tax, will face serious tax risks. This paper intends to analyze the tax-related risks and countermeasures of real estate development enterprises defaulting on land value-added tax in the context of SOHO China's tax arrears, and put forward suggestions to the majority of taxpayers to resolve tax arrears risks.

Land value-added tax (LVAT) settlement by housing enterprises requires the collection and allocation of costs and expenses according to certain settlement units or different real estate types. As the tax burden calculated under different apportionment methods may differ significantly, but in the absence of clear conditions and order of application of the cost apportionment methods at the national level, tax policies are scattered and different in different regions, which leads to confusion in understanding the relevant policies and tax-related operations of enterprises. This article is intended to analyze the dispute between tax enterprises on the application of cost-sharing methods in the context of a case.