Editor's Note: In June 2025, the Provisions on the Submission of Tax-related Information by Internet Platform Enterprises (State Council Decree No. 810) officially came into effect, establishing the content of obligations and supporting liabilities for platform tax-related information submission. The Tax Collection and Administration Law of the People's Republic of China (Revised Draft for Solicitation of Opinions) proposes to further strengthen submission liabilities. Focusing on the core obligation of tax-related information submission, this article reviews the evolution of the rules, analyzes the specific methods by which tax authorities use submitted data for supervision, and proposes compliance recommendations for platform enterprises and business operators respectively.

Editor's Note: In recent years, with the continuous development of the capital market, equity adjustments without premium within enterprises have frequently occurred to meet specific strategic or listing management requirements. As no special tax treatment policy has been introduced for equity adjustments involving individuals, transactions such as an individual shareholder transferring equity at par value often carry significant tax risks with considerable uncertainty. In such transactions, the determination of the transfer price, the justifiable reasons for a par-value transfer, and the legal consequences of an unfair pricing have always been focal points in practice for both tax authorities and taxpayers. This article takes a typical case as an entry point to analyze and evaluate the above disputes, providing suggestions for taxpayers to avoid and resolve similar controversies.

Editor's Note:Under the export tax refund policy, foreign trade enterprises must use value-added tax ("VAT") special invoices and customs declaration forms as vouchers to apply for export tax refunds. In cases of fraudulently obtaining export tax refunds, wrongdoers typically carry out operations centered on invoices and customs declaration forms: on the one hand, by paying invoice-issuing fees to have others issue false VAT special invoices to themselves, so as to match the information of another person's exported goods; on the other hand, by obtaining another person's customs declaration forms through unlawful means, thereby fraudulently obtaining export tax refunds. As for the party committing the tax fraud, it is generally held to constitute the crime of fraudulently obtaining export tax refunds; however, regarding the characterization of the party issuing false invoices, there are divergences in practice, leading to inconsistent adjudicative outcomes. Some judicial authorities hold that the conduct of the party issuing false invoices constitutes the crime of fraudulently obtaining export tax refunds; others hold that the party issuing false invoices does not constitute the crime of fraudulently obtaining export tax refunds, but rather the crime of falsely issuing VAT special invoices. Regarding the determination of the crime of falsely issuing VAT special invoices, there are also divergences—some judicial authorities hold that the party issuing false invoices independently carries out the act of false issuance and constitutes a principal offender; others hold that the party issuing false invoices provides invoices for the tax-fraud party and, together with the tax-fraud party, forms a joint crime within the scope of the crime of false issuance, and constitutes an accessory. Because the crime of fraudulently obtaining export tax refunds carries a heavier penalty than the crime of false issuance, for cases involving falsely issued tax amounts of 5 million yuan or more, if the conduct is not characterized as being an accessory to the crime of fraudulently obtaining export tax refunds, then, disregarding other circumstances, the best possible outcome would still be a fixed-term imprisonment of five years; if characterized as a principal offender in the crime of false issuance, the term of imprisonment is usually more than ten years; if characterized as an accessory to the crime of false issuance, it may be possible to lower the sentencing bracket and seek a three-year fixed-term imprisonment with suspension of sentence. The related case of false issuance and tax fraud selected inReference to Criminal Trials(Volume 147) characterizes the party issuing false invoices as committing the crime of false issuance while also finding circumstances of an accessory, thereby providing an important reference for the criminal defense of the party issuing false invoices in such cases. This article briefly analyzes the case for readers' reference.

Editor’s Note:The Administrative Measures for the Withholding and Remittance of Value-Added Tax by Domestic Entities on Behalf of Natural Persons will take effect on November 1, 2026, further clarifying the VAT withholding rules applicable to domestic entities purchasing seven categories of services from natural persons. In fulfilling their withholding obligations, domestic entities should pay particular attention to the scope of covered transactions, tax filing requirements, and other relevant matters. This article outlines the key provisions of the new rules, examines the principal issues withholding agents should consider in applying them, and offers recommendations for tax compliance.

Editor’s Note: On August 31, 2026, the State Council Executive Meeting discussed and “approved in principle” the “Draft Amendment to the Tax Collection and Administration Law,” deciding to submit the draft to the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress for deliberation.From the release of the draft for public comment in March 2025, through the numerous controversies and suggestions raised by various sectors of society, to the State Council’s decision to “approve in principle”—what does this phrasing imply? Have the previously controversial provisions been adopted? What stages will follow? This article will analyze the logic and direction behind this legislative process.

Editor's Note: Article 204(2) of the Criminal Law is a key provision distinguishing the crime of tax evasion from the crime of fraudulently obtaining export tax refunds, yet it has long remained "dormant." In practice, courts have rarely accepted defense arguments based on this provision. Following the implementation of the Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Handling Criminal Cases of Endangering Tax Collection and Administration (Fa Shi [2024] No. 4), the conviction standards for tax-related crimes have undergone significant adjustments. This article conducts an empirical analysis of relevant cases,梳理 the core reasons why courts reject related defense opinions, references authoritative views from the Understanding and Application by the Supreme People's Court and Supreme People's Procuratorate, and proposes the distinction standards and defense paths for "pay first, defraud back" conduct.

Editor's Note: To further improve the individual income tax (IIT) collection and administration system for the transfer of restricted shares, close loopholes in tax collection, and uphold tax fairness and order in the capital market, the Ministry of Finance, the State Taxation Administration, and the China Securities Regulatory Commission jointly issued the Announcement on Regulating the Individual Income Tax Policy for the Transfer of Listed Companies' Restricted Shares (Announcement No. 26 of 2026 of the Ministry of Finance, the State Taxation Administration, and the China Securities Regulatory Commission). The Announcement makes systematic adjustments to the taxable scope of restricted shares, cost recognition, and liquidation declaration, effectively addressing the shortcomings in the implementation of previous policies and profoundly impacting the reduction of holdings by individual shareholders, equity management of listed companies, and equity incentive arrangements of companies planning to go public. This article, by analyzing the differences between the old and new policies, systematically interprets the core changes of the new rules, estimates the tax burden impact, and provides targeted tax management recommendations for market participants.

Editor's Note: Invoice-based tax administration remains an important means of current tax collection and administration. Measures such as suspending invoice issuance, restricting invoice usage, and reducing invoice quotas directly affect the lifeline of business operations. In practice, many tax authorities, after receiving risk alerts from tax big data systems, adopt "one-size-fits-all" measures to suspend or restrict invoices at the preliminary verification stage, leaving enterprises in a predicament of "being unable to issue invoices, business stagnation, and slow rights protection." In April 2026, the Panjin Intermediate People's Court rendered a final judgment in Case No. (2026) Liao 11 Xing Zhong No. 16, holding that the tax authority's act of reducing an enterprise's invoice credit quota to "zero" during the risk warning period violated statutory procedures and was obviously inappropriate, and ordered revocation according to law. Its judicial reasoning has reference value for enterprise rights protection in similar cases. This article analyzes the case from four aspects: the disputed issues and the court's judicial reasoning, the legal application path and institutional gaps of the court's judicial rules, and the implications for all parties.