Editor's Note: The farmland occupation tax is a tax levied on units and individuals that occupy farmland to build buildings and structures or engage in non-agricultural construction. As a "small tax", in practice, many enterprises ignore the tax obligation of farmland occupation tax, or fail to accurately define the tax basis and the time when the tax obligation occurs, which leads to the risk of tax payment, late payment and even qualitative tax evasion. Based on the current supervision situation of farmland occupation tax, this paper analyzes the common tax-related risks of farmland occupation tax, and suggests the matters that should be focused on farmland occupation tax for readers' reference.

Editor's note: The State Council's General Office issued the "Guiding Opinions on Comprehensive Implementation of the Administrative Law Enforcement Disclosure System, the Whole Process Record System of Law Enforcement, and the Major Law Enforcement Decision Legal Review System" (Guobanfa [2018] No. 118), which clearly states that when implementing law enforcement actions, the rights and obligations of the parties must be informed to the parties. Based on this, when tax authorities implement enforcement actions such as ordering rectification within a time limit, should they ensure the rights of taxpayers to make statements and defenses if there is no explicit legal provision? This article will analyze specific cases.

Editor's Note: In recent years, affected by market fluctuation, enterprise strategic adjustment and other factors, some natural person shareholders of enterprises choose to transfer equity to exit. However, the recognition of the original value of the equity and the accounting of the transfer income in the process of equity transfer are different in different situations, coupled with the different calibre of the tax authorities in different places for the implementation of special circumstances, which leads to deviation in the application of the policy for some shareholders, which leads to the payment of additional tax, late payment and even qualification as tax evasion. This article combines three latest cases to analyse the core points that natural person shareholders need to pay attention to in the process of equity transfer, as well as the direction of defence that can be taken after the occurrence of tax-related disputes.

The Announcement of the State Administration of Taxation on the Issuance of Measures for the Administration of Pre-tax Deduction Vouchers for Enterprise Income Tax (SAT Announcement No. 28 of 2018) establishes the basic principle that non-compliant external vouchers shall not be used as pre-tax deduction vouchers, and at the same time stipulates two avenues of relief, namely, to reissue or exchange external compliant vouchers, and where reissuance or exchange is not possible for special reasons, to provide relevant information to confirm that the expenditures are Authenticity. If an enterprise obtains false invoices and cannot reissue or exchange the invoices when it has real business expenditures, how should it understand and apply Article 14 of Announcement No. 28 to strive for pre-tax deduction? Based on this, this case is intended to analyze the article in conjunction with a case for the reference of enterprises in similar cases. How to seek pre-tax deduction for obtaining false invoices that cannot be reissued or exchanged?

Editor's Note: Due to the lack of clear provisions in the current law on the division of responsibility between the investor and the actual controller of a sole proprietorship enterprise, as well as the assumption of historical tax liabilities after the change of the investor, tax law enforcement disputes and enterprise compliance risks occur frequently in practice. This article analyzes from different dimensions and clarifies that the tax bureau cannot directly enforce the so-called "real controller" property of a sole proprietorship enterprise, and the tax liability of a sole proprietorship enterprise after the change of the investor needs to be differentiated from different situations, aiming to provide practical guidance for the standardization of the tax treatment of a sole proprietorship enterprise.

In the purchasing and selling chain, the coal industry has long existed the situation of selling without invoices, resulting in coal trading enterprises not being able to obtain invoices for VAT input deduction and pre-tax deduction of income tax when purchasing coal; and in the transportation chain, as the actual individual drivers did not issue transportation invoices to the coal trading enterprises, resulting in the same problem of not having invoices to be recorded in the accounts. In order to cope with the above dilemma and reduce operating costs, some coal trading enterprises have set up a third party in the purchase and sale chain and obtained invoices from it. With the in-depth promotion of the joint crackdown on tax-related crimes by eight departments, the risk of false invoicing by this kind of third-party invoicing companies is frequently occurring, which causes the downstream coal enterprises receiving the invoices to face the risk of false invoicing and tax evasion in terms of administrative and even criminal liabilities. Based on the recent tax-related cases in the coal industry, this article analyzes the tax-related administrative and criminal risks of the “proxy invoicing” business of coal trading enterprises and puts forward risk prevention suggestions for readers' reference.

The essence of the act of changing petrochemical invoices is to help the enterprises using the invoices to evade the consumption tax rather than to cheat the VAT. In the case of petrochemical invoicing, although some judicial authorities can recognize the problem of tax evasion, they may be hesitant to impose the crime of tax evasion due to the fact that the case does not satisfy the pre-conditions for administrative penalties. In this article, we will take a petrochemical bill change case represented by China Tax Lawyer as a reference to analyze that the administrative penalty imposed by the tax authority is not a pre-condition for pursuing the criminal responsibility of tax evasion, and combine the specific circumstances of objective inability and legal impossibility to explain that even if the tax authority has not imposed administrative penalty, it is not a violation of Article 201 of the Criminal Law that the perpetrator of the petrochemical bill change is subject to the criminal responsibility of tax evasion.

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.