Editor's Note: Recently, the case of falsely issuing special invoices for value-added tax on the online freight platform of "Shen Shi Sheng Xin logistics platform", which has attracted much attention, ushered in the judgment of the second instance. The court of second instance changed the original crime of falsely issuing special invoices for value-added tax to the crime of illegally selling special invoices for value-added tax, which triggered many thoughts on the handling of tax-related cases on the online freight platform. This paper holds that the behavior of "paying invoices later" on the network freight platform does not constitute tax loss under the background of real transportation business, and should not be regarded as the crime of falsely issuing special VAT invoices, but it should not be punished as the crime of illegally selling special VAT invoices. If criminal responsibility needs to be investigated, the "late compensation" behavior of the platform is more suitable for the crime of false invoicing, which is more in line with the legislative purpose and legal interest protection principle of the crime.

Editor's Note: By combing through cases in practice, there are two main types of business models for Flexible employment platforms, namely, the "Agent Invoicing" model, which controls the invoicing of enterprises in the park, or the "Self-invoicing" model, which directly invoices in its own name. However, whether it is the "Agent Invoicing" model or the "Self-invoicing" model, Flexible employment platforms are subject to greater tax risks, and can easily be considered by public prosecutors and law enforcement authorities as having committed crimes of false invoicing. In the context of the increasingly strict regulation of tax rebate policy and the gradual strengthening of the national authority's crackdown on tax-related crimes, how should Flexible employment platforms deal with the tax-related risks? This article will focus on two invoicing modes and comment on them from the perspective of tax law principles and practices.

Since the implementation of the value-added tax policy, in order to strengthen the comprehensive utilization of resources and protect the environment, China has given preferential tax policy support to enterprises engaged in the recycling and operation of waste materials, and has successively implemented preferential policies such as tax exemption, immediate refund, first levy and then return, and simple levy. Changes in policy have led to changes in the business model of enterprises. In the past, under the tax exemption policy, the industry did not need to bear the VAT, the design and construction of the transaction mode need not consider the tax factor, steel mills and other waste enterprises usually directly grasp the first-hand source of goods, from the local operation of the recycling of waste materials from the retailer to purchase. In the context of taxation, the sale of goods need to pay 13% value-added tax, but due to the general low willingness of the retailer to pay taxes on their own, not willing to declare taxes and issue invoices, resulting in the procurement of goods with the waste enterprises at the same time can not obtain legal and effective input credit and pre-tax deduction vouchers, which bear the overall sales of 13% of the tax burden, the emergence of a fundamental obstacle to the purchase of enterprises with the waste of the tax link, the first-hand The sourcing model fails to satisfy the demand of enterprises using waste to obtain input invoices.

Since the implementation of the "Interim Regulations on Land Appreciation Tax," the preferential tax policy for ordinary residential properties has always been in effect: taxpayers who construct and sell ordinary standard residential properties, with the appreciation amount not exceeding 20% of the deductible project amount, are exempt from land appreciation tax. For real estate development enterprises, controlling the selling price and appreciation rate of ordinary residential properties can enjoy tax exemption incentives, provided that different types of real estate are accounted for separately as required. In practice, some real estate enterprises have found that abandoning the preferential tax policy for ordinary residential properties in the same project is more conducive to reducing tax liability, but subsequent disputes have arisen with tax authorities during the review of land appreciation tax settlement. This article will discuss this issue and provide suggestions for the readers.

In recent years, the real estate industry has been experiencing an economic downturn, and real estate enterprises, serving as debtors and mortgagors, have simultaneously become tax debtors. On the one hand, when the debtor is unable to repay debts, the real estate mortgagee may have the priority to be compensated for the debts through discounted sale or auctioning or selling the mortgaged property, as stipulated in the Civil Code. On the other hand, after obtaining auction proceeds through the auction of real estate conducted by the people's court, it becomes possible for the tax authorities to pursue unpaid taxes and auction corresponding tax payments, thus creating a conflict between taxes and mortgage claims. So, what is the order of repayment for auction proceeds in such cases? This article will discuss the distribution order of auction proceeds between real estate mortgage rights and the state's tax collection rights to satisfy the readers' curiosity.

Capital financing is crucial to the normal operation of enterprises, in order to improve the efficiency of capital utilization, reduce financing costs, the situation of capital borrowing between related enterprises is more common, some groups of companies also through the establishment of capital pools to enhance the liquidity of internal funds, minimize the cost of external borrowing. From a tax perspective, the borrowing behavior between enterprises involves the recognition of interest income of one party and the cost of the other party, in order to prevent the use of capital borrowing between related parties for profit transfer, illegal cost deduction, the tax authorities are usually based on the principle of deemed sales or arm's length principle of the capital borrowing between related parties to make adjustments, and some enterprises have "one in and one out of a borrowing mode between related parties". Some enterprises have the improper understanding that "the lending mode between related parties does not involve tax obligations, and the gratuitous lending without obtaining actual income is not subject to tax", which leads to the consequences of paying back taxes, charging late fees and even characterizing tax evasion. This paper analyzes the pre-tax deduction of interest cost under interest-free lending between related parties and compensated lending and the tax risk of individual shareholder's borrowing from practical cases and puts forward preventive and responsive suggestions for readers' reference.

Recently, a tax platform has been implicated in the case of pharmaceutical enterprises. At present, the platform has been investigated by the public security, if the case is not handled properly, the invoiced pharmaceutical enterprises are very likely to be transferred to the judicial organs, facing the criminal responsibility of the crime of false VAT invoices. In fact, after the reform of the “two-invoice system”, the pharmaceutical field through the establishment of CSOs, CSPs and other organizations to obtain funds through false invoicing cases are few, and in recent years, CSOs, CSPs and other organizations have been frequently subject to tax audits, and they have been upgraded to online consulting platforms, in an attempt to add a veneer to hide the act of false invoicing. However, now pharmaceutical companies through the online platform to inflate sales costs with the intention of reducing the tax burden, the means of arbitrage funds by the tax authorities and judicial organs are also concerned. At the same time, since last year's anti-corruption storm is still continuing, this year, the Health Commission issued a number of departments to correct the unhealthy wind in the field of medicine notice, the pharmaceutical industry tax risk should not be underestimated, the pharmaceutical enterprises should be in the end, this paper is intended to explore.

China's partnership tax payment method is "share first and tax later", therefore, when the investment and financing platform type partnership obtains profits by transferring equity and other capital operation methods and distributes them to individual partners, if the individual partners who obtain the profits are tax residents of China, they are usually required to pay an individual income tax at a rate ranging from 5% to 35% of the operating income. Individual Income Tax. If the individual partner is a non-resident outside China, it is controversial in practice as to whether he/she should be taxed as a resident individual or whether he/she should be subject to preferential treatment or preferential tax rate under a tax treaty. This article briefly analyses this difficult practical issue and puts forward tax-saving compliance suggestions.