Under the situation of continuous adjustment of China's economic structure and increasingly fierce market competition, the business risks and financial pressures of enterprises are increasing, and the number of bankruptcy cases continues to rise. Tax disputes in bankruptcy procedures are becoming more and more prominent, the court accepted the bankruptcy application after the late payment of tax claims recognized as one of the controversial issues. This paper takes typical judicial cases as an entry point, and analyzes the relevant provisions in depth, aiming to provide clear ideas and useful references for solving the problem of determining the claims.

Over the past three years, a number of tax-related cases in the field of flexible labor have been publicly exposed around the world, involving billions of dollars, and many head platforms in the industry have been frequently involved in the criminal vortex of false invoicing and tax evasion. I learned that recently, a province has more than ten flexible labor platform is suspected of false invoicing, the enterprises involved in the case are highly dependent on the financial return, and the characteristics of gangs are obvious. The case involves more than 8,000 invoiced enterprises, the amount of invoicing involved is up to tens of billions of dollars, and the case is currently under further investigation. Against the background of further cleanup of tax depressions and authorized collection modes, the flexible labor industry is in dire need of upgrading and rectifying its original business, and further exploring new profit growth points to grasp the balance between development and compliance. This article will summarize the original model and new business trends, point out the hidden tax risks, and make suggestions for the development of flexible labor platforms.

Since the beginning of 2025, both national ministries and provincial/municipal authorities have reiterated efforts to deepen the governance of tax-related irregularities in investment promotion and support the construction of a unified national market. Against this backdrop, regulatory scrutiny over tax issues related to fiscal subsidies will become more stringent and detailed this year. Recent cases show that, in addition to full refunds of subsidies due to invalid eligibility, improper handling of fiscal subsidies for VAT or corporate income tax (CIT) purposes may lead to allegations of tax evasion. This article analyzes emerging tax risks related to fiscal subsidies through case studies.

The book "Explanation of Provisions of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China, Legislative Rationale and Relevant Provisions" prepared by the Criminal Law Office of the Legislative Affairs Commission of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC) provides authoritative explanations of the crime of illegally selling special invoices for value-added tax (VAT), and reveals that the object of this crime can only be the blank VAT invoices. The current practice of some judicial organs of replacing the crime of false invoicing with the crime of illegal sale of VAT invoices is contrary to the basic principle of the law of criminal punishment and the legislative intent, and the author calls upon the judicial circles to stop the improper expansion of the application of this crime as soon as possible.

In the series of articles on false invoicing, tax evasion and tax fraud in the agricultural products industry, we have summarized the types of tax-related cases in the agricultural products industry, analyzed and revealed the tax risks in the agricultural products industry. At the same time, we have provided the key points of defense for how to deal with the tax risk of false opening in the agricultural products industry. In this issue of the article, we intend to start from a real case of false invoicing of agricultural products purchase invoices were found to constitute tax evasion, for the agricultural products industry to resolve the tax risk of tax evasion to provide ideas for the reader's reference.

Correctly determining the tax recovery period, penalty statute of limitations, and criminal prosecution statute of limitations is of great significance to ensuring that national taxes are fully deposited in accordance with the law, urging tax authorities to actively perform their duties of investigating and dealing with tax violations, and safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of taxpayers. In practice, the tax authorities and enterprises have different understandings on the identification of the three periods, which leads to disputes between tax authorities and enterprises. This article intends to analyze how to determine the three deadlines one by one from a real case for readers 'reference.

On April 18, Teng Wei and other judges of the Supreme Court issued the “Understanding of the Two Supremes' Interpretation of Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Handling Criminal Cases of Hazardous Tax Collection and Administration” (hereinafter referred to as the “Interpretation and Application”), which was published, and which gave a clear interpretation of the relationship between the crime of illegally purchasing special invoices for value-added tax (VAT) and that of falsely opening VAT invoices. The Interpretation and Application (hereinafter referred to as the Interpretation and Application) was published, in which a clear interpretation of the relationship between the crime of illegal purchase of VAT invoices and the crime of false VAT invoices was given. This interpretation has set up a certain obstacle to the way of criminalization of the crime of false invoicing, and it is difficult to obtain acquittal for cases that do not constitute the crime of false invoicing, and the number of cases in which the defendant is convicted of the crime of illegal sale of invoices has been rising. A total of 41 cases involving the purchase of invoices by defendants have been decided, 12 cases have been convicted of illegal purchase of invoices, 29 cases have been convicted of false invoicing, no cases have been convicted of false invoicing and tax evasion, and there have been no acquittal cases. In this context, whether there is still room for acquittal of enterprises suspected of false invoicing? In this article, we will take the practice cases as an entry point to discuss how the invoiced enterprises should go on the way of getting out of the crime.

In practice, it has been controversial as to whether tax administrative penalties need to take the subjective state of the parties into account. There is a view that as long as the perpetrator has committed a tax offence and caused the result of tax administrative offence, then no matter whether his subjective state is intentional or negligent, he should be administratively punished; there is also a view that subjective fault is one of the constituent elements for the qualification of tax offence, and the perpetrator should not be administratively punished if he is not subjectively at fault. For the latter, the tax authorities should bear the burden of proof on the subjective elements of the parties, if they fail to prove or insufficient evidence, or will bear unfavourable results. In this paper, we will briefly analyse whether the subjective state of the parties should be taken into account in the administrative tax penalty.