On March 28, 2025, the State Administration of Taxation (SAT) issued the Law of the People's Republic of China on Tax Collection and Administration (Revised Draft for Public Consultation) and publicly solicited comments from the public. Ten years since the revision of the Tax Collection and Administration Law was publicly solicited for opinions in 2015, the State has restarted the revision of the Tax Collection and Administration Law, which will surely have a far-reaching impact on the construction of the rule of law in China's taxation. From the perspective of protecting the legitimate rights and interests of taxpayers, regulating tax collection by tax authorities in accordance with the law, and promoting the establishment of a tax collection and payment relationship of equality, mutual trust and cooperation, Hua Shui's legal team, through the interspersed analysis of the current tax collection and administration law, the 2015 revision of the tax collection and administration law and the key provisions of the 2025 public consultation, and combining with its own experience of tax practice, has put forward a number of modification suggestions for some of the important provisions in the revision of the Taxation Collection and Administration Law. The text of the amendments submitted by Hua Shui is now forwarded as follows, and we hope to discuss them with the readers.

Surplus invoices, as one of the primary sources of invoice-related illegal activities, have persisted for years despite repeated crackdowns. The internet industry, which directly connects a large number of individual consumers and service providers, hosts both supply and demand sides for invoices. Due to the intangible nature of internet products and the concealability of such crimes, the sector has gradually evolved into a new hotspot for surplus invoice fraud. Recently, three high-profile cases involving fraudulent issuance of surplus invoices by online recharge platforms have erupted, involving massive amounts and drawing widespread public attention. For both issuers and recipients of surplus invoices, the unique characteristics of the internet industry introduce tax risks distinct from those in traditional sectors. In this article, the author analyzes the differing circumstances faced by issuers and recipients based on observed patterns and emerging practices in the industry, shedding light on potential tax risks.

On July 10, 2012, Company A borrowed RMB 30 million from the bank and signed a mortgage contract, and created a mortgage on several properties in its name. on July 20, 2012, the bank completed the registration of the mortgage and obtained a mortgage certificate. As Company A failed to repay the loan at maturity, the bank filed a lawsuit with the court. on June 10, 2014, the court ruled that Company A should repay the principal amount of the loan and the overdue interest to the bank, and at the same time, confirmed the bank's right to priority compensation for the mortgaged property. After the judgment came into effect, on August 18, 2014, the bank applied to the court for compulsory execution. in July 2020, the claim in question was assigned by a natural person, Li Mou, after two assignments, and the court changed the applicant for execution to Li Mou. from September to October 2024, the mortgaged property was unsuccessfully sold through the first and second auctions. in November 2024, Li Mou applied to the court for a set-off of the debt in kind.

In enterprise bankruptcy proceedings, disputes over the order of satisfaction of tax claims and security claims have long existed. Article 45(1) of the current Tax Administration Law stipulates that if the tax claim arises before the secured claim, the tax claim shall be paid in priority, while the Enterprise Bankruptcy Law clearly stipulates the right of exclusion of the security right, and the secured claim in the bankruptcy procedure enjoys the right of priority within the scope of the realization of the secured property. This article takes a bankruptcy claim confirmation dispute case as a citation and analyzes it from the dimensions of legal application rules and coordination of legal system, which provides clearer rules and guidelines for solving the same kind of disputes.

On March 28, 2025, the State Administration of Taxation (SAT) heavily released the Tax Collection and Administration Law of the People's Republic of China (Revised Exposure Draft) and the Explanation on <The Tax Collection and Administration Law of the People's Republic of China (Revised Exposure Draft)> for public comment.2025 The Tax Collection and Administration Law (Revised Exposure Draft), on the basis of On the basis of "retaining the collection and management system that has been tested and proven in practice for many years" and "maintaining the basic structure of the current tax collection and management law", the 2025 Tax Collection and Management Law (Draft Revision for Public Opinion) is less innovative than the 2015 Tax Collection and Management Law (Draft Revision for Public Opinion), but it still brings many Significant Changes. Huatax lawyers have analyzed the key provisions of the current tax administration law, the 2015 Tax Administration Law (Draft Revision for Public Opinion) and the 2025 Tax Administration Law (Draft Revision for Public Opinion), summarized twenty-one important changes, analyzed the impacts of these changes on both the taxpayers and the taxpayers, and put forward targeted suggestions for revising and perfecting some of the provisions, which are expected to be discussed together with the readers.

In order to enhance the independent innovation ability of enterprises, to promote enterprises to increase R & D investment, to realize the development of industrial upgrading, as early as in the last century, China has introduced tax incentives to support the development of high-tech enterprises, but also formulated the conditions and methods for the identification of high-tech enterprises. With the increasingly fierce international competition in science and technology, China's high-tech enterprises and their development has put forward new requirements, high-tech enterprise identification conditions and methods have changed to increase policy support for science and technology-based enterprises, especially small and medium-sized enterprises. At present, enterprises must meet the eight conditions stipulated in Article 11 of the Administrative Measures for the Recognition of

In recent years, tax-related disputes have arisen frequently in enterprise bankruptcy cases, and one of the disputes is whether the education surcharge and local education surcharge declared by the tax authorities can be recognized as tax claims. The tax authorities claimed that the education fee surcharge and local education surcharge should be recognized as tax claims, while the bankruptcy administrators believed that they were ordinary claims. In this regard, this paper takes the typical judicial case as the starting point and argues that the determination of the claim of education fee surcharge and local education surcharge should follow the principle of distinction between tax and fee, and the State Administration of Taxation Announcement No. 48 of 2019 cannot be used as the basis for the characterization of the claim, and ultimately comes to the conclusion that the education fee surcharge and local education surcharge do not belong to the tax claim, which is aimed at providing a clear idea and a useful reference to the resolution of the problem of the determination of the natu

In practice, in the case where the relative only sues on the tax penalty decision, due to the high degree of consistency between the tax penalty decision and the tax processing decision, there are different views in the judicial trial as to whether the court should review the facts identified in the penalty decision, and there are views that the two should be heard at the same time and make a judgment, and there are also views that the facts underlying the tax penalty decision are the facts identified in the tax processing decision, and the court should no longer review the facts identified in the penalty decision. There are also views that the facts on which the tax penalty decision is based are the facts determined by the tax processing decision, and the court should not review the facts determined by the penalty decision. In this paper, the tax processing decision and tax penalty decision are two separate administrative acts, the court shall review the facts of the violation of law determined by the penalty decision, briefly analyzed as follows.