Although land use tax is a small tax, its tax compliance cannot be ignored. In practice, there are few cases in which enterprises did not actually use the land after being granted the land for various reasons, which triggered disputes between the tax authorities and enterprises. Recently, a real estate enterprise has not paid the land use tax because the land is idle due to government reasons, and the tax authorities require it to pay the tax and the corresponding late payment fee, which involves a huge amount of tax. This article is intended to start from the case, the tax enterprise dispute points to make a brief analysis, for the reference of enterprises in similar cases.

According to the law, in general, the statute of limitations for penalties imposed by tax authorities for tax violations does not exceed five years; the period for collection of overdue taxes and late fees also does not exceed five years. However, for cases involving tax evasion, fraud, resistance, or arrears, the collection period can be indefinite. For enterprises that obtain fictitious invoices, different administrative determinations correspond to different periods for collection and penalties. In practice, due to ongoing disputes over how to define the starting and ending points of the collection and penalty periods, as well as how to determine the continuity or ongoing nature of the violation, this article will provide a brief analysis of whether enterprises obtaining fictitious invoices can defend themselves regarding the collection and penalty periods, and how they should defend themselves.

Individual business is an important part of the private economic organization, plays a unique role in promoting economic development, driving employment, solid livelihoods, and facilitating the lives of the masses. Recently, the fourteenth session of the fifteenth meeting of the National People's Congress voted to adopt the “Private Economy Promotion Law” will help individual business households sustained, healthy, high-quality development. It is foreseeable that self-employed businessmen will have great potential. However, we have also observed that recently, a number of cases of tax evasion and false invoicing by individual entrepreneurs have erupted in industries such as renewable resources, pharmaceuticals, and online entertainment, implicating downstream enterprises. This organization has been abused by “people with good intentions” and become a tool for “tax planning”. Based on this, this paper intends to analyze the causes of the abuse of the individual industrial and commercial enterprises and suggest the corresponding tax risks from the cases of individual industrial and commercial enterprises' tax evasion and false opening.

According to the Interim Measures for the Administration of Venture Capital Enterprises, Venture Capital Enterprises that have not completed the filing procedures in accordance with the provisions of the Measures are not entitled to policy support. Meanwhile, the "Catalogue of Encouraged Industries in the Western Region" in China's preferential policies for the development of the western region includes "Venture Capital", which stipulates that qualified enterprises can enjoy the tax incentives of corporate income tax at a rate of 15%. Recently, a number of Venture Capital companies in a certain province have been requested by the tax bureau to conduct self-examination and pay back the tax, the reason is that they

For a long time, some local governments have been granting partnership enterprises the approved levy policy as a condition for attracting investments, and many investors have enjoyed the policy dividend of low tax burden through equity transfer and other premium transactions through partnership enterprise shareholding platforms. The Announcement on the Administration of Collection of Individual Income Tax on Income from Equity Investment and Operation (Announcement No. 41 of 2021 by the Ministry of Finance and the State Administration of Taxation) stipulates that partnerships with shareholding platforms are subject to individual tax in accordance with the method of account-checking levy, which effectively curbed this kind of tax avoidance operation. Recently, some investors have been notified by the tax authorities in their place of residence that they have been investigated and asked to pay back taxes and penalties in respect of the authorized collection of partnership share transfers in a foreign place several years ago. Whether the authorized tax payment for partnership equity transfer is necessarily illegal, whether the tax authority of the investor's place of residence has the right to investigate and deal with the matter retrospectively, and how the investor should properly deal with such risks? This article analyzes the above practical issues.

In March 2022, the Cyberspace Administration of China, the State Taxation Administration, and the State Administration for Market Regulation jointly issued the "Opinions on Further Regulating Profit-Making Activities in Live Streaming to Promote Healthy Industry Development" (STA Income Tax Notice [2022] No. 25), which explicitly states that "intermediary agencies and related personnel who plan or assist live streamers in illegal tax evasion activities shall be severely punished and publicly exposed." Recently, a major tax-related case involving an MCN agency colluding with illegal intermediaries was reported by CCTV. According to the disclosure, the case involves numerous parties and highly typical tax evasion methods. This article will use this case as a starting point to analyze the causes behind such phenomena in light of current tax administration practices, while clarifying the responsibilities and legal consequences for all parties involved, for the benefit of readers.

On April 2, 2025, the Hwuason team, through close collaboration and representation by attorney Jiang Zhenghe, secured a favorable judgment in an export tax fraud case. The company's principal, accused of defrauding nearly RMB 9 million in tax refunds with no mitigating factors such as voluntary surrender or meritorious conduct, initially faced a potential sentence exceeding 10 years. After a thorough review of the case files, Hwuason's lawyers presented a defense to the procuratorate, arguing that certain transactions did not constitute tax fraud. The procuratorate ultimately accepted the defense, reducing the alleged fraud amount from the figures determined by the tax and public security authorities to approximately RMB 4 million. Accordingly, the procuratorate recommended the minimum statutory sentence of 5 years for the adjusted amount. The People's Court adopted the sentencing recommendation, and the Hwuason team successfully secured a 5-year prison term for the client—an optimal outcome under the circumstances.

China's version of the CRS rules has been implemented for years, and the mechanism of automatic exchange of information on the offshore financial accounts of China's tax residents has helped China's tax authorities to significantly improve their effectiveness in detecting tax evasion on overseas income. In the process of global tax transparency, the tightening of tax regulations has imposed stricter tax compliance requirements on Chinese tax residents with offshore income and assets. This article suggests that HNWIs should pay great attention to the tax compliance of overseas income, proactively comply with the trend of upgrading global tax regulation, and accurately identify and properly deal with the potential risks hidden in overseas financial accounts.