In the current judicial practice, resources recycling industry, coal, non-ferrous metals and other bulk trade enterprises often due to the business chain is too long, not actually involved in the transportation of goods and other leading to the authenticity of the goods doubt, network freight, flexible labor and other platform type of enterprises due to the business operation is not standardized, the business process is not a solid existence of the possibility of being found to be false opening, and these industry enterprises due to the lack of invoices of the source, often relying on the financial rebate to conduct business. Under the background of the current strict investigation of tax rebates, the mode of this type of enterprises based on financial rebates for external business, issuing invoices is more likely to be questioned, and there are local judicial authorities believe that the enterprise will be financial rebates as a tool for profit-making by fraudulent invoicing, and will be the purchase and sale of enterprises to the crime of fraudulent invoicing for investigation, and the relevant enterprises, persons in charge, and financial and business personnel are facing serious risks of criminal liability. Relying on the financial return business model means a greater risk of false opening? How can the relevant enterprises effectively prevent the risk of being characterized as false opening and requesting the return of financial rebates? This article will further analyze.

Article 10, Paragraph 2 of the "Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Handling Criminal Cases Endangering Tax Collection and Management" (Judicial Interpretation [2024] No. 4) issued by the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate stipulates that if the purpose is not to defraud tax refunds and there has been no loss of tax revenue due to deductions, then the crime of issuing false special invoices shall not be prosecuted. This clarifies the conditions for exculpation from the crime of issuing false special invoices. In cases where the full amount of falsely issued special invoices has not been deducted, the undeducted portion objectively has not caused a loss of national tax revenue. Can this situation be applicable to Article 10, Paragraph 2 of the "Interpretation," advocating that the undeducted tax amount should be deducted from the total amount of the crime? The author selects one judgment each before and after the issuance of the Interpretation concerning the crime of issuing false special invoices and analyzes this issue and the underlying judicial logic through comparative case analysis.

In the field of consumption tax, the production of taxable consumer goods is a taxable activity, while pure trading activities are not within the scope of taxation and naturally do not require the payment of consumption tax. However, a refining and chemical enterprise received a notice from its competent tax authority requiring it to pay back taxes on the sale of purchased naphtha raw materials. Is there a legal basis for the tax authority to do so? Should the refining and chemical enterprise pay consumption tax on its trading business of purchasing and selling naphtha? This article intends to analyze this issue.

The two high tax-related judicial interpretations for the crime of false invoicing set up the crime of no fraudulent tax purpose and no fraudulent loss of tax money, which has made a significant contribution to limiting the criminal circle of this crime. At the same time, what kind of crime should be constituted by the false invoicing behavior without the purpose of tax fraud and without causing fraudulent loss of tax money, and what crime should be applied have become the hot topic of discussion in the practical world. This article combines a case of false invoicing of refined oil products on behalf of the author, proposes that this kind of situation can be applied to one of the adjudication paths of the crime of false invoicing under Article 205 of the Criminal Law, and analyzes that the object of the crime of false invoicing can include VAT invoices according to the provisions of the Criminal Law.

Criminal compliance system since the pilot, in the “false” cases have been used in a large number of cases, once became the lawyers defense work of the law. However, with the accumulation of judicial practice experience, criminal compliance cases have exposed some problems, the necessity of the system, the feasibility of the need for further reflection and discussion, in the case of whether the criminal compliance can be initiated in the face of greater uncertainty, the urgent need for a new defense program. On the other hand, the two high tax-related new judicial interpretations of the composition and sentencing of the crime of “false opening” has been significantly amended, providing new opportunities for lawyers' defense work. Under the guidance of the new judicial interpretation, the judicial authorities to collect evidence, determine the facts, the overall thinking of the application of the law has changed, whether the defense lawyer can correctly understand the content of the new judicial interpretation, accurately identify the current “false opening class” case focus of controversy, accurately grasp the core points of the defense, is the key to the case can be properly dealt with.

Recently, the Ministry of Finance and the State Taxation Administration issued the "Guidelines on Major Tax Incentive Policies for Enterprise Merger and Reorganization", which is of great significance in guiding enterprises to apply tax policies legally and reasonably and reduce tax costs. At the same time, it has also attracted the attention of individual investors. According to the current tax policy, individual shareholders are not applicable to special tax treatment, so, do individual shareholders inevitably fulfill tax obligations in M&A transactions? This article intends to discuss this issue based on the cases of listing announcements in recent years.

As goods or services are mostly provided by a large number of individuals, there is a widespread shortage of source invoices for flexible labor, platforms such as network freight transport, and enterprises in the bulk commerce industry such as resources recycling industry, many local governments have given various industrial support funds and financial incentives in order to support the development of these industries, which in turn reduces the tax costs that are fully borne by enterprises due to the impossibility of obtaining invoices, and maintains the enterprises and the industries Continuous operation. This year, the audit, tax, development and reform commission and other departments issued a letter requiring strict investigation of illegal tax rebates, especially with the August 1 “fair competition review regulations” landing, around the financial incentives to clean up the policy and tighten the supervision, there have been many enterprises were required to return the financial incentives, and even local judicial authorities that enterprises will be the financial incentives as a false open profit-making tool, the enterprise purchase and sale of business to the crime of false open for investigation! The relevant enterprises, persons in charge, financial and business personnel are facing serious criminal liability risks. In this context, the relevant enterprises, personnel should be how to prevent tax-related administrative and criminal risks, this article will be further analyzed.

Recently, the frequent occurrence of financial counterfeiting cases has attracted great attention from the relevant authorities, with the Supreme Court, the Supreme Prosecutor and many other departments striving to crack down on financial counterfeiting, and the regulation continues to tighten. Usually, financial counterfeiting boosts corporate profits, thus contributing to more tax revenue, so the tax bureau generally does not intervene. However, financial counterfeiting is inevitably accompanied by false invoicing, inflated costs and other circumstances, under the surface of the false prosperity of the enterprise still lurks a great tax risk. This paper analyzes the tax risks behind financial counterfeiting by combining recent cases and regulatory trends of relevant departments for the benefit of readers.