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.

As tax authorities continue to strengthen the supervision of personal tax, the tax-related risk of natural persons is also getting higher. At the same time, the two high judicial interpretations will be the past double high people through the signing of “yin and yang contract” and other forms of hiding or dismantling the income of tax evasion of the usual tricks clearly included in one of the tax evasion behavior, for the judicial organs to combat the double high people to evade taxes to provide a clear and operable guidelines, resulting in a higher criminal risk. Based on this, this paper intends to analyze the causes of the severe tax risk of double-high individuals from the common forms of tax risk of double-high individuals in practice as a starting point and reveal the changes of the tax risk of double-high individuals after the introduction of the two high judicial interpretations, with a view to providing the double-high individuals with strategies to cope with the situation.

Recently, there have been frequent occurrences of companies falling into operational difficulties and being unable to repay debts, leading creditors to apply to the court for forced auction of the debtor's assets. During the execution of auctions by the people's courts, disputes over the tax and fee obligations of the transferor have arisen continuously due to the clause in the bidding announcement formulated by the executing court stating that "all taxes and fees related to the transfer of real estate shall be borne by the buyer." This article takes a case of tax recovery for the forced auction of real estate by the court as an example, analyzes the tax obligations and collection difficulties in judicial auctions based on legal principles and policy regulations, and finally provides suggestions to buyers to help them reduce tax risks and minimize similar disputes.

ecently, the Procuratorate Daily reported a case in which the real controller of a coal-using enterprise purchased coal from a small coal kiln without a ticket, and then found a third party to issue an invoice on his behalf, and the real controller was eventually convicted and sentenced for the crime of illegally issuing VAT invoices. However, in judicial practice, many judicial authorities have convicted and sentenced the person for the crime of illegally purchasing VAT invoices in the same case. The maximum penalty for the crime of false invoicing is life imprisonment, while the maximum penalty for the crime of illegal purchase is five years. The difference in the characterization of the two crimes is so great that "different sentences for the same case" undermines the fairness and authority of the judiciary and damages the legitimate rights and interests of the defendants. After the two high judicial interpretation, for the behavior of truthfulness on behalf of the characterization, the supreme law and the supreme prosecutor successively issued "understanding and application" of the viewpoints and there are different. Based on this, this paper intends to start from the two cases, in the two high judicial interpretation of the background, and strive to clarify the truth on behalf of the act of crime and non-crime, the crime and the crime, with a view to make the criminal law of the basic principle of criminal responsibility and criminal punishment in the tax-related crimes can be truly realized.