Recently, Huashui has observed a number of cases of tax-related risks arising from “compensation planning”. For example, when a capital management company paid out bonuses to its employees in 2017, the amount of bonuses was too high and the tax burden increased. In order to save tax for its employees and avoid its own withholding obligations, the company accepted an employee remuneration planning service provided by a tax planning platform enterprise. The tax planning platform enterprise is set up in a tax depression with financial incentives, through investment and financing consulting service business with the enterprise involved in the case, so that the enterprise involved in the case will pay the funds to the platform enterprise, and then the platform enterprise directly through the form of “public-to-private”, the funds will be paid to the enterprise employees. The tax planning platform charged a certain amount of “planning fees” in the process of capital return, and then issued an invoice for consulting fees for the enterprise involved in the case.

On 1 July 2024, the new Company Law of the People's Republic of China (the "New Company Law") came into force, clarifying the simplified cancellation system and adding a mandatory cancellation system on top of the original ordinary cancellation system for companies, providing convenience for the exit of market entities. Enterprises with ordinary cancellation should pay tax in a timely manner and register for tax cancellation; enterprises with simplified cancellation should make a written commitment that they have settled the tax payable, and those with untrue commitments will be held jointly and severally liable. In practice, if the tax authorities find that the cancelled enterprise owes tax or evades tax, they may recover the tax from the enterprise by resuming the tax registration or business registration, or they may recover the tax from the shareholders by filing a civil lawsuit or taking an administrative action, and the responsibilities and risks faced by the enterprise and shareholders are different in different cases, which will be briefly analysed in this article.

In recent years, many enterprises have begun to reshape the original employment relationship through the unique mechanism of Internet platform enterprises (e.g., flexible employment platforms, network freight platforms, etc.), forming a new employment model of “laborer-platform-employer”. However, the reshaping of this employment model may cause the tax authorities to doubt the authenticity of the business and the legitimacy of the invoice. This article will combine two cases of platform enterprises suspected of false invoicing to analyze whether it is reasonable and legal for the tax authorities or judicial authorities to determine the invoices as false invoicing on the ground that “the platform did not organize its own personnel” when the business involved in the case is equipped with real labor services and there is no return flow of funds, and put forward corresponding opinions and countermeasures.

In order to solve the problem of ‘source tickets’, a large number of platform enterprises have appeared in the transport, human resources, medicine, renewable resources, non-ferrous metals and other industries, and these platform enterprises, due to the high tax burden, need to rely on the fiscal refund policy to carry out their operations, and obtain the fiscal refund is usually related to the taxes paid in the course of their operations. However, due to the intangible nature of the services provided by the platform enterprises in the transport, human resources and pharmaceutical industries, the platform enterprises in the renewable resources and non-ferrous metals industries have a long trade chain, and the enterprises do not participate in transport, etc., the business authenticity of these platform enterprises is often questioned by the judicial authorities, which in turn leads to the risk of false invoicing, and it has become a difficult problem in the practice of how to evaluate the financial rebates obtained from the taxes paid by the enterprises due to the false invoicing. How to evaluate the financial rebate obtained from the tax paid by the false invoices has also become a difficult problem in practice. In the past, the judicial authorities usually determined that the enterprises used the financial rebate as a tool for profit-making through false invoicing and only pursued the responsibility for the crime of false invoicing of VAT special-purpose invoices. However, some cases now show a different logic of conviction, and the judicial authorities have started to prosecute and adjudicate on the crimes of fraud and false VAT invoices or illegal sale of VAT invoices, which has steeply increased the criminal risk of the platform enterprises. How should they respond to the criminal charge of fraud? This article intends to explore.

Recently, through a special tax information exchange between China and the United States, China's tax authority investigated a case of a company evading corporate income tax by fabricating overseas equity transactions and falsely reporting equity investment losses. The tax authorities have recovered more than 10 million yuan of corporate income tax that the enterprise evaded, and imposed a fine of 0.5 times the amount of underpaid tax on the enterprise. In recent years, the act of evading taxes through overseas asset allocation has not only received attention from international tax management cooperation, but also been a focus of inspection by China's tax authorities. This article combines a tax bureau disclosure case to share the current situation of tax information exchange practices between China and the United States, and combines the dynamic of tax inspections on high net worth individuals in China's taxation sy

The Decision of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China on Further Comprehensively Deepening Reform and Promoting Chinese Modernisation, adopted at the Third Plenary Session of the Twentieth Central Committee of the CPC, stresses the need to improve the system of two-way convergence between administrative and criminal penalties. The system of two-way convergence of administrative and criminal penalties (hereinafter referred to as "convergence of execution and punishment") includes both forward and reverse convergence. The linkage between administrative and criminal penalties is particularly important in the tax-related field. Crimes against tax collection and management are typical administrative offences, which require administrative qualification before discussing criminal offences and misdemeanours. Therefore, it is of great significance to fight for a favourable characterisation in administrative procedures such as tax audit to prevent the risk of criminal liability. In this paper, from the analysis of the connotation of the system of linkage between the execution and punishment, we analyse the significance of administrative risk prevention and control of taxation in the prevention of criminal risk for the reference of the readers.

Recently, Hubei Provincial Tax Bureau issued a penalty announcement, the basic case of the announcement of the case is that Zhang Mou sold a batch of leather to enterprise A. However, because Zhang Mou did not apply for tax registration, he could not issue invoices, therefore, Zhang Mou negotiated with the legal representative of enterprise A, so that Zhang Mou entrusted his friend's enterprises B and C to issue VAT invoices to enterprise A. During the period from January 2020 to August 2023, the Enterprise A accepted a total of 235 invoices from B and C, with a total price and tax of more than 25.23 million yuan and a tax amount of more than 2.9 million yuan, all of which were deducted by Enterprise A after receiving the invoices. All of the above 235 invoices were recognized as false invoices by the competent tax authorities of enterprises B and C. Enterprise A, as the recipient of the invoices, was recognized as tax evasion, and was required to make up for the underpayment of tax totaling more than RMB 3,040,000, and was imposed a penalty of 50% of the underpayment of tax, which amounted to more than RMB 4,560,000 in total.

Tax forensics, which sounds like the "Sherlock Holmes" of the tax world, is actually a rigorous and specialized field. It involves tax experts examining, identifying and judging tax issues in court proceedings and providing authoritative appraisal opinions. An objective, fair and scientific judicial appraisal report is like a key to solving tax disputes, which is very important for safeguarding the fairness and justice of criminal law, tax law and the legitimate rights and interests of the parties concerned.