Research On The Judicial Application Of The Crime Of Falsely Making Out Invoice For Value-added Tax

Taxation is an important source of national fiscal revenue and a tool for economic regulation.Tax invoices are the national statutory calculation of taxation certificates.VAT special invoices have the special nature of management and use.Falsely making out special invoices for value-added tax is strictly prohibited by law.China's criminal law clearly stipulates that the use of special invoices for value-added tax to defraud national taxation constitutes a false invoice for special invoices for value-added tax.With the rapid development of China's economy and the further active market and the emergence of more and more trading methods,the means of falsely making out special tax on value-added invoices has become more complicated.The phenomenon and problems in the judicial application of punishing the crime of falsely making out the special invoice for value-added tax are inconsistent,the judicial purpose and the pursuit of value are not uniform.To this end,this paper studies and discusses the main issues such as the constitutional elements,the identification criteria and the joint crimes of the crime of unifying and invoking the special invoices for value-added tax by means of judicial application and persistence of empirical analysis.In the selection and comparison of 131 cases of false VAT special invoice crimes and 14 cases of non-prosecution of procuratorates,we have mastered the four aspects of judicial application of this kind of crimes in China.Firstly,the number of crimes involving the infringement of special VAT invoices in China has increased in the past 15 years,and the judicial tasks and pressures are increasing.Secondly,the proportion of judicial reforms in such criminal cases is large,and the standards of conviction are gradually clear.It is mainly based on the fact that the perpetrator does not have the purpose of defrauding the state tax,and objectively does not cause the loss of the state tax as the basis for the determination of innocence.Thirdly,there are certain complications in this type of criminal behavior,purpose,means and harmful consequences,and the number of difficult problems in judicial application is increasing.Fourthly,the application of more than three years of imprisonment and fines for such cases is more common.The study explored the difficult aspects of the three aspects of the judicial application of the false invoice for special VAT invoices and the need to focus on solving them.The first is whether the subjective aspect needs to defraud the specific purpose of the tax.The second is whether the "false making out" behavior is based on whether the "real transaction" exists or not.The third is how to define whether "false making out" behavior constitutes other crimes.There are three basic ideas for solving their problems.First,it is necessary to determine the purpose of defrauding the state tax as the subjective element and content of the crime.Second,it is necessary to specifically grasp the basic conditions that the identification of "three streams of consensus" and "virtual making out" behaviors are not related.Third,it is necessary to clarify the difference between the "false making out" VAT special invoice behavior and the "buy and sell" VAT special invoice behavior and the enterprise "operation" to issue VAT special invoices.In general,four aspects of the judicial application of the crime of falsely making out a special VAT invoice are proposed.First but not least,in terms of thinking,we should scientifically apply the three laws of taxation,citizenship,and punishment,as well as legal relationship thinking,and correctly identify the crime of "virtual making out".Secondly,the subjective elements of conviction should be carefully examined whether there is a specific purpose of defrauding the state tax.Thirdly,the determination of the facts of crime should strictly grasp the "real transaction",and objectively define the "false making out" behavior and other criminal behaviors.The lastly,the statutory penalty should be further clarified and strictly applied to the"severe circumstances" and other statutory sentence upgrade conditions for regulation.