Research On The Rules Of Investigation Rights In Tax Inspection

Tax Collection Administration Law of the People's Republic of China is a procedural safeguard law for the state to regulate tax collection and administration,and to protect the legitimate rights and interests of taxpayers.Since there is no uniform tax code in China,most of the substantive tax laws are in the form of a single tax law.The tax collection administration law actually functions as a cross-tax law.Tax inspection is an effective guarantee for the implementation of the tax collection administration law,and its status in the tax law system is very important.From the Third Plenary Session of the 18 th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China,the blueprint for the reform of the state governance and taxation system,and the deployment of the Fourth Plenary Session of the 18 th Central Committee to comprehensively promote the strategy of governing the country according to law,all declares that China's current tax collection and administration system reform has entered a critical moment.How to put the task of tax reform into practice and implement the strategic deployment of ruling the country in accordance with the law,all of which depend on the revision of the tax collection administration law.With the gradual deepening of reforms,A various of problems in China's tax collection and administraction system have become increasingly prominent.When tax authorities conduct tax inspections,they will inevitably have various conflicts andcontradictions with taxpayers.In the process of tax audit,the tax authorities will conduct tax investigations for taxpayers,withholding agents and even related third parties for collectting relevant evidence materials.Such investigations are different from the daily inspections conducted by the tax authority,due to their own special Sex,the survey will have a significant impact on the rights of the respondents.At present,the regulations about Tax Collection Administration Law vary from country to country.Germany conducts tax investigations through a special tax investigation agency set up by the Fiscal Code of Germany.The UK adopts the UK 2008 Financial Act(Finance Act 2008)to authorize Tax Customs General Administration to inspect different levels of taxpayers;the United States is responsible for the investigation of tax violations under the US Internal Revenue Code.The experience of these countries has certain reference significance for the construction of our tax inspection system and the regulation of investigation power in tax inspection.Through the introduction of "X Company's Tax Administrative Punishment Case",this paper deeply analyzes a series of disputes caused by the lack of effective regulation of investigation power in tax audit.Drawing on the relevant research results of domestic and foreign scholars and adopting related laws and regulations at home and abroad,it will provide reasonable suggestions for filling the loopholes of the relevant systems of investigation power in China's tax audit and improving the tax collection and administration system.There are two main problems in the "X Company's Tax Administrative Punishment Case".On the one hand,it is the issue of the substantive tax law,that is,whether the punishment should be made,and whether X Company has evaded the corresponding tax.The other hand is the problem of the procedural tax law.In the process of tax auditing,whether the tax authoritie's problems lead to a series of unprofitable consequences should be borne by the taxpayer.Limited to the length of the article,this article only reviews the disputes in the procedural tax law one by one.In order to facilitate the understanding of the article,i will sort out the focus of the dispute strictly in chronological order in the text of this paper,that is,before the investigation begins,during the investigation and the investigation is over.First,before the tax audit began,J City Tax Inspection Bureau issued the "Notice of Inspection" to X Company.However,the inspection notice did not clearly stipulate the contents of the inspection and the scope of inspection.Tax inspections will lead to many consequences about law.The nature should be defined as administrative behavior,then the conduct of administrative behavior is necessary to explain the rational necessity.Although this case has not become the focus of controversy in the process of trial,i believe that when judging the other disputes in this case,it is necessary to take it into consideration.Only in this way,it is more conducive to the rights and interests of taxpayers.Secondly,in the current laws and regulations,the time limit for the inspection of tax audits,the time range for the exercise of investigative powers is unknown.Specifically,the “Tax Collection Administration Law of the People's Republic of China”(2015 Amendment)does not provide relevant provisions on the time limit about inspection,and Article 86 of its Regulations only stipulates the information of the tax authorities in the inspection process of tax inspection.Check the detention period,note the time limit for investigation rights in the tax audit.In addition to the above provisions,the taxation inspection time limit is first mentioned in the departmental normative document “Tax Inspection Work Procedures” formulated by the State Administration of Taxation in 2009.The Article 22 of the Regulations stipulates that,in principle,the inspection link of tax inspection should be completed within 60 days after the investigation begins.As we all know,60 days is a very clear time,but the last sentence of the article emphasizes that the inspection time can be extended,and there is no clear definition of the length of the extension and the number of extensions.This directly led to the tax authorities having greater discretionary space for inspection time limits.Except for the uncertainty of time limit,the taxpayer's equity is in an uncertain state for a long time.What is more important is that the calculation of the late fee for taxes is closely related to the inspection time limit.In this case,the inspection bureau overdue inspect and will cause a series of bad consequences to the X company.Finally,after the investigation is over,what kind of proof standard should be used? In the tax audit,the J City Inspection Bureau did not follow the evidence certification standards used in the tax administrative litigation.The tax administrative punishment decision was made only by multiple indirect evidences.It is hard to rule out the reasonable doubts such as incorrect or incomplete data in the company's billing,which may inevitably raises doubts about the rationality of the punishment decision.At present,there are many problems in our tax audit.I think that the fundamental reason is that the investigation power lacks effective regulation,which easy leads to the abuse of power.This paper will also rationally regulate the investigation rights from the perspective of reconstructing the tax inspection and increasing the taxpayer's rights,etc.to provide rationalization suggestions for the tax collection and administration system reform,especially the tax inspection.This paper uses the form of case analysis to analyze the various disputes arising from the implementation authority,thus highlighting the various problems in the tax investigation.However,the case information mainly comes from the disclosure in China Judgements Online,as well as some news media reports.There may be some deviations between the details of the case and the actual situation.In addition to the current status of our country's tax practice,this paper may have a certain degree of omissions in the process of writing the internal rules and regulations of the tax authorities.