| The crime of falsely issuing special invoices for value-added tax is one of the common crimes endangering tax collection and management in China at present.In the 21 st century,especially in 2016,when China implemented a comprehensive "camp reform",value-added tax has become one of the main taxes in China,and it is also an important indicator for corporate taxpayers to calculate tax burden.Under this background,cases of falsely issuing special invoices for value-added tax are frequent,even with the characteristics of chain and industry gradually,especially concentrated between the upstream and downstream of sales or a certain link of production and sales,as well as coal,steel and iron and steel.Due to various forms of false invoicing by natural persons and enterprises,and different views on the identification and application of this crime in academic circles,many factors lead to problems such as unclear standards and too wide scope of punishment for the parties involved in this crime.In recent years,although some scholars have studied and demonstrated the application of this crime,protection interests,means identification,etc.,because the false opening behavior involves multiple angles such as tax law,administrative law and criminal law,and there are hidden variations in the false opening behavior,these studies and demonstrations have failed to provide complete and clear ideas and reference for the judicial practice of our country to judge crimes in tax-related fields.During the writing period,this paper consulted a large number of judicial precedents,periodicals,works and other literature materials,mainly taking common false means as the starting point,adopting the methods of literature research,interdisciplinary research,case study,etc.,combining with specific practical cases and the announcement spirit of the Supreme People’s Court and State Taxation Administration of The People’s Republic of China,it not only analyzes relevant theories,but also explains specific cases,hoping to be helpful to judicial practice.This paper intends to select five typical cases of judicial decisions in practice,analyze what "false invoicing" is from the perspectives of tax authorities and judicial authorities,from the perspective of examination,types of false invoicing behaviors,identification paths,etc.,and discuss the judicial identification of three representative false invoicing methods in practice,such as relying on invoicing,"ticket change" and introducing others to make false invoicing,which have chain of false invoicing and complicated procedures.First of all,affiliated billing behavior can’t necessarily be considered as false opening,and the traditional "third-rate inconsistency" is no longer suitable for judging false opening behavior at this stage;Secondly,in the behavior of "ticket change",the "tax" that causes tax losses cannot be explained in an expanded way,and it is more appropriate to identify some of the behavior of "ticket change" as other crimes such as tax evasion.Finally,Financing fraud can not be generalized.It is necessary to judge whether the actor objectively causes national tax losses. |
