| The data shows that among tax-related crimes,the crime of falsely issuing special value-added tax invoices is one of the most frequent crimes.According to statistics in 2020,the crime of falsely issuing special value-added tax invoices accounted for approximately75% of all crimes of endangering tax collection and management.In response to the frequent occurrence of fraudulent tax evasion and tax fraud by falsely issuing special value-added tax invoices in some industries and fields,in 2018,four ministries and commissions launched a two-year special "doubles" campaign across the country to deal with "fake enterprises" and "fake enterprises".Effective measures have been taken to crack down on “fake exports” and “false declarations” in accordance with the law.Informatization and networking now play a very important role in the process of corporate transactions.From the previous one-handed delivery,to the current completion of the transaction on the buyer and seller platform,the self-delivery of the goods does not meet each other.This makes the original practice of the "three-rate unanimity" of the administrative agency to determine false invoices more and more questioned.During the judicial practice of this crime,the prosecution and the defendant determined the relationship between the acts of “attachment”,“issuance of freight forwarders” and “false issuance of special value-added tax invoices”,whether there was a purpose for fraudulent invoicing and tax collection,and whether Problems such as the consequences of tax losses are more prominent,causing many cases of different judgments in the same case.At the same time,since the guiding cases and typical cases of the Supreme People’s Court cannot cover all situations in reality,whether an act constitutes a false value-added tax Different agencies have different understandings of the crime of special invoices.Based on real cases investigated and handled in actual work,this article analyzes and explores the focus of disputes between the two parties in the case,and derives the relevant issues in the determination of the crime.Some views on “falsified opening of goods”: “falsified opening of goods” is not a sanctuary for the crime of false invoicing.Of course,it can be guilty of cases where the circumstances are minor or comply with the provisions of the relevant documents,but for the large number of “cargo openings” that exist in reality.“Accounting for the truth” and other false transactions where both parties and multiple parties do not have any legal relationship,These actions should be considered from the perspective of infringing upon the special value-added invoice management system and national tax security,and should be convicted and sentenced,otherwise it will cause confusion in the management of value-added invoices and huge losses to national taxes. |
