| As two parallel national functions,tax-related administrative violations and criminal justice exercise different functions and powers due to their different functions.However,in cases of falsely issuing special value-added tax invoices,when the two identify the same illegal facts,Administrative powers excessively interfere with criminal justice,and when determining false acts and amounts,the administrative and judicial agencies adopt different standards for determination.The imperfection of relevant laws and regulations has led to a lack of effective determination rules that can be applied in practice.The rights and obligations of the company have substantial adverse effects.Based on this,it is really necessary to construct a reasonable and effective relevant mechanism so that the offenders who falsely issue special value-added tax invoices can be prudently and reasonably identified at all stages of the case,and at the same time achieve the goal of the state to combat and punish tax-related crimes,and then Maintain the normal order of tax collection and management in the tax-related field.The first part first combs the rules for determining the false issuance of special value-added tax invoices and the current legislative status from two aspects of administrative violation and criminal justice,and then clarifies the case of false issuance of special value-added invoices,which arises from different perspectives in practice.Point of dispute.The second part firstly takes a case of falsely writing VAT special invoice as the starting point,and leads to the relevant practical problems brought by this case,that is,the role of the tax treatment decision book as an administrative document in the court’s trial practice in the conviction and sentencing and the controversy of its own positioning.Secondly,taking the two cases as the starting point,combined with the dispute focus of the two cases,the execution of the same type of illegal facts,in the determination of false behavior and whether the actor needs to pay value-added tax differences.The third part analyzes the legal theory of the relevant problems and discusses the improper intervention of the administration to the judiciary and the irrationality of the administrative documents being identified as evidence in the judicial trial.The differences in the identification of false opening behavior and the completely different attitudes of the execution of value-added tax reflect the different theoretical basis and legislative value behind the execution.After the second part and the third part combine the problems raised by the case and the relevant theoretical analysis,the forth part respond to the question that exist in the second and the third paragraph,raise the method to solve the problem and judicial suggestions,improves the examination standards of administrative evidence,Judicial control of the discretionary power of tax administrative law enforcement,improving the execution linkage mechanism,improving the revision of judicial interpretations,and strengthening the construction of judicial personnel. |
