Tax compliance is an absolute high-pressure line in business operations, in particular the issue of “false vat-specific invoices”, which many owners and financial friends often talk about. There may be a question in everyone's mind: is it true that as long as the invoices and the actual business are not matched, they will be characterized as false crimes, even in prison
In fact, with the recent judicial interpretations of the supreme people's court and the supreme people's procuratorate in the last two years, there has been a fundamental change in the law's recognition of “fiction”. In short, judicial practice is no longer “one size fits all” but rather “subjective” and “objective results”. Today, in the language of great white words, we have a thorough understanding of what constitutes “fiction” and what constitutes “the amount of crime” within the existing legal framework。
I. A farewell to “one size fits all” : how can a “fiction” be considered in the criminal law sense
In the past, many people had considered the invoicing of a crime to be false as long as there was no real business, or if the invoice was not in line with the actual amount. However, in recent judicial practice, it has been concluded that “fiction” must cross two thresholds at the same time: subjectively ill-intentioned tax fraud and objectively dangerously causing loss of state revenue。
1. Subjectivity: why did you write this ticket
This is the first watershed that distinguishes “violation” from “crime”. The law is now very clear: if the purpose of a false bill is not to collect national taxes, then it is likely that it will not constitute the offence of false vat-specific invoices。
To give a real example, companies that are looking for their friends to write down tickets and run water to make large accounts, to apply for loans, or to appear large and perform well when bidding. In the process, although they did carry out a “fake” exercise, both parties paid the required taxes and did not attempt to defraud the state. In this case, due to the lack of subjective malice of “tax fraud”, the offence of false vat-specific invoices is not usually considered (of course, other offences may be dealt with in case of violation of other laws)。
2. Objective: is the country really losing money
You can't just move. You have to see the results. The value added tax (vat) is a chain that is chained around each other, and it must be determined whether it destroys the chain and leads to the loss of state taxes。
A company sold goods to b, for example, and b was an individual who refused to invoice. In order to use the “excessive” invoice amount, company a forged a client c, invoiced c and deducted taxes. Although company a had real income, company c had taxed taxes on the basis of empty credits, resulting in damage to state revenue, which constituted a bluff。
Reliance on real transactions: there will be great scope for judicial determination if there is a real business relationship, or if the author of the invoice has paid the tax in good faith, and the recipient of the ticket has made a legal gain credit, and the state tax has not been lost in the overall chain。
Thus, the present “fiction” concludes that the core is a combination of “no real business + tax purposes + tax loss risk” rather than simply looking at the invoice itself。
Ii. Rejection of the term “dilemma”: what is the amount of the crime
Once a crime has been found to have been committed, what is most troubling is the question of “amounts”. The amount directly determines the severity of the sentence. However, according to the law, the “billing amount” is in no way equal to the “crime amount”。
In judicial practice, very sophisticated “crowding” operations are usually carried out when calculating the amount of crime:
1. The part with real business must be deducted
This is a life-saving straw that many entrepreneurs can easily ignore. Assuming that your company actually purchased $1 million in goods, it had an invoice of $1. 5 million for multiple costs. In calculating the amount of crime, the law is realistic. The sum of $1 million, which corresponded to real goods, was not “fake”, and should be deducted from the determination of the amount of the offence, and only the excess of $500,000 would be counted as false。
The entry and the sales item “system”, on a large scale
In order to carry out the billing, some enterprises have both falsely invoiced for entry (buying tickets) and falsely invoiced for sale (sale tickets). In such cases, the judicial interpretation clarifies the method of calculation: in the case of the same business, it is both infatuated and illusory, which is usually calculated on the basis of the larger item, rather than simply adding the entries and sales together. This avoids double evaluation and reflects legal impartiality。
3. Critical time nodes: before prosecution
In determining whether the aggravating circumstances (e. G. Whether the “larger amount” or the “significant amount” of the sentence) have been met, there is a crucial window of redress - before prosecution。
If the company has paid back the tax in vain before the public prosecutor's office formally filed a complaint or recovered the tax in question, there is a great deal of room for leniency in sentencing this amount, which may not even be determined as an aggravating circumstance “caused loss of state revenue”. This is in fact an opportunity for the law to “rehabilitate” and “cut off” the businesses involved。
In sum, the legal environment is becoming more sophisticated. The determination of a false vat-specific invoice has moved from a purely “vote” to a “matter”, a “purpose” and a “outcome”。
For business operators, the business reality remains paramount. As long as the business is real and taxed according to law, there is no need for excessive panic. In the event of tax risk, it is also important to understand the use of the rules established by law, such as “deducting the real business component” and “repaying taxes” to safeguard their legitimate interests. Tax compliance is always the best shield for a firm to be stable。
