Qualitative Research On The Behavior Of Falsely Issuing Special Value-added Tax Invoices Under The Condition Of Real Transaction

The security of the tax environment is the key to a country’s economic stability,and it is also the guarantee of long-term social stability.Since our country is in the process of rapid economic development,the question about how to make economic development under legal regulation is a key point.At the moment,the phenomenon of falsely issuing special value-added tax invoices is serious in our country.Although the crime of falsely issuing special value-added tax invoices is regulated by law,reading the provisions shows that the regulations are not clear.There are also related judicial interpretations,but they are delayed due to their early release.As a result,the theoretical and practical circles diverged on related issues,unable to form a unified conclusion so as to lead to the appearance of the phenomenon of different judgments in the same case appeared.Therefore,it is imperative to accurately characterize the false issuance of special value-added tax invoices in real transactions.To accurately characterize the behavior of falsely issuing special value-added tax invoices in real transactions,clarifying the concept of the behavior is the first step and then dividing it into four types on this basis.It also discusses and analyzes the two types of behaviors that are more controversial.A specific analysis of the dispute shows that the qualitative differences in the behavior of falsely issuing special value-added tax invoices in real transactions are,in the final analysis,different in the nature of the crime of falsely issuing special value-added tax invoices.At present,there are theories about the crime of behavior,result,purpose,and dangerous crime.The comparison found that the purpose of the crime is to strictly follow the criminal law ’ s principle of adaptability to crime,responsibility,and punishment,which helps to eliminate some unpunishable circumstances and to narrow the scope of the crime,which is in line with my country’s judicial practice and is more reasonable.After combing the legislative background,the nature of the special ticket and the setting of sentencing,it is concluded that the purpose of defrauding national taxes is the key to distinguishing this crime from the non-crime.The protection of the crime of falsely issuing special value-added tax invoices is the management of special value-added tax invoices.The system and the national value-added tax tax benefit are compound legal benefits.This is the theoretical basis for qualitatively issuing special value-added tax invoices in real transactions.Under the premise of clear theoretical premises,discuss several types of behaviors of false special ticket issuance under real trading conditions.Regardless of the type of behavior,the principle of subjective and objective consistency should be adhered to to judge whether it constitutes a crime.Only if the perpetrator has the purpose of defrauding state taxes subjectively,and objectively causing the loss of state value-added tax,can it constitute the crime of falsely issuing special value-added tax invoices.Specifically,the false issuance of special tickets without deduction is not a crime because it will not cause national losses.Whether the act of deducting the false special ticket is a crime or not should also be judged according to the principle of unity of subjective and objective.Only when the perpetrator has the purpose of defrauding taxes subjectively and objectively has caused the loss of national taxes,he should be investigated for criminal responsibility.As for the act of issuing special invoices according to the truth,whether the crime is constituted should not depend on the existence of the relationship.The purpose of crime should be used to determine whether it constitutes the crime of falsely issuing special invoices for value-added tax.Since there is no subjective purpose of defrauding tax,it has not caused the state objectively.Therefore,it is not appropriate to use the crime of falsely issuing special votes.Passively accepting the act of falsely issuing a special ticket by others,because the perpetrator did not participate in the act of falsely issuing a special ticket,it is not an accomplice of the crime of falsely issuing a special ticket.In addition,not all acts of accepting false special tickets are obtained maliciously,and can be divided into three types of discussions: bona fide receipt of votes,malicious receipt of votes,and defective receipt of votes.Judging according to the principle of unity of subjective and objective,only if the perpetrator has the purpose of defrauding taxes subjectively,and objectively which causes losses to the country,it constitutes the crime of falsely issuing special VAT invoices.