Research On False Value-added Tax Invoices

In 2004,the new value-added tax（VAT）system has been fully implemented in China.More major cases appeared especially the government promulgated a number of preferential tax policies after replacing the business tax with a value-added tax.Invoice crime cases account for an increasing proportion in judicial practice,and most of them are false issuance of special VAT invoices with the amount of crime as high as 10 billion RMB.In this manner,the state has to focus on this and invest a lot of judicial power to intervene.This study collects numerous judgment documents by using the case study method as well as analyzes the precedents in accordance with the trial opinions of each judicial link;when combining the tax law with the administrative regulations and analyzing and characterizing the complex judicial circumstances,it is found that there are problems in the judicial application of this crime.There are plenty of problems,three main problems are mentioned below: 1.the phenomenon of different judgments in the same case frequently occurs in judicial practice;2.whether the behavior that will not cause the loss of national tax money can be classified as this crime;3.it does not have the purpose of tax fraud whether the conduct can be counted as a crime.The reasons for the above problems are: 1.The judicial organs have serious differences in the understanding of the elements of the crime;2.There is still no consensus on whether there is a purpose for the crime;3.The theoretical circles have inconsistent views on the nature of the crime.In response to the above problems,we should first clarify the concept of false opening in this crime: the first judge whether the false opening complies with the provisions of the tax law,and then review it with the legal interests protected by this crime;secondly,clarify the state tax protected by this crime.excluding other taxes from this crime;Thirdly,it is legitimate to take the restrictive interpretation of purpose and material illegality theory as the benchmark.It is believed that ’ for tax deduction ’ should be the purpose of this crime.’ Purpose ’ is different from ’ intentional ’,that is,the ’ end Innentendenz ’.At the same time,’ the purpose of tax fraud ’ is distinguished from ’ tax evasion purpose ’ and ’ tax dodging purpose ’;Fourthly,the nature of this crime is redefined,and it is considered as a ’verkuemmert zweiaktige delicate and it can be classified as a behavior crime and a dangerous crime by other identify standards.Simultaneously,responding to existing doctrine: the earliest theory of behavior crime in the theoretical circle has been unable to justify itself in today’s increasingly diverse means of crime;the theory of abstract dangerous criminal with the highest voice says that the relationship between behavior crime and the dangerous crime is confused,and the need for risk possibility judgment does not conform to the basic concept of the abstract dangerous offense.The newly proposed theory of actual damage offense believes that the establishment of this crime should have the actual harm to the security of national tax and require the purpose of illegal possession.The difference from this paper is the conflict between ’ Hundlungsunwert ’ and ’ Erfolgsunwert ’ s judgment on purpose.Upon research,by using the theory of purpose crime can exclude the behavior with the purpose of tax fraud from illegal class and crime.Due to the lagging judicial interpretation and other reasons,the judicial practice has not balanced the judgment of this crime currently,hoping to provide some ideas and references for solving the above problems in this paper.