Not all false openings are crimes. The criminal law defines false billing as having a necessary condition, which is that it will cause a loss of state tax revenue, or at least there is a risk of causing a loss of state tax revenue, otherwise it does not constitute the crime of false billing. For example, Company A purchased a punch from Company B, with a price of 2.5 million yuan including tax, and Company B issued a general ticket. Company A was not happy, I wanted a special ticket, Company B said that it could not open it, Company B usually purchased the goods of Company C, and then found Company C to issue a special ticket of 2.5 million yuan for Company A, of which 360,000 yuan was value-added tax, and Company A deducted it after getting it.
This kind of example is very common, there is a real transaction, let's see what is wrong with company A? From a formal point of view, Company A constituted allowing others to open a false opening for itself, which is one of the three typical behaviors of false opening. Some people want to say that Company A didn't let Company C open it on its behalf, but it was obviously Company B that asked Company C to open it on its behalf. Note that de jure concession includes several meanings of instigating, permitting, or allowing it. Although you did not directly instruct the other party to issue the ticket, you knew that it was issued on behalf of you, and after taking the ticket, you silently made a deduction, which is allowing the act to constitute false billing.
However, from a substantive point of view, Company A did not open out of thin air, but had real transactions. Company A originally had the right to deduct 360,000 yuan, but Company B failed to issue special invoices normally, resulting in Company A being unable to exercise the right to deduct normally. At present, Company A takes the ticket deduction from Company C, which is still within the scope of the original real transaction amount, and does not overdeduct it out of thin air, so it does not cause a loss of national taxes.
In summary, it does not constitute a crime of false opening, this is a real case, and after the inspection bureau filed the case, it was transferred to the public security, and the public security believed that there was no loss of state tax revenue, so the case was withdrawn. However, after the public security withdrew the case, the inspection bureau imposed an administrative penalty on Company A. In response to this matter, the inspection bureau believes that Company A's deduction of the 360,000 yuan constitutes tax evasion and is punished by 08 times the fine. The company took the inspection bureau to court, and the public security department withdrew the case, so why did you still think that I had evaded taxes? From the first instance and the second instance to the retrial, the company lost the lawsuit, why did the company not understand the relationship between the illegal and the criminal, the violation to a certain extent is a crime, the degree of violation is light, the degree of crime is serious, and the fact that it does not constitute a crime does not mean that you are not illegal.
False openings are divided into illegal false openings and criminal false openings. False issuance of crimes requires that both the order of tax collection and administration and the tax revenue of the state be violated. Illegal false issuance only requires you to violate the order of tax collection and management. In this case, didn't Company A cause a loss of state tax revenue? Then there is no infringement of the state's tax revenue, so it does not constitute a crime.
However, as long as the false invoicing is violated, it violates the invoice management order in the tax collection and management order, and there are provisions on illegal false invoicing in the administrative measures for illegal false invoicing, even if it does not cause the loss of national taxes, it is necessary to punish the false invoicing, and the tax authorities will confiscate the illegal income. Where the amount of false issuance is less than 10,000 yuan, a fine of up to 50,000 yuan may be imposed concurrently. Where the amount of false issuance exceeds 10,000 yuan, a fine of between 50,000 and 500,000 yuan is to be imposed. The inspection bureau finally determined that Company A had made a false opening in violation of the law.