40 Million Export Tax Rebate To Empty Four Enterprises Rarely Prosecute Fuzhou IRS

Fuzhou State Taxation Bureau of Fujian province has been a little annoyed lately.

"Four enterprises in Fuzhou are prosecuted.

Recently, the people's Court of Cangshan District of Fuzhou has opened the court, but it has not yet been pronounced.

In June 18th, a source told the reporter that "all four companies have filed a lawsuit with the intermediate people's Court of Fuzhou, and finally appointed the people's Court of Cangshan district to hear it."

According to its disclosure, the four companies filed a total of 6 cases involving courts, involving about 41 million 100 thousand yuan of tax rebates or no tax rebates, and the total value tax of all products amounted to about 312 million yuan.

"The state tax department was taken to court by the enterprise, which is very rare throughout the country."

A member of the all China Lawyers Association told the newspaper reporter that "taxation reflects the relationship between the public power of the state and the private rights of citizens. This case is of guiding significance to the protection of taxpayers' rights and interests in tax disputes."

However, despite the fact that they have already been in court, these enterprises are still hesitating, and have declined the interview request of our reporter.

The Attorney General of the four enterprises, Fujian Tuo Wei law firm, also rejected the reporters on the grounds that the case was being tried and inconvenient to comment too much.

"If the company is not forced to do so, how can the enterprise dare to sue the tax enforcement agency?" said the above all members of the all China Lawyers Association.

More than a dozen companies involved have no choice.

The Fuzhou State Taxation Bureau served as the defendant in the 6 tax notice issued in late January 2011. It was found that four enterprises, such as Fujian foreign trade company, accepted the VAT invoices issued by enterprises such as Anhui and Jiangsu.

"The four companies applied for administrative reconsideration to the IRS in Fujian at that time, but the other party made a reconsideration decision without giving any explanation."

The foregoing sources said.

40 million export tax rebate to empty four enterprises rarely prosecute Fuzhou IRS

It also alerted the relevant leaders of the Fujian provincial government, who once convened and instructed the competent departments of foreign trade and economic cooperation of Fujian, the IRS, the relevant enterprises and so on, but failed.

"Suing Fuzhou city's Inland Revenue Bureau has only four enterprises, but as a result, more than a dozen enterprises have been recovered from tax rebates, and the amount of tax refund and recovery has reached hundreds of millions of yuan. The administrative decisions of the state tax department have had a great impact on Fujian's foreign trade industry," said Fujian.

The source said.

According to the "rules for tax administration reconsideration" promulgated by the State Administration of Taxation, when applying for administrative reconsideration, it is necessary to make an application for administrative reconsideration within 60 days after the payment of taxes and late fees, or the confirmation of the tax authorities authorized to make specific administrative acts, in accordance with the tax amount and time limit specified by the tax authorities in accordance with laws and regulations, and the payment or payment of tax arrears and late fees or the corresponding guarantee.

That is to say, as long as the tax authorities do not make any decisions on tax refund or recovery, their specific administrative actions shall not be suspended, and enterprises must pay the prescribed amount on time. Otherwise, they will not only have no right to apply for reconsideration or to sue, but more likely to be suspected of breaking the law.

These people said.

"It is said that some enterprises have disbanded their employees and walked away, and more enterprises have changed careers."

The above sources said, "export tax rebates have always been the main source of profits for foreign trade enterprises. If they are not refunded or recovered, they will lose their way, and apply for reconsideration and litigation for a long time. They must have some strength to support them."

This person believes that this case involving more than a dozen enterprises to brush up and adopt a peaceful way, does not directly prove that they really have problems.

Apart from the case, Fujian

The situation is grim.

According to Fujian customs statistics, in April this year, Fujian exported 7 billion 296 million US dollars, an increase of 0.6% over the same period last year. The increase in that month was 4.3 percentage points lower than the national average.

"The situation of foreign trade in the province is not optimistic. At present, it is the most difficult time. If the situation can not be quickly and effectively reversed, the pressure of subsequent export growth will continue to increase."

Lin Changcong, director of the Fujian Provincial Department of foreign trade and economic cooperation, said at a news media coordination meeting recently held.

"Administrative behavior is self contradictory"?

"The reason why Fujian's foreign trade and other four enterprises have filed administrative proceedings against Fuzhou's IRS is that the notice of tax matters made by Fuzhou's Internal Revenue Bureau finds that the facts are unclear, the evidence is insufficient, and the procedure is seriously illegal. Its specific administrative act has no legal basis and applicable law errors; the plaintiff's foreign trade acts are lawful and legitimate, and should be given tax rebates."

The foregoing sources revealed.

The person also believes that the case is related to the development direction and survival mode of Fujian's foreign trade industry.

According to its disclosure, the export tax rebate value of these four enterprises over 40 million yuan was 2007 to 2009 years. These enterprises purchased 28 production enterprises from Suqian, Jiangsu, Susong, Anhui, Dongzhi, Qimen, Jingde counties and other places.

The goods such as ribbon are exported to foreign countries, and 3187 such VAT invoices have been obtained.

What puzzles the four companies is that the above VAT invoices have been examined by the Fuzhou municipal tax bureau through the VAT anti-counterfeiting tax control system, and the tax rebate procedures have been processed only after the relevant regulations are confirmed. However, the Fuzhou IRS has recovered the tax refund from the four enterprises on the grounds that all the VAT invoices are completely empty.

The basis of Fuzhou's IRS is that the State Tax Inspection Bureau, which is located at the place where the four enterprises are trading, has issued the "confirmed false open notice" (hereinafter referred to as the "notice") and the "confirmation of false invoices for VAT invoices" (hereinafter referred to as "proof").

"In the absence of any proof material in the form summary, if any investigation is not made according to the regulations, it will be apparent that the VAT invoices are falsely opened, and the facts are obviously insufficient."

A tax lawyer in Fujian said, "at least there should be some identification and evidence of false open, false opening and false opening."

The above sources told our reporter that in the trial stage of the case, the four enterprises' agents, Fujian Tuo Wei law firm, have pointed out that according to the "administrative measures for the VAT voucher consultation" of the General Administration of Taxation of China, the supporting information including the "notice" belongs to the evidence clues in the nature of the law, rather than the specific administrative act of the entry into force. However, if the Fuzhou State Administration of taxation does not verify or have no evidence, it directly adopts the contradictory documents issued by the state tax organs at the place where the production enterprises are located, which is contrary to the principle of reliance interest protection in the administrative law.

The Fuzhou State Taxation Bureau said in its trial reply that as the Bureau of tax collection and administration, the national tax authority of the place where the production enterprise is located has the legitimacy of the decision made after the substantive examination of the tax related case, and it only needs to make a careful and superficial examination of the result of the tax bureau's work done by the other party.

A single form does not mean that the specific administrative act it makes has no certainty and legitimacy.

According to the two sides' testimony, the State Tax Department of the place where the manufacturer was traded with the four enterprises that became a plaintiff had previously confirmed that the export tax rebate and export tax rebate had not been dealt with by the reply issued by the Fuzhou State Administration of taxation. Fuzhou's IRS also handled export tax rebates for all export enterprises.

However, after a few months apart, the same organ denied itself with a simple "proof" and "notice".

"This is undoubtedly a contradictory and illegal administrative act.

In the course of the paction between the four enterprises and the production enterprises, the export tax rebate management department of the Fuzhou State Administration of Taxation has gone through the tax refund procedures after checking the production capacity of the production enterprises and the qualification of the invoices, etc., and based on the trust of the tax authorities, the four enterprises continue to carry out business with the production enterprises.

The attorney of the plaintiff's enterprise said in the court hearing, "after receiving the" proof "and" notice ", the Fuzhou municipal Internal Revenue Bureau did not carry out the investigation according to the statutory procedures.

The plaintiff's agent, Fujian Tuo Wei law firm, also pointed out in the court hearing that the Fuzhou municipal tax bureau made the applicable legal basis for the notice of tax matters, mainly on the administrative measures for the export goods tax correspondence and the regulations on the export goods tax correspondence.

In view of this, Fuzhou's Internal Revenue Bureau considers that the plaintiff's view is a narrow understanding of the legality of specific administrative acts.

Laws and regulations are universally applicable norms in the whole country or larger areas. They are general and principled. Other normative documents are specific provisions for adapting to the particularity of economic and cultural development in different areas. Therefore, they must be used as the basis for making administrative actions lawful.

"Some enterprises that have traded with these four enterprises have already written off, and the cancellation of enterprises must provide the" examination and approval form for the cancellation of tax registration application ". After the verification of the tax authorities, they can carry out final liquidation and how can they write off the tax issue?" the above-mentioned sources said, "these four enterprises have done their duty and duty of inspection as the exporters of foreign trade. The tax department is a clear proof of the letter of reply and invoice authentication of the trading partners' production and operation ability and tax payment.

The plaintiff's agent, Fujian Tuo Wei law firm, also put forward in the court trial that the correct practice is that after receiving the inquiry letter from the State Tax Bureau of the production enterprise, the Fuzhou State Taxation Bureau should investigate and verify the pactions of the four enterprises, and deal with them according to the investigation and verification.

"From the constraint of public power and the protection of taxpayers' rights, it should be the burden of proof that the law enforcement agencies should bear on their actions, rather than the other party's self incrimination."

The above sources believe that "the law enforcement consciousness and law enforcement ability of the tax law enforcement authorities are deficient, and the law enforcement personnel violates the legal provisions, which may cause and aggravate the contradiction between the tax law enforcement agencies and the taxpayers, causing adverse effects to the taxpayers."