After receiving the "Notice of Confirmed Falsification", the tax authorities will require enterprises to submit transaction information with upstream enterprises in accordance with the law, verify the authenticity of the transactions, and impose corresponding penalties on downstream enterprises. Even the slightest punishment requires enterprises to pay value-added tax and surcharges (except for overdue collection periods). If in the tax inspection, the tax authorities believe that the downstream acceptance of false information is suspected of criminal responsibility, they will transfer it to the public security organs for handling. In practice, many downstream enterprises believe that there are real transactions between themselves and upstream enterprises, and it is unfair to pay value-added tax and surcharges. However, from the current tax related documents and tax processing practices, it is difficult to avoid paying value-added tax and surcharges. However, in a recent case of this type, the Shanghai Railway Court used a "penetrative review" method to involve the tax authority that issued the "confirmed false issuance notice" in the lawsuit. In the end, downstream enterprises and tax authorities reached a settlement in the lawsuit, avoiding the need for supplementary payment of value-added tax and surcharges. This is the first case in China, and we take this opportunity to analyze and explore the handling of such cases together.

On April 30, 2025, the Private Economy Promotion Law was officially released and implemented on May 20, 2025. The promulgation of this law has brought unprecedented development opportunities and guarantees for private enterprises, and injected strong impetus into the high-quality development of the private economy.

Recently, I had the privilege of attending the 9th Tax Judicial Theory and Practice Forum. In the forum, the author and numerous experts in tax theory and practice discussed the issue of whether tax authorities should refund taxes after a failed bet on the case of "Wang and Shanghai Taxation Bureau not refunding taxes" through their evaluation. Here, the author summarizes his personal views and opinions on the issue of "whether tax refunds can be issued for gambling failures", and lists the enforcement practices of tax authorities in various regions for readers' reference.

For limited companies, Article 89 of the new Company Law stipulates that if a company merges, splits, or transfers its main assets and shareholders vote against it at the shareholders' meeting, they have the right to demand that the company repurchase their equity.

Recently, Dr. Xiao (hereinafter referred to as "the man"), a thoracic surgeon of China-Japan Friendship Hospital, was reported by his wife, Dr. Gu (hereinafter referred to as "the woman"), about the affair of cheating on more than one woman during marriage (6 people mentioned in the letter of report, with two people as the key witnesses: the head nurse, Mr. Shi, and the trained doctor, Mr. Dong), which caused public concern and discussion on issues such as education fairness, class solidification, professional evaluation system credibility, medical safety, etc. This incident not only involves disputes over the personal and professional ethics of the man, but also reflects the complex impact of spousal reporting in divorce proceedings from a legal and social perspective, providing a typical case for us to explore the relationship between marriage, law, and morality in depth. As a professional lawyer in the field of marriage and family affairs, this article only analyzes the impact of a spouse's real name reporting of the other party's scandal in divorce proceedings.

In recent years, with the rapid development of emerging industries such as drone logistics, urban air traffic (UAM), and manned electric vertical takeoff and landing vehicles (eVTOL), the low altitude economy is becoming a new engine driving economic growth. However, the contradiction between technological innovation and legal backwardness in this field is becoming increasingly prominent, and the prevention and control of criminal legal risks has become a key issue for the development of the industry. Starting from the principle of modesty in criminal law, this article explores how to create an inclusive and prudent legal environment for low altitude economic innovation while ensuring public safety.

When companies and employees compete on the battlefield of non compete restrictions, the allocation of burden of proof, the reasonableness of liquidated damages, and the attribution of jurisdiction often become key factors determining the outcome. Are employees really 'crossing boundaries'? How can employers use the evidence chain to lock in the fact of breach of contract? Can stolen surveillance videos be accepted by the court? Is the sky high penalty for breach of contract a deterrent or a 'tyrannical clause'? How can the jurisdictional dispute be resolved when options disputes are navigating between labor law and commercial contracts? This article will follow up on "Competition Restrictions: The Game between Corporate Defense Lines and Employee Boundaries (Part 1)" (click to view) and further analyze the above issues.

Article 23 of the Labor Contract Law of the People's Republic of China clearly stipulates that the employer may agree on non compete clauses with the employee. If the employee violates the non compete clause, the employer shall pay a penalty to the employer in accordance with the agreement. As a system for protecting enterprise trade secrets and regulating senior management and technical personnel, non compete restrictions are widely used in China. There are also many disputes in non compete cases in judicial practice, especially the issue of liquidated damages, which has led to different judicial tendencies. In order to further clarify the application of the non compete restriction system, this article will attempt to clarify common controversial issues related to non compete restrictions.

Dear shareholders who have invested in the company, today let's talk about a question that I often get asked: can shareholders withdraw their shares, who can they contact for withdrawal, and how to withdraw?