Editor's Note: The Zhejiang Provincial Taxation Bureau's Inspection Bureau made public to the public the online anchor Huang Wei (online name: Weiya)'s tax related violations from 2019 to 2020, and made a decision to pursue the payment of taxes, impose overdue fines, and impose a total penalty of 1.341 billion yuan, causing a public uproar. However, this matter was not sudden. As early as 2021, the State Administration of Taxation had issued multiple documents requiring practitioners in the live streaming marketing industry to conduct tax self-examination. From Weiya's apology letter, we can also see that Weiya conducted a tax self-examination this year. Here's a question: Why does Weiya still face tax administrative penalties after her self inspection? How can anchors in the process of self inspection avoid and resolve the risk of being identified as "tax evasion" in the remaining nine days? See discussion in this article for details.

Recently, lawyer Wang Lei, the director of Gaopeng Law Firm, accepted an exclusive interview with Pengpai News, recalling the story of his assisting previous negotiators in customs clearance, WTO accession negotiations, and representing China in the EU fastener anti-dumping case.

Editor's Note: On December 11, 2001, China officially joined the World Trade Organization. This day has become an important watershed in the development of China's relations with the world.

Since the company's registered capital was changed from the paid-in system to the subscribed system, shareholders often ignored the arrangement of paid-in capital contributions in the early stage of operating the company. Once the company's operations require costs, shareholders may take the form of advance funds, loans, and other forms to transfer the funds to the company's account, and later return the loan funds through reimbursement or repayment. Once in and out, it becomes a routine operation to transfer funds in and out. However, if financial treatment is not carried out in accordance with legal financial systems, it is likely to create hidden dangers for shareholders who need to supplement and bear the company's external debts.

Editor's Note: The GATT centered multilateral trading system established after World War II has always been a "club for the wealthy.". Developing countries' participation in the multilateral trading system often has limited capacity and a shortage of talent. The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development has implemented the "Technical Cooperation Assistance Programme for Multilateral Trade Negotiations" for many years to provide technical assistance to developing countries. China is no exception. Thirty five years ago, China proposed to restore its seat in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Since then, until the establishment of the WTO, China has benefited greatly from this assistance program. On the occasion of commemorating the 20th anniversary of China's accession to the WTO, Tang Xiaobing, a consultant to Gaopeng Law Firm, wrote this memorial article as the specific executor of the plan that year.

In July 2021, Gaopeng Law Firm welcomed a group of criminal lawyers, including Dong Xiaohua. Lawyer Dong is a knowledgeable post doctoral candidate in management at the University of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, a doctor of criminal law at Beijing Normal University, and a master of constitutional and administrative law at Peking University. Previously, he worked in procuratorates at the municipal and urban levels in Beijing for 18 years. Lawyer Dong focuses on criminal defense, criminal prosecution, and compliance businesses. Today, let's take a look at her story~

Editor's Note: The GATT centered multilateral trading system established after World War II has always been a "club for the wealthy.". Developing countries' participation in the multilateral trading system often has limited capacity and a shortage of talent. The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development has implemented the "Technical Cooperation Assistance Programme for Multilateral Trade Negotiations" for many years to provide technical assistance to developing countries. China is no exception. Thirty five years ago, China proposed to restore its seat in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Since then, until the establishment of the WTO, China has benefited greatly from this assistance program. On the occasion of commemorating the 20th anniversary of China's accession to the WTO, Tang Xiaobing, a consultant to Gaopeng Law Firm, wrote this memorial article as the specific executor of the plan that year.

The guarantee period, the limitation of action for guaranteed debts, and the limitation of action for principal debts are all related to a certain period, and there are countless internal connections among the three. Before the Civil Code came into force, China's "Guarantee Law" and "Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the" Guarantee Law of the People's Republic of China "did not explicitly stipulate the concept of" guarantee period ". The relevant provisions of the Guarantee Law also confuse the relationship between the guarantee period and the guarantee debt litigation. Therefore, in both academic and theoretical terms, there are many disputes regarding the understanding and application of these three legal concepts, and the related judicial cases of guaranteed debt have also been one of the difficult issues in judicial trials. The introduction of the Civil Code clarifies the concept of "guarantee period" and clarifies the connections and differences between the above legal concepts. Based on the relevant provisions of the Civil Code and a legend, the author will attempt to clarify and elaborate the meaning, connection, and distinction of the guarantee period, the limitation of action for guaranteed debts, and the limitation of action for principal debts.

Recently, five independent directors of Kangmei Pharmaceutical were sentenced to 369 million yuan of joint and several civil liability by the Guangzhou Intermediate Court of Justice, triggering widespread social repercussions. The mainstream view seems to be that vase directors deserve their crimes, and severe punishment is conducive to making an example of others; "Heavenly priced compensation is not enough to regret, and even to celebrate.". The viewpoint of this article is that under the current system design framework, requiring independent directors to bear sky-high civil compensation may be detrimental to the construction of the independent director system of listed companies in China. In subsequent civil compensation cases, the CSI Small and Medium Investors Service Center may avoid or prudently handle the group of independent directors who are prosecuted. The reasons are as follows.