Corporate tax evasion led to a "sky-high ticket" case of malicious punishment lead confrontation

Legal Daily Xuchang March 18 Xinhua reporter Singhong Henan a developer for tax evasion collar "sky-high ticket" (this newspaper February 11, February 25 has reported), resulting in the administrative proceedings in Xuchang today in the first trial court, the trial, the local tax bureau to check whether the need to submit administrative punishment of the factual basis and punishment is malicious,　　caused a fierce confrontation between the original defendants. The origin of the "sky-high ticket" is the Zhoukou of Henan province, the company cushion funds to the government to build roads, the government has no money, the municipal government executive meeting minutes decided to cushion funds from the enterprise should pay the tax gradually repaid.　　But the enterprise continued to pay a few years after tax, and many times with the municipal government and the local taxation Bureau, have no reply, 2008 enterprises made 0 declaration. June 22, 2009, Enterprises encounter "sky-high ticket": more than 20 million yuan of tax and late fees were fined 70.93 million yuan, plus 3% of the fine.　　At present, the cumulative fine has reached more than 400 million yuan.　　After the administrative punishment after the reconsideration procedure, the Lin Estate filed an administrative lawsuit, will Zhoukou government and Zhoukou local taxation bureau to the court, Henan High Court designated Xuchang hospital jurisdiction. At the beginning of today's trial, the Zhoukou government objected to itself as a defendant, that the Xuchang hospital had no jurisdiction and that the summary of the meeting of the municipal government made the repayment of the Cushion Fund Act is a civil act, not a specific administrative act.　　After listening to the advice of the Zhoukou and the local taxation Bureau, the court ruled that the government was not a defendant and continued its session.　　In the trial, the controversy of the original defendant is whether the tax Bureau should submit the factual basis of the administrative punishment, whether the punishment is vicious and whether it exceeds the legal authority.　　The Audit Bureau believes that in the decision of administrative punishment before the issuance of the Audit Bureau has issued a decision on tax processing, tax processing decisions is the identification of relevant facts, and given the parties to reconsider, litigation relief means, the administrative proceedings is only the trial of administrative punishment, the fact that part of the legal process has gone.　　Enterprises believe that the Audit Bureau self-examination from the penalty, has not provided the factual basis for administrative punishment, including in the previous criminal proceedings have not been provided, the enterprise does not know how to calculate the fine, the court should include the factual part of the review and Punishment of the Legality of the proceedings of the review. Is the inspection bureau malicious punishment? The enterprise considers that the administrative penalty, while invoking the special law of tax collection and administration, also invokes the provisions of the General Law Administrative Punishment Law plus 3% of the fine, which is unfair.　　Inspection bureau in the tax Collection and management law of the scope and manner of the addition of fines, arbitrarily expand the interpretation, aggravating the taxpayer's responsibility for punishment. Inspection Bureau said that there is no statutory scope (50% to 5 times times) within the shelf punishment, to be 4 times times fine, the amount of punishment appropriate.　　The addition of 3% fines is a means of guaranteeing the enforcement of fines, not punishment, and the executive authorities have the right to impose fines.　　During the trial, the plaintiff also thought that the inspection Bureau did not fulfill the statutory obligation of informing before making the decision of tax processing and tax punishment.　　After the trial, the court said it would choose a day of sentencing. In addition, the reporter learned thatJust before the trial of this administrative lawsuit, March 15, the Zhoukou People's Court in the second instance of the criminal judgement, maintained the Fan Colin property and legal representative of the first-instance judgment. February 13, because of tax evasion, Fan Colin was the first trial convicted of tax evasion, sentenced to 3 years imprisonment, and a fine of more than 22.08 million yuan, Hui Lin Real estate guilty of tax evasion, sentenced to a fine of more than 66.24 million yuan.