| Summary: | 碩士 === 逢甲大學 === 財稅所 === 98 === Due to the borrowing license operation should certainly affect issued process of documentary evidence under normal circumstances. In order to prevent the business tax auditing system would be destroyed, the tax office denied the issued documentary evidence from borrowing license entity while it’s input documentary evidence of imputation credit of output tax. Therefore, the tax audit office asked aforementioned documentary evidence entities should pay a past-due tax and against documentary evidence obligation to take the punishment for violating the duty to act in relation to the tax law. Moreover, it will incorporate with tax evasion of false report of input tax to take the punishment for tax evasion, and it became to another source of business taxes’ litigations. In addition, borrowing license violation involved with the identification of direct trade litigants. Because of the borrowing license entities used license lender to be nominal business entity in order to conform the regulation of law appearance, and it’s very difficult to separate the borrowing license entities and license lenders which one is contract entity of sale of goods or sale of services.
This study compared the difference between borrowing license law appearance and similar private law contract in the chapter two, and discussed the common borrowing license undesirable traditions businesses’ motivation and styles of borrowing license, similar types of borrowing license operation and the relationships of fictitious companies in the chapter three. Furthermore, the chapter four used the viewpoint of administration punishment to support case study method for reviewing borrowing license deviations of punishment presenting evidence responsibilities and punishment rationality from non-tractor. The chapter five is conclusion and suggestion, hope to submit the helpful and objective suggestions to tax audit practice and taxpayer for reducing the disputes.
|
|---|
