학술논문

중국 탈세죄(逃税罪) 제도 개선에 대한 소고
A Critical Review on Revising the Criminal Punishment Regime of Tax Evasion in China
Document Type
Article
Text
Author
Source
중국법연구, 03/31/2024, Vol. 55, p. 37-73
Subject
탈세죄
투세(偷税)
중국 형법 제201조
중국 세수징수관리법 제63조
탈세죄의 형사책임 면제
Tax evasion crime
Tax evasion
Article 201 of the Criminal Law of China
Article 63 of the Tax Collection and Administration Law of China
Exemption from criminal liability for tax evasion
逃税罪
偷税
中国「刑法」 第201条
中国「税收征收管理法」 第63条
逃税罪的刑事责任免除
Language
Korean
ISSN
1738-7051
Abstract
与其他大部分国家相同,中国从税收征管及刑法两个角度对采取非法 手段逃避缴税义务的行为进行着严格管控. 由于逃避缴纳税款的方式以及 逃避缴纳的税款金额不同,接受到的处罚方式及力度也不尽相同. 因此, 为了相关处罚的有力进行,需要对此进行明确的规定及阐释. 从现行法规 来看,主要以与税务行政有关的「税收征收管理法」与刑法中的逃税罪条 款为主要处罚依据. 本文中首先会对「税收征收管理法」中的与逃税有关的 规定内容及刑法上的逃税罪条款内容进行具体的介绍,对两者之间的关 联性也会进行详细的分析. 除此之外,根据中国现行法律规定,逃税罪的 确实判定需要经过一系列的法定程序,本文对与此相关的内容也进行了 一定的整理论述. 但是,中国现行法律体系上缺少与该程序相关的专门性 法律,文中对此缺陷提出的完善建议是参照韩国逃税犯罪有关的法律法 规及法律体系进行的具体构建. 中国刑法第201条中对逃税罪进行了相当严格的管制,该条款的立法目 的是为了确保国家的税源不受侵犯,并要严格管理以不法方式回避或隐 匿税款的行为. 但是与刑法上其他罪目不同的是,逃税罪条款中不仅仅只 规定了成立要件与需要接受的刑罚,还规定了只要满足一定的要件就可 以从逃税罪中排除在外的规定内容. 对逃税罪的免责规定有评价称其可以 对国家税收的增长起到积极的效果,但也有反对意见指责其在具体适用 过程中存在着许多的问题点. 特别需要指出的是,由于现行法律中对与处 理逃税案件时税务机关的行政程序和司法机关的刑事程序之间的进行顺 序没有确切的规定,这不但会使纳税人引发混乱,从纳税人保护的角度 来看,还会对纳税人造成一定的不利后果. 为了终结现在这种紊乱的局 面,最高院和最高检最新出台了相关的司法解释,但是由于在内容的表述上依然存在着一些模糊不清的部分,所以无法认为可以从根本上解决相 应的问题. 为了更好地解决该问题,建议在处理逃税案件的过程中,从整 体出发系统地调整相关机构涉及到的各项法律法规,以达到完善的目的. 通过中国现行的法规可以判断出,在偷税或者逃税罪的确定过程 中,比起不法行为逃避缴纳税款的金额才是更为重要的决定性因素. 但是 在「税收征收管理法」和刑法的逃税罪条款中确对此没有做更加明确的规 定说明. 在实际操作中,只能在相关的司法解释以及作为搜查机关的公安 机关内部的规定中找到可以参照的逃税金额标准. 更值得探讨的是,现在 区分偷税和逃税罪的金额标准与中国如今的经济增长水平是不相一致 的,从最大限度上确保税源这一目的来看,会造成一定的不利影响. 最终 来看,以立法的方式适当地提高逃税罪的金额,尽量以税务机关的行政 处罚方式来追回纳税人以不法方式少缴或不缴的税金,这不但会防止财 政性损失的减少,还会降低对纳税人的权益性损害.
Like most other countries, China strictly controls the act of evading tax obligations through illegal means from the perspectives of tax collection and management and criminal law. Due to the different ways of evading taxes and the amount of tax evaded, the punishment methods and severity received are also different. Therefore, to effectively carry out relevant penalties, clear regulations and explanations are needed. This Paper explores some legislative resolutions to improve legal limits from the current framework regarding tax evasion in China. Chapter 2 of this paper scrutinizes the main contents regarding tax evasion in the Tax Collection and Management Act and the Criminal Act. It also analyzes the correlation between the above acts in detail. Article 201 of the Criminal Act of China strictly regulates the crime of tax evasion. The legislative purpose of this provision is to ensure that the country’s tax sources are not infringed upon and to strictly manage the illegal avoidance or concealment of taxes. However, unlike other crimes in the Criminal Act, the provisions of tax evasion crimes not only stipulate the establishment requirements and the penalties to be accepted but also provide that certain elements can be exempted from the punishment of tax evasion crimes as long as they are met. Chapter 3 focuses and provides some legislative resolution regarding the current legal framework. In order to end the current chaotic situation, the Supreme Court and the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office have recently issued relevant judicial interpretations, but due to some ambiguity in the content, it cannot be considered as a fundamental solution to the corresponding issues. This chapter suggests these legislative limits from the current legal framework regarding tax evasion. This proposed resolution to handle these matters effectively focuses on making decisive factors clear and practical. the amount standard for distinguishing between tax evasion and the crime of tax evasion is inconsistent with China’s current economic growth level, which will cause certain adverse effects from the perspective of maximizing tax sources. Ultimately, appropriately increasing the amount of tax evasion crimes through legislation and trying to recover the taxes illegally underpaid or not paid by taxpayers through administrative penalties imposed by tax authorities will not only prevent the reduction of fiscal losses but also reduce the damage to the rights and interests of taxpayers.