纳税人如何参加行政处罚听证会

《中华人民共和国行政处罚法》（以下简称《行政处罚法》明确规定：纳税人有权对税务机关拟作出的税务行政处罚进行听证。税务行政处罚听证，是指税务机关在作出行政处罚之前，指派专人主持听取案件调查人员和当事人就案件事实及其证据进行陈述、质证和辩论的法定程序。税务听证比较复杂，不是所有税务行政处罚的必经程序。根据《行政处罚法》第四十二条和《税务行政处罚程序实施办法（试行）》第三、四、五条的规定，适用听证程序必须符合下列条件。     

听证计算期间问题的探讨

最近，有人询问《税务行政处罚事项告知书》中有关听证的计算期间问题，即听证权利的起算日是收到之日还是收到次日。笔者注意到，《税务行政处罚事项告知书》上对此的表述为：“…你（单位）有要求听证的权利。可自收到本通知书之日起3日内向本局书面提出听证申请…”，而《税务行政处罚听证程序实施办法（试行）》第四条规定：”[第一段]     

动态传真

从5月1日起,《中华人民共和国道路交通安全法》、《最高人民法院关于审理人身损害赔偿案件适用法律若干问题的解释》、《集体合同规定》、《企业年金试行办法》、《律师和律师事务所违法行为处罚办法》、《律师事务所收费程序规则》、《税务行政复议规则(暂行)》、《国土资源听证规定》、《监狱服刑人员行为规范》、《物业管理企业     

一纸听证申请 挽回罚款损失

行政处罚听证对于很多纳税人来说还有些陌生。其实,为切实保护纳税人合法权益,早在1996年我国就出台了《税务行政处罚听证程序实施办法(试行)》(国税发[1996]190号),办法明确规定:税务机关对公民做出二千元以上(含本数)罚款或者对法人或者其他组织做出一万元以上(含本数)罚款的行政处罚之前,应当告知当事人有要求举行听证的权利。2013年10月23日,B公司依法向A市国家税务局     

纳税人如何运用听证程序保护自身合法权益

《行政处罚法》和《税务行政处罚听证程序实施办法（试行）》（以下简称《实施办法》）规定,税务机关在对个人作出２,０００元以上（含本数）罚款或者对法人或者其他组织作出１万元以上（含本数）罚款的行政处罚前,应根据当事人的要求举行听证程序。《行政处罚法》和《实施办法》的这一规定,赋予了纳税人保护自身合法权益的重要程序权利。纳税人如何运用法律法规的这一规定来维护其合法权益呢？一、充分认识设置听证程序的意义１．税务行政处罚权是国家赋予税务机关的一项重要权利。《行政处罚法》颁布以前,作出税务行政处罚是税务部门…     

税务机关实施听证要把好“五关”

税务行政听证是指在税务机关作出税务行政决定之前，给有利害的税务行政关系人提供发表意见的机会，时税务特定事项质证、辩驳的程序，其实质是听取税务行政利害关系人的意见。《行政处罚法》首次在我国确立了听证制度，随着《立法法》、《行政许可法》等法律的不断出台，我国的税务行政听证制度也逐步完善。     

纳税人要正确行使听证的权利

根据《行政处罚法》的规定，纳税人在受到税务机关较大数额罚款时，依法享有听证权。同时国家税务总局颁布的《税务行政处罚听证程序实施办法》第三条规定：“税务机关对公民作出二千元以上(含本数)罚款或者对法人或者其它组织作出一万元以上（含本数）罚款的行政处罚之前，应当向当事人送达《税务行政处罚事项告知书》，告知当事人已经查明的违法事实、证据、行政处罚的法律依据和拟将给予的行政处罚，并告知有要求听证的权利。”纳税人要想正确行使听证的权利，维护自己的合法权益，应当注意以下几点：一是要求听证的纳税人，应当在《税务行政处罚事项告知书》送达后三日内向税务机关以书面形式提出听证；逾期不提出的视为放弃听证权利。二是当事人或其他代理人应当按照税务机关的通知参加听证，无正当理由不参加，视为放弃听证权利，听证应当予以终止。三是当代理人由于不可抗力或者其它特殊情况而耽误提出听证期限的，在障碍消除后五日内，可以申请延长听证期限，申请是否准许，由组织听证的税务机关决定。四是可以亲自参加听证，也可以经税务机关或听证主持人核准，书面委托1-2名代理人参加听证。五是当事人认为听证主持人与本案有直接利害关系的，有权在举行听证的三日前申请回避，并说明理由...     

浅议税务行政复议听证制度

税务行政复议听证制度的正确实施有利于保障申请人的合法权益,有效弥补书面审查的缺陷,保证行政复议权的公正行使。新《税务行政复议规则》新增了5条关于税务行政复议听证的内容,但均为概要性规定,缺乏可操作性。实践中,税务复议机关只能参照税务行政处罚听证制度来具体实施复议听证,存在一定弊端。完善税务行政复议听证制度,必须在完善立法、重新考量复议听证的适用范围、提升复议听证的法律效力、健全复议听证制度、细化听证环节重要内容、简化复议听证会流程等6个方面做好工作。     

关于《国家税务总局关于发布〈税务检查 证管理办法〉的公告》的解读

近日,国家税务总局发布了《税务检查证管理办法》(以下简称《办法》).现解读如下: 一、《办法》的出台背景 根据国税地税征管体制改革工作部署,为确保税务机构合并后税务检查工作顺利开展,进一步规范税务检查,统一税务检查证件管理,税务总局制发了《办法》.     

税务登记管理办法执行中问题的探讨

由于各级税务机关对《税务登记管理办法》(总局令[2003]第007号,以下简称《办法》)中的部分条款的理解不一,造成了执行上的困难。本文旨就税收征管信息化实践中执行《办法》存在的一些问题做一探讨。①关于税务登记范围基于税务登记作为税务管理工作的基础与核心,所有纳税人都必须接受税务登记管理的传统认识,在目前运行的税务管理信息系统中,相当一部分是以所辖纳税人税务登记为基础和前提。然而《办法》却从纳税人税收法律责任出发,明确规定政府机关、个人、企业在本地的分支机构和生产经营场所、以及无固定生产、经营场所的流动性农村小…     

跨行查询收费:替银行说几句话

银行卡跨行查询收费一经推出即遭到铺天盖地的反对,有的消费者甚至诉诸法庭。银行收取跨行查询费的行为究竟是出于对市场化原则的尊重还是蔑视?     

微笑传递快乐 激情奉献奥运

前言：在2008年北京奥运会上,奥运志愿者成为了一道亮丽的风景线,他们用自己最美的微笑和热情的服务给世界留下了深刻的印象。在这个充满青春朝气的群体中,也活跃着财政青年的身影,他们以40天辛勤付出和无私奉献,圆满完成使命,为北京奥运的成功举办贡献了力量,也留下人生中美好的回忆。现刊载中评协奥运志愿者——李念辰和崔新园的文章,将他们辛苦工作的经历再现,让他们的欢乐与广大读者共享。     

Managing for efficiency, managing for equity

It is a truism that not all managers do the same things in the same ways. Less often recognized, however, is the fact that the essential tasks and goals of management are not everywhere the same. Indeed, so unlike each other are the two primary systems of management--the "technocratic" and the "political"--that they consistently vary in the implicit contract offered to participants, the career path of members, the use of organizational structure, the choice of purpose, and the allocation of resources, but also provides a conceptual framework for understanding why they happen and what can be done to prevent their happening in the future.     

寿险产品评价体系研究

中国保险市场的发展,迫切需要建立保险评价体系.保险产品的评价体系是保险评价的核心,其主要目标是以保险产品相对透明为目的进行的.在所有的保险产品中,人身保险产品与社会大众关系最为密切,人身保险在保险业的保费收入中也占有决定性地位.所以,当务之急是首先建立人身保险产品的评价体系.寿险保单的保障程度、投资价值以及附带的服务水平是寿险产品的核心问题,应当成为寿险产品评价的主要内容.本文重点从寿险产品保障程度进行评价研究.     

Trust for accounting and accounting for trust

This paper combines insights from the sociology of knowledge and the emerging practice-based literature on learning and knowing to extend the institutional framework of accounting change developed by Burns and Scapens [Burns, J., Scapens, R.W., 2000. Conceptualising management accounting change: an institutional framework. Manage. Acc. Res., 11, 3–25]. In particular, it explores how management accounting systems (MAS) can be implicated in processes of learning and culture change, and used to identify ‘trustworthy’ solutions in the face of organisational crises. A case study of an Italian company, which was subject to massive change following its acquisition by General Electric, is used to discuss how, when crises arise and organisation members find themselves under intense pressure for change, their rationales and routinised behaviour, which are driven by the existing knowledge and cultural assumptions, are challenged. The case illustrates how MAS can act as sources of trust for the processes of change – i.e., accounting for trust; while at the same time being socially constructed objects of trust – i.e., trust for accounting. Drawing on the concept of personal trust and the notion of roles as access points to organisational (expert) systems, the paper discusses how, in this case, finance experts facilitated the acceptance and progressive sharing of new rationales and routines. Clearly, this does not guarantee that change will occur or occur in some ‘desired’ direction in other cases, but it increases the possibility of replacing trust in the predictability of routines with feelings of trust for change.     

Accounting for decisions and decisions for accounting

Behavioral decision theory (BDT) is concerned with “accounting for decisions”. The development of this interdisciplinary field is traced from the appearance of several key publications in the 1950s to the present. Whereas the 1960s saw increasing theoretical and empirical work, the field really started to flourish in the 1970s with the appearance of the review by Slovic & Lichtenstein (Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, pp. 549–744, 1971), and key papers on probabilistic judgment (Tversky & Kahneman, Science, pp. 1124–1131, 1974), and choice (Kahneman & Tversky, Econometrica, pp. 263–291, 1979). From the early 1980s to the present, BDT has seen considerable consolidation and expansion and its influence now permeates many fields of enquiry. After this brief history, eight major ideas or findings are discussed. These are: (1) that judgment can be modeled; (2) bounded rationality; (3) to understand decision making, understanding the task is more important than understanding the people; (4) levels of aspiration/reference points; (5) use of heuristic rules; (6) the importance of adding; (7) search for confirmation; and (8) thought as construction. Next, comments are addressed to differences between BDT and problem solving/cognitive science. It is argued that whereas many substantive differences are artificial, two distinct communities of researchers do exist. This is followed by a discussion of some major shortcomings currently facing BDT that include questions about the robustness of findings as well as overconcern with a few specific, “paradoxial” results. On the other hand, there are many interesting issues that BDT could address and several specific suggestions are made. Moreover, these issues represent opportunities for accounting research and several are enumerated. Finally, BDT presents “decisions for accounting” in the sense that scarce resources need to be allocated to different types of research that could illuminate accounting issues. The argument is made that BDT is one research metaphor or paradigm that has proved useful in accounting and that should be supported. Such support, however, may mean that some researchers may work on issues that, at first blush, might seem distant from accounting per se.     

关于《以财务报告为目的的评估指南（试行）》的起草说明

为适应新兴评估市场领域的发展,规范注册资产评估师执行以财务报告为目的的评估业务,保证评估执业质量,维护社会公共利益和资产评估各方当事人合法权益,中评协在财政部有关司局的帮助和指导下,组织有关专家起草了《以财务报告为目的的评估指南（试行）》（以下简称《指南》）。为便于评估机构和注册资产评估师以及相关部门、人士全面理解《指南》,现将有关起草情况说明如下。