新司法解释下虚开增值税专用发票罪的认定

The Determination of the Crime of Falsely Issuing Value-Added Tax Special Invoices under the New Judicial Interpretation

摘要: 本文以危害税收征管类犯罪《2024解释》为切入点，系统探讨虚开增值税专用发票罪的司法认定与理论争议。通过梳理该罪的立法演进脉络与司法解释变迁，揭示其从“形式行为犯”向“实质法益侵害犯”的范式转换。《2024解释》通过重构行为类型、入罪标准与量刑梯度，确立了“国家税款安全”与“增值税抵扣机制”的双层法益保护模型，有效平衡了税收秩序维护与市场自由保障的价值冲突。本文提出“双层法益理论”，主张虚开行为的刑事违法性应同时满足形式要件(破坏发票管理制度)与实质要件(威胁国家税款安全)，并通过递进式司法审查机制实现行政违法与刑事犯罪的梯次衔接。实证分析表明，《2024解释》通过类型化出罪路径与实质危害审查标准，回应了司法实践中长期存在的争议，但其在主观故意证明、关联犯罪竞合等方面仍需进一步细化规则。本文建议未来通过完善税收大数据协同机制、强化企业刑事合规激励，推动税收刑事治理从“管控型”向“精准型”升级。

Abstract: This article takes the “2024 Judicial Interpretation” on crimes endangering tax collection and administration as the entry point to systematically explore the judicial determination and theoretical disputes of the crime of issuing false value-added tax special invoices. By analyzing the legislative evolution and judicial interpretations of this crime, the study reveals a paradigm shift from a “formal act-based offense” to a “substantive legal interest infringement”. The “2024 Judicial Interpretation” reconstructs behavioral typologies, thresholds for criminalization, and sentencing gradients, establishing a dual-level legal interest protection model that safeguards both “national tax security” and the “VAT deduction mechanism,” thereby balancing the maintenance of tax order and market freedom. This paper proposes a “dual-level legal interest theory,” arguing that the criminal illegality of false issuance must satisfy both formal requirements (disrupting invoice management systems) and substantive requirements (threatening national tax revenue). A progressive judicial review mechanism is suggested to distinguish administrative violations from criminal offenses. Empirical analysis shows that the “2024 Judicial Interpretation” addresses long-standing judicial controversies through typified exoneration paths and substantive harm standards. However, further refinements are needed in proving subjective intent and handling overlapping crimes. The paper recommends enhancing tax big data collaboration and corporate compliance incentives to advance tax criminal governance from a “control-oriented” to a “precision-oriented” model.