检索规则说明:AND代表“并且”;OR代表“或者”;NOT代表“不包含”;(注意必须大写,运算符两边需空一格)
检 索 范 例 :范例一: (K=图书馆学 OR K=情报学) AND A=范并思 范例二:J=计算机应用与软件 AND (U=C++ OR U=Basic) NOT M=Visual
作 者:李涛[1]
机构地区:[1]烟台大学,山东烟台264005
出 处:《山西财政税务专科学校学报》2009年第4期23-31,共9页Journal of Shanxi Finance & Taxation College
摘 要:刑法第201条关于偷税罪的规定,存在数额绝对化的缺陷,也有"数额+比例"模式因把比例纳入其中带来的处罚漏洞等问题。刑法修正案(七)虽然解决了数额绝对化的问题,但由于仍然将比例纳入犯罪成立标准中,导致了缺乏理论依据、存在处罚漏洞和处罚结果的不合理等问题。所以,应当把偷税数额占应纳税额的比例从偷税罪的成立条件及量刑标准中删除,而在偷税罪中采用单一的相对化数额标准。There is the deficency of absolute quantity in stipulation of tax evsion of Article 201 of the Penal Code, as well as problems such as punishment loopholes brought by the "quantity plus proportion" mode which takes the proportion into accout. Although the Seventh Amendment revolves the first problem, yet the existence of proportion in crime elments results in other problems, namely shortage of theoretical basis, punishment loophools and the irrationality of punishment results. Thus, the proportion of tax evasion quantity to the tax quantity that should be paid must be deleted from the requirment of crimes and penalty measurement standards, and a single standard of relative quantity is recommended.
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在链接到云南高校图书馆文献保障联盟下载...
云南高校图书馆联盟文献共享服务平台 版权所有©
您的IP:216.73.216.90