逃税罪刑罚阻却事由规则的相关问题研究——基于J公司逃税案的思考  

On Applying the Rule of Penalty Obstruction in Tax Evasion Crime:A Case Study of J Company’s Tax Evasion

作　　者：王利娜 张豪[1,2] WANG Lina;ZHANG Hao

机构地区：[1]广东财经大学会计学院 [2]国家税务总局驻广州特派员办事处

出　　处：《税务研究》2022年第8期76-81,共6页

摘　　要：本文基于J公司逃税罪一案,对《刑法修正案(七)》关于逃税罪刑罚阻却事由规则在司法实践中的应用进行了深入分析。在逃税罪案件的处理过程中,只要具有刑罚阻却事由且没有但书情形,对当事人可以不予追究刑事责任。实践中运用刑罚阻却事由应关注“已受行政处罚”的理解以及关于五年期间的计算等问题。同时,在某些案件中还可能涉及“从旧兼从轻”原则的应用,如果新法相较于旧法对当事人更有利,只要人民法院尚未作出生效判决,就应当适用新法的规定,对符合刑罚阻却事由条件的当事人不予刑事处罚。适用刑罚阻却事由规则还涉及行政与司法衔接的问题,即必须先经过税务机关作出行政处理,否则,司法机关不得直接追究行为人的刑事责任。This paper takes the case of J Company’s tax evasion to conduct a thorough research on the application of the rule of penalty obstruction in juridical practices.In handling tax evasion cases,the penalty obstruction alone but without proviso will not result in criminal liability.Applying this rule in practices,attention should be paid to the comprehension of“having received administrative penalty”and the calculation of five-year duration.Meanwhile,some legal cases may involve the principle of“observing the old laws and lenient punishment”.If the new laws,compared with the old ones,are in favor of the concerned party,and the People’s Court is yet to provide an effective judgment,the new laws should be applied——giving no punishment to the concerned party who satisfies the rule of penalty obstruction.This rule is also related to the linkage of administrative and juridical departments.In other words,the taxation department shall first of all give administrative punishment before the concerned party is prosecuted by juridical department for criminal liability.

关 键 词：逃税罪 刑罚阻却事由 从旧兼从轻 税收征管 

分 类 号：D924.3[政治法律—刑法学] D920.5[政治法律—法学]