Tax disputes in China include two main categories: one is VAT invoice-related cases and the other is tax cases. Cases involving VAT invoices are mainly in the category of false VAT invoice, and cases involving taxes are mainly in the category of underpayment of taxes.

Usually, tax authorities find tax cases through daily tax collection and management and tax inspection. Where an audit or investigation reveals tax non-compliance, the tax authority will issue relevant documents to recover the tax, and even impose administrative penalties. If the taxpayer is not satisfied with the decision or punishment, there will be a tax dispute.

In 2025, China’s tax compliance landscape witnessed a marked escalation. According to the “Tax Case Alerts” column on the website of the State Taxation Administration (STA), a total of 560 typical tax-related violation cases were categorised and disclosed nationwide in 2025, including 91 cases centrally disclosed by the STA and 469 cases disclosed by local tax authorities. Taxpayers are now routinely compelled to engage in rectification processes to address identified fiscal irregularities, a trend closely linked to the intensified industry-wide compliance sweeps by tax authorities across high-risk sectors, including cross-border e-commerce and renewable energy projects. This has triggered a surge in complex tax disputes, which increasingly require resolution through administrative reconsideration or litigation under Article 88 of the Tax Collection and Administration Law.

On 1 January 2026, the VAT Law of the People’s Republic of China and its Implementing Regulations (State Council Order No 826) officially came into force, replacing the Interim Regulations on Value Added Tax that had been in effect for nearly 30 years. This landmark legislation has refined the core rules governing:

• VAT liability;
• input tax deduction;
• deemed sales;
• sales allowances and rebates; and
• VAT refund retention.

It has become a key source of new tax disputes in 2025 and 2026 as taxpayers and tax authorities adapt to the new legislative framework.

In the process of tax inspection, taxpayers and tax authorities have different understandings on the application of tax policies or incentives, which will often lead to tax disputes, especially for value added tax, enterprise income tax and individual income tax.

China’s tax authorities are constantly strengthening tax supervision. Compared with the past, “smart tax” (ie, using AI) systems such as the fourth phase of the Golden Tax (including a comprehensive digital electronic invoice system) can carry out comprehensive data management for enterprises and individual taxpayers. Tax authorities monitor taxpayers’ tax risks in a timely manner through intelligent analysis of Big Data. These risks might once have been considered unproblematic. This also leads to frequent tax disputes.

However, it should be noted that, in current practice, certain specific settings within the tax administration system are not fully aligned with tax policies and regulations, leading to obstacles in tax enforcement and giving rise to new disputes.

On the one hand, taxpayers should standardise the fiscal and tax system to avoid tax disputes from the source. On the other hand, for matters that are likely to cause tax disputes, they should consult a tax professional in a timely manner and seek outside assistance.

At present, tax avoidance disputes only constitute a very small proportion of China’s tax disputes. Tax evasion (mainly income tax) and invoice violation (mainly value added tax) are the focus of attention of China’s tax authorities, and are the main types of disputes.

After a tax dispute occurs, the taxpayer must first pay taxes or provide a guarantee before applying for administrative reconsideration. Only if the taxpayer is dissatisfied with the administrative review decision can an administrative lawsuit be filed.

Taxpayers who deliberately violate tax regulations and avoid paying taxes through deception, concealment, etc, may be deemed as tax evaders by the tax authorities. The tax authorities will recover taxes, late payment fees, and may also impose fines for tax evasion. If tax evaders fail to pay back taxes and late fees after the tax authorities issue a recovery notice in accordance with the law, they may be held criminally responsible.

When tax authorities select audit targets, they usually randomly select from the list of abnormal taxpayers. Taxpayers on the list usually have high risks, tax violations, abnormal tax returns or low credit tax ratings.

Conventional methods such as “double random and open” are the main sources of tax inspection cases.

Tax whistle-blowing is one of the key triggers for tax audits, especially for well-known enterprises and individuals.

The inspection bureau shall, within 90 days from the date of filing the case, make a decision on administrative handling, punishment or conclude that there have been no tax violations. If the case is complicated, an extension of up to 90 days may be approved by the Commissioner of the Tax Bureau. Special circumstances or force majeure requiring further extension shall be subject to the approval of the deputy director in charge of the tax bureau at the next higher level, who will determine a reasonable extension period. In some cases, the calculation period may be suspended during the tax audit if higher authorities are consulted or if information is requested from competent authorities, taxpayers or withholding agents.

Generally, tax audits are conducted at the taxpayer’s premises and the documents reviewed include printed documents and electronic data. The tax authorities will also collect the taxpayer’s materials and check them again after returning to their offices.

Tax inspection departments at the provincial and municipal levels are responsible for conducting inspections of local cases. Additionally, the Inspection Bureau of the State Taxation Administration and its special commissioner offices may designate specific regions for handling certain inspection cases. The procedure for tax inspection cases consists of four main steps:

• case selection;
• inspection;
• hearing; and
• enforcement.

If a major case is involved, a hearing procedure for major cases will be added during the hearing stage.

The key industries targeted for tax inspection and compliance oversight by the STA in 2025 and 2026 include:

• waste material recycling;
• bulk commodity trading;
• online freight transportation;
• live streaming;
• cross-border e-commerce;
• renewable energy;
• medical aesthetics;
• private equity funds; and
• high net worth individuals’ personal income tax compliance.

The core focus of tax inspections remains the compliance of VAT invoices and the accuracy of tax declaration and payment.

In 2025, cross-border information exchange under the Common Reporting Standard (CRS) has become a core channel for China’s tax authorities to obtain overseas tax-related information of individual taxpayers. Tax authorities have acquired a large amount of overseas account information of domestic taxpayers through this channel, and accordingly notified relevant taxpayers across all provinces and cities in China to complete tax declarations for their overseas income. This regulatory measure has a nationwide coverage and involves a huge number of taxpayers.

At the same time, the cross-border information sharing mechanism of tax authorities relying on CRS is still being continuously deepened, and it is expected that more detailed and comprehensive information on taxpayers’ cross-border transactions and overseas assets will be obtained in the follow-up. Against this backdrop, China’s tax rule system for overseas income of natural persons and enterprises will be further refined and improved, and the tax collection and administration standards in related fields will be continuously tightened with ever-increasing enforcement efforts. Tax audits will also gradually enhance the depth and accuracy of verification around the declaration of overseas income and tax-related matters of overseas assets.

First of all, taxpayers must actively co-operate with tax audits and conscientiously conduct self-examination and risk assessment and rectification. Then taxpayers must communicate effectively with the auditors, paying attention to the collection and back-up of relevant evidence such as audit materials and work procedures, and seek professional assistance from tax specialists when necessary.

Where a dispute arises between a taxpayer and a tax authority over payment of tax, the taxpayer must first apply for administrative reconsideration. If the reconsideration decision is not satisfactory, administrative proceedings may be instituted. The taxpayer shall, within 60 days after paying the tax or providing a guarantee, file a reconsideration application with the tax authority at the next higher level.

Under normal circumstances, the administrative reconsideration authority shall make an administrative reconsideration decision within 60 days from the date of accepting the application. Under special circumstances, an extension may be appropriate, but the extension period shall not exceed 30 days.

If the reconsideration authority fails to make a decision within the time limit, the applicant may bring a suit in a people’s court within 15 days from the reconsideration period expiry date.

For a tax payment dispute, the taxpayer needs to apply for administrative reconsideration after paying the tax before filing an administrative lawsuit. A taxpayer who refuses to accept the decision of administrative reconsideration may bring an administrative suit.

For other tax disputes, taxpayers can either file a lawsuit directly to the court or conduct an administrative reconsideration before filing a lawsuit.

The litigation procedure includes four main stages:

•       prosecution;

•       acceptance;

•       trial; and

•       judgment.

In tax-related administrative litigation in China, evidence must be authentic, legal, relevant and sufficient to prove the facts of the case. Evidence obtained through illegal means is excluded and cannot be used as the basis for determining the legality of the administrative act. The court conducts a comprehensive review of the relevance, legality and authenticity of all evidence submitted by both parties.

In criminal proceedings, the prosecutor bears the burden of proof to prove the defendant’s guilt. In administrative proceedings, the tax authority bears the burden of proof for the specific administrative act. In tax-related civil litigation between taxpayers, whoever makes the claim produces the evidence to support their case.

The options to be considered are as follows.

• For tax disputes, China’s tax authorities generally issue two types of instruments: processing decisions and penalty decisions. For processing instruments, taxes must be paid and administrative reconsideration must be conducted before litigation can be initiated. For penalty instruments, litigation can be filed directly. Generally speaking, paying tax is a must.
• Do not provide too much evidence unless that evidence is very convincing.
• Understand the disputed issues and prepare a defence to the disputed issues in advance.
• Prepare possible solutions in advance, which can be used as reference documents to be submitted to the court.
• Provide expert opinion when necessary, which is usually very helpful to convince the judge.

First, China is a country of statutory law, not case law. When it comes to international tax issues, similar precedents, principles and international norms from abroad will be studied in depth, but usually not be used as a basis for final decisions. Meanwhile, in order to ensure the uniformity of the judgment, the Supreme People’s Court also publishes relevant domestic reference cases and guidance cases.

In 2024, the Supreme People’s Court and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate jointly promulgated the Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Handling Criminal Cases of Endangering Tax Collection and Administration (Fa Shi [2024] No 4), which further clarified the criteria for determining the crime of false issuance of special VAT invoices. The introduction of this new judicial interpretation has sparked intense debate within judicial circles in practice regarding the application of these criteria.

In July 2023, the Supreme People’s Court deployed the work of unified case management and the construction of a people’s court case repository, which was officially launched and opened to the public on 27 February 2024. The Work Report of the Supreme People’s Court released in March 2024 explicitly required judges to refer to this case repository in handling all cases. In the tax-related field, a total of 15 tax-related criminal cases have been published in the repository, which has further refined and clarified the conviction rules for the crime of false issuance of special VAT invoices. These cases have also influenced the tax authorities’ handling of inspection cases.

In China, courts adopt a two-instance system for hearing cases. If the judgment or order of first instance is not accepted, the time limit for appeal shall be 15 days and 10 days respectively, counted from the second day after receiving the written judgment or order.

The appeal procedure includes three main stages:

• the appeal;
• the appeal hearing; and
• the appeal decision.

The appeal case is decided by the court of second instance. The court must form a collegial panel to try the case, and the collegial panel shall be composed of judges or judges and jurors. The collegial panel shall consist of an odd number of three or more persons.

A seven-member collegial panel composed of people’s assessors and judges will hear the following types of cases:

• public interest litigation;
• those involving land acquisition and demolition;
• ecological environmental protection;
• food and drug safety; and
• those with significant social impact.

Administrative reconsideration authorities may conduct mediation in handling administrative reconsideration cases. Mediation shall follow the principle of legality and voluntariness, shall not harm the interests of the state, the public interest and the legitimate rights and interests of others, and shall not violate the mandatory provisions of laws and regulations.

Tax administrative mediation shall be sponsored by the reconsideration authority. Tax administrative mediation emphasises substantive justice and is not strictly procedural. The location, method and procedures of tax administrative mediation do not need to follow a fixed pattern, and the parties have the freedom to choose.

Through the administrative mediation process, the parties may reach an agreement involving a reduction in the ultimate tax assessment, interest or penalty payable.

Advance tax rulings (ATR) allow enterprises to apply in seeking clarity in relation to specific complex tax-related matters expected to occur in the future, and how to apply tax laws and regulations; and tax departments provide policy application opinions in writing based on current tax laws and regulations, fostering the principle of mutual trust between tax enterprises. This practice can prevent tax disputes for specific tax activities, particularly in areas such as tax treatment in mergers and acquisitions, where its role in reducing disputes is very evident.

If the parties reach an agreement through mediation, the administrative reconsideration authority shall prepare a mediation statement for administrative reconsideration, which shall be legally effective after being signed or sealed by the parties and affixed with the authority’s seal. If the mediation agreement is not fulfilled, the administrative reconsideration authority may enforce it according to law or apply to the people’s court for compulsory execution.

Disputes related to transfer pricing are often mutually recognised through multiple rounds of negotiations before administrative reconsideration.

Tax evasion cases generally do not directly trigger criminal cases. As long as taxpayers pay taxes and late fees on time, they will not be involved in criminal liability. VAT invoice cases are more complex and may involve both administrative and criminal liability.

Anti-tax avoidance cases generally do not involve criminal liability.

For tax evasion, the tax authorities will verify the tax amount in advance. Taxpayers who pay back taxes and late fees will not be held criminally responsible. Parties suspected of falsely invoicing VAT may be directly held criminally responsible, regardless of whether they have paid back the tax.

Tax authorities generally do not initiate administrative or criminal proceedings independently. Administrative authorities that suspect parties of crimes will transfer the relevant information to public security bodies, and eventually this may evolve into a criminal case. Criminal liability often arises in VAT invoice cases.

Administrative Case Procedures

In administrative case procedures, the tax authorities inspect and review taxpayers and finally make a decision.

Criminal Case Procedures

In tax evasion cases, taxpayers who have not paid their taxes will be referred to the authorities for criminal prosecution. For VAT invoice cases, regardless of whether the tax is paid back, the case may be transferred to the authorities for criminal liability.

Types of Court

Both basic courts and intermediate courts may hear criminal cases. Different courts hear tax administrative infringement processes and tax criminal cases: criminal cases by the criminal court, administrative cases by the administrative court (some courts in parts of China such as Shanghai and Xiamen have special tax courts). However, the tax court only hears tax-related administrative cases, not civil and criminal cases.

In cases where the circumstances are relatively minor, the timely payment of back taxes and compensation for losses may lead to a mitigation or reduction in the multiple of the fine.

For tax evasion offences, where a taxpayer pays the outstanding tax payable and late payment fees, and accepts the administrative penalty imposed by the tax authority in accordance with the statutory recovery notice, no criminal liability shall be pursued, except where the taxpayer has received criminal punishment for tax evasion within the preceding five years, or has been subject to two or more administrative penalties for tax evasion by the tax authority.

The parties may lodge an appeal with the people’s court at the next higher level over the first instance people’s court.

If the company’s transactions are suspicious and there are suspicions of underpayment of taxes, it may be subject to a tax audit, which may lead to administrative cases.

The bilateral tax agreement presupposes a mutual agreement procedure (MAP) mechanism between the tax authorities of both contracting countries, which can help taxpayers solve the problem of double taxation. In the Multilateral Convention on the Implementation of Tax Treaty-Related Measures to Prevent Base Erosion and Profit Shifting, the MAP mechanism is supplemented with compulsory arbitration procedures and becomes a dispute resolution mechanism that members of the Convention can choose to apply.

Due to the limitations of the special anti-tax avoidance provisions of tax treaties and the domestic general anti-tax avoidance provisions, the international community is unable to face increasingly frequent and complex treaty abuses. The national tax base is eroded, and the implementation effect of domestic administrative management will be further affected. Therefore, PPT clauses (principal purpose test) will definitely appear in the development trend of future tax treaties.

Challenges to transfer pricing are carried out by the tax authorities themselves. China has clear rules on transfer pricing investigations, adjustments and bilateral consultation mechanisms, which are usually done by the international tax department of the tax authorities.

In China, unilateral or bilateral advance pricing agreements (APAs) are a common mechanism to avoid or mitigate litigation on transfer pricing matters. China produces an APAs annual report to disclose relevant information.

Cross-border situations such as WHT (withholding taxes), PE (permanent establishment) or transfer pricing rarely generate tax litigation in China. According to experience, previous cases concerning indirect transfers of equity interests in PRC companies by non-resident enterprises have involved tax litigation, and such cases are actually regarded as general anti-avoidance disputes in China.

No information has been provided in this jurisdiction.

No details have been provided in this jurisdiction.

This is not applicable in this jurisdiction.

This is not relevant in China.

China has not adopted arbitration clauses in the relevant treaties. Regarding the issue of avoiding double taxation, China only provides for mutual agreement procedures.

No information has been provided on this topic for China.

No information has been provided in this jurisdiction.

This is not applicable in China.

No details have been provided in this jurisdiction.

No information has been provided concerning this topic in China.

This is not relevant in the Chinese jurisdiction.

This is not relevant in China.

No independent professionals are being hired by taxpayers or by the state in China.

There is no fee required for administrative review. The litigation fee for administrative litigation is RMB50 per case.

The litigation fee is generally paid in advance by the plaintiff and finally borne by the losing party.

If tax authorities use or destroy seized property or illegally implement inspection or enforcement measures, causing losses to taxpayers, taxpayers have the right to demand compensation in accordance with the law.

No information has been provided concerning court fees if a taxpayer opts to use ADR mechanisms in China.

According to the 2024 Report on the Construction of a Law-Based Government, in 2024, tax authorities across the country received a total of 5,243 applications for administrative reconsideration and saw 1,739 new first-instance response cases. As of publication of this chapter of the guide (14 May 2026), the relevant data for 2025 has not yet been released.

No relevant statistics have been released.

According to published verdicts, the vast majority of winners were tax authorities, but the total number has not been publicly tallied.

To resolve tax disputes, one should return to the nature of transactions and the logic of tax laws.

• Fully understand and grasp the facts and evidence involved in tax disputes, and understand whether it is a tax dispute or invoice dispute, which are the two core categories of tax disputes in China.
• Pay full attention to the basis of tax authorities’ tax opinions, and understand the source of the basis – legal or normative documents.
• Where criminal liability may be involved, priority should be given to how to avoid entering the criminal stage.
• Do not waste any relief procedures, daily risk response, statements, hearings, reconsideration, litigation, etc.
• For specific professional opinions, be sure to communicate with the tax authorities in writing. If the facts are clear, try to pay taxes in advance, which is conducive to reducing late fees and reducing the potential or extent of penalties.