作者：田宏杰
作者介绍：中国人民大学法学院教授、刑事法律科学研究中心研究员
出版日期：2023年8月9日
内容提要 立足于“前置法定性与刑事法定量相统一”的规范关系和体系教义，以“抵退计征机制”作为《刑法》第205条的保护法益，既能矫正“行为犯说”的刑法过度规制倾向，又能克服“目的犯说”和“抽象危险犯说”的国库主义教义误区。由于抵退计征机制以纳税人的抵退权为实体核心，以纳税人的凭证协力义务为程序限制，因而虚开增值税专用发票罪的成立，客观上不仅要求有抵退凭证的虚开，更必须以抵退权的虚构作为虚开行为认定的关键；主观上则要求行为人具有破坏抵退计征机制的虚开故意。其中前者是实质虚开增值税专用发票与形式虚开增值税专用发票等虚开普通发票的分水岭；而后者则是“被动受票”与虚开增值税专用发票行为的界分标准。至于虚开增值税专用发票所涉及的共犯适用、罪数判断和数额计算，同样应基于虚开增值税专用发票罪的法益侵害本质进行体系化的实质认定。
关键词 虚开增值税专用发票 抵退计征机制 规范构造 行刑共治
Abstract: Based on the normative relations and the systematic doctrines of ‘unifying prepositioning laws which determine the essence and the criminal law which decides the degree’, establishing ‘the tax-levying institution of deduction and refund’ as the default legal interest protected by article 205 of the Criminal Law will not only correct the over-regulatory tendency aroused by ‘the argumentation of conduct’, but will also overcome the doctrinal misunderstandings of ‘the argumentation of the crime with the intent required’ and ‘the argumentation of the crime of abstract danger’ which underline the benefit of the treasury. For the reason that the tax-levying institution of deduction and refund keeps the taxpayer’s right to refund or deduct as the substantial core and the taxpayer’s cooperative obligations for vouchers as the procedural restriction, the constitution of the crime of falsely issuing exclusive value-added tax invoices objectively requires a behavior of falsely issuing vouchers for a tax deduction or refund and requires the fictitiousness of a right to deduct or refund as the key to determine a falsely issuing behavior; subjectively, it requires the perpetrator to possess an intent to violate the tax-levying institution of deduction and refund. The former factor stands for the dividing line between the behavior of substantially falsely issuing exclusive value-added invoices and an unlawful act of falsely issuing regular invoices including formally falsely issuing exclusive value-added invoices; while the latter provides the criterion of differentiating ‘passively accept invoices’ and falsely issuing. As to the application issues on joint crime, the determination of the crime quantities, and the calculation of the amount of crime that concerns the crime of falsely issuing exclusive value-added tax invoices, likewise, systematic substantial determinations based on the essence of the violated legal interest of the crime of falsely issuing exclusive value-added tax invoices shall be brought out.