作者：钱叶六
作者介绍：华东师范大学法学院教授
出版日期：2026年10月9日
内容提要 虚开增值税专用发票罪是侵害国家增值税税款利益的经济诈骗类犯罪。本罪法益呈双重构造：国家增值税税款安全为实体性法益，增值税专用发票管理秩序为工具性法益。本罪属结果犯，其实行行为系利用虚开发票骗抵税款，并以国家税款因骗抵发生实际损失为既遂标准。本罪的参与人责任需个别判断，其中，“为他人虚开、介绍虚开”的共犯多以谋取开票费用为目的，对国家税款损失持放任心理。本罪与虚抵型逃税的区分关键在于是否基于真实交易垫付进项税款：无真实交易虚开或超额虚开并骗抵税款的，成立本罪；有真实交易且已垫付进项税款，仅虚假申报抵扣税款或拒不申报转出进项税额的，属虚抵型逃税。不以骗税为目的的虚开行为，即使存在支付开票费用的事实，也不宜定性为发票买卖类犯罪，可按虚开发票罪论处；目的行为构成其他犯罪的，从一重罪处罚。
关键词 虚开增值税专用发票罪 骗抵税款 结果犯 虚抵型逃税 虚开发票罪
Abstract: The crime of falsely issuing special VAT invoices is an economic fraud crime targeting state VAT revenue. The legal interest presents a two-tier structure: state VAT revenue security constitutes the substantive legal interest, while the regulatory order of special VAT invoices serves as the instrumental legal interest. As a consequential offence, the perpetrating act lies in using falsely issued invoices to defraud and offset state tax, with the offence consummated upon causing actual losses to state VAT revenue. The liability of participants in this crime must be determined individually; specifically, accomplices who falsely issue special VAT invoices for others or facilitate false invoicing transactions usually seek to obtain ‘invoicing fees’, while passively allowing the result of state tax losses to occur. The key to distinguishing ‘defrauding state taxes’ under this crime from ‘false offsetting’ in tax evasion lies in whether the actor has actually paid input tax based on genuine transactions. If there are no genuine transactions or the falsely issued amount exceeds genuine transactions, using falsely issued invoices to defraud and offset state tax constitutes this crime. In contrast, if genuine business operations exist and input tax has been paid, but the actor improperly claims a credit for non-deductible items or refuses to file a reversal declaration for input tax credit, such conduct constitutes tax evasion in the form of falsely offsetting input tax. For acts of falsely issuing invoices without the intent to defraud and offset state tax credits, even where the recipient pays ‘invoicing fees’ to the issuer, such acts shall not constitute the crime of illegally buying or selling invoices. Instead, they shall be deemed the crime of issuing false invoices. Moreover, if the intended act constitutes another crime, the actor shall be convicted and punished for the offence carrying a heavier statutory penalty.