本文選題：發(fā)票義務(wù)　切入點(diǎn)：從給付義務(wù)　出處：《河南財(cái)經(jīng)政法大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：發(fā)票在我們的日常生活和法律關(guān)系中發(fā)揮著不同的功能。發(fā)票義務(wù)在公法和私法中有著不同的法律屬性。在公法領(lǐng)域,稅法中,由于發(fā)票作為計(jì)算和繳納國家稅收的原始依據(jù)和稅務(wù)機(jī)關(guān)行使稅收管控職能的必要資料,主要表現(xiàn)在對(duì)個(gè)人所得稅、企業(yè)所得稅、特別是增值稅的稅收管理過程中,因此發(fā)票義務(wù)的履行是國家通過發(fā)票實(shí)現(xiàn)控稅目的重要前提和保障。在刑法中規(guī)定了一系列的以發(fā)票作為犯罪對(duì)象的罪名,構(gòu)成了完整的關(guān)于發(fā)票的刑法管理體系,如果行為人違反了有關(guān)發(fā)票義務(wù)就要承擔(dān)相應(yīng)的刑事責(zé)任,因此發(fā)票義務(wù)屬于刑法范圍。在訴訟過程中,由于發(fā)票由國家統(tǒng)一管理,其在訴訟過程中可以作為書證使用,并且具有較強(qiáng)的證明力,因此履行發(fā)票義務(wù)可以做好證據(jù)的保留,提高證據(jù)的證明力,在一定程度上也可以減少訴訟糾紛。發(fā)票義務(wù)具有強(qiáng)制性,當(dāng)事人不得約定發(fā)票義務(wù)的免除。從語境選擇上,發(fā)票義務(wù)兼具公法性質(zhì)和私法性質(zhì)。在私法中,發(fā)票義務(wù)在商事交易中是商事主體完成會(huì)計(jì)核算任務(wù)的重要前提之一。在合同法中,發(fā)票義務(wù)在不同的合同種類中有不同的地位。發(fā)票義務(wù)是一種從給付義務(wù)。理清發(fā)票義務(wù)的法律屬性有助于我們解決一些關(guān)于發(fā)票義務(wù)的合同糾紛。發(fā)票義務(wù)的違約形態(tài)主要包括不開具或者不給付發(fā)票,開具發(fā)票與交易內(nèi)容不同和虛開發(fā)票三種形式。發(fā)票在合同的履行過程中具有證明作用,其上面記載的價(jià)格可以作為交易價(jià)格的依據(jù),并且在一定情況下發(fā)票可以作為合同履行的依據(jù)。當(dāng)因?yàn)榘l(fā)票使得合同的最終目的無法達(dá)成時(shí),即使發(fā)票義務(wù)是一種從給付義務(wù),合同當(dāng)事人仍可以將其作為抗辯事由行使抗辯權(quán)。但是如果發(fā)票義務(wù)對(duì)于合同的目的達(dá)成并沒有太大的影響,那么合同當(dāng)事人就不得以此行使抗辯權(quán)。如果因?yàn)楹贤械囊环疆?dāng)事人因未開具并給付發(fā)票給另一方當(dāng)事人帶來損失的,那么負(fù)有發(fā)票義務(wù)的一方應(yīng)當(dāng)承擔(dān)相應(yīng)的賠償責(zé)任。
[Abstract]:Invoices play different roles in our daily life and legal relations. Invoice obligations have different legal attributes in public and private law. As invoices are the original basis for calculating and paying state taxes and the necessary information for tax authorities to exercise tax control functions, they are mainly manifested in the tax administration process of individual income tax, enterprise income tax, and especially value-added tax. Therefore, the fulfillment of invoice obligation is an important prerequisite and guarantee for the state to realize tax control through invoices. A series of charges of taking invoices as the object of crime are stipulated in the criminal law, which constitute a complete criminal law management system on invoices. If the perpetrator violates the relevant invoice obligation, he should bear the corresponding criminal responsibility, so the invoice obligation belongs to the scope of criminal law. In the litigation process, because the invoice is under the unified management of the state, it can be used as documentary evidence in the process of litigation. And has the strong proof, therefore the fulfillment invoice obligation may make the evidence the reservation, enhances the evidence proof, also may reduce the lawsuit dispute to a certain extent. The invoice obligation has the compulsion, The parties may not agree on the exemption of invoice obligations. In the context of choice, invoice obligations have both the nature of public law and the nature of private law. Invoice obligation is one of the important prerequisites for the commercial subject to complete the task of accounting in commercial transactions. Invoice obligation has different status in different kinds of contract. Invoice obligation is a kind of obligation to pay from payment. Clarifying the legal attribute of invoice obligation helps us to resolve some contract disputes about invoice obligation. The form of breach of contract mainly includes not issuing or paying invoices, The invoicing is different from the content of the transaction and false invoicing. The invoice plays a role in proving the performance of the contract, and the price recorded above can be used as the basis for the transaction price, And under certain circumstances the invoice can be used as the basis for the performance of the contract. When the final purpose of the contract cannot be achieved because of the invoice, even if the invoice obligation is an obligation of slave payment, The parties to the contract may still exercise the right of defense as a matter of defense. However, if the invoice obligation does not have much effect on the achievement of the purpose of the contract, Then the parties to the contract shall not exercise the right of defense in this way. If one party in the contract fails to issue and pay the invoice to the other party, then the party that bears the invoice obligation shall bear the corresponding liability for compensation.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：河南財(cái)經(jīng)政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D923.6

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 樊興;景剛;;論影響會(huì)計(jì)核算方法選擇的因素[J];中國管理信息化;2016年07期

2 李溪洪;林懿嫻;;未開具增值稅專用發(fā)票的法律后果[J];人民司法;2015年20期

3 林小路;;發(fā)票爭(zhēng)議在仲裁中的若干法律問題探討[J];北京仲裁;2014年03期

4 孫立平;吳秀堯;;幾種新型虛開增值稅專用發(fā)票行為的法律探討[J];稅務(wù)研究;2014年09期

5 都星羽;王富博;原爽;;違反從給付義務(wù)不當(dāng)然導(dǎo)致對(duì)方行使抗辯權(quán)[J];人民司法;2014年16期

6 余丹;;“特權(quán)”超權(quán)力的本質(zhì)及其憲政制約——基于發(fā)票稅控功能制度性失控的思考[J];財(cái)經(jīng)問題研究;2013年04期

7 余丹;;我國發(fā)票稅控的“替罪羊”功能及其形成機(jī)理[J];現(xiàn)代經(jīng)濟(jì)探討;2012年12期

8 顏峰;趙海勇;;發(fā)票對(duì)合同主要事實(shí)的證明力探析[J];法律適用;2012年10期

9 樂科;;未開或拒交發(fā)票能否成為履行合同主義務(wù)的抗辯理由[J];法制與社會(huì);2012年10期

10 余丹;;論發(fā)票功能的異化[J];現(xiàn)代財(cái)經(jīng)(天津財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào));2011年12期

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前1條

1 汪洋;;貨代發(fā)票在貨運(yùn)代理合同中的證明力問題[N];國際商報(bào);2007年

，

本文編號(hào)：1573265