On July 31, 2026, the Ministry of Finance, the State Taxation Administration, the National Development and Reform Commission, and the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology jointly issued Announcement No. 23 of 2026, the "Announcement on Corporate Income Tax Policy for Non-Monetary Asset Exchanges by Integrated Circuit Enterprises and Industrial Mother Machine Enterprises." Under the Announcement, enterprises may, for income from qualifying non-monetary asset exchanges, include that income evenly in taxable income in installments over a period of no more than five years and thereby defer the payment of corporate income tax. The Announcement applies retroactively from January 1, 2026, and remains effective through December 31, 2028. The integrated circuit and industrial mother machine industries are the most barter-intensive segments of the industrial chain. When equipment on a production line no longer matches, a company swaps it with a peer; when a process patent sits idle, it trades the patent for a set of testing equipment. Neither party to such a transaction usually receives any cash, yet it must first pay a sum of corporate income tax on the income it has recognized. This policy was introduced precisely to resolve the cash-flow mismatch of "income recognized on the books while no cash sits in the accounts." This article offers a general overview of the policy's benefits, eligibility thresholds, applicability, and risks.
15 August 2026is no ordinary day. The Environmental Code of the People’s Republic of Chinacame into force on 15 August 2026. From the oily-water separator on board and the entries in your statutory record books to shore-power use in port and the waste contractors you appoint, each decision may now determine whether the vessel keeps trading or is penalised and taken out of service. Do not use ‘industry practice’ as a shield. Malpractices that could be overlooked in the past may now be scrutinized retrospectively, with exposure to liability, fines, loss of limitation and even criminal referral. Drawing on the Code’s new provisions, we explain the six red lines shipping companies should be most concerned about, the three principal categories of legal exposure and a seven-day implementation plan. Shipowners, operators, masters and terminal managers should review the checklist together, item by item.
For any enterprise that wants to develop and utilize its data, the first question it cannot sidestep is this: Have we done our classified protection? And up to what level have we taken it? In practice, though, many enterprises find themselves stuck on the same doubts: How far does classified protection actually have to go before it counts as "good enough"? Once we pass the assessment, is everything smooth sailing from there? And what exactly is the relationship between classified protection and the Data Security Law? This article sets out to answer these questions from a practical, hands-on perspective.
In the freight forwarding business, forwarding companies often run into this predicament: they put in the work, complete the carriage, and advance the costs — and then, when they go to recover the money, they discover they have sued the wrong party. Sue the individual, and the court finds the act was performed in the course of employment (职务行为), so the individual bears no liability. Sue the company, and because apparent agency is not established, the company bears no liability either. In the end, not only is the money not recovered — the litigation costs are wasted for nothing. Through two real cases in which freight forwarding companies lost, this article offers an in-depth analysis of the judicial reasoning behind identifying the correct legal entity, and gives companies a practical, workable guide to preventing risk.
In March 2025, a foreign vessel and a Chinese vessel collided in Guangzhou waters. The foreign shipowner responded with a claim of nearly RMB 20 million and sought to arrest the Chinese vessel. Guosong lawyers Wang Yubao and Xu Xiaoxiang were brought in at a critical moment. Their approach combined legal strategy with real seafaring judgment: challenge the liability narrative, then put every line of the loss schedule to the test. The result was a major shift. The claim was brought down from almost RMB 20 million to RMB 11 million. The case is still pending, but the interim result has already changed the litigation posture and shows what specialist maritime counsel can do when technical facts and legal advocacy are handled together. This is how the team found the pressure points.
The open government information system is an important institutional arrangement for safeguarding citizens' right to know and advancing the building of a law-based government. It both consolidates the foundations of public trust in government and broadens the channels through which the public takes part in governance. Yet the exercise of any right has its boundaries, and the protection of the right to know is by no means without limit. For this very reason, the law must seek a delicate balance between disclosure and protection, drawing reasonable and necessary boundaries around the right to know. It is against this background that the author offers a brief analysis of those questions through the case of Yao Mouhong—a dispute over the reply to an application for government information disclosure.
In the digital economy era, data has become a core corporate asset—and the risks of data-related crime that come with it are growing increasingly acute. China's Criminal Law applies a "dual-punishment system" to corporate crime, punishing both the corporate entity and the individuals directly responsible. In the field of data-related crime, this doctrine means that companies, their decision-makers, and those who carry out those decisions all face criminal exposure. This article examines in depth the criteria for establishing the liability of corporate actors in data-related crime under the dual-punishment regime, the allocation of liability among the parties, and practical compliance strategies—offering companies a roadmap for preventing criminal risk.
In the day-to-day operations of a business, many individual shareholders or actual controllers are in the habit of conflating personal and family expenses with corporate operating costs. Taking the view that "the company is mine, and so is the company's money," they charge all manner of personal consumption, asset purchases, and household expenditures to the company's books. Yet as the digital transformation of tax administration advances, tax authorities are monitoring "public-to-private" transactions with growing precision. Such practices may appear to reduce corporate income tax liability, but in reality they trigger withholding and remittance obligations for individual income tax—and may even expose the company to a compound risk of back taxes, late-payment surcharges, and fines.