虚开增值税专用发票罪自设立以来，一直都是危害税收征管类犯罪中发案率最高、判决量最大的犯罪。但近年来，市场经济环境愈加宽松，国家政策逐渐向激活市场经济活力、稳定经济增长态势倾斜。相比本罪设立时的立法背景，当前的市场经济环境与商业模式早已发生翻天覆地的变化。在“金税四期”已经开始试点，税收监管机制愈发完善的当前，以实害犯说的角度重新解读本罪的性质，把造成国家税款损失这一实害结果作为本罪的构成要件之一，可将大量虽虚开但未造成实害结果的行为排除于本罪的规制范围，并恢复原本被虚置的虚开发票罪、非法出售、购买增值税专用发票罪等发票类犯罪的适用空间。同时，对于本罪实害结果的认定也应被合理限制，只有国家增值税税款的损失才是本罪所规制的范围，对于其他类型的利益损失，应当以相应的其他罪名进行规制。更进一步的，本罪的造成国家税款损失的方式为通过虚开增值税专用发票“偷逃”国家税款而非“骗取”国家税款。虚开增值税专用发票与国家税款损失之间的连接点在于有受票方基于该虚开的专票抵扣进项税额，而该抵扣行为，其实质是应缴增值税而通过非法抵扣不缴纳或少缴纳增值税，而非从国家手中骗取税款，其本质是通过积极的行为实现消极的不履行纳税义务的结果。在确定实害犯这一基本性质后，何种虚开行为可能构成虚开增值税专用发票罪亦是当前法律实务中的疑难点。是否构成虚开，不应以“有货”或“无货”、“高开”或“低开”为判定标准。即使在无货代开的情况下，亦有情形不会对国家税款造成损害，而在如实代开中，亦存在有损国家税款的可能。对于该实害结果的认定，应当牢牢把握住增值税“一抵一缴”这一特殊的征收形式，通过确认受票人抵税权利的来源和开票人缴税义务的履行这两个要点，判定各种形式下国家税款是否实际受损。

Since its establishment, the falsely issuing exclusive value-added tax invoices has always been the crime with the highest incidence rate and the largest number of convictions in the category of crimes against tax collection and management. However, in recent years, the market economic environment has become more liberal and national policies have gradually tilted towards activating the vitality of the market economy and stabilising the economic growth trend. Compared to the legislative background when this offence was established, the current economic environment and business model has undergone radical changes.At a time when the "Golden Tax Project IV" has been piloted and the taxation supervision mechanism has become more and more perfect, the nature of the crime is reinterpreted from the perspective of the actual harm theory, and the actual harm result of causing loss of state tax is one of the constitutive elements of the crime, which can exclude a large number of acts of falsely issuing but not causing actual harm from the scope of the crime. It also restores the scope of application of invoicing offences such as the offence of false invoicing and the offence of illegal sale and purchase of VAT invoices. At the same time, the determination of the actual harmful results of the offence of falsifying VAT invoices should also be reasonably limited, and only the loss of state VAT tax should be regulated by this offence, while the loss of other types of benefits should be regulated by other corresponding offences.Further, the offence should take the form of "evasion" of state tax through the falsification of VAT invoices rather than "fraud" of state tax. The link between the fraudulent invoicing of VAT and the loss of state tax lies in the deduction of input tax by the invoiced party on the basis of the fraudulent invoice, which is in essence the non-payment or underpayment of VAT through the illegal deduction of VAT due, rather than the fraudulent taking of tax from the state, which is essentially the result of a negative non-compliance with tax obligations through a positive act.Having established the basic nature of the actual offence, the question of what kind of misrepresentation may constitute the offence of misrepresentation of VAT invoices is also a difficult point in current legal practice. Whether a false invoicing constitutes a crime should not be determined by whether the invoices are "with goods" or "without goods", "high invoicing" or "low invoicing". The criteria for determining whether an invoice has been made should not be "with" or "without", "high" or "low". Even in the case of a non-delivered goods invoice, there are situations where the invoice will not cause damage to the state tax, while in the case of a truthful invoice, there is the possibility of damage to the state tax. The determination of the actual detrimental result should be based on the special form of VAT collection, namely the "one credit, one payment", by identifying the source of the invoice recipient‘s right to tax credit and the fulfilment of the invoicing party‘s obligation to pay tax, in order to determine whether the state tax is actually damaged under the various forms.