Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the procedures and requirements for internet platform enterprises to report service income on behalf of their users, emphasizing the importance of accurate data entry in the declaration forms [3][4][5]. Group 1: Reporting Procedures - Internet platform enterprises must fill out the "User Name," "User Unique Identifier," "Internet Platform Name of Income Source," and "User Name of Income Source" accurately in the declaration form [3]. - If a user earns income from the platform, the reported names and identifiers must match those used on the platform [4]. - In cases where income is derived from another platform, the declaration must reflect the actual platform and user identifiers from that platform [5]. Group 2: Tax Calculation and Reporting - If a user receives service income from multiple platforms exceeding the small-scale taxpayer VAT exemption threshold, the internet platform must report this by the 15th of the following month [6]. - The tax authority will provide pre-filled services to assist in the summary declaration process for users with income exceeding the threshold [6]. - Examples illustrate how income from different platforms is aggregated for tax purposes, highlighting the need for timely and accurate reporting by the platforms involved [7].

Core Viewpoint - The Beijing Haidian District People's Court ruled that Ocean Company engaged in unfair competition by extensively scraping and transferring data from Era Company, ordering Ocean Company to eliminate the impact and compensate Era Company with 2 million yuan in economic losses and 300,000 yuan in reasonable expenses [1][3]. Group 1: Case Background - Era Company operates a leading internet medical platform, accumulating significant data related to diagnosis and treatment over years of operation [1]. - Ocean Company operates a competing platform and is accused of scraping patient reviews and medical articles from Era Company's platform [1][2]. Group 2: Legal Arguments - Era Company claims that Ocean Company's actions violate business ethics and harm its competitive advantage, resulting in severe economic losses [1][2]. - Ocean Company argues that its platform operates in a different segment of the internet medical field, asserting that there is no competitive relationship and that the data belongs to users [2]. Group 3: Court's Findings - The court found that both companies operate in the same internet medical field, targeting overlapping user groups and services, thus establishing a competitive relationship [2]. - The court ruled that Era Company has legitimate rights to the user-generated content it collects and organizes, which is protected under anti-unfair competition laws [2][3]. Group 4: Outcome - The court determined that Ocean Company's actions constituted unfair competition, as it gained competitive advantages without investment or costs, violating principles of good faith and disrupting market order [3]. - After the ruling, Ocean Company appealed, but the second-instance court upheld the original judgment, which is now effective [4].