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 article discusses the reporting requirements for internet platform enterprises regarding commissions, service fees, and other payments made to them, emphasizing the need for accurate tax information submission by various stakeholders involved in online transactions [3][6]. Group 1: Reporting Requirements - Internet platform enterprises must report commissions and service fees received from businesses participating in their operations, which include software service fees, advertising service fees, and transaction commissions [3][4]. - The reporting entity must consolidate the amounts paid to the platform from various operators and report the total income and total fees paid to the platform [4][6]. Group 2: Examples of Reporting - Example 1 illustrates a scenario where a platform receives a total transaction amount of 200,000 yuan, with 10,000 yuan paid in service fees to various entities, requiring the platform to report both the total income and the total fees [4]. - Example 2 describes a user recharging 10,000 yuan on a platform, with the platform recognizing the full amount as income while reporting zero fees, as the transaction was for virtual goods [4]. Group 3: Tax Information Submission for Live Streaming - Internet platform enterprises and MCN (Multi-Channel Network) institutions must report the identity and income information of network anchors and their partners when they receive income from live streaming activities [6][7]. - In a scenario where a network anchor receives 1 million yuan from an MCN, the platform must report both the anchor's and the MCN's information, marking the MCN as a "professional service institution" [6][7]. Group 4: Multiple Payment Scenarios - Various scenarios are provided where payments are made to MCNs and network anchors, detailing how each entity must report the income and associated fees, ensuring compliance with tax regulations [8][9][10]. - The article emphasizes that if a platform operator is also an internet platform enterprise, they are not required to report the same information multiple times if it has already been submitted [11].

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].