《中华人民共和国民法典》（以下简称《民法典》）第1064条第2款以正式立法的形式使夫妻共同生产经营性债务成为一种独立的债务类型，而在实务中应如何认定该类债务，我国在立法与司法解释中均未予明确，学理上亦尚未形成统一意见，导致同案异判现象频发，该类债务的认定问题受到法官、学者及民众的共同关切。

    为准确认定夫妻共同生产经营性债务，首先要厘清该债务的概念。通过文义解释、体系解释、目的解释方法，本文认为夫妻共同生产经营性债务是指夫妻一方以个人名义进行举债，举债用于夫妻共同从事或一方授权另一方决定的投资、经营事项，或仅一方从事但另一方共享收益的投资、经营事项。夫妻共同生产经营性债务具有独立性，区别于夫妻共同意思表示之债、夫妻因家庭日常生活需要之债、用于夫妻共同生活之债。

    由于生产经营形式的多元性以及未来发展的不确定性，为保持法律的稳定性与前瞻性，难以在法律条文中明确夫妻共同生产经营性债务的具体范围及认定标准。然而，立法上的模糊导致司法实践中出现滥用推定规则、同案异判现象频发、过度依赖举证规则等问题。因此，亟待出台司法解释，厘清债务范围，明确认定标准，以更好地指导司法实践中对该类债务的认定。

    当前司法实践中主要依据的认定标准有“时间推定”、“共同参与”及“共同受益”标准，其法理基础分别是夫妻共同财产制、法律行为理论和利益共享理论。“时间推定”标准过于保护债权人权益而损害非举债方配偶的利益，不宜采用。“共同参与”标准尊重夫妻双方的真实意思表示，但也具有瑕疵，忽略了对举债方利益的保护，仅以“共同参与”为认定标准并不能妥善解决夫妻共同生产经营性债务的认定难题。“共同受益”标准关注夫妻实际受益情况，将非举债方配偶虽未参与经营但从生产经营活动中实际受益的情形考虑在内，体现夫妻之间共享利益、共担风险，较好地平衡了举债方、非举债方配偶及债权人三方利益，具有合理性，弥补了仅以“共同参与”为认定标准的瑕疵。

    完善夫妻共同生产经营性债务认定，首先要明确夫妻共同生产经营性债务的范围，对该类债务的范围进行细化与限制。其次，以“共同受益”为主要考量因素，不仅要关注夫妻共同生产经营外观，还要关注非举债方配偶实际上是否共享生产经营收益，并在此基础上结合不同生产经营模式，对是否成立夫妻共同生产经营性债务作具体认定。最后，要合理分配举证责任，适当降低债权人举证标准，强化法院依职权取证职能。

    The second paragraph of Article 1064 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the "Civil Code") has made the husband and wife's jointly produced operational debt an independent type of debt in the form of formal legislation. However, how to identify such debt in practice has not been clearly defined in China's legislation and judicial interpretation, and there has not yet been a consensus in theory, which has led to the frequent occurrence of different judgments in the same case. How to accurately identify such debt is subject to the judge The common concern of scholars and the public.

    In order to accurately identify the operational debt jointly produced by spouses, it is first necessary to clarify the concept of the debt. Through textual, systematic, and purposive explanations, jointly produced operational debt between spouses refers to a debt raised by one spouse in their personal name for the purpose of jointly engaging in or authorizing the other party to decide on investment or business matters, or for investment or business matters that only one party engages in but the other party shares profits. At the same time, this kind of debt is independent, which is different from the debt of the husband and wife's common declaration of will, the debt of the husband and wife due to the needs of their daily family life, and the debt used for the husband and wife's common life.

    Due to the diversity of forms of joint production and operation between spouses and the uncertainty of future development, it is difficult to clarify the specific scope and recognition standards of joint production and operation debts between spouses in legal provisions in order to maintain the stability and foresight of the law. However, the ambiguity in legislation has led to issues such as the abuse of presumption rules, frequent occurrence of different judgments in the same case, and excessive reliance on the rules of proof in judicial practice. Therefore, it is urgent to issue judicial interpretation, clarify the scope of debt, and clarify the identification standards, so as to better guide the identification of such debt in judicial practice.

    The current judicial practice mainly relies on the standards of "presumption of time", "joint participation", and "joint benefit", which are based on the legal principles of the joint property system of spouses, legal behavior theory, and benefit sharing theory. The standard of 'presumption of time' is too protective of the rights and interests of creditors to harm the interests of non debtor spouses and should not be adopted. The standard of "joint participation" respects the true declaration of will of both husband and wife, but it also has flaws, ignoring the protection of the interests of the debtor, and only taking "joint participation" as the identification standard can not properly solve the problem of identifying the husband and wife jointly producing operational debt. The "common benefit" standard focuses on the actual benefits of spouses, taking into account the situation where non debtor spouses do not participate in business operations but actually benefit from production and business activities. It reflects the sharing of interests and risks between spouses, and better balances the interests of the debtor, non debtor spouses, and creditors. It is reasonable and compensates for the flaw of only using "common participation" as the recognition standard.

    To improve the recognition of jointly produced operational debts between spouses, it is first necessary to clarify the scope of jointly produced operational debts between spouses, and refine and limit the scope of such debts. Secondly, with "common benefits" as the main consideration factor, it is not only necessary to pay attention to the appearance of joint production and operation between spouses, but also to whether non debtor spouses actually share production and operation profits. Based on this, combined with different production and operation models, specific identification should be made on whether to establish joint production and operation debts between spouses. Finally, it is necessary to reasonably allocate the burden of proof, appropriately reduce the standard of proof for creditors, and strengthen the court's function of obtaining evidence ex officio.