Защита законных ожиданий налогоплательщика в условиях действия и применения антиуклонительных налоговых правил: баланс частных и публичных интересов

Oksana A. Nogina; Sergey V. Ovsyannikov

doi:10.21638/spbu14.2022.105

Authors

Oksana A. Nogina St Petersburg State University, 7–9, Universitetskaya nab., St Petersburg, 199034, Russian Federation https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8596-8085
Sergey V. Ovsyannikov St Petersburg State University, 7–9, Universitetskaya nab., St Petersburg, 199034, Russian Federation

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu14.2022.105

Abstract

The article analyzes General and Special Anti-Avoidance Rules of national and international law. The authors investigate the correlation between General and Special Anti-Avoidance Rules established in Russian tax legislation, and also determine the place of judicial doctrines and official interpretations of legislative anti-avoidance rules in the mechanism of law enforcement. Given the multiplicity of legal prescriptions, judicial positions and interpretation acts, a sequence of application of legal provisions in the resolution of litigation is being developed. The correlation of international anti-avoidance rules with the rules of Russian tax legislation is established, indicating the dominant role of the provisions of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and legal positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation in the system of anti-avoidance orders, including international treaties. A system and hierarchy of anti-avoidance norms are proposed. Special attention is paid to the study of the principle of protection by taxpayers of their legitimate expectations as a guarantee of ensuring private interest in the field of tax relations. The exercise by taxpayers of the right to protect their legitimate expectations is viewed in the context of their obtaining a reasonable tax benefit. A study of tax calculation methods, including the calculation method used to determine the amount of tax benefit in the context of taxpayers’ protection of their legitimate expectations to reduce tax burden, is conducted. The idea is expressed about the need to legislatively recognize the taxpayer’s right to independently use the tax calculation method, especially in unforeseen circumstances. The judicial approach is supported that the protection of property tax consequences expected as a result of completed transactions can be conducted in court, based on the initial legal expectations, despite the taxpayer’s compliance with the instructions of the tax authority to pay arrears, penalties and fines.

Keywords:

tax evasion, anti-avoidance tax rules, double taxation, egitimate taxpayer expectations, tax planning, tax benefit, unreasonable tax benefit, calculation method

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Библиография

Андрюшин, Сергей В. 2019. «Применение принципа поддержания доверия граждан к закону и действиям государства при разрешении налоговых споров». Налоговед 2: 26–30.

Винницкий, Даниил В. 2018. «Добросовестность, обоснованность выгоды, пределы осуществления прав, или Как российское налоговое право оказалось на передовых рубежах борьбы со злом, гнездящимся в налогоплательщиках». Закон 11: 44–57.

Гидирим, Владимир А. 2018. Основы международного корпоративного налогообложения. М.: Шаповалов Петров.

Демин, Александр В. 2013. «Феномен “мягкого права” в регламентации трансграничного налогообложения». Государство и право 2: 63–71.

Демин, Александр В. 2015. Принцип определенности налогообложения. М.: Статут.

Журавлева, Оксана О. 2018. «Принцип поддержания доверия граждан к закону и действиям государства в налоговой сфере». Налоговед 9: 21–28.

Мачехин, Виктор А., Кристина К. Токарева. 2018. «Развитие российской судебной практики по применению Комментариев к Модельной конвенции ОЭСР при рассмотрении налоговых споров». Налоги 2: 15–20.

Нарышкин, Сергей Е., Талия Я. Хабриева, Александа И. Абрамова. 2015. Научные концепции развития российского законодательства. М.: Юриспруденция.

Ногина, Оксана А. 2019. «Налоговая выгода при переходе и применении специальных налоговых режимов». Актуальные проблемы российского права 1 (98): 80–87.

Пилипенко, Александр А. 2020. «Принцип поддержания доверия к закону и действиям государства: налоговые аспекты». Налоги 1: 18–23.

Пономарева, Карина А. 2018. «Судебные акты и акты “мягкого права” в системе источников налогового права». Налоги 6: 12–15.

Попкова, Жанна Г. 2020. Налоговая выгода как институт налогового права. М.: Проспект.

Тютин, Денис В. 2020. Налоговое право. Дата обращения 21 января 2021. СПС «КонсультантПлюс». http://www.consultant.ru/edu/student/download_books/book/tiutin_dv_nalogovoe_pravo.

Хаванова, Инна А. 2015. «Международные налоговые договоры в правовой системе России». Финансовое право 12: 18–22.

Хаванова, Инна А. 2016. Международные договоры Российской Федерации об избежании двойного налогообложения. М.: Юриспруденция.

Хаванова, Инна А. 2019. «Принцип основной цели: новеллы международных налоговых правил». Финансовое право 7: 40–43.

Цветкова, Елена А. 2020. «Охраняемый законный интерес налогоплательщика как правовая категория налогового права». Финансовое право 2: 23–26.

Ядрихинский, Сергей А. 2019a. «Понятие “коллизионные законные интересы налогоплательщика”: постановка вопроса». Законы России: опыт, анализ, практика 8: 73–77.

Ядрихинский, Сергей А. 2019b. «Правовые проблемы защиты законных интересов налогоплательщика». Вестник Омской юридической академии 1: 86–90.

Ядрихинский, Сергей А. 2020a. Законные интересы налогоплательщиков: проблемы теории и практики. М.: Проспект.

Ядрихинский, Сергей А. 2020b. «Принцип приоритета публичных интересов в финансовой деятельности государства: поиск компромисса». Актуальные проблемы российского права 1: 62–71.

Ядрихинский, Сергей А. 2020c. «Проблемы реализации законных интересов налогоплательщиков». Российский юридический журнал 4: 138–144.

Cerioni, Luca. 2014. “European Union — The possible introduction of a European Taxpayer Code”. Objective and Potential Alternatives. European Taxation 54 (9): 392–402.

Cordeiro Guerra, Roberto, Pietro Mastellone. 2009. “Italy — The judicial creation of a General Anti-Avoidance Rule rooted in the Constitution”. European Taxation 49 (11): 511–517.

Mosquera Valderrama, Irma, Irene Burgers. 2019. “Review of anti-avoidance measures of a general nature and scope — General Anti-Avoidance Rules and other measures”. Bulletin for International Taxation 73 (10): 4–9.

Savvaidou, Aikaterini, Vasiliki Athanasaki. 2019. “Greece — Specific anti-avoidance measures in Greece in the post-BEPS and post-ATAD era”. European Taxation 59 (4): 169–176.

Senden, Linda. 2004. Soft law in European community law. Oxford: Bloomsbury Publ.

Weeks, Greg. 2014. “The use and enforcement of soft law by Australian public authorities”. Federal Law Review 42 (1): 1–8.

Xiong, Wei, Chris Evans. 2014. “China (People’s Rep.) / International — Towards an improved design of the Chinese General Anti-Avoidance Rule: A comparative analysis”. Bulletin for International Taxation 68 (12): 686–696.

Zimmer, Frederik. 2019. “OECD / European Union / International — In defence of General Anti-Avoidance Rules”. Bulletin for International Taxation 73 (4): 218–226.

References

Andriushin, Sergei V. 2019. “Application of the principle of maintaining citizens’ confidence in the law and actions of the state in resolving tax disputes”. Nalogoved 2: 26–30. (In Russian)

Cerioni, Luca. 2014. “European Union — The possible introduction of a European Taxpayer Code”. Objective and Potential Alternatives. European Taxation 54 (9): 392–402.

Cordeiro Guerra, Roberto, Pietro Mastellone. 2009. “Italy — The judicial creation of a General Anti-Avoidance Rule rooted in the Constitution”. European Taxation 49 (11): 511–517.

Demin, Aleksandr V. 2013. “The phenomenon of ‘soft law’ in the regulation of cross-border taxation”. Gosudarstvo i pravo 2: 63–71. (In Russian)

Demin, Aleksandr V. 2015. The principle of certainty of taxation. Moscow, Statut Publ. (In Russian)

Gidirim, Vladimir A. 2018. Fundamentals of international corporate taxation. Moscow, Shapovalov Petrov Publ. (In Russian)

Iadrikhinskii, Sergei A. 2019a. “The concept of ‘conflicting legitimate interests of a taxpayer’: Posing a question”. Zakony Rossii: Opyt, analiz, praktika 8: 73–77. (In Russian)

Iadrikhinskii, Sergei A. 2019b. “Legal problems of protecting the legitimate interests of a taxpayer”. Vestnik Omskoi iuridicheskoi akademii 1: 86–90. (In Russian)

Iadrikhinskii, Sergei A. 2020a. Legal interests of taxpayers: Problems of theory and practice. Moscow, Prospekt Publ. (In Russian)

Iadrikhinskii, Sergei A. 2020b. “The principle of the priority of public interests in the financial activities of the state: The search for a compromise”. Aktual’nye problemy rossiiskogo prava 1: 62–71. (In Russian)

Iadrikhinskii, Sergei A. 2020c. “Problems of realization of legal interests of taxpayers”. Rossiiskii iuridicheskii zhurnal 4: 138–144. (In Russian)

Khavanova, Inna A. 2015. “International tax treaties in the legal system of Russia”. Finansovoe pravo 12: 18–22. (In Russian)

Khavanova, Inna A. 2016. International treaties of the Russian Federation on the avoidance of double taxation. Moscow, Iurisprudentsiia Publ. (In Russian)

Khavanova, Inna A. 2019. “Principle of the main goal: Novels of international tax rules”. Finansovoe pravo 7: 40–43. (In Russian)

Machekhin, Viktor A., Kristina K. Tokareva. 2018. “Development of Russian jurisprudence on the application of the Comments to the OECD Model Convention in the consideration of tax disputes”. Nalogi 2: 15–20. (In Russian)

Mosquera Valderrama, Irma, Irene Burgers. 2019. “Review of anti-avoidance measures of a general nature and scope — General Anti-Avoidance Rules and other measures”. Bulletin for International Taxation 73 (10): 4–9.

Naryshkin, Sergei E., Taliia Ia. Khabrieva, Aleksanda I. Abramova. 2015. Scientific concepts of the development of Russian legislation. Moscow, Iurisprudentsiia Publ. (In Russian)

Nogina, Oksana A. 2019. “Tax benefit in the transition and application of special tax regimes”. Aktual’nye problemy rossiiskogo prava 1 (98): 80–87. (In Russian)

Pilipenko, Aleksandr A. 2020. “The principle of maintaining confidence in the law and actions of the state: tax aspects”. Nalogi 1: 18–23. (In Russian)

Ponomareva, Karina A. 2018. “Judicial acts and acts of ‘soft law’ in the system of sources of tax law”. Nalogi 6: 12–15. (In Russian)

Popkova, Zhanna G. 2020. Tax benefit as an institution of tax law. Moscow, Prospekt Publ. (In Russian)

Savvaidou, Aikaterini, Vasiliki Athanasaki. 2019. “Greece — Specific anti-avoidance measures in Greece in the post-BEPS and post-ATAD era”. European Taxation 59 (4): 169–176.

Senden, Linda. 2004. Soft Law in European Community Law. Oxford, Bloomsbury Publ.

Tiutin, Denis V. 2020. Tax law. Accessed January 21, 2021. SPS “Konsul’tantPlius”. http://www.consultant.ru/edu/student/download_books/book/tiutin_dv_nalogovoe_pravo. (In Russian)

Tsvetkova, Elena A. 2020. “Protected legitimate interest of the taxpayer as a legal category of tax law”. Finansovoe pravo 2: 23–26. (In Russian)

Vinnitskiy, Daniil V. 2018. “Conscientiousness, justification of benefits, limits of exercise of rights, or how Russian tax law turned out to be at the forefront of the fight against evil nesting in taxpayers”. Zakon 11: 44–57. (In Russian)

Weeks, Greg. 2014. “The use and enforcement of soft law by Australian public authorities”. Federal Law Review 42 (1): 1–8.

Xiong, Wei, Chris Evans. 2014. “China (People’s Rep.) / International — Towards an improved design of the Chinese General Anti-Avoidance Rule: A comparative analysis”. Bulletin for International Taxation 68 (12): 686–696.

Zhuravleva, Oksana O. 2018. “The principle of maintaining citizens’ confidence in the law and actions of the state in the tax area”. Nalogoved 9: 21–28. (In Russian)

Zimmer, Frederik. 2019. “OECD / European Union / International — In defence of General Anti-Avoidance Rules”. Bulletin for International Taxation 73 (4): 218–226.