Abstract: The article is devoted to understanding the general (regulatory) illegality of action when a entity breaches its duties of a tax agent (Article 199.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). The authors of the article analyze objective and subjective factors of such understanding. They also study the influence of contradictory positions of the supreme judicial authorities and inferior courts as well as imperfection of the legislative language including technical errors in the legislation on an entity’s understanding the illegality of his action. Special attention is paid to the need for adaptation of entities to changing legislation and law-enforcement practice. The authors analyze legal cases on tax disputes and their role in establishing the fact of an entity’s conscience of a committed crime described in Article 199.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. They also study the positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and the European Court on Human Rights as well as doctrinal arguments related to the problem of understanding the general illegality of action. The authors conclude that essential contradictions in the judicial practice may indicate that entities do not understand the general illegality of their action. The authors also emphasize the need for a more consistent interpretation of legislative provisions on taxes and levies by supreme courts. They also prove the need for explanations of the influence of this or that interpretation of legislative provisions on taxes and levies on the enforcement of a particular penal prohibition in decrees of the Plenum of Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.

Keywords: general illegality, understanding the general legality, tax agent, law-enforcement practice, interpretation of law, Tax Code, Criminal Code, Supreme Court, Arbitration Court, insufficient payment.

References:
Esakov G.A. Vina v prestupleniyakh v sfere ekonomicheskoy deyatel'nosti (o nekotorykh problemakh) // Prestupleniya v sfere ekonomiki: Rossiyskiy i Evropeyskiy opyt: Materialy III sovmestnogo Rossiysko-Germanskogo kruglogo stola. M.: OOO «Izdatel'stvo «Elit». 2012. S. 53-63.
Zaripov V.M. Deystvie vo vremeni postanovleniy VAS RF, ukhudshayushchikh polozhenie nalogoplatel'shchikov. Obzor VI Mezhdunarodnoy nauchno-prakticheskoy konferentsii «Nalogovye spory: opyt Rossii i drugikh stran» 17.10.2012 g. Moskva // Nalogoved. 2013. № 4. S. 37-47.
Kalinin S.I. Ispol'zovanie pravovykh pozitsiy ESPCh po nalogovym sporam v rossiyskoy pravoprimenitel'noy praktike // Nalogoved. 2007. № 12. URL.: http://fin-buh.ru/text/113393-1.html
Karapetov A. Plenum VAS prinyal postanovleniya o svobode dogovora i vykupnom lizinge. URL: http://zakon.ru/Comments/UserList/859
Korel'skiy A. Skoryy sud, ili Edinoobrazie sudebnoy praktiki // URL: http://zakon.ru/Discussions/skoryj_sud_ili_edinoobrazie_sudebnoj_praktiki/10749