Abstract: Relevance of the selected topic is justified by the importance of the institution of liability for the current tax systems, since taxpayers are not always willing to voluntarily part with their earnings. Drawing on the experience of the developed countries can be valuable in determining advantages and disadvantages of the models of the institution of liability for violations of tax legislation, with future consideration in reforming the corresponding sphere of social relations in Russia. The goal of this work consists in examination of peculiarities of the institution of liability for violation of tax legislation in the United States, jurisdiction with one of the most effective tax systems in the world. For achieving the set goal, the author sets a number of scientific tasks, among which is consideration of the types of liability for violation of tax legislation in the United States and questions of their demarcation, as well as the forms of penalties for violating tax legislation. The following conclusions were made: 1) liability for violation of tax legislation in the United States can be either criminal or civil; 2) both types of liability are established in the same legislative act – the Internal Revenue Code; 3) demarcation of liability is rather conditional, depending on the type of offence, severity of penalties for its commission, as well as procedure of implementation of liability; 4) civil liability for violation of tax legislation in the United States has no parallels with the Russian law, and essentially incorporates the features of administrative and civil liability; 5) since in the United States law, civil penalties can have restorative justice nature, a person can be subject to both administrative and criminal liability for the same offence.

Abstract: Relevance of the selected topic is justified by the importance of the institution of liability for the current tax systems, since taxpayers are not always willing to voluntarily part with their earnings. Drawing on the experience of the developed countries can be valuable in determining advantages and disadvantages of the models of the institution of liability for violations of tax legislation, with future consideration in reforming the corresponding sphere of social relations in Russia. The goal of this work consists in examination of peculiarities of the institution of liability for violation of tax legislation in the United States, jurisdiction with one of the most effective tax systems in the world. For achieving the set goal, the author sets a number of scientific tasks, among which is consideration of the types of liability for violation of tax legislation in the United States and questions of their demarcation, as well as the forms of penalties for violating tax legislation. The following conclusions were made: 1) liability for violation of tax legislation in the United States can be either criminal or civil; 2) both types of liability are established in the same legislative act – the Internal Revenue Code; 3) demarcation of liability is rather conditional, depending on the type of offence, severity of penalties for its commission, as well as procedure of implementation of liability; 4) civil liability for violation of tax legislation in the United States has no parallels with the Russian law, and essentially incorporates the features of administrative and civil liability; 5) since in the United States law, civil penalties can have restorative justice nature, a person can be subject to both administrative and criminal liability for the same offence.

Abstract: Currently, the United States has three judicial instances that are authorizes to contest the fact of bringing to responsibility for violation of tax legislation: Tax Court, Court of Claim, and district courts. The United States Tax Court is the most demanded authority among taxpayers that adjudicates over 95% of all tax disputes, which is substantiated by the fact that it is the only instance where a taxpayer can apply prior to paying taxes, penalties and fines. This article using the general scientific and special legal methods examines the previously uncovered in Russian legal literature peculiarities of adjudication of tax disputes by the United States Tax Court. Including the questions of formation of precedents in tax cases. As a result of the conducted research the author formulates the following conclusions: 1) a mandatory conditions of jurisdiction of the Tax Court is the notification on uncollected tax; if it is absent, the tax payer cannot appeal to the Tax Court; 2) only a small number of cases is considered by the Tax Court substantively, namely due to the fact that the parties listen to the verbal opinion of the judge, based on which formulate the settlement offer and submit for approval of the judge; 3) the opinion and decisions of the Tax Court should be differentiated, only certain categories of opinions are of precedent nature; 4) since the decisions of the Tax Court are subject to appeal to the thirteen Courts of Appeal, potentially there occurs a problem related to controversial case law on the same issues; 5) cases with an insignificant sum in dispute qualify under simplified procedure, which contributes to procedural efficiency; however, the opinion formed based on the results of such consideration would not be of precedential value.

Abstract: This article is devoted to the general theoretical issues of the fiscal (tax) sovereignty of the state. The authors of the article try to differentiate between the terms 'tax sovereignty' and 'fiscal sovereignty' taking into account positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and analysis of law researches on the issues of fiscal (tax) sovereignty. The authors also analyze the correlation of terms of tax sovereignty and tax jurisdiction of the state. The authors pay special attention to the opportunity of limitation of tax sovereignty. The methodological basis of the research includes such general research methods as analysis and synthesis. The authors have also applied special research methods such as formal law, comparative law and historical law methods. The authors' special contribution to the topic is the systematization and generalization of definitions of fiscal (tax) sovereignty that can be found in research literature and practice o fthe Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. Based on the research results, the authors emphasize the need to differentiate between the terms 'fiscal sovereignty' and 'tax sovereignty'. Concerning differentiation between the definitions of tax sovereignty and tax jurisdiction, the authors conclude the following: the fact that a state is fiscally sovereign is already the ground for the state to perform its tax jurisdiction. Concerning limitation of tax sovereignty, the authors conclude that voluntary limitation of national law standards as a result of tax treaty is not a limitation but manifestation of sovereignty because bilateral tax treaties set forth neither tax nor punishment for violation of tax responsibilities. 

Abstract:  The subject of the research is the procedure that is used by a continuing company to assess the treshold of the basis for calculating insurance contributions payable to employees of an accessed company. The author focuses on the question whether a continuing company is entitled to include amounts that have been paid to employees of an accessed company during the fiscal period prior to the day of reorganization into the aforesaid basis. Osina analyses and interprets explanations of the Ministry of Finances of Russia and Federal Tax Service of Russia, judicial practice and researches on the matter, which causes the importance of this particular research for practical lawyers. The methodological basis of the research implied such formal logical methods as analysis and synthesis. The author has also applied special law science methods such as formal law and comparative law. The scientific novelty of the research is caused by the fact that the author carries out an analysis of the provisions of Part 34 of the Tax Code 'Insurance Payments' that have been in effect since 2017, and their practical implementation and associated law-enforcement practice, as well as compares them to previous regulations and practice. The main conclusions of the research are as follows: 1) the treshold of the basis for calculating insurance contributions should be defined by a continuing company and include payments made by an accessed company to employees during the fiscal period prior to the moment of the company's reorganization; 2) legality and foundation of this position have been proved by many years of judicial practice including that of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation and Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. 

Abstract: The subject of this research is the separate specificities of calculating interest on received and issued loans for the purposes of separate calculation of the value added tax (VAT). Particular attention is given to the analysis of the applicable positions of the Paragraph 4 and Paragraph 4.1 of the Article 170 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation. The author carefully examines the bases for calculating interest in received loans as part of total expenses on operation that are not subject to VAT, as well as interest on issued loans. Analysis is conducted on the legal practice and scientific publications on this topic. The scientific novelty of research consists in the comprehensive study of the bases for calculation of interests on received and issued loans for the purposes of separate calculation of VAT, as well as the research of the question whether or not the fiscal year receipt of interest in the amount that is significantly higher than the revenue from activity that is subject to VAT same as the largest part of expenses related to non-taxable activity. Among the main conclusions of the conducted research is the claim that if the procured commodities (labor, services) are not used in non-taxable operations on issuing loans and receiving interest, the corresponding amounts of VAT are subject to deduction.

Abstract: In her article Osina studies the case of discharging a municipal official and analyzes particular features of implementing Article 2 of Clause 278 of the Labour Code of the Russian Federation that regulates the procedure of dismissing a head of an organization as a result of a decision made by a property owner of an organization. Base on the literal interpretation of the provisions of Article 278 of the Labour Code of the Russian Federation, an employer does not have to explain grounds for his or her decision about discharge of an employee. However, actual situations are not so explicit. For this regard, the question about the balance between public and private interests and inadmissibility of abuse of rights and discrimination in the labour sphere based on discretionary authorities of a property owner is emerging full blown. These issues have been focused on by the researcher, as well as a few others. The research was carried out using such methods as analysis, structured system analysis, formal law method and comparative law method. As a result of her research, Osina makes a number of conclusions including the following: 1) an individual who is, on a pro forma basis, runs an organization but does not perform a particular labour function, cannot be regarded as a head for purposes set forth by Clause 2 of Article 278 of the Labour Code of the Russian Federation; 2) a lack of legal clarity of Article 279 of the Labour Code of the Russian Federation causes a situation when an employee may be punished twice for his or her disciplinary violation which, on the one hand, cannot be the cause of discharge but, on the other hand, creates grounds for denial of a compensation; 3) public interests of a municipal unit should be taken into account when discharging a head of an organization (municipal official). However, a comprehensive answer to the question about a particular manner public interests should be taken into account is provided neither by legislation nor judicial practice. 

Abstract: The present article is devoted to the lega consequences of amendments made to the Tax Code of the Russian Federation on January 1, 2006, in particular, the part of the Code that regulates the procedure of accepting applications for VAT offset when goods (construction and installation services or works) are purchased. Transitional provisions of the federal law of July 22, 2005 No. 119 do not regulate the aforesaid issue. For this regard, Russian courts and competent authorities often apply contradictory approaches and solutions thereto.The author of the present article analyzes different positions and points of view on the matter referring to the law enforcement practice and position of the Ministry of Finances and Federal Tax Service of Russia and proves her point of view. The methodological basis of the research includes such formal logic methods as analysis andn synthesis. The author also applies special law methods such as formal law and comparative law methods. As a result of her research, Osina makes a number of conclusions including the following: 1) introduction of amendments has created the basis for the appearance of different approaches to answering the question about the deadline when VAT amounts that had been paid by taxpayer for construction works or services until January 1, 2006 should be reported; 2) legal positions of fiscal authorities and arbitration courts of different districts (on the one hand) and the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation (on the other hand) are in fact contradictory; 3) it is important to view the position of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation taking into account the position of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, in particular, their opinion that practice that worsens the position of taxpayer cannot be applied retroactively. 

Abstract: The subject of this research is the taxation of the income of natural persons and insurance payments made by organizations that provide employment on remote long-term job sites and charge their employees for transportation to and from job site. Special attention is given to the question of in whose interests are the target of the employees’ transit to and from the job site. The author carefully examines the basis for recognition of the corresponding payments to employees in the form of compensation as established by the Labor Code and are not subject to taxation. Analysis is conducted on the legal practice on this topic, as well as the corresponding academic publications. The scientific novelty of this research is primarily substantiated by the examination of the question of in whose interests are the target of the employees’ transit to and from the job site. Among the main conclusions of research are the following: transportation of employees to and from the job site is in the interests of the organization, as it is aimed at continuous work at the job site; reimbursement of traveling expenses to the employee should be classified as compensation, which in accordance to Paragraph 3 of the Article 217 and Subparagraph 2 of Paragraph 1 of the Article 422 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation are not subject to taxation and insurance premiums.

Abstract: The subject of this research is the taxation of the income of natural persons and insurance payments made by organizations that provide employment on remote long-term job sites and charge their employees for transportation to and from job site. Special attention is given to the question of in whose interests are the target of the employees’ transit to and from the job site. The author carefully examines the basis for recognition of the corresponding payments to employees in the form of compensation as established by the Labor Code and are not subject to taxation. Analysis is conducted on the legal practice on this topic, as well as the corresponding academic publications. The scientific novelty of this research is primarily substantiated by the examination of the question of in whose interests are the target of the employees’ transit to and from the job site. Among the main conclusions of research are the following: transportation of employees to and from the job site is in the interests of the organization, as it is aimed at continuous work at the job site; reimbursement of traveling expenses to the employee should be classified as compensation, which in accordance to Paragraph 3 of the Article 217 and Subparagraph 2 of Paragraph 1 of the Article 422 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation are not subject to taxation and insurance premiums.

Abstract: Basaed on the analysis of the position of the Supreme Court of Russia regarding a relevant case, the author of this article analyzes consequences of applying incorrect value-added tax rate by parties. In particular, the author focuses on the following issues: 1) the scope of the contractual judgement made by parties when concluding a treaty; 2) whether presentment of VAT payable can be considered to be an alteration of a treaty; and 3) consequences of applying the zero tax rate instead of a 18 % rate, and vice versa. Osina bases her research on a detailed analysis of tax and civil laws as well as positions of supreme judicial authorities. Based on the results of the research, the author concludes that in fact the position of the Supreme Court of Russia regarding the matter creates contradictions in VAT taxation regimes under the same treaty. Moreover, related issues regarding a buyer's opportunity to apply for VAT to be deducted from a sum payable is left uncovered by the Supreme Court and so is the question about the actual amount of tax liability of a seller. This creates gaps in the tax law and may provoke judicial disputes. 

Abstract: Based on the example of a specific labor dispute on employment reinstatement, this article examines the legal consequences of illegal dismissal; limits of applicability of Part 5 of the Article 394 of Labor Code of the Russian Federation and court’s responsibility to redraft the grounds and (or) reasons of dismissal; whether the court is entitled to settle the dispute beyond the worker’s claim of employment reinstatement; what implies the continuation of work in terms of reorganization. The covered questions are illustrated with the examples form judicial practice, which additionally increases the relevance of the work of practicing lawyers in the area of labor law. The author underlines the presence of ambiguous approaches towards the interpretation of various legal categories in the Russian labor law that inevitably results in the emergence of a significant number of labor disputes. Thus, a conclusion is made on the need for regulation of the contested issues at legislative level or through acquisition of interpretations of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation regarding order of application of one or other positions of the labor and civil procedural legislation.

Abstract: The article is devoted to the question about whether it is possible to hold a taxpayer liable pursuant to Article 122 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation in case of a taxpayer having a sufficient sum of tax overpayed at the moment of an amended tax return being submitted. The author also focuses on drawing up an act and making a decision based on tax inspection results. The author analyzes Clause 20 of the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation No. 57 of July 30, 2013 and related issues. The article is based on the analysis of the provisions of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, systematization of law-enforcement practice using general research methods (analysis and synthesis) and special research methods (legalistic and comparative law methods). The scientific novelty of the research is caused by the fact that the author analyzes and systematizes particular issues and law enforcement practice associated with voluntary calculation of tax additionally payable to the budget in case of overpayment. Based on the research results, the author makes the following conclusions that can be put to practice: whenever there is an amended tax return sufficient to make credit for additionally accrued tax at the moment of voluntary submission of a tax return, it is possible to apply Subclause 1 of Clause 4 of Article 81 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation to be relieved from payment; if tax audit results demonstrate that there is no tax owned but overpayed and the sum of tax overpayed is sufficient to make a credit for additionally accrued tax, then there are no grounds for bringing a taxpayer to liability; and to hold a taxpayer liable it is necessary to establish a cause-and-effect relationship between understatement of tax for a particular tax period and cutting off tax overpayment that has been held in the budget since the due date for tax payment till the date of decision made on the basis of tax audit results.

Abstract: Based on the example of a specific labor dispute on employment reinstatement, this article examines the legal consequences of illegal dismissal; limits of applicability of Part 5 of the Article 394 of Labor Code of the Russian Federation and court’s responsibility to redraft the grounds and (or) reasons of dismissal; whether the court is entitled to settle the dispute beyond the worker’s claim of employment reinstatement; what implies the continuation of work in terms of reorganization. The covered questions are illustrated with the examples form judicial practice, which additionally increases the relevance of the work of practicing lawyers in the area of labor law. The author underlines the presence of ambiguous approaches towards the interpretation of various legal categories in the Russian labor law that inevitably results in the emergence of a significant number of labor disputes. Thus, a conclusion is made on the need for regulation of the contested issues at legislative level or through acquisition of interpretations of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation regarding order of application of one or other positions of the labor and civil procedural legislation.