Abstract: This article examines the relevant problems of land law – one of the most dynamically developing branches of law in the Russian Federation, and one of the first to undergo changes in the context of modernization of vectors of state legal policy. Analysis is conducted on the fundamental importance of the principle of payment of land-use on the example of land tax. The author explores the problems of the object of land tax and tax base, calculation of cadastral value. The conclusion is made that the chosen path of development of the land tax is unfeasible, thereby requiring an alternative solution. According to the legislation of the Russian Federation, land is one of the key economic goods. The Russian legislator gives close attention to the commerce in land of various purpose. Land tax is the equivalent of rental charge. Such similarity is interchangeable in judicial practice. There are a number of issues in land tax regulation. The constituent entities of the Russian Federation are currently limited to establishing the exhaustive list of local taxes. The organizations and private entities are not recognized as taxpayers individuals with regards to land plots in uncompensated limited use or under a lease agreement. The post-Soviet states attribute land plots with ownership right as an object of taxation. The legislative and law enforcement practice on land tax in the Russian Federation indicates a close connection between land and civil legislation. For the purpose of replenishment of budgets, the Russian Federation took the path of increasing the tax burden. It is necessary to find the new ways for implementing the principle of payment of land-use in form of land tax, which would effectively address the problems of local financing.

Keywords: rent, akt, norm, lex, system, tax, princip, law, land, regulation

Abstract: This article is dedicated to revelation and analysis of the gaps in legal regulation of profit taxation of controlled foreign companies (CFC) and notification of tax authorities on the controlled foreign companies via examining the available case law. The author determines six types of legal disputes that arise in the context of submission of participation notices in CFC, as well as CFC notices. Analysis is conducted on the methods of elimination of gaps in legislation of the Russian Federation on controlled foreign companies by introduction of point amendments to the current legislation on CFC. Settlement of legal disputes over interpretation of the Paragraph 7.1 of the Article 309.1 and Subparagraph 2 of the Paragraph 1 of the Article 25.13-1 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation requires supplementing the Article 25.14 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation with the Paragraph 3.2 of the following content: “The obligation on submitting the CFC notice does not depend on the financial results of CFC. The existence of tax exemption does not relieve of the duty to provide CFC notice”. The disputes often arise when the taxpayers default the submission period, and after receiving a request from the inspectorate, provide data for not only the companies listed in the request, but other companies as well. For avoiding any related disputes, it is recommended to supplement the Paragraph 2 of the Article 25.14 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation with the following content: “A revised notice cannot be submitted with regards to CFC, the information on which was not provided in the initial notice”. In order to minimize the actions of inspectorate “with unacceptable formalism”, it is recommended to supplement the Article 129.6 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation with the Paragraph 3 of the following content: “Submission of incomplete information or information containing technical or orthographic errors, which do not obstruct the identification of foreign company, are not considered a tax crime”.

Keywords: notification procedure, notification of participation, CFC notification, participation share, deficiencies in law, courts practice, control, OECD, controlling person, controlled foreign company

Abstract: This article is dedicated to identification and analysis of the gaps in legal regulation of profit taxation of controlled foreign companies (CFC) in the Russian Federation, by comparing the Russian legislation with the legislation of the European Union member-states. Comparison is conducted on the current legislation of the Russian Federation on CFC with analogous rules in France, Germany, Netherlands, and Great Britain. The author determines the similarities and differences in the regimes of profit taxation of controlled foreign companies, and substantiates the need for introducing point amendments to the current legislation of the Russian Federation on profit taxation of controlled foreign companies. The structure of the Russian rules on CFC is largely similar to such in the developed European countries. The definition of the concept of control in the Russian legislation for the most part aligns with the definitions of the analogous concept in the legislation of France, Germany, and Netherlands; although the Russian definition is certainly broader, as it applicable to foreign structures without formation of legal entity, and contains both quantitative and qualitative criteria. Despite formal similarity of the Russian rules on CFC and their foreign equivalents, there are gaps in the Russian legislation, the interpretation of which by the tax authorities and the Ministry of Finance is at times contradictory and often does not benefit the taxpayer. Numerous questions arise from filling out and submitting participation notices and CFC notices, the procedure for which also contains multiple gaps, and the grounds for their submission in the legislation are quite ambiguous. Taxpayers often do not timely notify the tax authority on the participation in CFC or do not submit the corresponding notice due to inaccessibility of software for filling out notices for companies established in particular organizational-legal form.

Keywords: ATAD directive, exemptions from taxation, CFC income, participation share, control, Controlling person, OECD, passive income, de-offshorisation, European Union

Abstract: This article considers the problem of recovery of the amount of value-added tax by insolvent taxpayers in the context of ensuring public financial and economic interests. Analysis is conducted on the problem of whether taxpayers have obligation to recover the amount of value-added tax in terms of selling property during bankruptcy procedure, taking into account the established law enforcement practice and theoretical views on the topic. The subject of this research is the norms of tax law that regulate the obligation of insolvent taxpayers in recovery of the amount of value-added tax in terms of selling property during bankruptcy procedure. Such obligation of insolvent taxpayers is viewed with consideration of the need to ensure financial and economic interests of creditors of the debtor and public financial and economic interests. The author determines and substantiates the need for comparing fiscal interests with the financial and economic interests of creditors of the debtor, as well as public financial and economic interests in the context of implementation of norms of tax law to the discharge of tax obligations by insolvent taxpayers. It is established that the obligation of insolvent taxpayers to recover the amount of value-added tax significantly affects the financial and economic interests of creditors of the debtor. Based on the acquired results, the author offers to develop the position on the legislative level, according to which the obligation on recovery of the amount of value-added tax does not apply to taxpayers who are declared bankrupt in accordance with the established procedure, or the priority of payment of this tax can be lowered in case of objections of the interested parties.

Keywords: fiscal interest, public interest, principle of neutrality, economic interest, insolvency, tax recovery, corporate taxation, value added tax, sale of property, tax regulation

Abstract: The subject of this research is the rules of corporate income taxation foreign countries existing in foreign countries, the experience of implementation of which is valuable for further development of the Russian legislation. The current state of tax systems is viewed from the perspective of implementation of the baisc tax functions: fiscal and regulatory. The importance of corporate profit taxation in formation of the income base of the budgets of the budgetary system of the Russian Federation justifies special attention to the existing mechanisms for distinguishing tax revenues between budgets of bot different levels and same level. In the context of state regulation of the economy, analysis is conducted on the tax incentive instruments and preferential tax conditions intended for stimulating innovative activity of the companies. The scientific novelty lies in summarizing the experience of foreign countries in corporate income taxation, determining the leading  practices, and formulating recommendations for their implementation in Russia. The conducted research reveals the trends in reforming tax legislation of the developed countries aimed at stimulation of entrepreneurial activity. Sustained reduction in corporate income tax rates, shift away from progressive scale, and implementation of new tax incentives contribute to lowering of fiscal burden on businesses and create favorable conditions for the economic development. The author develops recommendations for the improvement of corporate profit taxation in the Russian Federation: 1) For increasing the validity of division of tax revenues between regional budgets, it is suggested to change the procedure for calculating the tax payable by separate banks units. In calculation of the share of taxable profit for each bank unit, it is recommended to take into account labor costs, amount of loans issued and deposits raised. 2) The comparative analysis of the Russian and foreign experience of tax incentives demonstrated the shortage of instruments intended for commercialization of innovations in the Russian Federation, which substantiates the need for implementation of preferential taxation of income from use of the objects of intellectual property.

Keywords: innovations, tax incentives, tax revenue, fiscal function of taxation, corporate profit taxation, foreign tax systems, state tax regulation, tax rates, separate divisions of banks, tax benefits