Ways to develop tax incentives for greening of business in Russia

Samokhvalova Ksenia Vladimirovna Master's degree student, the department of Taxes and Tax Administration, Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation 125993, Russia, g. Moscow, ul. Leningradskii Prospekt, 49 ksenia10295@mail.ru Other publications by this author

Introduction

For the Russian economy and society, environmental issues remain important, since they determine not only the future existence of generations, but also the current socio-ecological well-being. At the same time, the concept of corporate social responsibility is becoming more widely discussed. The company's careful attitude to the environment in modern conditions is one of the main principles of sustainable development of commercial activity. Environmental transformation of business has a significant impact on the quality of life of the population and the potential for economic growth and therefore is in the interests of the state. Among the mechanisms of state regulation of the economy, special attention should be paid to tax methods that are most effective in solving problems that require indirect impact on the activities of many economic entities. In this regard, the subject of this study is tax instruments to encourage organizations to reduce the negative impact on the environment. The purpose of the study is to determine the prospects for tax incentives for environmental transformation and to develop proposals for the development of appropriate tax instruments.

Due to their relevance, the issues of tax regulation of environmental processes are reflected in domestic and foreign scientific literature. The advantages of environmental taxes, as E. S. Vylkova and A. L. Tarasevich rightly point out, are associated with providing flexibility in choosing ways to reduce environmentally harmful behavior ^[1]. The article of scientists examines the state of environmental and climate taxation in the OECD countries and their partners, identifies trends and prospects for development. Interest in the fiscal component of environmental policy in different countries is also present in the works of other researchers. For example, K. V. Kolesnikova and T. I. Makarova analyze the legislation of the EAEU states in this context ^[2], A. A. Trofimov examines the experience of the People's Republic of China ^[3]. F. J. Delgado, J. Freire-Gonz?lez and M. J. Presno study the evolution of energy and transport taxes in the EU countries ^[4].

The possibilities of taxation in overcoming certain environmental problems are often the subject of research. Thus, I. A. Khavanova devotes an article to the tax regulation of the waste management system ^[5], D. A. Smirnov and A. A. Zavorykin analyze tax support for the introduction of technologies combining high environmental friendliness, innovation and energy efficiency ^[6]. J. Freire-Gonz?lez, V. Martinez-Sanchez and I. Puig-Ventosa study the impact of taxes on landfills and waste incineration on the environment and economy ^[7]. A number of authors, including E. Appelbaum ^[8], M. M. Sokolov ^[9], J. A. Mingaleva and Yu. V. Starkov ^[10], pay attention to the processes of decarbonization and taxation of carbon emissions.

Environmental issues are also raised in scientific papers devoted to the challenges of the current transformation of socio-economic relations. Considering the negative effects of neo-industrial transformations of the economy, a team of authors led by L. I. Goncharenko substantiates the need for corrective environmental taxation, evaluates various approaches to its implementation and suggests specific mechanisms for improvement ^[11]. M. V. Karp, A.V. Zakharova and L. S. Samodelko analyze tax tools in social and environmental aspects and identify the main directions of its development in order to adapt to changing conditions ^[12].

Taking into account the relevance of the "green" transformation of business processes, the focus in this work is on the possibilities of state tax regulation of the greening of companies. A distinctive feature of this research is the focus on the analysis of existing and the development of new tax instruments to stimulate environmental transformation of business, while most scientific papers consider individual environmental issues or a set of fiscal elements of environmental policy. The scientific novelty of the research lies in the development and assessment of measures of tax impact on the activities of organizations, the implementation of which is an important step towards greening and sustainable development of the Russian economy. Based on the review of the existing elements of environmental taxation and the analysis of a number of topical issues, proposals are formulated and substantiated to strengthen the role of the Russian tax system in stimulating organizations to reduce the negative impact on the environment.

In the course of the research, general scientific methods were used, such as system and situational analysis, generalization, synthesis, logical and descriptive methods.

Environmental payments

Currently, Russian legislation contains a number of taxes and other mandatory payments that have an environmental component. According to the direction of the impact, they are grouped into four groups ^[11]:

1) energy taxes and payments (excise taxes on motor and energy fuel, payment for electricity);

2) transport taxes (excise taxes on gasoline, transport tax);

3) pollution taxes (payment for the negative impact on the environment in the form of emissions of pollutants into the atmosphere, discharges of pollutants into water bodies and waste disposal, environmental collection, recycling collection);

4) resource taxes (mineral extraction tax, tax on additional income from the extraction of hydrocarbons, payments for the use of mineral resources, collection for the use of wildlife and aquatic biological resources, water tax, payments for the use of forest resources, payments for the use of water resources, land tax).

Most of these payments are primarily fiscal in nature and are essentially a payment for the use of natural resources. From the perspective of regulating the greening of business, the payments of the third group are of the greatest interest, which have the potential to affect the economic activities of companies in terms of reducing waste and reducing environmental harm.

When calculating the payment for negative environmental impact (hereinafter referred to as NWOS), in addition to the rates differentiated by types of pollutants and waste classes, a number of coefficients are provided in order to stimulate the reduction of negative impact and the introduction of the best available technologies. For example, during the neutralization and subsequent disposal of waste of lower hazard classes, reducing coefficients in the amount of 0.33 to 0.67 are applied, and after the introduction of the best available technologies, the amount of payment for emissions and discharges of pollutants within the technological standards is reset to zero. In addition, the fee for NWOS can be reduced by the payer's costs for financing measures to reduce the negative impact included in the environmental protection action plan or the environmental efficiency improvement program.

The environmental fee is paid by manufacturers and importers of goods that do not dispose (independently or with the involvement of specialized organizations) of waste generated from their use. The amount of the collection for each group of goods is calculated as the product of the mass or quantity at a rate depending on the cost of disposal and on the approved disposal standard. If a subject has undertaken to dispose of waste, but has not fulfilled the standard, then he pays a fee from the difference between the established and actually achieved amount of disposed waste.

The regulatory capabilities of fiscal instruments are based on the weight of their size for payers and the correlation with the degree of damage caused to the environment. Important factors are the obligation to pay and the inevitability of liability for evasion. Recommendations on improving the system of environmental payments to increase the effectiveness of their stimulating function were voiced in the scientific literature ^[11]. Within the framework of the topic under consideration, it should be emphasized the expediency of tax codification of fees for NWOS, environmental and recycling fees to improve their administration and discipline of payers. Also significant are the measures proposed for the development of environmental collection, including an increase in rates by 1.5-5 times and their differentiation depending on the technological properties of packaging, an increase in waste disposal standards to 70-100% and their exclusion from the calculation of the amount of collection, improvement of the list of groups of goods and packaging.

Carbon regulation

The fundamentals of legal regulation of greenhouse gas emissions on the territory of the Russian Federation are determined by Federal Law No. 296-FZ dated 02.07.2021 "On Limiting Greenhouse Gas Emissions", which entered into force on December 30, 2021, but it does not provide for any taxes and fees.

The first regulatory legal act establishing a specific mechanism for carbon regulation was Federal Law No. 34-FZ dated 06.03.2022 "On Conducting an Experiment to Limit Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Certain Subjects of the Russian Federation" (hereinafter – FZ). The Federal Law introduces emission quotas and a quota trading system on the territory of the Sakhalin Region from September 1, 2022 to December 31, 2028 and allows other subjects of the Russian Federation to join the experiment. According to the Federal Law, legal entities and individual entrepreneurs included in the list of regional regulated organizations are required to submit annual carbon reports, on the basis of which the fact of fulfillment or non-fulfillment of the quota is determined. The unused part of the quota is credited to the account of the organization in the register of carbon units and can be credited in the following periods or transferred to another person. The amount of greenhouse gas emissions in excess of the limit is charged for exceeding the quota, transferred to the budget of the subject of the Russian Federation.

The quota sizes are planned to be set annually taking into account information on greenhouse gas emissions of a regional regulated organization, the balance of emissions and removals on the territory of the participant of the experiment, the required rate of emission reduction and increase in their absorption. When determining quotas, the specifics of the technologies used, the volume of investments, revenue from sales and the amount of budget revenues from the relevant branch of the economy and a specific organization will also be taken into account.

The aim of the experiment is to achieve carbon neutrality on Sakhalin by December 31, 2025, and on the territories of other subjects of the Russian Federation – within the time limits set when they were included in the experiment. The objectives of the experiment are as follows:

1) stimulating the introduction of technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase their absorption;

2) formation of an independent verification system;

3) creation of a system of circulation of carbon units and quota fulfillment units.

Testing the quota model in Russia is especially relevant in light of the EU's plans to introduce a border carbon tax, which will be levied on importers for greenhouse gas emissions that occurred during the production of goods imported into the EU. The introduction of this measure is justified by the fight against "carbon leakage" in economic sectors whose enterprises are included in the EU emissions trading system and are forced to buy quotas. Carbon leakage is expressed in the movement of carbon-intensive industry to countries where emissions are cheaper, as well as in the displacement of national producers by foreign competitors. In the current version of the Draft Law ^[13], the tax applies to the products of the ferrous metallurgy, electric power, aluminum, cement, ammonia, nitric acid and fertilizers industries, and from 2026, petroleum products and petrochemical products can enter the perimeter. As a result, the additional financial burden on Russian exporters, according to various estimates, will be from 1.1 to 8 billion euros per year ^{[14, 15]}.

Despite the contradictions of the border carbon tax being developed with some provisions of the Paris Agreement and WTO rules, the probability of preventing its introduction is low. The preferred reaction seems to be the use of the right to reduce the amount of tax on the amount of payment, which is imposed on the carbon footprint of imported goods in the country of origin. This measure will allow redirecting the payments of exporters in favor of the state revenues of Russia. The emissions trading system is one of the optimal options, therefore, in the case of a successful experiment in the Sakhalin region, it is advisable to extend it to the entire country.

An alternative solution may be a carbon export fee for the export of goods outside the EAEU, from the introduction of which the gain of the Russian economy for the period from 2026 to 2035 would amount to almost 700 billion rubles. ^[16] However, there is a risk of non-acceptance of the export fee to offset within the framework of the EU border carbon tax. In this case, there remains the option of working out an internal carbon tax on the products of industries subject to the EU fiscal instrument.

Incentives for greening in the taxation of corporate profits

It is possible to stimulate the greening of business not only with the help of specialized taxes and fees, but also by changing elements of other taxes. Thus, the current legislation gives taxpayers the right to accelerated depreciation of the main technological equipment operated in the case of the use of the best available technologies, and fixed assets (with the exception of buildings) having high energy efficiency or a high energy efficiency class (with a coefficient not higher than 2). Statistical data on the application of these benefits by taxpayers in 2019-2021 are presented in Figure 1.

Fig. 1. The amount of accrued depreciation using a special coefficient, billion rubles.

Note: compiled by the author on the basis of data from the Federal Tax Service of Russia in form No. 5-P ^[17]. The values of the indicators for 2021 are calculated as 12/9 of the amounts as of 01.10.2021.

Accounting for depreciation charges in earlier periods allows you to reduce the tax base and the amount of corporate income tax, which increases the profitability of investments in such equipment. However, the benefits currently available are not enough for large-scale technological re-equipment of enterprises and the promotion of other environmental initiatives. In order to realize the regulatory potential of taxation more fully, additional tools are needed.

Free depreciation of equipment of the best available technologies

One of the most important tools of environmental industrial policy is the best available technologies, the use of which is aimed at the comprehensive prevention or minimization of negative environmental impacts. The technology is determined as the best available under the condition of an optimal combination of energy, environmental and economic indicators. The experience of the EU countries confirms the effectiveness of the best available technologies as an object of "green" investment ^[18]. Their implementation provides a "double win" – increasing the efficiency of economic activity and minimizing environmental damage.

In Russia, the areas of application of the best available technologies are established by the Government and can be grouped into 10 enlarged groups (Figure 2).

Fig. 2. Areas of application of the best available technologies

Note: compiled by the author on the basis of the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated 24.12.2014 No. 2674-r "On approval of the List of areas of application of the best available technologies" (ed. from 01.11.2021) // SPS "ConsultantPlus".

A wide list of industries that require technological renewal and greening of enterprises for sustainable growth determines the importance of state financial support for the introduction of the best available technologies. Considering the possibilities of tax instruments in this context, it should be noted that among the investment benefits that are both beneficial to organizations and not too critical for the revenue base of state budgets is a flexible depreciation policy. By maneuvering the speed of writing off the cost of fixed assets, taxpayers reduce tax liabilities in preferred periods by transferring expenses over time.

An effective incentive for companies to introduce the best available technologies is the introduction of free depreciation of equipment operated in the case of their use. The right to write off the cost during any period approved by the organization will help in corporate tax planning, one of the elements of which is the optimal allocation of expenses for tax purposes. As a result of reducing the tax burden, the payback of investments in the best available technologies will accelerate, which will become an additional argument in their favor when evaluating investment alternatives.

Considering the consequences of free depreciation for the budgets of the budgetary system of the Russian Federation, it is necessary to take into account that the application of this benefit does not increase the total amount of deductible expenses, but only transfers the moment of their recognition. Accordingly, the decrease in the tax base and income tax receipts turns out to be temporary and is offset by the absence of depreciation charges in subsequent periods. Nevertheless, the state bears the costs of providing depreciation benefits due to the unequal cost of money over time. Let's illustrate this effect with an example in Table 1.

According to the Federal Tax Service of Russia, for 9 months of 2021, taxpayers wrote off 3329.28 million rubles. the cost of equipment operated in the case of the use of the best available technologies ^[17]. Multiplying by 12/9, we recalculate the amount into an annual expression and then divide by 2 to obtain the depreciation value without an increasing coefficient – 2219.52 million rubles per year. If the useful life is, for example, 10 years, then the total cost of the equipment is 22195.2 million rubles. Suppose that, using the right of free depreciation, companies decide to write off all expenses in the first period of operation and not distribute deductions by year. For discounting, we apply the yield rate of government coupon–free ten-year bonds as of 06/03/2022 - 9.13% ^[19]. We will take the first year of equipment use as the base year and bring cash flows to this period.

Table 1 – An example of calculating budget losses from free depreciation of equipment operated in the case of the use of the best available technologies

The calculations carried out show that the negative fiscal effect has been replaced by a positive one since the second year of using equipment previously fully self-subsidized by taxpayers. Thus, the state's losses from free depreciation are not as significant as they seem at first glance, and in the example under consideration are equal to the total discounted cash flow of 1,347.7 million rubles (0.005% of tax revenues in 2021 or 0.022% of corporate income tax receipts for the same period).

Moreover, since the best available technologies are characterized by economic efficiency of operation, the use of resource- and energy-saving methods, their implementation will have a positive impact not only on the environment, but also on the business processes of companies. The growth of capital return and profitability of production will lead to an expansion of the tax base and an increase in tax revenues to state budgets.

As technology becomes widespread, in order to prevent significant loss of income, it is permissible to set a limit on expensive equipment – a minimum write-off period lasting, for example, 12-36 months. At the same time, it is advisable to differentiate the boundaries by the cost of fixed assets, as well as not to exceed the usual useful lives approved by the classifier for each depreciation group.

Reduced VAT rate on secondary raw materials

The country's sustainable development strategy, as one of the main vectors, provides for the transition to a closed-cycle economy, based, among other things, on the use of secondary resources and the processing of products for re-involvement in circulation ^[20]. Production from recycled materials helps to mitigate the ecological and economic crisis, on the one hand, by saving resources and preventing environmental damage from obtaining primary materials, and on the other – by rational use of waste instead of creating landfills that pollute the environment. Over the past decade, resource efficiency issues have attracted particular attention of the G20 countries, many of which have begun to develop and implement national strategies and roadmaps aimed at increasing resource productivity and developing a circular economy ^[21].

When working out the mechanisms of inducing companies to a certain behavior model, it is necessary to take into account the characteristic features of the economic system in which they operate. In conditions of free pricing and competition for consumer demand, those firms that manage to offer goods with an optimal price-quality ratio receive advantages. It is the demand for manufactured products that generates an expansion of production and a reorientation to the goods most in demand by customers. At the same time, indirect taxation in the form of VAT has a significant impact on price competitiveness, since the tax increases the final cost of products. Therefore, by revising the elements of VAT, the state can contribute to increasing the profitability and sales volume of certain goods.

Based on the above, it seems appropriate to stimulate demand for products manufactured using recycled materials by reducing the VAT rate to 15% when selling them. Simultaneously with the introduction of the benefit, it is necessary to approve a list of goods indicating the threshold share of recyclables, upon reaching which they fall into the privileged category. Taking into account the different possibilities for processing different types of materials, the classification requires a differentiated approach and a comprehensive analysis. For example, glass, paper and metal products are relatively easy to reuse, while textile recycling rates are much lower. In the future, with the development of technologies and the expansion of the list of recyclable waste, the classifier of preferential goods should be revised and the threshold values adjusted.

From the point of view of the formation of state budget revenues, the most obvious consequence of the proposed benefit is a decrease in VAT receipts. This tax has great fiscal significance both for the federal budget, in which it provided more than a third of revenues in 2021, and in the structure of tax revenues of the state as a whole, where it amounted to 19.2% ^[17]. Therefore, special attention when introducing a reduced rate should be paid not only to environmental, but also to economic feasibility. In this regard, we note that the popularity of the idea of a closed cycle of production and consumption is due to the awareness of the inseparability of sustainable development and economic growth from environmental well-being ^[22]. Circular economy focuses on overcoming the dependence of economic growth on the negative impact on the environment and the depletion of natural resources. Increasing resource efficiency, the repeated use of raw materials and the involvement of products in re-circulation can bring economic benefits while simultaneously solving environmental problems. Thus, according to various estimates, the result of the transition to a closed-cycle economy may be an increase in GDP by 12-15% ^[23].

In order to achieve the effectiveness of the tax benefit, it is important to study in detail the previously mentioned classifier of preferential goods with the involvement of competent technologists who have information about production processes and available technologies in various industries. Timely updating of the list of goods and threshold values of the share of secondary raw materials will provide the state with flexibility in managing the process of applying the benefit. In addition, it is necessary to regularly assess and analyze the loss of income based on data in quarterly VAT tax returns.

Concluding the consideration of the issue of popularization of products made of recycled materials, it should be noted that the necessary condition for its production is the preliminary accumulation, sorting and recycling of waste. Some trading companies are already collecting recyclables on their own initiative, and the introduction of the proposed benefit will be an additional motivation for them. Otherwise, success will depend on the reform of the waste management system through non-tax measures.

Preferential taxation of income from "green" financing

As you know, financial resources are needed for the implementation of any investment project, and the greening of business is no exception. The introduction of high–tech and energy-efficient equipment, the equipping of processing plants, decarbonization and the development of alternative energy - all this requires significant investments. Without proper financial support, no "green" project can be implemented ^[24]. Along with public financing, a significant role belongs to corporate and private investors, for which favorable conditions in the financial market are important.

Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 1587 dated 09/21/2021 "On Approval of Criteria for Sustainable (including Green) Development Projects in the Russian Federation and Requirements for the Verification System for Sustainable (including Green) Development Projects in the Russian Federation" approved the taxonomy of sustainable development projects, the development of which took into account both international standards and national priorities economy. The projects in the taxonomy are divided into two groups: green and adaptive. The funds raised as part of their financing are used to protect the environment and minimize environmental damage: development of renewable energy sources, reduction of emissions and discharges of pollutants, conservation of biodiversity, energy efficiency improvement, construction of waste recycling complexes, etc.

The methodological center overseeing the process of attracting investments and verifying financial instruments for sustainable development is the State Development Corporation "VEB.RF". Bonds traded on the Moscow Exchange, if they comply with Russian and international principles, are included in the segment of "green" bonds. If the project does not fully comply with the international understanding of "green", but is important for solving national problems, the bonds can be attributed to the segment of "national and adaptation projects". As of the beginning of June 2022, the total volume of the first segment is 135.6 billion rubles, and the second in terms of the national project "Ecology" is 5 billion rubles. ^[25]

The global market of "green" bonds began to form earlier and from the very first days was characterized by accelerated growth. In 2021, the volume of output reached a record 481.8 billion US dollars, double the figure of the previous year ^[26]. Government support for corporate "green" bonds is widespread in foreign countries. The range of instruments includes reimbursement of project verification costs, subsidizing the coupon rate, preferential taxation of investor income, provision of guarantees and a number of others ^[27].

Within the framework of tax incentives for companies to invest in the environment in Russia, the following measures seem appropriate in relation to bonds from the sustainable development sector that fall into the segments of "green" and "national and adaptation projects" in the field of ecology:

1) to lower to 10% the corporate income tax rate in relation to interest income;

2) to lower to 0% the corporate income tax rate in respect of the financial result from the sale or other disposal of bonds, provided that they have been continuously owned by the taxpayer for at least 1 year.

The introduction of the designated tax benefits will help to increase the investment attractiveness of "green" bonds and will allow issuers to attract additional financial resources for the implementation of environmental projects, and investors to effectively invest free funds and at the same time feel their contribution to environmental protection. Moreover, these measures will help the development of sustainable financing instruments, which corresponds to one of the tasks set in the "Main directions of development of the financial market of the Russian Federation for 2022 and the period 2023 and 2024".

Assessing the fiscal consequences of the proposed measure, we note that according to the current rules of corporate profit taxation, a 15% rate is applied to coupon income on exchange-traded bonds of Russian organizations and authorities, and the entire amount of tax is credited to the federal budget. The results of the assessment of the shortfall in state revenues in the event of a reduction to 10% of the tax rate on interest on "green" and "adaptation" bonds are based on the characteristics published by the Moscow Exchange and are presented in Table 2. Projected shortfalls in the federal budget in the amount of 560.4 million rubles in relation to its income from corporate income tax for 2021. they amount to 0.036%, and to total tax income – 0.004%. It is difficult to accurately calculate the shortfalls due to the zeroing of income tax on the sale or repayment of bonds based on the available data, however, their size is not expected to be very significant, since the main income holders of coupon bonds, as a rule, receive in the form of interest payments.

Table 2 – Assessment of the shortfall in federal budget revenues of the Russian Federation due to the reduction to 10% of the corporate income tax rate in relation to interest on "environmental" bonds of the sustainable development sector

Note: calculated by the author according to the data of the Moscow Stock Exchange ^[25] with the assumption that the bondholders are payers of corporate income tax. The current nominal value of each bond is 1000 rubles.

Cancellation of VAT recovery in case of gratuitous transfer of food

A significant amount of food waste generated in the sphere of trade, public catering and households remains an urgent problem of modern society. Expired products are sent to landfills and landfills, where they become a source of methane, ammonia and hydrogen sulfide. According to estimates of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), about 8-10% of global greenhouse gas emissions are associated with unused food ^[28]. Negative consequences arise not only from the environmental, but also from the socio-economic side: the cost of food annually thrown out in Russia exceeds 1.6 trillion rubles, and its salvation would allow feeding 30 million people, that is, more than the number of people living below the poverty line ^[29].

An effective way to prevent the irrational use of food products can be food sharing, for the development of which it is necessary to involve large retail chains. At the moment, there are several barriers to the transfer of expired products for charitable purposes, and one of the most significant is the current tax legislation. By purchasing goods from the manufacturer, the value of which includes VAT, the trading company takes the tax deductible and reduces the size of its tax obligations. In case of further transfer of goods to non-profit organizations, VAT must be restored and paid to the budget in full. Thus, the additional tax burden on the seller is up to 20% of the cost of products, while the disposal of organic waste is much cheaper.

To eliminate the indicated obstacle, it is advisable to cancel the obligation to restore VAT previously deducted for the gratuitous transfer of food, but at the same time limit the amount of deduction of 1% of the amount of proceeds from the sale of goods and determine the range of organizations through which charity will be implemented ^[30]. These restrictions will prevent abuse of the norm and are also consistent with the conditions for reducing taxable profit on the value of property transferred to socially oriented non-profit organizations.

In order to assess the amount of tax revenues falling out when introducing the proposed amendments to the legislation, we turn to the official statistics of the Federal Tax Service of Russia on Form No. 1-VAT ^[17]. In 2021, taxpayers collectively recovered 2,326.3 billion rubles. VAT, of which 83.1% is the tax previously deducted from the prepayment made, and 8% is restored when performing transactions taxed at a zero rate. The remaining amount is not detailed in the report and includes other grounds for restoration under the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, among which the gratuitous transfer of food hardly occupies a significant share. According to the UNEP report ^[28], about 4,868.5 thousand tons or 70.2% of food waste in Russia is generated annually in households, therefore, potential VAT payers account for approximately 476.6 billion rubles of discarded products in value terms. Assuming that half of these food products fall into the list of taxable at the rate of 10%, and the rest at 20%, we calculate the total amount of tax to be restored in case of their transfer to charity – 71.5 billion rubles. or 1.28% of VAT accrued in 2021. At the same time, it should be borne in mind that in the current conditions, the state does not receive this amount in the form of tax, since the products are disposed of and there is no obligation to restore VAT.

The expansion of food-sharing activities will contribute to the solution of several global problems at once and will bring closer the achievement of the UN Sustainable Development Goals, such as the elimination of hunger, responsible consumption and production, and the fight against climate change. Suitable products saved from being thrown away will be transferred to those in need, and as a result, it will be possible to feed more people with the involvement of fewer resources. In this regard, a potential reduction in social spending will have a positive effect on the budget system of the Russian Federation. Reducing the amount of food waste, in turn, will lead to a reduction in the negative impact on the environment.

Accelerated write-off of costs for the introduction of electronic document management

The ecological footprint is left not only by the current activities of economic entities, but also by its documentation, which is necessary for formalizing obligations and compliance with legal requirements. More than 3.7 million companies and 4 million individual entrepreneurs are involved in the economic document flow in the Russian Federation, which annually create about 11.5 billion documents ^[31]. Millions of trees are cut down for the production of paper media, tons of water and liters of fuel are consumed, and expired documents become waste and harm the environment. Additional environmental damage is caused by the transportation of documents between contractors, the production and disposal of printing equipment, dyes and packaging.

The prospects for minimizing the negative effect are in the development of electronic document management (hereinafter referred to as EDI) – the exchange of legally significant documents in electronic form through an authorized operator. In recent years, EDO has been gaining popularity: according to SKB Kontur, the number of connected Russian companies increased by 40% in 2021, and the volume of electronic documents reached 1.1 billion pieces. The demand for the introduction of EDI is due to the opportunities to significantly reduce costs and improve business processes by speeding up document flow, reducing errors and non-production costs, optimizing labor potential, improving the convenience of storing and processing documents. From the point of view of ecology, according to the estimates of the International Association for Information and Image Management, 17 trees, 26 thousand liters of water and 240 liters of fuel will be saved by saving a ton of paper.

The main obstacles that make it difficult for most business representatives to switch to EDI are related to the high cost of integration. As a rule, the translation of documents into electronic form requires the restructuring of the internal systems of economic entities and significant costs. On average, the company spends 1.8-2 million rubles on the implementation of EDI, and 170 thousand rubles annually on subsequent maintenance (an approximate cost structure is shown in Figure 3). In the future, investments pay off due to savings on operating expenses, but one-time investments negatively affect the financial condition of organizations. This problem is also noted in the Concept of the Development of Electronic Document Management in Economic Activity, developed by the Federal Tax Service of Russia jointly with interested authorities and representatives of the business community (approved by the decision of the Presidium of the Government Commission on Digital Development, the Use of Information Technologies to Improve the Quality of Life and Business Conditions, Protocol No. 34 dated 12/25/2020). Among the solution options, the development of measures to compensate for the costs of implementing EDI is indicated, but the Concept does not contain specific proposals.

Fig. 3. Approximate cost structure of the company in the first year of using the electronic document management system

Note: compiled by the author on the basis of the Contour price lists.Diadoc, SED THESIS, EnDocs. URL: https://www.diadoc.ru/price ; https://www.tezis-doc.ru/buy /; https://endocs.ru/price / (accessed: 05/28/2022).

The optimal tool for partial compensation and encouraging companies to switch to EDI is the consolidation in tax legislation of the procedure for accelerated write-off of capitalized costs associated with the integration of relevant systems. According to the current legislation, the costs of implementing EDI, purchasing and integrating software should be distributed evenly over the term of the license agreement and taken into account for profit taxation purposes gradually. It is advisable to grant taxpayers of corporate income tax the right to write off such expenses in an accelerated manner: at a time during the period of commissioning of the EDI system. To enhance the compensatory effect when determining the corresponding expenses to the amount of actual costs, it is permissible to apply an increasing coefficient, for example, in the amount of 1.5. As a result, organizations will be able to reduce the tax base of the current period, save on tax payments, and therefore preserve the working capital necessary for normal operations in the conditions of restructuring internal processes.

The consequences of the implementation of the indicated proposal for the budgets of the budgetary system of the Russian Federation are seen to be multidirectional. On the one hand, accelerated write-off of expenses will lead to a reduction in income tax receipts from organizations switching to EDI. According to the press service of the company "Buchsoft", about 53.9% of companies use EDO capabilities, and the rest only have to implement it. Based on data on the number of income tax taxpayers and the average cost of integration, the estimated cost of switching 46.1% of them to EDI is 688.2 - 764.7 billion rubles, which is equivalent to a tax reduction of 137.6 - 152.9 billion rubles. (taking into account the increasing coefficient – up to 229.4 billion rubles.). Since the simultaneous implementation of expenses by all companies is unlikely, this amount will not become a one-time loss of budget revenues, but will be distributed over the period of the spread of EDI in the economy. In addition, as it was shown earlier in the example in Table 1, the losses of the state from preferential accounting of capitalized costs are smoothed out in subsequent periods.

The positive effect of the introduction of EDI will be expressed not only in reducing environmental damage, but also in minimizing the operating costs of companies: the exchange of documents in electronic form is about 6 times cheaper than in paper ^[31]. As a result of cost reduction, profits will increase, and the released funds will become an additional source of production expansion. As a result, the base for calculating taxes will increase and the revenues of the budgets of the budgetary system of the Russian Federation will grow.

The transition of companies to electronic documents is also interesting for regulatory authorities. The organization of document flow through an authorized EDI operator simplifies the receipt of documents within the framework of tax control measures, reduces the possibility of their substitution or concealment, and also allows to increase the efficiency of processing the information contained and further automate this process. As a result, the possibilities of tax authorities to conduct a preliminary analysis of taxpayers' activities and implement a risk-based approach are expanding. Increasing the transparency of business processes, in turn, means reducing the number of violations of legislation that lead to underestimation of tax payments. The advantages of EDI are also noted by the Government of the Russian Federation, whose Decree No. 2816-r dated October 6, 2021 approved its development as one of the strategic initiatives.

Conclusion

The conducted research allows us to conclude that there is a significant potential of the tax system in solving topical environmental issues. The state has opportunities to encourage companies to comply with the principles of environmental protection, "green" modernization of production processes and auxiliary activities. The proposals substantiated in this paper on amendments to the Russian tax legislation are aimed at reducing environmental damage by achieving the following results:

– dissemination of the best available technologies;

– popularization of goods from secondary raw materials;

– attracting investments in "green" projects;

– reduction of food waste due to the development of foodsharing;

– replacement of paper document management with electronic.

Based on the qualitative and quantitative assessment of the proposed solutions, the expediency of their implementation to ensure environmental transformation and sustainable development of the Russian economy has been established. The expansion of the base for calculating taxes due to the improvement of business processes, saving resources and reducing non-production costs of companies, as well as the development of tax control and preliminary analysis measures will contribute to the replenishment of the shortfall in budget revenues of the budget system of the Russian Federation. Along with this, the sources of additional revenues to the budgets will be an improved system of environmental payments in accordance with the outlined recommendations and a developing mechanism for quoting greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, the expansion of food-sharing activities will create a basis for reducing government spending, and improving the environmental situation as a whole will improve the quality of life and health of the population, which ultimately will minimize the costs of treating environmentally caused diseases.