Translate this page:
Please select your language to translate the article


You can just close the window to don't translate
Library
Your profile

Back to contents

Financial Law and Management
Reference:

Trofimova G.A. Tax Liability: the Problem of Definition and Regulation

Abstract: The current legal regulation often has incomplete definitions of statutes or institutions. This creates a problem with the legal provisions and rights of parties involved. One of such unclearly defined institutions is tax liability which both theoretically and legally presented without a clear definition of whether it has a financial law, administrative or independent nature. Administrative law researches usually view tax liability as having an administrative nature, financial law researches see it as having the financial legal  nature. The author of this article also tried to find out what kind of criteria used in the studies are insufficient or false initially and do not lead to correct conclusions. To achieve the aim of the research the author has used private and general scientific methods of research, in particular, logical, formal and legal, comparative, systems approaches. As a result, the author has come to the conclusion that it is possible to consider tax liability as a kind of administrative responsibility envisaged by the norms of the tax law. He substantiated the criteria that can guide the definition of the essence of responsibility and legislative regulation of the liability provisions. The research will be useful for correcting the legal provisions regarding the definition of the legal nature of liability in the are of taxation.


Keywords:

legal quality of laws, principle of expediency of the regulation, criteria for allocation of responsibility, fiscal responsibility, financial responsibility, administrative responsibility, tax law, administrative law, legal nature of responsibility, essence of responsibility.


This article can be downloaded freely in PDF format for reading. Download article


References
1. Razgil'dieva M. B. Nalogovaya otvetstvennost' v sisteme yuridicheskoi otvetstvennosti // Izvestiya vysshikh uchebnykh zavedenii. 2002. ¹ 5 (244).
2. Makarov A. V., Arkhipenko T. V. Kharakteristika nalogovoi otvetstvennosti. Sanktsii za narushenie nalogovogo zakonodatel'stva // Finansovoe pravo. 2005. ¹ 6.
3. Sapfirova A. A. Problemy opredeleniya mer otvetstvennosti za nalogovye pravonarusheniya // Teoriya i praktika obshchestvennogo razvitiya. 2006. ¹ 3.
4. Solovchenkova N., Izosimov S. Otrazhenie doktriny razgranicheniya nalogovoi i administrativnoi otvetstvennosti v otechestvennom zakonodatel'stve // Vestnik Khabarovskoi gosudarstvennoi akademii ekonomiki i prava. 2009. ¹ 3.
5. Garshin A. S. O pravovoi prirode yuridicheskoi otvetstvennosti za narusheniya rossiiskogo zakonodatel'stva o nalogakh i sborakh // Finansovoe pravo. 2009. ¹ 4.
6. Panov A. B. Osobennosti administrativnoi otvetstvennosti za nalogovye pravonarusheniya // Administrativnoe pravo i protsess. 2014. ¹ 6.
7. Kondrat'ev S. V. Sistema yuridicheskoi otvetstvennosti v oblasti nalogov i sborov // Ekonomika. Nalogi. Pravo. 2015. ¹ 1.
8. Veremeenko I. I. K voprosu o finansovo-pravovoi i administrativno-pravovoi otvetstvennosti v rossiiskom prave // Pravo i upravlenie. XX² vek. 2012. ¹ 4 (25).
9. Musatkina A. A. Finansovaya otvetstvennost' v sisteme yuridicheskoi otvetstvennosti / Pod red. dokt. yurid. nauk, prof. R. L. Khachaturova. Tol'yatti: Volzhskii universitet im. V. N. Tatishcheva, 2003. [Elektronnyi resurs]. S. 39-40.
10. Tyutina Yu. V. O meste nalogovoi otvetstvennosti v sisteme nalogovoi otvetstvennosti // Zakony Rossii: opyt, analiz, praktika. 2008. ¹ 2.
11. Tkachenko A. A. K voprosu o pravovoi prirode nalogovoi otvetstvennosti // Vektor nauki Tol'yattinskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya: yuridicheskie nauki. 2011. ¹ 3.