After completion in Russia all large–scale cash projects (these include the Olympic Games, FIFA World Cup) in which the Russian organization can participate as a contractor or supplier of goods, works and services (and the transactions of the Tax Code provides tax incentives), will be precisely those 5 years, after which there is a right imposed on the use of Federal Law № 395–FZ of the tax exemptions for income from sale of shares of Russian companies that are not traded in an organized market. Let us consider the second stage of the analyzed financial schemes Tax Evasion.
Shares of the Russian side once again sold to foreign companies, but this time in a reverse way – cheaply sold and then repurchased for high price.
A REVIEW OF REGULATORY DOCUMENTS ON TAXATION...
As a result, at the time of the transaction money goes to the country from which originally came the capital, and in Russia on the balance sheet losses are reflected on a business transaction. The subtlety of the situation is that, in accordance with international agreements on avoiding double taxation of income from the sale of movable property (as securities relate to movable property) are taxed at the place of tax residence of the seller – in Russia! That is, where the deal in the balance sheet shows losses. The result of the operation: Russia’s budget does not receive any revenue, and the budget of a foreign country, from where «hot capital» came, can also get nothing (if it is possible to reflect the balance of costs within the revenue). But the organizer of the deal in shares is not enough that will not pay a penny as a result of taxes on profits earned in any of the budgets, in doing so he also will retain the image of a respectable and efficient foreign producers because it compensates for those losses that 5 years ago were «hanging» on the balance of its foreign firm.
In our opinion, the tax policy of the Russian authorities should be carried out with great caution, because Russia may not only lose a significant share of the revenue base of its budget, but also cause complaints from foreign governments that its actions resulting in damage to the interests of other states, because contribute to the formation of channels of tax evasion. This is an extremely negative impact on the investment attractiveness of Russia as foreign governments will be compelled under its domestic law by administrative means to block channels of tax evasion, introduce a compensatory tax burden on income received from Russia, which will make investments in the Russian economy inefficient.
Eliminating the tax evasion is one of the cornerstones of a market tax policies of any State.
5) The Act attempted to resolve the situation for the elimination of the tax base for income tax on foreign currency exchange. Directly in the text of the Tax Code in Art. 271 and 272 states that in determining the amount of income (expenses), advance payments are recorded at the exchange rate on the date of receipt (payment). But as the advances themselves are not income (expense) in economic terms, the legislative recording of payments has become necessary above all to have legitimate grounds to regard earnings (gross expenses) in rubles on the transaction as a direct sum of two quantities: – advance and balance payments, converted at exchange rates at the relevant dates.
6) A tax benefit is introduced on profit for the medical and educational institutions in the form of the 0% rate on all income provided that the share of income from core activities (for educational institutions – from education and science) is not less than 90%. The introduction of such benefit, apparently is aimed at mitigating the potential social concern due to the entry into force in July 2012 rules on the change in the status of public institutions, the consequence of which will transfer educational and medical institutions with direct budget financing for budgetary subsidies.
Waiver of tax revenue, according to the authors of the amendments will allow to slow down the growing cost of education and medical care at least at first stages. The question of whether this decision leads to a decrease in revenues of regional budgets, and whether the federal budget in parallel provides the amount of compensation decreased income of the regional budgets is an ambiguous issue, because in accordance with applicable law educational and medical institutions are non–profit.
2. Federal law of Dec. 28, 2010 N 409–FZ legislatively defined the period of 3 years, after which declared but unclaimed dividends by shareholders should be recovered in the retained earnings of the society without paying (to the society) again the corporate income tax. Thus, in the Tax Code, there secured a single mechanism of corporate income tax, convertible into capital.
3.. Federal law of Dec. 28, 2010 N 425–FZ of the text of the Tax Code separately describes the procedure for classifying expenses the cost of health and safety in coal mining as part of production costs. There is no anything fundamentally new in the economic decision, it rather provides a reformat of the old mechanism of classifying expenditures, including those associated with the creation or acquisition of equipment to ensure the safety of miners on costs. These amendments reflect the society’s response to the tragedy at the mine Raspadskaya. Doubts are provoked by the differentiation of tax rates for mining by type of coal.
Tax system, in our view, should provide fiscal liaison between the revenue base budget with the producers’ income without distorting the motives of their activities, i.e., without the direct influence RUSSIAN ECONOMY: TRENDS AND PERSPECTIVES of taxes on the structure of market prices. In this regard, we believe that it should be avoided whenever possible economically unjustified differentiation of the tax burden and establishment of individual tax rates and tax regulation schemes. Special tax treatments are accompanied with imbalance of the competitive market, which leads to distortions in prices compared to actual prices and conditions prevailing in the open market.
4. Another example of personalization of the schemes of mandatory payments in the Russian Federation is the Federal Law of December 28, 2010 N 432–FZ. Against the general background of growing insurance rate by 2.4 times from January 1, 2011, there is formed a list of activities of organizations, applying the simplified taxation system (UPDF), under which in the coming years there will be used entirely different, much lower insurance premium rates. The definition of certain types of activities given in the text of the Act, requires clarification, such as “the activities of sports facilities” (any activity), “Activities of libraries, archives, clubs and similar institutions (except for the activities of clubs), etc.
5. In late 2010 – early 2011, there have been quite understandable upsurge of requests for the structure of the income taken in the analysis of eligibility, permitting organizations to apply special tax regimes (e.g., compliance with the criterion of agricultural producers, or the criteria for the organization, applying the simplified taxation system and etc.). In fact, Art. 58 of the Federal Law of 24.07.2009, № 212–FZ on the insurance premiums to the state social extrabudgetary funds provided for preferential rates of insurance premiums for several organizations, including using special tax regimes. It is noteworthy that a number of revenue and income from financial operations are derived for the calculation scheme of such criteria. Thus, in accordance with the letter RF Ministry of Finance to December 22, 2010 N 03–11–06/1/27, when determining the share of income from the sale of agricultural products in the total income from sales of goods (works, services) has not included proceeds from the sale property rights. That is, income from assignment of claims and the sale of its share in the capital of another company are not considered when determining the share of income from sales of agricultural products in the total income from sales of goods, works and services. A similar explanation is given in the letter of the RF Ministry of Finance of December 27, 2010 N 03–11–06/1/28 in respect of income of farmers in connection with the transfer of property under a sublease. Income from the subleasing agreement also does not affect the status of the taxpayer. If in the tax revenues that do not participate in the qualifying tax status of the taxpayer, nut nevertheless, are not exempt from taxation and are subject to general rules, the rate of the premium paid is determined depending on the tax status of the payer. In this connection, apparently, one should expect significant growth in agricultural organizations, applying the simplified taxation system, and other organizations, using special tax regimes, which due to their tax status are subject to preferential rates of insurance premiums, but are performing intensive and extensive operations in the financial markets.
6. It is known that stimulating regimes are introduced in the tax laws sometimes as a way to implement the promises stated in the highest state level in response to complaints or criticism from a particular social group. Opportunistic nature of such measures may appear rather curious.
In a letter to the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation of December 29, 2010 N 03– 04–06/6–322 on the issue of taxation of personal income (PIT), the amounts of interest on trust loans (credits) clarifies the application of benefits in respect of interest on loans attracted by the employee organization for the purchase of housing, if such interest is paid by the organization. The RF Ministry of Finance explained that in accordance with paragraph 40 of Article. 217 of the Tax amounts paid by organizations to their employees for reimbursement for payment of interest on loans (credits) to purchase and (or) construction of residential premises to be included in expenses taken into account when determining the tax base income Code are not subject to taxation on personal income. But in the case of payment by the organization for the employee interest on a loan (credit) directly to the bank rate of paragraph 40 of Article 217 of the Code, is not applicable because the employee compensation includes amounts previously paid as a tax base for corporate income. But in the case of payment by the organization for the employee the interest rte on a A REVIEW OF REGULATORY DOCUMENTS ON TAXATION...
loan (credit) directly to the bank, provisions of paragraph 40 of Article. 217 of the Code are not applicable, because compensation previously paid to the employee is not made. In fact, the main financial body of the country is compelled, by relying exclusively on the formal side of the deal, in different ways to qualify the situation with the application of the benefit to personal income tax, depending on whether the interest was reimbursed by a natural person, or the organization paid for these percentages.
It is evident that in economic terms the situation in both cases are absolutely identical – and in fact, and in another case, beneficiary interest under a contract associated with the acquisition of housing advocates employee organization. This kind of internal contradictions of the Tax Code violates the principle of tax equity. We believe that the prompt settlement of such situations in the tax legislation should be introduced to formal comments from the higher courts at the request of the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation, since the RF Ministry of Finance is authorized only to clarify the application of tax laws and may not interpret the legal situation in general, i.e., determine whether there is a violation of economic interests of taxpayers, or a violation of fairness in taxation or not, and how they can be corrected.
7. The letter of the Federal Tax Service of December 30, 2010 NPA–37–6/19020 has explained the procedure for granting by the tax authorities of the information contained in the Uniform State Register of Legal Entities and the Unified State Register of Individual Entrepreneurs.
RUSSIAN ECONOMY: TRENDS AND PERSPECTIVES CHANGES IN THE NORMATIVE BASE OF THE BUDGETARY PROCESS M.Goldin In January 2011, the Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation was adopted, whereby the specific features of the execution of the federal budget in 2012 – 2013 were established.
By the RF Government’s Resolution of 28 December 2010, No 1171, ‘On Measures Aimed at the Implementation of Federal Law of 13 December 2010, No 357-FZ, “On the Federal Budget for 2011 and the 2012 and 2013 Planning Period”’, the specific features of the execution of the federal budget in 2012 – 2013 were established.
In particular, the procedure for granting subsidies to legal entities and individual entrepreneurs in 2011 was elaborated more specifically.
It was established that the sums of subsidies granted to federal budget-funded and autonomous institutions and intended to finance the provision of public services assigned thereto by the government should be distributed on a quarterly basis (as a percentage of the annual amount of a subsidy).
It was envisaged that the recipients of funding from the federal budget, when concluding the agreements (or government contracts) on the supply of goods, performance of work or provision of services within the relevant limits of budget obligations set in the established procedure for and the 2012 and 2013 planning period, as well as the contracts to be implemented at the expense of proceeds from commercial services and other profitable activities, should have the right to demand advance payments. In particular, such payments may be made in the following amounts:
а) 100 % of the sum of a government contract concluded under agreements (or government contracts) on the provision of transport services involving the shipment of humanitarian aid cargoes via railways during humanitarian campaigns launched by the RF Ministry for Civil Defense, Emergency Situations and Disaster Relief or by the recipients of funding from the federal budget supervised by that Ministry, with Russian contractor organizations under agreements (or government contracts) concluded as part of the implementation of agreements concerning the provision of financial aid earmarked for the restoration (or construction, reconstruction, or capital repairs) of certain objects and the acquisition of fixed assets in the Republic of South Osetia and the Republic of Abkhazia;
Материалы этого сайта размещены для ознакомления, все права принадлежат их авторам.
Если Вы не согласны с тем, что Ваш материал размещён на этом сайте, пожалуйста, напишите нам, мы в течении 1-2 рабочих дней удалим его.