In the new wording shirking as the grounds for a dismissal is understood not only as the absence from job without justifiable reasons for more than four hours in succession during a work day (or a shift), but also the absence from job without justifiable reasons for the duration of a whole working day (or a whole shift), which apparently is due to the fact that the duration of a shift may be less than 4 hours.
The Code equalizes the disclosure of the personal data of a worker, which has become known to another worker as a result of execution of labor duties, with the disclosure of a secret protected by the law, which as a result may entail the dis missal of the worker.
The procedure for calculating the average daily earnings for payment of leaves and payment of contributory compensation for unused leaves has been changed: the average earnings will now be calculated for the last 12 calendar months by means of dividing the amount of a earnings added by 12 and by 29.(average monthly number of calendar days). The procedure for replacing the an nual paid leave by a money compensation has been made more precise – such a replacement is allowed for only a part of each annual paid leave in excess of 28 cal endar days, or any other number of days from that part.
It is established that additional compensation should be paid to workers (with the exception of worker receiving a salary) for labor on non work holidays, the size of which is to be determined by a collective contract, or by agreements, or by a lo cal normative act, or by a labor contract. In this connection, the amounts of expen ditures on the payment of such a compensation are charged to the payroll in full.
Also another stipulation is added whereby the Government’s acts concerning the carrying over of holidays to other days in each calendar year must be officially pub lished no later than one month before the beginning of a calendar year. In an event when such an act is nevertheless issued during a calendar year, it must be pub lished no later than 2 months prior to the calendar date of the newly established non work day.
A new article concerning the system of payment of labor of workers of state and municipal institutions is introduced. The RF Government may establish basic salaries and basic rates by the professional qualification groups of workers which represent the lower thresholds for the salaries of workers of state and municipal institutions.
The Code is also augmented by an article regulating the compensation of ex penses connected with the employment business trips of workers whose perma nent work involves long distance and short distance travel, field work, and expedi tions.
The new wording contains a list of instances when a severance benefit is granted in the amount of two weeks’ average earnings – a severance payment will now be paid also in an event of the dissolution of a labor contract on the grounds of RUSSIAN ECONOMY IN trends and outlooks an employee’s refusal to continue work because of changes in the terms of the la bor contract initially determined by the parties thereto.
Specific details have been added to the grounds for the dissolution of an ap prentice contract, which may be dissolved before the expiry of the period of ap prenticeship or for reasons envisaged in that contract.
Numerous alterations and amendments have been introduced to the Code’s Section “Protection of labor”: a new article concerning the state expert’s estimation of conditions of labor is added, and the procedure for investigating accidents is de scribed in more detail.
The procedure for compensating for the costs incurred by an employer when training a worker, in an event of the latter’s quitting the job without justifiable rea sons before the expiry of the period determined by a labor contract or agreement concerning training at the expense of the employer is described with greater preci sion. The worker will be obliged to compensate for such costs in proportion to the duration of the period which has actually been missed.
An important stipulation has been added to Article 236 of the Code. It is estab lished that in the event of a violation by an employer of the established period for payment of earnings, payment for leave, severance payment in the event of dis missal or other payments due to a worker, the duty to pay the established amount of compensation will arise independently of the presence of the employer’s guilt.
In accordance with Article 284, the duration of work time established for per sons working in a second job may not exceed 4 hours per day. At the same time it is added that in those days when a worker is not engaged in his or her basic labor du ties, the duration of work at a second job may be equal to a full work day (or shift).
During one month (or another accounting period) the duration of work at a second job may not be longer than a half of the monthly work time norm (or the work time norm for another accounting period) established for a given category of workers.
These restrictions on the duration of work are not extended to those cases when a worker suspends his or her work because of a delay (for more than 15 days) in the payment of salary or is temporarily dismissed from work.
The Code has also been augmented by other changes and amendments. The normative legal acts of the USSR are recognized as being null and void in the terri tory of the Russian Federation. Besides, some legislative acts of the Russian Fed eration that have lost their validity due to the newly introduced alterations have also been abolished (the laws “On collective contracts and agreements”, “On the pro cedure for settling collective labor disputes”, and “On the fundamental principles of protection of labor in the Russian Federation”).
Annexs Annex 2. Some Aspects of Approaches to the Problem of Combating Harmful Tax Competition in Terms of Capital Outflow Redistribution of international financial flows, which is taking place in the re cent decades, has involved many countries in competition for the attraction of capi tal. The governments are making attempts to keep the assets in their countries by introduction of amendments to their tax legislations. Manipulation with tax legisla tion allows the countries to create favorable tax environment and hence, influence economic decisions of corporations and individuals. There is a very subtle barrier between legal and justified capital allocation on a certain territory as an optimiza tion measure, from capital outflow as a negative factor, which many countries are trying to take under control. It is quite natural for any investor to seek for the best way of capital placement in a real business activity in those markets, where there is a demand for his goods or services, where tax environment is favorable and the in vestment portfolio is reliable and brings maximum profit.
Capital outflow is a key problem, based on harmful tax competition. Here we will not consider cases, when citizens of one country transfer their assets abroad without any reasonable grounds, which could be regarded as a legal investment in external market; or when the information on the transferred assets is not provided in accordance with relevant legal regulations; as well as cases, when investors, in fear of inflation of national currency, prefer to keep their assets in foreign currency of more reliable reputation, but can not do it in their native country, if it is in contra diction with national legislation.
Despite optimistic declarations of the Russian government about a decrease of capital outflow to other countries, a number of analytical agencies confirm sus tainability of this process. Thus, according to the information of RIA “Novosty”, in the second quarter of 2005 the capital outflow from Russia has grown times 27.5 as compared with the first quarter. According to the information of the Bank of Russia, published on its official web site, the net capital outflow from the Russian private business sector made (as per tentative estimates) in the Q II of 2005 USD 5.5 bn (versus USD 0.2 bln in the first quarter of 2004). Therefore, in comparison with the relevant period of 2004, in the second quarter of the current year the capital out flow has been reduced by 11.3 per cent, but as opposed to the preceding quarter it has grown times 27,5. This figure includes the net capital outflow from banks in the second quarter (USD 4 bn) and net outflow from non financial institutions and households (USD 1.5 bn). A year ago, in the second quarter of 2004, the banks have taken outside the country USD 3.3 bn, non financial institutions – USD 2.9 bn.
In the first quarter of 2005 the banks have taken outside the country USD 2.6 bn, non financial institutions and households – USD 2.5 bn net. In 2004 the net outflow of Russian private capital made USD 9.3 bn, whereas banks ensured an outflow in RUSSIAN ECONOMY IN trends and outlooks the amount of USD 3.8 bn, and non financial institutions and households have taken out from national economy USD 13.1 bn9.
Apart from other grounds of capital outflow, recently another reason has ap peared which is also as serious and meaningful as others, known before. There are significant differences between various countries not only in terms of their political systems, financial and labor resources, but in competitive tax systems as well. Cer tainly, tax rates are as significant as other tax system elements and tax collection procedures. Moreover, countries actively join the intergovernmental agreements on various issues, from double taxation avoidance to information exchange be tween tax authorities.
Like other governments, the Russian government makes efforts to attract tax payers. Thus, a draft law on taxation of dividends, widely discussed in autumn of 2006, can serve as an example of such activities. In 1999 governments of OECD country members have notified about the problems of competitive tax policy of some countries, that gets in contradiction with common international standards and principles. A decision was made on necessity to develop evaluation criteria for harmful tax competition and to provide recommendations for prevention of its de structive impact on the economic systems of OECD country members10.
Due to that initiative, nowadays OECD has a leading position in the interna tional coordination of prevention measures against harmful tax competition.
In 1998 OECD has published a special report on the problems of tax competi tion11. Basing on the results of research the issue of tax competition, the report provided a number of definition criteria for the cases of harmful tax competition, as well as for favorable tax regimes12. Moreover, methods of combating negative phe nomena were proposed in the report. The subject of the research were tax policies of OECD members and other countries. It should be mentioned that Switzerland and Luxemburg (both are OECD members) have not approved the report and re strained from implementation of its recommendations. OECD is not authorized to put any pressure on it country members; practical application of its recommenda tions can be only voluntary. Further activities in that direction were continued in the following reports of OECD, published in 2000, 2001 and 200413. Since that time, there were disclosed 41 “tax havens” worldwide, the majority of them were the off shore zones. Some of them expressed willingness to cooperate with OECD; others were enclosed in the list of «tax havens».
Currently there 30 country members in OECD, including the majority of industrial countries of the world, Russia is not a member of OECD, like neither of “tax have” countries".
“Harmful Tax Competition, An Emerging Global Issue”, OECD report, 1998, http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/33/1/1904184.pdf.
Te research was focused on financial capital issues.
Paris: OECD, 2000, The OECD's Project on Harmful Tax Practices: The 2001 Progress Report.
Paris: OECD, 2001, The OECD's Project on Harmful Tax Practices: The 2004 Progress Report. Paris:
OECD, 2004. http://www.oecd.org.
Annexs Alongside with OECD, measures of combating harmful tax competition are taken in the framework of European Union. Unlike provisional recommendations of OECD, recommendations of EU are mandatory for application by its member states.
In 1997, under an assignment of EU Commission, a report was issued on harmful tax competition in EU countries14. In the report there was developed a plan of combating this problem. In pursuance of the plan, the EU Commission has started in 2001 a special investigation against eight EU country members, where, due to special provisions of tax and corporate laws, large international companies were applying special corporate tax schemes. The investigation was started on the grounds of suspected breach of the EU Treaty by those countries15.
Besides combating harmful tax competition between its member countries, EU is struggling with violations in other countries, not only offshore zones and pref erential tax regimes16. In 998 EU has initiated a survey of legitimacy and compliance with regulations of WTO in terms of FSC regime (Foreign Sales Corporation), intro duced by USA for export sales promotion. Under that regime, a corporation, effect ing sales operations outside the country, would enjoy tax benefits (partial tax ex emption) on export sales, what, in EU consideration, gets in contradiction with WTO regulations. WTO has recognized the claim as justified, and in 2000 USA had to make amendments to its tax legislation. EU was not satisfied with the amendments;
an appeal was submitted and again accepted by WTO (Decision of Appeals Coun cil, January 2002)17.
The European Union is also making strong efforts to solve the problem of tax competition with the help of measures of tax harmonization18. However, some countries are not happy to accept this approach. Many EU countries consider that the EU Treaty admits national tax immunity as one of the basic principles of EU.
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.