Precluding deadlines in the tax procedure

Abstract

The article provides a comparative analysis of the key characteristics of preemptive terms in civil law, civil, arbitration proceedings, as well as in tax law. The definition of preventive terms, as well as their legal features, are not enshrined in legislation. However, acts of the Federal Tax Service, judicial practice, civil and financial and legal doctrines recognize them as a specific type of terms for exercising both civil rights and the rights of participants in tax legal relations. The admissibility of the reception of the civilistic approach to the substantiation of the essence of the pre-trial period in the tax process is substantiated. The author critically assesses the current judicial practice to justify the violation by the tax authorities of the deadlines for the exercise of power. It proves the presence of preventive deadlines in the tax process and the need for their strict observance by law enforcers. On the basis of doctrinal teachings and analysis of law enforcement acts, the main features of preclusive deadlines in the tax process and the goals of their legislative fixation have been developed. It has been revealed that it is advisable to establish the criteria for classifying a term as a preventive term from the analysis of the norms of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, which imperatively regulate the consequences of violating the terms. Such consequences lead to the termination of the right of the tax authority to exercise its powers and to carry out the relevant legally enshrined procedural actions. The necessity of further study of the institute of terms in the tax process is substantiated. The task of the science of tax law, and subsequently the legislator, is argued, to develop and fix the legal regime of preventive deadlines in the tax process.

References

1. Asoskov, A.V. (2018) Preclusive terms and their correlation with other types of civil law terms. Bulletin of civil law, 4, pp. 46–73 (in Russ.).
2. Vasiliev, A.Yu. (2010). Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation on the timing of in-house tax audits: a judicial precedent? Tax expert, 6, pp. 34–39 (in Russ.).
3. Vdovina, Yu.E. and Chernousova, K.S. (2020). Problems of tax control in the Russian Federation at the present stage of economic development. International Journal of Humanities and Natural Sciences, vol. 12–4 (51), pp. 89–91 (in Russ.).
4. Gadzhiev, T.F. (2021). International companies as a tool for deoffshorization of the Russian economy (financial and legal aspects). Legal Policy and Legal Life, 1, pp. 226–233 (in Russ.).
5. Gribanov, V.P. (2000) Implementation and protection of civil rights. Moscow (in Russ.).
6. Gurvich, M.A. (1961). Precautionary terms in Soviet civil law. Moscow (in Russ.).
7. Karaseva, M.V. (2021). Tax and civil law: modern forms and problems of interrelation. Vestnik VGU. Series: Law, 2(45), pp. 183–192 (in Russ.).
8. Kirillova, M.Ya. and Krasheninnikov, P.V. (2006). Terms in civil law. Limitation of actions. Moscow (in Russ.).
9. Litke, A.V. (2021). Problems of applying exemption or refusal to apply exemption from taxation of value added tax of transactions in accordance with the procedural requirements of Article 149 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation. StudNet, 1, pp. 35–39 (in Russ.).
10. Malikov, A.F. (2019). The question of the correlation of the principle of equality of creditors (pari passu) with a preemptive period for inclusion in the register of creditors. Bulletin of Economic Justice of the Russian Federation, 1, pp. 17–25 (in Russ.).
11. Mardasova, M.E. (2016). Deadlines in the tax process. Moscow (in Russ.).
12. Orlova, N.A. (2021). On the application of interim measures in the framework of the execution of a decision made based on the results of consideration of tax audit materials. Legal Science, 7, pp. 42–47 (in Russ.).
13. Semenova, Ya.O. (2021). Limitation periods and methods of their calculation. International Journal of Humanities and Natural Sciences, Vol. 11–1(62). pp. 156–161 (in Russ.).
14. Serebrova, D.A. (2009). Consequences of non-observance by the tax authority of the deadlines for the forced collection of arrears. Lawyer, 12, pp. 31–32 (in Russ.).
15. Farshatov, I.A. (2004). Limitation of actions. Legislation: theory and practice. Moscow (in Russ.).
16. Fridman, N.P. (1986). Terms in civil law. Moscow (in Russ.).
17. Khusainova, A.V. (2018). On the issue of conducting a desk tax audit outside the period established by law. Interactive science, 7(29). pp. 67–69 (in Russ.).
18. Shapovalov, S.Yu. (2006). Terms in the new edition of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation. Ezh-Lawyer, 42 (in Russ.).
19. Shniger, D.O. and Dolgushin, A.E. (2021). Atropos for suretyship: a term of preemption in the correct interpretation. Law, 4, pp. 137–146 (in Russ.).
    
20. Ernst, W. (2009). The statute of limitations of the (D)CFR. In: O., Remien (Ed.). Statute of limitations in Europe — between preservation and reform (pp. 75–91). Tübingen (in Ger.).