Electronic service"Clarifications of the Federal Tax Service of Russia, mandatory for use by the tax authorities", posted on the website www.nalog.ru, is updated regularly. How can a taxpayer track whether the agreed opinion of the Ministry of Finance of Russia and the Service has changed on an issue of interest to him?
Deductions without a base
(letter of the Federal Tax Service of Russia dated 07.12.2012 No. ED-4-3/ [email protected], which brought clarifications from the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated November 19, 2012 No. 03-07-15 / 148)
The Russian Ministry of Finance explains that the lack of tax base in the tax period cannot be the basis for refusal to accept VAT for deduction. The opinion of the financial department was formed on the basis of the Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated 03.05.2006 No. 14996/05.
In it, the court concluded that the absence of a tax base for VAT in the relevant tax period should not be a reason for refusing to accept the tax for deduction.
The Ministry of Finance of Russia draws attention to the fact that the tax authorities should not refuse taxpayers to apply tax deductions if there is evidence of their good faith if they do not have a VAT tax base, as well as to taxpayers who were guided by his explanations on the application of tax deductions in tax periods in which the tax base arises. Corporate income tax.
Application of reduced tax rates in the annexed territories
(letter of the Federal Tax Service of Russia dated December 25, 2012 No. ED-4-3/ [email protected])
Corporate income tax payable to the revenue side of the budgets of constituent entities of the Russian Federation is calculated at the tax rates in force in the territories where the organization and its separate subdivisions are located. Taxpayers who themselves and (or) their separate subdivisions are located in the territories annexed to Moscow since July 1, 2012, are entitled to apply reduced tax rates when determining the amount of advance payments of income tax for the half year (6 months) of 2012, provided that the conditions established by the laws of the Moscow Region are met. areas.
If these taxpayers meet the conditions for the application of reduced tax rates for income tax established by the laws of Moscow, then from 01.07.2012 they calculate advance payments and tax on these reduced rates from the tax base defined as the difference between the tax base formed for the reporting and tax periods following after half a year (6 months) and the tax base for the half year (6 months) of 2012. If these conditions are not met, advance payments and tax are subject to calculation in full. tax rate from the same tax base.
In 2012 in Russian Federation 11 consolidated groups of taxpayers (hereinafter referred to as CGTs) were created and operated, and since 2013 4 new groups have joined them. In addition, the composition of the old groups has been updated, and other changes have taken place. Currently, the number of organizations united in the CGTs is 313.
In mid-February, the President of Russia signed a law that established the procedure for considering cases on contesting "acts containing clarifications of the law and having normative properties." We will tell you what these acts are, why they need to be challenged and who can do it.
The legislative innovations under consideration have an interesting background. It all started with the fact that the company decided to challenge the letter of the Federal Tax Service of Russia dated 21.08.2013 No. AS-4-3/15165, which was agreed with the Ministry of Finance of Russia (letter of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated 25.07.2013 No. 03-06-05-01/29519) and brought to the attention tax authorities and taxpayers.
According to the company, such a letter, in fact, is a normative act. It contains a legal norm (generally binding prescription of a permanent nature, designed for repeated use) and affects the rights of an indefinite circle of taxpayers. Additional confirmation of the normative nature of the letter, in the company's opinion, is the fact that it was published on the website of the Federal Tax Service of Russia (www.nalog.ru) in the section "Clarifications of the Federal tax service mandatory for use by the tax authorities”.
With such arguments, the company in 2014 turned to the RF Armed Forces. However, the court refused to accept the application, explaining that the letter of the Federal Tax Service of Russia does not meet the requirements for regulatory legal acts. Moreover, the consideration of cases on challenging the acts of the Federal Tax Service of Russia is within the jurisdiction of the arbitration court.
With the same requirements, the company applied to another court - the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation. But they said that the letter is not normative act. And the consideration of cases on contesting such acts is not within the competence of supreme arbitrators (clause 2.5 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated July 30, 2013 No. 58 “On Certain Issues Arising in judicial practice in the consideration of arbitration courts of cases on contesting normative legal acts). As a result, the proceedings in the case were terminated (determination of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated April 10, 2014 No. VAS-898/14).
The company turned out to be persistent, and did not put up with this state of affairs. She requested a revision of the adopted judicial act by way of supervision. But this attempt was also unsuccessful: the transfer of the case to the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation was refused (determination of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated May 30, 2014 No. VAS-6969/14).
The company, which was denied by both higher courts, decided to go all the way and appealed to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. She asked to recognize paragraph 1 of part 4 of Art. 2 of the Federal Constitutional Law "On the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation". In accordance with it, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation considers, as a court of first instance, cases of contesting normative legal acts of various bodies (the President of the Russian Federation, the Government of the Russian Federation, non-budgetary funds, etc.). But there is not a word about letters that are normative in nature.
Fortunately for the company, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation delved into the essence of the matter and fully agreed with its arguments.
The court explained that formally (according to the procedure for acceptance, registration and publication) the letters of the Federal Tax Service of Russia do not meet the requirements for regulatory legal acts. However, they may contain an explanation (normative interpretation) that is mandatory for all tax authorities and contradicts the Tax Code of the Russian Federation and thus violates the rights of taxpayers. At the same time, it is impossible to challenge the letter of the Federal Tax Service of Russia as a normative act.
Here the question arises: how to find out which explanation the letter contains: mandatory for all tax authorities (ie, regulatory) or optional? The court tried to answer, but did so in a very peculiar way.
According to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, the act that establishes (changes, cancels) the rules that are binding on an indefinite circle of persons, designed for repeated application, has regulatory properties.
Another thing is if the explanations contained in the act “do not go beyond the scope of an adequate interpretation (interpretation) of the provisions tax legislation and do not involve change legal regulation". In this case, the normative properties of the act are absent.
What the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation understands by “adequate interpretation of tax legislation” and how to establish adequacy are open questions. But be that as it may, the court ordered to establish on legislative level the procedure for considering cases on contesting clarifications (including the Federal Tax Service of Russia), which actually have regulatory properties (Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated March 31, 2015 No. 6-P).
Already in October 2015, the Government of the Russian Federation submitted a relevant bill to the State Duma. After passing through all the stages, the project became federal law dated February 15, 2016 No. 18-FZ “On Amendments to the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation and the Code of Administrative Procedure of the Russian Federation in Part of Establishing the Procedure for Judicial Consideration of Cases Contesting Certain Acts”. It entered into force on March 17, 2016.
The authors of the law indicate that it was developed in order to implement the resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of March 31, 2015 No. 6-P and establishes the procedure for considering cases on contesting acts containing clarifications of the legislation and having regulatory properties. At the same time, the legislator went further and established a procedure for challenging all clarifications with regulatory properties in general, and not just letters from the Federal Tax Service of Russia. New provisions have appeared in the APC of the Russian Federation and the CAS of the Russian Federation.
According to the rules of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation (clause 1.1, part 4, article 34), cases of contesting acts are now being considered federal bodies executive power, containing clarifications of the legislation and having regulatory properties, in the field of:
Cases are heard by the Intellectual Property Court. In doing so, he is guided by the new Art. 195.1 "Consideration of cases on contesting acts containing clarifications of the legislation and having regulatory properties", as well as the general rules of action proceedings.
Note
Collapse Show
A decision that has entered into force in a case on contesting an act that has normative properties is published in the same manner as a decision on a case on contesting a normative legal act (Article 196 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation). The decision is published:
All other acts containing explanations of the legislation and having regulatory properties are considered according to the rules of the CAS RF (clause 1.1, part 2, article 1 of this code). By general rule(Clause 2, Article 20 of the CAS RF) they are considered as the first instance by regional courts of general jurisdiction (the supreme court of the republic, the regional court, the court of the city of federal significance, the court of the autonomous region and the court of the autonomous district).
For more information about the provisions of the CAS RF, see the article by Alexander Seleznev “Meet the Code of Administrative Procedure of the Russian Federation”
At the same time, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation is considering cases on contesting acts issued (clause 1.1, article 21 of the CAS RF):
Cases on challenging acts that have normative properties are considered and resolved in the administrative process similarly to cases on contesting normative acts (Chapter 21 of the CAS RF).
Citizens, organizations, other persons, a prosecutor, government bodies, local governments (parts 1 and 2 of article 192 of the APC of the Russian Federation, parts 1-4 of article 208 of the CAS of the Russian Federation).
When considering the case, the court must establish (part 3 of article 195.1 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, part 2 of article 217.1 of the CAS RF):
Based on the results of the consideration of the case, the court can take one of two decisions (part 5 of article 195.1 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, part 5 of article 217.1 of the RF CAS):
After the legislation was amended, the indefatigable company decided to take advantage of them. She again appealed to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation with a demand to invalidate the same ill-fated letter. But the court and this time stopped the proceedings.
The reason for this decision was the fact that the letter dated 11.06.2015 No. GD-4-3 / [email protected] The Federal Tax Service of Russia withdrew the disputed letter. Consequently, at the time of the hearing of the case, the provisions of the letter were no longer valid.
The court clarified that the legal acts, which have been terminated, cannot be the basis for the emergence of rights (obligations) and violate any legitimate interests (determination of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of September 14, 2015 No. AKPI15-764).
It must be said that attempts to challenge the letters of the Ministry of Finance of Russia and the Federal Tax Service of Russia have been made before. The Ministry of Finance of Russia cited the most interesting disputes in a document entitled “Review of the generalized law enforcement practice for 2013 on the invalidation of regulatory legal acts, non-normative legal acts, illegal decisions and actions (inaction) of the Ministry of Finance of Russia (on the basis of judicial acts that have entered into force)” ( without number and date, hereinafter referred to as Review). In this document, the officials paid special attention to contesting their own letters.
The financiers reminded that formally their explanations are not considered regulatory legal acts, since they do not contain legal norms. Not in them and general rules specifying certain provisions of the law. And if so, then it seems impossible to challenge the letters of the Ministry of Finance of Russia as regulatory legal acts (Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation of January 16, 2007 No. 12547/06, determinations of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation of May 20, 2010 No. VAC-7184/10 and of April 21, 2010 No. VAC -5440/10).
On the other hand, the vast majority of letters are published in newspapers, magazines and reference databases. This means that they are available to an indefinite circle of people and can be reused. And if we take into account the position of the courts, according to which taxpayers, in principle, can be guided by any explanations of the Russian Ministry of Finance on a disputable situation, then there are all signs of a regulatory legal act. Which means it can be challenged.
In support of this point of view, the Review cites several cases in which the organization went to court and challenged the letter of the Russian Ministry of Finance.
Perhaps the most resonant case concerned the letter of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated December 6, 2012 No. 03-03-06 / 1/630, which was issued in connection with the appeal of AUCHAN LLC. In it, officials came to the conclusion that organizations that trade through stores with free access to goods for buyers can take into account the shortfall from theft of goods as part of the expenses only if there is an investigator's decision to suspend or terminate the criminal case.
The representatives of the organization did not like this explanation. As a result, the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation received an application to recognize this letter as invalid. It is noteworthy that representatives of AUCHAN LLC, ATAK LLC, HYPERGLOBUS LLC, STOKMAN CJSC and DIXY Yug CJSC signed the statement. The supreme arbitrators recognized that the letter, in fact, is a normative act, and accepted the case for proceedings. Subsequently, the requirements of the organizations were satisfied: the corresponding explanation was declared invalid (decision of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated 04.12.2013 No. VAS-13048/13).
Similarly, the applicants' demands for the recognition of the provisions of the letters of the Ministry of Finance of Russia as invalid were satisfied by the decisions of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated June 24, 2013 No. 4707/13 and dated November 29, 2012 No. VAC-13840/12.
Photo from prof-accontant.ru
The Federal Tax Service explained how to apply the norms of the Tax Code on unjustified tax benefits. Due diligence when choosing a counterparty will no longer be important, and many of the positions of YOU and BC may become a thing of the past. Now, the reality of the transaction is put at the forefront, and the one who is indicated in it (this is a new requirement) must fulfill the contract. But often the counterparty "on paper" entrusts the delivery to a third party. The buyer may not know about it (often he does not care who delivers the goods, the main thing is to get it on time). But, based on the novels of the Tax Code and the letter of the Federal Tax Service, the participants in such a scheme may face difficulties, even if the delivery is quite real.
On August 19, 2017, amendments to the Tax Code came into force, which expressly prohibited the distortion of reporting in order to evade taxes and formulated the signs of a legitimate transaction (Article 54.1 of the Tax Code). The new rules are ambiguous and can be interpreted in completely different ways, experts said when evaluating the bill in July 2017 (for more details, see). Therefore, the meaning of these norms largely depends on law enforcement.
And now the Federal Tax Service has prepared the first document on the interpretation new article, - Letter No. SA-4-7/ [email protected] dated August 16 (at the time of publication of the article, the clarification has not yet been officially published, but Vedomosti was convinced of its authenticity). Based on the logic of the letter and the law, taxpayers are waiting for changes in their work with counterparties: any “due diligence measures” will lose their value, warns partner Alexey Artyukh.
P. 1, Art. 54.1 of the Tax Code for the first time prohibits distorting reporting in order to evade taxes. The wording "misrepresentation" suggests intent, which the tax authority has to prove, comments Head of Tax and Legal Consulting Department Mikhail Orlov. As emphasized in the letter of the Federal Tax Service, the tax authority does not correct the calculations of the taxpayer who distorted economic sense operations. That is, all expenses are written off in full, explains Orlov. This is a tougher approach compared to Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court No. 53 “On Unjustified Tax Benefits”. Clause 7 ordered the courts to recalculate the scope of rights and obligations based on the true economic meaning.
The letter of the Federal Tax Service reveals the practical meaning of paragraph 2 of Art. 54.1 of the Tax Code, which introduced two signs of a legitimate transaction (if there is no distortion of reporting in order to evade taxes):
1) the main purpose of the transaction is not non-payment (incomplete payment) or offset (refund) of the amount of tax;
2) the obligation under the transaction is fulfilled by the person to whom it is assigned by the contract (unless the terms of the transaction or the law provide otherwise).
Non-compliance with at least one of these signs is a reason to refuse to record the transaction, reads letter No. SA-4-7 / [email protected] It instructs the tax authorities to pay special attention to verifying the real nature of transactions. At the same time, the letter draws attention to the fact that the legislator excludes a formal approach from the practice of tax authorities (clause 3 of article 54.1 of the Tax Code). For example, if the primary accounting documents signed by an unidentified or unauthorized person, this in itself does not indicate a violation. There are many such claims in practice, according to Orlov. The tax authorities may say: “Your document is not signed properly” or “Your counterparty did not pay taxes, which means we will not refund them to you.” According to Orlov's observations, the practice of filing formal claims is now being resumed after a long-term lull, so it is useful to remind the tax authorities of their inadmissibility.
Artyukh comments on two criteria for a legitimate transaction from paragraph 2 of Art. 54.1 of the Tax Code and their interpretation by the Federal Tax Service. In contrast to the “business purpose test” (1), well known from the decision of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court No. 53, the “actual side of the contract test” (2) is new for taxpayers. At the same time, the courts, following the tax authorities, often define “the reality of the supply of goods, the performance of work, the provision of services” not as their presence in nature and their acquisition by the taxpayer, but as their supply (performance, provision) by a specific counterparty, which is named in the documents, says Artyukh . But the formal counterparty often does not have the necessary staff, equipment, and so on, and he delegates the execution to another person.
A real delivery from the “wrong” counterparty does not change the economic content of the transaction, the Taxology partner admits. However, he warns that the tax authorities may find fault with this scheme. They may decide that the meaning of the operation is distorted, because the tax benefit is analyzed in relation to the “paper” supplier, and it is his documents that the counterparty takes into account.
Alexey Artyukh, partner of Taxology: The letter states that a formal approach should be avoided. But, in fact, one formal sign (the suspiciousness of the counterparty) is replaced by another, no less formal (the actual execution of the transaction by the specified counterparty).
In order to prove non-payment or underpayment of taxes, inspections must confirm that officials, participants (founders) of the company, etc. purposefully sought to save on payments to the budget. Such a conclusion may be prompted by signs, some of which are listed in the letter of the Federal Tax Service:
Failure to exercise due diligence when choosing a counterparty is one of the frequent claims of the tax authorities, which accuse companies of having links with one-night stands and other dubious partners. Such a concept as due diligence was introduced by the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court by Resolution No. 53. It is not enshrined in the law, recalled in a letter from the Federal Tax Service. The letter says that formal claims against counterparties do not matter if the main fact is not refuted - the reality of operations and transactions.
In the light of Art. 54.1 of the Tax Code and the letters of the Federal Tax Service, it does not matter whether the taxpayer knew about the violations of the counterparty or that he executed the transaction with the involvement of third parties, says Artyukh. But Supreme Court of Arbitration and economic board Supreme Court took a different approach - that due diligence should be investigated, because it is the subjective side of the tax offense, notes a Taxology partner. If the approach of the Federal Tax Service prevails, many of the positions of the Supreme Arbitration Court and the Supreme Court will become history, the lawyer fears (see, for example, the recent case of Tsentrregionugol - -).
In addition, the letter emphasizes that “the provisions of paragraph 2 of Art. 54.1 of the Tax Code do not provide for negative consequences for the illegal actions of counterparties of the taxpayer of the second, third and subsequent links. According to Orlov, the tax authorities very often make such claims, because it has become easy to obtain information using the ASK VAT-2 program (it itself compares data on the payment of VAT by counterparties). This instruction should moderate the agility of the tax authorities, Orlov hopes.
Elena Kilinkarova, law firm advisor: But in general, the proclaimed rejection of the formal approach and the concept of "failure to exercise due diligence" should not be misleading and create the appearance that the position of the taxpayer has noticeably improved. Art. 54.1 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, taking into account its interpretation, the Federal Tax Service establishes sufficiently stringent conditions to recognize as acceptable a reduction in the tax base and the amount of tax payable.
The main thing is the reality of transactions
The Federal Tax Service has named clear grounds under which tax claims to the enterprise. The main one is the unreality of the execution of the transaction by the counterparty of the first link, that is, precisely by the counterparty with whom the enterprise has concluded an agreement. Territorial inspections of the Federal Tax Service will now pay special attention to collecting evidence that refutes the reality of a controversial transaction: for this, it is necessary, for example, to prove that the obligation under the transaction was performed by another person, and not by the one who is a party to the agreement, or performed by the taxpayer being checked independently.
The letter also notes that the execution of the transaction by another person (not the one with whom the contract was concluded) limits the right of the enterprise to account for the costs of this transaction. But the transfer of fulfillment of obligations under the transaction will not arouse suspicion if such a possibility is initially provided for by the contract or is allowed by law.
“There are cases defined by the Civil Code of the Russian Federation that provide for the transfer of rights in a transaction without the consent of a partner, for example, a cession,” explains Ekaterina Leonenkova, head of the tax practice at the Yakovlev and Partners legal group. In addition, the involvement of third parties can be provided in advance in the contract. But in any case, the transfer of rights under the transaction must have a clear business purpose, the lawyer warns.
“If the settlement account of the counterparty of the first link receives cash from the sale of building materials, but funds are spent from the account for the purchase of bed linen, there are reasonable doubts that the counterparty transferred the execution of the transaction to the proper person. Attention will be paid to the terms of the contract. In accordance with some agreements, the counterparty of the first link is obliged to provide services personally. This excludes the transfer of execution to a third party,” adds Anton Zykov, Director of the KPMG Tax Litigation Group in Russia and the CIS.
According to Alexander Erasov, head of the tax dispute resolution group at Goltsblat BLP, a significant increase in the amounts of additional income tax charges will be a negative consequence of the use of the new rules. “Until now, in real transactions, income tax was charged only on the amount of the excess of the value of the goods compared to the market price. Now expenses will be fully excluded when calculating income tax,” Erasov believes.
Prove intent
The tax department emphasizes that during inspections, evidence should be collected of deliberate actions of the company's managers and founders aimed at tax evasion.
To prove intent in the actions of managers and founders, tax inspectors must first of all identify a tax evasion scheme. Some of these schemes are indicated in the letter of the Federal Tax Service. This is, in particular, the “fragmentation” of business for the use of preferential tax regimes small business and the use of cross-border transactions.
This list is not exhaustive. “Depending on the nature of the economic activity of the taxpayer, as well as the specific circumstances of the operations (transactions) carried out by him, other circumstances may be established by the tax authorities in the course of control measures,” warns partner TertychnyAgabalyan Marat Agabalyan.
“If the tax authority can prove intent in the actions of the taxpayer, then the amount of the fine will be calculated based on 40% of the amount of unpaid taxes. This is a significant disadvantage for business,” Leonenkova believes. In case of non-payment of tax due to an error, the fine is half as much (20%), she reminds.
The good news is that the letter states that the involvement of affiliates in the transaction is not in itself evidence of an illegal scheme. Previously, the Federal Tax Service was of the opinion that the participation of affiliates in the transaction is an important proof of its illegality. According to Aghabalyan, if this approach is implemented in practice, then there will be a turn in the practice of interaction between tax authorities and business. The participation of affiliated persons in the number of counterparties has so far almost always been considered by the tax authorities as an "aggravating circumstance".
Proving intent to evade tax, the inspectorates relied mainly on the affiliation of the organizations involved in the transactions, confirms Zykov. But the problem is that when determining the circle of affiliated persons, the tax authorities sometimes went far beyond the law. This led to penalties even in cases where the transaction had a clear business purpose. “In our practice, there was a case when counterparties were recognized as affiliated on the sole basis that long-term loan agreements and lease agreements were previously concluded between them,” says Zykov. The rejection of this practice will positively affect the interaction between business and tax authorities, the lawyer believes.
FTS of Russia
Letter
dated 23.09.11 No. ED-4−3/ [email protected]
"On clarifications of the Federal Tax Service of Russia"
Taking into account the requirements of subparagraph 5 of paragraph 1 of Article 32 of the Tax Code, which prescribes to be guided by written explanations of the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation on the application of the legislation of the Russian Federation on taxes and fees, explanatory letters of the Federal Tax Service of Russia agreed with the Ministry of Finance of Russia, or containing a legal position similar to that set out in the written explanations issued by the Ministry of Finance of Russia in accordance with paragraph 1 of Article 34.2 of the Tax Code to tax authorities, taxpayers, payers of fees and tax agents on the application of the legislation of the Russian Federation on taxes and fees.
The Federal Tax Service of Russia draws attention to the need for strict application by the tax authorities, when exercising their powers, of the provisions of the letters of the Federal Tax Service of Russia posted in the specified section of the website of the Federal Tax Service of Russia, and informs that in relation to the legal position set out in these letters, the provisions of paragraphs 9, 10 of the letter of the Federal Tax Service of Russia dated 09/14/2007 N ШС-6−18/716 do not apply.
If the application of the clarifications of the Federal Tax Service of Russia led to the cancellation by the judicial authorities of the adopted tax decisions based on the results of tax audits, departments of the Federal Tax Service of Russia for the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and interregional inspections of the Federal Tax Service of Russia for the largest taxpayers inform the Taxation Department of the Federal Tax Service of Russia about these facts in order to adjust the performance indicators of the tax authority.
Tax authorities in execution state function on free informing (including in writing) of taxpayers, payers of fees and tax agents about applicable taxes and fees, legislation on taxes and fees and regulations adopted in accordance with it legal acts, the procedure for calculating and paying taxes and fees, the rights and obligations of taxpayers, payers of fees and tax agents, the powers of tax authorities and their officials, as well as the submission of forms of tax declarations (calculations) and an explanation of the procedure for filling them out, are also guided by the legal position set forth in the relevant clarifications of the Federal Tax Service of Russia.
If the Federal Tax Service of Russia cancels the relevant clarification, in relation to taxpayers, payers of fees and tax agents who were guided by this clarification during the period of its validity in the performance of duties stipulated by the legislation on taxes and fees, by virtue of the provisions of paragraph 8 of Article 77, subparagraph 3 of paragraph 1 of Article 111 of the Tax Code, penalties are not charged on the amount of the resulting arrears and no liability measures are applied for the commission of tax offenses (these circumstances are established if there is an explanation, in terms of the meaning and content relating to the tax (reporting) periods for which the arrears were formed, as well as to tax periods in which committed tax offense, regardless of the date of publication of the clarification).
The departments of the Federal Tax Service of Russia for the constituent entities of the Russian Federation are instructed to bring this letter to the attention of lower tax authorities and ensure its application.
