Russian Federation
The study is devoted to the problem of forming a legal standard of fair conduct of a taxable person in Russian tax law. The author proves that borrowing international anti-tax structures (in particular, the test of the main purpose) without adapting to national guarantees for the protection of taxpayer rights leads to the legalization of objective (innocent) imputation. It is proved that the refusal of tax reconstruction when establishing the facts of abuse leads to additional taxes that go beyond the limits of the actual tax obligation and acquire a punitive and confiscatory character. A transition from the retrospective identification of formal defects in the facts of a taxable person's economic life to a restorative model of responsibility is proposed, as well as the legislative consolidation of the due diligence standard. A defect in the digitalization of tax administration has been identified, in which data from automated control systems can actually replace the procedure for proving guilt, placing the burden of proving good faith on the taxable person.
good faith in tax law, unjustified tax benefit, Article 54.1 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, tax reconstruction, test of the main purpose, due diligence, objective imputation
1. Alekseev S.S. Obschaya teoriya prava. V 2-h t. T. 1. M.: Yurid. lit., 1981. 360 s. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/RLSTQD
2. Hart G.L.A. Ponyatie prava / per. s angl.; pod obsch. red. E.V. Afonasina i S.V. Moiseeva. SPb.:Izd-vo S.-Peterb. un-ta, 2007. 302 s. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/VYOZJL
3. Sadchikov M.N. Finansovo-pravovoe obespechenie nalogovogo suvereniteta Rossiyskoy Federacii: dis. d-ra yurid. nauk. Saratov, 2021. 426 s. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/CWLHCT
4. Usenkov I.A. Princip dobrosovestnosti i ego proyavleniya v rossiyskom prave kak sredstva «umnogo regulirovaniya» // Pravo i politika. 2023. № 8. S. 128–136.
5. Postanovlenie Plenuma VAS RF ot 12.10.2006 № 53 «Ob ocenke arbitrazhnymi sudami obosnovannosti polucheniya nalogoplatel'schikom nalogovoy vygody» // Vestnik VAS RF. 2026. № 12.
6. Vinnickiy D.V. Dobrosovestnost', obosnovannost' vygody, predely osuschestvleniya prav, ili Kak rossiyskoe nalogovoe pravo okazalos' na peredovyh rubezhah bor'by so zlom, gnezdyaschimsya v nalogoplatel'schikah // Zakon. 2018. № 11. S. 44–57. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/YQXTYT
7. Savseris S.V. Kategoriya «nedobrosovestnost'» v nalogovom prave. M.: Statut, 2007. 191 s. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/QXJIHL
8. Pepelyaev S.G. St. 54.1 NK RF – shag k neobhodimosti vvedeniya nalogovogo komplaensa? // Zakonodatel'stvo. 2018. № 8. S. 5–9.
9. Opredelenie Konstitucionnogo Suda RF ot 29.09.2020 № 2311-O «Ob otkaze v prinyatii k rassmotreniyu zhaloby obschestva s ogranichennoy otvetstvennost'yu «Saratov-Holod Plyus» na narushenie konstitucionnyh prav i svobod punktami 1 i 2 stat'i 54.1, punktom 5 stat'i 82 Nalogovogo kodeksa Rossiyskoy Federacii, a takzhe chast'yu 2 stat'i 2 Federal'nogo zakona ot 18 iyulya 2017 goda № 163-FZ «O vnesenii izmeneniy v chast' pervuyu Nalogovogo kodeksa Rossiyskoy Federacii».
10. Chand V. The Guiding Principle and the Principal Purpose Test // International Taxation. 2015. T. 12. S. 484-490. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2833193
11. Duff D.G. Tax Treaty Abuse and the Principal Purpose Test: Part II // Canadian Tax Journal. 2018. T. 66. № 4. S. 947.
12. Kuzniacki B. The principal purpose test (PPT) in BEPS action 6 and the MLI: Exploring challenges arising from its legal implementation and practical application // World Tax Journal. 2018. S. 233. DOI: https://doi.org/10.59403/3vnt53r
13. Pis'mo FNS Rossii ot 10.03.2021 № BV-4-7/3060@ «O praktike primeneniya stat'i 54.1 Nalogovogo kodeksa Rossiyskoy Federacii» // Oficial'nye dokumenty. 2021. № 10, 16.
14. Havanova I.A. Princip osnovnoy celi: novelly mezhdunarodnyh nalogovyh pravil // Finansovoe pravo. 2019. № 7. S. 40–43. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/DOHABR
15. Eriashvili N.D., Grigor'ev A.I., Skvorcova A.P. Nalogovye zloupotrebleniya: koncepcii opredeleniya dobrosovestnosti nalogoplatel'schika // Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta MVD Rossii. 2018. № 2. S. 40–42. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/XSQOJF
16. Nogina O.A., Ovsyannikov S.V. Zaschita zakonnyh ozhidaniy nalogoplatel'schika v usloviyah deystviya i primeneniya antiuklonitel'nyh nalogovyh pravil: balans chastnyh i publichnyh interesov // Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta. Pravo. 2022. T. 13. №. 1. S. 83–106. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu14.2022.105; EDN: https://elibrary.ru/GGZKIY
17. Vitruk N.V. Obschaya teoriya yuridicheskoy otvetstvennosti: monografiya. 2-e izd. M.: Norma, 2009. 431 s. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/QRHBRB
18. Samoylov A.R. O neobhodimosti normativnogo zakrepleniya dobrosovestnosti v nalogovom prave // Vestnik Voronezhskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya: Pravo. 2021. № 4 (47). S. 321–330. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17308/vsu.proc.law.2021.4/3721; EDN: https://elibrary.ru/MZERSB
19. Mosin S.A. Konstitucionno-pravovye prezumpcii v otraslevom zakonodatel'stve // Vestnik Saratovskoy gosudarstvennoy yuridicheskoy akademii. 2013. № 6 (95). S. 130–134. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/SNRLFF
