ARBITRATION COURT PRACTICE OF TAX DISPUTE RESOLUTION
Osina D. —
Topical Issues of Compliance with the Deadline of Submission of VAT Amounts for VAt Offset
// Taxes and Taxation.
– 2018. – ¹ 5.
– P. 1 - 7.
DOI: 10.7256/2454-065X.2018.5.26203 URL: http://en. nbpublish.com/library_read_article.php?id=26203
Read the article
The present article is devoted to the lega consequences of amendments made to the Tax Code of the Russian Federation on January 1, 2006, in particular, the part of the Code that regulates the procedure of accepting applications for VAT offset when goods (construction and installation services or works) are purchased. Transitional provisions of the federal law of July 22, 2005 No. 119 do not regulate the aforesaid issue. For this regard, Russian courts and competent authorities often apply contradictory approaches and solutions thereto.The author of the present article analyzes different positions and points of view on the matter referring to the law enforcement practice and position of the Ministry of Finances and Federal Tax Service of Russia and proves her point of view. The methodological basis of the research includes such formal logic methods as analysis andn synthesis. The author also applies special law methods such as formal law and comparative law methods. As a result of her research, Osina makes a number of conclusions including the following: 1) introduction of amendments has created the basis for the appearance of different approaches to answering the question about the deadline when VAT amounts that had been paid by taxpayer for construction works or services until January 1, 2006 should be reported; 2) legal positions of fiscal authorities and arbitration courts of different districts (on the one hand) and the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation (on the other hand) are in fact contradictory; 3) it is important to view the position of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation taking into account the position of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, in particular, their opinion that practice that worsens the position of taxpayer cannot be applied retroactively.
depreciation, preclusive term, construction and installation works, Federal Tax Service, Ministry of Finance, Constitutional Court, Supreme arbitration court, Tax code, input VAT deduction, VAT
Postanovlenie Prezidiuma VAS RF ot 22.11.2011 ¹ 9282/11 po delu ¹ A33-6232/2010 // SPS «Konsul'tantPlyus».
Postanovlenie Federal'nogo arbitrazhnogo suda Povolzhskogo okruga ot 20.03.2009 po delu ¹ A55-14342/2008 // SPS «Konsul'tantPlyus».
Postanovlenie Federal'nogo arbitrazhnogo suda Moskovskogo okruga ot 15.03.2012 po delu ¹ A41-5917/2011 // SPS «Konsul'tantPlyus».
Pis'ma Minfina Rossii ot 22.04.2008 ¹ 03-07-15/65; ot 03.11.2009 ¹ 03-07-11/279; pp. 3 i 4 pis'ma FNS Rossii ot 18.10.2006 ¹ ShT-6-03/1014@ (soglasovano pis'mom Minfina Rossii ot 13.10.2006 ¹ 03-04-15/179); a takzhe pis'mo FNS Rossii ot 15.10.2007 ¹ ShT-6-03/777@ // SPS «Konsul'tantPlyus».
Krutyakova T.L. NDS: praktika ischisleniya i uplaty. M.: AySi Grupp, 2015. 472 s.; Danilovich E.I. Zavershenie perekhodnogo perioda po NDS. «Stroitel'stvo: bukhgalterskiy uchet i nalogooblozhenie», 2007, ¹ 11 // SPS «Konsul'tantPlyus».
Opredelenie Verkhovnogo Suda RF ot 12.01.2015 ¹ 305-KG14-7237 po delu ¹ A40-170510/2013 // SPS «Konsul'tantPlyus».
Pis'mo FNS Rossii