The idea of ​​a single punishment was known to the ancient Roman lawyers, who formulated the principle: pop bis idem - not twice for one. In the literature, it is also called the principle of the inadmissibility of doubling legal liability. The Constitution of the Russian Federation in Art. 50 formulates this principle rather narrowly - in relation only to the sphere of criminal law: "No one can be repeatedly convicted for the same crime." At the same time, the legal influence of this constitutional principle is not limited by the framework of criminal law and is intersectoral in nature.

See: Bazylev B.T. Legal liability. Krasnoyarsk, 1985. S. 64 - 65.
Prior to the adoption of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, the principle of one-time tax liability was not enshrined in regulations. Its content was determined judicial practice. Thus, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation indicated that the elements of tax offenses enshrined in sub. "a", par. the first sub. "b" paragraph 1 of Art. 13 of the Law of the Russian Federation "On the fundamentals of the tax system in the Russian Federation" and actually duplicated in paragraph 8 of Art. 7 of the Law of the RSFSR "On the State Tax Service of the RSFSR", are formulated vaguely and insufficiently differentiated from each other, although they provide for liability for various elements of tax offenses. The lack of certainty of the legal constructions of the indicated compositions made it possible to apply all the measures provided for by them both for the very concealment or underestimation of income, and simultaneously for each of the actions that caused this offense, which, in fact, were only part of it and did not form an independent offense, namely, for ignorance accounting, violation of the established accounting procedure, counting errors, incorrect paperwork, etc. Thus, the taxpayer was subjected to penalties for the same actions repeatedly, contrary to general principle fair liability, according to which a person cannot be punished twice for the same thing. Deviation from this principle, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation emphasized, would lead to clearly excessive restrictions that do not correspond to the goals of protecting constitutionally significant interests and, in fact, to the derogation of constitutional rights and freedoms (Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of July 15, 1999 N 11-P).
With the entry into force of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, the principle of single punishment received normative consolidation: “No one can be held liable repeatedly for committing the same tax offense” (clause 2, article 108 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation). In this case we are talking specifically about bringing to responsibility, and not about imposing a tax sanction. That is, the main thing is the tax process in relation to a specific person in a specific case, regardless of whether this process ended with the imposition of a sanction or not. In any case, it is unacceptable to re-initiate a tax process in the same case, in respect of which there is already a valid court decision or a tax authority.
When a person's actions are qualified as a set of tax offenses, the rule of adding up tax sanctions applies: When two or more tax offenses are committed by one person, tax sanctions are levied for each offense separately without absorption of a less severe sanction by a more severe one (clause 5, article 114 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation). As you can see, the Tax Code of the Russian Federation does not provide for the possibility of absorption of sanctions, that is, the application of punishment within the limits of only one tax sanction (as a rule, the maximum one). This is a significant difference from administrative responsibility, in relation to which the addition of administrative penalties is general rule, and absorption - special (Article 4.4 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation).
If a person is held liable for a combination of tax offenses, it is important to determine whether we are really talking about different acts or whether we are facing the same act, expressed in different consequences. A similar situation arose in judicial practice while being held liable for a gross violation of the rules for accounting for income and expenses and objects of taxation (Article 120 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation) and non-payment or incomplete payment of tax amounts (Article 122 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation). In Ruling No. 6-O of January 18, 2001, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation indicated that these compositions were not clearly delineated by the legislator. In particular, the main qualifying feature in both compositions is the understatement of the taxable base, which resulted in non-payment or incomplete payment of tax. As a result, the person who committed the offense under paragraph 1 of Art. 122 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, at the same time it can be held liable under paragraphs 1 and 3 of Art. 120 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, that is, it will be punished twice for the same illegal act. This unacceptably violates the principle of single punishment.
Tax liability for an act committed by an individual occurs if this act does not contain signs of a crime under criminal law (clause 3, article 108 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation). Tax offenses and crimes in the field of taxation largely coincide in composition. The same act is qualified as an offense or a crime, depending on the subject composition ( individual, not an organization) and the amount of damage caused to the budgetary system: a prerequisite for criminal liability for tax evasion is a large or especially large amount of unpaid tax. The qualification of an act as containing elements of a crime is not within the competence of the tax authorities. When detected during tax audit facts of offenses involving the commission of tax crimes, the head of the tax authority makes a decision to hold the taxpayer liable for the commission of a tax offense. At the same time, the tax authority is obliged, within ten days from the moment the offense is discovered, to send materials to law enforcement agencies to resolve the issue of initiating a criminal case.
An individual exempted from criminal liability on non-rehabilitating grounds is not exempted from tax liability provided for by the Tax Code of the Russian Federation if the act committed by him simultaneously contains signs of a tax offense. Similarly, the fact of the termination of a previously initiated criminal case against officials of the organization means the absence of corpus delicti in their actions (inaction), but does not yet indicate the absence of a tax offense in the actions (inaction) of the organization itself.
Simultaneous application to the violator of tax and administrative liability for the same offense is not allowed, since it directly violates the principle of single punishment. Therefore, the taxpayer for the same offense cannot be simultaneously brought to tax and other liability. If the act identified by the tax authority is committed by the taxpayer within the framework of tax legal relations defined in Art. 2 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, the issue of qualifying an act as an offense and its consequences should be resolved only within the framework of tax legislation. The offender cannot be brought to both tax and administrative liability at the same time if tax and administrative liability arises as a result of the commission of the same violation, that is, when the elements of offenses provided for by tax and administrative legislation actually coincide.
Bringing an organization to tax liability does not relieve its officials from administrative, criminal or other liability provided for by law (clause 4, article 108 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation). In this case, the principle of single punishment is not violated, since different subjects are brought to responsibility - the organization and its officials.
Tax legislation, unlike administrative legislation, does not provide for the possibility of simultaneously imposing a main and additional sanction on the violator - the administrative-legal institution of additional penalties is not known to tax law. At the same time, the collection of penalties from the violator, along with tax sanctions, also forces us to consider this issue more closely. Holding a taxpayer, as well as a tax agent, liable for committing a tax offense does not relieve him of the obligation to pay the due amounts of tax and penalties (clause 5, article 108, clause 2, article 75 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation). At the same time, the simultaneous imposition of a tax sanction and a penalty fee does not violate the principle of a one-time punishment, since in this case not two penalties are applied, but a sanction and a measure of a restorative nature that ensure the fulfillment of the tax obligation.

One-time taxation is a controversial principle of Russian tax law

The presence in the Russian legislation of the principle of one-time taxation has been discussed in the legal literature for a long time. It should be recognized that the prerequisites for justifying the existence of this principle directly or indirectly follow from the tax legislation. In Art. 6 of the Law of the Russian Federation of December 27, 1991 No. 2118-1 “On the fundamentals of the tax system in Russian Federation» Prior to January 1, 1999, it was established that the same object may be taxed by one type of tax only once during the taxation period specified by law. Currently, in accordance with paragraph 1 of Art. 38 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, each tax has an independent object of taxation, determined in accordance with part two of the Code and taking into account the provisions of Art. 38.

A. V. Demin, proposing to improve the normative regulation of the principles of tax law and inviting to the discussion, considers it necessary to consolidate in the first part of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation Art. 10 6 "Principles of the economic basis of the tax and single taxation", in accordance with paragraph 2 of which the same object of taxation can be taxed only one tax and only once in a certain tax period. An obvious consequence of this approach is that the object of taxation of one tax cannot coincide with the object of taxation of any other tax.

Obviously, the definition of the object of taxation is recognized as the key point, since it is the object that can be taxed in general and should be taxed once in particular. In accordance with the normative definition given in paragraph 1 of Art. 38

The Tax Code of the Russian Federation, the object of taxation is the sale of goods (works, services), property, profit, income, expense or other circumstance that has a cost, quantitative or physical characteristic, with the presence of which the legislation on taxes and fees connects the taxpayer with the obligation to pay tax.

fairly established in Russian science the definitions proposed by S. G. Pepelyaev should be recognized: the object of taxation is those legal facts (actions, events, states) that determine the obligation of the subject to pay tax (completion of a turnover for the sale of goods (works, services); import of goods into the territory of Russia; possession of property, making a transaction for the sale of securities, entering into an inheritance, receiving income, etc.). The term "subject of taxation" refers to the actual (not legal) signs that justify the collection of the relevant tax. For example, the object of the land tax is recognized as the right of ownership to the land plot, and not the land plot itself (it is the subject of taxation). The land plot - the subject of the material world - does not give rise to any tax consequences. These consequences generate a certain state of the subject in relation to the subject of taxation, in this case - property. The need to clearly separate the concepts of "object of taxation" and "subject of taxation" is also caused by the fact that there is a need to isolate, among other similar objects of the material world, exactly the one with which the legislator associates tax consequences.

There is reason to believe that if we perceive the object of taxation as a legal fact or consider it in strict accordance with the normative definition, then the existence of the principle of one-time taxation (as well as the independence of the tax object) in Russian tax law is debatable.

If by single taxation we mean that jus nonpatitur ut idem bis solvatur- the law does not allow the same thing to be paid twice 1 , then it should be assumed that such a provision is so trivial from a modern point of view that it does not need special justification among the principles of tax law. It is obvious that the requirement for multiple payment of a certain national tax to the same public entity based on the results of specific taxable actions or states is unacceptable: a single payment terminates the legal relationship to pay the tax.

The presence of international treaties on the avoidance of double taxation allows us to conclude that the requirement for multiple payment of taxes of the same type (income, property), established in the contracting states in connection with the presence of a particular taxpayer of a certain object of taxation at a given time, is only undesirable, but not ruled out. Russia's absence of such an agreement with a particular state obviously does not allow one to argue that the claims of the Russian tax authorities against a taxpayer based on national law can be ignored only on the grounds that the tax from the relevant object has already been paid in another state. If the one-time taxation really existed, and even in the rank of a principle derived from the Constitution of the Russian Federation, then the payment of tax on a certain object in a foreign state would in any case mean that it would be impossible to demand the payment of a similar tax (taxes) in Russia.

In the textbook edited by A. V. Bryzgalin, when considering the one-time taxation, the following position is given: this principle does not prohibit the legislator from applying the same object of taxation for different tax payments. Thus, the proceeds from the sale of products (works, services) are subject to taxation for a number of taxes: VAT, user tax highways, fees for the use of the name "Russia", etc. However, due to the fact that all these taxes are recognized as independent payments, the one-time principle is not violated.

In some foreign countries, on the contrary, the principle of multiple taxation operates, that is, the taxation of the same object several times with one or different taxes. For example, in the United States, citizens pay federal, state, and local income taxes. Personal income tax (in addition to the federal income tax) applies in 40 states, local income tax - in 11 states. Most indirect taxes (excises on tobacco, gasoline, alcohol) are collected by both central and local governments. Sales taxes are levied by both states and local governments.

The presence in Russia of taxes with identical (in whole or in part) objects of taxation is an objective reality.

For example, in accordance with paragraph 1 of Art. 146 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, the sale of goods (works, services) on the territory of the Russian Federation is recognized as an object of VAT. In accordance with paragraph 1 of Art. 182 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, the object of excise taxation is the sale on the territory of the Russian Federation by persons of excisable goods produced by them. Accordingly, a person who sells excisable goods produced by him in the territory of Russia is generally obliged to pay both VAT and excise - the difference will consist only in the method of calculation and the amount of taxes.

Another example: in most cases, the sale of goods (works, services) by an organization will entail the emergence of obligations both for the payment of VAT and for the payment of corporate income tax. In the resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation of November 8, 2011 No. 15726/10, it is noted that the moment with which the Tax Code of the Russian Federation connects the occurrence of an object of taxation when calculating income tax and VAT is determined as the norms of the General Part of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation - Art. 39, and the provisions of Ch. 21 and 25 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, from the content of which it follows that for the sale of real estate objects, the transfer of ownership of objects is recognized as such a moment when determining the income (tax base) by the taxpayer.

During the existence of the UST in paragraph 2 of Art. 236 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation provided that the object of taxation for individual entrepreneurs, lawyers, notaries engaged in private practice, are income from entrepreneurial or other professional activity minus the costs associated with their extraction. At the same time, income was and remains subject to personal income tax in accordance with Art. 209 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, and self-employed individuals have the right to reduce their income by the amount of professional tax deductions(Article 221 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation). Based on the decision of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated June 16, 2009 No. 1660/09, in the situation under consideration, the tax base for personal income tax and unified social tax is determined in a similar way.

At the same time, it is obvious that if the base of two taxes is determined similarly, then the object of taxation is determined similarly. The fact that the term “the moment of determining the tax base” periodically used by the legislator actually represents the moment of determining the object of taxation is confirmed in the work of F. A. Gudkov. In his opinion, in almost all chapters tax code The Russian Federation contains rules on the moment at which the taxpayer is obliged to determine the tax base. In fact, these norms mean a redefinition of the circumstances with which the recognition of the tax object is associated. The economic and legal logic of this or that tax is easily modified by the legislator for fiscal tasks.

If we proceed from a broad understanding of taxes and consider as such "salary" insurance premiums, then paragraph 2 of Art. 10 federal law dated December 15, 2001 No. 167-FZ “On Compulsory Pension Insurance in the Russian Federation” (as amended in force before January 1, 2010): the object of taxation and the tax base of the unified social tax established by Ch. 24 "Unified social tax" of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation with the features provided for in paragraph 3 of Art. 10. In other words, "all masks are off."

The principle of single taxation is periodically mentioned in the acts of the Supreme Arbitration Court RF. In the decisions of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated June 21, 2011 No. 1 / 11, dated June 28, 2011 No. 18190/10, the Court concluded that the recovery by the arbitration court from the taxpayer of the amounts of unified social tax, excluding paid insurance premiums for compulsory pension insurance, regardless of the presence the taxpayer's obligation to pay them entails a violation of the principle of single taxation. The same approach takes place in the resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation of January 18, 2011 No. 11927/10: the collection by the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation of insurance premiums for compulsory pension insurance, excluding UST, collected by the tax authority extrajudicially in the form of the difference between the amounts of calculated and paid insurance contributions, entails a violation of the principle of single taxation.

However, such acts of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation could well be motivated by the inconsistency of a different approach of the Court with the requirements of fairness and the norms of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation (legislation on insurance premiums).

The issue of one-time taxation can also be considered through an analysis of the legal positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. In particular, despite the fact that in the acts of the Court there is no direct recognition of the existence of the principle of single taxation, the argument about the independence of the object of taxation for each tax was used to substantiate a number of judicial acts.

Thus, in the definition of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of July 6, 2000 No. 161-0, the possibility of a “parallel” tax collection from vehicle owners (calculated based on the engine capacity passenger car in cubic centimeters) and a tax on certain types of vehicles (calculated for cars based on engine power). The court concluded that these taxes, by their legal and economic nature, are independent taxes, differing not only in the object of taxation and the tax base, but also in other essential elements.

A similar approach is reproduced, for example, in the definition of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of December 14, 2004 No. 451-0, based on which the property tax of organizations (calculated from the residual value of property, including a car) and transport tax (calculated by the power of a car engine) have independent objects of taxation and, accordingly, tax bases established taking into account a differentiated approach to various characteristics of a vehicle: for property tax of organizations they are determined in terms of value, and for transport tax - physical properties, which determine the appropriate level of impact on the condition of public roads.

However, the differences that the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation saw in the objects of taxation by the named property taxes could not, in our opinion, be the basis for the conclusion about the independence of their objects. If we consider the object of tax as a legal fact in the activities of the taxpayer, then in property taxes, the state of ownership of the property should be considered as such. certain right taxable property. The court actually saw a difference in the scale of taxes (with a single object - the legal fact of owning a car) and made a conclusion on this basis about the difference in the objects of taxes.

The same approach will take place if we use the normative definition of the object of taxation, given in paragraph 1 of Art. 38 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation. The specification of taxable types of property is carried out, for example, in Art. 358 and 374 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation (in relation to the transport tax and corporate property tax, this will be a car).

If individual property taxes are perfectly legally calculated on the basis of different characteristics of the same property, then is there any value at all in proclaiming the principle of a one-time taxation (independence of the tax object)?

In the definition of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated April 2, 2009 No. 478-0-0, the possibility of imposing personal income tax and unified social tax on the income of an entrepreneur from the gambling business, which is also taxed on the gambling business, was considered.

The legal position set out in this judicial act seems to be very ambiguous. Initially, the Court recognized that, formally, for an individual entrepreneur who does not make payments to individuals, the objects of taxation and the bases of personal income tax and unified social tax are the same. The purpose of the UST is to form the financial basis of social insurance, its amount is calculated and paid to the federal budget and, in parts determined by law, to each off-budget fund. As for personal income tax, which directly serves the purposes of financial support for the activities of the state, it has, accordingly, a different social, legal and economic purpose. The provisions of Art. 366

and 367 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation allow us to conclude that the tax on the gambling business also has an independent, different from others, object of taxation - a gaming table, a slot machine, a totalizator cash desk, a bookmaker's cash desk, and a clearly defined tax base that cannot coincide with any base Personal income tax, nor with the UST base, since this tax is not levied on the taxpayer's income from gambling, but on his property.

The judicial act, on the one hand, recognizes the identity of the objects of taxation of personal income tax and unified social tax, on the other hand, no conclusions about the violation of the principle of independence of the object of taxation are not seen, since taxes have different social, legal and economic purposes. In addition, it is very doubtful to qualify the gambling business tax as a property tax - this is one of the typical taxes on presumed income (of the same legal nature as UTII and the patent taxation system, calculated based on the external characteristics of the taxable activity). But the qualification of the gambling business tax in the judicial act under consideration actually made it possible not to compare it with personal income tax and unified social tax at all.

Thus, according to the logic of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, at least it can be argued that the imposition of different income taxes on the same object (income) is permissible if the taxes have different social, legal and economic purposes. But what then is the value of the principle of one-time taxation (independence of the tax object)?

The following position is not excluded: the object of taxation is an economic category, and it is in this sense that the principle under consideration is formulated. From this point of view, the approach is absolutely fair, according to which economists and lawyers, using legal terms, should put the same meaning into them.

The presence in the Russian tax law of the principle of one-time taxation, as well as the principle of independence of the object of taxation for each tax, seems doubtful. Attempts to substantiate these principles, as well as the relevant rules of law, disorient law enforcement officers more than provide taxpayers with any rights (guarantees). The federal legislator himself has never complied with paragraph 1 of Art. 38 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation and easily allowed himself and allows himself to impose different taxes on the same objects (objects).

See: Gudkov F. L. Promissory note. The order of use and features of taxation. M., 2010. S. 148.

See: Gadzhiev G. A., Barenboim P. D., Lafitsky V. I. and others. Constitutional economics / ed. ed. G. A. Gadzhiev. M., 2010. S. 15.

The idea of ​​a single punishment was known to the ancient Romans.
lawyers who formulated the principle: non bis idem - not twice for one.
In the literature, it is also called the principle of the inadmissibility of doubling
legal liability 1. The Constitution of the Russian Federation in Art. 50 words
this principle is rather narrow - in relation only to the sphere of criminal
legislation: “No one can be re-convicted for the same
same crime." However, the legal impact of this constitutional
principle is not limited to the framework of criminal law and is intersectoral in nature.
Prior to the adoption of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, the principle of one-time tax liability was not enshrined in regulations. Its content was determined by the judiciary
practice. Thus, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation indicated that the elements of tax offenses
fixed in sub. "a", par. the first sub. "b" paragraph 1 of Art. 13 of the Law of the Russian Federation "On
fundamentals of the tax system in the Russian Federation” and actually duplicated in paragraph 8
Art. 7 of the Law of the RSFSR "On the State Tax Service of the RSFSR",
are formulated indefinitely and insufficiently differentiated from each other, although they provide for liability for various elements of tax offenses. Insufficient certainty of the legal structures of these compositions made it possible to apply all the stipulated
them measures both for the very concealment or underestimation of income, and simultaneously for each of the actions that entailed this offense, which, according to
in fact, only part of it and not forming an independent offense, namely for ignorance of accounting, violation of the established accounting procedure, counting errors, incorrect paperwork, etc. So
Thus, the taxpayer was subject to penalties for one and
the same actions repeatedly, contrary to the general principle of fair liability, according to which a person cannot be punished twice for the same thing. Deviation from this principle, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation emphasized, would lead to clearly excessive restrictions that do not correspond to the goals of protecting constitutionally significant interests and, according to
essentially, to the derogation of constitutional rights and freedoms (Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation
dated 15.07.99 No. 11-P).
With the entry into force of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, the principle of a one-time punishment received normative consolidation: No one can be held liable repeatedly for committing the same tax offense (clause 2, article 108 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation). In this case, we are talking about bringing to responsibility, and not about imposing a tax sanction. I.e
the main thing is the tax process in relation to a specific person according to
1 See: Bazylev B.T. Legal liability. - Krasnoyarsk, 1985. - S. 64-65.
238
specific case, regardless of whether the process ended with the imposition of a sanction or not. In any case, re-initiate the tax
process in the same case, in respect of which there is already
a decision of a court or a tax authority that has entered into legal force is unacceptable.
When qualifying a person's actions as a set of tax offenses, the rule of adding up tax sanctions applies: When one person commits two or more tax offenses, tax
sanctions are levied for each offense separately without absorption of a less severe sanction by a more severe one (clause 5, article 114 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation). How
we see that the Tax Code of the Russian Federation does not provide for the possibility of absorbing sanctions, then
there are penalties within the limits of only one tax sanction
(usually the maximum). This is a significant difference from administrative responsibility, in relation to which the addition of administrative penalties is a general rule, and absorption is a special one.
(Article 4.4 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation).
If a person is held liable for a set of tax
offenses, it is important to determine whether we are really talking about different acts or whether we are facing the same act, expressed in different consequences. A similar situation has arisen in jurisprudence.
while at the same time being held accountable for a gross violation
rules for accounting for income and expenses and objects of taxation (Article 120 of the Tax Code
RF) and non-payment or incomplete payment of tax amounts (Article 122 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation). In Ruling No. 6-P of January 18, 2001, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation indicated that these compositions are clearly not
demarcated by the legislator. In particular, the main qualifying
a sign in both compositions is an underestimation of the taxable base,
resulting in non-payment or incomplete payment of tax. As a result, the person who committed the offense under paragraph 1 of Art. 122 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, at the same time it can be held liable under paragraphs. 1 and 3 Art. 120
Tax Code of the Russian Federation, that is, it will be punished twice for the same wrongful act. This unacceptably violates the principle of single punishment.
Tax liability for an act committed by an individual occurs if this act does not contain signs of a corpus delicti provided for by criminal law (clause 3 of article 108 of the Tax Code
RF). Tax offenses and crimes in the field of taxation largely coincide in composition. The same act is qualified as an offense or a crime, depending on the subject
composition (an individual, not an organization) and the amount of damage caused to the budget system: a prerequisite for the onset of a criminal
responsibility for tax evasion is a major or
a particularly large amount of unpaid tax. The qualification of an act
containing elements of a crime, is not within the competence
tax authorities. When facts are revealed during a tax audit
offenses involving the commission of tax crimes,
the head of the tax authority makes a decision on attracting tax239
the payer to liability for committing a tax offense. In this case, the tax authority is obliged within ten days from the date of
detection of an offense to send materials to law enforcement agencies to resolve the issue of initiating a criminal case.
An individual exempted from criminal liability under
non-rehabilitating grounds, is not exempt from tax liability provided for by the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, if the act committed by him simultaneously contains signs of a tax offense. Like this
the fact of termination of the previously initiated criminal case against
officials of the organization means the absence of corpus delicti in their actions (inaction), but does not yet indicate the absence
tax offense in the actions (inaction) of the organization itself.
Simultaneous application to the violator of tax and administrative liability for the same offense is not allowed,
because it directly violates the principle of single punishment. That's why
a taxpayer for the same offense cannot be simultaneously brought to tax and other liability. If the act identified by the tax authority is committed by the taxpayer within the
tax legal relations, defined in Art. 2 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, the issue of qualifying an act as an offense and its consequences should be resolved
only under tax law. The offender cannot be
brought simultaneously to tax and administrative liability in the event that tax and administrative liability
occur as a result of the commission of the same violation, that is,
when the elements of offenses provided for by tax and administrative legislation actually coincide.
Bringing an organization to tax liability does not relieve its officials from administrative, criminal or other liability provided for by law (clause 4, article 108 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation). IN
In this case, the principle of single punishment is not violated, since different subjects are held liable - the organization and its
officials.
Tax legislation, unlike administrative law, does not provide for the possibility of simultaneously imposing a main and additional sanction on the violator - administrative and legal institution
additional tax penalties are not known. However,
recovery from the violator, along with tax sanctions, also penalties
force us to look at this issue more closely. Holding a taxpayer, as well as a tax agent, liable for committing a tax offense does not relieve him of the obligation to pay the due amounts of tax and penalties (clause 5, article 108, clause 2, article 75 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation).
At the same time, the simultaneous imposition of a tax sanction and a penalty fee does not violate the principle of a one-time punishment, since in this case not two penalties are applied, but a sanction and a measure of a restorative nature that ensure the fulfillment of the tax obligation.

Among the many principles underlying taxation, the most characteristic, essential ones can be distinguished;

One-time taxation of objects with tax payments;

Universal coverage of taxation or obligation to pay tax;

Free of charge deduction (withdrawal) of a part of the income from the tax subject to the budget of the corresponding territorial entity;

Voluntary payment and calculation of tax;

Tax refund to the tax subject;

Territoriality of taxation;

Fairness of taxation;

Social justice of taxation;

Proportionality of tax collection;

Progressiveness of tax collection;

Differentiation of tax collection;

Regressive tax collection;

Self taxation;

Residence or territoriality of residence of the tax subject;

Minimization of tax revenues to the budget to cover expenses, etc.

The principle of one-time taxation means that the same object of taxation can be taxed (fee) only of one type and only once for the tax period established by law. In the practice of tax legislation, including Russia, this principle is not observed. In particular, value added tax and sales tax, being indirect types of taxes, duplicate each other, and both taxes are levied on the same object of taxation.

The principle of universality of tax coverage or the obligatory participation of every citizen of the state that is the subject of the tax in maintaining the state with a part of his income means that each subject of the tax is obliged to transfer part of his income to the state free of charge in accordance with legislative norms.

The principle of gratuitous deduction (withdrawal) of a part of the income by the subject of the tax to the budget of the corresponding territorial entity means that the taxpayer transfers part of the personal income to the state free of charge and no part of this part is returned to the subject of the tax and no benefits are provided to him in return for paying the tax.

The principle of voluntary tax payment is not inherently voluntary, but is not only mandatory, but also compulsory.

Voluntariness can be considered only from the point of view of the voluntariness of the calculation of the amounts of tax payments in accordance with tax legislation. And, therefore, this principle cannot be put as a principle in the taxation system, although it is indicated in the Tax Code of the Russian Federation.

The principle of return or provision by the state of a certain part of the population with a certain set of "indivisible benefits" (in the form of pensions, allowances, scholarships, etc.) at the expense of taxes received by the relevant budget of territorial entities means that taxes should be used for the benefit of society and states, in their interests, but in no way to the detriment of society and economic development states.

The principle of territoriality of taxation of tax subjects as legal entities and individuals means that only those incomes (objects of taxation) of taxpayers that are associated with activities in the territory of this state are taxed, and incomes received by them outside the territory of this state are not taxed. However, this principle is not respected by any of the states.

The principle of fair taxation of tax subjects means that each taxpayer must pay only the legally established part of his income from income. The principle of justice is not discriminatory in relation to the subject of the tax. The principle of fairness requires the inadmissibility of establishing differentiation of rates for individual tax subjects, granting benefits to individual taxpayers or groups depending on the form of ownership, citizenship or location of capital, or providing similar benefits to certain territorial entities.

The principle of social justice of taxation in relation to tax subjects means that citizens with high incomes must bear a greater tax burden than citizens with low incomes, including taking into account tax benefits, which will improve the overall well-being of the poorest part of the population of the state. The criterion of the principle can be the solvency of the subject of the tax, that is, the proportionality of the payments collected to real incomes, taking into account the family subsistence minimum and the ability to bear the tax burden of payments to the state fund.

The principle of proportionality in the collection of taxes from the subject of the tax means that each taxpayer is charged a single percentage of tax on the subject of taxation (income), that is, the tax is levied in equal shares of income. For example, the annual income of tax subjects is: the first - 30 thousand rubles, the second - 250 thousand, the third - 2 million, but all taxpayers are charged 13% of income tax. This principle is in conflict with the principle of social justice.

The principle of progressive taxation of tax subjects means that with the growth of income of taxpayers, the percentage of withdrawals also increases, forming a scale of rates with a direct or complex progression. A simple progression involves an increase in the tax rate in relation to the entire object of taxation (income), and a complex one - the division of the object of taxation into parts, of which each subsequent part is subject to an increased rate. The principle of progressiveness is in conflict with the principle of proportionality, but does not contradict the principle of social justice.

The principle of differentiated tax collection from tax subjects provides for the establishment of differentiated tax rates and tax benefits depending on the form of ownership, citizenship and place of origin of capital, is discriminatory and is in conflict with the principle of proportional tax collection.

The principle of regressive taxation of tax subjects means that the percentage of tax withdrawal decreases as income increases. The principle is in conflict with the principle of fair tax collection and other principles.

The principle of self-taxation is that the subject of the tax independently calculates the amount of tax, taking into account all deductions of tax salaries (benefits) permitted by law, fills out a declaration (balance sheet) and submits it to the tax authority, independently pays the estimated amount of tax, and the tax authority controls the correctness of payment .

The principle of proportionality in the collection of tax on the income of a taxable person means that tax on the taxpayer's income should not be levied if his income does not exceed the subsistence (family) minimum. The principle is in agreement with the principle of social justice.

The principle of residence or territoriality of residence of a tax subject provides for the division of all taxpayers into residents and non-residents (a resident is an individual residing for more than 6 months in the territory of the state), that is, the principle of residence or location of the tax subject in the territory of this state operates in the taxation system. Residents are subject to taxation on all sources of income received in their own country and abroad, and non-residents pay taxes on sources of income received in the territory of this country only.

The principle of the necessary minimum receipt of funds from tax subjects to the budget of the respective territorial entity to cover expenses is that the amount of collection of all types of taxes to the budgets of the respective territorial entities must satisfy the requirement that the given territorial entity perform its tasks (functions), that is, ensure all necessary expenses related to the provision of society and the implementation of economic development plans. The criterion of the principle can be the amount of tax collection received by the budget and used to cover expenses:

D = D - D (1.6)

D \u003d D x K (1.7)

D = --------- (1.8)

where D is the total amount of the budget of the corresponding territorial b formation, necessary for the fulfillment of its tasks (functions);

D - the amount of funds received by the budget of the corresponding d territorial entity at the expense of tax revenues;

D - the estimated amount of funds received by the budget of the NR of the corresponding territorial entity at the expense of tax revenues from tax subjects;

D - the real amount of taxes received by the budget from the corresponding territorial entity, taking into account the collection of taxes from tax subjects;

K - coefficient taking into account the collection of taxes by tax authorities;

D - the minimum required amount of tax collection from all types of taxes and tax subjects, which is necessary for receipt by the budget of the corresponding territorial entity and ensuring the fulfillment of its tasks (functions).

This principle is the main one for establishing a certain number of types of taxes and their tax rates in the state, determining the objects of taxation and tax subjects.