Experts on the innovations of the SZPK regime

Changes to the list of grounds for amending SZPK projects can be very popular in practice, given the complexity and long implementation time of the projects in respect of which agreements are concluded, notes Anna Batueva, director of legal practice at TeDo. “However, the very mechanism of action of such a new basis is unclear – we are talking about the decision of a working group created at the federal level. And the procedure for making relevant decisions is not yet entirely clear,” she says. Director of the Department of Taxes and Law of the DRT Yuri Khalimovsky points out that investment projects implemented within the framework of the SZPK are subject to the influence of the same factors as projects implemented in other forms of interaction with the state or without its participation at all. “In recent years, since the beginning of the pandemic, the risks of failure to meet deadlines have increased significantly and are materializing more often,” he states. The expert considers linking the establishment of the right to receive compensation with compliance with the deadlines for the implementation of the investment project to be a consistent measure aimed at ensuring the contractual discipline of the investor. “A delay in timing means a delay in both the socio-economic effects of the project and its revenues to the budget. It seems that in the event of a justified impossibility of implementing the project on time, the investor will be able to apply for a change in the SZPK,” he explains.

The bill prepared by parliamentarians also suggests a change in the approach to assessing the “novelty” of an investment project – now it will be determined on the basis of a construction permit issued in relation to the main object of the investment project, and not its infrastructure. Partner B1 Natalya Aristova notes that previously, novelty was determined by the timing and fact of obtaining construction permits for infrastructure facilities, and not the main facility, which was illogical and significantly complicated the process of preparing documents and justifying the possibility of concluding a contract for an investment project.

According to Anna Batueva, the criteria for the novelty of the project have not changed significantly, but for projects that do not require obtaining a construction permit, the link to the permit for the purpose of determining the novelty of the project is excluded. “This means that such projects will finally be able to apply for the conclusion of the SZPK,” she says. According to Yuri Khalimovsky, the current version of the law very strictly ties the possibility of applying for the conclusion of the SZPK to obtaining a construction permit, thereby cutting off or complicating access to those potential projects that fall under Part 17 of Art. 51 of the Town Planning Code of Russia and a construction permit is not required.

Partner B1 Natalya Aristova notes that the bill does not imply any direct changes or clarifications to the current taxation regime for SZPK participants. “It is likely that the legislator continues to collect information regarding the effectiveness and shortcomings of existing tax support measures within the framework of the SZPK in order to take them into account in the future, since these tax support measures are still relatively new and the practice of their application is still being formed,” she suggests. At the same time, she adds, it is already possible to note a number of provisions of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation that do not contribute to the active use of tax support measures within the framework of the SZPK – in particular, the need to submit a notice of deduction in advance indicating the distribution of capital investments incurred between tax deductions for specific taxes creates objective difficulties from a planning point of view.

Diana Galieva