The tax code has been amended

A new government bill has been submitted to the State Duma, which includes extensive amendments to the Tax Code (TC). The most notorious of them is about the personal income tax rate for remote workers working from abroad. In addition, the draft contains many other important amendments, in particular, on the mandatory pre-trial appeal of property claims of the tax authorities and on a more flexible approach of the tax authorities to change and cancel interim measures while expanding taxpayers’ responsibility for their non-compliance.

The government again submitted to the State Duma a voluminous bill with changes in the Tax Code (was withdrawn in April). It deals, in particular, with personal income tax for Russians who have gone abroad (see “Kommersant” dated April 24). The project provides for a standard rate of 13% (15% on income over 5 million rubles per year) of tax on income received by full-time employees and freelancers working for Russian companies from abroad even after they lose their tax residency in the Russian Federation (see “Kommersant” dated May 18). The deadline for the entry of these norms for freelancers is 2025, for full-time employees – 2024.

In the Ministry of Finance, the April withdrawal of the project was explained by the decision to include in it provisions on the adjustment of the single tax account (UST) mechanism, which was done – the document, in particular, provides for the possibility of making a separate payment to pay off damages in order to exempt from criminal punishment for tax crimes and the possibility transfers of personal income tax not once, but twice a month (see “Kommersant” dated May 25).

Among other changes is the expansion of the practice of pre-trial appeals in the tax area. Now the actions or inaction of the tax authorities, as well as their acts, are necessarily appealed before the court.

The draft also requires the same for claims of a property nature arising from the application of non-normative acts of tax authorities or their actions. We are talking, for example, about the requirements for the return of taxes or the abolition of the arrest of a current account, which the Supreme Court recognized as independent property claims – for the time being, a pre-trial mechanism is not necessary for them. In the explanatory note, this decision is explained by the effectiveness of the pre-trial mechanism: 90% of disputes are resolved at this stage, the share of subsequent judicial appeal does not exceed 10%, while the litigation can last from seven and a half months to three and a half years (or even longer), and it takes 15 days to process a complaint.

Amendments and the application of interim measures in the event of tax violations are corrected.

So, the responsibility for non-compliance is expanding – if there is still a fine of 30 thousand rubles. could threaten for non-compliance with the procedure for possession, use and disposal of property on which arrest or pledge has been imposed, now such a measure will also be provided for in violation of the prohibition on the alienation (transfer of pledge) of property of a person without the consent of the tax authority. This was done, as the Ministry of Finance explains, to “counter the practice of tax evasion through the use of payment schemes”, bypassing their own accounts, on which the tax authorities have already suspended operations. At the same time, it is clarified that such a measure should be taken “based on the actual availability of the payer’s property” – according to the explanatory note, this “seems to be fair in relation to the payers.” From the same motives, a mechanism for the partial cancellation of interim measures is introduced if the requirements of the tax authorities are partially met.

As Forward Legal lawyer Roman Gusak notes, the amendments are largely aimed at deepening the informatization and automation of tax administration, as well as expanding the powers of tax authorities in terms of tax monitoring to a level previously available only during on-site inspections (for example, gaining access to the territory or premises of the taxpayer), and in case of pre-trial appeal. As Taxology partner Oleksiy Artyukh adds, the pre-trial procedure allows “preventing a lawsuit in clear and obvious situations,” however, he believes that in the case of property claims, this mechanism is unlikely to be effective, “rather it will become an additional bureaucratic stage.” Alexei Artyukh explains that there are relatively few such lawsuits – this is an extraordinary tool that is used when the taxpayer does not see any chances for an out-of-court settlement.

Evgenia Kryuchkova