MECHANISM OF TAX-PAYER’S LIABILITY IN REALIZATION OF THE BUSINESS GOAL DOCTRINE

Objective: to prove that the mechanism of business goal doctrine realization forms a new type of liability in tax relations. Methods: The methodological basis of the research is dialectics method allowing to reveal the properties of liability institution in its development; comparative and synthetical methods allowed to analyze the business goal doctrine realization in protective relations. Results: Basing on the carried out analysis we can state that the court practice realizing the business goal doctrine has elaborated the new form of liability in tax relations, not stipulated by the Russian Taxation Code. Scientific novelty: Elaborated and for the first time introduced into science the conceptual theoretical-legal provisions concerning the actual business goal and the appropriateness of using the taxation incentives as a tax-payer’s liability. The mechanism of tax liability determination by private law facts is revealed, when a tax-payer either abuses one’s rights or views a tax incentive as entrepreneur’s income, not relating to its purpose. Practical value: The theoretical provisions formulated in the research can be used in scientific, law-making and law enforcement activity, in educational process of higher professional educational institutions of juridical profile, in qualification improvement of scientific-educational personnel in the sphere of jurisprudence.

tax incentive, independent business goal, prohibition of right abuse, economic activity, doctrine of prohibition of right abuse elaborated by the court, legal certainty, protection mechanism, corpus delicti, tax right itulization, tax liability

1. Малиновский А.А. Злоупотребление правом. – М.: МЗ Пресс, 2002. – 128 c.

2. Витрук Н.В. Общая теория юридической ответственности. – 2-е изд., исправ. и доп. – М.: Норма, 2009. – 432 c.

3. Иванов В.Н. Соотношение уголовной и административной ответственности // Проблемы совершенствования советского законодательства: Труды ВНИИСЗ. – М., 1983. – Вып. 26. – С. 140–151.

4. Шевченко Я.Н. Правовое регулирование ответственности несовершеннолетних. – Киев, 1976. – 201 с.

5. Алексеев С.С. Структура советского права. – М., 1975. – С. 29.

6. Поленина С.В. Социалистическое право как система // Социалистическое право и научно-техническая революция. – М., 1979. – С. 56.

7. URL: www.nalog-briz.ru

8. John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge, The Company: a Short History of a Revolutionary Idea. New York: Modern Library, 2003. P. 12.

9. Eur. Commission H.R. Application 13013/87, Wasa Liv Omsesidigt Forsakringsbolarget Valands Pensionsstiftelse and Others v. Sweden, Decision of 14 December 1988. DR. 1988. No.58. P. 163 (188); Application 15117/98, Travers and 27 Others v. Italy. DR. 1995. No.80. P.5 (11).

10. Marhesinis В., Unberath H., Johnson A. The German Law of Contract. A Comparative Treatise / Forewords by Lord Bingham and Giinter Hirsch. Second ed. Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2006. P. 248.

11. Eur. Court. H.R. Darby v. Sweden, Judgment of 23 October 1990. Series A. No. 187.

12. Appleby G. Contract Law. London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2001. P. 347-357.

13. Atiyah P.S. An Introduction to the Law of Contract. Fifth edition. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 2002. P. 320.