Perm University Herald. Juridical Sciences. 2017. Issue 1 (35)

Demin A.V. 
Law Institute – Siberian Federal University

---

Introduction: the article examines discretionary powers of the tax authorities. Purpose: to identify the main characteristics of the use of discretion in tax law. Methods: the study is based on empirical methods of comparison, description and interpretation, theoretical methods of formal and dialectical logic, and specific scientific methods: legal dogmatic method and method of legal norm interpretation. Results: Russian and foreign lawmakers are actively using discretionary powers of the tax authorities to achieve the objectives of legal regulation to overcome the uncertainty in tax law. Conclusions: discretion in tax law is designed so that in a situation of complete or relative uncertainty the tax authority could have the opportunity to choose the optimal solution from a number of legitimate alternatives. The attribute signs of discretion in tax law include: existence of legal bases; implementation of discretionary powers strictly within the competence; alternativeness of the choice, where each of possible alternatives is lawful; accounting of the specific situation in case of adoption of the discretionary decision (the situation-based approach); creative nature; a discretionary decision is made under the influence of both objective and subjective factors; discretion is limited by legal and extra-legal framework; the exercise of a discretion power results in choosing the optimal resolution for the case. Legal forms of discretion in tax law: the use of legal principles, anti-avoidance rules, valuation norms, presumptive taxation, analogy of the law, relative sanctions, etc.

1. Barak A. Sudeyskoe usmotrenie [Judicial Discretion]. Moscow, 1999. 376 р. (In Russ.).
2. Bezrukov S. S. Otsenochnye ponyatiya i terminy v ugolovno-protsessual'nom zakonodatel'stve: avtoref. diss. kand. yurid. nauk [Evaluative Concepts and Terms in Criminal Procedure Legislation: Synopsis of Cand. jurid. sci. diss.]. Moscow, 2001. 24 р. (In Russ.).
3. Boyko D. V. Vidy pravoprimenitel'nogo usmotreniya [Types of Law Discretion]. Yurist'–Pravoved' – Jurist-Pravoved. 2010. No. 1. Pp. 8–12. (In Russ.).
4. Bonner A. T. Zakonnost' i spravedlivost' v pravoprimenitel'noy deyatel'nosti [Legality and Justice in Law Enforcement Activity]. Moscow, 1992. 320 р. (In Russ.).
5. Bryukhov R. B. Dispozitivnost' v grazhdanskom prave Rossii: avtoref. diss. kand. yurid. nauk [Optionality in the Civil Law of Russia: Synopsis of Cand. jurid. sci. diss.]. Ekaterinburg, 2006. 26 р. (In Russ.).
6. Valiev R. G. O dvoystvennoy prirode i spetsifike dispozitivnosti v sudebnom yurisdiktsionnom protsesse [On the Dual Nature and Specificity of Optionality in Legal Jurisdictional Process]. Ekonomika, sotsiologiya i pravo – Economics, Sociology and Law. 2015. No. 12. Рр. 103–109. (In Russ.).
7. Vas'kova E. P. Printsip dispozitivnosti v nalogovom prave i ego interpretatsiya v resheniyakh Konstitutsionnogo Suda RF 2008 g. [The Principle of Optionality in the Tax Law and Its Interpretation in the Decisions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation in 2008]. Nalogovoe pravo v resheniyakh Konstitutsionnogo Suda Rossiyskoy Federatsii 2008 goda: po materialam VI Mezhdunar. nauch.-prakt. konfer., 17–18 aprelya 2009 g. – Tax Law in the Decisions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation: Proceedings of the VI International scientific-practical conference, April 17–18, 2009. Moscow, 2010. Рр. 38–39. (In Russ.).
8. Vedel G. Administrativnoe pravo Frantsii. [Administrative Law of France]. Transl. by L. M. Entin. Moscow, 1972. 512 р. (In Russ.).
9. Dubovitskiy V. N. Zakonnost' i usmotrenie v sovetskom gosudarstvennom upravlenii [Legality and Discretion in the Soviet Public Administration]. Minsk, 1984. 289 р. (In Russ.).
10. Lyublinskiy P. I. Osnovaniya sudeyskogo usmotreniya v ugolovnykh delakh [The Basis of Judicial Discretion in Criminal Cases]. St. Petersburg, 1904. 34 р. (In Russ.).
11. Nagornaya E. N. Bremya dokazyvaniya v nalogovykh sporakh [The Burden of Proof in Tax Disputes]. Moscow, 2006. 528 р. (In Russ.).
12. Pashkevich P. F. Zakon i sudeyskoe usmotrenie [The Law and Judicial Discretion]. Gosudarstvo i pravo – State and Law. 1982. No. 1. Рр. 55–61. (In Russ.).
13. Prokopovich G. A. Diskretsionnoe pravoprimenenie (teoreticheskiy aspekt) [Discretionary Law Enforcement (Theoretical Aspect)]. Rossiyskiy sud'ya – Russian Judge. 2016. No. 2. Рр. 7–11. (In Russ.).
14. Sapozhnikov S. A. Printsip dispozitivnosti v grazhdanskom protsesse: avtoref. diss. kand. yurid. nauk [The Principle of Optionality in the Civil Process: Synopsis of Cand. jurid. sci. diss.]. Moscow, 2006. 24 р. (In Russ.).
15. Semkina E. I., Yakovleva L. V. Motivirovannost' resheniya nalogovogo organa – lakmusovaya bumaga effektivnogo vzaimodeystviya [The Validity of the Tax Organ Decision as the Litmus Test for Effective Interaction]. Nalogoved – Nalogoved. 2016. No. 10. Рр. 15–21. (In Russ.).
16. Starykh Yu. V. Usmotrenie v nalogovom pravoprimenenii [Discretion in Tax Enforcement]. Ed. by M. V. Karaseva. Moscow, 2007. 176 р. (In Russ.).
17. Tsybulevskaya O. I., Milusheva T. V. Nravstvenno-pravovaya kul'tura sub"ektov vlasti i nekotorye voprosy pravoprimeneniya po usmotreniyu [Moral and Legal Culture of the Authority Subjects and Some Questions of the Discretionary Law Enforcement]. Leningradskiy yuridicheskiy zhurnal – Leningrad Law Journal. 2007. No. 4. Рр. 18–38. (In Russ.).
18. Sharnina L. A. Mesto usmotreniya v mekhanizme konstitutsionnogo pravovogo regulirovaniya [The Place of the Discretion in the Controlling Instrument of the Constitutional Law]. Konstitutsionnoe i munitsipal'noe pravo – Constitutional and Municipal Law. 2014. No. 5. Рр. 8–15. (In Russ.).
19. Cogan D. Tax, Discretion and the Rule of Law. The Delicate Balance: Tax, Discretion and the Rule of Law. Ed. by Chris Evans, Judith Freedman, Richard Krever. Amsterdam, 2011. Рр. 1–14. (In Eng.).
20. Davis K. C. Discretionary Justice in Europe and America. Urbana, Chicago, and London, 1976. 203 р. (In Eng.).
21. Dorado A. P. The Delicate Balance: Revenue Authority Discretions and the Rule of Law – Some Thoughts in a Legal Theory and Comparative Perspective. The Delicate Balance: Tax, Discretion and the Rule of Law. Ed. by Chris Evans, Judith Freedman, Richard Krever. Amsterdam, 2011. Pр. 15–37. (In Eng.).
22. Dworkin R. M. Taking Rights Seriously. Cambridge, 1977. 371 р. (In Eng.).
23. Freedman J. Responsive Regulation, Risk, and Rules: Applying the Theory to Tax Practice. UBC Law Review. 2012. Vol. 44. Issue 3. Рр. 627–662. (In Eng.).
24. Morse E. А. Reflections on the Rule of Law and «Clear Reflection of Income»: What Constrains Discretion? Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy. 1999. Vol. 8. Issue 3. Рp. 445–459. (In Eng.).
25. Pepinsky H. E. Better Living Through Police Discretion. Law and Contemporary Problems. 1984. Vol. 47. Issue 4. Рp. 249–267. (In Eng.).
26. Vanistendael F. The Role of (Legal) Principles in EU Tax Law. Function, Status and Impact in EU Tax Law. Ed. by Cécile Brokelind. Amsterdam, 2014. Pр. 29–50. (In Eng.).
27. Walpole M., Evans C. The Delicate Balance: Revenue Authority Discretions and the Rule of Law in Australia. The Delicate Balance: Tax, Discretion and the Rule of Law. Ed. by Chris Evans, Judith Freedman, Richard Krever. Amsterdam, 2011. Pр. 121–148. (In Eng.)