The article provides situations that have been identified in practice when: 1) the losses of previous periods were confirmed by the acts and decisions of the tax authorities, adopted as a result of field tax audits; 2) the tax authorities went beyond the limits of not only the subject of the audit determined by the decision on its conduction, but also the maximum time period for which the audit can be conducted in accordance with sub-para. 2 of para. 4 of art. 89 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation. A compromise solution to the problem in question is proposed.
Former managers of a taxpaying organization are not notified of the tax audit for the period of their activities. However, additional charges based on the results of the audit may become grounds for them to be brought to tax and even criminal liability. The author of the article sees the solution of the problem in the extension of rights of ex-directors.
The bad formulation of the condition on the minimum average number of employees to apply benefits for payment of insurance contribution puts payers in an unequal status. The author proposes a possible solution to this problem.
In our age of information technology, the activity of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation is still largely hidden from the public eye. Cases under the jurisdiction of the court are related to the fundamental principles of the functioning of our state. Decisions taken by it are binding on all government bodies, local authorities, individuals and legal entities in Russia. However, the outsider knows very little about the work of the court.
The article focuses on the issue of tax consequences for the buyer in case of changes in the taxation system by the supplier during the execution of the contract and practical recommendations for solving the problems arising in the described situation.