Review of case law on notification of tax authorities on the controlled foreign companies

A. Melnikova
{"title":"Review of case law on notification of tax authorities on the controlled foreign companies","authors":"A. Melnikova","doi":"10.7256/2454-065x.2021.5.36600","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This article is dedicated to revelation and analysis of the gaps in legal regulation of profit taxation of controlled foreign companies (CFC) and notification of tax authorities on the controlled foreign companies via examining the available case law. The author determines six types of legal disputes that arise in the context of submission of participation notices in CFC, as well as CFC notices. Analysis is conducted on the methods of elimination of gaps in legislation of the Russian Federation on controlled foreign companies by introduction of point amendments to the current legislation on CFC. Settlement of legal disputes over interpretation of the Paragraph 7.1 of the Article 309.1 and Subparagraph 2 of the Paragraph 1 of the Article 25.13-1 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation requires supplementing the Article 25.14 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation with the Paragraph 3.2 of the following content: “The obligation on submitting the CFC notice does not depend on the financial results of CFC. The existence of tax exemption does not relieve of the duty to provide CFC notice”. The disputes often arise when the taxpayers default the submission period, and after receiving a request from the inspectorate, provide data for not only the companies listed in the request, but other companies as well. For avoiding any related disputes, it is recommended to supplement the Paragraph 2 of the Article 25.14 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation with the following content: “A revised notice cannot be submitted with regards to CFC, the information on which was not provided in the initial notice”. In order to minimize the actions of inspectorate “with unacceptable formalism”, it is recommended to supplement the Article 129.6 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation with the Paragraph 3 of the following content: “Submission of incomplete information or information containing technical or orthographic errors, which do not obstruct the identification of foreign company, are not considered a tax crime”.\n","PeriodicalId":167614,"journal":{"name":"Налоги и налогообложение","volume":"42 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Налоги и налогообложение","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7256/2454-065x.2021.5.36600","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article is dedicated to revelation and analysis of the gaps in legal regulation of profit taxation of controlled foreign companies (CFC) and notification of tax authorities on the controlled foreign companies via examining the available case law. The author determines six types of legal disputes that arise in the context of submission of participation notices in CFC, as well as CFC notices. Analysis is conducted on the methods of elimination of gaps in legislation of the Russian Federation on controlled foreign companies by introduction of point amendments to the current legislation on CFC. Settlement of legal disputes over interpretation of the Paragraph 7.1 of the Article 309.1 and Subparagraph 2 of the Paragraph 1 of the Article 25.13-1 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation requires supplementing the Article 25.14 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation with the Paragraph 3.2 of the following content: “The obligation on submitting the CFC notice does not depend on the financial results of CFC. The existence of tax exemption does not relieve of the duty to provide CFC notice”. The disputes often arise when the taxpayers default the submission period, and after receiving a request from the inspectorate, provide data for not only the companies listed in the request, but other companies as well. For avoiding any related disputes, it is recommended to supplement the Paragraph 2 of the Article 25.14 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation with the following content: “A revised notice cannot be submitted with regards to CFC, the information on which was not provided in the initial notice”. In order to minimize the actions of inspectorate “with unacceptable formalism”, it is recommended to supplement the Article 129.6 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation with the Paragraph 3 of the following content: “Submission of incomplete information or information containing technical or orthographic errors, which do not obstruct the identification of foreign company, are not considered a tax crime”.
外国控股公司税务机关通知判例法述评
本文通过对现有判例法的考察,揭示和分析了我国在外资控股公司利得税法律规制和税务机关对外资控股公司的通知方面存在的不足。笔者确定了在提交CFC参与通知以及CFC通知的背景下产生的六种法律纠纷。本文分析了通过对目前关于氯氟化碳的立法进行点式修正来消除俄罗斯联邦关于受控外国公司立法中的空白的方法。解决关于俄罗斯联邦税法第309.1条第7.1款和第25.13-1条第1款第2款解释的法律纠纷,需要在俄罗斯联邦税法第25.14条中补充以下内容的第3.2款:“提交CFC通知的义务不取决于CFC的财务业绩。免税的存在并不免除提供CFC通知的责任”。这些纠纷通常发生在纳税人未到提交期限,在收到检查机构的要求后,不仅要提供要求中列出的公司的数据,还要提供其他公司的数据。为避免相关争议,建议在俄罗斯联邦税法第25.14条第2款中补充如下内容:“不能提交关于CFC的修订通知,其信息未在初始通知中提供”。为了最大限度地减少检查员“形式主义令人无法接受”的行为,建议将俄罗斯联邦税法第129.6条补充为以下内容的第3款:“提交不完整的信息或包含技术或拼写错误的信息,不妨碍对外国公司的识别,不视为税务犯罪”。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信