Judge of the Gorno-Altai City Court<адрес>Novikov *.*. , having considered the complaint Sanin FULL NAME1 on the decision of the magistrate of the court district No.<адрес>from DD.MM.YYYY in the case of an administrative offense, under Part. 1 Article. 15.6 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation in relation to
Sanina FULL NAME1, DD.MM.YYYY year of birth, native<адрес>living in<адрес>17, registered in<адрес>, working as the head of the Autonomous Institution<адрес> «<данные изъяты>»,
found guilty of committing an administrative offense, under Part. 1 Article. 15.6 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, and subjected to administrative punishment in the form of a fine in the amount of<данные изъяты>rubles,
Installed:
By the definition of the State Tax Inspector of the Interdistrict IFTS of Russia No.<адрес>FULL NAME2 from DD.MM.YYYY an administrative offense case was initiated against the head of the Autonomous Institution<адрес> «<данные изъяты>» Sanina *.*.
According to the protocol on an administrative offense № from DD.MM.YYYY official Sanin *.*. fulfilled the requirement of the tax authority to provide documents in violation of the deadline.
By the decision of the justice of the peace of the court district No.<адрес>from DD.MM.YYYY official Sanin *.*. found guilty of an administrative offense, under Part. 1 Article. 15.6 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation and he was sentenced to an administrative fine in the amount of<данные изъяты>rubles.
In a complaint filed with a higher court, Sanin *.*. asks said Resolution to cancel, since the administrative offense, of which he was found guilty, is insignificant by virtue of Art. 2.9 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation; there is no intent in his actions, the actions did not cause harm and grave consequences, since the requirement of the tax authority was fulfilled in violation of the terms not exceeding 4 days; an administrative offense report drawn up in violation of the requirements of Article. 28.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation; the summons to call the tax authority to draw up a protocol was handed over to a minor family member.
At the hearing Sanin *.*. and his defender Skovitin *.*. supported the arguments set forth in the complaint, did not file any petitions.
State tax inspector MIFNS of Russia No.<адрес>FULL NAME2, who drew up a protocol in the case of an administrative offense, objected to the satisfaction of the complaint, referring to the impossibility of recognizing the committed offense as insignificant.
After listening to the participants in the process, having studied the materials of the case on an administrative offense, evaluating the arguments of the complaint, the judge finds the contested Resolution not subject to cancellation on the following grounds.
In accordance with Art. 93.1 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, an official of a tax authority conducting a tax audit has the right to demand from the counterparty or from other persons who have documents (information) relating to the activities of the taxpayer (fee payer, tax agent) being audited, these documents (information). A person who has received a request to submit documents (information) shall fulfill it within five days from the date of receipt or, within the same period, report that they do not have the requested documents (information). If the requested documents (information) cannot be submitted within the specified period, the tax authority, at the request of the person from whom the documents are requested, has the right to extend the deadline for submitting these documents (information).
Part 1 of Article 15.6 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation provides for liability for failure to submit, within the period established by the legislation on taxes and fees, or refusal to submit to the tax authorities, customs authorities duly executed documents and (or) other information necessary for tax control, as well as the submission of such information in an incomplete volume or in a distorted form in the form of an administrative fine for officials in the amount of<данные изъяты>before<данные изъяты>rubles.
When making a decision to involve Sanin *.*. to administrative responsibility for committing an offense, specified in the above article of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, the magistrate correctly proceeded from the fact that the guilt of Sanina *.*. is confirmed by a protocol on an administrative offense (case file 6-7), an explanation of FULL NAME3 (case file 8), a cover letter from AC<адрес> «<данные изъяты>” (case file 9), the requirement to submit documents (case information) (case file 11), a mail notification (case file 10), an extract from the unified state register of legal entities (case file 13-17) .
The specified proofs are estimated by the justice of the peace in total with other materials of case about administrative offense concerning Sanina *.*. In accordance with the requirements of Art. 26.11 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation. There are no grounds for changing this assessment.
Justice of the Peace has correctly established that the taxpayer is an Autonomous Institution<адрес> «<данные изъяты>» in violation of the deadline, submitted to the MIFNS of Russia No.<адрес>documents confirming the relationship with LLC "<данные изъяты>» for the period 2007-2009, which is not disputed by Sanin *.*. and corroborated by the evidence.
Thus, it follows from the proofs mentioned above that Sanin *.*. is an official - director of the Autonomous Institution<адрес> «<данные изъяты>».
In accordance with Art. 93.1 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation in connection with the audit carried out by the tax authority in relation to OOO "<данные изъяты>» MIFNS no.<адрес>sent to the named autonomous institution a request for the provision of documents: invoices and an agreement concluded with LLC "<данные изъяты>”, which had to be executed within 5 days from the date of receipt of the request.
According to the notice of delivery requirement receipt by the institution DD.MM.YYYY. From the explanations of its leader Sanin *.*. it also follows that the request was received by him and for execution it was written to the chief accountant. In addition, at the hearing when considering the complaint Sanin *.*. confirmed that they received the request.
The requested documents were not submitted to the tax authority within the period established by law - up to DD.MM.YYYY inclusive, but were submitted only DD.MM.YYYY, no applications were sent to extend the deadline for submission of documents. At the same time, the documents were presented not by the director, but by the chief accountant, who signed for the director, since Sanina *.*. , his deputy and chief engineer were not at work. Sanin *.*. believes that in connection with this there is no his guilt in the commission of the offense. However, the above circumstances, on the contrary, indicate that he, as a leader, committed guilty actions - he did not control the fulfillment by the employee subordinate to him of the obligatory requirement of the state body, and if the accountant had not sent the requested documents on his own, the deadline for their submission would have been violated more than much.
Reasons for Sanin's complaint *.*. on violation of the requirements of Art. 28.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, when drawing up the protocol, they are untenable, the justice of the peace gave the correct assessment to these circumstances. The fact that the summons to summon for drawing up a protocol on an administrative offense was handed over to a minor is not confirmed by any evidence. From the notice of delivery of the postal item, it is seen that DD.MM.YYYY the decision to initiate a case, which contains a notice of the place and time of drawing up a protocol on an administrative offense, was received by Sanin, notes that the notice was not received personally by Sanin *.*. not available.
Moreover, within the meaning of Art. 28.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, notification of the time and place of drawing up a protocol on an administrative offense is aimed at observing the procedural rights of a citizen, official, legal entity. In this case, it follows from the protocol on an administrative offense that after drawing up the protocol, Sanin *.*. Sanin *.* explained his rights and obligations under the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation. explanations were given in the case, evidence was presented - an explanation of the chief accountant, which was attached to the case file on an administrative offense. That is the procedural rights of Sanin *.*. not violated.
In this regard, failure to notify a person of the time and place of drawing up a protocol on an administrative offense cannot serve as a basis for terminating the proceedings.
Sanin's arguments *.*. about the insignificance of the administrative offense committed by him cannot be accepted by the court, since the Tax Code of the Russian Federation provides for the obligation of the taxpayer to submit the requested documents within the established time limit, to report the impossibility of submitting documents or to ask for an extension of the deadline for their submission, which is necessary for conducting a tax audit within the time limits established by law. The nature of the offense, the circumstances of its commission, indicating the lack of proper control on the part of the head of the implementation of the mandatory requirement of the tax authority, the degree of guilt of Sanin *.*. do not allow to conclude about the insignificance of the offense committed. The composition of the offense, under Part. 1 Article. 15.6 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation is formal, therefore, an indication of the absence of serious consequences does not indicate the insignificance of the offense.
Sanin *.*. refers to the fact that the deadline for submission of documents missed slightly. At the same time, it is also necessary to take into account the fact that Sanin's behavior *.*. did not contribute to this, but on the contrary, as indicated above, the accountant sent the documents without the signature of the head, seeing that the deadline for submitting the requested documents was violated.
Violations of the current legislation, entailing the abolition of the appealed decision, during the consideration of the case on the merits were not allowed, the actions of Sanin *.*. properly qualified for hours. 1 Article. 15.6 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, an administrative penalty was imposed within the limits of the sanction of the specified article of the law in the minimum amount, in connection with which the judge finds the Resolution legal, issued in accordance with the requirements of Art. 25.1, 28.6, 29.10 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, therefore, not subject to cancellation, but the complaint of Sanin *.*. - unsatisfactory.
Guided by Art. 30.7 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, judge
Decision of the justice of the peace of the court district No.<адрес>from DD.MM.YYYY left unchanged, complaint Sanina FULL NAME1 - without satisfaction.
Referee *.*. Novikov
Do you think you are Russian? Born in the USSR and think that you are Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian? No. This is not true.
You are actually Russian, Ukrainian or Belarusian. But you think you are a Jew.
Game? Wrong word. The correct word is "imprinting".
A newborn associates himself with those facial features that he observes immediately after birth. This natural mechanism is characteristic of most living beings with vision.
Newborns in the USSR for the first few days saw their mother for a minimum of feeding time, and most of the time they saw the faces of the maternity hospital staff. By a strange coincidence, they were (and still are) mostly Jewish. Reception is wild in its essence and effectiveness.
All your childhood you wondered why you live surrounded by non-native people. Rare Jews on your path could do anything with you, because you were drawn to them, while others were repelled. Yes, even now they can.
You cannot fix this - imprinting is one-time and for life. It is difficult to understand, the instinct took shape when you were still very far from being able to formulate. From that moment, no words or details have been preserved. Only facial features remained in the depths of memory. Those traits that you consider your family.
1 commentSystem and Observer
Let us define a system as an object whose existence is not in doubt.
An observer of a system is an object that is not a part of the system it observes, that is, it determines its existence, including through factors independent of the system.
From the point of view of the system, the observer is a source of chaos - both control actions and the consequences of observational measurements that do not have a causal relationship with the system.
An internal observer is a potentially achievable object for the system in relation to which the inversion of the observation and control channels is possible.
An external observer is even an object potentially unattainable for the system, located beyond the event horizon of the system (spatial and temporal).
Hypothesis #1. All-seeing eye
Let's assume that our universe is a system and it has an external observer. Then observational measurements can take place, for example, with the help of "gravitational radiation" penetrating the universe from all sides from the outside. The capture cross section of "gravitational radiation" is proportional to the mass of the object, and the projection of the "shadow" from this capture onto another object is perceived as an attractive force. It will be proportional to the product of the masses of objects and inversely proportional to the distance between them, which determines the density of the "shadow".
The capture of "gravitational radiation" by an object increases its randomness and is perceived by us as a passage of time. An object that is opaque to "gravitational radiation", the capture cross section of which is larger than the geometric size, looks like a black hole inside the universe.
Hypothesis #2. Internal Observer
It is possible that our universe is watching itself. For example, using pairs of quantum entangled particles spaced apart in space as standards. Then the space between them is saturated with the probability of the existence of the process that generated these particles, which reaches its maximum density at the intersection of the trajectories of these particles. The existence of these particles also means the absence of a sufficiently large capture cross section on the trajectories of objects capable of absorbing these particles. The remaining assumptions remain the same as for the first hypothesis, except:
Time flow
External observation of an object approaching the event horizon of a black hole, if the “outside observer” is the determining factor of time in the universe, will slow down exactly twice - the shadow from the black hole will block exactly half of the possible trajectories of “gravitational radiation”. If the determining factor is the "internal observer", then the shadow will block the entire trajectory of interaction and the flow of time for an object falling into a black hole will completely stop for a view from the outside.
Also, the possibility of combining these hypotheses in one proportion or another is not excluded.
Judicial practice under Art. 15.15.6 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation appealing against fines for violation of the procedure for submitting budget reporting
KHABAROVSK REGIONAL COURT
Case No. 21-889/2017
SOLUTION
in the case of an administrative offense
Khabarovsk November 15, 2017
The judge of the Khabarovsk Regional Court Yagotinsky S.I., having considered D.’s complaint against the decision of the First Deputy Minister of Finance of the Khabarovsk Territory of July 13, 2017, the decision of the judge of the Lazo District Court of the Khabarovsk Territory of September 06, 2017 in the case of an administrative offense under Art. 15.15.6 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, in relation to the official - the head of the department for financial work of the administration of the Khorsky urban settlement of the municipal district named after Lazo of the Khabarovsk Territory - D.,
installed:
By a resolution of the First Deputy Minister of Finance of the Khabarovsk Territory dated July 13, 2017, the official - the head of the department for financial work of the administration of the Khorsky urban settlement of the Lazo municipal district of the Khabarovsk Territory - D. was found guilty of an administrative offense under Art. 15.15.6 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, and she was sentenced to an administrative fine in the amount of 10,000 rubles.
By the decision of the judge of the district named after Lazo of the Khabarovsk Territory of September 06, 2017, the decision of the official was left unchanged.
In the complaint, D. asks the decision of the judge of the district court to cancel, to stop the proceedings, since there are grounds for recognizing the imputed offense as insignificant in accordance with Art. 2.9 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.
The complaint was considered in the absence of D., the prosecutor, an official of the administrative body, notified of the time and place of the consideration of the complaint, who did not file petitions for adjournment.
Having studied the arguments of the complaint, examining the materials of the case, I come to the following.
Article 15.15.6 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation provides for administrative liability for failure to submit or submit in violation of the deadlines established by budgetary legislation and other regulatory legal acts regulating budgetary legal relations, budget reporting or other information necessary for the preparation and consideration of draft budgets of the budgetary system of the Russian Federation, budget execution of the budget system of the Russian Federation, or submission of knowingly unreliable budget reporting or other information necessary for the preparation and consideration of draft budgets of the budget system of the Russian Federation, the execution of budgets of the budget system of the Russian Federation.
It follows from the materials of the case that, based on the results of an audit of compliance by officials of the administration of the Khorsky urban settlement of the municipal district named after Lazo with the requirements of budget legislation, the prosecutor of the district named after Lazo of the Khabarovsk Territory on June 21, 2017 initiated an administrative offense case under Art. 15 15.6 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, in relation to the official - the head of the department for financial work of the administration of the Khorsky urban settlement of the municipal district named after Lazo of the Khabarovsk Territory - D.
During the audit, it was established that the Khor city settlement of the municipal district named after Lazo of the Khabarovsk Territory for 2016 was allocated the amount of the regional subvention for the implementation of certain state powers of the Khabarovsk Territory in accordance with the Law of the Khabarovsk Territory dated November 24, 2010 N 49 in the amount of 2,200 rubles, which were transferred administration of the Khorsky urban settlement by the Committee of the Government of the Khabarovsk Territory for ensuring the activities of justices of the peace, state notaries and administrative commissions on payment order dated 05.12.2016 N 841981.
According to clause 3.6 of the job description of the head of the department for financial work of the administration of the Khorsky urban settlement, the provision of monthly reporting on the expenditure of targeted subventions is part of the job responsibilities of the head of the department for financial work.
By order of the administration of the Khorsky urban settlement of the municipal district named after Lazo of the Khabarovsk Territory of October 17, 2016 N 74-ls, D.
As a result of improper performance of official duties by the head of financial work of the administration of the Khorsky urban settlement of the municipal district named after Lazo of the Khabarovsk Territory - D., by January 15, 2017, a report on the expenditure of funds in the amount of 2,200 rubles in the form provided for in Appendix No. 7 to the Decree of the Government of Khabarovsk edges dated 10.09.2013 N 268-pr, not presented.
The specified actions of the official - the head of the department for financial work of the administration of the Khorsky urban settlement of the municipal district named after Lazo of the Khabarovsk Territory - D. are qualified under Art. 15.15.6 Administrative Code of the Russian Federation.
The fact of committing an administrative offense and D.'s guilt in committing it are confirmed by a body of evidence, the reliability and admissibility of which are beyond doubt, which were assessed by a judge of the district court in accordance with Art. 26.11 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.
When considering a complaint against a decision in the case of an administrative offense, the judge of the district court, on the basis of a full and comprehensive study of the evidence collected in the case, established all legally significant circumstances of the administrative offense and made a reasonable conclusion that D.'s guilt had been proven in committing an administrative offense under Art. 15.15.6 Administrative Code of the Russian Federation.
At the same time, there are grounds for recognizing the administrative offense committed by D. as insignificant.
In accordance with Art. 2.9 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, with the insignificance of the administrative offense committed, the judge, body, official authorized to decide the case of an administrative offense may release the person who committed the administrative offense from administrative responsibility and confine himself to an oral remark.
According to clause 21 of the Decree of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of March 24, 2005 N 5 “On some issues that arise with the courts in the application of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses”, if the insignificance of the administrative offense committed is established during the consideration of the case, the judge on the basis of Art. 2.9 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation has the right to release the guilty person from administrative responsibility and confine himself to an oral remark, which should be indicated in the decision to terminate the proceedings. If the insignificance of an administrative offense is established when considering a complaint against a decision in a case on such an offense, then on the basis of paragraph 3 of part 1 of Art. 30.7 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, a decision is made to cancel the decision and to terminate the proceedings.
A minor administrative offense is an action or inaction, although formally containing signs of an administrative offense, but taking into account the nature of the offense committed and the role of the offender, the amount of harm and the severity of the consequences that have occurred, it does not represent a significant violation of protected public legal relations.
Taking into account the foregoing, all the circumstances of the case and the fact that the commission of the said offense did not entail harmful consequences, there was no significant violation of protected social relations, there are grounds for recognizing the administrative offense as insignificant.
Under such circumstances, the appealed decision and the decision of the judge of the district court are subject to cancellation, and the proceedings on the case are terminated on the basis of Art. 2.9 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation due to the insignificance of the administrative offense committed.
In view of the above, guided by n. 3 h. 1 Article. 30.7, 30.9 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation,
Decree of the First Deputy Minister of Finance of the Khabarovsk Territory dated July 13, 2017, decision of the judge of the Lazo District Court of the Khabarovsk Territory dated September 06, 2017 in the case of an administrative offense under Art. 15.15.6 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, in relation to the official - the head of the department for financial work of the administration of the Khorsky urban settlement of the municipal district named after Lazo of the Khabarovsk Territory - D. cancel, the proceedings are terminated on the basis of Art. 2.9 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation due to the insignificance of the offense committed., declare D. oral remark.
Oktyabrsky District Court of St. Petersburg
№ 5-250/2011
RESOLUTION
The judge of the Oktyabrsky District Court of St. Petersburg Tretyakova Y.Yu., having considered in open court the material on the failure to submit the audit report for 2010, which is part of the financial statements, in relation to Strashnov D. E. , DD.MM.YYYY, born<адрес>registered and residing at:<адрес>, who is the director of the managing organization "<данные изъяты> .»,
SET UP:
In accordance with Protocol No. 20481 on an administrative offense dated June 6, 2011, the Interdistrict Inspectorate of the Federal Tax Service of Russia for the largest taxpayers in St. Petersburg carried out tax control measures for the timeliness of submitting an audit report for 2010, which is part of the financial statements.
An audit of the tax authority established that D.E. Strashnov, who is an official responsible for the timely submission of financial statements of JSC "<данные изъяты>» failed to submit to the MIFNS of Russia on the largest taxpayers in St. Petersburg, within the statutory deadlines, an audit report for 2010, which is an integral part of the financial statements for 2010.
At the hearing Strashnov D.E. did not appear, he was duly notified of the date and time of the court session, the defender Bullakh Yu.S. appeared, believing it possible to consider the case in the absence of Strashnov D.E., in connection with which, the court considers it possible to consider the case in the absence of Strashnov D., who did not appear. E. on the grounds specified in Part 2 of Art. 25.1 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses.
At the hearing defender Bullah Yew.C. submitted written objections to the administrative offense protocol, according to which it follows that in the actions of Strashnova D.E. there is no composition of the offense under Art. 15.6 h. 1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.
Interrogated at the hearing chief state tax inspector desk audits № 4 Druzhinina Ye.M. explained to the court that the tax inspectorate brings to administrative responsibility precisely those persons who are reported by the organization itself, as responsible for the timely filing of tax documents.
The court, having examined the submitted materials, comes to the following.
According to Part 1 of Art. 15.6 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, failure to submit within the period established by the legislation on taxes and fees or refusal to submit to the tax authorities, customs authorities and authorities of the state off-budget fund duly executed documents and (or) other information necessary for the implementation of tax control, as well as the submission of such information in an incomplete volume or in a distorted form, with the exception of cases provided for by paragraph 2 of this article, shall entail the imposition of an administrative fine on citizens in the amount of one hundred to three hundred roubles; on officials - from three hundred to five hundred roubles.
In accordance with paragraphs. 5 p. 1 art. 23 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, taxpayers are required to submit at the place of residence of an individual entrepreneur, a notary engaged in private practice, a lawyer who has established a law office, at the request of the tax authority, a book of income and expenses and business transactions; submit accounting reports at the location of the organization in accordance with the requirements established by the Federal Law "On Accounting", except for cases when organizations in accordance with the said Federal Law are not required to keep accounting records or are exempted from accounting.
In accordance with Part 2 of Art. 13 of the Federal Law No. 129-FZ of November 21, 1996 "On Accounting" the financial statements of organizations consist of: balance sheet; income statement; annexes to them provided for by regulatory enactments; an audit opinion or an opinion of the auditing union of agricultural cooperatives, confirming the reliability of the organization's financial statements, if it is subject to mandatory audit or mandatory audit in accordance with federal laws; explanatory note.
In part 1 of Art. 14 of Federal Law No. 129-FZ of November 21, 1996 "On Accounting" states that the reporting year for all organizations is a calendar year - from January 1 to December 31 inclusive.
In accordance with Part 2 of Art. 15 of the Federal Law No. 129-FZ of November 21, 1996 "On Accounting" of an organization, with the exception of budgetary and public organizations (associations) and their structural divisions, that do not carry out entrepreneurial activities and do not have turnovers for the sale of goods (works, works, services) are required to submit quarterly financial statements within 30 days after the end of the quarter, and annual - within 90 days after the end of the year, unless otherwise provided by the legislation of the Russian Federation.
In accordance with paragraph 4 of part 1 of Art. 5 of the Federal Law of December 30, 2008 No. 307 FZ “On Auditing Activities”, a mandatory audit is carried out if the amount of proceeds from the sale of products (sales of goods, performance of work, provision of services) of an organization (with the exception of state authorities, local governments, state and municipal institutions, state and municipal unitary enterprises, agricultural cooperatives, unions of these cooperatives) for the previous reporting year exceeds 400 million rubles or the amount of balance sheet assets as of the end of the previous reporting year exceeds 60 million rubles.
OJSC Saint-Petersburg Telecom was subject to statutory audit, as according to the balance sheet for 2009, the amount of assets at the end of the reporting period exceeded 60 million rubles.
Thus, the auditor's report is an integral part of the financial statements of JSC "<данные изъяты>» for 2010.
According to the letter of the General Director of the Macroregion North-West FULL NAME5, it follows that the responsibility for the implementation of JSC "<данные изъяты>» all obligations to the budgets of all levels, state extra-budgetary social funds and other third parties are borne by the sole executive body - the Managing Organization - «<данные изъяты>.". The managing organization assumed the obligation to manage, in accordance with the current legislation, the production, economic and financial and economic activities of the Company, the director of this Management Company is D.E. Strashnov. The contract with the audit company for the audit was signed by the Regional Managing Director of JSC<данные изъяты>» FULL NAME6 , acting on the basis of a power of attorney.
According to Art. 1.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, a person is subject to administrative liability only for those administrative offenses in which their guilt is established. In accordance with Art. 2.4 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, an official is subject to administrative liability in the event that he commits an administrative offense in connection with the failure to perform or improper performance of his official duties.
According to the submitted power of attorney LLC "<данные изъяты> .» (<данные изъяты>) represented by the person authorized to act independently - Director Strashnov D.E. authorizes the Regional Managing Director FULL NAME6 to carry out on behalf of LLC "<данные изъяты>." the powers of the sole executive body on all issues of the current activities of JSC "<данные изъяты>”, including acting on behalf of and in the interests of the JSC in all state, municipal and other organizations and institutions, tax authorities in connection with the activities of the JSC, including the right to submit documents, information and requests to these organizations, as well as receive documents prepared by them, information and references. In view of the foregoing, the proceedings are subject to termination due to the absence in the actions of Strashnova D.E. composition of an administrative offense, under Art. 15.6 h. 1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.
Based on the above, and guided by Article.Article. 15.6 h.1, 24.5 h.1 p. 2 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, court
RESOLVED:
Proceedings in the case of an administrative offense, under Art. 15.6 h. 1 Administrative Code of the Russian Federation in relation to Strashnova D.E. terminate due to the absence of an administrative offense in his actions.
The decision may be appealed to the St. Petersburg City Court through the Oktyabrsky District Court of St. Petersburg within 10 days from the date of delivery or receipt of a copy of the decision.
The current version of Art. 15.6 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation with comments and additions for 2018
(Name as amended, entered into force on August 24, 2013 by the Federal Law of July 23, 2013 N 248-FZ.
1. Failure to submit, within the period established by the legislation on taxes and fees, or refusal to submit to the tax authorities, customs authorities duly executed documents and (or) other information necessary for the implementation of tax control, as well as the submission of such information in an incomplete volume or in a distorted form, with the exception of cases provided for by part 2 of this article (paragraph as amended by Federal Law No. 213-FZ of July 24, 2009, -
shall entail the imposition of an administrative fine on citizens in the amount of one hundred to three hundred roubles; on officials - from three hundred to five hundred roubles.
(Paragraph as amended, put into effect on July 8, 2007 by Federal Law No. 116-FZ of June 22, 2007 - see previous version)
2. Violation by an official of a state body, local self-government body, organization or diplomatic mission or consular office or by a notary of the deadlines provided for by the legislation of the Russian Federation on taxes and fees for submitting (reporting) information to tax authorities related to the accounting of organizations and individuals, or the submission of such incomplete or distorted information -
(Paragraph as amended, entered into force on August 24, 2013 by Federal Law of July 23, 2013 N 248-FZ.
shall entail the imposition of an administrative fine in the amount of five hundred to one thousand rubles.
(Part as amended by Federal Law No. 169-FZ of December 8, 2003, put into effect on January 1, 2004
Commentary on Article 15.6 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation
1. The object of offenses, the responsibility for which is provided for in the commented article, are public relations in the field of taxation and the organization of tax control.
2. Tax control is carried out by officials of tax authorities within their competence through tax audits, obtaining explanations from taxpayers, tax agents and payers of fees, checking accounting and reporting data, examining premises and territories used to generate income (profit), as well as in other forms provided for by the Tax Code of the Russian Federation.
The customs authorities exercise control over compliance with the legislation on taxes and fees levied in connection with the movement of goods across the customs border, in the manner prescribed by the Customs Code of the Russian Federation. The powers of the customs authorities in terms of tax collection are still regulated by the Tax Code of the Russian Federation (Article 34). This article does not apply to the submission of information to the customs authorities and authorities of state off-budget funds.
3. The objective side of the offense under the commented article is characterized by failure to perform on time or incomplete or improper performance of obligations to submit documents and (or) other information necessary for tax control to the tax authorities.
The Tax Code of the Russian Federation establishes the obligations of taxpayers to submit the following documents and (or) information to the tax authority (except for information on opening and closing accounts and tax returns, liability for failure to submit which is established by Articles 15.4 and 15.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation): documents specifically specified in the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, necessary for the calculation and payment of taxes in cases expressly provided for by the Tax Code of the Russian Federation; information about all cases of participation in Russian and foreign organizations; information about all separate subdivisions created on the territory of the Russian Federation and about changes in such information and termination of activities through separate subdivisions (part 2 of article 23 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation); on liquidation or reorganization; copies of taxpayer's applications for deferment or installment payment of tax (fee) submitted to the authorized body; copies of the decision of the authorized body on temporary suspension of payment of the amount of debt; copies of the investment tax credit agreement; documents necessary for the tax audit in the form of duly certified copies according to the list specified in the demand of the tax authority (an official of the tax authority) issued during the on-site tax audit, and in cases specifically provided for in Art. 88 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, - during a desk tax audit. According to paragraph 1 of Art. 93 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, an official of a tax authority conducting a tax audit has the right to demand from the audited person the documents necessary for the audit by serving this person (his representative) with a request for the submission of documents. In paragraph 3 of Art. 93 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation states that the requested documents must be provided within 10 working days from the date of receipt of the request (see also paragraph 6 of article 6.1 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation). Failure to submit the named documents and (or) information forms the objective side of the offense under part 1 of this article. Failure to comply with illegal requirements of the tax authorities, as well as the requirements of the tax authorities to provide information (documents and information) necessary for other types of state control, the implementation of which is assigned to the tax authorities, for example, control over the maintenance of accounting records and the submission of reliable and complete financial statements in the established term, does not form the objective side of the composition of administrative offenses and does not entail administrative responsibility under the commented article.
The objective side of the offense under this article is formed by cases of non-submission, untimely, incomplete submission or submission of distorted information (documents and information) not only by taxpayers, but also by other participants in tax legal relations, with the exception of those specified in part 2 of the commented article, but only in cases where the obligation for these subjects to submit information to the tax authorities and the procedure for their submission are expressly provided for in the Tax Code of the Russian Federation. For example, the obligation to provide documents and information as part of a counter audit during a tax audit of a taxpayer, which is assigned to the taxpayer’s counterparties and other persons, the obligation to provide information about a specific transaction with the participation of the taxpayer, which may be required not as part of a tax audit from other participants transaction and other persons who have information about the transaction (Article 93.1 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation); the obligation of banks to submit to the tax authorities certificates on the availability of bank accounts and (or) on the balance of funds in the accounts, statements on transactions on the accounts of organizations (individual entrepreneurs), which must be executed within five days from the date of receipt of a reasoned request from the tax authority in during a tax audit, as well as when a decision is made to collect taxes, penalties, fines or suspend or cancel the suspension of operations on accounts (part 2 of article 86 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation).
4. The objective side of the offense under part 2 of the commented article is characterized by the failure of officials of the authorized bodies to timely and fully submit to the tax authorities reliable information necessary for registering individuals and organizations for the purpose of tax control, in cases, in the manner and in the time limits provided for in Art. 85 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation.
5. The subject of the offense under part 1 of the commented article is the chief accountant (accountant) of the organization, and in their absence in the state - the head, if the obligation to submit information to the tax authorities is not assigned to other employees who are entrusted with organizational and administrative and administrative and economic functions in the organization (financial director, tax manager, tax controller, etc.). In the Decree of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of October 24, 2006 N 18, it is noted that when an official of an organization is brought to administrative responsibility under Art. 15.6 must be guided by the provisions of paragraph 1 of Art. 6 and paragraph 2 of Art. 7 of the Federal Law of November 21, 1996 N 129-FZ "On Accounting". When qualifying the actions of a person under this article, it is also necessary to take into account paragraph 4 of Art. 7 of the said Law, according to which, in case of disagreement between the head of the organization and the chief accountant on the implementation of certain business operations, documents on them can be accepted for execution with a written order of the head of the organization, who bears full responsibility for the consequences of such operations. Violation by third parties who maintain accounting records in an organization on the basis of a civil law contract does not relieve the head of the organization from administrative responsibility under this article.
6. The subject of the offense under part 2 of this article are notaries and officials of bodies, by virtue of their special status, possessing the information necessary for the implementation of tax control, and obliged in accordance with the Tax Code of the Russian Federation to report such information to the tax authority for the purposes of complete accounting of taxpayers.
7. The subjective side of punishable actions (inaction) provided for in the commented article can be characterized by both intent and negligence. Failure to provide information implies the presence of guilt in the form of intent. Failure to provide information within the prescribed period, as well as the provision of information in an incomplete or distorted form implies the presence of guilt in the form of both intent and negligence.
8. Cases of offenses provided for by this article are considered by judges (part 1 of article 23.1).
Protocols on administrative offenses are drawn up by officials of the tax authorities, and according to part 1 of this article - also officials of the customs authorities (paragraphs 5 and 12 of part 2 of article 28.3).
Consultations and comments of lawyers on Article 15.6 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation
If you still have questions about Article 15.6 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation and you want to be sure that the information provided is up to date, you can consult the lawyers of our website.
You can ask a question by phone or on the website. Initial consultations are free of charge from 9:00 to 21:00 Moscow time daily. Questions received between 21:00 and 09:00 will be processed the next day.
