The legislation imposes an obligation on entrepreneurs, legal entities, citizens to paying taxes. These payments go to budgets of different levels. The funds are then directed to the maintenance of the command apparatus, the army, the maintenance of poor categories of citizens, the development of projects, and so on. Taxes, therefore, represent the main source of budget revenue. Control over the completeness and timeliness of deductions is carried out by authorized state bodies. As a rule, they do not remind about the need to make a payment, obligated entities in most cases should do it themselves. If the entity fails to pay deductions on time, tax arrears will be generated.
Limitation period
As a legal concept, this category is used in procedural codes. In the Code of Civil Procedure and Code of Criminal Procedure, in particular, periods are established during which the subject can either file an application with requirements or appeal one or another decision. Do taxes have a statute of limitations? In practice, a claim from a supervisory authority may be submitted to the court several years after the entity has not fulfilled the obligation. In addition to the deduction, the Federal Tax Service may impose a fine.
Statute of limitations on taxes of individuals
First of all, it should be noted that there are no general rules or a single provision for obligated entities under which they would be exempted from having to make a budgetary deduction in case of missing the statutory periods. Nevertheless, the legislation defines a number of cases when the control body is limited in its actions by the time frame. What is the statute of limitations for tax provided by the Tax Code? The legislation defines two categories of deductions, the compulsory deduction of which is limited in time. So, there is a limitation period for the transport tax. It is provided for in Part 3 of Art. 363 Tax Code. Property tax is the second payment, the compulsory withholding of which is also limited in time. In relation to this payment, Federal Law No. 2003-1 applies.
Part 3, Art. 363 Tax Code
In accordance with the provisions of the article, the collection period is 3 years. Employees of the control body, if the subject has an unliquidated obligation, has the right to appeal to the court. They can do this in three years and one day. However, in this case, the court must refuse the application. The basis is the expiration of the statute of limitations.
Federal Law No. 2003-1
Property tax may also be forcibly withheld no later than three years from the date of formation of the outstanding obligation. This rule establishes Art. 10 of the specified law. In this case, the following procedure applies. If the entity was not involved in the forced repayment of the obligation within 5-10 years, then the regulatory authorities can withhold the amount of deduction only for the last three years. In general, the collection process limits total limitation period. For taxes in some cases, you should refer to the explanations of the Ministry of Finance.
Penalties
Many payers are not only interested in the statute of limitations on individual taxes. For them, the problem of the forced retention of interest and arrears is quite relevant. In the Tax Code itself there are no provisions under which one or another time frame is provided for levying such amounts or fines imputed by the Federal Tax Service. However in practice courts often apply the rules of the Civil Code, and also adhere to the explanations given by YOU.
Individual entrepreneurs
In the framework of law enforcement practice, when resolving issues of compliance or non-compliance with time limits, it considers, inter alia, the statute of limitations on taxes of individuals (BSP) and the periods determined for a possible audit during field inspections. In addition, the periods established for bringing the subject to liability for violations of the Tax Code are taken into account. All these time restrictions fit into the above limitation period for taxes of individuals - at 3 years.
Important point
As mentioned above, the court may refuse to the supervisory authorities in their request. However, this is only possible if the entity submits a petition indicating that the statute of limitations has already passed. If this is not stated, the court has the right to consider and even satisfy the requirements of the Federal Tax Service. Of course, a person can appeal the decision. In this case, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply.
Halt periods
No rules have been established in the Tax Code regarding other types of mandatory contributions. There is no general procedure under which taxes could be written off for a given period. In case of violation of rights, the control body appeals to the court for their restoration. The authorized authority is guided by the provisions of the law and the concepts of time limits.
And if the Tax Code sets the statute of limitations for at least two taxes, then the Code of Civil Procedure of such provisions specifically for this type of requirement is not provided. How then are the courts? Suppose the Federal Tax Service demands to withhold from the subject land tax. There is no statute of limitations. However, there is a preventive period. It differs from the prescriptive one in that it begins not from the moment the obligation to make deductions appears, but from the date the claim for payment of the imputed amount was sent. For legal entities, this period has a duration of 2 years, for citizens - 6 months.
NK contradictions
The concept of a statute of limitations for charging a payment is very confused by the legislator. However, there are clarifications that are made in favor of the payers. The concept of the statute of limitations itself has been introduced into law enforcement practice a long time ago. If a certain period is missed, the creditor (including the state) loses the opportunity to forcibly withhold a certain amount. The legislation sets a limitation period for cases of a tax offense. Among them, among other things, should be attributed to arrears. Such a period is provided for in Art. 113 Tax Code. It says that an entity cannot be held liable for a tax violation if 3 years have passed from the date of its commission or from the day following the end of the reporting (tax) period during which it took place. The general time frame established by the Civil Code is also equal to three years. At first glance, everything is clear. However, not everything in the legislation is transparent in reality.
There is, in particular, Article 48 of the Tax Code. It states that an application to the court forcing to withhold the outstanding amount of the obligatory payment to the budget at the expense of the property of the payer - a citizen or his tax agent - may not be submitted by the control body (the Federal Tax Service or the customs service) later than six months after the end of the period of fulfillment of the obligation prescribed by law. Thus it is possible to draw a logical conclusion that Art. 48 NK acts in favor of the subject. In the sense of the norm, the three-year period is reduced to 6 months. But in the Tax Code there is art. 70. In accordance with it, the requirement to pay tax, which is made to the person by decision of the control body after the audit, should be sent to the entity within ten days from the date of the decision.This position can be interpreted as an unreasonable increase in the duration of the period almost to infinity.
This is due to the provisions of Art. 89 Tax Code. In accordance with it, an on-site audit, which is carried out by a higher division of the Federal Tax Service within the framework of monitoring the activities of a subordinate structural unit that carried out the initial supervision procedure, can be carried out regardless of the time of the previous (initial) one. Accordingly, a decision can be made at any time. And the actual calculation of the statute of limitations already depends on the date of its adoption. Moreover, Art. 24, which was canceled due to the appearance of a "more progressive" part of the NK. It clearly indicated the duration of the statute of limitations for claims against individuals for the mandatory withholding of taxes on them. She was 3 years old. 
Explanations YOU
The Presidium of the Court in resolution No. 3803/01 actually confirmed the existence of the right of the tax service to withhold arrears regarding income tax outside the limits established by art. 113 three-year terms. The specified document was issued in a particular case. In it, in particular, it is indicated that in accordance with the act of inspection of the Federal Tax Service, a decision was made on the additional charge of income tax to the subject, imposition of a fine and interest. The court of cassation, repealing the decisions of the first and appellate instances, indicated the groundlessness of the application of the privilege by an individual entrepreneur. In accordance with this, the requirements were satisfied both in terms of withholding the arrears and in the imputed fine for its admission. But making a decision, the cassation court did not take into account that the tax inspectorate missed the statute of limitations, within which the payer could be held accountable.
According to Art. 113 of the Tax Code, the subject cannot be punished for an offense if three years have passed. Thus, the SAC recognizes in its decision that the statute of limitations applies only to the fine, and does not apply to arrears. About a year after the adoption of this act, the Court expressed a slightly different opinion on the matter. Currently, therefore, the limitation period for arrears is 9 months. + time to fulfill the requirement. The calculation of this period starts from the date determined for the deduction of the mandatory payment by law.
Letter from the Presidium of the EAC
This document clarifies one case of judicial practice. The tax service appealed to the arbitration court with a demand to forcibly withhold from the individual entrepreneur arrears of UTII for March 1999, as well as penalties arising as a result of delay in repayment of this obligation. The application of the supervisory authority was denied. The court explained the ruling by the fact that the preventive period defined in paragraph 3 of Art. 48 of the Tax Code, within the framework of which it is allowed to file a claim. Along with this, the court indicated that it was established in Art. 70 of the Tax Code, the three-month period for sending a request for the need to pay off an obligation to the budget ended on 05/30/1999. The amount itself should have been deducted no later than 02/28/1999. The demand was actually sent to the payer a year later - 05/05/2000. And the deadline for voluntary repayment of the obligation it was installed on 05/15/2000
In accordance with paragraph 3 of Art. 48 of the Tax Code, the six-month period provided for by the supervisory authority to appeal to the court with an application for the compulsory collection of arrears, which is restraining, begins on the expiration date of the time period established for the execution of the budgetary obligation. The tax service's omission of the period by which it could send a claim for payment of the amount imputed to the payer under the law does not imply a change in the rules for calculating the above period.In this regard, the period for a control body to appeal to a court begins on June 10, 1999, that is, 10 days after the end date provided for in Art. 70 NK period. Due to the fact that the statement of claim was submitted on September 27, 2000, that is, beyond the preventive period established in paragraph 3 of Art. 48 of the Tax Code, it is not subject to satisfaction.
Fulfillment of an obligation to the budget
The legislation establishes that persons recognized as taxpayers must make deductions provided for in the Tax Code. Obligations to the budget will be deemed fulfilled from the moment of submitting an order to the bank to perform the corresponding operation if there is a sufficient amount of funds in the account of the subject. If a person has outstanding payments and does not have enough finance to meet the requirements, the tax will be recognized as unpaid. Obligations will also be considered outstanding if the order is withdrawn from the bank. If payment must be made tax agent, then the requirement of the legislation is recognized as fulfilled from the moment of deduction by him of the established amount from the income. Failure to fulfill an obligation to the budget acts as the basis for the application of coercive measures to levy arrears.
Actions of control bodies
Compulsory collection is carried out in accordance with the decision of the Federal Tax Service. The procedure involves sending a collection order to a bank organization to write off funds from the account of the payer or agent. This order must be executed no later than 1 business day, which follows the date of its receipt (for ruble rubles). In the absence or insufficient amount of funds in the payer's account, the FTS requirement is fulfilled upon receipt of money. If the control body does not have information about the account of the entity, it is entitled to collect the amount from the property of the obligated person. Forced collection of arrears is carried out by decision of the head of the department of the Federal Tax Service. Within a three-day period from the date of its adoption, a decision is sent to the bailiff. The execution period is 2 months. The requirements are met sequentially with respect to:
- In cash.
- Property not involved in the production of goods.
- Finished products.
- Materials and raw materials used directly in production, machine tools, buildings, equipment, structures, etc.
- Property that is transferred in accordance with the contract to the disposal, use, possession of other persons without obtaining the right of ownership.
- Other material values.
The obligation to the budget will be deemed fulfilled from the moment the seized property is realized from the payer and the debt is paid off at the expense of the proceeds.
