Taxpayers were relieved from the problem of revocation of licenses

Amendments to the Tax code, recently signed by the President, resolved including the long-standing problem of impossibility of payment of taxes by the companies-defaulters, having accounts in the banks deprived of licenses. Its resolution was important for those companies, the management or owners who, for whatever reasons, decided to fulfill the obligation to pay taxes, but not been able to do in previous legislation.

Now, article 45 of the code a paragraph, speaking directly: “the tax can be made for the taxpayer by another person”, such as the Manager or owner. The amendment entered into force upon official publication, November 30.

A vicious circle

The problem was that banks are prohibited to open new accounts for companies whose accounts in other credit institutions has been blocked by order of the tax authorities for non-payment. If the Bank, which was blocked account, continued its work, to pay off the state would be through him. But after the revocation of the license options to pay back taxes even if the desire is simply not there: a new account cannot be opened, and with the personal account supervisor or owner of the company (or other third party) to pay for her taxes were forbidden all the same 45-I article of the Tax code.

According to the in force until November 30 of this article, “the taxpayer is obliged to fulfill the obligation on tax payment if other is not provided by the legislation on taxes and fees”. But exceptions to this rule code is not provided. Thus, companies delinquent in the case of the revocation of the Bank simply lost the opportunity to improve and continue their activities. Now this conflict is resolved.

An unsolvable problem

The existence problem has been known for a long time, and at different times has made different attempts to resolve it. At first it was about to lift the ban on opening new accounts to whom the tax authorities have blocked the Bank account, subsequently lost their license. But the government this initiative is not supported.

Later on in his comments pointed to the ability to pay tax debt management or the owners of the Bank, but this idea is not formalized in the form of official guidance to tax authorities on the ground, received not the implementation. In practice, paid thus taxes are not counted in the company at the expense of reckoning with the budget. Moreover, this position was supported by the courts.

Special relevance acquired in connection with the strengthening of the Bank of Russia on clearing Bank market from dubious and unstable players. If earlier, according to market participants, described the cases were isolated, the process of mass withdrawal of licenses from banks, their number increased. “Such cases, of course, not the shaft, but they were not isolated, says the head of the legal Department SDM-Bank Alexander Golubev. — I assume from how often I’m working in a medium size Bank, faced with such a situation: just repeatedly”.

The question is settled

Now the problem is resolved, indicate the lawyers. “According to the special amendment to paragraph 1 of article 45 of the Tax code, third party, be it the CEO or owner, can go to the Bank and pay the tax for my company. Even necessarily for their own, and in General for any company, if they have such desire,” — said the lawyer BGP Litigation Denis Savin.

Confirmed dispute resolution and the Federal tax. At this Deputy head of Department Sergey Arakelov explained that the amendments were adopted for the convenience of honest taxpayers. “The amendments eliminated the problem when people, including relatives, who could not pay taxes for one another, he explained. — The state has provided the citizens an additional opportunity to quickly and timely to pay taxes if the debtor for some reason can’t do it directly.”

Aleksandr Golubev of SDM-Bank welcomes the amendment that allows taxpayers to freely extinguish taxes at the expense of third parties. “the Restrictive measures applied to business is very serious harm, — he says. I know that businesses were ruined, as under the arrest of any account the company could not open an account at another Bank. And in this case even 10, 20, 100 businesses will be saved to this amendment is already very good, this is much better than the loss of a hundred businesses in our and so a difficult situation”.

Force limitation is, of course, you can get around, he adds. “In principle, the company must have trodden the path to the tax authorities. I know they somehow agreed, and the tax authorities sometimes went to meet them, — says the banker. But I as a lawyer don’t like the arrangement”. The legal mechanism is definitely better: it causes no harm and helps everyone avoid a sticky situation, he concluded.