Analitics

2 important events of this week

3 important events of this week... Read more

This year changes to financial legislation were adopted. Federal Service for Fiscal and Budgetary Supervision, which executed the functions of financial supervision, was abolished, and its competences concerning currency control were transferred to the Federal Customs Service and Federal Tax Service (Decree of the President of Russia of 02.02.2016 No. 41). As a result, according to paragraph 2, part 2, art. 23 of the Federal Law of 10.12.2003 No. 173-ФЗ the Federal Customs Service and Federal Tax Service enforce the liability measures for violation of currency legislation.

According to the draft law No.801288-6 “On amendments to part one and two of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation” (on decreasing the corporate profit tax for participants of regional investment projects) it is planned to introduce a new category of taxpayers: taxpayers - parties to special investment contracts (hereinafter - “taxpayers - PSIC”)

On 12.12.2015 the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 1365 “On the procedure of submission of reports to tax authorities by individuals - residents on flow of funds in bank accounts outside the Russian Federation” was adopted. It establishes the procedure of submitting reports by individuals who are currency residents on flow of funds in foreign bank accounts. Previously this procedure for individuals was not set out, despite the fact that the obligation of submission was provided by pert 7, article 12, of the Federal Law of 10.12.2003 No.173-ФЗ “On currency regulation and currency control”

Lawyer of YUST Law Firm Dmitry Zabrodin prepared an article “Legal presumptions as means of overcoming legal gaps” for “Problems of Russian Legislation” magazine. The purpose of this research is to examine the potential of legal presumptions to be independent and efficient means of overcoming legal gaps. The author sees the significance of this issue in the fact that sometimes legal gaps are not that obvious. Moreover, formal application of legislation allows to state that a gap is absent in a certain case. However, this formal approach may hide a layer of relations, the specific features of which was not taken into account by the law-makers. These gaps may in fact be overcome in the course of law enforcement practice by using legal presumptions, explicitly or implicitly provided by law.

A company may own a real estate item from a long time. This right is often exercised without documents confirming the right of ownership. In order to register it it is necessary to file an action for declaration of right to court. Lawyer of Real estate and construction practice of YUST Law Firm Dmitry Zheleznov prepared an article for “Company Lawyer” magazine on the circumstances subject to proof. The applicant has to confirm that he possessed the property in good will, openly and continuously as if it were his own during fifteen years. In this case the right of ownership is recognized based on acquisitive prescription.

In cases containing claims to demolish unauthorized constructions defendants often claim that plaintiffs missed the limitation period, and this is an independent ground to dismiss the claims. A logical question arises: are the provisions on limitation periods applicable to relations governed by article 222 of the Civil Code of Russia? It appears that these provisions do not always apply. Lawyer of the Real Estate and Construction practice of YUST Law Firm Dmitry Zheleznov explained in his article for Corporate Lawyer magazine, which facts affect the application of limitation periods to cases concerning demolition of unauthorized constructions.