October 1, 2019
The Round table “The definition of “guilt” and “intent” in legislative novelties – why do the lawyers raise the alarm?”, organized by the Committee on Tax and Customs Law of the UBA, was held on September 30, 2019. The goal of this forum was to discuss new statements of the Draft Law No.1210. Alexander Minin, Senior Partner at and Antonina Gorodetska, Senior of Counsel participated in the Round table.
Alexander Minin underlined that in current edition the Draft Law looks like an excessive burden and doesn’t solve any problems. In his opinion, the necessary condition of application of sanctions by taxmen should be the presence of proved guilt (as required by the ECHR practice), that is, justification of the presence of socially dangerous consequences provided by controlling authority – the damage caused by actions of taxpayers and the measure of the damage’s sizes caused by actions’ taxpayers which are being applied. Only in this case we can talk about compliance of fines to general principles of the law and to the principle of the rule of law, particular proportionality as the component of proportionality (commensurability).
Antonina Gorodetska in her speech drew attention that according to the Draft Law No.1210 now presumption of the taxpayer’s guilt is being secured which leads to the punishment without guilt. So, the burden of proving lays not on the taxmen, but on the payer, because he will have to prove that he acted carefully, reasonable and conscientious. “The definition of ‘guilt’ and ‘intent’ are introduced not for exemption from liability, but as a qualified warehouse for the option of recover higher fines”, – Antonina mentioned.
The participants of the Round table agreed that norms of the Draft Law No.1210 increase pressure on taxpayers and unfair to them.
Download the presentation of specialists.
The Roundtable video is available by the link.