Some Issues Regarding the Application of Procedural and Tax Legislation When Recognizing a Claim by the Defendant

 Changes made by the legislator to Art. 333.40 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, in the part that determines the procedure for the return of the state duty when the defendant recognizes the claims, suggest the need for their scientific understanding, since they admit the existence of different approaches to solving a number of practical problems. This article is devoted to the analysis of the changed legal regulation and the  development of optimal ways to resolve some issues related to the grounds  and procedure for returning the state duty to the plaintiff from the federal budget when the defendant exercises the right to recognize claims in full or in part at various stages of the arbitration court's civil case.
The Author considers the following questions: how can the right to recognize a claim be exercised, what is the external form of its expression; whether the state fee is subject to return from the federal budget if the defendant recognizes the claim after a ruling on the acceptance of the statement of  claim for production is made, but in case of non-fulfillment of the requirements on a voluntary basis; what are the grounds and conditions for the application of Sub. 3 P. 1 of Art. 333.40 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation when deciding on the return of the state fee in case of recognition of the claim in the courts of appeal or cassation; whether the state fee is subject to return from the budget in the event of the plaintiff's refusal from the claim in part or partial recognition of the claim by the defendant (and how in such situations the amount of the state fee to be returned is determined); whether the state fee is subject to return from the federal budget in the event of an amicable agreement, if, according to its terms, the amount of obligations between the parties has been agreed in a smaller amount than the amount of the previously declared claims, and also if the parties have reached a condition on the distribution of expenses for paying the state fee. 

1. Aliev T. T., Balashov A. N. Problemnye aspekty realizatsii prava na otkaz ot iska i na priznanie iska v grazhdanskom sudoproizvodstve [Problematic Aspects of the Exercise of the Right to Withdraw from a Claim and the Acceptance of a Claim in Civil Proceedings]. Arbitrazhnyi i grazhdanskii protsess – Arbitrazh and Civil Procedure, 2008, no. 2, pp. 43–46.

2. Yarkov V. V. (Ed.). Arbitrazhnyi protsess [Arbitration Process]. 7th ed. Moscow, Statut Publ., 2017. 752 p.

3. Bortnikova N. A. Uproshchennye proizvodstva v grazhdanskom sudoproizvodstve [Simplified Proceedings in Civil Proceedings]. Moscow, 2019. 167 p.

4. Bochkarev A. E. Otkaz ot iska, priznanie iska, zaklyuchenie mirovogo soglasheniya i provedenie protsedury mediatsii v sude apellyatsionnoi instantsii [Nonsuit, Cognovit, Amicable Conclusion and Mediation Procedure in the Appeal Court]. Vestnik Vladimirskogo yuridicheskogo institute – Bulletin of Vladimir Law Institute, 2013, no. 2 (27), pp. 51–56.

5. Bubon K. V. Priznanie iska otvetchikom: vse li ochevidno? [Confession of Claim by the Defendant: Is Everything Obvious?]. Advokat – Advocate, 2015, no. 8, pp. 17–26.

6. Varaksin A. E. O ponyatii i priznakakh rasporyaditel’nogo prava v grazhdanskom sudoproizvodstve [About Concept and Signs of the Administrative Right in a Civil Procedural Law]. Vestnik Chelyabinskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Ser.: Pravo – Bulletin of Chelyabinsk State University. Series: Law, 2013, no. 17, pp. 10–14.

7. Kuznetsov S. A. Mirovoe soglashenie v grazhdanskom protsesse. Advokatskii keis [Settlement Agreement in the Civil Procedure. Lawyer Case]. Dobryanka, 2015. 48 p.

8. Fokina M. A. (Ed.). Kurs dokazatel’stvennogo prava: Grazhdanskii protsess. Arbitrazhnyi protsess. Administrativnoe sudoproizvodstvo [Course of Evidence: Civil Procedure. Arbitration Process. Administrative Proceedings]. 2nd ed. Moscow, Statut Publ., 2019. 656 p.

9. Skuratovskii M. L. Protsessual’naya funktsiya grazhdanskogo prava (na primere obshchikh polozhenii ob obyazatel’stvakh) [Procedural Function of Civil Law (on the Example of General Provisions on Obligations)]. Chastnoe pravo. Preodolevaya ispytaniya: k 60-letiyu B. M. Gongalo – Private Law. Overcoming Trials: to the 60th Anniversary of B. M. Gongalo. Moscow, Statut Publ., 2016, pp. 90–97.

10. Solokhin A. E. Primirenie storon v grazhdanskom i arbitrazhnom protsesse: istoriya, itogi i perspektivy [The Conciliation of the Parties in Civil and Arbitration Procedure: History, Results and Prospects]. Treteiskii sud – Arbitration, 2014, no. 5, pp. 55–66.

11. Tarasov I. N. Kategoriya «sudebnye izderzhki» v grazhdanskom protsessual’nom prave [The Category of “Legal Costs” in Civil-Procedure Law]. Arbitrazhnyi i grazhdanskii protsess – Arbitrazh and Civil Procedure, 2013, no. 8, pp. 9–12.

12. Baumgärtel G. Chancengleichheit vor Gericht durch Pflichtrechtsschutzversicherung oder Prozeßhilfe? Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Funktion der Prozeßkosten. JuristenZeitung, 1975, no. 14, pp. 425–430.

13. Müller L. Streitpunkt Parteientschädigung – Das Kriterium der Notwendigkeit bei berufsmässiger Vertretung zur Bestimmung der Parteientschädigung. Aktuelle Juristische Praxis, 2018, no. 8, pp. 979–989.

14. Ovcharova E., Tasalov K., Osina D. Tax Compliance in the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America: Forcing and Encouraging Lawful Conduct of Taxpayers. Russian Law Journal, 2019, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 4–54. DOI: 10.17589/2309-8678-2019-7-1-4-54.

15. Snyder E. A., Hughes J. W. The English Rule for Allocating Legal Costs: Evidence Confronts Theory. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 1990, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 345–380.