Il gettito fiscale è circa il 70% delle entrate statali nel mondo ed anche in Russia. Lo Stato e le proprie agenzie sono interessate a far sì che il gettito fiscale risulti perfettamente incanalato nel bilancio. Pertanto, essi fanno di tutto per minimizzare il nichilismo giuridico conseguente al mancato pagamento dei tributi. Allo stesso momento, le agenzie statali devono introdurre tributi in stretta aderenza ad un’efficiente normativa fiscale. Inoltre, esse non dovrebbero ignorare la natura di imposte a livello concettuale. L’articolo si focalizza sul principio della base economica di tassazione, che è un importante principio in questo settore. Il suo meccanismo viene analizzato in relazione alla giustificazione economica (di fattibilità) di regolamentazione giuridica di tasse e contributi. A titolo di esempio, viene discussa l’imposta sul patrimonio, che è attualmente al centro del dibattito pubblico.

1. Theoretical grounds The fundamentals of legislation on taxes and fees are contained in art. 3 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation (Tax Code) [1]. The principle of economic basis of taxation is one of the special principles set forth in art. 3. The legal doctrine also knows this principle, though applies a different na­me (“economic justification”). The Tax Code provides that taxes and fees shall have an economic basis and cannot be arbitrary (Cl. 3, art. 3). The economic basis means that every tax shall apply to a certain taxable item, such as: transactions involving sale of goods, fulfilment of work or supply of services; property; profit; income; cost of goods sold, works fulfilled or services supplied; etc. The list is not exhaustive and can include anything that can be measured in terms of cost, quantity or physical parameters. In Russian law, a taxable item is a certain le­gal act that gives rise to an obligation to pay taxes. Such legal acts include actions (e.g., transactions, sale of goods), events (e.g., donations), and statuses (ownership or other property rights). In terms of economic basis, the law stipulates that any taxable item shall imply the availability of certain material assets, benefits, property gains, or a taxpayer’s business activity. L. Osterloh and A.T. Jobs argue that «… taxation must be linked to a taxpayer’s solvency – i.e., ownership, possession or use of property. Thus, taxation is a common burden that involves all residents in financing state goals, while the degree of involvement depends on their earnings, property, and purchasing power» [2]. According to the principle under consideration, taxes and fees must be levied with due regard to the economic situation and feasibility. They must conform with budget planning and the political objectives proclaimed. Taxes and duties should be imposed after a comprehensive expert evaluation and statistical analysis of a state’s financial affairs. Importantly, the total amount of a state’s expenses (the state’s need to raise revenue) cannot be the determining criterion. In other words, the budget deficit as such (i.e., the lack of financial means) cannot be a sufficient economic basis for taxes and fees, though it certainly exerts an impact on the entire architecture of a tax system [3]. In this respect, Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 17 November 2004 on Case No. 9-G04-24 is of particular interest. The Supreme Court ruled that Cl. 3, art. 3 of the Tax Code sets forth that taxes and fees shall have an economic basis, not economic justification, and that the Tax Code does not make it mandatory to include economic justification to texts of tax laws [4]. Furthermore, the rule on economic basis governs the tax as such and does not apply to its particular elements. As noted [continua..]