The dissertation comprehensively analyzes the procedures for payment of taxes and fees as components of a complete system of procedural regulation of the fulfillment of tax obligations. The study begins with an emphasis on the fact that the procedural regulation of tax relations is focused both on ensuring the achievement of the main goal of tax regulation and on its breakdown into relevant components. The main conceptual guideline in tax regulation and, accordingly, the procedural provision of this is the fulfillment of the tax obligation through the formation and consolidation of the order within which the formation of the revenue parts of the budget must be guaranteed. The similar main goal of procedural support, tax regulation is detailed through the procedural guarantee of the implementation of the components of the tax obligation: tax accounting procedures, tax payment procedures, and tax reporting procedures.
Tax-administrative complexity is guaranteed by the only means of imperative regulation, which are inherent in both administrative and tax law as public branches. It is in this way that a generalized three-link structure of the principles of procedural regulation of tax relations is formed, which includes: 1) procedures for the development and adoption of a tax legal norm (reflects certain features specifically in the field of tax regulation, for example, regarding the establishment of local taxes and fees); 2) procedures for full and timely fulfillment of all components of tax liability (accounting, payment, reporting); 3) coordination procedures (administrative and judicial).
As a result of the analysis of the conclusions of modern scientific research, a conclusion is made regarding the hierarchy of tax procedures, which follows from the corresponding hierarchy of normative prescriptions and is based on the differentiation of tax procedures, the principles of procedural regulation. Of course, first of all we are talking about the three-link detailing of the dynamics of procedural regulation (normative, regulatory, security procedures). It is absolutely clear that the protective procedure cannot precede either the regulatory or the rule-making ones. It is not possible to implement coercion before a normative prescription has appeared which establishes the grounds, content and nature of these relations. That is, similar dynamics lay certain principles of hierarchy in procedural regulation. In fact, the same applies to all circumstances, where it should be about the appropriate sequence of the dynamics of the development of relations. The same logic is inherent to the sequence of procedures for tax accounting, payment and reporting as procedural support for the implementation of the elements of the tax obligation.
Based on the fact that the procedural regulation of tax relations involves the organization of relevant actions of subjects of authority, a conclusion is drawn regarding the demarcation of tax and administrative regulation. First, the formation of state bodies, their organizational structure is implemented by means of an administrative nature in the field of tax regulation management. Secondly, the definition of the system of tax management bodies causes the emergence of grounds for the implementation of actual tax procedures conditioned by the fulfillment of the tax obligation. Thirdly, the emergence of a dispute during the implementation of tax procedures involves its resolution in the mode of administrative appeal or resolution by the courts. In both of these cases, the predominant role is assigned to administrative procedures. Such combination of tax and administrative procedural regulation determines the formation of certain complex (administrative-tax) structures, which are based on a single type of means of legal influence – imperative.
The assessment of inappropriate behavior may not always be based on signs of the behavior of the payer. Such impropriety may be related to the behavior of the supervisory body, bank, etc. and not be determined by the actions or inaction of the taxpayer. At first glance, one may get the impression that if funds are not received in time to repay the tax obligation of the payer, then this is a classic example of an offense and indicates the guilty behavior of the latter. This is a formal approach, because the assessment of such a situation may be based on the failure of the state to fulfill its obligations in the presence of the control body’s fault, which indicates the behavior of the subject of power, not the payer.
It is emphasized that the procedures for the implementation of the tax obligation involve several aspects of systematicity. First, the tax obligation itself objectively includes three components: accounting, payment, reporting.
