The Tax Code of the Russian Federation requires citizens and organizations to pay taxes in cases established by law. Fees are carried out at the federal, regional and local levels. At the same time, the law allows the application of self-taxation of citizens in certain administrative and territorial units of the country. It has a number of features that must be considered when deciding on its implementation. Next, consider what is self-imposition of citizens.
Distinctive features
There is no special law on self-taxation of citizens in the legal system of the Russian Federation. However, the main points related to this area of financial activity of municipalities are reflected in the norms of the Federal Law No. 131.
Article 56, in particular, states that means of self-taxation of citizens are targeted payments that are spent on solving specific issues of territorial significance. In this they differ from taxes, the use of which is not associated with one or another purpose.
Means of self-taxation of citizens are one-time payments. Taxes, in turn, are levied regularly, according to the rules enshrined in law.
The most important sign of self-taxation of citizens is that decisions on its application are made at a local referendum. This expresses the direct democracy of the population.
Common signs of taxation and self-taxation of citizens are that payments are deducted from the population’s own funds and are sent to solve public problems.
Correlation with the tax sovereignty of the state
The essence of the sovereignty of the country is reflected in the Constitution. In part 1 of article 3 of the Basic Law, it is said that the people are the only source of power in the state. He is the bearer of sovereignty.
Different legal publications give a different definition of the concept of people. According to some authors, this term covers all citizens of the country. As you know, people with Russian citizenship have more opportunities than foreigners and entities that do not have any citizenship. So, for example, the last two categories of people are not endowed with active suffrage. Only citizens of the Russian Federation can affect taxation. Issues related to the cancellation, amendment, and introduction of taxes often occupy a central place in the election programs of candidates for high posts.
The people of the country express their will directly or through representative bodies. At the federal level, these structures are empowered to adopt laws governing taxation. Thus, it turns out that taxes are set by the will of the people, expressed through representative bodies of power.
Self-taxation of citizens and taxation have one source. Therefore, the first cannot violate the second. It seems, however, that these areas of financial activity should be coordinated with each other and with the mechanism of inter-budget transfers.
The value of self-taxation
As an analysis of the budgets of municipalities shows, the means laid down in them are far from always enough to solve pressing local issues. According to most experts, this situation is not due to a lack of an existing tax system. The fact is that a lack of funds is typical for many, including developed countries.
Self-taxation of citizens in municipalities is a more effective way to obtain the necessary amount of funds. This is primarily due to its flexibility and transparency: funds are raised for specific purposes.
At the heart of citizens' self-taxation is the principle of dispositivity. This circumstance enhances the responsibility of municipal authorities. The fact is that the administration uses the funds collected voluntarily, and not forcibly, like taxes.
Self-taxation of citizens involves the establishment of public control. As practice shows, it is more effective than imperious.
Regulatory weaknesses
It is worth saying that self-taxation of citizens in rural areas and other administrative-territorial units is used extremely rarely. According to experts, this situation is due to insufficiently clear regulatory regulation of this area of financial activity of municipalities. Currently, questions about citizens' self-taxation in rural settlements are regulated by the norms of the Federal Law No. 151 and BC.
The legislation establishes the following requirements:
- Means of self-taxation should be single payments and be targeted.
- The amount of the fee should be the same for all persons who live within the municipality.
- Citizens must make a decision on self-assessment on their own in a referendum.
Many experts agree that a more detailed regulatory regulation of the issue is necessary. Gaps in norms lead to all sorts of problems and disputes. Lawyers believe that it is advisable to consolidate in the law the conduct of mandatory population surveys on how to finance the deficit in the local budget. It can be, for example, means of self-taxation of citizens or municipal borrowing. In the first case, the local authorities do not have additional obligations to pay interest on the use of funds.
Content of the decision on self-taxation
It seems necessary to create a model Regulation on self-taxation of citizens in rural settlements and other administrative-territorial units. This act should clearly spell out all the main issues relating to the voluntary collection of public funds for the implementation of pressing public tasks. Particular attention should also be paid to the content of the decision adopted at the referendum on self-taxation of citizens. In this act it is advisable to reflect:
- The subject of financing with a description of its characteristics.
- The total cost and duration of the activities.
- The date by which citizens can deposit funds.
- The procedure for accounting for contributions.
- Rules for financial control of spending.
- Report Approval Procedure.
Self-stimulation
According to statistics, the income level of municipalities is steadily decreasing, and the volume of inter-budget transfers is increasing. Local authorities are forced to raise additional funds to resolve issues of territorial importance. As one of the sources of finance acts self-imposition of citizens.
In accordance with paragraph 3 of paragraph 41 of Article BC, voluntary revenues from the population are non-tax budget revenues.
I must say that there are not as many examples of self-taxation of citizens as we would like, although the use of this method of financing has recently expanded significantly. In 2014, it was introduced in more than 1,400 municipalities in 34 regions. In some subjects of the Moscow Region, they received a rather large amount of funds due to self-taxation of citizens. Examples of such regions are the Perm Territory, the Kirov Region, and the Republic of Tatarstan. In these entities, co-financing from the regional budget was used to enhance self-taxation.
Thus, by a decision of the Tatarstan government in 2013, funds received from the population were co-financed from the republican budget in the ratio of 1: 4. In 2014, referendums on self-taxation of citizens were held in more than 650 municipalities. As a result, the total amount of funds received from the population amounted to about 80 million rubles. From the republican budget, more than 300 million rubles were added to it. Funds in most municipalities were used to repair the road network.
The authorities of the Kirov region did the same. In accordance with the approved methodology, municipalities can count on co-financing from the regional budget, in which the procedure for self-taxation of citizens was adopted by referenda. To determine the amount of inter-budget transfer per one MO, the formula is used:
Mt = SS x 1.5, in which:
- Mt - transfer amount;
- SS - the amount of funds received from self-taxation of citizens in a rural settlement.
According to the formula, for each ruble coming from the population, 1.5 rubles are allocated from the regional budget.
In 2014, in the Perm Territory self-taxation was introduced in 26 municipalities. The total amount of funds raised was more than 4.4 million rubles. As co-financing from the regional budget, more than 22 million rubles were allocated.
conclusions
Experts ambiguously evaluate the practice of stimulating self-taxation in the regions.
A positive assessment was received by the proposal itself to seek additional sources of revenue in local budgets. At the same time, experts note that self-taxation should be initiated by citizens themselves, and not from above, since it is the population that should be interested in solving certain problems. The stimulation of this mechanism indicates that the initiative does not come from local residents, but from the authorities.
Controversial issues
In a number of cases, municipalities adopt Regulations on self-taxation of citizens, according to which funds are supposed to be deposited over several years. Often such decisions are challenged in court.
So, for example, appeal decisions of the Kurgan regional court invalidated the decisions of referenda of village councils of the Myshkinsky district of the Kurgan region. on the introduction of annual one-time contributions from adult citizens for a period of five years to solve problems of territorial significance. The court considered that the wording of the issues put to the vote contained a contradiction. They simultaneously indicated the frequency and frequency of contributions.
In addition, the court considered that the decision of the referendum was not consistent with the provisions of the Federal Law No. 67 and the Law of the Kurgan Region No. 365 of 2003. Based on the results of the vote, the contributions of the population were made mandatory and regular, that is, self-imposition of citizens became a constant source of replenishment of the income item budget for five years.
The court also indicated that according to the referendum, payments were not established to solve specific problems, but to ensure the functioning of the municipality.
The head of one of the village councils challenged the constitutionality of Article 56 of the Federal Law No. 131 in the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. In his opinion, the establishment of payments within the framework of self-taxation, which should be deducted over several years, does not mean that they have acquired a tax nature. Moreover, as the applicant pointed out, another interpretation of the impugned norm creates obstacles to the realization of the right of the population to self-impose. And this, in turn, contradicts the provisions of Article 19 of the Constitution.
The complaint of the head of the village council was not satisfied. In the ruling, the court indicated that the normative regulation provided for by Article 56 of the Federal Law No. 131 (as well as the purpose of self-taxation means) is intended to distinguish between tax and non-tax revenues of local budgets. The challenged norm, in essence, establishes one of the options for citizens to exercise direct local self-government, providing additional legal opportunities to solve specific problems of territorial significance. Consequently, the provisions of Article 56 cannot in themselves be regarded as violating the rights of the population.
Positive example of self-taxation
In the Gurensky settlement of the Belokholunitsky district of the Kirov region. fundraising from the population has been carried out since the 90s. Until 1994, most of the problems of local importance were solved by the forces of the collective farm operating then. At his expense, roads were maintained and repaired, street lighting was carried out, and infrastructure was maintained.
In the mid 90's. the collective farm broke up into 3 independent farms. They solved their tasks and, of course, could no longer deal with the problems of the settlement. In addition, no more than 100 people worked in these farms and, of course, it would be unfair to impose additional duties on them.
At the next gathering, local residents decided to organize a fundraiser for the needs of the settlement. Already at the initial stages, the collection rate exceeded 90%. According to the local head, the processes of reorganization of farms began in the settlement earlier than in other municipalities of the region. That is why residents were forced to quickly solve problems.
After the dismantling of the collective farm, there remained equipment, some equipment, and vehicles. Charges from the population allowed cleaning and repair of roads, maintenance of infrastructure.
In 2006, the Gurensky rural settlement was formed . In 2011, the first referendum on the introduction of self-taxation took place. As a result of the vote, a lump sum payment of 600 rubles was established. from each adult citizen permanently residing in the settlement. According to the adopted program, funds should have been spent on replacing and overhauling water networks. In 2011, more than 80 thousand rubles were collected, and in 2012 about 40 thousand rubles. As a result, the water supply network was completely replaced in the settlement.
Co-financing from the region was added to the collected money. For each ruble received from the population, 1.5 rubles were added from the regional budget.
In 2014, funds were raised to replace street lighting. Some lanterns were out of order, and on separate streets they were not at all. At the next referendum, the contribution amount was approved - 300 rubles. In 2015, more than 50 thousand rubles were collected, which amounted to 95% of the planned size. In 2016, about 6 thousand more were collected. A transfer in the amount of 78 thousand rubles was received again from the regional budget. As a result, the collected funds doubled the number of streetlights and replaced those that failed. In addition, modern lighting equipment appeared in the settlement.
In the fall of 2016, another referendum was held. On the agenda was the question of raising funds for the overhaul of the move and the cleaning of the pond. The amount of the contribution is 500 r. The collection was started in 2017. According to the forecasts of the head of the settlement, if co-financing is allocated from the regional budget, almost a quarter of a million rubles will be raised to solve the problems.
Distribution of funds
In many municipalities, there are several actual problems. To solve them, the practice of splitting funds is used. Part of the money (about a third) goes to solving problems of general importance, and the rest goes to the needs of an individual microdistrict, village, block, or village. Due to this, the interest of citizens in self-assessment and improvement of living conditions increases.
The control
The process of spending the collected funds should be as transparent as possible for the population. The municipality is interested in the transparency of its actions, therefore it generates regular reports. The population is informed through local media, online resources. At the end of the year, gatherings are held at which the head of the settlement reports on the work done.
Features of deductions
Despite the obvious advantages of self-taxation of citizens, serious problems arise in its implementation. One of them is related to the procedure for allocating funds.
If the payment is made through a banking organization, it is necessary that a commission is not established for payments. In addition, it is important to ensure the correct transfer of information about the payer. If these issues are not resolved, self-taxation will not find support among the population. The downside is the lack of the ability to make payments via the Internet. All these problems should be solved at the level of the head of the settlement.
In Gurensky settlement, for example, a fee is paid to the cash desk of the administration. After that, all funds are transferred to the current account. The payer can also take the account details and pay on his own, but in this case he will have additional costs: travel to the district center, commission. Accepting payments in the administration is convenient because the cashier keeps records according to the lists.
Correctness of questions
Incorrect wording on voting forms that distort the objectives of the self-taxation program makes fundraising difficult. If citizens do not understand the meaning of the program, do not imagine what their money will go to, they will shy away from participation. The more heterogeneous and larger the settlement area, the greater the differences in the interests of local residents.
As the head of the Gurensky settlement notes, the success of fundraising campaigns is primarily due to the fact that people quickly saw the results of investing personal money: lighting improved, water supply was replaced, roads were repaired, etc. Citizens did not spare money, because they realized that they were actually spending it to satisfy their needs, to improve their living conditions.
Of course, there were also dissatisfied. Some citizens who did not participate in the referendum refused to pay. The leadership of the municipality tried to solve such problems. , , . , , , , , . .
Conclusion
, , . – , . .
. , . . . .