Tax Relations from a Position of Business Safe Development and Protection of State Interests

Purpose: the article analyzes the tax policy of the Russian Federation and judicial practice of the cases related to tax legislation from the standpoint of business safe development and protection of state interests; contains measures that allow the formation of adequate tax relations between the state and business aimed at the development of the national economy.

Methods: tax relations consider in two aspects: from the position of state interests, on the one hand, and subjective perception of business, on the other. In the research process, economic and statistical methods for processing analytical data, graphical and tabular methods for visualizing research results used, as well as methods for complex, system, comparative and structural-functional analysis and traditional general scientific methods: analysis, synthesis, induction, deduction, comparisons, generalizations, analogies, etc.

Results: the author has performed an analysis of the structure and dynamics of tax revenues to the budget system of the Russian Federation and the results of the consideration of tax legislation application in terms of meeting the claims of various parties and the amounts recovered from lawsuits of tax authorities and taxpayers. The features of the regulatory framework to protect the interests of the state and business in the field of tax relations have considered. The key threats and opportunities for development at different levels of the functioning of tax relations have identified and specific measures aimed at improving the mechanism of tax relations between the state and business have proposed.

Conclusions and Relevance: analysis of judicial practice shows an increase in the fiscal focus of the results of the consideration by the Arbitration courts of the cases related to tax legislation. The formation of a set of specific organizational and legal measures in the field of taxation aimed at improving business protection is necessary for protection of the state interests and the safe development of the national economy. They are the organization of effective interaction of business with regulatory authorities; reduction of taxation of investments in fixed assets; development of mechanisms for protecting the rights of investors.

1. Castaño M.S., Méndez M.T., Galindo M.A. The effect of public policies on entrepreneurial activity and economic growth. Journal of Business Research. 2016; 69(11):5280–5285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.125 (In Eng.)

2. Autio E., Rannikko H. Retaining winners: Can policy boost high-growth entrepreneurship? Research Policy. 2016; 45(1):42–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.06.002(In Eng.)

3. Salman D.M. What is the role of public policies to robust international entrepreneurial activities on economic growth? Evidence from cross countries study. Future Business Journal. 2016; 2(1):1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fbj.2016.02.001 (In Eng.)

4. Solodilova N.Z., Grishin K.E., Malikov R.I. The configuration approach to the study of the regional ecosystem of entrepreneurship. Ekonomicheskaya politika = Economic policy. 2018; 13(5):134–155. https://doi.org/10.18288/1994-5124-2018-5-134-155 (In Russ.)

5. Yusupova A.T., Halimova S.R. Characteristics, development features, regional and industry determinants of hightech business in Russia. Voprosy ekonomiki = Issues of Economics. 2017; (12):142–154 (In Russ.)

6. Stroe S., Parida V., Wincent J. Effectuation or causation: An fsQCA analysis of entrepreneurial passion, risk perception, and self-efficacy. Journal of Business Research. 2018; (89):265–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.01.035 (In Eng.)

7. Acs Z.J., Autio E., Szerb L. National Systems of Entrepreneurship: Measurement issues and policy implications. Research Policy. 2014; 43(3):476–494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.08.016 (In Eng.)

8. Beynon M.J., Jones P., Pickernell D. Entrepreneurial climate and self-perceptions about entrepreneurship: a country comparison using fsQCA with dual outcomes. Journal of Business Research. 2018; (89):418–428. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.12.014 (In Eng.)

9. Dai W., Si S. Government policies and firms' entrepreneurial orientation: Strategic choice and institutional perspectives. Journal of Business Research. 2018; (93):23–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.08.026 (In Eng.)

10. Shvedova N.V. Tax optimization as a factor in ensuring economic security. Nauchnyye trudy KubGTU = Scientific works of KubSTU. 2018; (6):1010–1017 (In Russ.)

11. Shuvalova E.B., Solyarik M.A., Zakharova D.S. Tax aspects of economic security in the Russian Federation. Ekonomika, Statistika i Informatika = Economics, Statistics and Informatics. 2016; (3):39–42 (In Russ.)

12. Lebedeva E.S. Business crushing as a way of avoiding tax payments. Nauchnyye trudy KubGTU = Scientific works of KubGTU. 2018; (6):741–749 (In Russ.)

13. Pokrovskaya N.V. Tax conditions for business in emerging markets. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Ekonomika. = Tomsk State University Bulletin. Economy. 2019; (46):215– 228 (In Russ.)

14. Tsvetkov V.A., Protsenko O.D., Dudin M.N., Lyasnikov N.V. Improving the taxation of small businesses in the agricultural sector. Finansy: teoriya i praktika = Finance: theory and practice. 2018; 22(6):39–52. https://doi.org/10.26794/2587-5671-2018-22-6-39-52 (In Russ.)

15. Panskov V.G. Stimulating the modernization of the Russian economy: we need a new state tax policy. ETAP: ekonomicheskaya teoriya, analiz, praktika = ETAP: economic theory, analysis, practice. 2015; (3):10–24 (In Russ.)

16. Poole D.L. Entrepreneurs, entrepreneurship and SMEs in developing economies: How subverting terminology sustains flawed policy. World Development Perspectives. 2018; (9):35–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wdp.2018.04.003 (In Eng.)

17. Mardan M. Why countries differ in thin capitalization rules: The role of financial development. European Economic Review. 2017; (91):1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2016.09.003 (In Eng.)

18. Tian Y. Optimal policy for attracting FDI: Investment cost subsidy versus tax rate reduction. International Review of Economics & Finance. 2018; (53):151–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iref.2017.10.018 (In Eng.)

19. Wang W., Ogawa H. Objectives of governments in tax competition: Role of capital supply elasticity. International Review of Economics & Finance. 2018; (54): 225–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iref.2017.08.010 (In Eng.)

20. Barinova V.A., Zemtsov S.P., Tsareva Yu.V. Entrepreneurship and institutions: is there a connection at the regional level in Russia? Voprosy ekonomiki = Issues of economics. 2018; (6):92–116 (In Russ.)

21. Solodilova N.Z., Malikov R.I., Grishin K.E. Institutional configuration of the regional business environment. Ekonomicheskaya politika = Economic policy. 2017; 12(3):134–149. https://doi.org/10.18288/1994-5124-2017-3-05 (In Russ.)

22. Egger P.H., Wamser G. The impact of controlled foreign company legislation on real investments abroad. A multi-dimensional regression discontinuity design. Journal of Public Economics. 2015; (129):77– 91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2015.07.006 (In Eng.)

23. Zangari E., Caiumi A., Hemmelgarn T. Tax Uncertainty: Economic Evidence and Policy Responses. Taxation papers: working paper. 2017; (67). https://doi.org/10.2778/232752 (In Eng.)

24. Kang W., Lee K., Ratti R.A. Economic policy uncertainty and firm-level investment. Journal of Macroeconomics. 2014; (39-A):42–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jmacro.2013.10.006 (In Eng.)

25. Drobetza W., Ghoul S.E., Guedhami O., Janzen M. Policy Uncertainty, Investment, and the Cost of Capital. Journal of Financial Stability. 2018; (39):28–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfs.2018.08.005 (In Eng.)

26. Gromov V.V. Problems and Ways of Developing Taxation of SEZ Residents at the Federal Level. Nauchno-issledovatel'skiy finansovyy institut. Finansovyy zhurnal = Research Financial Institute. Financial magazine. 2018; 1(41):39–50 (In Russ.)

27. Kharin A.G., Tomkovich A.V. Assessing the impact of tax incentives on investment in a special economic zone in the Kaliningrad region. Ekonomicheskiy analiz: teoriya i praktika = Economic analysis: theory and practice. 2017; 16(6):1000–1011 (In Russ.)

28. Krokhina Yu.A. Protection of the rights of subjects in tax disputes: the search for a balance of private and public interests. Uchenyye trudy Rossiyskoy akademii advokatury i notariata = Scientific proceedings of the Russian Academy of Advocacy and Notaries. 2016; 4(43):67–73 (In Russ.)

29. Margolin A.M., Margolin E.V. Improving depreciation policy as a necessary condition for improving investment support for the implementation of state programs. Mezhdunarodnyy tekhnikoekonomicheskiy zhurnal = International Technical and Economic Journal. 2014; (3):13–19 (In Russ.)