If you would have done so, it would mean the establishment of channels of commercial bank lending by money from productive enterprises. To do this, do not give out bank loans and sell them at auction on interbank market, and expand the list of collateral securities that are accepted securities as collateral under the refinancing of commercial banks, including back at least 5,000 manufacturing firms, including corporation, that is, all the big businesses that are creditworthy and can thrive in the current credit crisis. This requires that the Bank of qualifications, which he apparently does not have. In this case, loans would go through the commercial banks in the real sector. ” (21/10/2008).
8. Glazyev said: “We must understand that this crisis will last several years. Maybe three, maybe five years, until the new technological order is not will pull the global economy. ” (10/23/2008). He also proposes to abolish vat altogether.
I will allow myself to express the opinion that this person understands what he says. I’ve long been following his activities, familiar with such documents, relating to the subject as “Crisis Opportunities” (22/11/2008) and “Possibilities and limitations of techno-economic development of Russia in terms of structural changes in the global economy (24/12/2008). The latter document made on me special impression. Highly recommend reading it to colleagues interested in the world of macro-and micro-economy. We can not say that the opinion Glazyev on the current crisis remains not noticed.
Desk audit, during which the inspector found violations of tax laws, formalized act of a desk audit (Sec. 5, Art. 88, para. 2 Clause 1, Article.
100 Tax Code). The act of a desk audit serves two functions: – is one of the documents, which together make up a desk audit materials. Based on his head (deputy head) tax authority in the ground and decides to prosecute or to refuse the prosecution on the basis of consideration of a desk audit (Clause 1, Article. 101 Tax Code); – informs Preliminary results of the audit of a taxpayer and serves as a basis for the last objection (paragraph 6 of Article. 100 Tax Code). Note that the responsibility for drawing up the desk tax audit, in case of violations of tax legislation introduced in Art.
1988 Tax Code, as from 1 January 2007 (paragraph 65 of Art. 1, Part 1, Art. 7 of the Federal Law of 27.07.2006 N 137-FZ). At present, a failure to act of a desk audit is one of the reasons for cancellation decisions imposed by the tax authority as a result of consideration of a desk audit. By this view comes tribunals (see, eg, Ruling of the Federal District of Moscow from 23.09.2009 N KA-A40/8182-09-2 fas North Caucasus District of 12.11.2009 N A53-5911/2009 fas West Siberian Region of 29.02.2008 N F04-1205/2008 (1103-A02-25)). Therefore, if the inspector claimed to have conducted a desk audit provided declaration and you find you have a violation, he must make an act of validation. If he does not to do so, a decision will be made following the consideration of audit materials, may be deemed null and void (Section 14 Art. 101 Tax Code). In an act of a desk audit item. 100 of the Tax Code establishes the following rules who must abide by checking: – an act made in duplicate on the approved form and must contain specified information, the Tax Code – an act signed by both the inspector and proven by the taxpayer – inspector shall draw up a statement within 10 working days after the test (Section 6, Article 6.1. of the Tax Code) – copy of the report within five working days from the date of signing the taxpayer is given (Section 6, Article 6.1. Tax Code). Now consider what violations of the act of testing may be grounds for cancellation of the decision. 1. Factual errors: a) erroneously applied the law does not take into account relevant circumstances, not sufficiently studied the documents made erroneous conclusions. b) the act reflects additional charge for the periods for which desk audit should not have been carried out. c) arithmetic errors or other technical errors in the calculation of the amount of arrears and penalties. 2. Formal violation of the requirements for form and content of the act. 2.1. Substantial formal violations: a) not defined and not based on facts of violations of tax laws, which are imputable to the taxpayer. b) is not true for links to the articles of the Tax Code, in under which taxpayers are held accountable. 2.2. Inessential formal violation. In addition to the above-mentioned violations of the requirements for the content of an act of a desk audit may be different. For example, the tax authority may allow a typo in the tin or incorrectly specify either did not specify details about the date, number of the inspection, the persons who conducted the inspection or the period for which audited, etc.