Аналогия в налоговом праве

М.В. Юзвак

АНАЛОГИЯ
АНАЛОГИЯ

В  НАЛОГОВОМ  ПРАВЕ
В  НАЛОГОВОМ  ПРАВЕ

Монография
Монография

Москва
РИОР
ИНФРА-М

Второе издание

Под редакцией канд. юрид. наук,
Под редакцией канд. юрид. наук,

доцента Д.М. Щекина
доцента Д.М. Щекина

УДК 347.73(075.4)
ББК 67.402
         Ю20

Юзвак М.В.

Аналогия в налоговом праве : монография / М.В. Юзвак; под ред. 

канд. юрид. наук, доц. Д.М. Щекина. — 2-е изд. — Москва : РИОР : 
ИНФРА-М, 2020. — 138 с. — (Научная мысль). — DOI: https://doi.
org/10.12737/17448

ISBN 978-5-369-01533-9 (РИОР)
ISBN 978-5-16-011831-4 (ИНФРА-М, print)
ISBN 978-5-16-104374-5 (ИНФРА-М, online)

Монография посвящена использованию в налоговом праве такого универ
сального способа выработки логического заключения, как аналогия. В работе 
рассмотрены проблемы использования аналогии при формулировании налоговых 
норм. Особое внимание уделено аналогии как способу преодоления пробелов 
в налоговом праве. Исследуется понятие пробела в налоговом праве как основания для применения аналогии. В работе проведен анализ обширной правоприменительной практики, что позволило выявить ошибки при использовании 
аналогии и сформулировать предложения по недопущению их в дальнейшем.

Может быть полезна студентам, аспирантам, преподавателям вузов, научным 

и практическим работникам и всем, кто интересуется вопросами налогового права.

ISBN 978-5-369-01533-9 (РИОР)
ISBN 978-5-16-011831-4 (ИНФРА-М, print)
ISBN 978-5-16-104374-5 (ИНФРА-М, online)
© Юзвак М.В.

Ю20

А в т о р :
Юзвак М.В., в 2008 г. с отличием окончил юридический факультет 

Московского государственного университета им. М.В. Ломоносова. 
Автор ряда публикаций по актуальным проблемам налогового права. 
С 2006 г. осуществляет практическую деятельность в области права

Yuzvak Maxim Vasilievich

Analogy in Tax Law : monograph / M.V. Yuzvak; ed. by PhD D.M. Schekin. — 

2nd ed. — Moscow : RIOR : INFRA-M, 2018. — 138 p. — (Science). — DOI: https://
doi.org/10.12737/17448

This monograph is concerned with the use of analogy as a general method of logical reasoning 

in the tax law. The study examines the issues in applying analogical reasoning to the process of 
stating and understanding legal rules of taxation. The special focus has been given to analogy as a 
tool for filling gaps in tax law. The study as well explores concept of lacuna (gap) as the basis for use 
of analogy in tax law. The study contains the analysis of vast array of legal phenomena including 
case law which allowed to detect instances of inappropriate use of analogy and to offer preemptive 
measures against such mistakes.

Results of the study should be useful for students, postgraduates, professors and scholars, 

practitioners and everyone who is interested in tax law.

ФЗ 
№ 436-ФЗ
Издание не подлежит маркировке 
в соответствии с п. 1 ч. 2 ст. 1

УДК 347.73(075.4)
ББК 67.402

. . , . ,, . .
, — , .
, . ,
, , , . , . .
, . , , , . , ел. , .
, , . , 25 2010 . 13640/09 » . 3
. 155 , , . , , . . 155 , , . 2 . 153 , . , . , (), . , , . 3 . 155 , , . . 3 , . .
.
, , . .
, , , . , . , .
я— . , о. , .
, . , . . , .
«» , . .

.,
. . ., . . ,
«»

FOREWORD

M.V. Yuzvak’s monograph represents the first, deep and systematic
legal study on aspects of analogy in tax law. Reasoning by analogy is
widely applied in the areas of private law because it corresponds to the
legal nature of civil relationships. Such legal relationships are based on
free will of the parties, so that it is impossible to deny them just by the
reference to the absence of relevant statutory regulation. Because of this,
analogy may be appropriate in such relationships. On the other hand,
analogy seems inappropriate in stringent and punitive areas such as criminal law: if legislature has not declared given act a crime there is no way
to call it a crime by analogy.
Legal nature of a relationship is considered as defining for the question of whether and to what extent analogy is applicable to the relationship. It is easy to say that in such a stringent and exacting area of public
law as tax law analogy is not eligible. Yet, it is not quite the case. Tax
authorities and judges have to deal with gaps in tax legislation which they
are supposed to fill. Therefore it is very important to find the limits of
reasoning by analogy in tax law.
Obviously the obligation to pay a tax may not be established by analogy. If lawmaker has not laid down an essential element of taxation —
such as tax rate — then the tax may not be levied because it does not
meet the requirement of “a legally imposed tax”. It would be clearly inappropriate to fill such a gap by the reference to some other tax’s rate. It
is also clear that by use of analogy one may not lay down responsibilities
for tax offences.
Still there are less certain cases where, for example, analogy is used to
the benefit of taxpayers. The Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme
Commercial Court of the Russian Federation dated February, 25 2010
13640/09 on the case of Novostroy LLC concerns the following issue.
Article 155 (3) of Russian Tax Code sets up rules for calculating taxes on
transfer of rights to residential buildings, premises and shares thereof,
garages and parking spaces. According to the legal norm, the tax rate
should be applied to the difference between the current price of the rights
being transferred and the taxpayer’s expenditures on acquisition of said
rights. Since Article 155 of Russian Tax Code contains no such provisions regarding transfers of non-residential premises, lower courts came
to the conclusion that such transactions should be taxed under Article 153
(2) of Russian Tax Code, which means to take into account all the proceeds related to the rights being transferred. Evidently taxation of assignment of rights to non-residential premises is times more onerous than

taxation of assignment of rights to residential premises or parking spaces.
Supreme Commercial Court of the Russian Federation decreed that proprietary rights to real estates are of the same nature as rights to property
listed in the Article 155 (3) of Russian Tax Code, which means that VAT
in such cases should be similarly calculated. This conclusion follows
from Article 3 of Russian Tax Code, which holds that taxes and fees must
have an economic basis and shall not be arbitrary. The tax rate for transaction of rights to non-residential premises shall be applied to the difference between the sell price and the price of acquisition of the rights.
By this case Supreme Commercial Court of the Russian Federation
declared in effect a lacuna in the law and then used reasoning by analogy.
The case demonstrates there is a place for reasoning by analogy in tax law
although Supreme Commercial Court of the Russian Federation does not
mention it directly. Major difficulty is to prove the existence of a lacuna
as the basis for the use of analogy.
Therefore it seems that analogy in tax law can be used for taxpayers’
benefit and not for their detriment. Such approach is consistent with the
ideas that proprietary rights prevail over state fiscal purposes and that the
state should make sure its fiscal claims are based on legislation which is
free of lacunae. If such lacunae exist then the blame is on the state, and
the gaps must be filled beneficially to taxpayers.
Procedural matters of tax law are another area for use of analogy. Supreme Commercial Court of the Russian Federation uses analogy in said
area as well, which was closely analyzed in M.V. Yuzvak’s monograph.
It is worth mentioning that M.V. Yuzvak’s study which has been carried out at the Department of Finances at Faculty of Jurisprudence of
Lomonosov Moscow State University demonstrates a high scholarly level
and will take a rightful place among academic studies on Russian tax law.
Law firm of Schekin & partners will continue to support legal studies
which develop and enrich academic knowledge of Russian tax law. Ultimately, it is our contribution to the future of our land.

Schekin D.M., PhD
Associate professor of the Department of Finances
at Faculty of Jurisprudence of Lomonosov Moscow State University,
Managing Partner of Schekin & partners

,
. .
. . , , , , . , , .
.
1990-масшта.
. , , , . , о, . . , , . , . , , , — . , , , .

, , , . , , , , .
, , . , , .
, . , ,
. , .
.
, , . , , .
, .
, , , , , .

.
. , . , , .
ю«».

I. § 1. . — — . , , , 1. , , «, , , , «» »2.
«» . , a : b = c : d3. («») . «, »4.
, . .
, .
о, , 1 .: . 2-. .: , 2004. . 25–
27.
2. . 31.
3 ., // eLIBRARY.RU. URL: http://elibrary.ru (: 01.06.2011).
4// . . . . . .:
, 2007. . 15.

1. , , .
, , , , 2.
, , . , — 3.
, , 4.
. . . . . : «, . , ».
. , ,
к5.
. . , , . , 1 ., ., .//
. . 12. . 2. 2007. . 254.
2 .// . 1(37). 2005. . 85.
3 .// eLIBRARY.RU. URL: http://elibrary.ru (: 01.06.2011).
4 ., ., .// .
2010. . 12 (102). . 137–140.
5 .// . , ,
. 2008. 131. . 175.

. . .
. , , . , . . : «. , ».
. , «, »1.
, . , , , .
,
, . , .
, , , .
, , , 2.
, , , .
. , . . , 1 .// eLIBRARY.RU. URL: http://elibrary.ru (: 01.06.2011).
2 .// . . 2009. 2 (46). . 62.