Commentary to article 269. Violation of the deadline for registration with the state revenue authority The Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan on Administrative Offences
Chapter 16. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFENSES IN THE FIELD OF TAXATION
In Chapter 16 of the Administrative Code, the Kazakh legislator establishes the composition of administrative offenses in the field of taxation and administrative responsibility in the Republic of Kazakhstan for their commission. In the commented chapter, the compositions are combined on the basis of their inherent common (generic) object of an administrative offense. The generic object of administrative offenses in the field of taxation is the procedure established in the Republic of Kazakhstan for taxation, tax administration, fulfillment of tax obligations and other related duties of taxpayers, tax agents and other persons obligated to the state.
The Administrative Code also contains other types of administrative offenses related to taxation and also infringe on the taxation and tax administration procedure established in the state. However, such structures are not combined in the commented chapter 16 "Administrative offenses in the field of taxation", but are placed in chapter 27 "Administrative offenses infringing on the established management procedure". Accordingly, administrative offenses not included in Chapter 16 of the Administrative Code are not offenses in the field of taxation and the legal norms of the Administrative Code established for offenses in the field of taxation do not apply to them.
Violations by obligated persons of the rules for calculating and paying taxes and performing other duties in customs relations form independent elements of administrative offenses, which are included in the category of administrative offenses in the field of customs affairs. The composition of administrative offenses in the field of customs affairs and administrative responsibility for their commission are established by the legislator in a separate chapter 29 of the Administrative Code "Administrative offenses in the field of customs affairs".
Cases of administrative offenses in the field of taxation are considered by the state revenue authorities as state-authorized bodies in the field of taxation (with the exception of Articles 281 (parts 4, 5 and 6), 282 (parts 3, 4, 6, 7, 11, 13), 283, 283-1 ( parts 5, 6) of the Administrative Code, providing for as the main or additional type of punishment for the commission of offenses, suspension or deprivation of a license or confiscation of the objects of the offense and (or) income, which can only be applied by the courts). The courts consider cases of administrative offenses in cases explicitly provided for in the Administrative Code.
A special feature of the structures of administrative offenses in the field of taxation combined in Chapter 16 of the Administrative Code is also the establishment of an increased (compared to the generally established two–month) limitation period for bringing administrative responsibility for their commission (one year for individuals and five years for legal entities and individual entrepreneurs).
Also, with regard to administrative offenses in the field of taxation, the legislator has established an increased statute of limitations for the execution of a ruling on an administrative offense, prescriptions for the need to pay a fine. In contrast to the general one-year limitation period for execution established for all administrative offenses, a five-year limitation period for the execution of an administrative penalty order has been established for administrative offenses in the field of taxation. The limitation period for the execution of a decision on an administrative offense case is calculated from the date of its entry into force.
Another feature of administrative offenses in the field of taxation is that the enforcement of decisions on the imposition of fines for their commission is carried out by the state revenue authorities in accordance with the procedure established by the tax legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan, and not in the manner prescribed by the Administrative Code.
Law enforcement entities should also keep in mind that in the case of an administrative offense in the field of taxation by an individual, an official, an individual entrepreneur, a private notary, a private bailiff, a lawyer, or a professional mediator, in order to bring such persons to administrative responsibility, as required by Articles 11 and Part 1 of Article 25 of the Administrative Code, it is always necessary to establish their guilt as a mental attitude towards the illegal acts committed directly by them and their harmful consequences.
The subjective side of offenses, the subjects of which are legal entities, is not subject to determination due to the existence of a legal requirement to establish guilt as a condition for bringing to administrative responsibility, only in relation to individuals. According to the legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan on administrative responsibility, legal entities are administratively liable for the mere fact that they have committed an illegal act or omission, for which administrative liability is provided for in the Administrative Code, without taking into account the guilt of the officials of the legal entity who committed this act.
Article 269. Violation of the deadline for registration with the state revenue authority
1. Violation of the deadlines established by the legislative acts of the Republic of Kazakhstan for filing a tax application for registration with the state revenue authority of a private notary, private bailiff, lawyer and notification of registration of an individual entrepreneur, registration for certain types of activities -
entails a warning.
2. The act provided for in the first part of this article, committed repeatedly within a year after the imposition of an administrative penalty, -
entails a fine for individuals in the amount of eight, for private notaries, private bailiffs, lawyers, for small businesses or non-profit organizations - in the amount of fifteen, for medium-sized businesses - in the amount of thirty, for large businesses - in the amount of seventy monthly calculation indices.
3. Violation by a taxpayer of the deadline established by the legislative acts of the Republic of Kazakhstan for submitting a tax application to the state revenue authority for registration for value added tax -
entails a fine in the amount of fifty monthly calculation indices.
Part 1 of the commented article provides for the administrative liability of individuals and legal entities for their violation of the deadlines established in the Tax Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan and other legislative acts of the Republic of Kazakhstan, as well as the deadlines individually determined by law by the state revenue authorities in notifications.:
1) a tax application for registration with the state revenue authority of a private notary, private bailiff, lawyer,
2) notifications about the registration of an individual entrepreneur,
3) notifying the taxpayer of registration records for certain types of activities.
The types of activities, the implementation of which entails the need for a taxpayer to submit a notification to the state revenue authorities, are listed by the legislator in the Tax Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan.
The generic object of offenses provided for in Article 269 of the Administrative Code is the procedure for taxation and tax administration of tax relations established in the legislative acts of the Republic of Kazakhstan and protected by the state.
The direct object of the administrative offenses provided for in the commented article is the procedure established by tax law and protected by the state for registration with the state revenue authorities of certain types of taxpayers and its further maintenance by the state revenue authorities (registration and accounting tax procedures).
The objective side of the offenses provided for in Article 269 of the Administrative Code is characterized by the commission by obligated persons of actions to file tax applications for registration with the state revenue authority or registration notices after the expiration of the deadlines established by the Tax Code and other legislative acts of the Republic of Kazakhstan for submitting such applications and notifications. In addition, an offense can be committed through the inaction of taxpayers – in the event that, at the time of detection of the offense, they did not file tax applications for registration or notification of registration within the time limits established by law, and the time limits for submitting such applications and notifications have already expired and it is no longer possible to restore them on legal grounds..
The legal obligation to register with the state revenue authority in cases stipulated by the Tax Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan and other legislative acts is a subjective obligation of taxpayers. This obligation arises for taxpayers within the framework of organizational (procedural) tax relations with the state in cases explicitly specified in the Tax Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan.
The commented article is not applicable to cases of violation of the procedure and deadlines for state registration of persons as taxpayers, because:
Firstly, the state registration of persons as taxpayers is carried out by the state revenue authorities according to information from other state bodies responsible for registration and accounting of legal entities (registry offices, justice, etc.), without imposing on the taxpayer a legal obligation to initiate state registration with the state revenue authorities.;
secondly, a violation by a person of the procedure and deadlines for state registration with state bodies (including state revenue authorities) in cases where the obligation to initiate such registration is assigned to the self-registering person, together with other qualifying grounds, is provided for as an offense in other articles of the Administrative Code (for example, engaging in entrepreneurial or other activities, as well as the implementation of actions (operations) without proper registration, permission, or notification).
The grounds and deadlines for registration of taxpayers are established in the Tax Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan or in other legislative acts of the Republic of Kazakhstan and are measured by specific calendar dates or time periods from the moment of a specific action or occurrence of an event. In some cases, the time limits may be established by authorized bodies or courts in individual legal acts adopted by them on the basis of and in accordance with the applicable norms of legislative acts.
The commented article is not applicable to those cases where:
1) registration or registration with the state revenue authorities is not provided for by the tax law (as, for example, a non-resident of the Republic of Kazakhstan carries out activities on the territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan without establishing a permanent establishment), or
2) the tax law does not specify specific deadlines for registration, or such deadlines have not been individually determined for the taxpayer by the authorized bodies in cases where they should be determined by them according to the law, or
3) registration with the state revenue authorities is not the taxpayer's responsibility and is carried out by other obligated persons (for example, registration according to information from other state bodies or obligated persons), or
4) registration with the state revenue authorities is carried out at the discretion of the taxpayer himself as his right within the time limits determined by him independently (for example, voluntary registration of the taxpayer for VAT).
The commission of an offense under Article 269 of the Administrative Code is considered completed at the moment when the legally prescribed deadline for filing a tax application for registration or notification of registration has expired, and the tax application or notification has not been submitted by the taxpayer within this period. However, this does not mean at all that the taxpayer's administrative responsibility, in accordance with the commented article, occurs for an event (expiration of a period that does not depend on the taxpayer's will). Responsibility arises for the continued unlawful inaction of a taxpayer for non-registration when the deadline for such registration has expired, or for an unlawful act committed after the deadline set for registration, for a person's delay in registration with the state revenue authority.
If a tax application for registration of a taxpayer (notification of registration) with the state revenue authority has been submitted within the time period established by the legislative acts of the Republic of Kazakhstan in the form and manner provided for by the legislative acts of the Republic of Kazakhstan and the taxpayer has evidence of filing such an application (notification) within the established time, then the performance of the obligation must be recognized as timely, even if As a result, the taxpayer's registration was not carried out by the state revenue agency or its official. In such cases, the taxpayer is not administratively liable for violating the registration deadline.
The subjects of the offense provided for in Part 1 of art. 269 of the Administrative Code, are legal entities (commercial and non-profit organizations) and sane individuals who have reached the age of 16 at the time of the offense, as well as special entities (individual entrepreneurs, lawyers, private notaries, private bailiffs and other persons carrying out certain types of activities specified in the Tax Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan), which, according to as required by the Tax Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan and other applicable laws, They are required to submit a tax statement (notification) on their registration as taxpayers with the state revenue authorities. From the moment a person is registered and/or registered with the state revenue authority for certain types of taxes or for certain types of activities, such a person enters into organizational (procedural) relations with the state revenue authorities as a taxpayer participating in such tax procedural relations and a potential participant in possible future material tax legal relations – tax obligations..
Accordingly, the commented norm does not apply to other participants in tax legal relations, as well as to taxpayers who do not have a legal obligation to initiate registration with the state revenue authority by submitting a tax application or notification. Persons who have a legal obligation to inform the state revenue authorities about the grounds for registration of taxpayers with state revenue authorities, but who have not reported this (government agencies, government agencies, state-owned enterprises and other persons in charge of information about the grounds for registration of taxpayers with state revenue authorities), will also not be subjects of offenses. provided for in Article 269 of the Administrative Code.
Persons (resident legal entities, non-resident legal entities operating in the Republic of Kazakhstan through a branch, representative office, persons engaged in private practice, and individual entrepreneurs) who are required by the Tax Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan to register for VAT are also not subject to administrative liability under Parts 1 and 2 of Article 269 of the Administrative Code. For them, administrative responsibility for violating the terms of registration for VAT has been allocated to a separate and independent offense, provided for in Part 3 of Article 269 of the Administrative Code.
In cases where the fulfillment of a personal taxpayer's subjective obligation to register with the state revenue authority due to the incapacity of this individual is assigned by law, administrative or judicial act to other persons (legal representatives), administrative responsibility for violating the deadlines for registration of the taxpayer does not come from the taxpayer himself, and the obligated persons have legal representatives.
Administrative responsibility under Article 269 of the Administrative Code cannot be assigned to representatives of a taxpayer when the person subject to registration with the state revenue authority is legally capable, could register on his own, but did not take any action to register on time. Authorized representatives of obligated persons are not the subjects of the offense provided for in the commented article.
The subjective side of the acts provided for in Article 269 of the Administrative Code for individuals, lawyers, private notaries, private bailiffs and individual entrepreneurs is characterized by guilt in the form of intent or negligence. The guilt of a person is revealed by the mental attitude of an individual to the illegal acts committed by him.
For committing an offense under Part 1 of Article 269 of the Administrative Code, an administrative penalty is imposed in the form of a warning.
This penalty is imposed on offenders by the state revenue authorities by specifying it in the decision on the imposition of an administrative penalty and its mandatory announcement, as well as handing over or sending a copy of the decision to the offender. In this case, in order to qualify further actions of the offender when committing similar offenses in the future, the person is considered to have been subjected to administrative punishment from the moment of delivery (referral) He likes it.
Part 2 of the commented article establishes a more severe punishment for repeated commission of an act provided for in Part 1 of Article 269 of the Administrative Code within a year after the imposition of an administrative penalty. In this case, the repetition of the offense is no longer an aggravating circumstance in its characterization, but a mandatory qualifying feature of the independent composition of the offense in order to attract the offender already under Part 2 of Article 269 of the Administrative Code.
In order to hold a taxpayer accountable under Part 2 of Article 269 of the Administrative Code, it does not matter which type of registration the taxpayer should have entered and did not enter, allowing a repeated violation. However, this circumstance may be relevant when sentencing an offender.
At the same time, the violator's failure to fulfill his obligation to register after imposing an administrative penalty on him for this (continuation of illegal behavior) does not constitute a repeat commission of a homogeneous offense. Ultimately, after the detection of an offense, the taxpayer must be forced to fulfill his legal obligation by registering him with the efforts of the state revenue authority itself. Therefore, in order to be held accountable under Part 2 of art. 269 of the Administrative Code for repeated violation of the terms of registration, it is necessary for the violator to commit a homogeneous offense as a new and independent episode. A similar offense will be recognized as a violation by a taxpayer of the terms of registration for similar or other types of registration (for example, initially as a lawyer, and then (after removal) as an individual entrepreneur) or for other types of taxes or activities.
Persons who are subject to registration with the state revenue authority may not even have tax obligations themselves (material tax relations in which a taxpayer is required to calculate and pay taxes), not to mention the amount of taxes to be paid. In this regard, the administrative offences provided for in Parts 1 and 2 of Article 269 of the Administrative Code are formal. To bring to administrative responsibility under Parts 1 and 2 of art. 269 of the Administrative Code does not require the establishment of the fact that the offender has caused material harm to the state in the form of unpaid taxes. Harm to the State from the commission of offenses provided for in Parts 1 and 2 of art. 269 of the Administrative Code, consists in violation by a person of the procedure established by law for registration and registration of taxpayers, processing data about them and their taxable objects and tax obligations, and thereby creating the threat of the impossibility of effective tax control over the fulfillment of tax obligations and the loss of future government revenues. Accordingly, the penalty for this type of administrative offense cannot be made dependent on the amount of an unfulfilled tax obligation (material damage caused to the state in the form of unpaid taxes).
If the taxpayer, in his actions (inaction) to evade registration with the state revenue authorities, is guided by the motives of concealing his taxable objects or taxable activities and, as a result, causes material harm to the state in the form of unpaid taxes., in this case, if the state revenue authorities reveal the facts of hidden taxable objects and specific results of taxable activities, the taxpayer must be punished under the relevant articles of the Administrative Code for concealing taxable objects or carrying out activities without registration. In such cases, evasion from registration with the state revenue authorities should be qualified, along with and in combination with other grounds, as a method of committing another administrative offense. Accordingly, in such cases, the taxpayer should no longer be held administratively liable under Part 1 or Part 2 of Article 269 of the Administrative Code.
For repeated violations of the registration deadline within a year after the imposition of the penalty, the offender is punished with a fine. The amount of the fine for committing an offense provided for in Part 2 of Article 269 of the Administrative Code is:
for individuals – 8 MCI,
for private notaries, private bailiffs, lawyers, small businesses or non–profit organizations - 15 MCI,
for medium–sized businesses - 30 MCI,
for large business entities – 70 MCI.
A fine is imposed by the state revenue authorities or the court, in the case of an administrative offense case in court.
The amounts of fines are fixed and are not subject to change by the body imposing them. At the same time, the amounts of fines are ranked in relation to each of the categories of offenders specified in the sanction of the commented norm. As a result, when the offender is sentenced under Part 2 of art. 269 of the Administrative Code, it is necessary to establish its legal status, organizational and legal form and legal position in those tax relations in which an offense was committed for which a person is being held accountable (for example, as a lawyer or individual entrepreneur).
Part 3 of the commented article establishes the independent composition of an administrative offense and administrative liability for violation by taxpayers of the deadline established by legislative acts of the Republic of Kazakhstan for submitting a tax application to the state revenue authority for registration for value added tax (VAT).
This norm highlights the violation of the deadlines for submitting a tax application to the state revenue authority for VAT registration and the administrative responsibility for its commission in a separate independent structure according to the criterion of the type of tax liability (VAT), which taxpayers must register on a mandatory basis. In this regard, taxpayers who have violated the deadline for submitting a tax application for VAT registration can no longer be simultaneously or alternatively brought to administrative responsibility for their offense under Parts 1 and 2 of Article 269 of the Administrative Code. In this case, it is also not necessary to have a sign of repetition in order to bring the violator to administrative responsibility under Part 3 of Article 269 of the Administrative Code.
The subjects of the offense provided for in Part 3 of Article 269 of the Administrative Code can only be taxpayers who are subject to mandatory VAT registration.:
1) resident legal entities of the Republic of Kazakhstan,
2) non-resident legal entities operating in the Republic of Kazakhstan through a branch or representative office,
3) individual entrepreneurs,
4) persons engaged in private practice,
in cases where VAT registration is mandatory for them.
Accordingly, the subjects of an administrative offense provided for in Part 3 of Article 269 of the Administrative Code may not be other participants in tax relations (tax collectors, tax agents, payment operators, tax representatives), as well as taxpayers – individuals, government agencies, non-profit organizations and other persons who are not required by the Tax Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan to file a tax an application for their VAT registration.
Persons who wish to register for VAT voluntarily, but who did not register for it, also cannot be brought to administrative responsibility under Part 3 of Article 269 of the Administrative Code, since they independently determine for themselves the timing of their possible registration for VAT and, accordingly, cannot violate these deadlines when actually registering for VAT. accounting. At the same time, the filing of a tax application by a taxpayer with non-compliance with the requirements provided for by the Tax Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan for the expected dates of its registration with VAT and its recognition as a VAT payer is not a violation of the deadlines for registration with VAT.
Violation by the state revenue authorities of the procedural deadlines for registering a taxpayer for VAT after submitting a tax application within the time limits established for this by the Tax Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan also cannot be imputed to a taxpayer as an offense under the commented norm.
The composition of the administrative offense provided for in Part 3 of Article 269 of the Administrative Code, before the adoption of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated December 28, 2017 No. 127-VI SAM was material. To bring a person to justice under Part 3 of art. 269 of the Administrative Code, as of the date before the amendments were made to the commented norm, it was necessary to establish an additional fact of non-fulfillment by the taxpayer of the tax obligation itself (that is, causing material damage to the state in the form of unaccounted for turnover and unpaid taxes from the moment when the taxpayer was required to register for VAT, but did not submit an appropriate tax application for this). Accordingly, when establishing the fact of causing material harm and imposing punishment, the amount of the fine should have been calculated, at the request of the general norm of clauses 2) and 6) of paragraph 2 of Part 1 of Article 44 of the Administrative Code, from the amount of an unfulfilled or improperly fulfilled tax obligation and the amount unaccounted for in accordance with the requirements of the legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan on accounting and financial statements or improperly accounted for. Prior to the amendment of the commented norm by the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated December 28, 2017 No. 127-VI SAM, the commission of an offense under Part 3 of art. 269 of the Administrative Code, entailed a fine for small businesses in the amount of 10%, for medium–sized businesses – in the amount of 15%, for large businesses - in the amount of 30% of the amount of taxable turnover for the period of non-registration. At the same time, the period of non-registration for VAT was determined by the totality of VAT tax periods during which a person was obliged, at the request of the law or the state revenue authority, to register for VAT, but was not registered for it.
After the amendments to the commented norm were introduced by the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated December 28, 2017 No. 127-VI SAM and its entry into force 10 days after the date of its first official publication, the fine for committing an offense under Part 3 of Article 269 of the Administrative Code was set by the legislator in the amount of 50 MCI. Accordingly, the composition of the specified offense has become formal. In order to hold a taxpayer accountable for the commission of this offense, after the enactment of the law that amended the commented norm on the amount of the fine, it is no longer necessary to determine the amount of damage caused to the state in the form of unpaid taxes in order to calculate the amount of the fine from them.
At the same time, the legislator, by the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated December 28, 2017 No. 127-VI SAM, singled out in a separate norm Part 5 of Article 275 of the Administrative Code "Concealment of taxable objects and other property subject to tax reporting" as an independent composition of an administrative offense a new composition of an administrative offense – "commission of turnover during the period of non-registration as a VAT payer". This offense is already a material one. The penalty for its commission is established by the legislator in the form of a fine as a percentage of the amount of the unaccounted-for object of VAT taxation - in the amount of fifteen percent of the turnover amount for the period of non-registration.
Thus, from the moment of the introduction of the above-mentioned amendments to the Administrative Code, administrative liability is provided both for violation by a taxpayer of the deadline established by legislative acts of the Republic of Kazakhstan for submitting a tax application to the state revenue authority for VAT registration (non-registration as a VAT payer), and for committing taxable turnover during the period of non-registration on registration as a VAT payer.
For offenses committed earlier within the limitation period, before the enactment of the law that amended the sanctions of the commented norm, it is necessary to determine whether this law mitigates or aggravates the offender's position when calculating the specific amount of the fine for the previously valid sanction and the newly established sanction for the offense. Accordingly, the sanction should be applied, which will provide for a smaller amount of the fine in its absolute calculation.
The fine is imposed by the state revenue authorities or by the court, in the case of an administrative offense case in court.
Scientific and practical commentary to the Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan on Administrative Offences (article-by-article) from the Author's team:
Bachurin Sergey Nikolaevich, Candidate of Law, Associate Professor – chapter 48 (co-authored with E.M. Khakimov);
Gabdualiev Mereke Trekovich, Candidate of Law – Chapters 11, 21, 22, 23;
Zhusipbekova Ainur Maratovna, M.yu.n. – chapter 13 (co-authored with Karpekin A.V.); chapters 33, 39 (co-authored with Seitzhanov O.T.);
Alexander Vladimirovich Karpekin, Candidate of Law, Associate Professor – chapter 13 (in collaboration with A.M. Zhusipbekova);
Korneychuk Sergey Vasilyevich – chapters 2; chapter 6 (co-authored with O.T. Seitzhanov, E.M. Khakimov); chapter 8; chapter 25 (co-authored with E.M. Khakimov); articles 457-470, 488, 488-1, 491-506; chapters 28, 30, 52;
Ilya Petrovich Koryakin, Doctor of Law, Professor – Chapter 49;
Kisykova Gulnara Bauyrzhanovna, Candidate of Law – chapter 20;
Omarova Botagoz Akimgereevna, Candidate of Law – chapters 17; chapter 18 (co-authored with B.A. Parmankulova); chapters 26, 31; chapter 32 (co-authored with B.A. Parmankulova);
Parmankulova Bayan Askhanbaevna – chapter 18 (co-authored with Omarova B.A.); chapters 19, 32 (co-authored with Omarova B.A.); chapter 43 (co-authored with Tukiev A.S.);
Podoprigora Roman Anatolyevich, Doctor of Law, Professor - Chapter 24, articles 489, 489-1, 490;
Porokhov Evgeny Viktorovich, Doctor of Law – Chapters 14, 15, 16, 29, articles 471-475;
Seitzhanov Olzhas Temirzhanovich, Candidate of Law, Associate Professor, – chapter 4; chapter 5 (co-authored with E. M. Khakimov); chapter 6 (co-authored with S.V. Korneychuk, E.M. Khakimov); chapter 9; chapter 10 (co-authored with B.E. Shaimerdenov, V.V. Filin); chapter 33 (co-authored with Zhusipbekova A.M.); chapter 36 (co-authored with Shaimerdenov B.E.); chapter 39 (co-authored with Zhusipbekova A.M.);
Smyshlyaev Alexander Sergeevich, PhD. – chapters 38, 40, 42, 43-1 (co-authored with A.S. Tukiev); chapter 44;
Aslan Sultanovich Tukiev - Candidate of Law, Associate Professor – chapters 1, 3, 35; chapters 38, 40, 42, (co-authored with A.S. Smyshlyaev); chapter 43 (co-authored with B.A. Parmankulova); chapter 43-1 (co-authored with A.S. Smyshlyaev); chapter 44-1 (co-authored with Shipp D.A.); chapter 45; 46 (co-authored with Shipp D.A.); chapter 47;
Filin Vladimir Vladimirovich, Candidate of Law, Associate Professor – Chapter 10 (in collaboration with O.T. Seitzhanov, B.E. Shaimerdenov);
Yerzhan Maratovich Khakimov, M.yu.n. – chapter 5 (co-authored with O.T. Seitzhanov); chapter 6 (co-authored with O.T. Seitzhanov, S.V. Korneychuk); chapter 7; chapter 25 (co-authored with S.V. Korneychuk); chapters 34, 41; chapter 48 (co-authored with S.N. Bachurin); chapter 53;
Shaimerdenov Bolat Yerkenovich, M.yu.n., – chapter 10 (co-authored with O.T. Seitzhanov, V.V. Filin); chapter 12; articles 476-487, 507-509; chapter 36 (co-authored with O.T. Seitzhanov); chapters 37, 50, 51.
Shipp Denis Alekseevich – chapters 44-1, 46 (in collaboration with A.S. Tukiev).
Date of amendment of the act: 01.01.2020 Date of adoption of the act: 01.01.2020 Place of acceptance: 100050000000 Authority that adopted the act: 103001000000 Region of operation: 100000000000 NPA registration number assigned by the regulatory body: 5 Status of the act: new Sphere of legal relations: 029000000000 / 028000000000 / 029002000000 / 028004000000 / 029001000000 / 026000000000 / 001000000000 / 001008000000 / 030000000000 The form of the act: COMM / CODE Legal force: 1900 Language of the Act: rus
Attention!
Law and Law Law Law draws your attention to the fact that this document is basic and does not always meet the requirements of a particular situation. Our lawyers are ready to assist you in legal advice, drawing up any legal document suitable for your situation.
For more information, please contact a Lawyer / Attorney by phone: +7 (708) 971-78-58; +7 (700) 978 5755, +7 (700) 978 5085.
Attorney at Law Almaty Lawyer Legal Services Legal Advice Civil Criminal Administrative Cases Disputes Protection Arbitration Law Firm Kazakhstan Law Office Court Cases
