Commentary to article 270. Illegal activity in the application of a special tax regime The Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan on Administrative Offences

Home / Codes / Commentary to article 270. Illegal activity in the application of a special tax regime The Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan on Administrative Offences

1. The application of a special tax regime in violation of the conditions stipulated by the legislative acts of the Republic of Kazakhstan for this regime, -

entails a warning.

2. The action 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 small businesses in the amount of fifteen, for medium-sized businesses in the amount of thirty, for large businesses in the amount of fifty monthly calculation indices.

3. Violation by an individual entrepreneur of the deadline for filing a calculation of the patent value or a tax application for suspension (extension, resumption) of tax reporting -

entails a warning.

4. The act provided for in the third part of this article, committed repeatedly within a year after the imposition of an administrative penalty, -

entails a fine in the amount of fifteen monthly calculation indices.

Part 1 of the commented article establishes the administrative responsibility of taxpayers applying special tax regimes – business entities (commercial organizations and individual entrepreneurs) for their application of the special tax regime provided for by the Tax Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan in violation of the conditions stipulated by the legislative acts of the Republic of Kazakhstan for this regime.

The generic object of the offense provided for in Part 1 of Article 270 of the Administrative Code is the procedure for taxation and tax administration of tax relations established in the Tax Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan and protected by the state.

The direct object of the offense provided for in Part 1 of Article 270 of the Administrative Code are special tax regimes protected by the state and the procedure for their use established in the Tax Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan for business entities entitled to use them.

The objective side of the offense is characterized by the commission by a business entity of illegal (and for individuals also guilty) actions that violate the conditions for the application of a special tax regime established by the Tax Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan and other legislative acts of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

The subjects of the offense provided for in Parts 1 and 2 of Article 270 of the Administrative Code are taxpayers, business entities (commercial organizations and individual entrepreneurs), as well as rural consumer cooperatives that apply special tax regimes established in the Tax Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Violation by taxpayers of the generally established tax regime, as well as acts committed by taxpayers who are not initially and cannot be subjects of special tax regimes, is not an offense under Part 1 of Article 270 of the Administrative Code.

Participants in tax legal relations other than the taxpayer (tax agents, payment operators, tax collectors, representatives of taxpayers and tax agents), as well as taxpayers, individuals, non–profit organizations, and individuals engaged in private practice, are not the subjects of the offense.

The subjective side of the acts provided for in Article 270 of the Administrative Code for individual offenders is characterized by guilt in the form of intent or negligence. The guilt of a person is revealed by his mental attitude towards the illegal acts committed by him.

The administrative offences provided for in Parts 1 and 2 of Article 270 of the Administrative Code are formal. To bring them to administrative responsibility, it is not necessary to establish that the offender has caused material harm to the state in the form of unpaid taxes.

An administrative penalty in the form of a warning is imposed for committing an offense under Part 1 of Article 270 of the Administrative Code.

This penalty is imposed on offenders by the state revenue authorities by specifying it in the resolution on the imposition of an administrative penalty, declaring it to the offender and handing or sending him a resolution on this in accordance with the procedure established in the Administrative Code. In this case, from the moment of handing over (sending) the resolution, the person is considered to have been subjected to administrative punishment in order to qualify his further actions if he commits similar offenses in the future.

Part 2 of the commented article establishes a more severe penalty for repeated commission of an action provided for in Part 1 of the commented article within a year after the imposition of an administrative penalty.

At the same time, the object, the subjective side and the subjects of the offense provided for in Part 2 of the commented article coincide in their characteristics with the object, the subjective side and the subjects of the offense provided for in Part 1 of Article 270 of the Administrative Code.

In the description of the objective side of the offense provided for in Part 2 of Article 270 of the Administrative Code, a sign of repetition is added to the act provided for in Part 1 of the commented article. In this case, the repetition of the offense is an independent qualifying feature, entailing the qualification of the committed unlawful act as an independent offense under Part 2 of Article 270 of the Administrative Code.

For repeated violations of the conditions of the special tax regime for business entities 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 270 of the Administrative Code is differentiated depending on the category of business to which the business entity belongs, and amounts to:

for small businesses – 15 MCI,

for medium–sized businesses - 30 MCI,

for large business entities – 50 MCI.

The category of taxpayer - business entity for the purpose of sentencing is established in accordance with the legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan on entrepreneurship.

A fine is imposed by the state revenue authorities or the court, in the case of an administrative offense case in court.

Part 3 of the commented article establishes administrative liability for violation by an individual entrepreneur of the deadline for filing a calculation of the patent value or a tax application for suspension (extension, resumption) of tax reporting.

The generic object of offenses provided for in Parts 3 and 4 of Article 270 of the Administrative Code is the procedure for taxation and tax administration of tax relations established in the Tax Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan and in the regulatory legal acts of the Republic of Kazakhstan specified therein.

The direct object of the offenses provided for in Parts 3 and 4 of Article 270 of the Administrative Code is the procedure established and protected by law for tax accounting and the submission of tax statements and tax reports by individual entrepreneurs.

The objective side of the offense provided for in Part 3 of Article 270 of the Administrative Code is characterized by the offender committing unlawful culpable acts (actions or omissions) in the form of a violation of the deadline for filing the calculation of the patent value or a tax application for suspension (extension, resumption) of tax reporting.

The subjects of offenses provided for in Parts 3 and 4 of Article 270 of the Administrative Code are only taxpayers – individual entrepreneurs, as the legislator explicitly states in the commented norm.

Taxpayers (legal entities and individuals who are not individual entrepreneurs, persons engaged in private practice) and other participants in tax legal relations (tax agents, tax collectors, tax representatives, payment operators) are not the subjects of the offense.

The subjective side of the acts provided for in Parts 3 and 4 of Article 270 of the Administrative Code is characterized by guilt in the form of intent or negligence. The guilt of a person is revealed by the mental attitude of a taxpayer, an individual entrepreneur, to the illegal acts committed by him.

The administrative offences provided for in Parts 3 and 4 of Article 270 of the Administrative Code are formal. To bring them to administrative responsibility, it is not necessary to establish that the offender has caused material harm to the state in the form of unpaid taxes.

An administrative penalty in the form of a warning has been imposed for committing an offense under Part 3 of Article 270 of the Administrative Code.

This penalty is imposed on offenders by the state revenue authorities by specifying it in the resolution on the imposition of an administrative penalty and declaring it. The resolution must be handed over or sent to the offender in accordance with the procedure established in the Administrative Code. In this case, from the moment of delivery (referral) According to the resolution, a person is considered to have been subjected to administrative punishment in order to qualify his further actions under Part 4 of the commented article if he commits similar offenses in the future.

Part 4 of the commented article establishes the penalty for repeated commission of an act by a taxpayer – individual entrepreneur under Part 3 of Article 270 of the Administrative Code within a year after the imposition of an administrative penalty.

The offense is considered to have been committed again if the person has previously committed the offense provided for in Part 3 of Article 270 of the Administrative Code (in any way permitted by the commented article), has been subjected to administrative punishment for it by handing over or sending him a decree on the imposition of punishment, the decree has not been canceled and the one-year period during which the person is considered to have been subjected to administrative punishment has not yet been completed. expired.

The subjects of offenses provided for in Parts 3 and 4 of Article 270 of the Administrative Code are only taxpayers – individual entrepreneurs, as the legislator explicitly indicates in the commented norm.

An administrative penalty in the form of a warning has been imposed for committing an offense under Part 3 of Article 270 of the Administrative Code.

In this case, the repetition of the offense provided for in Part 3 of the commented article is an independent qualifying feature, entailing the qualification of the committed unlawful act as an independent part of an administrative offense under Part 4 of Article 270 of the Administrative Code.

For repeated violations of the deadline for filing the calculation of the patent value or a tax application for suspension (extension, resumption) of tax reporting within a year after the imposition of a penalty, a taxpayer – individual entrepreneur is punished with a fine.

The amount of the fine for committing an offense under Part 4 of Article 270 of the Administrative Code is fixed and amounts to 15 MCI. A fine is imposed by the state revenue authorities or 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

Objectives of Administrative Proceedings in Tax Disputes under the Administrative Procedural and Process-Related Code

Objectives of Administrative Proceedings in Tax Disputes under the Administrative Procedural and Process-Related CodeWhen the Administrative Procedural and Process-Related Cod...