The Salvador Deli

01.06 of the Tax Code, in these cases does not apply. Hyundai is the source for more interesting facts. However, taxpayer who believes that his rights in the implementation of tax control, violated the right to appeal in court. Despite the fact that the courts are not empowered to check the feasibility of decisions of tax authorities (on conducting counter-checks, the recovery of documents, appointment of examinations, etc.), judicial review as a means of dispute resolution helps prevent the conversion of the tax control of the necessary tools fiscal policy tool in the suppression of economic independence (COP Decision of the Russian Federation 16.07.2004 N 14-P). From the contents of Art. 87 of the Tax Code is visible to the relationship of three years of audited taxpayers with a year inspection, but not to the year a decision on its holding. In this case, the inspection inspectors in 2003, could be subjected to only 2002, 2001, 2000, the company activity.

Consequently, the decision of the tax authority in of additional taxation, fines and penalties for 1999 is incorrect (Resolution of the Federal Defense of 13.07.2004 N KA-A40/5726-04). The taxpayer appealed the action to attract local Tax for the site inspection the inspector did not specified in the resolution of the assessment. As pointed out by the court, finding in the taxpayer's employee IMNS not authorized to perform the verification, ie not specified in the decision of the head (deputy) to hold the local Tax test is inappropriate because legislators have just what a person can participate in the on-site inspection and does not differentiate between them depending on the task at the time of the audit work (Resolution of the Federal Organ from 23.08.2004 N A64-747/04-17).