The article deals with the problems arising in connection with the taxation of the digital economy, using the example of the proposals of the OECD and the EU on the introduction of a tax on digital services, as well as unilateral measures of national states in the area of taxation of the digital economy (on the example of the French digital tax). The main question for the study is whether unilateral measures imposing taxes on digital services represent a suitable solution to the tax problems that arise in connection with digitalization. Based on the legal analysis of both the EU Law provisions and domestic legal reality the author substantiates conclusions as applied to the Russian Federation.

The subject. The problems of business splitting, when several new business entities are created on the basis of an existing organization in order to maintain a preferential special tax regime, are considered in the article.The aim of this paper is to find out criteria of unjustified tax benefit in the cases concerning business splitting.The methodology. The author uses methods of theoretical analysis, particularly the theory of integrative legal consciousness, as well as legal methods, including formal legal method and analysis of recent judicial practice.The main results, scope of application. The problems of assessing the circumstances of cases involving the application of a business splitting scheme by the taxpayer are inextricably linked to the assessment of the validity of the tax benefit. According to the author, splitting schemes should not be considered as tax evasion, but as an abuse of law. In addition, in order to substantiate the conclusion that a taxpayer has applied a business splitting scheme, the tax authority must have evidence that will indicate that the taxpayer has committed deliberate concerted actions together with persons under its control, aimed not so much at dividing the business as at obtaining an unjustified tax benefit as a result of using such a scheme. Judicial practice is quite ambiguous.Conclusions. The author comes to the conclusion that еhe key concept subject to criticism is the blurred criteria for obtaining tax benefits for taxpayers and the definition of the edge when it passes into the category of unjustified tax benefit.

No abstract

The subject. The leading position of the personal income tax in most countries is due to a number of circumstances. First, it is a personal tax, the object of which is the income actually received by the payer, and not the estimated average income that could be received in specific economic conditions. Second, income tax allows to maximize the implementation of the basic principles of taxation - universality and uniformity. In recent decades, national regimes of personal income taxation regimes have been actively developed both in foreign countries and in Russia. Purpose of the study. The article shows the results of analysis of the framework of personal income taxation in the Russian Federation in the context of the principle of the social fairness. Dealing with selected provisions of the national legislation of European countries and Russia the article shows that elements of progressive taxation can be applied only in particular aspects. The proposals of taxation of rich taxpayers are also brought into light. Methodology. The research was carried out with the application of the formally legal interpretation of legal acts as well as the comparative analysis of Russian and European legal literature. Structural and systemic methods are also the basis of the research, The main results. After studying the European experience of personal income taxation the authors come to the conclusion that some of the ideas described can be transferred to the Russian tax legislation, but this should be done with caution. It is not necessary to introduce a progressive tax system in its pure form in the Russian Federation, but it is worth considering options for switching to a dualistic system. The authors believe that the elements of borrowing foreign experience should be aimed rather at a fair distribution of benefits, for example, through rules that fix tax benefits. Conclusions. The following proposals can be formulated to improve the legal regulation of personal income taxation in the Russian Federation: the distinction between taxation of taxpayers with ultra-high incomes and those with minimal incomes should be based not on the income criterion, but on the expenditure criterion; to establish a non-taxable minimum in the amount of the minimum wage, which will ensure tax fairness for taxpayers with lower-average incomes; to review the criteria of taxation of luxury vehicles, raising the border separating the mass and premium segments of the Russian car market by at least two times - up to 6 million rubles. The best solution would be to abolish the vehicle tax and impose an increased excise tax on fuel and lubricants for personal transport.

Subject. The principles of subsidiarity proportionality, which serve as the basic principles fordetermining the competence of integration associations, are considered in the article.Aim. The aim of this paper is to analyse the place and the importance of Member States’ obligationsderiving from the EU legal order in order to address the relationships between EU lawand national tax law, as well as to analyse the practice of using of principles of subsidiarity andproportionality by the highest courts of the Russian Federation as a federal state.Methodology. The author uses methods of theoretical analysis, particularly the theory ofintegrative legal consciousness, as well as legal methods, including formal legal method andcomparative law.Results, scope. The exercise of power by the European Union in the areas of shared competencemust respect the principle of subsidiarity. The founding Treaties make clear thatsubsidiarity is a legal enforceable legal principle. However. the case law of the EuropeanCourt of Justice reveals that the enforcement of subsidiarity as a judicial principle has beenineffective.The article examines cross-border loss relief for group companies in the context of EuropeanUnion law and considers how this has affected Member States such as the UK. Thecase law of the Court of Justice is then analysed in an attempt to assess whether some ofthe principles set out in these legislative initiatives found their way to Member State lawsthrough the Court's jurisprudence. Following this, the judicial and legislative response tothe Marks & Spencer judgment in the UK are critically assessed.The practical suggestions are looking at developing EU compatible tax principles to be appliedto cross-border taxation within the EU.Having considered the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality in the context of interactionbetween integration and national tax law, the author suggests directions for improvingthe practice of integration tax law. The supranational judicial authority should dwell onthe position that only those differences that are directly based on the origin of the incomeor nationality of the taxpayer can be justified on the basis of restrictions on fundamentalfreedoms.Conclusions. The author comes to the conclusion that a co-ordinated approach to crossborder tax is essential. The effectiveness of integration tax law will largely depend on how the ratio of the norms of integration and national law in the tax jurisdiction of the Union and member states will be formed. However, historically direct tax has been viewed by Member States as central to national sovereignty.