UDC 347.73(470)

state (municipal) revenues

© Vasilyeva N.V., 2015

Baikal State University of Economics and Law, Irkutsk

The article is devoted to the analysis of such a financial and legal category as state (municipal) revenues. The study made it possible to identify the essential features of this category, its differences from other categories, in particular from budget revenues, and also to determine the types of state (municipal) revenues.

Key words: state (municipal) revenues; budget revenues; public income; cash funds; finance; financial resources.

One of the fundamental tasks of any state is the formation of funds of funds. The effective implementation of the tasks and functions of the state and municipalities directly depends on the filling of these funds with income. As E. D. Sokolova rightly points out, in the conditions of post-crisis development of Russia, in the presence of a significant budget deficit, insufficient financing various fields In public life, the solution to the problem of filling state and municipal funds with funds is acquiring a national character. This means that the analysis of theoretical problems of state and municipal revenues requires special attention.

First of all, the question arises of what state (municipal) revenues are, what content is included in this category and how this term correlates with the term “budget revenue”.

The term “state (municipal) revenues” is widely used in economic literature; there are various definitions of this term. However, their analysis allows us to identify certain common features of government revenues, defined by most authors. Most often, economists point out the redistributive nature of the category of state income, resulting from the redistributive nature of finance, as well as their orientation at the disposal of the state for the latter to implement its tasks and functions.

Thus, V.M. Rodionova points out that “state revenues are represented by that part financial relations, which is associated with the formation of financial resources at the disposal of the state...", therefore, state revenues must be understood as "monetary relations for the mobilization of financial resources at the disposal of state structures."

According to E.V. Bushmin, government revenues represent “a part of the country’s national income, circulated in the process of its distribution and redistribution through various types of cash receipts into the ownership and disposal of the state in order to create the financial base necessary for the implementation of the goals and objectives facing state”, and municipal ones - “a part of the national income that serves as the financial basis of local self-government for the resolution of issues of local importance by municipalities.”

T.V. Braicheva defines government revenues as “a system of monetary relations that is associated with the formation of financial resources at the disposal of the state and state enterprises» .

There are also other interpretations of the term “state revenues”. In particular, M.P. Komarov considers state revenues as “a set of financial

cash and other funds entering the state treasury,” which raises questions, since the treasury represents not only the budget, but also other undistributed property. In this connection, it is not entirely clear whether state revenues, in the opinion of this author, are only a financial, monetary category, or whether he also includes certain property relations in them.

A retrospective analysis of financial and legal literature shows that, as a rule, the term “state revenue” is considered by lawyers in a similar way to economic views on this category.

Pre-revolutionary scientists paid attention to this category. According to I. I. Yanzhul, state revenues are the material resources necessary to meet its needs. S.I. Ilovaisky points out that in every household expenses must correspond to income. The nature of government income is somewhat different from that of private income; It is the private economy that, as a general rule, itself acquires the income it needs, while the public economy usually receives a greater or lesser share of its income from private enterprises through levying latest taxes.

In the financial and legal literature of the Soviet period, state revenues were defined as financial (monetary) resources that, in the process of distribution and redistribution of national income, come to the disposal of the state and are used by it to carry out its tasks and functions.

N.I. Khimicheva defines state revenues as part of the country’s national income, circulated in the process of its distribution and redistribution through various types of monetary receipts into the ownership and disposal of the state in order to create the financial base necessary to fulfill its tasks in implementing socio-economic policy, ensuring defense and security of the country, as well as necessary for the functioning of government bodies. And municipal revenues, in her opinion, also represent part of the national income and serve to create the financial basis of local self-government and are used to resolve local issues

values, based on the interests of the population of the relevant territory. A similar definition of state and municipal revenues is given by Yu. A. Krokhina. At the same time, she clarifies that in this aspect, government revenues are characterized as an economic category. And from a material point of view, state revenues represent the financial resources of the state, which consist of income created in the state and municipal sectors of the economy, part of the income of non-profit organizations mobilized by the state for public purposes, and part of the income of the population.

E. Yu. Grachevoy, E. D. Sokolova state revenues are defined as various monetary resources, coming in the process of distribution and redistribution of part of the national income of society at the disposal (property) of the state and used by it to finance the needs that arise in the implementation of its tasks and the performance of relevant functions.

V. V. Gritsenko defines state revenues as part of the country’s national income, circulated in the process of its distribution and redistribution through various types of monetary receipts into the ownership and disposal of the state in order to create the financial base necessary to fulfill its tasks in implementing socio-economic policy, ensuring defense and security of the country, as well as necessary for the functioning of government bodies.

S. Ya. Bozhenok believes that state revenues are part of the gross domestic product and part of the country’s national income, converted through special financial mechanisms into the ownership of the state in order to create a financial (material) base for fulfilling its tasks and functions in implementing socio-economic policy , ensuring the defense and security of the country, the functioning of government bodies, etc., and municipal (local) revenues are part of the national income of society, which is the financial basis of local government, used to resolve issues of local importance, based on the interests of the population of the relevant territory.

At the same time, this author points out that state revenues are not only part of the national income, but also of GDP, “since the state income receives not only cash, but also other property (ownerless, confiscated).” In our opinion, this clarification is quite controversial. After all, it is generally accepted and not disputed by both economists and lawyers that the category “state revenues” is classified as a financial and legal category. The monetary nature of state income does not allow property to be considered as state income. We believe that in this case there is a confusion of concepts. Ownerless and confiscated property goes to the treasury, and monetary income from its sale or use can be considered as state property when it comes to the disposal of the state during the process of distribution and redistribution.

Originally defines government revenues by Kh. V. Peshkova. In her opinion, state revenues represent “a form of economic distribution relations that have received legal form in connection with the need to form a budget within the framework of the budget method of economic management.” This definition does not allow us to identify essential features this phenomenon, it is not entirely clear what the author means by form economic relations, and also what the need for budget formation is expressed within the framework of the budget method of farming.

Analysis of the above concepts of state revenue allows us to identify specific features that are organically inherent in this financial and legal category. First of all, attention is drawn to the fact that government revenues represent the mobilization of financial resources. Most scientists note that social relations in the field of state revenues arise in the process of financial activities of the state and municipalities in the process of accumulation (formation) of funds of financial resources.

Government revenues can be considered as part of the state's national income. The main source of government revenue is the national

income, circulated in the process of its distribution and redistribution through various types of cash receipts into the ownership and disposal of the state (municipalities).

In addition, government revenues as a financial category have features inherent in finance, namely, they have a monetary, distribution (redistribution), and stock character. State revenues create the financial basis for fulfilling the tasks and functions of the state and municipalities, that is, for carrying out public expenditures. State revenues come into the ownership and disposal of the state.

Along with this, we believe it is necessary to pay attention to such a characteristic of government revenues as their limitations (scarcity). Economists view financial resources as limited (scarce), since the state plans its revenues under conditions of uncertainty of their receipt and distribution.

Currently, the principle of tax efficiency is traditionally highlighted in the scientific legal literature. The English economist A. Smith expressed the idea that taxes should be structured in such a way as to extract as little as possible from the payer’s pocket beyond what goes into the state treasury. A. P. Kireenko and S. S. Bykov rightly point out that the existing rules for calculating and accounting taxes, forms and methods of tax control entail additional costs for taxpayers and have a negative impact on entrepreneurship, especially in the field of small business, so their reduction should become one of the priorities of tax policy. The above opinions indicate consideration of the limited (deficit) nature of tax revenues.

The highlighted features allow us to consider state revenues from a material point of view as scarce funds received in the process of distribution and redistribution of national income through various funds of financial resources at the disposal of the state for the implementation of its tasks and functions.

The question of the state revenue system has not yet received

its final resolution. Various classifications are made for various reasons. The main debate is about which income used for public purposes can be classified as government revenue. The question remains unresolved: should only income received in centralized funds of financial resources be considered state (belonging to the state as the owner), or should other income used to carry out the tasks and functions of the state also be considered state income?

In Soviet financial and legal literature, state revenues, depending on the order of formation and use, were considered as a set of centralized (budgetary) and decentralized revenues. As a rule, it was pointed out that centralized revenues are financial resources that go to a single state fund of funds, and decentralized revenues are financial resources that come to the disposal of individual state enterprises directly, bypassing the state budget. Thus, the concept of government revenues is broader than the concept of income state budget, since the state accumulates and uses part of its financial resources in a decentralized manner.

Currently, most authors traditionally consider government revenues as centralized (accumulated in the budget system) and decentralized (remaining at the disposal of government organizations). T.V. Braicheva points out that “the division of state revenues into centralized and decentralized shows the relationship between the sources of satisfying national and collective needs.”

Sometimes it is not entirely clear how the author relates government revenues to budget revenues. For example, E.V. Bushmin indicates that state revenues are subject to credit to state monetary funds: federal and regional budgets and extra-budgetary funds, and municipal revenues - to municipal monetary funds - local budgets; that state and municipal

Central income represents part of the financial resources generated in various sectors of the economy and centrally redistributed through centralized funds. At the same time, depending on the order of accumulation, it distinguishes between centralized and decentralized (state unitary enterprises, institutions) income.

Recently, more and more scientists have begun to identify government revenues with budget revenues. Some authors consider the terms “state revenues” and “budget revenues” as synonyms (see, for example,). The textbook on financial law, edited by M. V. Karaseva, uses the term “state revenues,” but the authors refer to them only as tax and non-tax revenues received by centralized funds of financial resources.

In our opinion, the identification of state and budget revenues is not possible. If we recognize that the purpose of accumulating state revenues is to carry out public expenditures, i.e., to perform the tasks and functions of the state, then it should be noted that the state performs its tasks and functions not only “personally”, using budget resources, but also by creating various legal entities .

We believe that it is appropriate here to cite the statement of the pre-revolutionary scientist I. Kh. Ozerov that “the figures of our state budget do not always express the actual costs of this or that need. Many departments and institutions have their own special funds or special capital from which funds are drawn for various kinds goals and objectives" .

Modern scientists also recognize that some public needs can be covered not by the budget, but by private funds or decentralized finance, and then the sources of their satisfaction do not relate to budget revenues.

Budget revenues cover, although the main part, but only part of state expenses. The functions of the state in the field of education, health care, culture, social and other areas are carried out by various organizations endowed with state property for these purposes -

state-owned, budgetary and autonomous institutions, state unitary enterprises. And if the income budgetary institutions according to Art. 161 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation are included in the revenues of the corresponding budget, then the income of other state organizations remains at their disposal and is used, among other things, to meet public needs. Accordingly, they need to be studied from a financial and legal perspective as government revenues.

In addition, other funds of financial resources are currently being created that can be used for public purposes. These are funds of state corporations and companies, and funds of deposit insurance agencies, etc. These funds are used not to satisfy the private needs of individuals, but to fulfill collective needs and satisfy the public interest.

A. M. Chernoversky notes that since financial resources are necessary for public legal education solely to meet the needs of society and public interest (the needs of a social community, the satisfaction of which is a condition and guarantee of its existence and development), it is necessary to recognize public interest as a sign of public relations. In this regard, his conclusion seems completely fair that if the relations arising regarding the formation, distribution and use of funds of funds meet all the signs of publicity, then these relations and the corresponding funds of funds are public, regardless of the presence or absence of direct subordination between state bodies and organizations that are empowered with respect to the formation, distribution and use of these funds. In this regard, in our opinion, there is a need to study and detailed analysis of all income used for public purposes from a financial and legal perspective. Sh

1. Sokolova E. D. On some problems of financial law in modern conditions of development of Russia // Financial law. 2011. No. 8. P. 8.

2. Finance / ed. V. M. Rodionova. M, 1995. S. 240, 421.

3. Bushmin E.V. State and municipal revenues as an integral part budget system Russian Federation. M., 2012. P. 8.

4. Braicheva T.V. State and municipal finance: textbook. allowance. St. Petersburg, 2007. P. 105.

5. Filipchuk O. A. Management of the structure of income of the federal budget of the Russian Federation. M., 2013. P. 19.

6. Komarov M.P. State priorities of income policy. M., 2014. P. 82.

7. Yanzhul I. I. Basic principles of financial science. St. Petersburg, 1904. P. 19.

8. Ilovaisky S.I. Textbook of financial law. Odessa, 1895. P. 57.

9. See: Soviet financial law / ed. E. A. Rovinsky. M., 1978. P. 133 (author of the chapter - B. N. Ivanov); Soviet financial law: textbook / ed.

V. V. Bescherevnykh, S. D. Tsypkina. M., 1982. P. 158 (author of the chapter - S. D. Tsypkin).

10. Khimicheva N. I. Legal regulation of state and municipal incomes / Financial law: textbook / rep. ed. N. I. Khimicheva. M., 2000. P. 251.

11. Krokhina Yu. A. Financial law of Russia: textbook. M., 2004. P. 336.

12. Ibid. P. 337.

13. Gracheva E. Yu., Sokolova E. D. Financial law. M., 2013. P. 121.

14. Financial law of the Russian Federation: textbook / rep. ed. M. V. Karaseva. M., 2002. P. 316.

15. Bozhenok S. Ya. Theoretical and legal foundations for regulating the income system of state and local budgets of the Russian Federation: abstract. dis. ... Doctor of Law. Sci. M., 2011. P. 26.

16. Bozhenok S. Ya. Sources of government revenues. M., 2013. P. 53.

17. Peshkova H. V. Budgetary structure of Russia. M. 2014. P. 121.

18. Body Z., Merton R. Finance: textbook. manual: trans. from English M., 2000. P. 38; Finance: textbook / ed. M. V. Romanovsky, O. V. Vrublevskaya, B. M. Sabanti. 2nd ed., revised. and additional M., 2006. pp. 15-16.

19. See, for example: Kucheryavenko N.P. Tax Law Course. In 2 vols. T. 1: General part / ed. D. M. Shchekina. M., 2009. P. 463; Tax law of Russia: textbook / rep. ed. Yu. A. Krokhina. 3rd ed., rev. and additional M., 2007. P. 17; Kleimenova M. O. Tax law: textbook. allowance. M., 2013.

20. Smith A. Research on the nature and causes of the wealth of the people. M., 1962. P. 611.

21. Kireenko A. P., Bykov S. S. Estimation of taxation costs based on accounting data [Electronic resource] // Izv. Irkut. state econ. acad. : electron. scientific magazine 2011. No. 6. URL: http://eizvestia. isea.ru/reader/article.aspx?id=14004

22. Soviet financial law / ed. E. A. Rovinsky. M., 1978. P. 134.

23. Financial law: textbook / rep. ed. N. I. Khi-micheva. M., 2000; Krokhina Yu. A. Financial law of Russia: textbook. M., 2004; Gracheva E. Yu., Sokolova E. D. Financial law. M., 2013; Finance / ed. V. M. Rodionova. M., 1995, etc.

24. Braicheva T.V. Decree. Op. P. 106.

25. Bushmin E.V. Decree. Op. pp. 8, 11, 15.

26. Peshkova H. V. Budgetary structure of Russia. M., 2014. P. 121.

27. Konyukhova T. V. Institutes of budgetary law of the Russian Federation: scientific and practical. allowance. M., 2009. P. 54.

28. Financial law of the Russian Federation: textbook / rep. ed. M. V. Karaseva. M., 2002. pp. 316-318.

29. Ozerov I. Kh. How is public money spent in Russia? M., 2005. P. 79.

30. Treasury and budget / resp. ed. D. L. Komyagin. M., 2014.

31. Budget Code of the Russian Federation: federal. Law of July 31, 1998 No. 145-FZ // Collection. legislation of the Russian Federation. 1998. No. 31. Art. 3823.

32. Chernoversky A. M. Financial legal regulation public expenditures in the Russian Federation: auto-ref. ...cand. legal Sci. M., 2010. P. 10.

bibliography

Budget Code of the Russian Federation: federal. Law of July 31, 1998 No. 145-FZ // Collection. legislation of the Russian Federation. - 1998. - No. 31. - Art. 3823.

Bodi Z. Finance: textbook. manual: trans. from English / Z. Body, R. Merton. - M.: Publishing House "Williams", 2000. -592 p.

Bozhenok S. Ya. Sources of state income / S. Ya. Bozhenok. - M.: NOAAOU, 2013. -232 p.

Bozhenok S. Ya. Theoretical and legal foundations for regulating the revenue system of state and local budgets of the Russian Federation: abstract of thesis. dis. ... Doctor of Law. Sciences / S. Ya. Bozhenok. - M., 2011. - 47 p.

Braicheva T.V. State and municipal finance: textbook. allowance / T. V. Braicheva. -SPb. : SPbGUEF, 2007. - 233 p.

Bushmin E.V. State and municipal revenues as an integral part of the budget system of the Russian Federation / E.V. Bushmin. - M.: Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education "REU im. G. V. Plekhanov", 2012. -516 p.

Gracheva E. Yu. Financial law: textbook / E. Yu. Gracheva, E. D. Sokolova. - 4th ed., rev. and additional - M.: Norma, INFRA-M, 2013. - 352 p.

Ilovaisky S.I. Textbook of financial law / S.I. Ilovaisky. - Odessa: Type. Headquarters Odes military. Okrug, 1895. - 334 p.

Treasury and budget / resp. ed. D. L. Komyagin. - M.: Nauka, 2014. - 501 p.

Kireenko A.P. Estimation of taxation costs based on accounting data [Electronic resource] / A.P. Kireenko, S.S. Bykov // Izv. Irkut. state economics acad. : electron. scientific magazine - 2011. - No. 6. - URL: http://eizvestia. isea.ru/reader/article.aspx? id=14004.

Kleimenova M. O. Tax law: textbook. allowance / M. O. Kleimenova. - M.: Mosk. Financial and Industrial University "Synergy", 2013.

Komarov M.P. State priorities of income policy / M.P. Komarov. - M.: MATI, 2014. - 214 p.

Konyukhova T.V. Institutes of budgetary law of the Russian Federation: scientific and practical. allowance / T. V. Konyukhova. - M.: Eksmo, 2009. - 192 p.

Krokhina Yu. A. Financial law of Russia: textbook / Yu. A. Krokhina. - M.: Norma, 2004. - 704 p.

Kucheryavenko N.P. Tax law course. In 2 volumes. T. 1: General part / N. P. Kucheryavenko; edited by D. M. Shchekina. - M.: Statute, 2009. - 863 p.

Tax law of Russia: textbook / rep. ed. Yu. A. Krokhina. - 3rd ed., rev. and additional - M.: Norma, 2007. - 738 p.

Ozerov I. Kh. How is public money spent in Russia? / I. Kh. Ozerov. - M.: Society of Merchants and Industrialists of Russia, 2005. - 312 p.

Peshkova Kh. V. Budget structure of Russia / Kh. V. Peshkova. - M.: Infra-M, 2014. - 175 p.

Smith A. Research on the nature and causes of the wealth of the people / A. Smith. - M.: Sotsekgiz, 1962. - 686 p.

Soviet financial law / ed. E. A. Rovinsky. - 3rd ed. - M.: Legal. lit., 1978. - 44 p.

Soviet financial law: textbook / ed. V. V. Bescherevnykh, S. D. Tsypkina. - M.: Legal. lit., 1982. - 424 p.

Sokolova E. D. On some problems of financial law in modern conditions of Russian development // Financial law. - 2011. - No. 8. - P. 8-11.

Filipchuk O. A. Management of the structure of income of the federal budget of the Russian Federation / O. A. Filipchuk. - M.: Publishing house. House "Scientific Library", 2013. - 166 p.

Financial law of the Russian Federation: textbook / rep. ed. M. V. Karaseva. - M.: Yurist, 2002. - 576 p.

Finance / ed. V. M. Rodionova. - M.: Finance and Statistics, 1995. - 432 p.

Finance: textbook / ed. M. V. Romanovsky, O. V. Vrublevskaya, B. M. Sabanti. - 2nd ed., revised. and additional - M.: Yurayt-Izdat, 2006. - 462 p.

Chernoversky A. M. Financial and legal regulation of public expenses in the Russian Federation: abstract. ...cand. legal Sciences / A. M. Chernoversky. - M., 2010. - 33 p.

Yanzhul I.I. Basic principles of financial science. The doctrine of state income / I. I. Yanzhul. - 4th ed., rev. and additional - St. Petersburg. : Type. M. M. Stasyulevich, 1904. - 500 p.

Public Revenues as an Aspect of Financial Law

© Vasiljeva N., 2015

The article is dedicated to the public revenues. The author defines essential characteristics of public revenues, distinguishes them from other terms and differentiates their kinds.

Key words: state and municipal revenues; budget revenues; public revenues; money funds; financial sources.

480 rub. | 150 UAH | $7.5 ", MOUSEOFF, FGCOLOR, "#FFFFCC",BGCOLOR, "#393939");" onMouseOut="return nd();"> Dissertation - 480 RUR, delivery 10 minutes, around the clock, seven days a week and holidays

Vasilyeva Natalya Viktorovna. Financial and legal regulation of public income in the Russian Federation: dissertation... Doctor of Legal Sciences: 12.00.04 / Vasilyeva Natalya Viktorovna; [Place of defense: Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Education Moscow State Law University named after O.E. Kutafina (MSAL)], 2017

Introduction

1. Income: financial and legal characteristics 22

2. Public revenues: concept and essential characteristics 54

3. Classification of public revenues 83

4. The place of rules governing public revenues in the system of financial law rules 111

Chapter 2. Legal regulation of centralized (budget) revenues 138

1. The concept of centralized (budget) revenues 138

2. Types of centralized (budget) revenues 159

3. Legal regulation of the system of mandatory payments in the Russian Federation 180

4. Self-taxation of citizens: features of federal and local legal regulation 223

5. Income from state (municipal) property: financial and legal characteristics 244

6. The relationship between budget and tax regulation 269

Chapter 3. Decentralized public revenues: financial and legal aspect 313

1. Features of the legal regulation of income of public funds that are in state (municipal) ownership 313

1.1. Income of state (municipal) unitary enterprises, budgetary and autonomous institutions received from budget funds: legal aspect 316

1.2. Legal regulation of income of state (municipal) unitary enterprises, budgetary and autonomous institutions from independent activities 335

2. Features of the legal regulation of the income of public funds that are privately owned 353

Conclusion 390

Bibliographic list of used literature 405

Introduction to the work

Relevance of the research topic. One of the fundamental problems of any state is the formation of monetary funds, through which various tasks will be carried out and numerous functions in the public sphere will be implemented. Currently, the financial activities of the state are becoming more complex and decentralized, and relatively new public funds of funds are appearing for the Russian legal system, used by the state to satisfy general public interests.

Budget revenues cover, although the main part, only part of state expenses. Limitation budget funds, the impossibility of satisfying all social needs at their expense predetermines the fact that the functions of the state in the field of education, health care, culture, social and other areas are carried out by various organizations endowed with state property for these purposes - state-owned, budgetary and autonomous institutions, state unitary enterprises .

Moreover, monetary funds traditionally classified as private are also used for public purposes. Currently, various funds of funds are being created that can be used to finance public socially significant expenses. These are funds of state corporations and companies, including the Deposit Insurance Agency, Vnesheconombank, funds of non-state pension funds, etc. Due to civil law structures, these funds are private, however, they act not in the private interests of the owner, but in general, group, collective interests (pension security, protection of deposits, creation of necessary high-tech products, etc.), which predetermines the need their consideration from financial and legal positions.

The complex task of financing public expenditures through both traditionally recognized public funds and private funds created for public purposes depends on a new understanding of the basic categories.

ry of financial law. The main goal of financial law is to create orderliness, stability and protection of the sphere of finance, the financial activities of the state and municipalities, to create conditions for the reproduction of social relations in this area through normative regulation, ensured by state coercion 1 .

The use of various centralized and decentralized funds of funds, both in state (municipal) and private property, for public purposes makes it impossible to apply the term “state revenue” to all public funds. It is necessary not only to rethink this financial and legal category and fill it with updated content, but to consider the categorical apparatus of financial law at a new qualitative level. We consider it necessary and justified to use in relation to all public funds of funds, both centralized and decentralized, a more capacious and broader term - public revenues.

Various aspects of the legal regulation of public revenues are reflected in both legal and economic literature. However, to date a number of problems in the formation of public monetary funds remain unresolved. First of all, attention is drawn to the lack of a unified understanding of the category “income”, its use in various financial and legal acts with different meanings.

In addition, the problems of legal regulation of certain types of public income have not been resolved. Thus, the possibility of using the method of mandatory payments in the formation of public monetary funds that exist outside the budget system of the Russian Federation is not completely clear. The question remains open as to which payments should be classified as mandatory, whether all existing payments are united by those applied in the Constitution

1 Gracheva E. Yu. On the issue of the essence of financial law // Federal and regional aspects of financial law: “Round table” dedicated to the 75th anniversary of Academician N.I. Khimicheva: abstracts of speeches (October 2-3, 2003) / ed. E. V. Pokachalova. Saratov: Publishing house of the State Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education "Saratov State Academy of Law", 2004. P. 12.

Russian Federation 2 with the phrase “taxes and fees”, or there are other mandatory payments. Current financial legislation, including the Budget Code of the Russian Federation 3 and the Tax Code of the Russian Federation 4, do not provide a clear answer to this question. Moreover, the lack of clear criteria for classifying a payment as mandatory leads to a blurring of the boundaries of applying the imperative method of regulation and the replacement of fees with civil payments. These and other factors necessitate a comprehensive analysis of the problems of public revenues.

Comprehensive studies of public revenues as all funds received by public funds for use in satisfying public interests have not yet been carried out. In our opinion, it is necessary to develop a concept of legal regulation of all social relations arising in the process of accumulating public funds of funds used to satisfy public interest, which will allow them to be extended to the imperative method of legal regulation, to prevent abuse by private entities, and also to strengthen control for the receipt and targeted expenditure of the income of such funds.

The degree of development of the research topic. On modern stage development of financial and legal science, certain aspects of the legal regulation of public revenues are reflected in the scientific literature.

In pre-revolutionary works (E.N. Berendts, S.I. Ilovaisky, D. Lvov, I.Kh. Ozerov, I.I. Yanzhul, etc.), Soviet (S.D. Tsypkin, V.V. Bescherevnykh, M.I. Piskotin, E.A. Rovinsky, etc.), modern scientists (O.N. Gorbunova, E.Yu. Gracheva, E.D. Sokolova, N.I. Khimicheva, G.F. Ruchkina, etc. .) researched - 2 Constitution of the Russian Federation of December 12, 1993 // Collection of legislation of the Russian Federation. 2014. No. 31, art. 4398.

3 Budget Code of the Russian Federation: Federal Law of July 31, 1998 No. 145-FZ // Co
violation of the legislation of the Russian Federation. 1998. No. 31, art. 3823.

4 Tax Code of the Russian Federation. Part one: Federal Law of July 31, 1998 No.
146-FZ // Collection of legislation of the Russian Federation. 998. No. 31, art. 3824; tax code
Russian Federation. Part two: Federal Law of August 5, 2000 No. 117-FZ // Collection
legislation of the Russian Federation. 2000. No. 32, art. 3340.

financial and legal issues of state (municipal) revenues were discussed.

Various aspects of the problem of formation of budget funds are reflected in the works of: S.M. Alekseeva, N.M. Artemova, A.R. Batyaeva, S.Ya. Bozhenka, V.A. Karaseva, A.E. Loskutova, R.M. Mutusheva, A.G. Paulya, I.V. Petrova, A.A. Sergeeva, I.V. Fedorova (Dementieva), R.N. Cherlenyaka, K.Yu. Chulovsky, G.G. Yachmenev. In the science of financial law, attention is paid to various types of budget revenues: the legal nature of taxes and fees - A.Yu. Denisova, A.M. Naumenko, E.N. Khilchenko, A.A. Sitnik, D.A. Smirnov, insurance contributions to extra-budgetary funds - I.V. Bit-Shabo, O.A. Nogina, T.A. Yakubov, natural resource payments - V.N. Lisitsa, E.A. Sutkevich.

Various aspects of decentralized public revenues are considered in the scientific literature. So, Z.A. Akhmetyanova analyzes the income of institutions, a number of authors (A.Yu. Dolgova, S.S. Mutulova, L.V. Romashchenko) study the legal problems of parafiscalities.

Modern scientists in the field of financial law (E.Yu. Gracheva, O.N. Gorbunova, M.F. Ivlieva, N.N. Kosarenko, A.A. Nechay, E.A. Ryzhkova, A.A. Saurin, E. .D. Sokolova, N.I. Khimicheva, A.M. Chernoversky, etc.) turn to the study of publicity as a fundamental principle of financial law.

At the same time, a comprehensive study of the problems of financial and legal regulation of public revenues has not been carried out in the domestic science of financial law; the foundations of the financial and legal concept of public revenues have not been formed. The existing fragmentation of both theoretical views and financial and legal norms, and the emerging problems of law enforcement practice in the field of public revenues require comprehension and overcoming. In this regard, it is necessary to develop a unified concept of financial and legal regulation of public revenues, which, according to the author, can

contribute to the improvement of legal regulation in the area under study.

Object of study constitute social relations that develop in the sphere of formation of public monetary funds. Subject of research are regulatory legal acts regulating public relations in the field of public revenues, materials of law enforcement, including judicial practice, as well as relevant scientific works.

Purpose of this study– development of conceptual theoretical provisions on the legal regulation of public revenues in the Russian Federation, aimed at increasing the efficiency of financial activities in the formation of public monetary funds, and development of practical recommendations for improving the financial and legal regulation of public revenues. The set goal necessitated the solution of such tasks How:

– study of the financial and legal characteristics of the “income” category;

– identification of the essential characteristics of the financial and legal category “public income”;

– implementation of a scientific classification of public income, identification of the features of certain types of income included in public income;

– determination of the place of rules regulating public revenues in the system of financial law rules;

– analysis of centralized (budgetary) revenues, clarification of their concept and characteristics, identification of types of centralized (budgetary) revenues;

– structuring the system of mandatory budget payments in the Russian Federation;

– scientific development of problems of federal and local regulatory legal regulation of means of self-taxation of citizens;

– study of issues of financial and legal regulation of income from the management and disposal of property in state (municipal) ownership;

– study of the legal aspects of the relationship between budget and tax regulation;

– identifying the features of the legal regulation of the income of public funds that are in state (municipal) ownership;

– disclosure distinctive features legal regulation of the income of public funds that are privately owned, determining the possibility and criteria for the admissibility of using the method of mandatory payments (parafiscalities) when forming them.

Methodological basis of the study. The study was conducted using general scientific methods– dialectical method, analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction, observation, systematic method. Also used special methods knowledge – formal dogmatic, historical, comparative legal, linguistic, statistical methods, methods of interpretation and classification. The study of problems of public revenues was also carried out using the tools of basic and related sciences: economics, finance, etc. The use of various methods made it possible to fully and comprehensively study problems in the field of public revenues, formulate theoretical conclusions and practical recommendations for improving the current financial legislation and law enforcement practice.

Regulatory and empirical basis for the study compiled normative legal acts of the federal, regional and local levels, including those that have lost force, regulating social relations emerging in the process of forming public monetary funds, acts of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, materials of judicial practice, documents of financial and control bodies of the Russian Federation, draft normative legal acts acts, statistical and other factual data.

Theoretical basis of the study compiled the works of Russian and foreign scientists in the field of theory of state and law, financial law, other branches of law, as well as economics and finance.

In the process of studying issues of financial and legal regulation of public revenues, the author relied on the works of specialists in the field of theory of state and law, such as: S.S. Alekseev, D.A. Kerimov, N.I. Matuzov, A.V. Malko, N.M. Marchenko, V.S. Nersesyants, A.S. Pigolkin, D.E. Petrov, M. Suleimenov, R.O. Halfina.

The author’s conclusions were significantly influenced by the works of pre-revolutionary scientists - E.N. Behrendtsa, K. von Gock, S. Zena, S.I. Ilovaisky, V.A. Lebedeva, D. Lvova, I.Kh. Ozerova, M.I. Friedman, L.V. Khodsky, K.T. von Eeberg, I.I. Yanzhula; Soviet scientists - V.V. Bescherevnykh, M.I. Piskotina, E.A. Rovinsky, S.D. Tsypkina.

The theoretical basis of the study was the work of modern
representatives of the science of financial law - L.L. Arzumanova, N.M. Artemova,
EAT. Ashmarina, K.S. Belsky, S.Ya. Bozhenka, O.V. Boltinova,

D.V. Vinnitsky, M.M. Vinokurova, L.K. Voronova, O.N. Gorbunova,
E.Yu. Grachevoy, A.V. Demina, M.F. Ivlieva, D.L. Komyagina, M.V. Karaseva,
T.V. Konyukhova, Yu.A. Krokhina, I.I. Kucherova, I.B. Lagutina, A.A. Nechay,
O.A. Nogina, A.G. Paulya, S.G. Pepelyaeva, G.V. Petrova, N.A. Povetkina,
E.V. Pokachalova, Yu.V. Pyatkovskaya (Arbatskaya), T.E. Rozhdestvenskaya, I.V.
Rukavishnikova, Yu.L. Smirnikova, D.A. Smirnova, E.D. Sokolova,
G.P. Tolstopyatenko, A.V. Turbanova, D.E. Fadeeva, N.I. Khimicheva,

A.I. Khudyakova, A.M. Chernoversky, N.A. Sheveleva, V.A. Yagovkina, A.A. Yalbulganova.

When considering individual problems of public revenues, the works of scientists in the field of other branches of law - civil law were used: A.V. Boldyreva, L.A. Novoselova, E.A. Sukhanova, O.A. Tarasenko, Yu.K. Tolstoy; constitutional and administrative law: A.V. Vinnitsky, E.S. Shugrina, I.V. Babicheva, Yu.A. Tikhomirov.

The works of specialists in the field of finance were important for the study: A.D. Ayushieva, A.M. Babich, T.V. Braicheva, V.A. Bubnova, P.I. Vakhrina, A.S. Neshitoy, E.A. Voznesensky, O.V. Vrublevskoy, T.V. Gritsyuk, V.M. Rodionova, M.V. Romanovsky, T.V. Fiberg et al.

The works of such foreign scientists in the field of economics, finance and financial law as: Z. Body, R. Merton, P.-M. Godme, J.M. Keynes, R. Musgrave, P. Musgrave, A. Smith, S. Baziadoly, J.-M. Monner, F. Mordacq et al.

Scientific novelty of the research determined by the set goal and objectives, theoretical understanding and comprehensive study of the state of financial and legal regulation of public revenues, obtained by the results of the study. This dissertation is one of the first comprehensive monographic studies of public revenues from a financial and legal perspective, within the framework of which a set of theoretical provisions related to the financial and legal regulation of public revenues in the Russian Federation has been formed, shortcomings of theory and law enforcement in the field of formation of public monetary funds and ways to eliminate them are proposed, and the categories of financial law in the field of public revenues are clarified. The dissertation includes a set of new and containing elements of novelty provisions related to the financial and legal aspects of public revenues.

The main provisions of the dissertation submitted for defense:

1. The current complication of public financial activities, the use of both state (municipal) and private monetary funds to carry out public functions predetermines a change in financial and legal categories. The use of the category “public revenues” contributes to the development of the concept of legal regulation of all social relations arising in the process of accumulation of public funds, which makes it possible to prevent abuse by private entities, as well as to strengthen control over receipts and targeted expenditures

income from such funds. Understanding public revenues as scarce funds received in the process of distribution (redistribution) of national income free of charge and irrevocably into public funds for use in order to satisfy the public interest (from a material point of view); regulated by the norms of financial law, distributive economic relations that arise in the process of forming public funds of funds (from a financial and legal point of view) makes it possible to ensure uniformity in the financial and legal regulation of relations that arise during the formation of public funds of funds, and contributes to the expansion of theoretical opportunities for the study of financial legal relations.

2. Classification of public revenues on various grounds ensures the completeness of their characteristics and reveals the characteristics of their individual types. Public revenues are divided into:

according to the order of accumulation: into centralized (budget) and decentralized revenues. Decentralized, in turn, are divided into those in state (municipal) ownership (income of budgetary and autonomous institutions and income of state (municipal) unitary enterprises) and those in private ownership (income of public funds operating on the right of private ownership);

by accumulation methods: on compulsory income (collected without fail by virtue of mandatory regulations) and voluntary income (received on the basis of the free will of payers);

on a territorial basis: federal (collected in order to satisfy public interests recognized as such by the Russian Federation), regional (to satisfy public interests on the territory of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation) and local (to satisfy

public interests on the territory of a given municipality) public revenues;

on socio-economic grounds: on income from the state economy; income from non-state legal entities; income from individuals;

based on the presence (absence) of a certain direction of spending: general (not having such a direction and spent on any needs to fulfill the current tasks facing the public fund of funds) and targeted (spent only on pre-set goals).

3. A set of norms regulating public relations in the region
the formation of public monetary funds, forms a sub-sector of special
This part of financial law is a sub-branch of public revenues. In structure
sub-sectors of public revenues are distinguished:

– the general part, which includes rules establishing the concept and types of public revenues, the principles of public revenues;

– a special part, which includes tax law, as a complex financial and legal institution, rules governing centralized (budgetary) public revenues and decentralized public revenues.

4. Relations in the field of budget revenues include relations
tions emerging in the process of forming budget funds (planning
knowledge, forecasting, establishment, collection of income, payment thereof
accounts to the budget and crediting to the accounts of the federal treasury). Regarding
tions arising in the process of budget and tax regulation (race
distribution of received budget revenues between different budgets
using various methods, including interbudgetary transfers), not
relate to relations in the field of formation of budget funds and not
covered by the concept of “budget revenues”, but represent a separate
new sphere of financial and legal relations.

5. All mandatory payments received into the budget (for
excluding penalties as a compensatory measure and fines as measures of liability
ity) can be divided into two categories - taxes and fees - in
depending on the presence (absence) of individual
gratuitousness, which will expand the theoretical possibilities of research
required budget payments. Review of all mandatory payments, not
having signs of a tax, as fees will allow to extend to
they have the same rules for establishing and collecting, fix a single level
guarantees of all payers. This will also eliminate the existing si
the situation of legislative consolidation of two systems of mandatory payments
(tax and non-tax), which significantly violates the rights of payers
kov fees not included in the system of taxes and fees, since there are no
legislative requirements for the content of the regulations establishing them
legal acts.

6. Obligatory budget revenues are payments for use
tion of natural resources. Application to natural resource payments of fur
nism of civil law regulation not only contradicts their pub
personal and legal nature, but also leads to budget losses due to
the possibility of using the coercive mechanism inherent in the obligation
solid budget revenues. Understanding natural resource payments as obligations
essential income allows us to classify them for taxes (all characteristics
The main tax is land tax, which is paid by all persons
owning land plots on the right of ownership, permanent right
th (perpetual) use or the right of lifelong (inheritable) ownership
nia, its payment does not depend on any conditions) and fees (other environmental
resource payments are classified as fees because they are individual
dual-compensatory nature).

7. It is proposed to provide in the legislation for a ban on issuing
referendum on issues related to attracting self-tax funds
citizens. Due to the special social and economic significance of the issues of self-
13

taxation of citizens, it seems appropriate to make a decision on the introduction of self-taxation by a representative body of local self-government, taking into account the opinion of the population in the form of public hearings, which will allow maintaining a balance of budgetary interests and the interests of the population in directly resolving issues of local importance.

8. Income from the management and disposal of state (municipal)
nym) property, despite lower taxes and fees
share are a necessary part of budget revenues, allowing us
minimize budget losses in the event of a decrease in revenues from liabilities
new income. The concept of public purpose of the state (muni
cial) property should not be reduced only to the reduction of such
property, as this may lead to financial losses (reduce
reduction of budget revenues or to additional budget expenses). Necessary
it is possible to legislate the principle of effective management and location
disposal of state (municipal) property, which should
be considered, including from the point of view of the effectiveness of implementation of state regulations
gift (municipal) functions, priority of public interests and
maintaining the intended purpose of state (municipal) property
government, which will increase the revenue side of budgets at all levels of the budget
system of the Russian Federation by increasing revenues from the use of
of this property while preserving its intended public purpose
nia.

9. Filling each budget of the budget system of the Russian Federation
ration with sufficient funds is impossible without optimal coordination
relations between budget and tax regulation, which requires
expansion of mechanisms for the initial securing of income for the corresponding
existing budgets of the budget system of the Russian Federation and allotment
giving public legal entities the necessary powers in the field
revenues assigned to the corresponding budgets. Existing si
the system of accumulating income at a higher level and redistributing it
14

tion through interbudgetary transfers leads to excessive centralization of revenues, severely limits the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and municipalities in their powers in the field of budget revenues and makes them dependent on the decisions of the federal center.

10. The income of decentralized public funds includes
budgetary allocations and income from independent activities.

Understanding budget subsidies (investments) not only as a budget expense, but also as the income of a decentralized public fund allows us to maintain a balance of interests of the budget and the recipient of subsidies (investments), which will be facilitated by securing the responsibility of a public legal entity for violations in the provision of budget subsidies (investments) .

To ensure the targeted public purpose of income received from independently carried out activities, it will be possible not only to establish restrictions on the direction of spending funds received from such activities for the purposes for which the public monetary fund was created, but also to legislate the establishment of the cost of a paid service (work) in an amount not lower than the standard costs for providing a similar service within the framework of a state (municipal) assignment.

11. Attribution of parafiscalities (obligatory payments,
collected from individuals and legal entities in order to satisfy various
public interests in favor of private public funds) to mandatory
payments and legislative consolidation of their mandatory nature
will ensure the rights and legitimate interests of para-fiscal payers
payments, determine guarantees for the protection of their rights, and also strengthen financial
control over the completeness and timeliness of their payment.

12. Separate provisions on types of budget revenues, closed list
fees levied in the Russian Federation, the elements of the fee are formulated
in the form of the draft Federal Law “On Amendments to Article 41

Budget Code of the Russian Federation", on the concept of para-fiscal payments, the principles of their collection, the implementation of financial control over the completeness and timeliness of their payment and bringing the perpetrators to justice for violations of the legislation on para-fiscal payments - in the form of the draft Federal Law "On the general principles of para-fiscal payments in the Russian Federation" Federation”, which will harmonize legislation in the field of mandatory public revenues.

Theoretical and practical significance of the research. The dissertation materials can be used in further research on financial law, for preparing lectures on financial, tax, budget law, when giving lectures and conducting practical classes in disciplines of the financial and legal cycle, as well as when deciding practical problems arising in the sphere of formation of public monetary funds. The conclusions and proposals formulated in the dissertation can be used to improve the current financial legislation, as well as in the practical activities of authorities state power and local government.

Approbation of research results. The provisions of the dissertation were tested by the author while giving lectures and conducting practical classes in the academic disciplines “tax law”, “financial law” (field of study “law”, qualification (degree) “bachelor”); original courses “tax control and tax liability”, “legal problems of collection of certain types of taxes” (direction of training “jurisprudence”, qualification (degree) “master”); courses “current problems of financial law” (field of study “jurisprudence”, qualification (degree) “master”), “public law”, “financial law and law enforcement” (field of study “state audit”, qualification (degree) “master” ) at the Institute of Law and Institute of National and Economic Security of Baikal State University.

Testing of the research results was carried out in presentations at various conferences:

– international (international scientific and practical conference “Financial system of Russia: experience and prospects of legal regulation.” Krasnoyarsk, September 4–5, 2008; international scientific and practical conference “Protection of private rights: problems of theory and practice.” Irkutsk, 20– April 21, 2012; Russian-German scientific and practical conference “The role of local self-government in the development of the territory: Russian and European experience.” St. Petersburg, October 18, 2013; V International scientific and practical conference “Constitutionalism and the legal system of Russia: results and prospects" ("Kutafin Readings"). Moscow, November 26 - December 2, 2013; VI International Scientific and Practical Conference "Harmonization of the Russian Legal System in the Conditions of International Integration" ("Kutafin Readings"). Moscow, 3 -April 5, 2014; International round table “Current problems of solving local issues: organizational and financial issues.” Irkutsk, June 2, 2014; VII International scientific and practical conference “Judicial reform in Russia: past, present, future” (“Kutafin Readings”). Moscow, November 26–27, 2014; International conference “Budget law and financial activity of the state at the present stage” (to the 90th anniversary of the birth of M.I. Piskotin), Moscow, November 28, 2014; II Moscow Legal Forum “State sovereignty and the rule of law: international and national dimensions” (“Kutafin Readings”). Moscow, Moscow State Law Academy, April 2–4, 2015; international scientific and practical correspondence conference "Society, law, personality: issues of interaction in the modern world." Minsk, April 6–10, 2015; Seventh international symposium “Theory and practice of tax reforms”. Irkutsk, June 29 – July 5, 2015; International scientific and practical conference "Development of Russian-Chinese relations: a new international reality." Irkutsk, September 22–24, 2015; scientific and practical conference “Main trends in the development of Russian fi-17

financial law" within the framework of the III Moscow legal forum. Moscow, April 6–9, 2016; international scientific and practical conference dedicated to the 95th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between Russia and Mongolia “Russia and Mongolia: history, diplomacy, economics, science.” Irkutsk, March 19–20, 2016; international scientific and practical conference “Ensuring human rights and freedoms in the modern world” (“Kutafin Readings”). Moscow, November 22–24, 2016; international scientific and practical conference "Financial control in the field of public and private finance." Moscow, November 25, 2016),

– All-Russian (All-Russian scientific and practical Internet conference “Legal regulation: general theoretical, constitutional and civil aspects.” Irkutsk, October 13-14, 2011; All-Russian scientific and practical conference “The influence of financial, legal and other public legal institutions on innovation development of Russia". Irkutsk, September 20-21, 2013; All-Russian scientific and practical conference "Legal regulation of economic relations in the Russian Federation". Irkutsk, November 12, 2016),

– other conferences and round tables (scientific and practical conference “Current problems of development of legislation of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation” (Baikal legal readings - 2007), Irkutsk, September 13, 2007; scientific and practical conference “Legal support for the socio-economic development of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation ". Irkutsk, March 17, 2010; scientific and practical conference "Current issues of lawmaking and law enforcement in the Russian Federation." Irkutsk, September 9, 2010; scientific and practical conference "Constitutional and legal status of the Irkutsk region within Russia: history, current state, development prospects". Irkutsk, November 22–23, 2012; scientific and practical conference "Assessing the consequences of Russia's accession to the WTO: opportunities and threats for the Irkutsk region", Irkutsk, December 19, 2012; round table " Legal problems of consolidation of subjects of the Russian Federation: first experience and

prospects." Irkutsk, March 25, 2009; interuniversity round table held within the framework of the 70th conference of teachers and doctoral students of BSUEP “Principles of Law: General Theoretical and Industry Aspects.” Irkutsk, March 25, 2011; round table to discuss the draft federal law “On the federal contract system”, organized by the Irkutsk branch of the Russian Bar Association. Irkutsk, October 14, 2011; round table dedicated to the 20th anniversary of the Association of Municipalities of the Irkutsk Region. Irkutsk, March 21, 2014), as well as annual conferences of the teaching staff of Baikal State University (Irkutsk).

The main provisions of the dissertation are contained in the author's publications, including monographs and articles published in leading peer-reviewed scientific journals.

The research results were also tested during the author’s participation
in practical activities (when preparing bills, conducting legal
war and anti-corruption examinations, etc.) as a leading scientific
employee of the Irkutsk Regional State Scientific-

research government institution "Institute of Legislation and Legal Information named after M. M. Speransky."

The provisions of the dissertation were used in conducting scientific research on the topics: “Financial and legal institutions as tools for innovative development of Russia” (State task No. 6.8277.2013 for work in the field scientific activity within the framework of the basic part of the project; state registration number in FGANU TsITiS 01201356929; year 2013); “Development of a methodology for financial support of socially significant expenses” (State task No. 2014/52 for carrying out work in the field of scientific activity within the framework of the basic part of the project; state registration number in the Federal State Institution TsITiS 01201458899; 2014–2016).

The dissertation was discussed and approved at a meeting of the Department of Financial Law of the Moscow State Law University named after O.E. Kutafina (MSAL).

Work structure. The dissertation consists of an introduction, three chapters covering twelve paragraphs, a conclusion and a bibliographic list of sources used.

Public income: concept and essential characteristics

We believe that this situation impedes the scientific understanding and practical implementation of many financial and legal phenomena and processes related to income. It is not entirely clear why, when using a single term, different content is put into it. Of course, here one can argue that quite often there are concepts “which, not only from the standpoint of scientific abstractions, but also from the standpoint of legal definitions enshrined in the norms of financial and tax law, do not coincide with the concepts of the same name, synonymous in name, as well as the legal definitions of other branches of jurisprudence"7. However, this is always dictated by industry needs, and does not affect the most fundamental categories.

For example, for tax purposes, some concepts used in other branches of legislation have been clarified: accounts (according to Article 11 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, accounts include only settlement (current) and other bank accounts opened on the basis of a bank account agreement), a separate division of an organization (which, in contrast to civil legislation, taxation recognizes any territorially isolated unit at the location of which stationary workplaces are equipped). At the same time, attention is drawn to the fact that such a basic category of civil law as a “legal entity” in tax law was not endowed with new content. Due to the need to expand the subject composition for tax purposes, a new term has been introduced - “organization”. Organizations, in addition to those that form the category of “legal entities” in civil law, included separate divisions of foreign and international organizations that, from a civil legal standpoint, are not recognized as legal entities. Moreover, attention is drawn to the fact that, as a rule, “within” the branch of law, common terms are used in a single context (budget, taxes, control, etc.). In addition, one can give a lot of examples of the use of categories, the essence of which is determined in the same way regardless of their industry affiliation (rule of law, legal relationship, legality, subject, individual, legal entity, property, and many others).

We believe that difficulties in defining the concept of “income” are associated with many factors, both objective and subjective. First of all, attention is drawn to the fact that “income” and “expenses” are two sides of the money fund. “No matter how complex the operations with state funds may be, they always come down to either receipts or their issuance from state treasuries”8. As A.I. Khudyakov rightly pointed out, “the transfer of money from one entity to another always expresses the process of either spending a monetary fund or its formation, and most often it is both at the same time”9. This is most clearly seen in the example of tax. For the state, tax is the main income received by centralized funds (Article 41 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation), and for the taxpayer, paying tax is an expense10.

In addition, different subjects put different content into the concept of income. For a private (individual or legal) person, income represents a certain profit, the receipt of certain benefits, which is reflected in tax legislation when defining income as a certain economic benefit. Thus, M.P. Komarov defines income as “an influx of benefits, expressed in monetary or other form, received by any persons.” J.M. Keynes defines the income of an entrepreneur as the excess of the value of finished products sold over a certain period of time over the primary costs of production12. In the financial literature, an organization’s income is defined as an increase in economic benefits as a result of the receipt of assets (cash, other property) and (or) repayment of liabilities, leading to an increase in the capital of this organization, with the exception of contributions from participants (property owners)13.

For the state, income is, first of all, a means of fulfilling its functions and meeting public expenses. A retrospective analysis of financial and legal literature shows that pre-revolutionary scientists, as a rule, pointed to the purpose of collecting state revenues - the implementation of state expenditures. Thus, S. Zen believed that “the content of financial science is the question of how public unions (states, communities) obtain the material resources necessary to satisfy collective needs”14.

S.I. Ilovaisky believed that in every household expenses should correspond to income. The nature of government income is somewhat different from that of private income; namely, a private economy, as a general rule, itself acquires the income it needs, while a public economy usually receives a greater or lesser share of its income from private enterprises by levying taxes on the latter15.

The place of rules regulating public revenues in the system of financial law rules

Undoubtedly, the state, in order to achieve socially important goals and depending on the type of regulated relations and the nature of the public good that needs to be achieved, uses various legal means154. This can be clearly seen in the financial sector. Thus, the ineffectiveness of financing the social sphere through the universal fund of funds - the budget in conditions of budget deficit led to the emergence of extra-budgetary funds. The creation of non-state pension funds began to be encouraged, which began to attract temporarily free funds from private individuals. Other examples can be given. A. M. Cherno-Versky rightly points out that processes are currently taking place in Russia during which the state, in order to increase the efficiency of satisfying public interests, attracts private legal entities, delegating to them the performance of various public functions. The possibility of such a transfer is due to the fact that such entities cope much more effectively with delegated responsibilities, and, consequently, the expenditure of funds is more efficient. This allows the state to get rid of unnecessary functions and reduce ineffective expenses and achieve more efficient implementation of public functions.

At the same time, considering such funds from a public legal position, we note that the use of the term “state revenue” in relation to their income, in our opinion, is not possible, although the opposite point of view is expressed in the literature. Thus, E. L. Vasyanina in her works applies the term “state revenues” to income received in public funds formed outside the budget system of the Russian Federation, to which, as follows from the analysis of the works, the author also includes non-state pension funds funds, and deposit insurance agencies, etc. 156.

However, the income of such public funds cannot be recognized as state funds; the state is not the owner of these funds (as, for example, in relation to the funds of state institutions), and also does not have the authority to dispose of them (the funds of these funds are managed by private entities - the management bodies of a non-state pension fund, deposit insurance agency, etc.).

The literature rightly notes that it is impossible to identify income that remains in the ownership of a legal entity, the founder (participant) of which is the state, and state income itself, until income from the activities of a state legal entity is transferred to the state; they cannot be called state income.

In this regard, we believe it is necessary and justified to use a more capacious and broader term – public revenues – in relation to all public funds of funds, both centralized and decentralized.

It is appropriate to note here that abroad, in relation to the non-private sphere of finance, the term “publique, public” is used, which is translated into Russian as “state”, which is both linguistically (so, a more accurate linguistically translation of the word “state” into

French would be “d etat”, “etatique”158, while “public, publique” is translated in the basic meaning as public, public, open159) and is not precise in content. Thus, in French law, regarding financial categories, the term “publique” (“finances publiques” (public finances), “depenses publiques” (public expenses), etc.) is used160. At the same time, the literature notes that “finances publiques” (public finances) are the totality of state finances, local finances, finances of social security authorities, finances of public institutions and finances of all other legal entities of public law161, from which it follows that “finances publiques" is much broader than public finances.

The opinion on the need to replace the term “state (municipal)” with the term “public” in relation to various categories (public property, public funds, public expenses, public finances) has been repeatedly expressed in the legal literature162.

However, it should be noted here that the term “public” currently has different meanings; it is used both in a narrow (as a synonym for state) and broad sense.

Self-taxation of citizens: features of federal and local legal regulation

A system, as a rule, is defined as a set of elements (components), the interaction of which gives rise to new qualities that are not inherent in its individual constituent elements, i.e. a certain integrity, unity is formed333. M. Suleimenov identifies several aspects of the internal properties of the system: the system-component aspect (from which the whole is formed; the study of the substance of the system); system-structural aspect (the internal form of the system, which is a way of interconnection and interaction of its constituent components); system-functional aspect (the functions of the system are the integrative result of the functioning of its components); systemic-integrative aspect (systematicity factors, those mechanisms that ensure the preservation of the qualitative specificity of systems, their functioning and development)334.

In the scientific literature, such systemic principles are highlighted as the presence of integrative, systemic qualities that are not reducible to the sum of the properties of its constituent components, the dependence of the nature of the whole and its features on the composition and internal nature of the parts; the presence of an internal organization, a structure, which is a specific way of interconnection and interaction of its constituent components; as well as the specific nature of interaction with the environment335. A. V. Nesterov points out that the main features of the system are the presence of an integral structure that provides the system with new integrative qualities; clearly fixed position of elements in relation to each other and the whole; the existence of a goal or functional focus; hierarchical structure336.

In this regard, it should be noted that since consistency is always associated with a certain form organization, and the latter is expressed in the hierarchy of its structure337, then the system of law as a delimited set of interacting legal norms has its own structure338. An integral system can exist and function effectively provided that it is internally organized, implying the actual connection of the many structural elements that make it up into a single whole. It is possible and necessary to say that a system of law is “the structural quality of the law in force in a given society, which corresponds to the system of social relations it establishes”, that it is “determined by those social relations that are reflected and consolidated in it”339. The peculiarities of the structure of law are determined by its objective quality of internal legal consistency340. The structure and development of the legal system is predominantly influenced by objective factors341. D. A. Kerimov pointed out that the systematic nature of law is an objective unification according to substantive characteristics of certain legal parts into a structurally ordered integral unity342.

Based on the objectivity of systemic connections within law, taking into account the fact that “it is possible to isolate what is objectively isolated,” we agree with S. S. Alekseev that divisions of the structure of law can only be such entities that have the characteristics of an element (the first is integrity, i.e. acting at a certain level of the structure as an “indivisible whole”, the second is having the ability to interact with other phenomena on appropriate level), their legal originality is expressed in indicators of three kinds: regulatory properties (method of regulation, methods of influence, mechanism, etc.), intellectual and volitional content (principles of law, general provisions, etc.), external form of law (a certain isolation in legislation) 344.

In the legal literature, a number of legal criteria for the isolation of one or another set of norms have been identified.

In particular, M.I. Piskotin points out that in order for one or another set of legal norms to form a separate community, it must have a number of qualities: it, first of all, must regulate a special area of ​​homogeneous relations; Because of this, its constituent norms must have specificity that distinguishes them from the general mass of norms of a given branch of law and at the same time gives them a certain internal unity345.

S. S. Alekseev noted that a separate set of legal norms is characterized by the presence of a complex of “equal” normative regulations, a certain legal heterogeneity of regulations (providing a multifaceted impact of regulatory, obligatory and empowering norms), the unification of all norms by stable natural connections, which are expressed in general regulations, and most importantly – in the legal structure346.

1) legal unity of legal norms. Holistic education is characterized by unity of content, which is expressed in general provisions, legal principles or a set of legal concepts used, unity legal regime regulated relations or in any other way;

2) the completeness of regulation of a certain set of social relations, which is expressed in the presence of various types of legal norms. These can be definitive, empowering, obligatory, prohibiting and other norms of law, which collectively contain all aspects of the legal regulation of the corresponding group of social relations;

3) isolation of norms in chapters, sections, parts and other structural units of laws and other legal acts347.

According to D. E. Petrov, the totality of legal norms as a single community is characterized by the fact that it is always a complex, a certain set of legal norms; this complex affects relationships of a certain type and regulates various options for the development of a certain life situation; includes not only regulatory, but also starting norms (establishing general, initial principles); has in its arsenal a full range of legal means necessary for influence; community is characterized by internal organization

Legal regulation of income of state (municipal) unitary enterprises, budgetary and autonomous institutions from independent activities

If the tax-legal regime of fees, established by the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, makes it possible to clearly define their legal structure (in accordance with paragraph 3 of Article 17 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, when establishing fees, their payers and elements of taxation in relation to specific fees are determined), then the same can be said in in relation to non-tax fees it is impossible. We agree with the expressed judgment that removing a number of mandatory payments from the scope of the legislation on taxes and fees allows us to ignore its rather stringent requirements for regulatory legal acts514.

To some extent, it is possible to indicate the certainty of non-tax fees by referring to the legal acts of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, which outlined the legal position on the presence of elements of taxation for non-tax fees. Revealing the content of the concept of “legally established taxes and fees,” he came to the conclusion that a tax or fee can be established only by law and only by directly listing in it the essential elements of the tax obligation515.

At the same time, specifying the criteria for the legality of fiscal payments in relation to non-tax fees, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation indicated that if mandatory payments to the budget provided for by law do not have the characteristics inherent in a tax obligation in its constitutional and legal sense, but relate to non-tax fiscal fees, then in this case, the question of which elements of the levy should be enshrined in the law on this levy is decided by the legislator himself, taking into account the nature of the levy516. Thus, considering a one-time fee for issuing a license to purchase weapons, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation pointed to such elements of this fee as subjects (payers), the object of taxation, the taxable base, as well as a generally expressed requirement for the fee rate, excluding the possibility of establishing it amount in excess of organizational and other costs associated with issuing a license to purchase weapons517.

In particular, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation recognized as constitutional the establishment in a number of cases of less significant elements of certain non-tax fees by the Government of the Russian Federation, if such a right is expressly granted to the Government of the Russian Federation by federal law. Due to the legal positions formulated by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, mandatory individual federal payments, the payment of which is one of the conditions for government bodies to carry out certain actions in relation to payers and which are intended to reimburse the corresponding expenses and additional costs of public authorities, should be considered as legally established not only in the case when payment rates are provided directly by federal law, but - under certain conditions - and when such rates are established by law by the Government of the Russian Federation. In accordance with its constitutional powers, the Government of the Russian Federation, through regulatory legal acts, may provide for mandatory payments that are levied in a public law manner, if they are not of a tax nature and are allowed within the meaning of the federal law, which imposes regulation of the execution of the duties assigned to it on the Government of the Russian Federation . This kind of normative legal regulation does not contradict the Constitution of the Russian Federation from the point of view of the delimitation of competence between the Federal Assembly and the Government of the Russian Federation

At the same time, when analyzing these criteria, it should be noted that the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation defined them in relation to specific fees that are the subject of a particular case. Their automatic extension to other payments of a similar legal nature is impossible. The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation also draws attention to this. Thus, the Determination No. 283-O dated December 10, 2002 states that the conclusion about the possibility of regulating any elements of the fiscal tax by the Government of the Russian Federation is made in relation to the relevant regulatory legal acts and taking into account the specific subject of legal regulation and cannot be automatically extended to other cases of delegated regulation by the Government of the Russian Federation of certain non-tax fiscal payments. The question of what specific elements of taxation should be established directly by law and, therefore, what powers can be delegated to the Government of the Russian Federation by the legislator cannot be decided arbitrarily, including without taking into account the specifics of the subject of legal regulation and the specifics of the corresponding fiscal fee519. It turns out that if new payments appear, questions about the legal nature of the payment and the degree of permissibility of by-law regulation must be resolved anew.

It is impossible to determine what public income is without understanding the essence of such a category as “income”. Income is one of the leading financial and legal categories. “Categories are the key, most general, fundamental concepts of every science, uniting relatively homogeneous processes and phenomena.”

The establishment of a clear categorical system, as K. S. Belsky rightly pointed out, creates “a foundation on which further research is possible”; but “in order for categories to begin to work, they need to be defined, that is, their essential features must be indicated.” It is no coincidence that legal science attaches great importance to definitions that make it possible to understand the essential features of the fundamental categories used. At the same time, it must be noted that until now there is no uniform understanding of such a financial and legal category as income.

The term “income” is widely used in various institutions of financial law - budget law, tax law, etc. However, this category is used in different contexts - public revenues, state revenues, budget revenues, income as an object of tax, income of organizations, etc. Depending on the institutional need, the concept of “income” has different content. This, among other things, is shown by the current financial legislation. So, in accordance with Art. 41 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, income as an object of taxation is recognized as economic benefit in monetary or in-kind form, taken into account if it is possible to assess it and to the extent that such benefit can be assessed. Article 6 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation defines budget income somewhat differently, namely, as

funds flowing into the budget, with the exception of funds that are sources of financing the budget deficit. There is no unity in the understanding of income in the scientific and educational literature.

We believe that this situation impedes the scientific understanding and practical implementation of many financial and legal phenomena and processes related to income. It is not entirely clear why, when using a single term, different content is put into it. Of course, here one can argue that quite often there are concepts “which, not only from the standpoint of scientific abstractions, but also from the standpoint of legal definitions enshrined in the norms of financial and tax law, do not coincide with the concepts of the same name, synonymous in name, as well as the legal definitions of other branches of jurisprudence". However, this is always dictated by industry needs, and does not affect the most fundamental categories.

For example, for tax purposes, some concepts used in other branches of legislation have been clarified: accounts (according to Article 11 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, accounts include only settlement (current) and other bank accounts opened on the basis of a bank account agreement), a separate division of an organization (which, in contrast to civil legislation, taxation recognizes any territorially isolated unit at the location of which stationary workplaces are equipped). At the same time, attention is drawn to the fact that such a basic category of civil law as a “legal entity” in tax law was not endowed with new content.

Due to the need to expand the subject composition for tax purposes, a new term has been introduced - “organization”. Organizations, in addition to those that form the category of “legal entities” in civil law, included separate divisions of foreign and international organizations that, from a civil legal standpoint, are not recognized as legal entities. Moreover, attention is drawn to the fact that, as a rule, “within” the branch of law, common terms are used in a single context (budget, taxes, control, etc.). In addition, one can give a lot of examples of the use of categories, the essence of which is determined in the same way regardless of their industry affiliation (rule of law, legal relationship, legality, subject, individual, legal entity, property, and many others).

We believe that difficulties in defining the concept of “income” are associated with many factors, both objective and subjective. First of all, attention is drawn to the fact that “income” and “expenses” are two sides of the money fund. “No matter how complex the operations with state funds may be, they always come down to either receipts or their issuance from state treasuries.” As A.I. Khudyakov rightly pointed out, “the transfer of money from one entity to another always expresses the process of either spending a monetary fund or its formation, and most often it is both at the same time.” This is most clearly seen in the example of tax. For the state, tax is the main income received by centralized funds (Article 41 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation), and for the taxpayer, paying tax is an expense.

In addition, different subjects put different content into the concept of income. For a private (individual or legal) person, income represents a certain profit, the receipt of certain benefits, which is reflected in tax legislation when defining income as a certain economic benefit. Thus, M.P. Komarov defines income as “an influx of benefits, expressed in monetary or other form, received by any persons.” J.M. Keynes defines the income of an entrepreneur as the excess of the value of finished products sold over a certain period of time over the primary costs of production. In the financial literature, an organization’s income is defined as an increase in economic benefits as a result of the receipt of assets (cash, other property) and (or) repayment of liabilities, leading to an increase in the capital of this organization, with the exception of contributions from participants (owners of property).

For the state, income is, first of all, a means of fulfilling its functions and meeting public expenses. A retrospective analysis of financial and legal literature shows that pre-revolutionary scientists, as a rule, pointed to the purpose of collecting state revenues - the implementation of state expenditures. Thus, S. Zen believed that “the content of financial science is the question of how public unions (states, communities) obtain the material resources necessary to satisfy collective needs.”

S.I. Ilovaisky believed that in every household expenses should correspond to income. The nature of government income is somewhat different from that of private income; namely, a private economy, as a general rule, itself acquires the income it needs, while a public economy usually receives a greater or lesser share of its income from private enterprises by levying taxes on the latter.

I. Kh. Ozerov pointed out that the means of satisfying public needs is the accumulation of funds. According to I.I. Yanzhul, state revenues are the material resources necessary to satisfy its needs. L.V. Chodsky also noted that every state expenditure should be covered from state revenues, the common source of which should be national income.

State revenues are also considered as a means of fulfilling the tasks and functions of the state. For example, E. A. Voznesensky defined state revenues as the totality of funds owned by the state and creating the material basis for performing its functions.

Undoubtedly, some difference in determining income by subject composition is quite justified, but we believe that when determining state revenues, indicating only the purpose of receiving them, namely, performing functions, making expenses, does not reflect the basic essential properties of such a phenomenon as income.

Therefore, even before the revolution, scientists began to indicate other characteristics of state revenues. First of all, the redistributive nature of state revenues was pointed out. Thus, D. Lvov pointed out: “state income is combined with productive consumption of private property: this consumption is expressed in the collection of taxes.”

E. N. Behrendts made an attempt to more clearly define this category; in addition to the focus on meeting state needs, he pointed to such signs of state revenue as receipt at the disposal of the state (treasury), gratuitousness and irrevocability. This scientist defined state revenues as material resources entering the state treasury irrevocably to meet state needs. At the same time, he noted that these funds should go to the treasury free of charge, and not on loan.

Taking into account the close relationship of financial and legal science with financial science, starting from the Soviet period, income began to be determined through other financial categories. E. V. Pokachalova rightly notes that the categorical apparatus of financial law is based primarily on economic categories and laws. In particular, from a financial and legal point of view, income began to be understood as financial resources.

Thus, V. M. Rodionova points out that “state revenues are represented by that part of financial relations that is associated with the formation of financial resources at the disposal of the state...”, therefore, by state revenues it is necessary to understand “monetary relations for the mobilization of financial resources at the disposal of state structures ". T.V. Braicheva defines government revenues as “a system of monetary relations that is associated with the formation of financial resources at the disposal of the state and state enterprises.”

In the financial and legal literature of the Soviet period, state revenues were defined as financial (monetary) resources that, in the process of distribution and redistribution of national income, come to the disposal of the state and are used by it to carry out its tasks and functions.

We believe that this approach to defining income further complicates the situation, since the term “financial resources,” despite its widespread use in scientific and educational literature, is not clearly defined (one might even say that it is more undefined than the term income), its unambiguous interpretation has not been developed either in economic or legal literature.

The term “financial resources” is also actively used in legislation “as something self-evident, the meaning of which no one doubts,” but there is no legal definition of it. In particular, Art. 83 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation establishes that when adopting a law providing for an increase in expenditure obligations, it must contain rules defining, among other things, the procedure for transferring financial resources to new types of expenditure obligations.

The term “financial resources” is used in Art. 9 European Charter of Local Self-Government, Art. 46 Fundamentals of the legislation of the Russian Federation on culture, art. 7 of the Federal Law of June 28, 2014 No. 172-FZ “On strategic planning in the Russian Federation”, art. 16.5 of the Federal Law of August 23, 1996 No. 127-FZ “On Science and State Scientific and Technical Policy” and a number of other regulatory legal acts. Federal Law No. 184-FZ of October 6, 1999 “On the general principles of organization of legislative (representative) and executive bodies of state power of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation” uses the terms financial resources and financial resources.

At the same time, taking into account the ambiguous scientific interpretation of this term, the lack of its legal definition is a corruption-generating factor, since an unsettled, ambiguous term is used, which leads to the establishment of vague, difficult and (or) burdensome requirements for citizens and organizations.

It is worth noting here that the uncertainty of the term “financial resources” leads to a refusal to use it in regulatory legal acts. Thus, the working group for preparing the draft Charter of the Irkutsk Region (after the unification of the Irkutsk Region and the Ust-Orda Buryat Autonomous Okrug) initially used the term “Financial resources of the Irkutsk Region”. However, then, after discussion and agreement with various public authorities and organizations, it was decided to abandon this term. In the current version of the Charter of the Irkutsk Region, the term “financial resources” is not used.

In scientific financial and financial-legal literature, the term “financial resources” is widely used, but it has different content. From an economic point of view, the concept of a resource is usually interpreted as a reserve, a source and as a means to which one turns when necessary, therefore financial resources are considered either as funds accumulated for carrying out activities (which is approximately equivalent to income), or as funds of funds themselves.

In the economic literature one can find a wide variety of interpretations of the concept of financial resources.

Thus, the modern economic dictionary defines financial resources as the totality of all types of funds and financial assets that an economic entity has and is at its disposal. It is indicated that they are the result of the interaction of receipts and expenses, distribution of funds, their accumulation and use.

V.V. Krasnik defines financial resources as funds available to an enterprise and intended to carry out current costs and expenses for expanded reproduction, to fulfill financial obligations and economically stimulate workers.

In the textbook on finance and credit, edited by M. V. Romanovsky and G. N. Beloglazova, the financial resources of an enterprise are defined as all sources of funds accumulated by the enterprise to form the assets it needs in order to carry out all types of activities, both at the expense of its own funds and savings, and through various types of income.

P. I. Vakhrin, A. S. Neshitoy understand the financial resources of the state as “the totality of all funds of funds and revenues available to the state, its enterprises, organizations, institutions as economic entities to cover their costs.” This definition raises questions, since it is not entirely clear how resources can be considered both as funds of funds and as income.

V. M. Rodionova points out that financial relations are associated with the formation of cash income and savings that take the form of financial resources; financial resources act as material carriers of financial relations.

A. Z. Dadashev, D. G. Chernik understand the financial resources of an enterprise as cash income and savings (own funds), as well as cash receipts from outside (raised and borrowed funds).

In the book “Financial System and Economy”, edited by V.V. Nesterov and N.S. Zheltov, when defining financial resources as cash income and savings, it is indicated that cash funds in the aggregate constitute financial resources.

This term is also interpreted ambiguously in the legal literature.

N.I. Khimicheva, pointing out that the need for the functioning of finance is related to the state’s needs for financial resources, considered the financial activities of the state as the implementation of functions for the formation, distribution and use of monetary funds (financial resources). N. M. Artemov points out that financial control ensures the process of formation and effective use of financial resources.

According to M. M. Vinokurova, the financial resources of society as a whole consist of the financial resources of the state in the form of budgetary and extra-budgetary funds, financial resources of enterprises and organizations, financial resources of the population.

Yu. A. Krokhina considers state revenues from a material point of view as the financial resources of the state, which consist of income created in the state and municipal sectors of the economy, part of the income of non-profit organizations and part of the income of the population mobilized by the state for public purposes.

M. V. Karaseva notes that financial resources are a form of circulation (movement) of money in the sphere of financial relations, the essential features of which include the presence as a starting point of the stage of distribution of the social product, mediation in the movement of money as financial resources of funds of funds, non-equivalent the basis .

S.V. Zapolsky believes that financial resources should be understood as the monetary savings of economic organizations, budgetary institutions, the income of citizens, and in some cases, the income of foreign economic organizations that serve to generate cash income for the state (state financial funds).

The above statements show that financial resources mean heterogeneous phenomena - the funds of funds themselves, the totality of funds, income and savings, the form of circulation of funds, and the basis for the formation of public finances. Therefore, the definition of income as financial resources, due to the uncertainty of the latter, does not allow us to identify the essential features of such a phenomenon as income and distinguish them from other financial and legal categories, and therefore is unacceptable for building a coherent theoretical structure.

In Russian economic and legal literature, starting from the 90s, “state revenues”, as a rule, began to be defined as a part of the national income put at the disposal of the state in the process of distribution and redistribution.

For example, according to E.V. Bushmin, state revenues represent “part of the country’s national income, circulated in the process of its distribution and redistribution through various types of cash receipts into the ownership and disposal of the state in order to create

financial base necessary for the implementation of the goals and objectives facing the state,” and municipal ones are “a part of the national income that serves as the financial base of local government for solving issues of local importance by municipalities.”

In textbooks on financial law, state revenues are defined as part of the country’s national income, circulated in the process of its distribution and redistribution through various types of monetary receipts into the ownership and disposal of the state in order to create the financial base necessary to fulfill its tasks in implementing socio-economic policies, ensuring defense and security of the country, as well as necessary for the functioning of government bodies. Municipal revenues also represent part of the national income and serve to create the financial basis of local self-government and are used to resolve issues of local importance, based on the interests of the population of the relevant territory.

We believe that this approach cannot be considered completely successful either. With this definition, first of all, the relationship between the concepts of “national income” and “state income” is indicated. It is not entirely clear what constitutes income as part of a country's national income. Undoubtedly, national income is the source of all income that is generated as part of the reproduction process. It is understood as the value calculated in monetary terms of the total product newly created in the country during the year, representing the income generated by all factors of production. To a certain extent, we can also talk about a violation of the rules of formal logic, since it turns out that the category is defined through itself, “income” is defined as “part of income.”

In the scientific literature you can also find non-standard approaches to determining income. Thus, Kh. V. Peshkova uniquely defines state revenues, according to whom, they represent “a form of economic distribution relations that have received legal form in connection with the need to form a budget within the framework of the budget method of economic management.” This definition is too abstract, it does not allow us to identify the essential features of this phenomenon, it is not entirely clear what the author understands by the form of economic relations, as well as how the need to form a budget within the framework of the budget method of economic management is expressed.

In our opinion, since income is a financial and legal category, to determine it it is necessary to pay attention to the system-forming category “finance”, since it largely predetermines the essential characteristics of other financial categories, including income.

Recognizing the lack of a unified interpretation of the concept of “finance,” we note that at present it is possible to roughly distinguish two approaches to defining this category. The broad approach, most often followed by Western scientists, assumes that financial relations include any relationships that arise in the process of money movement (expenditure and receipt of monetary resources). With this interpretation of finance, its relationship with other cost categories (money, price, value, profit, etc.) is not entirely clear. Therefore, the most common is the narrow (“reproduction”) approach, in which financial relations include a special group of monetary relations that arise during the distribution and redistribution of the country’s national income. Thus, E. A. Voznesensky points out that “the concept of finance reflects a special sphere of distribution relations in society.” We, considering the category of finance, will be based on the generally accepted theory of finance that we share as a special form of monetary distribution relations.

First of all, it is necessary to pay attention to the fact that finance is considered in various aspects; as a rule, economic and material aspects are highlighted. From an economic point of view, finance represents a certain group of economic relations. Despite some nuances (indication of the purpose of spending accumulated funds, for example), finance from an economic point of view is defined in approximately the same way.

Thus, the Big Encyclopedic Dictionary defines finance as a set of economic relations in the process of creating and using funds of funds.

By V. M. Rodionova, finance is defined as monetary relations arising in the process of distribution and redistribution of the value of the gross social product and part of the national wealth in connection with the formation of monetary income and savings among business entities and the state and their use for expanded reproduction, material incentives for workers, satisfaction social and other needs of society.

One can cite a number of other definitions of finance from an economic point of view, given in the financial literature. Thus, finance is a system of economic relations for the formation and use of funds of funds based on the distribution and redistribution of national income. Finance is a set of monetary relations regulated by the state regarding the formation and use of various monetary funds in the process of their formation and distribution in order to ensure the well-being of the population, social world and economic growth.

Lawyers define finances in a similar way.

Thus, L.K. Voronova pointed out that finance reflects the process of formation and use of centralized and decentralized financial resources (a certain amount of social labor expressed in monetary units).

N. I. Khimicheva finance was defined as economic monetary relations in the formation, distribution and use of funds of funds of the state, its territorial divisions, as well as enterprises, organizations and institutions necessary to ensure expanded reproduction and social needs, in the process of which distribution and redistribution of the social product and control over meeting the needs of society.

According to E. D. Sokolova, finance is a set of economic relations that arise during the distribution of gross domestic product and part of the national income in the process of creating, distributing (redistributing) and using funds of funds.

The above statements allow us to say that, regardless of the context, as a rule, scientific financial and financial-legal literature indicates such signs of finance as:

Monetary character;

Distributive (redistributive) nature;

Connection with the formation and use of funds of funds.

Let's look at these signs in more detail.

First of all, scientists emphasize that finance is a monetary category. "Money is prerequisite existence of finance. If there is no money, there can be no finance, because the latter is a social form conditioned by the existence of the former.” M.F. Ivlieva rightly points out that the satisfaction of national needs does not occur through the direct concentration by the state of the corresponding material resources in kind, but through money.

At the same time, the literature notes that finance differs from money in its content and functions. With the help of finance, economic relations that arise in the processes of distribution and redistribution of national income are realized. Scientists emphasize that the content of finance includes only those monetary relations that have a specific financial form of value movement associated with the distribution of cash income and savings.

Accordingly, income, as a financial and legal category, is also exclusively monetary in nature. Thus, S.D. Tsypkin pointed out that “state revenues represent various monetary resources.”

At the same time, in the literature there are interpretations of income as receipts not only in cash, but also in kind. In particular, M.P. Komarov considers state revenues as “the totality of fiscal and other funds entering the state treasury,” which raises questions, since the treasury represents not only the budget, but also other undistributed property. S. Ya. Bozhenok points out that state revenues are not only part of the national income, but also the gross domestic product, “since the state income receives not only cash, but also other property (ownerless, confiscated).” A. R. Batyaeva points out the understanding of state budget revenues “both expressed in monetary form and in the form material assets funds."

In our opinion, considering property as income from a financial and legal perspective is not possible. Classifying the “income” category as a financial and legal category predetermines its monetary nature. We agree with the opinion of V. M. Rodionova about the illegality of classifying natural relationships as finance. The functioning of finance is possible only under certain conditions - real cash flow. “Money turnover forms the material basis of finance.”

As E. A. Voznesensky pointed out: “in other historical conditions, under the dominance of natural forms of economy, state income expressed a wider range of relations than finance, since the state formed its income mainly through the exploitation of its possessions (domain), as well as through natural taxes, fees that did not take a monetary form, and labor duties. All this is an expression of the dialectical development of the category of finance and the category of state income.

We believe that in this case there is a shift in emphasis due to the fact that from a civil standpoint the budget is viewed as an integral part of the treasury. Ownerless and confiscated property, in accordance with the rules established by the civil legislation of the Russian Federation, becomes the property of the municipality. Due to the fact that this property is not initially assigned to any institution or unitary enterprise, it goes to the treasury, which consists of property not assigned to state enterprises and institutions, and budget funds. It turns out that property enters the treasury as property that is not assigned to any legal entity, and monetary income from its sale or use can be considered as income from a financial and legal position when, in the process of distribution and redistribution, they go to budget funds Money.

It is also noteworthy that the tax legislation of the Russian Federation, despite the definition of income as a benefit not only in monetary but also in kind, stipulates that for tax purposes income is taken into account in monetary form. For example, Art. 211 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation provides that when a taxpayer - an individual receives income in kind - the tax base is determined as the cost of goods (work, services), other property, calculated on the basis of market prices. Clause 3 of Art. 274 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation establishes that tax income

payers - organizations for the purposes of corporate income tax are taken into account in cash.

In the financial and legal literature, attention is drawn to the fact that income belongs to the monetary category. Thus, P. M. Godme believes that public funds are funds intended for the implementation of government functions. E. Yu. Grachevoy, E. D. Sokolova state revenues are defined as various monetary resources received in the process of distribution and redistribution of part of the national income of society at the disposal (property) of the state and used by it to finance the needs arising in the implementation of its tasks and fulfillment corresponding functions.

Also, an important feature of finance is its distributive (redistributive) nature. The economic literature rightly notes that “financial funds are always already redistributed funds.” Finance arises and functions at a stage of the reproduction process at which the value of the social product is distributed among subjects, each of which must receive its share in the produced product. Initially, there is a primary distribution (separation of primary income - wages, profits, etc.), and then redistribution (clarification of the intended use by creating funds, allocation of the state's share when paying taxes, etc.) of national income. If the income of individuals arises already during the primary redistribution of national income, then the income of the state and other public entities is allocated through the redistribution of national income in order to satisfy public, collective needs. At the same time, there is no doubt that the income of any person

can be considered as part of national income. The main source of any income is national income, circulated in the process of its distribution and redistribution through various types of monetary receipts into the ownership and disposal of various persons. The distributive nature of finance predetermines that they “express the unilateral and gratuitous movement of value,” finance is of a non-equivalent nature. Scientists rightly note that finances are not intended to create counter-satisfaction; their movement is not in the nature of compensation. E. D. Sokolova, analyzing financial and commodity-money relations, reasonably points out that financial relations cannot be considered as a type of commodity-money relations “because they are not characterized by equivalent relationships between the participants.”

In relation to income, its distributional nature is also examined. Thus, E.V. Bushmin draws attention to the fact that the economic nature of state and municipal revenues lies in the fact that they represent part of the redistributed financial resources.

Another important characteristic of finance is that it is associated with the formation and use of funds of funds. “As a result of the functioning of finance, monetary funds are created, distributed and used to meet the various needs of society and the state.” E. A. Voznesensky considered this the “social purpose” of finance.

Many authors consider finance itself from the material side as funds of funds. I. I. Yanzhul noted that finance must be understood as “the totality of material resources necessary to meet the needs of states.” N.I. Khimicheva pointed out that in its material expression, finance represents the monetary funds of the state, its territorial divisions, enterprises, institutions, organizations, used for the needs of society and the development of production. Yu. A. Krokhina defines finance as the monetary funds of the state, state-territorial and municipal entities, enterprises, institutions, organizations, used to materially support the needs of society and the development of production.

The financial literature especially emphasizes that finances are those monetary relations that have a specific financial form of value movement associated with the formation and use of funds of monetary resources.

At the same time, opinions are increasingly expressed in the literature that finance is not always of a stock nature. V. M. Rodionova draws attention to the fact that the use of financial resources is carried out mainly through monetary funds (at the same time, the author cites the advantages of the fund form (close linkage of satisfaction with

needs with economic opportunities, ensuring the concentration of resources on the main directions of development of social reproduction, etc.), “although a non-stock form of their use is also possible.” An analysis of the views of this author shows that she views the non-stock form of finance as an exception to the general rule. In particular, the movement of finances in non-fund form is indicated, such as: payment and receipt of fines for violation of contracts, making share contributions by members of various associations, their participation in the distribution of profits, investing in shares, receiving dividends.

A more radical point of view is also expressed in the literature - about the absence of the stock nature of finance. In particular, E.V. Pokachalova considers it relevant to abolish the criterion of equity finance, confirming her judgment by the possibility of spending funds received from the debtor by a legal entity to pay off a debt without first being credited to its current account (in its funds), as well as using it in non-fund form of depreciation charges.

We believe that it is difficult to agree with this interpretation of finance. Thus, the first example given by E. V. Pokachalova confirms the absence of the stock nature of finance - the spending of funds received from the debtor by a legal entity to pay off a debt without first crediting it to its current account - is just a special case, an exception to the general rule, which makes it possible to facilitate interbank transactions. calculations. The same particular exception is offsets. We believe that it is methodologically incorrect to draw a conclusion based on the analysis of particular exceptional cases about the absence of a stock form of finance in general. After all, exceptions only confirm the rules.

It seems that in this case the criterion of equity is not completely violated. Let's turn to explanatory dictionaries in order to decide what

is referred to as a fund. So, according to Ozhegov’s dictionary, a fund is 1) funds allocated for a specific purpose; 2) resources, reserves of something. In Ushakov’s dictionary, a fund is defined as funds intended for some purpose. In financial literature, a fund is defined as a source of funds that has a certain order of formation and use. It turns out that the stock form of finance makes it possible to establish the procedure and goals for the accumulation and use of funds. In the above case, the funds that should have been accumulated in the appropriate fund are spent for the established purposes. Their non-enrollment in the fund is dictated, first of all, by the need to simplify the procedure and reduce settlement times, and does not violate the fundability of finances.

Moreover, similar rules are enshrined in the Book Code of the Russian Federation. For example, para. 3 p. 1 art. 93 3 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation stipulates that in case of failure to repay the provided budget loans on time, their balance is recovered through interbudgetary transfers, as well as through deductions from federal taxes and fees, taxes provided for by special tax regimes, subject to credit to the budget of the constituent entity of the Russian Federation . In this case, funds are also written off, bypassing the budget account of the regional budget, but the fund nature of the budget is not disputed by anyone.

The non-fund use of depreciation charges, on the contrary, in our opinion, leads to numerous violations. After all, the purpose of these deductions is to renew the fixed assets of legal entities, which is currently not being observed. Recovered depreciation charges are withdrawn and used by the owners of legal entities at their own discretion. Everywhere, as practice shows, this leads to deterioration of fixed assets and the impossibility of further activities, and can also lead to more catastrophic consequences. The most significant example is the accident at the Sayano-Shushenskaya hydroelectric power station. Despite the regular accrual and reimbursement of depreciation charges, the renewal of fixed assets and their repairs were not carried out. In this regard, we consider the opinion of M. M. Vinokurova fair that a depreciation fund should be created through depreciation charges, the purpose of which should be repair, modernization and replacement of fixed assets. Changes to the current legislation are necessary, including in terms of strengthening liability for the misuse of depreciation funds.

The above objections, in our opinion, prove that the main form of existence of finance is the stock form; it allows not only to establish, but also to control the targeted use of accumulated monetary resources. Use of finances in violation established rules outside the fund form entails a violation of the principle of using finances for predetermined purposes, which clearly shows the misuse of accrued depreciation charges. Moreover, the question arises whether the movement of monetary resources outside the stock form can generally be classified as financial relations, because if all finance is money, then not all money is finance. In our opinion, the movement of financial flows through funds allows us to distinguish financial relations from other monetary relations.

Considering the stock nature of finance, it should be noted that income, as a financial category, constitutes such an aspect of stock relations as the formation (accumulation) of monetary funds, which is what most scientists pay attention to. That is, from an economic point of view, income represents social relations that arise in the process of accumulation (formation) of funds of funds, and in material terms, income represents funds entering the fund.

It is also necessary to pay attention to other financial characteristics.

First of all, judgments about the relationship between finance and the state are of interest. A number of authors point out the connection between finance and the existence of the state. E. A. Voznesensky emphasized that financial relations are imperative, state-imperious in nature. N.I. Khimicheva pointed out the connection between the functioning of finance and the existence of the state. According to M.V. Karaseva, financial relations do not exist on their own, “being conditioned by the fact of the existence of the state, they manifest themselves only in the forms determined by the state.” Yu. A. Krokhina highlights the mandatory participation of the state in them as a distinctive feature of financial relations. Yu. L. Smirnikova points out the duality of the relationship between law and finance, financial relations are the sphere of legal influence, at the same time, the implementation of the purpose of finance is impossible without financial and legal regulation.

M. V. Romanovsky and B. M. Sabanti, emphasizing that “finance is generated and regulated by the state,” when conducting a retrospective analysis, come to the conclusion that finance arose as state finance and already with the development of corporate forms of capital, the emergence of institutions involved in the accumulation and the redistribution of free funds, “the term finance has gone beyond its narrow understanding.”

A.I. Khudyakov considered the category of finance as exclusively state; in his opinion, “finance can only be those funds that have state uniform property."

E.D. Sokolova does not recognize finance as an attribute of the state. In her opinion, finance is an economic category that is manifested and not created by the state, although the forms of manifestation of finance bear the imprints of specific historical, socio-economic, and political conditions for the development of the corresponding society.

In our opinion, it is not entirely correct to consider finance only as state finance. We believe that the indication of the emergence of finance as a state and only then its expansion may be true regarding the subject of research of financial science, but not an objectively existing category. Yes, the socio-economic and political conditions of the development of society, the state structure leave an imprint on the forms and conditions of existence of financial relations. At the same time, if we consider finance as a reproduction category, consisting in the gratuitous one-way movement of cash flows, then it is necessary to take into account the objectively existing laws and patterns of the reproduction process. The reproduction process is objective; it is difficult to assume the presence of secondary redistribution without the primary allocation of the share of each participant. Both during the distribution and redistribution of national income, financial instruments are used, funds of funds are created and used for their intended purpose.

But, at the same time, it is necessary to take into account that financial relations do not exist outside the legal field. Once regulated by law, they turn into financial legal relations. According to the fair remark of S. D. Tsypkin, the practical implementation of relations in the field of income is unthinkable without appropriate legal registration; The state, through regulatory legal acts, establishes a system of payments, their form, methods, amounts, terms and collection procedures.

Along with this, we believe it is necessary to pay attention to such a characteristic of finance as its limitations (scarcity). Economists view finance as limited (scarce) resources, since the subject plans its income under conditions of uncertainty in its receipt and distribution. “In any given year, limited resources are available to meet seemingly limitless needs.” Limited financial resources give rise to the problem of choice, i.e. their effective accumulation and distribution in the context of many alternative options to meet cash needs. The receipt of income and the formation of expenses, as a rule, do not coincide in time. Moreover, income and expenses cannot be accurately determined either by the decision maker or by anyone else, since they are predictive and probable in nature, both for the state and for the business entity.

The limitations (scarcity) of finance are also addressed in the legal literature. Already in the 19th century, scientists studied the limitations of income compared to government expenditures. V. A. Lebedev wrote that “needs are endless, but funds are limited.”

M.I. Piskotin said that “government spending is growing faster than national income.” O. N. Gorbunova indicates that the state calculates “the expected amount and volume of income that should go to the budget, and the expected expenses for the coming period.” A.D. Selyukov draws attention to possible contradictions “between different levels of government regarding the distribution of limited financial resources.”

Limited finances predetermined research on the need for economical tax collection. The English economist A. Smith expressed the idea that taxes should be structured in such a way as to extract as little as possible from the payer’s pocket beyond what goes into the state treasury. Currently, the principle of tax efficiency is traditionally highlighted in the scientific legal literature, which indicates recognition of the limited (scarce) nature of tax revenues and the need to save resources of individuals when collecting them.

The research carried out in this paragraph allows us to come to the following conclusions. First of all, it is necessary to highlight the essential features inherent in income as a financial and legal category. In our opinion, these should include:

1) . Money character. Income is accumulated in monetary form, and, as a rule, non-cash.

2) . Distributive (redistributive) nature. Being a reproduction category, income exists at the stage of distribution and redistribution. With the help of financial instruments, national income is distributed and redistributed, and the income of persons participating in the reproduction process is allocated. The distributive nature of relations presupposes their non-equivalence.

The distributive nature of income is manifested in the fact that they arise at the stage of formation of monetary funds, that is, they must include only those social relations that arise in the process of forming monetary funds.

3) . Intended use. The fund form of finance predetermines the intended use of income (financing specific tasks and functions facing the entity).

4) . Receipt at the disposal of a person.

It is especially worth mentioning that in the financial and legal literature, as a rule, such a characteristic of income is indicated as receipt not at the disposal, but in the property of a person. In our opinion, the use of the term disposal in relation to income is more correct. We believe that the following aspects need to be taken into account.

First of all, since finance, as a rule, exists in a non-cash form, it is necessary to take into account civilistic views on the legal nature of non-cash money. This issue is debatable, primarily due to the lack of a “materialized” form of non-cash money and its existence in the form of an account entry.

Thus, E.R. Denisov considers non-cash money as information about value, located on various rights at the disposal of individuals and legal entities, expressed in monetary units, and recorded in the form of an entry in the accounts of the corresponding credit institutions. Currently, there are two approaches to determining the legal nature of non-cash funds - the law of obligations and the law of property. Despite the consideration of the proprietary nature of non-cash money, which is confirmed by the presence of the possibility of protecting the account owner with the help of an absolute claim, consideration of the enterprise as a property complex, although it also includes funds in the accounts, it is generally accepted that non-cash money is classified as an object of the law of obligations in the form of rights requirements, which are reflected in the current civil and banking legislation, and must be taken into account when determining income.

In addition, in relation to the state (local government), it is not entirely correct to talk about the receipt of income in property. Budgets as funds of funds are the property of the state (municipality), and income on their behalf is managed by the relevant state authorities (local government).

Moreover, taking into account the sign of the intended use of the created funds of funds, it is necessary to take into account that the sign of ownership does not always predetermine the use of funds in the interests of only the owner. The current complication of the financial activities of the state, its decentralization, has led to the emergence of public funds of funds that are relatively new to the Russian legal system, used by the state to satisfy the general interest (deposit insurance agency fund, non-state pension funds, etc.). In addition, it is necessary to take into account the possible use of private funds for public purposes. Thus, the President of the Russian Federation V.V. Putin has repeatedly spoken out about the possibility of involving in the decision social tasks states of various private entities. In particular, in one of his speeches V.V. Putin noted that part of the work in the social sphere can be transferred to the sphere of activity of non-profit organizations; it is necessary to strive to transfer, say, some functions of the state in social life to the level of non-profit associations of entrepreneurs sphere.

5) . Irreversibility and gratuitousness. In our opinion, only those funds that go to the fund “for good” and do not entail additional counter-expenses can be recognized as income in the strict sense of the word.

Pre-revolutionary scientists already drew attention to this sign of income. Thus, E. N. Behrendts pointed out that it is necessary to recognize as income material resources that should go to the treasury irrevocably, as well as free of charge, and not borrowed. Modern economists also point out that loans do not represent state income, since they must be repaid to creditors.

At the same time, some scientists classify chargebacks as income. In particular, A.R. Batyaeva, justifying her opinion on the recognition of return payments as income, points out that “the acquirer of securities, transferring their value to the seller, acquires the right to claim on them. One type of property replaces another... Return occurs through the transfer of other property.” . We believe that it is difficult to agree with such an interpretation; in this case, the author only emphasizes distinguishing feature of all financial relations - their non-equivalence, i.e. the absence of reciprocity here and now, but the presence of a temporary gap. However, such payments have significant differences from income. If, when planning and receiving income, the fund proceeds from the need to cover certain needs facing the fund (social, pension, etc.), then when planning and receiving a loan, its temporary nature and the need to repay it are taken into account (and, as a rule, with interest on the amount principal debt) within the terms established by the contract. Due to the fact that such payments are received into the fund “temporarily” and entail additional (albeit delayed expenses), we believe that it is unjustified to consider them as income.

It should be noted that the sign of gratuitousness and irrevocability in relation to income is taken into account by the current financial legislation of the Russian Federation. Thus, the legislation of the Russian Federation on taxes and fees, as a rule, does not recognize funds received on a repayable basis as income. In particular, Art. 217 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation provides that the borrower’s income in the form of the amount of debt under the loan agreement is not subject to personal income tax. In accordance with Art. 251 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, when determining the tax base for corporate income tax, income in the form of funds or other property received under credit or loan agreements is not taken into account. The budget legislation of the Russian Federation distinguishes between budget revenues and funds that are sources of financing the budget deficit; borrowed funds are classified as the latter and are not recognized as income.

We agree with A.G. Paul that the irrevocability of income to budgets is manifested in the fact that when establishing income, the need for their return is not provided for or assumed. Moreover, in his opinion, the sign of irrevocability of budget revenues does not conflict with the possibility of their compensation (return) in case of excessive payment, since such a return is carried out not due to a previously established obligation of the state (municipal entity), but due to the fact that there was a certain mistake was made when they arrived.

In this regard, we will consider only gratuitous and non-refundable payments as income. We believe that it is impossible to put an equal sign between income as a payment, which has a number of characteristics, and the income part of the fund. The income part of the fund can be formed both from gratuitous and irrevocable payments of various persons (income), and from borrowed funds, the compensated and repayable nature of which requires separate special consideration.

Realizing the impossibility of giving a universal definition of income that would satisfy all researchers, we believe that the identified essential features of income make it possible, in the most general form, to determine income from a financial and legal position. In our opinion, like finance, income must be considered in various aspects. In material terms, income can be defined as scarce funds received in the process of distribution (redistribution) of national income free of charge and irrevocably into various monetary funds. From a financial and legal point of view, income represents distributive economic relations regulated by the norms of financial law that arise in the process of forming various funds of funds.

The state's fulfillment of its tasks and functions requires the provision of financial resources. Therefore, part of the country’s national income is placed at the disposal of the state in the form of various cash payments and receipts. As a result, the state has its own, i.e. government revenues. State revenues are the property of the Federation and its constituent entities (municipal revenues). They are administered by the relevant state authorities and local governments.

Income is a complex economic category that operates in close interaction with finance. Income is nothing more than the result of production, commercial, intermediary, and other purposeful activities that arise at the stage of distribution of the newly created product and services.

State revenues are understood as a system of economic relations, in the process of which a set of funds is formed that comes into the ownership of the state to create the material basis for its functioning. The leading place in the composition of state revenues is occupied by state budget revenues, through which the main socio-economic problems of the country are solved.

State revenues are part of the country’s national income, circulated in the process of its distribution and redistribution through various types of monetary receipts into the ownership and disposal of the state in order to create a financial base for fulfilling its tasks in implementing socio-economic policy, ensuring the defense and security of the country, as well as necessary for the functioning of government authorities.

State revenues, as an economic category, are economic (monetary) relations associated with the formation of centralized funds of funds. State revenues are credited to various state monetary funds - to budgets of different levels, off-budget state funds. Figure 1 shows the components of state revenues of the Russian Federation and their purpose.

Rice. 1

Municipal revenues are also part of the national income and serve to create the financial basis of local self-government and are used to resolve issues of local importance based on the interests of the population of the relevant territory. Municipal revenues go, accordingly, to municipal monetary funds - local budgets and extra-budgetary funds. Part of the income remains at the disposal of state or municipal enterprises. You can also give the following definition to municipal revenues - these are funds credited in accordance with the law to the budgets of the municipality.

In the Russian Federation, the system of state and municipal revenues is based on the principle of unity. The essence of this principle is that at the legislative level of the Russian Federation the main types of state and municipal revenues are determined, and the principles of their distribution between the subjects of the country and municipalities are also determined. The unified state revenue system is usually classified according to various criteria. Thus, the basis for the classification of state revenues can include features that most reflect the essential features of state and municipal revenues. The classification looks like this:

• 1. Based on socio-economic characteristics, the following types of government revenues are distinguished:
  • - from the state or municipal economy, generated mainly as a result of the production activities of state or municipal enterprises, as well as from the use of property and natural resources of the state or municipalities (for example, forests, reservoirs, from the privatization of state and municipal property);
  • - from enterprises and organizations of non-state forms of ownership (taxes, fees, other payments);
  • - from joint ventures, foreign enterprises and organizations operating in the Russian Federation;
  • - from the personal income of citizens.
• 2. by territorial basis, income can be:
  • - federal revenues;
  • - income of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation (regional income);
  • - local incomes (incomes of municipalities).
• 3. depending on the legal form of receipt, income can be:
  • - tax revenues;
  • - non-tax revenues;
  • - gratuitous receipts.

The composition of government revenues is largely determined by the methods by which the state accumulates the funds it needs. The main source of government revenue is GDP, as well as receipts from external economic activity and national income. But in exceptional cases, previously accumulated national wealth may serve as a source of government revenue. The accumulation of state revenues in this case is carried out through the use of carryover balances of budget funds allocated to cover expenses, sale of gold reserves, paid privatization of state property, etc.

All sources of government revenue can be divided into two groups: internal and external. Internal income includes national income and national wealth, which is created within the country and used by the state to perform its direct functions; and external sources of income include national income, or the national wealth of another country, if they are borrowed in the form of government loans.

The totality of all types of government revenues represents the government revenue system. This system reflects the structure functional system public finance and schematically has the following form:

State revenues = state budget revenues + loans attracted by the state and loans placed + budget revenues of extra-budgetary funds.

So, let's consider the main methods of generating government revenues. In a market economy, the main methods of mobilizing government revenues are taxes in various forms ah, non-tax methods, as well as government loans and emissions.

Preferred are tax methods of generating government revenues or tax revenues of the budget. Tax income includes income from taxes and fees that are provided for by the legislation of the Russian Federation, including taxes provided for by special tax regimes, regional and local taxes, as well as penalties and fines on them. These are mandatory, gratuitous, non-refundable payments to the budget. Through tax payments, funds are mobilized at the disposal of public authorities. Taxes are divided into direct, which are paid directly by the taxpayer, and indirect, paid by the consumer of goods and services, since they are included in the price of these goods and services.

In accordance with the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, income (Article 13) credited to the federal budget and considered state tax revenue includes:

• - value added tax (VAT);
• - excise tax;
• - personal income tax (NDFL);
• - corporate income tax;
• - mineral extraction tax;
• - water tax and fees for the use of wildlife;
• - National tax.

Tax revenues are also the main method of generating municipal revenues. To taxes of regional and local significance, which are credited to the local budget in accordance with Art. 14 and Art. 15 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation include: property tax of organizations, gambling tax, transport tax, land tax, property tax of individuals and trade tax.

In addition to tax revenues, the state or municipality may also have other sources of income that are associated with its participation in one way or another in market activities, i.e. non-tax methods of generating state and municipal revenues.

Non-tax revenues play an important role in the formation of state revenues. They differ from taxes in the peculiarities of the forms of payments and methods of attracting them to the disposal of the state, the content of the rights and obligations of payers, on the one hand, and public authorities, on the other.

Non-tax revenues of the state are income received at their disposal from the use of state and municipal property and the activities of state authorities and local self-government, payments of an equivalent and punitive nature, as well as funds raised on a voluntary basis.

Non-tax payments of a mandatory nature, unlike taxes, are characterized by a certain remuneration, since their collection is conditioned by granting the payer the right to carry out any activity (license fees), receive legally significant services (registration fees), to use state or municipal property (rent) and etc. Therefore, payers have the right to demand that state or municipal bodies perform actions, provide services, etc. related to this payment. Moreover, such payments may have a specific purpose, i.e. be spent on the object for the use of which they were paid (payments for the use of natural resources).

Non-tax income in accordance with the Budget Code of the Russian Federation includes the following income:

• - income from the use of property in state or municipal ownership;
• - income from the sale of property (except for shares and other forms of participation in capital, state reserves of precious metals and precious stones), located in state or municipal property;
• - income from paid services provided by government institutions;
• - funds received as a result of the application of measures of civil, administrative and criminal liability, including fines, confiscations, compensation, as well as funds received in compensation for damage caused to the Russian Federation, constituent entities of the Russian Federation, municipalities, and other amounts of forced seizures;
• - other non-tax income.

It is also important to note that gratuitous receipts can take part in the formation of state and municipal revenues, namely: grants, subsidies and subventions from other budgets, interbudgetary transfers, gratuitous receipts from individuals and legal entities, international organizations and foreign governments, including including voluntary donations.

It was also noted above that another method of generating state and municipal revenues is state and municipal loans. Let us define a state (municipal) loan - this is a monetary relationship that arises between the state (municipal entity) and legal entities and individuals in connection with the mobilization of temporarily available funds at the disposal of the state (municipal entity) from legal entities and individuals, international financial organizations. It is carried out by issuing and placing securities, obtaining loans from specialized financial and credit institutions and foreign states. Loans are used in various parts of public finance: the federal and municipal budgets; when forming extra-budgetary funds; as part of attracted funds from state enterprises. They are widely used to cover budget deficits, not only at the federal level, but also at the local level, and the functioning of the financial market allows them to be used to cover the expenses of state enterprises.

Another method of generating government revenue is emission, not only paper money, but also credit. The state resorts to issuing only if tax and loan revenues do not cover growing government expenses, and a situation develops in the financial market that is unfavorable for issuing new loans. Paper money and credit issues, if they are not related to the needs of economic turnover, but are caused by the need to cover the budget deficit, lead to increased inflationary processes in the economy. Therefore, countries with a developed market economy usually tend not to resort to credit issuance, replacing it with the issuance of loans.

The functioning of the state throughout the history of its existence as an integral system was determined mainly by its economic (profit) potential. At the macroeconomic level, the system of functioning of financial relations is directly related to the processes of mobilizing financial resources at the disposal of the state and their use to solve problems of national importance. The state's ability to provide public goods and redistribute depends on the income at its disposal.

In the financial history of Russia, the formation of state revenues occurred not only through monetary collections, but also through the delivery of natural products and through the performance of various labor duties. At the same time, collections from the population in cash were not the main ones; money was raised in cases where it was not possible to directly attract the required natural products or the forces of the population to form national resources or perform specific work. In this case, the money served as an account for the total volume of collections.

IN modern Russia centralized methods of regulating methods of generating income and using expenses predominate,

because the:

· financial (budgetary, tax) legislation is largely regulated at the federal level;

· in the sphere of interbudgetary relations, the mechanism of regulatory (temporary) revenues dominates in comparison with assigned or own tax powers that operate on a permanent basis;

· Federal taxes predominate in the structure of the consolidated budget, which provokes the use of vertical methods of financial equalization.

Budget revenues at the federal and regional levels have some features:

· they form part of government revenues;

· legal regulation of budget revenues of the region occurs within a certain time frame (fiscal year);

· income does not have a special purpose, i.e. binding to the expense item.

The concept of "income"

Different subjects of economic (market) relations have different goals in their activities, so for commercial organizations the result of their activities should be making a profit, and for the state - providing public goods to the population.

General for the state, as well as for organizations when implementing their own activities, is to obtain a certain benefits(material or intangible nature) exceeding the costs that were incurred. In cases where social activities wears economic character, i.e. updated and implemented rational, subjects receive benefits in the form income, if we consider its material aspect.

From the standpoint of economic theory under "income» one should understand the totality of money and material wealth that a person, family, social group, the population as a whole or another market entity during a certain period of time. Income is considered a means of consumer satisfaction and a reward for contribution to production. Income can be in the form of money, incentives, or personal moral and spiritual satisfaction in the implementation of any activity. Back in the 18th century. A. Smith wrote that in its true form the price of a product consists of three parts, each of which represents someone's income.

The concept of “income” should be distinguished from such concepts as: "profit"; "wealth"; "capital".

- Profitrepresents the difference between income received from the sale of factors of production, from sales and non-sales activities. Profit is earned if the monetary amount of net assets at the end of the period exceeds the monetary amount of net assets at the beginning of the period after deducting all distributions and contributions from owners during the period.

- To wealth This includes everything that has a market value and can be sold for money or exchanged for other goods. Wealth can be represented in tangible form, in the form of paper assets, as well as in a person's personal abilities (intangible wealth).

Under the concept "capital" You can understand both money and wealth in money. In economic theory, “capital” is one of the factors of production, represented by means of production created by human labor and intended for productive consumption. Capital is a stock (wealth) and income and profit are flows (wealth services). Capital in all its manifestations is real wealth, having either material or monetary form. Any form of capital brings interest income.

The commonality between the concepts under consideration can be expressed by the definition of the classic A. Smith: income is the return on capital.

In macroeconomics, “income” is one of the sides of the gross national product (GNP) - as a flow of monetary and natural costs and receipts in National economy resources of individuals and legal entities, incl. and their gross (total) revenue from the sale of goods, performance of work and provision of services.

Any type of economic income is derived from the use of a specific factor of production.

According to the theory of imputation, each factor of production is imputed to the corresponding type of income. For example, the income received by an employee as the owner of labor (factor of production) is wages with various additional payments; as well as income received by the owners of capital, land, information, and entrepreneurial abilities as factors of production.

National income is the sum of primary incomes: wages (R), profit on capital (P), land rent (L). Finance comes forward link between the creation and use of national income. (R; P; L) are primary incomes, any other type of income is secondary, it can only stem from these three together or separately.

According to A. Smith, the result of the people’s work for a given year should be such that it is possible to reimburse the costs of maintaining the country’s fixed and working capital. Only if the total product of the country's labor allows such compensation to be made, all that remains beyond this constitutes the national income. The total product is called the country's gross income, and the rest is its net income. Exactly net income, when all expenses for maintaining fixed and working capital have already been made, it remains for the inhabitants of the country for their direct consumption: for expenses on food, clothing, housing, all kinds of amenities and pleasures. The true measure of a people's wealth is net income, not gross income. The first economist who created the concept of national income and introduced it into scientific circulation, and also noted the division of the total (gross) product into three parts: cost recovery, wages and net income, was William Petty.

State revenues as a legal category are defined as various monetary resources received in the process of distribution and redistribution of part of the national income of society at the disposal (property) of the state and used by it to finance the needs that arise in the implementation of its tasks and the performance of relevant functions.

Government revenues as an economic category represent a part of financial relations (a system of monetary relations) associated with the formation of monetary and material resources at the disposal of the state. State revenues constitute the financial basis of the state’s activities.

It is necessary to distinguish between the concepts " State revenues" and "D" state budget revenues", which are not equivalent. State revenues unite a broader group of relations, since state revenues, in addition to state budget revenues, include the income of state enterprises and the resources of state extra-budgetary funds.

In the theory of financial law, a provision has been developed according to which all state revenues (according to the order of formation and use) are divided into centralized And decentralized.:

1) Financial resources accumulated by the state are called centralized and are formed from tax revenues and non-tax revenues, for example, income from foreign economic activity, state property, customs duties, etc., as well as payments from the population.

2) The resources remaining at the disposal of state enterprises are called decentralized income and are formed from cash income and savings of the enterprises themselves.

The division of state revenues into centralized and decentralized shows the relationship between the sources of satisfying national and collective needs.

The object of distribution to the state. enterprises are profit and depreciation. Tax payments, fees, duties can be considered as an object of budgetary relations; The object of state credit relations is the temporarily free financial resources of legal entities and individuals. When the newly created value is not enough to cover financial needs, for example during the economic period. crisis, wars, etc., the state turns to another source - national wealth. This will mean the sale of certain types of state property: gold reserves, state enterprises, other types of property, which leads to a reduction in material assets owned by the state - a decrease in gold and foreign exchange reserves, capital investments abroad, etc.

All sources of income are divided into two groups:internal and external.

To internal- include ND and national. wealth created within the country and used by the state to carry out its functions; to external - ND of another country, borrowed in the form of external loans, and in exceptional cases - national wealth. The use of national wealth as a source of income for another country often has the nature of financial robbery.

In all countries, regardless of their socio-economic structure and political orientation, the main source of government revenue is ND, those. state revenues express the relations of distribution and redistribution of income, which are carried out by financial methods inherent in the state.

State revenues are generated through various methods, which ultimately determine their composition.

Even in the Middle Ages, seven main sources of state income were pointed out: domains; spoils of war; gifts from friendly states; fees from allies; income from trade; export and import duties; tribute from conquered peoples.

In modern conditions, the nature of state income is changing and in a market economy, the main methods used by government authorities to redistribute national income and mobilize state revenues are taxes (in their various forms), loans and emissions. The relationship between these methods varies in different historical periods and is determined by many factors:

economic conditions,

· specific economic and social situation,

· the degree of severity of emerging social contradictions, etc.

In economic theory there are four main macroeconomic entities a, these are: households; firms (business sector); state; abroad (foreign sector). The expenditure of one economic entity becomes the income of another, and vice versa.

Firms bear expenses in the resource market and in the form of taxes paid to the state, while receiving investment funds from financial markets and income from the product market, as well as income in the form of subsidies from the state.

Households receive income from providing factors of production to the resource market and savings to financial markets, while incurring costs in the form of consumption costs in the product market, paying taxes and other obligatory payments, receiving transfers from the state.

Foreign sector receives income through exports to the market of products and net inflows from the financial markets of another state.

State through government loans, it receives income in financial markets and in the form of taxes from households and firms.

In a market economy, the expenses of some economic (market) entities are transferred to others in the form of income, and thus a relationship is established between all entities.

Households and firms act as subjects in the market of production factors. When selling the main factors of production used by the company, households also receive income in the amount of (D), from which they pay taxes to the state in the amount of (T). Disposable income (DR = D -T) is divided into consumption (C) and savings (S). income of the population, they consist of wages, pensions, benefits and scholarships: DD t = (W t - T t) + Z,

The household budget has the form: y = C + T + S.

Household income belongs to the category of income of the personal sector of the economy, which also includes income of non-corporate private businesses (private business sector).

The gross income of households (individuals) for a financial year is the sum of earned and received income from property (non-corporate business sector of the economy), which includes: payments from all sources and places of their work.

The basis for the formation of total personal income of economic activity is GNP at the distribution stage.

The main components of the population's income are the income of hired workers, business income, income from the use and sale of property, all types and forms of social assistance and support, as well as illegal cash income.

Firms, using factors of production acquired from households, based on their own entrepreneurship, create certain values ​​(value) and sell them at the market rate, and receive income from the sale (D).

The total income of a company (legal entity) for a financial year consists of the amount of income earned and received from property, this is: proceeds from the sale of goods, works and services, proceeds from the sale of capital property, securities, patents and licenses, dividends and interest on securities other issuers, loans provided, deposits, etc., rental payments on leased property.

The income of firms can be presented as follows:

DF t = V t - (Mz t + W t (1 + S) + A t) = (V t - C t) - T t = P t - T t,

Profit is the main form of cash accumulation of enterprises. Profit is the most important source of expansion and modernization of fixed assets (F) of enterprises, and an increase in their own working capital. Factors of profit growth are an increase in the volume of product sales, a decrease in its cost; profit margins are affected by changes in prices for raw materials, materials, fuel and other types of production costs.

Through taxes and fees paid to the state, households and firms, as well as in the process of providing social transfers and loans by the state, etc., financial and budgetary relations arise between economic entities. At the same time, the redistribution policy pursued by the state puts households in a more powerless position compared to legal entities, such as corporations. This happens mainly by giving firms tax advantages that are denied to families.

A distinctive feature of the state from other market entities in matters of budget organization is that the state plans expenses first, and then income. Unlike other economic entities, the state rarely thinks about the amount of income. If households and firms produce goods to generate income, then the state has a monopoly on the right to impose taxes and produce a unique product - money.

Classification of government revenues

The income coming to the disposal (property) of the state is very diverse. For their classifications use various criteria. When classifying income according to socio-economic criteria, the basis is the presence of various forms of ownership: state, municipal, private.

On a territorial basis, state centralized revenues are divided into federal and revenues of the constituent entities of the Federation. According to the form of mobilization of government revenues, they can be divided into mandatory And voluntary. In turn, government revenues received on a mandatory basis are divided into taxes and non-tax payments.