Jus strictum

Despite the widespread use of factoring in commercial practice, legal uncertainty in the qualification of its contractual nature remains, which leads to contradictions in judicial practice and tax risks. This institution, being widespread and much needed in business practice, raises many questions in terms of its legal regulation, which directly affects the correctness of tax consequences for the parties to the transaction. The main difficulty lies in the need to distinguish between contractual factoring relations and related legal institutions, such as a loan, purchase and sale, and lending. Incorrect qualification of the contract can lead to legal uncertainty, violation of the rights of the parties and significant tax risks. The purpose of the study is to identify the key problems of distinguishing factoring from related institutions (cession, loan, credit) and to propose ways to unify approaches to its taxation. Particular attention is paid to the dual nature of the factoring agreement, which is at the junction of civil and tax law. Since factoring is associated with the assignment of monetary claims, the issue of taxation of income received by the factor, as well as of accounting for losses incurred by the client from the assignment, is raised. Key aspects are highlighted, such as problems of determining the object of taxation, features of VAT application, and the procedure for recognizing income and expenses. The influence of tax consequences on the choice of the structure of a factoring transaction is comprehensively assessed. It is found that the definition of a factoring agreement presented in the Civil Code of the Russian Federation does not fully reflect the specifics and essence of this obligation. Moreover, tax legislation lacks clear rules governing the tax consequences of transactions related to a factoring agreement. This creates significant uncertainty for participants in economic activity. The authors concluded on the necessity of amendment of the Civil and Tax Codes of the Russian Federation.

Criminal procedure terminology is a verbal expression of all legislative provisions, all author’s thoughts related to the interpretation of the law, discussion of law enforcement and human rights practice, it is the subject and content of all criminal procedure scientific discussions. The legal content of all criminal procedure terms is inherent in its verbal form. Both should adequately reflect the author’s thoughts, correspond to each other, be suitable for perception and correct understanding by at least a professional reading audience. The author of the paper uses specific examples from scientific works and publicly available dictionaries of the Russian language to show that for the correct expression and understanding of the author’s criminal procedure texts, both their excessive simplification by introducing professional jargon and other colloquial elements and intentional, clearly excessive complication of the author’s texts with scientific, mainly foreign-language terminology, sometimes with a distortion of its actual meaning, are equally harmful. Using deliberately complex linguistic constructions overloaded with terms that are far from the texts of laws and law enforcement practice to express the author’s criminal procedure thought is, according to the authors, usually aimed at giving their texts individuality and signs of some intellectual elitism. However, in reality this turns out to be the exact opposite – stylistic pretentiousness and verbiage, which complicate the perception of what is written by a professional reading audience and can do harm to the scientific reputation of the author.