Petrin Sergey Alekseevich Petrin Sergey Alekseevich Deniskin Alexey Vitalievich. Rostec United Corporate Hockey League (Rostec-okhl) Petrin Rostec

The first vice-mayor of Voronezh worked in the district government as deputy head together with his wife. The Law on Municipal Service prohibits relatives from being subordinate to each other.

At the September meeting, deputies of the Voronezh City Duma will consider the candidacy of Sergei Petrin for approval as the first deputy head of the Voronezh administration. Now Mr. Petrin is acting as vice-mayor. However, the appointment of an official may be hindered by his past. When Sergei Petrin worked as the first deputy head of the Central District Administration of Voronezh, his wife worked in the district administration in a municipal position. And this may mean a conflict of interest.

Sergei Petrin, according to his biography posted on the website of the Voronezh City Hall, came to work at the Central District Administration in 2011. He took the post of first deputy head for housing and communal services, economic development and entrepreneurship. Later, Zoya Petrina, Mr. Petrina’s wife, was hired by the district government. She became a leading specialist in the legal department of the district administration. According to the structure, there was no direct subordination between them. Zoya Petrina reported to the chief of staff, Inna Sheina.

However, there is one caveat. During the absence of the head of the district, Alexander Popov, Sergei Petrin sometimes performed his duties. This means that he had the right to appoint, dismiss or transfer people from one position to another or give them instructions.

— A citizen cannot be hired for municipal service, and a municipal employee cannot be in municipal service in the case of: 5) close kinship or affinity (parents, spouses, children, brothers, sisters, as well as brothers, sisters, parents, children of spouses and children's spouses) with head municipality, who heads the local administration, if the filling of a municipal service position is related to the direct subordination or control of this official, or with a municipal employee, if the filling of a municipal service position is related to the direct subordination or control of one of them to the other - Federal Law of March 2, 2007 N 25-FZ “On municipal service in Russian Federation", according to paragraph 5 of part 1 of article 13 of this law.

“The head of the district administration and deputy heads are appointed by the mayor of the city,” says our publication’s interlocutor in the city government. — The remaining employees are confirmed in their positions by the head of the council.

Which of the Petrins violated the law and whether they violated it, the prosecutor’s office can, if desired, find out. Our interlocutor believes that if Sergei Petrin acted as the head of the district, then his wife could be transferred to another position. Or Mr. Petrin had to somehow evade his duties in leading the district.

There is something else curious about this story. In 2017, Sergei Petrin was transferred to the post of acting Head of the Housing and Communal Services Department, and then became acting. First Vice-Mayor of Voronezh. By coincidence, his wife left the district administration. She became the manager kindergarten No. 21 on Lomonosov Street. On the site preschool Ms. Petrina does not have any data on the availability of pedagogical education, completion of retraining courses, or information on the availability of a qualification category. Therefore, it is not very clear how a person, if he does not have the appropriate experience and experience, was appointed to the post of head of a kindergarten? Or is there an error on his website, and the former official still took the course?

— A person with a higher education degree is appointed to the position of head of a preschool educational institution. professional education in the areas of training “State and municipal administration”, “Management”, “Personnel management” and work experience in teaching positions of at least 5 years, or having higher professional education and additional professional training in the field of state and municipal administration or management and economics and experience work in teaching or leadership positions for at least 5 years, and having passed the appropriate certification - from the job description of the head of a preschool educational institution.

The founder of the preschool institution is the Voronezh Education Department. It is headed by Lyubov Kulakova, and her curator is Deputy Mayor Nadezhda Savitskaya. Sergei Petrin acts as first deputy head of the administration. What happens that his wife was assigned to a kindergarten without proper education?

Many agricultural organizations do not have enough funds to pay off the budget. In this case, the state meets enterprises halfway and softens the conditions for paying off debts, guided by Federal Law No. 83-FZ of July 9, 2002 “On the financial recovery of agricultural producers.” We asked Sergei Alekseevich Petrin, consultant of the Tax Debt Department of the Federal Tax Service of the Russian Federation, to tell us more about the restructuring mechanism.

- Sergey Alekseevich, what does restructuring give to agricultural organizations? - Agricultural organizations have the opportunity to finally pay off their debt to the budget. We can say that with debt restructuring they receive a kind of loan from the state.

- Can any debt be restructured?

It is impossible to restructure debt on contributions for the payment of the insurance and funded part of the labor pension, as well as debts on personal income tax.

All other debts to the budget are being restructured.

Moreover, in the amount that was formed as of the 1st day of the month of filing the application.

- Is it possible to restructure debt for penalties and fines?

Yes, you can. As the principal debt is repaid, penalties and fines will be automatically written off from the organization.

- What if an organization has debts on penalties and fines, but no tax debts?

This also happens.

In this case, you need to fill out the application in the general manner, and instead of the amount of the principal debt, indicate “zero rubles.”

Moreover, the organization will not have to pay off the debt on penalties and fines - the state will forgive this debt.

Is it possible to exercise the right to restructuring a second time? After all, many enterprises have already restructured their debts in accordance with Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of June 8, 2001 No. 458.

Yes, you can. Secondary restructuring is prohibited only within the framework of one financial recovery program.

We believe that this material will be of interest to many of our readers. Tell us, are there any special requirements for agricultural organizations that decide to restructure their debt?

Yes, I have. For example, there should not be a bankruptcy case filed.

In addition, within a month before making a decision on restructuring, the organization must pay all current taxes, fines and penalties to the budget. And of course, that's all Required documents for restructuring must be properly completed.

- So there are requirements for paperwork?

Certainly. The organization must draw up an application for restructuring, submit a plan for improving its financial condition, notarized copies of constituent documents and registration certificates, various tax certificates, a balance sheet with attachments and other documents.

They must be completed in accordance with the requirements established by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of January 30, 2003 No. 52. Thus, an application for restructuring should not contradict the organization’s charter. And the plan for improving the financial condition should include activities that will truly have a positive impact on the state of the organization.

- Sergey Alekseevich, let’s assume that the company has prepared all the necessary documents. What are the next steps?

Documents must be submitted to the commission for the financial recovery of agricultural producers, which is located in the region where the enterprise is registered.

- When can this be done?

Anytime. The deadline for filing an application for restructuring is not limited by law.

- How long does it take for the commission to make a decision?

The commission has 2 months to check and review the documents.

After this, it either refuses to restructure the organization or includes it in the financial recovery program. There is also a third option - the commission invites the organization to fulfill certain conditions and only after that grants it the right to restructure.

- How does the commission determine the terms of restructuring?

A special technique has been developed for this. At the beginning, the commission calculates indicators of the debtor’s financial condition. In particular, it determines the ratios of liquidity, financial independence and equity. Then he checks them against the basic indicators of restructuring 3. And based on the results obtained, he makes a decision.

- Can our readers make such calculations on their own?

Yes, sure. The calculation methodology is given in Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 52, and the basic conditions for restructuring are also indicated there.

For example, if the organization's current liquidity ratio is 2, and the indicators of financial independence and self-sufficiency are 0.5, you may be given a deferment in debt repayment for 5 years, followed by installments over 5 years. But, I repeat, the final decision on restructuring will be given only by the territorial commission for financial recovery.

- Thank you for the clarification, Sergei Alekseevich.

Interviewed by Irina Ivanova.

1 Since August 2, 2004, the Ministry of Taxes of Russia has been renamed into the Federal Tax Service of the Russian Federation (FTS of Russia) within the Ministry of Finance of Russia.

2 It is possible to restructure the debt of agricultural organizations not only to the budget, but also to other creditors. This is provided for in Federal Law No. 83-FZ of July 9, 2002.

3 For indicators for calculating the terms of restructuring, see the “Reference Guide” section on page 78.

Of course, after all the speeds and combinations of the first match, I wanted to expect the same from the second match. But NOVA ARENA and SMP-96 often like to play simpler, but more effective. Although it was just what could and should be expected. And if the composition of “Nova” was not in doubt, then SMP had perhaps the most impressive lineup of the season at this meeting.
The first third of this match was more of an equal game. At the break it turns out that even the number of shots on goal was equal. But throughout the entire period, Nova’s confidence in the result was felt. It could be compared in some ways to the confidence of Zvezda-TsKhM a week earlier. Let us remember that the leader then spent the first period very calmly. Nova did the same. The team even scored the same number as TsKhM in that match. Roman Naslednikov was the first to finish and opened the scoring in the match. SMP tried to come up with something in the remaining time, but Frolkin was in no hurry to let it pass.
The scenario of the second period again resembled the first SMP match this year. The opponent also slightly increased the pace, and the yellow-blacks began to concede goals. By the middle of the period, not only the script, but also the score began to coincide. Kanareikin, Grozovsky and Kopytsov scored a puck, thereby inviting SMP to solve a difficult problem again. Of course, after such a breakthrough, Nova could afford to slow down a little. This soon led to a missed goal from Andrey Mikheenkov. But it was not possible to develop the success of the SMP. Nova again took matters into its own hands and calmly brought the period to the break. By the way, this is where the difference with the already mentioned meeting a week ago began. Then TsKhM managed to score five goals by the last break, and Nova was limited to four.
This had an impact on the third period as well. The SMP tried to be more active, but Nova calmly coped with the difficulties that arose. The outcome of the match was decided closer to the middle of the period, when Maxim Grozovsky scored the fifth goal and scored a double. All that remained to be understood was the final score of the match. And everything was going to the point that he would remain that way. But three minutes before the final siren, Ivan Egorov made the last change in this match, scoring the second goal against Frolkin.
5:2 – “Nova” took second place in the division also thanks to the defeat of “Youth”. SMP continues to remain without points this season.

The course of the match between Allmonta and KB Krylya Sovetov could have been predicted, but latest results introduced some uncertainty into the outcome of this meeting. In the last two matches, “Wings” took the division leader, and “Allmont” lost heavily to “Tropik” a week earlier.
The teams apparently wanted to correct their own failures so much that they played as carefully as possible in the first period. Only 14 shots reached the goal. But among them there was one successful one. In the 16th minute, Roman Rybnikov opened the scoring and put Krylia ahead.
In the second period the game became sharper. And if one goal in the first period looked quite natural, then in the second third there could have been more. The teams again limited themselves to one goal. Egor Maslyuk, with his efforts, returned the score to equality on the scoreboard. And at this point the scoring activity died down again.
The third period returned the debt to the spectators for the goals. And also added emotions on top. In addition to the large number of goals scored in the third period, the referees had to issue the hockey players three disciplinary fines for inappropriate behavior. Moreover, if we remove these three deletions, then the period was no different from the previous ones. The same cannot be said about goals. It broke through in the third period. True, only one of the teams. It didn't take long for Allmont to put its winning plan into action. By the middle of the period, Astashenkov and Yezhov created a two-goal advantage. And taking into account Allmonta’s advantage in shots, two goals were a good start. “Wings” wanted to improve their position so much that in five minutes they were left in the minority. It was then that one of the 10-minute deletions occurred. Korolev took advantage of this and scored the fourth goal. Kirill Yakhnyuk finished the job of his comrades by scoring the last, fifth goal against the “Wings” that evening.
5:1 - “Allmont” extended the unsuccessful series of “Wings”, maintaining its advantage over their pursuers.

Moscow Metro started the year well with a victory over Forsazh and could well count on two points in the next match. Moreover, on the way were the Beavers, who had not won for quite some time.
The first period was successful for the Metropolitan team. Despite conceding a goal from Innocent Maksudi at the end of the eighth minute, the hosts rallied and created a two-goal advantage by the end of the first period. Simonov scored twice, and in the interval between goals Sergei managed to give an assist to Anton Kuvizenkov.
As it turned out, three goals in the first period was the beginning. The second period began with two goals scored by the Beavers. Dmitry Gasilin and Kirill Tomilin scored a puck each, and Kirill evened the score. Metropolitan almost immediately took the lead again, using the majority, but was unable to build on the success. But at the end of the period the team conceded again - Maksudi scored a double.
The third period turned into a scoring feast, which Gasilin started in the second minute. And then his impulse was so actively supported by his partners that by the 52nd minute the Beavers had a four-goal advantage. At the same time, Gasili scored again and scored a hat-trick. Soon the hosts responded with a short-handed goal from Maxim Platonov, and four minutes later Kuvizenkov reduced the score difference to two goals. Metropolitan had enough time to try to make the match at least a draw, but the sending off let the team down. Gasilin won the poker game by capitalizing on the absence of Maxim Platonov. Maksudi completed the job a few seconds later, scoring a hat-trick. Here the Metropolitan did not have an answer. 10:6 - the Beavers' first victory since the beginning of November, which leaves them in the leadership race.

Viking did not come to the match with GES-2 as a clear favorite. The team hasn't won since October last year. At that time, after getting comfortable in the league, GES began to score points at a good rate. With such a history, the victory of “Viking” could only happen if certain conditions met. For example, the opponent’s composition is not optimal. But the hydroelectric power station was all right with this. And in general, the lineups for this meeting, at least in terms of the number of players, were equal - 14 field players on each side. Second possible variant– underestimating the opponent. Which, given the results of Viking, is a very real phenomenon. But this hasn’t happened in this division for a very long time.
Nevertheless, based on the statistics, we can say that GES could have underestimated its rivals. The Vikings had the better shot count in the first period. Which allowed them to abandon it first. Anton Ivanov opened the scoring with a pass from Murat Batyshev. And with this, in essence, the main events of the period ended.
The second period turned out to be somewhat different. The number of shots on goal has decreased. At the same time, almost twice. But the audience could see more heads. In the seventh minute, Vyacheslav Ugolnikov scored the second goal against GES, and two minutes before the short break, Boris Mogilevkin made the score big - 3:0. GES again could not do anything with the Vikings' defense. Even with two removals of opponents, which happened in the middle of the period.
The GES hockey players caught on in the third period. But the result did not come for a long time. Only in the middle of the period did the team manage to break through Ilya Mogilevkin. But before the ice owners had time to rejoice, Boris Mogilevkin scored a double. Moreover, he did this when the team was in the minority. And soon the hosts of the match were left with just three of them. The hydroelectric power station gathers a consultation, but this does not help either. The opponent held the line until the last and eventually achieved victory. The second and so long-awaited. Who knows, maybe this will be the start of the Vikings climbing the table.

“Alpha” is almost great and terrible. If in the “Leader” division we talk about “Zvezda-TsKhM” as a model, then we should not forget about “Alpha”. The team has also not lost a single match this season, which is 10 in a row. Yes, there were three draws, but in the “Losses” column there is still a zero. And I’m sure this leaves its mark on every match of the team. The game with Mozhaisk could hardly have been an exception.
Alpha started the first period well. The team achieved the first penalty in the match in less than 20 seconds. Roman Visyachkin was given two minutes, and Kirill Rebenok hastened to punish the Mozhaisk goalkeeper for this offense. Such a start could have discouraged Mozhaisk, but this is not a team that can be broken so quickly. The guests gradually moved away from such a start and, in turn, began to threaten the opponent’s goal. It was not possible to respond to the same move with a majority conversion, but seven seconds after the fifth fielder came out, Mozhaisk scored. Kirill Sinitsyn equalized the score and suggested starting all over again. Alpha didn't mind. I don’t mind so much that after just a minute and a half I was outnumbered and took the lead again. At the same time, Dmitry Kanunnikov was listed as one of Tararushkina’s puck assistants. Soon Mozhaisk could again take advantage of the opponent's removal, but Rafael Ganeev scored himself a minute after returning to the ice - 3:1.
At the beginning of the second period, Alpha quickly discouraged Mozhaisk. Tararushkin scored another goal in the first minute and scored a double. After that, the teams were more remembered by deletions.
Alpha also started the third period with a goal – Ilya Cherednichenko increased the goal difference to four. But not even a minute passed, and Alexander Medyanikov again won one goal back. The gap was still decent, but it was quite possible and possible to win back three goals in 17 minutes. But this time Vladislav Ivanov did not come to Mozhaisk’s aid. Let me remind you that a week earlier it was his two goals that brought victory over the Vikings. In this match, Vladislav distinguished himself only by being sent off at the very end of the match.
Even before this removal, Mozhaisk won another goal five minutes before the end. I am sure that Alexander Dudnikov’s goal revived bold thoughts about at least one ball. But exactly a minute passed, and everything returned to the difference of three goals. Rafael Ganeev performed a solo and scored a double – 6:3. In the remaining time, Mozhaisk tried to score more, but Kanunnikov was strongly against such an ending to the match.
"Alpha" wins again and extends its unbeaten streak to 11 matches! The result is truly impressive. But the first place is not so strong. The team still has two meetings with Allmont. And it is these matches that can put a lot into place. I’ve already been waiting for this confrontation, but the moment keeps getting postponed!

The central match in this round was the meeting between Rosselkhozbank and FLETiCo. The beginning of the year is turning out to be difficult for the “bankers”. Following Rosneft were the flats, and these are not the best opponents for resuming the championship after the break. “FLETiKo” was also unlucky; the team did not play official matches for a month, and in the first match it ended up against the division leader.
The first period turned out to be rich in moments. The teams actively attacked and created chances, but there was only one goal. In the fourth minute, Kirill Tochilkin opened the scoring in the match. Moreover, he managed to do this while playing in the minority.
The stingy start to this match began to repay debts later on. Although in the second period everything also started with a quick goal from the guests, scored by Alexander Terentev. The growing advantage could not but excite fans of Rosselkhozbank. Five minutes after the second missed goal, Kirill Gusev played one goal back. After this goal, the “bankers” seemed to be able to breathe easier, but then Tochilkin and Erofeev scored a puck and made life even more difficult for their opponents. The Bankers managed to get back on track towards the end of the period. That’s when Tararushkin distinguished himself
The first half of the third period was not the most pleasant for the hosts. In the first ten minutes they concede twice from flats and find themselves in a difficult situation. Yes, it is quite possible to win back four goals in ten minutes, but the task becomes more difficult when the opponent is on the move. And “FLETiCo” went very well. But a leader, he is a leader, to cope with such situations. Over the next seven minutes, the “bankers” almost crushed the opponent. First, Tararushkin realized the removal of Tochilkin and scored a double. And soon the “flat” players were left with just three of them, for which they paid with another goal from Kirill Rebenok. And when, three minutes before the end, Sergei Gradoboev reduced the difference in the score to a minimum, everyone believed in a comeback. Some with joy, some with anger. But that evening the miraculous return to the game never happened. No matter how hard the “bankers” tried to even the score, they couldn’t. 6:5 – the hardest victory of “FLETiCo” over the leader of the championship, who still retains first place. But now the flats themselves may be on it. To do this, they only need to win their match, which remains in reserve.

Even though Piranha lost in the first match of the year, it did not lose much ground. “Team Che” hasn’t been doing well lately in the best possible way. The draw with Altair gave the team just one point from their last three matches. Yes, in two of them the opponents were from the top of the table, but the team could count on points in the match with Sberbank. At least in principle.
“Piranha” decided not to put off solving its problems. Already by the sixth minute, Denis Gasilov and Igor Smirnykh scored for the “fish”. This start did not go well for “Che”, but the nominal guests failed to realize two removals of Maslov. And as soon as “Piranha” remained in the minority, the “revolutionaries” abandoned it. Dmitry Avseenko played one goal back. But this only angered Piranha. It took Myasnikov, Tereshkov and Gasilov a minute and a half to make the most direct hint to their opponent. Although they could have won back at least one goal at the end of the period, Selyanin did not concede another goal before the break.
He didn’t miss a goal in the second period either, which, compared to the first, turned out to be almost peaceful. Only once was this “peace” disturbed – Evgeniy Kiris increased the difference in the score to five goals.
Lags of four or five goals are very rarely recovered. Often, such a difference in the score after the second period means a victory for the leading team. Again, exceptions do happen. But not at this time. The Revolutionaries tried to make another exception, but immediately received another puck from the Piranhas. And although in terms of the number of moments the period turned out to be as bright as the first, the audience saw no more goals. 7:2 – victory for Piranha, which continues to keep up with its rivals in the first part of the table.

The match between Altair and Rosneft was not only the second most important in the tour, but was also notable for the fact that Rosneft again traveled outside the CSKA arena. Yes, Altair was the host of this meeting, but the Oilers always played on Leningradskoye Shosse. In any case, last season the team left the ice only three times. In this case, the match with Altair was the seventh out of 14. Before that, Rosneft had won outside its arena only once. And this is exactly what happened in the match against Altair in the same Novogorsk, where they met again.
A different situation began to help Altair only in the third period. Yes, if we start from scoring events, we will start our story from the last third. Before this, the teams showed excellent hockey with many chances, and sometimes the goalkeepers could be erected monuments.
Altair began to repay the debt at the beginning of the third period. In the second minute, Dmitry Ryazanov opened the scoring with a pass from Dmitry Dushkov. And five minutes later Dushkov scored himself. It would seem that Altair could only calmly bring the matter to the final siren, but that was not the case. It takes Dmitry Kovalev and Alexander Wasserman the same five minutes to score a puck and even the score. Altair managed to regain their advantage a few minutes later, when Denis Bublik again brought the team ahead. Time was melting away catastrophically quickly, and everything was moving towards victory for the hosts. But in less than a minute, Wasserman scored a double and equalized the match! Rosneft immediately called a timeout, but it did not help the team. As well as “Altair”, which also could not score again.
3:3 - a very interesting and combative draw, which left Rosneft in the rank of pursuer of the two leaders. But the gap has narrowed, which is sure to heat up the fight to the limit.

Over the past couple of months, Annino has begun to alternate victories and defeats. Against the backdrop of such an impressive number of defeats, the team was able to beat FLETiCo and Altair. And these are the teams that are fighting for medals. Just before the Sunday match against Sberbank, Altair was beaten. And this gave reason to expect a second victory for Annino in a row.
But the Sberbank hockey players were strongly against it. By the fifteenth minute of the match they were already leading by three goals and were unlikely to stop. “Annino” was never able to hit the opponent.
In such a situation, any next goal by the “bankers” could become decisive. These could have been the goals of Alexander Egorov and Alexey Razumov, but hardly they were different, “Annino” managed to find answers. Konstantin Matveev and Alexey Evdokimov supported their team's chances for a favorable outcome of the match.
But all the answers were given in the third period. Pavel Kuzovkin. Annino managed to respond to his double in the first five minutes of the final third with a symmetrical number of goals. But that wasn't enough. Three goals in the first period that were left unanswered made their presence felt. 7:4 – Sberbank won its third victory in a row, and Annino failed to build on its success after a separate match.

Vyacheslav Ilyushin

Last weekend “Termokul” and “Snipers” met in Dolgoprudny. At the beginning of the first twenty minutes the game was probably equal. The spectators witnessed the first goal after a mutual sending off. The puck from Mikhail Kulakov did not reach his partner behind the goal, but after a rebound from the board it ended up in the hands of Anton Polfinov, who was without special effort hit the target. The blue-and-whites, in response to this, increased their speed and periodically turned on high pressure. The “snipers” were not against this development of events and responded with dignity with quick attacks. And in one of the attacks, Dmitry Chernyshov increased the lead in the score. He shot from approximately the same position as the scorer of the first goal, but under pressure from two opponents. Immediately after the throw-in in the center circle, the same Snipers attacking trio organizes another goal. Yuri Kondratsky burst into the opponent's zone and made a pass to Yegor Kirzhakorv, who sent the puck under the crossbar with one touch.
The second period pleased with the abundance of shots and the high-speed play of the teams. But at the same time, I was disappointed by the lack of goals. The Termokul hockey players were more disappointed, as they created enough chances to score at least one goal.
In the third twenty minutes, Termokul was obliged to score as soon as possible in order to have a chance of a draw. However, the first goal was won only in the 53rd minute. Denis Gushchin received the puck in his zone, broke through to the opponent's goal and sent it into the far corner with a powerful throw. After this goal, the Snipers became concerned about possession of the puck. After all, as long as you have it, they won’t score on you. And during the power play after Sergei Bulanov was sent off, the nominal guests shot at goal only three times, having the puck in their possession for almost the entire two minutes. And this tactic paid off. Denis Gushchin scored another goal one and a half minutes before the final siren. There weren't enough Termocul hockey players to do more. 3:2 – “Snipers” redeemed themselves for their defeat to VTB in the last round.

“Barbarians” in the confrontation with “Fizkulturnik” were considered the favorites of the meeting. Although in the previous match of these teams, the blue-yellows won the victory not without difficulty. In the first period, it seemed that history would repeat itself, and the underdog would be able to score points. The red and white were able to force the fight on a more skilled opponent. In the sixth minute, the Barbarians opened the scoring. Sergei Petrin assisted Sergei Glukhov. “Fizkulturnik” created chances, but the goal happened when it was not expected. The team's newcomer Alexey Petrunin robbed his opponent and sent the puck into the net. Before the big break, the Barbarians, however, took the lead. Andrey Nevlyutov demonstrated individual skill and scored a goal.
Until the 26th minute, spectators were wondering when they would see the next puck. But then we received them in full. The same Petrunin responded to Sankov’s puck with a goal. A couple of minutes later, Anton Sankov, like his counterpart from Fizkulturnik, completes a double. At that moment, it did not yet seem that all was lost for the red and white. However, before the end of the third, Glukhov and Troshkin increased the lead to four goals.
The beginning of the third period became discouraging for the red and white. In the first two minutes, Sankov and Glukhov made the score 8:2, from which it is extremely difficult to come back in any situation. The Fizkulturnik hockey players did not stop playing, continuing to threaten the opponent’s goal. The next goal was scored by Oleg Blumenkranz in the 57th minute. Andrei Nevlyutov managed to score against the Varvars. And Alexei Petrunin put an end to the match, scoring a hat-trick in his debut match for new team – 9:4.

This is the first match of the new year for the Stars. And immediately against the division leader - Phoenix. From the first minutes of the meeting, it became clear to the yellow-blues that this time they would not win easily. The game was characterized by the presence of struggle, and the defenders sometimes acted impeccably. The first goal happened when the Stars made a mistake when leaving the defense. Pavel Belov took advantage of the situation and opened the scoring. Some nervousness was felt in the actions of the “stars”. However, Anton Sayutin's goal gave them confidence. After the Stars equalized, they became much more relaxed in attack. Before the big break, they forced the opponent to foul twice, but even four minutes of the power play did not help them take the lead.
The beginning of the second third did not go well for the blue-yellows. The author of the only goal for the nominal hosts, Pavel Belov, received “2+10”. Then Alexei Volkov went to the penalty box. The Phoenix hockey players also withstood the second minority. However, a few seconds after Volkov entered the ice, Denis Ermakov brought the “stars” ahead. Then Phoenix had the opportunity to score on the power play, but did not take advantage of it. But Anton Nikonov did not miss his chance and increased the gap in the score.
If in the first two periods the blue-yellows looked very competitive, then in the third periods things were different. The Stars had much more initiative. The next goal came in the 50th minute. The positional attack of the “stars” was completed by Valery Krivchik. Phoenix certainly had time to recoup. Sergei Kukushkin played one goal back. A couple of minutes later, the blue-and-yellows had another opportunity - to convert the majority in a four-on-three game. However, the division leader failed to score more. The last goal of the match was scored by Maxim Sevastyanov – 2:5.

The match between the NHL and Yunost-75 took place at Krylya. Yunost had some advantage in puck possession and attacked more often in the first period. The division leader had no problems entering the zone. However, it was not always possible to make an accentuated throw. At the same time, the defenders of the “legend” sometimes made Sergei Ishaleev nervous with their uncertain actions. One way or another, the NHL also had its moments, and very dangerous ones. In the 14th minute, Yunost opened the scoring. Nikita Seryakov assisted Alexander Leshchenko.
In the second period the picture of the game did not change. The difference is that the moments created by the “legend” were more dangerous, and they were closer to scoring the next goal. But the NHL goal came at a time when it was not expected. Six minutes before the end of the second third, Yunost began to completely control the game, not allowing the white-red-blues to do anything. Perhaps this was the reason for the removal of Alexey Zdornov, who overdid it in the fight with his opponent. Having received the majority, the Yunost hockey players no longer seemed so confident. And at some point they allowed Kozulitsyn and Abradushkin to go two to zero, who drove the puck into the goal. During the remaining time of the match, the spectators did not witness any goals – 1:1.

Rosneft-2 and ROSTEC played at the CSKA arena. It’s not to say that the Oilers completely outplayed their opponents in the first period. However, the brisk start of the nominal hosts speaks for itself. Already in the third minute of the match, ROSTECH was forced to foul in order to prevent danger at its goal. A minute later, Vadim Plekhanov converted the majority. A moment later, Rosneft increased its lead. The defenders of the nominal guests did not notice Leonid Adamov, who almost unhindered sent the puck into the goal. By the end of the third, ROSTEC was playing out. Although the chances they created were not enough to score a goal.
In the second twenty minutes, ROSTEC showed practically nothing in attack, in contrast to the end of the first third. At the same time, Rosneft felt good in the opponent’s zone, constructing one attack after another. As a result, thanks to goals from Gridnev, Sidtikov and Puzik, the teams took the ice in the third period with a score of 5:0 on the scoreboard. After a three-minute break, ROSTEC immediately coped with the minimum task in this situation - scoring a prestige goal. Vladimir Kalinin was assisted by Grigory Rubinstein, who has not been seen on the ice very often this season. And not because of its lackluster performance, but because it is absent. A couple of minutes later, Alexey Gridnev scores another goal and scores a double. For the remaining time of the match, ROSTEC preferred long-range shots to protracted attacks. Which is explained by the need to recoup as soon as possible. But this tactic led to ROSTEC scoring only one more goal. She was listed as an asset by Pavel Matyushechkin, and among the assistants was Grigory Rubinstein, who became best player as part of his team, gaining two points. 6:2 – the “oil workers” beat their direct competitor.

Last Saturday, the teams occupying third and fourth places in the “Debutant” group met in Dolgoprudny. The match between TsKhM and Phoenix turned out to be a game of equal teams, which is not surprising, given their neighboring position in standings. I will also note that both teams brought four A's to the game, which is not so often seen in amateur hockey. The first period became equal in all respects. Both teams had eight shots on goal, received one two-minute penalty and scored one goal each. In the fourth minute, Vadim Bogomolov scored the goal. And in the 15th minute, Alexey Dmitriev equalized the score.
In the second twenty minutes, the teams skated for a long time, without creating any real threats to the opponent’s goal. The hockey players spent a lot of time fighting, which affected the number of chances. In the 33rd minute, the hockey players in blue sweaters managed to convert the majority. Genrikh Panteleev scored a goal. A couple of moments later, Alexey Pravdin equalized the score. There were no goals until the three-minute break. This meant that the teams would start the third period with an equal score.
The next goal came in the 48th minute. Vitaly Emelyanov scored into an empty net after a witty pass from Genrikh Panteleev. Soon it was the blue-yellows' turn to score on the power play. Evgeniy Sirotkin equalized the score. A little later, Evgeniy Pravdin sends the puck into the goal from mid-range. Phoenix took the lead for the first time in the entire match. The winning team tried to get even by removing the goalkeeper, but it was too late. 4:3 – Phoenix wins its second victory of the season, again over TsKhM.

Maxim Petrikov

Supervisor:
- is a leader in 7 organizations (operating - 6, inactive - 1).
- is a founder in 2 organizations (operating - 1, inactive - 1).

The company with the full name "LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY "RT-SOTSTROY"" was registered on June 20, 2013 in the Moscow region at the legal address: 121151, Moscow, Taras Shevchenko embankment, building 23A, floor 17 room I.

Registrar "" assigned the company INN 7704837944 OGRN 1137746526114. Registration number in the Pension Fund: 087812030744. Registration number in the Social Insurance Fund: 771106093577111. Number of licenses issued to the company: 3.

Main activity according to OKVED: 41.20. Additional views activities according to OKVED: 25.11; 25.61; 25.62; 25.9; 32.5; 33.13; 43.11; 43.12.1; 43.12.3; 43.13; 43.21; 43.22; 43.29; 43.31; 43.32; 43.33; 43.34; 43.34.1; 43.39; 43.91; 43.99; 43.99.1; 43.99.7; 45.1; 45.20; 45.3; 46.1; 46.4; 46.46; 46.49; 46.7; 46.90; 47.74; 47.9; 49.4; 52.29; 62.0; 64.9; 64.92.3; 64.99.1; 64.99.4; 68.10; 68.10.1; 68.2; 68.3; 68.32; 69; 69.20; 71.1; 71.11; 71.11.1; 71.12.45; 71.12.5; 71.12.6; 71.20; 73.20; 82.92.

Deniskin Alexey Vitalievich, Petrin Sergey Alekseevich

Petrin Sergey Alekseevich
Deniskin Alexey Vitalievich

Introduction
In the system of legal regulation of insolvency (bankruptcy) of participants in property turnover, the central regulatory legal act is the Federal Law of October 26, 2002 No. 127-FZ “On Insolvency (Bankruptcy)”.
The subject of regulation of the Bankruptcy Law is the entire complex of relations arising in connection with the insolvency of citizens and legal entities as participants in property turnover.

The development of bankruptcy legislation in the Russian Federation can be characterized by constant innovations, a desire for improvement, frequent revision of legal norms, a continuous search for the optimal path of development and attempts to adopt global experience.
Decree of the President of the Russian Federation dated 03/09/2004 No. 314 “On the system and structure of federal executive bodies” and Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated 05/29/2004 No. 257 “On ensuring the interests of the Russian Federation as a creditor in bankruptcy cases and bankruptcy procedures” (hereinafter – Resolution No. 257) the Federal Tax Service is entrusted with the functions

the authorized body to represent in bankruptcy cases and in bankruptcy proceedings claims for the payment of obligatory payments and claims of the Russian Federation for monetary obligations.
The authorized body faces the difficult task of combining and presenting in a bankruptcy case the requirements for mandatory payments and the requirements of the Russian Federation for monetary obligations, as well as ensuring the interests of the state in bankruptcy cases by developing a reasoned position when participating in court hearings, meetings and committees of creditors.
In the process of implementing this task, the authorized body actively interacts with other federal executive authorities related to the bankruptcy institution:
1) regulatory body (Ministry of Economic Development of the Russian Federation);
2) control (supervision) body (Federal Service for State Registration, Cadastre and Cartography);
3) federal executive authorities ensuring the implementation of a unified public policy in the sector of the economy in which the corresponding strategic enterprise or organization operates (Ministry of Industry and Trade of the Russian Federation, Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation and other federal executive authorities).

1. Signs of bankruptcy. Initiation of insolvency (bankruptcy) proceedings

In accordance with paragraph 2 of Art. 6 and the norms of Art. 3 of the Federal Law of October 26, 2002 No. 127-FZ “On Insolvency (Bankruptcy)” (hereinafter referred to as the Bankruptcy Law), bankruptcy proceedings may be initiated by an arbitration court, provided that the requirements for the debtor:

The total amount to a legal entity is at least 100 thousand rubles, and the debtor did not satisfy the claims of creditors for monetary obligations and (or) did not fulfill the obligation to make mandatory payments within 3 months from the date on which they were due;

a citizen in the aggregate amount to at least 10 thousand rubles, and the debtor did not satisfy the claims of creditors for monetary obligations and (or) did not fulfill the obligation to pay mandatory payments within 3 months from the date on which they should have been fulfilled, and if the amount of it liabilities exceed the value of his property.

According to Article 4 of the Bankruptcy Law, financial sanctions provided for by law (fines, penalties, penalties, interest) are not taken into account when determining the signs of bankruptcy.

The right to appeal to arbitration court the debtor, the bankruptcy creditor, and the authorized bodies have the right to file an application for declaring the debtor bankrupt. The debtor has the right to submit a debtor’s application to the arbitration court in case of foreseeing bankruptcy in the presence of circumstances clearly indicating that he will not be able to fulfill monetary obligations and (or) obligations for payment of obligatory payments on time.

In addition, the Bankruptcy Law establishes the debtor’s obligation to file a debtor’s application with the court if:

– satisfaction of the claims of one creditor or several creditors leads to the impossibility of the debtor fulfilling monetary obligations or obligations to pay obligatory payments and (or) other payments in full to other creditors;

– the body of the debtor, authorized in accordance with its constituent

documents for making a decision on liquidation of the debtor, a decision was made to apply to the arbitration court with an application from the debtor;

– the body authorized by the owner of the property of the debtor-unitary enterprise made a decision to apply to the arbitration court with an application from the debtor;

– foreclosure on the debtor’s property will significantly complicate or make impossible its economic activities;

– the debtor meets the signs of insolvency and (or) signs of insufficient property.

In this case, the insufficiency of property is understood as the excess of the amount of monetary obligations and obligations to make mandatory payments of the debtor over the value of the property (assets) of the debtor, and insolvency is the termination of the debtor’s fulfillment of part of the monetary obligations or obligations to make mandatory payments caused by insufficiency of funds.

The application must be sent by the debtor to the court in the shortest possible time, but no later than one month from the date of occurrence of the relevant circumstances.

If, during liquidation, a legal entity begins to meet the signs of insolvency and (or) signs of insufficient property, the liquidation commission of the debtor is obliged to apply to the arbitration court with an application from the debtor within 10 days from the moment any of these signs are identified.

According to Art. 224 of the Bankruptcy Law, if the value of the property of a debtor legal entity in respect of which a decision to liquidate is made is insufficient to satisfy the claims of creditors, the liquidation commission (liquidator) is obliged to apply to the arbitration court to declare the debtor bankrupt.

Violation of the requirements provided for in paragraph 2 of Art. 224, according to Art. 226 of the Bankruptcy Law, is the basis for refusal to make an entry on the liquidation of a legal entity into the Unified State Register of Legal Entities.

In the event of a violation by the head of the debtor or the founder (participant) of the debtor, the owner of the property of the debtor-unitary enterprise, members of the debtor’s management bodies, members of the liquidation commission (liquidator), or a citizen-debtor of the provisions of the Bankruptcy Law, these persons are obliged to compensate for losses caused as a result of such violation.

Violation of the obligation to submit the debtor's application to the arbitration court in the cases and within the period established above entails subsidiary liability of persons who are charged by the Bankruptcy Law with the obligation to make a decision on filing the debtor's application to the arbitration court and filing such an application for the obligations of the debtor arising after the expiration of the specified mandatory period.

Failure by the head of the debtor or an individual entrepreneur to fulfill the obligation to independently apply for the debtor to declare him insolvent (bankrupt) constitutes an administrative offense under Part 5 of Art. 14.13. Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses (hereinafter referred to as the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation).

The prosecutor's office has the authority to draw up protocols on administrative offenses for this offense.

The decision to bring the honorable person to administrative responsibility. 5 tbsp. 14.13. The Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation has a stimulating effect on the head of the debtor or individual entrepreneur to fulfill the corresponding obligation, which, in the context of the widespread practice of assigning legal costs in bankruptcy cases to the Federal Tax Service of Russia, allows minimizing federal budget expenses for ensuring bankruptcy procedures and contributes to the timely initiation of bankruptcy proceedings.

In addition, the decision to bring to administrative liability significantly increases the likelihood of subsequently bringing a manager or individual entrepreneur to subsidiary liability in accordance with paragraph 2 of Article 10 of the Bankruptcy Law. This decision will be prejudicial.

Based on the above circumstances, upon the occurrence of which the manager or individual entrepreneur becomes obligated to file an application for declaring the debtor bankrupt, from the moment the tax authority applies enforcement measures in accordance with Art. 46, 47 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the Tax Code of the Russian Federation) and the debtor’s failure to fulfill relevant tax obligations, the specified obligation arises, in connection with which it is advisable to send an application for administrative liability under Part 5 of Article 10 of the Bankruptcy Law within a month from the date receipt by the bailiff service of a resolution to collect taxes from property in accordance with Article 47 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation.

The bankruptcy creditor and the authorized body for monetary obligations have the right to arise from the date of entry into force of the decision of the court, arbitration court or arbitration tribunal to collect funds from the debtor.
For obligatory payments, the right to appeal to the arbitration court arises from the authorized body after 30 days from the date of the decision of the tax authority or customs authority to collect the debt from funds or other property of the debtor.

In this case, the right to file an application to declare the debtor bankrupt is exercised by the authorized body in the manner established by Resolution No. 257.

In accordance with paragraph 2 of the said Resolution, the authorized body makes a decision to send an application to the arbitration court to declare the debtor bankrupt:

– no earlier than 30, but no later than 90 days from the date of sending the tax authority’s decision to the bailiff to collect the tax (fee) at the expense of the debtor’s property or the corresponding writ of execution1;

– within 30 days from the date of receipt of notifications from federal executive authorities acting as creditors for monetary obligations (their territorial bodies) about the presence of debt on mandatory payments or about debt on monetary obligations to the Russian Federation.

The mechanism of action of the authorized body for filing an application to the court to declare a debtor bankrupt is determined by the norms of the Order of the Federal Tax Service of Russia dated October 3, 2012 No. ММВ-7-8/663@ “On approval of the Procedure for delimiting the powers of the authorized body to represent the interests of the Russian Federation as a creditor in bankruptcy cases and in bankruptcy procedures between the central office of the Federal Tax Service of Russia and the territorial bodies of the Federal Tax Service of Russia" (hereinafter referred to as Order No. 663) and Order of the Ministry of Economic Development of Russia dated October 19, 2007 No. 351 "On approval of the Procedure for selecting a body authorized to represent claims in bankruptcy cases and in bankruptcy procedures on the payment of mandatory payments and the requirements of the Russian Federation for monetary obligations, a self-regulatory organization (SRO) of arbitration managers when filing an application to the arbitration court to declare the debtor bankrupt” (see Appendix 1 to this manual).

For the purpose of coordinating the decision to submit an application to the court to declare the debtor bankrupt and developing a unified position of the authorized body in the course of bankruptcy cases, the division of debtors into groups is provided. The criteria for classifying debtors into the first, second or third group are defined in clause 2 of Order No. 663.

For all organizations of the first group, in accordance with the letter of the Federal Tax Service of Russia dated December 3, 2009 No. SN-22-8/911, the departments of the Federal Tax Service of Russia for the constituent entities of the Russian Federation must submit a copy of the inspection letter to the Federal Tax Service of Russia (indicating the date and number of the letter) on sending for approval to the Federal Tax Service of Russia a draft decision on filing an application to the arbitration court to declare the debtor bankrupt.

For the purpose of providing the higher tax authority with data on the availability of the debtor’s property, inspectorates must:

1. Conduct an analysis of the information contained in the EDI system - at the local level in terms of legal ownership of movable and immovable property, as well as in terms of “open tax obligations” by type of tax.

2. Ensure that the registration authorities receive responses regarding the availability of property by the debtor.

3. Provide information about the progress of enforcement proceedings.

4. Conduct an analysis of the financial statements as of the last reporting date to determine whether the debtor has other liquid assets, the sale of which will cover expenses in connection with the bankruptcy case, with a visit to the place where the debtor carries out business activities to draw up an act. For example, the debtor carries out trading activities on leased premises, but has a constant volume of inventories reflected on line 214 of the balance sheet, or processing activities and, accordingly, has a constant volume of raw materials and inventories reflected on lines 211 and 214 of the balance sheet.

5. Conduct an analysis of the financial statements, breakdown of the debtor’s receivables, as well as an analysis of the accounting and tax statements of the debtor’s large debtors registered with the inspectorate, with a view to submitting to the court evidence of the liquidity of the debtor’s receivables and the possibility of collecting them. If it is necessary to obtain information about the financial condition of debtors registered for tax purposes with other inspectorates, it is advisable to use information resources containing the relevant information (PC VAI).

6. Conduct an analysis of registration case materials, tax audit materials (qualification of transactions, interdependence of the debtor and affiliated persons, debtor’s management bodies), data from the EDI system (credentials, information about property, information about bank accounts) using PC VAI, PC Region of financial statements, as well as tax returns for property taxes for a period of at least one year before the inspectorate makes a draft decision regarding the possibility of bringing the debtor’s head to subsidiary liability under paragraphs. 4–11 st. 10 of the Bankruptcy Law and, therefore, the possibility of including funds collected from persons held liable in the bankruptcy estate.

It should be borne in mind that during enforcement proceedings, the FSSP also requests from the registration authorities information about the property owned by the debtor, which can also be used to determine the possibility of foreclosure on it and cover legal costs in the bankruptcy case. Information on the progress of enforcement proceedings must necessarily include acts of inventory and seizure of property, as well as decisions on the completion of enforcement proceedings.

It is recommended to compare the results of enforcement proceedings with the information available to the tax authority about the actual implementation of financial and economic activities by the debtor, as well as about the property belonging to him in order to determine the completeness of foreclosure according to the enforcement documents of the tax authority. In this case, it is necessary to actively use those provided by the Federal Law of October 2, 2007 “ On enforcement proceedings" powers of the claimant within the framework of the relevant enforcement proceedings.

7. Conduct an analysis of financial statements, tax audit materials (including on the subject of property being under arrest in accordance with Article 101 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation), as well as tax returns on property taxes for a period of at least one year before the inspection makes a draft decision on the subject the possibility of the debtor concluding transactions that during the bankruptcy procedure can be challenged within the framework of the provisions of Art. 61.1–61.9 of the Bankruptcy Law, and, therefore, the return of property/monies to the bankruptcy estate.

8. Conduct an analysis of statements from current accounts for a period of at least one year before the inspection makes a draft decision in order to reflect in them transactions indicating that the debtor has property (for example, receipt of rental payments to the debtor’s account, payment by the debtor of the state fee for registration actions in in relation to property and for passing state technical inspection of vehicles, payment by the debtor of property taxes, including in relation to property registered in other constituent entities of the Russian Federation).

9. Conduct an analysis of the information contained in the legal system “Consultant Plus” and on the official website of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation (arbitr.ru) with a view to collecting funds, property or other judicial acts in favor of the debtor, indicating the likelihood of the debtor receiving the property necessary to cover legal costs.

10. Take other measures aimed at discovering evidence that substantiates the likelihood of finding a sufficient amount of property, which can cover the costs of the bankruptcy case.

The current practice of the Federal Tax Service of Russia exercising the functions of an authorized body in bankruptcy cases indicates that the majority of debtors do not have the property necessary to pay off creditors’ claims and legal costs in bankruptcy cases.

In this regard, as evidence of the existence of a source of repayment of legal expenses, the possibility of returning property alienated on the eve of bankruptcy, including payments in favor of third parties, as well as bringing to subsidiary liability the persons controlling the debtor in accordance with paragraph 4 of Art. 10 of the Bankruptcy Law.

In the event that the debtor initially did not have property that could be used to pay off creditors’ claims and court costs in a bankruptcy case, the only source of covering legal costs is to hold the debtor’s manager to subsidiary liability, including for failure to fulfill the obligation to independently apply to arbitration court with an application to declare the debtor bankrupt in accordance with paragraph 2 of Art. 10 of the Bankruptcy Law.

Situations are widespread when debt on mandatory payments arises as a result of additional assessments during tax audits, after the completion of which the debtor actually ceases its activities, is not located at its legal address, and has no property. In this situation, the recovery of losses from an individual who acted as a manager during the tax audit period in accordance with paragraph 3 of Article 56 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and paragraph 4 of Article 10 of the Bankruptcy Law should be considered as a source of repayment of legal expenses.

11. For individual entrepreneurs, also consider the possibility of foreclosure on property acquired jointly by the debtor during marriage in accordance with the provisions of Art. 256 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the Civil Code of the Russian Federation), and Art. 38, 45 of the Family Code of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the RF IC).

The decision to submit an application to the arbitration court to declare the debtor bankrupt is made by the inspectorate within 3 days after receiving its approval from the Federal Tax Service of Russia or the Federal Tax Service of Russia for the constituent entity of the Russian Federation. At the same time, the order in which a decision is made to submit an application to the arbitration court to declare the debtor bankrupt must correspond to the outgoing number of the letter from the higher tax authority approving the said decision.

An application to declare a debtor bankrupt must be sent to the arbitration court within 5 days from the date of the decision to send it.

In the statement of the authorized body, by virtue of clause 3 of Art. 41 of the Bankruptcy Law, the following must be indicated:

1) the name of the arbitration court to which the creditor’s application is submitted (at the location of the debtor) By virtue of clause 1 of Article 39 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, a case accepted by the arbitration court for its proceedings in compliance with the rules of jurisdiction must be considered by it on the merits, at least subsequently it became subject to the jurisdiction of another arbitration court. Accordingly, in the event of a change in the location of the debtor after the initiation of bankruptcy proceedings, consideration of this bankruptcy case will be continued by the arbitration court that initially accepted the bankruptcy petition.;

2) name (for a legal entity), surname, first name, patronymic (for an individual) of the debtor and his address;

3) registration data of the debtor-legal entity (state registration number of the record of state registration of the legal entity, taxpayer identification number);

4) name of the authorized body and its address.

It must be remembered that the Applicant in a bankruptcy case must indicate the address of the Federal Tax Service of Russia: 127381, Moscow, st. Neglinnaya 23, and under the address for correspondence indicate the address of the territorial tax authority;

5) the amount of claims of the authorized body against the debtor and the amount of interest and penalties (fines, penalties) payable.

The amount of claims of the authorized body, reflected in the application for the purpose of introducing bankruptcy proceedings against the debtor, must be defined as the debt in respect of which a decision on collection was made under Art. 47 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, and debt in respect of which a decision was made to collect on the date of the decision only under Art. 46 Tax Code of the Russian Federation.

Based on the explanations set out in paragraph 10 of the Supreme Arbitration Court Resolution No. 25, the requirement for a tax agent who has not fulfilled the obligation to transfer the withheld tax to the budget is a requirement of a special legal nature that does not fall under the provisions of Art. 2 and 4 of the Bankruptcy Law, the concept of mandatory payment cannot be qualified as a requirement to make mandatory payments.

This requirement, regardless of the moment of its occurrence, is not included in the register of creditors’ claims (hereinafter referred to as RTC) and is satisfied in the manner established by tax legislation.

Disputes arising from legal relations in which the debtor acts as a tax agent are considered outside the bankruptcy case.

In this regard, the application for declaring a debtor bankrupt does not include personal income tax debt.

Collection of personal income tax debt outside the framework of a bankruptcy case means that the tax authority has the right to apply in relation to this debt the forced collection measures provided for by the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, taking into account the restrictions provided for by the Bankruptcy Law for the procedure of external administration and bankruptcy proceedings.
It is necessary to ensure control over the collection of personal income tax in all bankruptcy procedures. If there are transactions on the debtor’s accounts and there is no income from personal income tax, it is necessary to take measures to establish the reasons why this debt is not being repaid and take response measures provided for by current legislation (in relation to insolvency practitioners - appealing against failure to comply with the priority, in relation to banks - holding them accountable on the grounds provided for by the Tax Code of the Russian Federation);

6) details of the decision of the court, arbitration court or arbitration tribunal that entered into legal force, which considered the claims of the authorized body against the debtor in cases provided for by the legislation of the Russian Federation;

7) evidence of the grounds for the debt (in particular, inspection reports and tax returns);

8) the name and address of the self-regulatory organization, from among whose members a temporary manager must be approved (in accordance with the letter of the Federal Tax Service of Russia/UFTS of Russia for the constituent entity of the Russian Federation);

9) a list of documents attached to the creditor’s application.

Since the court, in accordance with paragraph 13 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated December 17, 2009 No. 91 “On the procedure for paying off expenses in a bankruptcy case,” requires the presentation of evidence justifying the likelihood of finding a sufficient amount of property from which they can be covered expenses in the bankruptcy case, the text of the application must reflect information about the availability of the debtor’s property, and the application must be accompanied by data confirming the availability and sufficiency of the debtor’s property for the purpose of covering the expenses in the bankruptcy case.

In particular, responses from the competent authorities responsible for the registration of vehicles, registration of rights to real estate at the location of the debtor, to relevant requests may be considered as evidence; other documents received during the course of the tax authority or bailiff service searching for the debtor’s property, which may be subject to foreclosure.

In the event that the debtor's rights to the property are not formalized in the prescribed manner, it is necessary to prove at a court hearing that it belongs to the debtor and the rights to this property can be formalized in bankruptcy proceedings for the purpose of subsequent foreclosure on it.

In addition, the application must be accompanied by unexecuted or partially unexecuted decisions of the tax authority and (or) decisions of the customs authority on debt collection at the expense of the debtor’s funds and (or) property and information about the debt on mandatory payments.

A copy of the application must be sent to the debtor and evidence of the direction must be attached to the application sent to the court.

It must be remembered that, by virtue of clause 12 of Resolution No. 257, simultaneously with filing an application to the arbitration court to declare the debtor bankrupt, the inspectorate must send a notification to the federal executive authorities and other bodies specified in Appendix No. 2 to the Resolution, previously mentioned in this section.

The application filing procedure established by paragraph 2 of Resolution No. 257 may be postponed by the authorized body if the grounds for postponing the filing, discussed below, arose before the expiration of 90 days from the date of sending the tax authority’s decision to the bailiff to collect the tax (fee) at the expense of debtor's property.

The inspectorate's draft decision to postpone filing an application to the arbitration court to declare the debtor bankrupt in relation to organizations of the first and second groups is consistent with the Federal Tax Service of Russia, the third group - with the department of the Federal Tax Service of Russia for the constituent entity of the Russian Federation.

In accordance with the letter of the Federal Tax Service of Russia dated February 12, 2007 No. MM-6-19/105, the total debt for mandatory payments and monetary obligations to the Russian Federation includes debt for penalties and fines to the Russian Federation, registered and current debt.

Clause 4 of the Procedure for combining and presenting claims of the Russian Federation when filing an application for declaring a debtor bankrupt, approved by Resolution No. 257, also defines the documents necessary for the authorized body to postpone the filing of an application for declaring a debtor bankrupt for a period of up to 6 months.

From the moment the decision is made to submit an application to the court to declare the debtor bankrupt, it is necessary to form a bankruptcy case in accordance with the requirements of clause 8 of the Procedure approved by Order No. 663.

At the same time, paragraph 6 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated June 22, 2006 No. 25 establishes that if the arbitration court at the stage of accepting the application of the authorized body to declare the debtor bankrupt, the circumstances provided for in paragraph 4 of the specified Procedure, in the presence of which the authorized body is obliged to postpone filing the application to declare the debtor bankrupt, the court is obliged to return the application.

Clause 5 of the Procedure for combining and presenting claims of the Russian Federation when filing an application for declaring a debtor bankrupt, approved by Resolution No. 257, provides for the grounds upon which the authorized body has the right to postpone filing an application for declaring a debtor bankrupt upon receipt of documents:

– confirming the filing by the debtor with a higher tax authority or court before the expiration of the deadlines established in clause 2 of the Procedure, a complaint (statement of claim) to appeal the requirements of the Russian Federation to the debtor for mandatory payments, provided that the appeal of these requirements may lead to the termination of the grounds for filing by the authorized body of the application for declaring the debtor bankrupt to the arbitration court - until the relevant decision is made, but not more than 2 months.

At the same time, in accordance with paragraph 20 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated June 22, 2006 No. 25, if at the stage of consideration of the application of the authorized body it is revealed that proceedings have been initiated in the case of challenging a non-normative legal act of the tax authority adopted in relation to taxes, on the inclusion claims for which the register of creditors' claims has been declared in a bankruptcy case, the court may suspend the proceedings to consider the application of the authorized body regarding these claims until the judicial act in the case of challenging the non-normative legal act enters into legal force.

Taking into account the above, the inspectorate’s decision to postpone the filing of an application to declare the debtor bankrupt on this basis seems inappropriate;

– confirming the filing, before the expiration of the deadlines established in clause 2 of the Procedure, by the debtor to a higher tax (customs) authority or court of a complaint (statement of claim) to appeal against the actions (inaction) of officials of tax authorities, customs or other authorities, which, in the opinion of the debtor , created the prerequisites for the appearance of signs of insolvency (bankruptcy), or filing a complaint against the actions (inaction) of officials of tax authorities, customs or other authorities, which, in the opinion of the debtor, created the preconditions for the appearance of signs of insolvency (bankruptcy), - before the appropriate decisions, but not more than 2 months;

- by decision of the authorized body in the Procedure established by Order of the Ministry of Economic Development of the Russian Federation dated 08/02/2004 No. 217 “On the Procedure for the postponement by the body authorized to present in bankruptcy cases and in bankruptcy procedures claims for the payment of mandatory payments and claims of the Russian Federation for monetary obligations of filing in the arbitration court application for declaring the debtor bankrupt”, in the presence of one of the following circumstances:

a) there are facts that objectively indicate the possibility of restoring the debtor’s solvency within 2 months;

b) the debtor, the owner of the debtor’s property or a third party (for example, a federal executive body) has taken or is taking measures as a result of which the grounds for filing an application with the arbitration court to declare the debtor bankrupt can be eliminated within 2 months;

c) the debtor has liquid property on his balance sheet (including claims and securities), funds from the sale of which can be received within 2 months from the date of the decision in an amount sufficient to pay off all existing debt on mandatory payments and monetary obligations to the Russian Federation, subject to a written obligation of the debtor to sell the specified property (or collect receivables) and use the proceeds to pay off the debt to the Russian Federation;

d) enforcement proceedings have been initiated against the debtor and enforcement measures are being taken (seizure and sale of the debtor’s property, as well as other measures), the application of which will allow the debt to the Russian Federation to be repaid in full within 2 months from the date of the decision.

According to clause 2.14 of the Joint Agreement of the Federal Tax Service of the Russian Federation and the Federal Bailiff Service of the Russian Federation dated October 09, 2008 No. MM-25-1/9, No. 12/01-7 “On the Procedure for interaction between the Federal Tax Service and the Federal Bailiff Service in the execution of decisions of tax authorities and other executive documents", when the bailiff carries out enforcement measures against the debtor (arrest and sale of property, as well as other measures), the use of which will allow the debt to the Russian Federation to be repaid in full within 2 months, the bailiff will immediately sends to the relevant territorial body of the Federal Tax Service of Russia an application for a decision to postpone filing an application to the arbitration court to declare the debtor bankrupt.

In accordance with the joint letter of the FSSP of Russia and the Federal Tax Service of Russia dated March 11, 2008 No. 12/01-2448-NV, No. MM-6-1/157 “On the Procedure for the authorized body to defer the filing with the arbitration court of an application for declaring the debtor bankrupt in the event of an appeal by the Federal bailiff service" copies of the following must be attached to the bailiff's application:

1) a resolution on the acceptance by the bailiff of the results of the assessment of the debtor’s property, indicating a specific appraiser organization;

2) an agreement between the FSSP of Russia and the Russian Federal Property Fund for the sale of seized property;

3) resolutions on the transfer of seized property for sale, indicating the specific selling organization.

ABOUT the decision taken at the request of the bailiff, the inspection must notify the bailiff.

The sale of seized property and repayment of debt are carried out by the bailiff within 2 months from the date the tax authority made a decision to postpone filing an application to the arbitration court to declare the debtor bankrupt.

If the authorized body, based on information received from law enforcement or during control measures, has reason to believe that the head of the debtor and (or) the owner of the debtor’s property is using the delay in filing an application for declaring the debtor bankrupt to the arbitration court to commit offenses, the decision is not made by the authorized body.

Repeated postponement by the authorized body of filing an application to the arbitration court to declare the debtor bankrupt is not allowed, except in cases where such a decision is made by the President of the Russian Federation or the Government of the Russian Federation.

Copies of decisions to postpone the filing of an application for declaring a debtor bankrupt with the arbitration court, made by the inspectorate of the Federal Tax Service of Russia in relation to organizations of the first, second and third groups, are sent for generalization, analysis and control to the Federal Tax Service of Russia.