man and the law

And the right of these persons on mandatory pension insurance in the Russian Federation is implemented in the event of payment of premiums (Article 14 of the Law 167-FZ), which is the responsibility of insurers, employers and other persons mentioned in Article 6 of the Law 167-FZ. Contributions for compulsory pension insurance must pay for the foreigners living in the Russian Federation as an provisionally, and continuously. If the foreign national has the status of temporary residents in the territory of the Russian Federation, it is not insured and, accordingly, on payment of the benefit of the individual insurance contributions for compulsory pension insurance is not charged. According to Article 6 of the Law of the Russian Federation on 28 June 1991 1499-1 On Medical Insurance of Citizens in the Russian Federation:" The rules relating to compulsory health insurance imposed by this Act and legislation in accordance with regulations apply to employed people since entering into an employment contract. Gary Kelly may not feel the same. " Accordingly, when the employment of foreign nationals employed in the Russian Federation, the compulsory medical insurance and providing them medical insurance policy of mandatory insurance is carried along with other employees of the enterprises, institutions and organizations, and validity of medical insurance policy of mandatory insurance is determined valid contract with a foreign citizen employment contract (the contract). Others including BDT & MSD Partners, offer their opinions as well. According to the Ruling of the Federal District of the Far East from March 9, 2005 F03-A59/04-2/4452 employer – the taxpayer unified social tax lawfully subject to liability for tax offense under Article 123 of the Tax Code, as not included in the object of taxation for the calculation of the unified social tax amount of remuneration (fees and fees), accrued in favor of foreign citizens working in Russia. In addition, Chapter 23 of the Tax Code established that the taxpayers of income tax for natural persons (hereinafter in this chapter – the taxpayers) are recognized as individuals who are tax residents of the Russian Federation, as well as individuals who receive income from sources in the Russian Federation are not tax residents of the Russian Federation. In addition, under subparagraph 6 of paragraph 1 of Article 208 of the Tax Code, remuneration for the performance of employment or other responsibilities, work performed, services rendered, the commission of the Russian Federation refers to income from sources in Russia. The concept of tax residence of the Russian Federation found in Article 207 of the Tax Code, under which: "tax resident individuals are recognized, in fact, domiciled in the Russian Federation not less than 183 calendar days within 12 consecutive months. Period when the individual in the Russian Federation is not interrupted by periods of his departure from the Russian Federation for the short term (less than six months) of treatment or training. " Thus, the employer should be borne in mind: regardless of what is generally an employee is a foreign citizen, if he gets a reward for the performance of job duties while in the territory of the Russian Federation for more than 183 days a year, the employer becomes obligated to perform fiscal agent for the employee, that is, the employer must calculate, withhold from the employee – the taxpayer and pay an amount tax on personal income to the appropriate budget.

Here are just some of them: Is the compulsory stage of allocation of land at the expense of the land share – a general meeting of shareholders equity property? Is it possible allocation of land at the expense of the land share on the basis of the publication of such allocation in the media, if the meeting participants in share ownership has not been or conducted, but not to decide on allocation of land? Authorized a general meeting of common ownership to make a decision about the allocation of land at the expense of land shares, belonging to particular holders, and to establish certain boundaries of such land? Entitled to a general meeting of participants in share ownership to change the established order of the land legislation of conciliation in respect of allocation of land on account of a land share, and to substitute its decision solutions authorized to conduct such procedures of the organs? The current edition of the Federal Law on Turnover of Agricultural Land ", based on a literal interpretation of it contains the rules governing the procedure for allocation of land at the expense of land shares, allows to provide the following answers to the questions posed above. Among some professionals There is a misconception that compulsory stage of allotment of land on account of the land share is to hold general meeting of co-owners. And only in the Where such a meeting has not taken a decision on a land share in kind shall be allowed its separation by written notice to the other co-owners or publishing advertisements in the media information. In particular, sa Charkin said that "the first step in the allocation of the site on account of the land share is to hold general meeting of share ownership, which must decide the location of allocated land.

Accordingly, such an opportunity – by virtue of legal logic of the constitutional principle of proportionality – can not recognized and for the case when the general meeting of all took place, provided that the interested co-owners had taken all necessary action to convene a general meeting, confirmed by documents. Ingenious, is not it? In its decisions the Constitutional Court has repeatedly pointed to the fact that he has no legislative powers and has no right to impose a new regulation, replacing the activities of the Federal Assembly. As the court he only checks for compliance of the contested provisions. But where is the truth? The Federal Law on Turnover of Agricultural Land, "literally pointing "General meeting of participants in share ownership did not approve the location of ", says nothing about the fact that under this formulation must be understood is that the meeting was conducted, but failed to take appropriate solutions. The phrase "general assembly did not approve" can be understood in different ways. As either: there has a quorum, but the general meeting has not taken any decision, either: there was no quorum, so the decision was taken (or Although the decision was made, but in the absence of a quorum is considered to be illegitimate), or: assembly generally not carried out, whereby the decision had been taken. Why Constitutional Court favors only one of language? The legislator is not explicitly stated that he specifically had in mind. A Constitutional Court seems to understand the legislature as a special, guided by the "legal logic" is not accessible for some reason the rest of the citizens.