Trade Tax Evasion in Retail Markets: Causes and Ways to Overcome

Cash register equipment is recognized as an effective tool for controlling the taxpayer’s proceeds in settlements with the population. At the same time, scientific and practical literature lacks scientific and methodological analysis of approaches to the formation of preferential categories of participants of trade relations exempt from state control in retail markets. The purpose of this study is to form common universal approaches to the mechanism of transformation of the established financial and economic models of behavior in the market territories. In the course of the study, the methods of systematization, comparison, logic, and statistical analysis were applied. It has been revealed that there are no common law enforcement approaches to the implementation of trade in the territory having the status of a retail market, which imposes additional obligations on the seller, different from taxation, but bearing financial and administrative costs without providing any advantages in comparison with other formats of trade. There are very few effective tools to counteract these risks. The article substantiates that the exemption from the obligation to use cash register technology (CRT), based on a superficial description of the criterion of the premises used and the principle of ensuring the “safety of goods”, does not provide a clear regulation of the boundary of the use of CRT in markets. According to the authors, when considering the issue of changing approaches to the formation of preferential categories exempted from state control in retail markets, it is important to establish what is the reason for exempting a person from using a cash register, i.e., why a taxpayer selling goods in the market is exempt from a cash register, but performing the same activity in a shop is obliged to use it? The article substantiates the conclusion that for a comprehensive solution to the problem, it is necessary to extend the privilege of non-application of KKT exclusively to payers of the unified agricultural tax (UAT), regardless of the category of the trading platform (markets, fairs, exhibitions, etc.), and to the relevant trade organisers (the organisation managing the market, fair, exhibition) — the obligation to control the use of KKT by other tenants with the introduction of the responsibility of landlords for the non-use of KKT by tenants.

1. Mazhar U., Méon P.G. Taxing the unobservable: The impact of the shadow economy on inflation and taxation. World Development. 2017;90:89-103. DOI: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.08.019

2. Mitra S. To tax or not to tax? When does it matter for informality? Economic Modelling. 2017;64:117-127. DOI: 10.1016/j.econmod.2017.02.024

3. Charlot O., Malherbet F., Terra C. Informality in developing economies: Regulation and fiscal policies. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control. 2015;51:1-27. DOI: 10.1016/j.jedc.2014.09.031

4. Goudarzi M., Mittone L. Shrinking the shadow economy: Experimental insights into the role of financial development. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics. 2023;107:102080. DOI: 10.1016/j.socec.2023.102080

5. Giammatteo M., Iezzi S., Zizza R., Pecunia olet. Cash usage and the underground economy. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization. 2022;204:107-127. DOI: 10.1016/j.jebo.2022.10.005

6. Akmoldina B., Akhmetova M. Foreign experience in assessing the shadow economy and auditing the implementation of the policy to counter the shadow economy. Memlekettіk audit = State Audit. 2023;60(3):65-75. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.55871/2072-9847-2023-60-3-65-75

7. Sitnik A. A. Legal regulation and financial control in the field of application of cash registers in foreign countries. Vestnik Universiteta imeni O. E. Kutafina (MGYuA) = Courier of the Kutafin Moscow State Law University (MSAL). 2018;(9):193-207. (In Russ.).

8. Goncharenko L. I., Advokatova A. S., Batarin A. A. Identification of the obligation to fix calculations in the system of tax relations. Ekonomika. Nalogi. Pravo = Economics, Taxes & Law. 2022;15(2):156-166. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.26794/1999-849X-2022-15-2-156-166

9. Maiburov I.A., ed. Digital technologies of tax administration. Moscow: UNITY-DANA; 2019. 263 p. (In Russ.).

10. Goncharenko L. I., Vishnevskii V. P., Gurnak A.V., et al. Study of alternative concepts of tax regulation as a factor in ensuring the new industrial revolution in Russia. Moscow: KnoRus; 2023. 486 p. (In Russ.).

11. Thaha A. R., Antoro A. F.S., Muhtarom H. Analytical review of tax compliance studies in the SMEs sector: A bibliometric approach. Journal of Tax Reform. 2023;9(3):398-412. DOI: 10.15826/jtr.2023.9.3.149

12. Advokatova A.S. Tax control in the context of modification of relations between tax authorities and taxpayers. Moscow: RuScience; 2020. 190 p. (In Russ.).

13. Goncharenko L. I., Advokatova A. S. Synergy of digital technologies and service model of tax authorities as a driver of tax administration development. Vestnik Tyumenskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Sotsial’noekonomicheskie i pravovye issledovaniya = Tyumen State University Herald. Social, Economic, and Law Research. 2024;10(2):131-145. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.21684/2411-7897-2024-10-2-131-145

14. Batarin А.А., Sorokin А.А. Some aspects of state control (supervision) in the Russian Federation through the prism of online cash register inspections. Nalogovaya politika i praktika. 2023;(1):25-29. (In Russ.).

15. Goncharenko L. I., Advokatova A. S. Modern forms of tax control as a tool for ensuring budget stability. Innovatsionnoe razvitie ekonomiki = Innovative Development of Economy. 2016;(6-2):129-135. (In Russ.).

16. Batarin A.A. Tax security of the state: Balancing public and private interests. Nalogovaya politika i praktika. 2024;(2):76-80. (In Russ.).

17. Batarin A.A., Sorokin A.A. Public-private partnership in operational control: A conceptual approach and the limits of what is permissible. Nalogovaya politika i praktika. 2024;(4):44-47. (In Russ.).

18. Ponomareva K.A., Maslov K.V. The concept and classification of forms of legal coverage of tax security of the state. Nalogi = Taxes. 2024;(1):39-44. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.18572/1999-4796-2024-1-39-44

19. Kevorkova M. E. Prospective approaches to assessing the efficiency of the state financial control bodies’ activities. Finansovyi zhurnal = Financial Journal. 2024;16(2):59-71. (In Russ.). DOI: 10/31107/2075-1990-2024-2-59-71

20. Goncharenko L. I., Krayushkin K. D. Evolution of the content of the service function of the tax authorities. Upravlencheskie nauki = Management Sciences. 2024;14(2):51-63. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.26794/2304-022X-2024-14-2-51-63

21. Goncharenko L. I. Tax preferences in the spatial development of the country: Terminological aspect of the study Finance: Theory and Practice. 2024;28(4):108-121. DOI: 10.26794/2587-5671-2024-28-4-108-121

22. Kosov M.E., Golubtsova E.V., Novikova E.S. Government tax regulation in the agricultural sector in conditions of import substitution policy. Finance: Theory and Practice. 2023;27(2):119-130. DOI: 10.26794/2587-5671- 2023-27-2-119-130