Abstract: In her article Zadorozhnaya analyzes guidelines for tax control of transfer pricing in Russia as amended effective of January 1, 2012, from the point of view of their conformity with the principle of the balance of public an dprivate interests. The author analyzes both general conformity of involuntary adjustment of taxable base by tax authorities when rules of tax control over transfer pricing are applied and particular aspects of the subject matter (definition of transaction for the purposes of tax control over transfer pricing as well as competences of tax authorities when checking the calculation and payment of taxes resulting from transactions between related parties). The author has applied theoretical legal approaches to the definition of the 'balance of private and public interests' in relation to effective rules regarding tax control of transfer pricing in Russia. The author has also analyzed judicial and administrative practice on the matter. The main conclusion of the present research is that adjustment of a taxpayerв' taxable base based on the rules of tax control of transfer pricing does not distort the balance of public and private interests because it does not mean that the taxable base is not created in the place where it has never been before (i.e. during transactions between related parties) but the recorded profit 'hidden' by the other party is 'requalified' as part of the taxable base that has been formed as a result of transaction performed by the party which should have recorded it. These rules are based on the principles of taxation equality, 'substance over form', preservation of an appropriate taxable base and prevention of double taxation, economic justification and fair taxation. At the same time, the author states that there are some guidelines in the Tax Code of the Russian Federation (herein after TC of the RF) that need to be reviewed. Thus, provisions of Clause 11 of Article 105.7 of the TC of the RF significantly decrease the level of certainty and predictability in relations between taxpayers and tax authorities and this is why cannot be considered to be adequately restricting taxpayers' rights. Moreover, the term 'transaction' used in Section V.1 of the TC of the RF is narrow and less accurate than it is needed for the purposes of efficient tax control over transfer pricing which distorts the balance of public and private interests and does not allow to control the relations that should be controled (such as labor relations, debt conversion, etc.) while sets control over the relations which cannot be controled. According to the author, if not limited by the requirements of Section V.1 of the TC of the RF, control of transfer pricing by territorial tax authorities during tax audits creates unequal conditions for taxpayers depending on the type of transaction performed.

Keywords: transfer pricing, the arm’s length principle, balance of interests, Federal Tax Service of Russia, OECD Guidelines, tax audit, territorial tax authority, transaction, adjustment of taxable base, related parties

References:
Гражданский кодекс Российской Федерации (часть первая) от 30.11.1994 №51-ФЗ (ред. от
30.12.2015) // СПС «Консультант Плюс»
Поляков А.В., Тимошина Е.В. Учебник. Теория государства и права. СПб., 2005. С. 362.
Локк.Дж. Два трактата о правлении. Книга вторая // Локк.Дж. Сочинения. В 3 т. М., 1988. С. 317.
Шевелева Н.А. Баланс частных и публичных интересов // Конституция Российской Федерации:
доктрина и практика. М., 2009. С. 205.
Попова С.С. Принцип недопустимости двойного налогообложения в решениях Конституционного
суда Российской Федерации // Право и политика. М., 2005. №4. С. 12.
Соловьев В.А. Вопросы баланса публичного и частного интересов в налоговом праве // Финансовое
право. М., 2002. №4. С. 38.
Решение Европейского Суда по правам человека от 23 сентября 1982 по делу Спорронг и
Лоннрот против Швеции (Case of Sporrong and L?nnroth v. Sweden) // http://hudoc.echr.coe.
int/eng?i=001-57580#

References (transliteration):
Grazhdanskiy kodeks Rossiyskoy Federatsii (chast' pervaya) ot 30.11.1994 №51-FZ (red. ot
30.12.2015) // SPS «Konsul'tant Plyus»
Polyakov A.V., Timoshina E.V. Uchebnik. Teoriya gosudarstva i prava. SPb., 2005. S. 362.
Lokk.Dzh. Dva traktata o pravlenii. Kniga vtoraya // Lokk.Dzh. Sochineniya. V 3 t. M., 1988. S. 317.
Sheveleva N.A. Balans chastnykh i publichnykh interesov // Konstitutsiya Rossiyskoy Federatsii:
doktrina i praktika. M., 2009. S. 205.
Popova S.S. Printsip nedopustimosti dvoynogo nalogooblozheniya v resheniyakh Konstitutsionnogo
suda Rossiyskoy Federatsii // Pravo i politika. M., 2005. №4. S. 12.
Solov'ev V.A. Voprosy balansa publichnogo i chastnogo interesov v nalogovom prave // Finansovoe
pravo. M., 2002. №4. S. 38.
Reshenie Evropeyskogo Suda po pravam cheloveka ot 23 sentyabrya 1982 po delu Sporrong i
Lonnrot protiv Shvetsii (Case of Sporrong and L?nnroth v. Sweden) // http://hudoc.echr.coe.
int/eng?i=001-57580#

Abstract: The subject of the present research article is the process of differentiating cases of interdependence depending on their degree of impact on transation terms and economic performance of related parties. According to the author, the arm's length principle needs to be limited in cases when companies' intergration does not have the purpose to avoid taxes. In this regard, the author offers to differentiate cases of relationship depending on the degree of impact of one party on decisions made by the other party, and to define the grounds for taxation of a group of related parties (enterprises) as the single taxpayer. In his research Kamenkov has mainly used: 1) Aristotelian method that has allowed to define differences between relationship cases and to describe the features of the single consolidated taxpayer; and 2) comparative law method that has allowed to compare foreign and Russian approaches to the matter under research. The author of the article offers his own approach according to which related parties can be divided into the three groups depending on their degree of impact: 1) one of the parties can directly influence decisions of the other party (the 'red' light); 2) one of the partices can influence decisions of the other party unless the contrary is proved (the 'yellow' light); 3) one of the parties cannot influence decisions of the other party unless the contrary is proved (the 'green' light). Depending on the degree of impact of one party on the other party's will, the burden of the proof of related influence on business transactions and economic results of the consolidated taxpayer can be distributed. The author of the article also offers his approaches to fixing the single consolidated taxpayer for a group of companies participating in the same operating procedures. 

Keywords: income tax, traffic light principle, arms length principle, economic base, transfer pricing, single taxpayer, tax consequences, related parties, consolidated group of taxpayers, associate company

References:
Nalogovoe pravo Rossii. Obshchaya chast'. Uchebnik/otv. Red. N.A. Sheveleva M., 2001, S. 92-94;
Kaftannikov A.A. Transfertnoe tsenoobrazovanie: kommentariy izmeneniy Nalogovogo kodeksa RF //Konsul'tantPlyus;
Altukhova E.V. Vzaimozavisimye litsa v nalogovom prave: Avtoref. dis. ... kand. yurid. nauk. M., 2008. S. 9-10.
Sergeev A.G. Grazhdansko-pravovoe polozhenie affilirovannykh, vzaimozavisimykh lits i grupp lits: Dis. ... kand. yurid. nauk. M., 2010. S. 34-36.
Ivolzhatov A.V. Osnovaniya priznaniya yuridicheskikh lits vzaimozavisimymi v kontekste sravnitel'nogo mezhotraslevogo issledovaniya // Aktual'nye problemy rossiyskogo prava. 2013. N 11. S. 1437-1440.
Kavelin K.D. Izbrannye proizvedeniya po grazhdanskomu pravu M., 2003, S. 185.
Cherepakhin V.V. Trudy po grazhdanskomu pravu M., 2001, S. 304-305.
Kommercheskie (predprinimatel'skoe) pravo: ucheb.: v 2 t. T. 1 – 4-e izd. Pererab. i dop. / pod red. V.F. Popondopulo M. 2009, S. 133.
Ekonomicheskaya teoriya/pod red. A.I. Dobrynina, L.S. Tarasevicha, 3-e izd., Spb. 2008, S 92.
Tyutin D.V. Nalogovoe pravo: kurs lektsiy // SPS Konsul'tantPlyus. 2013.
Tseny pod kontrolem // Nalogoved. 2011. N 11. S. 17.
Khonko-akho Y. O nekotorykh aspektakh praktiki transfertnogo tsenoobrazovaniya v evropeyskikh stranakh // Nalogoved. 2012. N 2. S. 73, 74.
Kirillovykh A.A. Organizatsionno-pravovoy status finansovo-promyshlennykh grupp//Konsul'tantPlyus.
Kilinkarova E.V. Nalogovoe pravo zarubezhnykh stran M., 2014, S.114.
Ault H.J., Arnold B.J. Comparative Income Taxation. A Structural Analysis. P. 397-402.
http://www.taxjustice.net/topics/corporate-tax/transfer-pricing/.
Ting A. The Taxation of Corporate Under Consolidation: An International Comparison. 2013, P. 40-46.
http://www.audit-it.ru/news/account/843473.html.
Kucheryavenko N.P. Kurs nalogovogo prava: V 2 t. T. 1: Obshchaya chast' M. 2009, S. 538.
Nalogovoe pravo: Uchebnik dlya vuzov/Pod red. S.G. Pepelyaeva M., 2015, S. 121-122.
Tot'ev K.Yu. Legitimatsiya sub'ektov predprinimatel'skoy deyatel'nosti // Zakonnost'. 2002. N 12. C. 12.
Petrov D.A. Konkurentnoe pravo: teoriya i praktika primeneniya M., 2013. C. 40-41.
Shitkina I.S. «Snyatie korporativnoy vuali» v rossiyskom prave: pravovoe regulirovanie i praktika primeneniya// Khozyaystvo i pravo. 2013. N 2. S. 8.

References (transliteration):
Nalogovoe pravo Rossii. Obshchaya chast'. Uchebnik/otv. Red. N.A. Sheveleva M., 2001, S. 92-94;
Kaftannikov A.A. Transfertnoe tsenoobrazovanie: kommentariy izmeneniy Nalogovogo kodeksa RF //Konsul'tantPlyus;
Altukhova E.V. Vzaimozavisimye litsa v nalogovom prave: Avtoref. dis. ... kand. yurid. nauk. M., 2008. S. 9-10.
Sergeev A.G. Grazhdansko-pravovoe polozhenie affilirovannykh, vzaimozavisimykh lits i grupp lits: Dis. ... kand. yurid. nauk. M., 2010. S. 34-36.
Ivolzhatov A.V. Osnovaniya priznaniya yuridicheskikh lits vzaimozavisimymi v kontekste sravnitel'nogo mezhotraslevogo issledovaniya // Aktual'nye problemy rossiyskogo prava. 2013. N 11. S. 1437-1440.
Kavelin K.D. Izbrannye proizvedeniya po grazhdanskomu pravu M., 2003, S. 185.
Cherepakhin V.V. Trudy po grazhdanskomu pravu M., 2001, S. 304-305.
Kommercheskie (predprinimatel'skoe) pravo: ucheb.: v 2 t. T. 1 – 4-e izd. Pererab. i dop. / pod red. V.F. Popondopulo M. 2009, S. 133.
Ekonomicheskaya teoriya/pod red. A.I. Dobrynina, L.S. Tarasevicha, 3-e izd., Spb. 2008, S 92.
Tyutin D.V. Nalogovoe pravo: kurs lektsiy // SPS Konsul'tantPlyus. 2013.
Tseny pod kontrolem // Nalogoved. 2011. N 11. S. 17.
Khonko-akho Y. O nekotorykh aspektakh praktiki transfertnogo tsenoobrazovaniya v evropeyskikh stranakh // Nalogoved. 2012. N 2. S. 73, 74.
Kirillovykh A.A. Organizatsionno-pravovoy status finansovo-promyshlennykh grupp//Konsul'tantPlyus.
Kilinkarova E.V. Nalogovoe pravo zarubezhnykh stran M., 2014, S.114.
Ault H.J., Arnold B.J. Comparative Income Taxation. A Structural Analysis. P. 397-402.
http://www.taxjustice.net/topics/corporate-tax/transfer-pricing/.
Ting A. The Taxation of Corporate Under Consolidation: An International Comparison. 2013, P. 40-46.
http://www.audit-it.ru/news/account/843473.html.
Kucheryavenko N.P. Kurs nalogovogo prava: V 2 t. T. 1: Obshchaya chast' M. 2009, S. 538.
Nalogovoe pravo: Uchebnik dlya vuzov/Pod red. S.G. Pepelyaeva M., 2015, S. 121-122.
Tot'ev K.Yu. Legitimatsiya sub'ektov predprinimatel'skoy deyatel'nosti // Zakonnost'. 2002. N 12. C. 12.
Petrov D.A. Konkurentnoe pravo: teoriya i praktika primeneniya M., 2013. C. 40-41.
Shitkina I.S. «Snyatie korporativnoy vuali» v rossiyskom prave: pravovoe regulirovanie i praktika primeneniya// Khozyaystvo i pravo. 2013. N 2. S. 8.