Task 1 (94)
On the basis of a tax inspection of the violation of tax legislation from the current account of the limited liability company was written off without acceptance 204 thousand. Rub. The Company filed a lawsuit for the return of 204 thousand. Rub. and payment pre¬dusmotrennyh Art. GC 395 percent in the amount of 94 thousand. Rub. nepravomer¬noe for the use of his money.
In reviewing the claim, it was found that the tax authorities to recover from the company unreasonably 204 thousand. Rub. in the form of financial san¬ktsy for violation of tax legislation. Therefore, the court udovletvo¬ril lawsuit regarding the return of budget 204 thousand. Rub. However, part of the interest payment in the amount of 94 thousand. Rub. the claim was denied.
Assess the court's decision.
1) The Court rendered a legitimate and reasoned decision, the action and returning from the budget of 204 thousand. Rub. and not applying the tax legal provisions of Art. 395 of the Civil Code, refused to recover interest at a rate of 94 thousand. Rub.
2) The Court rendered an illegal decision, as under current legislation, with the unlawful debiting without acceptance of funds from the taxpayer, in accordance with Art. 395 of the Civil Code, must be paid interest for improper use of funds, so the court is obliged to collect 204 thousand. Rub., Which unreasonably exacted tax authorities, as well as 94 thousand. Rub. interest for improper use of funds.
3) The Court wrongly sought from the budget 204 thousand. Rub. and rightly refused to recover percent.
Citizen Mikheev filed in the housing authority to privatize them occupied housing under a contract of employment to four room apartments. The paperwork was delayed and Mikheev soon died. All their property bequeathed to her granddaughter Mikheev Selezneva.
Joining the right of inheritance, Selezneva asked the housing authority for the renewal rights to the apartment. Selezneva told that, since the documents for privatization were not decorated, right in sobst¬vennosti Mikheyev to the apartment did not have. Qualify for the poluche¬nie apartments for use under the contract of employment is not entitled to Seleznev.
Seleznev filed a lawsuit in court to oblige the Housing Authority is¬polnit duties under the contract of privatization concluded with grazhda¬ninom Mikheev, justifying his claim that being edinst¬vennoy heiress, she is the successor Mikheyev all za¬klyuchennym their contracts.
The representative of the Housing Authority argued that the contract privatiza¬tsii dwelling is not among the civil law dogo¬vorov because it is not based on equality of the parties, and administrativ¬nom subordinate to one party to another. The administrative pravo¬otnosheniyam same rules on hereditary succession does not apply.
What decision should stand trial?
1) the Court should reject the claim Selezneva, since the contract privatiza¬tsii dwelling is not among the civil law dogo¬vorov because it is not based on equality of the parties, and subordinate administrativ¬nom one party to another. By the same right-administrative relations of the hereditary succession rules do not apply.
2) The court must order the housing authority is¬polnit duties under the contract of privatization concluded with grazhda¬ninom Mikheev, based on the fact that, being heir edinst¬vennoy, Seleznyov is the successor Mikheyev all za¬klyuchennym their contracts.
3) the Court must reject the claim Selezneva, recognizing her right to claim poluche¬nie apartments for use under a contract of employment.
Ivanov, who lived in the house of HBC, addressed to the notary office for the registration of wills. The notary asked him pred¬stavit information about that share contribution for the apartment they paid polno¬styu. The Board of the cooperative Ivanov refused to issue the required certificates on the grounds that he was is in arrears in the payment of cont