The case on the constitutionality of subparagraph 14.3 of paragraph 14 of Article 73-1 and subparagraph 1.10 of paragraph 1 of Article 213 (as amended by Law of the Republic of Belarus of 31 December No. 141-З), the section 1 and subparagraph 7.1 of paragraph 7 of Article 214 (as amended by Law of the Republic of Belarus of 30 December 2022 No. 230-З) of the Tax Code was considered based on the individual complaint of V.I. Stonko.

According to the applicant, the contested provisions of the Tax Code are unconstitutional to the extent that they impose, in the event of a desk audit of the compliance of expenditures with revenues of an individual, the obligation to pay income tax on the amount of expenditures exceeding revenues at rates established not on the date of the actual receipt of revenues, but on the date of the desk audit report.

Following the consideration and resolution of this case, the Constitutional Court found the aforementioned provisions of the Tax Code, in their interrelationships, to be consistent with the Constitution of the Republic of Belarus.

In its decision the Constitutional Court reached the following conclusions.

The contested provisions do not extend to previous tax or reporting periods, but are applied from the date of the desk audit report, i.e., from the occurrence of an event that occurred after the entry into force of the provisions governing the mechanism for conducting a desk audit and that gave rise to new legal relations. Increased tax rates, established by the Tax Code, when expenditures are found to exceed revenues are intended to ensure that, by the time the desk audit is completed, the individual (taxpayer) has fulfilled the previously violated tax obligation, taking into account the costs incurred by the state and society.

The legal regulation under consideration, which determines the procedure for conducting a desk audit of the compliance of expenditures with revenues of an individual, is aimed at preventing abuses by unscrupulous taxpayers and combating the illegal concealment of income. Therefore, the contested provisions of the Tax Code cannot be considered as creating legal uncertainty and, accordingly, cannot be found to be violating the constitutional rights of the applicant.

Based on the constitutional and legal meaning of the contested provisions of the Tax Code, the Constitutional Court finds that, in conjunction with paragraph 7 of Article 3 of the Tax Code and Article 66 of the Law “On Normative Legal Acts”, the provisions contested by the applicant comply with the constitutional principles of the rule of law, equality before the law, fairness, and proportionality in the restriction of rights; the constitutional requirement for the lawful establishment of taxes; the constitutional obligation of citizens of the Republic of Belarus to pay taxes, duties, and other payments; and the constitutional guarantee not to be compelled to perform duties not provided for by the Constitution and laws.

The case regarding the constitutional complaint of V.I. Stonko was considered and resolved using the written form of constitutional proceedings, with the participation of authorised representatives of state bodies in the Constitutional Court in the court hearing.