In order to implement paragraph 5 of Article 8 of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated November 18, 2015 "On Combating Corruption", the Working Group on the analysis of corruption risks of the Department of State Revenue for the Karaganda Region of the State Revenue Committee of the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter referred to as the - Department) conducted an internal analysis of corruption risks in the activities of structural divisions in terms of not involving a taxpayer and a participant in foreign economic activity (hereinafter referred to as the - PFEA) аdministrative responsibility for various violations of the tax and customs legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan.
Thus, when studying this issue and legislative acts, the following is established:
The basis of administrative responsibility is the commission of an act containing all the elements of an offense provided for in the Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Administrative Offenses" dated July 5, 2014 №235-V of the ZRK (hereinafter referred to as the Administrative Code). Chapter 36 of the Administrative Code defines the jurisdiction of cases of administrative offenses, the competence of officials to review cases and impose administrative penalties.
Article 720 of the Administrative Code establishes a list of articles according to which the heads of state revenue bodies and their deputies, as well as for offenses in the field of customs affairs - officials of state revenue bodies authorized by the head have the right to consider cases of administrative offenses and impose administrative penalties on behalf of state revenue bodies.
Failure to bring to administrative responsibility the taxpayer and PFEA, who committed an administrative offense, may lead to a lack of access to the budget amounts and possible collusion between employees of the state revenue authorities and taxpayers. Officials of the state revenue bodies are given the opportunity to make decisions at their own discretion, which will create prerequisites for providing undue preference to individuals and (or) legal entities in the preparation and adoption of decisions, using their official powers in resolving issues related to the satisfaction of their material interests, through collusion, which is beneficial to the taxpayer, thereby avoiding the taxpayer from administrative responsibility. Such a diversion of the perpetrators from responsibility creates new facts of violations and losses to the budget.
Based on the analysis carried out by the Department's working group, the following recommendations were made to eliminate the above-mentioned corruption risks:
2. In order to eliminate the risk of corruption in terms of possible collusion between employees of state revenue bodies and taxpayers, PFEA should promptly identify and bring to disciplinary responsibility officials who have allowed untimely bringing to administrative responsibility of taxpayers and PFEA.