Customers

The consumer can intuitively or on the basis of the documentation to doubt that the company will work in full (and often correct), but he can not refuse, because received a protocol auction committee: "We order you to work here and get such a service." Customers, meanwhile said: "I do not want this, I want better service, and I have some money on this product, the service '. It is worth noting that in the auction bids are no requirements to verify the artist, his work experience, financial, manufacturing, human resources base. All of this diluted, remains the main feature – the price. And the consumer again a contradiction: "I am a consumer, but I chose the company, and the auction commission has imposed it to me, and then why it is I have to prove that it is a good singer? Let him prove his work. " In addition, the customer must meet the conditions of the contest or to prove that the service is provided to poor quality, that it is very difficult, sometimes impossible, but precious time was running out.

Entrepreneurs at different levels in favor of increased control over conducting competitions, a detailed analysis of participating companies. With one single criterion 'price' to make a product with the required quality is almost impossible. If the company respects its employees, it can not automatically agree to a large price drop, it will have to pay any taxes is not, or detain staff salaries, or use materials of very low quality. And as you can get the job done, if they themselves materials are more expensive than the amount for which the company wins a lot? Such statements can be made only by unscrupulous suppliers. Public procurement system, as is known, covers the entire state. The law must improve, say the traders, but the blow must be techechny, not piecemeal. The question remains open … Many hope that very soon on this conflict in the 94-FZ, finally, pay attention, and the authorities turn, First of all, to yourself person.

Civil Code

Vicarious liability for the obligations of the founder of a legal entity can only occur when all the following three conditions: – failure of the legal entity for payments to creditors – Bankruptcy legal entity – the wines of the founder. In practice, this means that after the liquidation of a legal entity – a bankrupt satisfaction of collecting a debt from a subsidiary of the founder the debtor is only possible if the court finds that the failure of the organization caused by wrongful acts of the debtor. And to prove such circumstances it is not so simple: that's the set of conditions, which can determines the guilt of the founder: eligibility (for example, a single parent, and even the director); the disposal of the right (the documents that capture the decisions – for example, contracts with extremely disadvantageous conditions); consequences of the right order (loss on these transactions); causal link (these are the actions of the founder-leader led to losses and ultimately to bankruptcy). Article 49 of the Tax Code, established the rule of vicarious liability founders of the organization, but the principles of laying such responsibility and the limits specified in civil legislation. Learn more at: Angela Zepeda. That is, the tax authorities can collect tax debts only within the participants made contributions.

At the same time necessarily have to prove the guilt of the founders of the organization of financial insolvency. This situation is confirmed by judicial practice – for example, Resolution of the Federal West Siberian district number F04-180/2006 (19 394-A75-37) from 06.02.2006. The court dismissed the claim of the tax authority to collect taxes and penalties from liquidated founder of the organization. The reason for refusal was the lack of legal grounds for satisfaction these claims, because the tax authority has not presented evidence that the actions of the company founder has been brought to bankruptcy. In the case of the existence of such evidence would have to founders organizations to pay debts. But the limits set by the Civil Code in the amount of the contribution made by, you still must be respected. Lipatov Dmitry, Associate Consulting Group "tax collector". The newspapers mentioned Charles Schwab not as a source, but as a related topic.

Competition

In addition, the deterioration of relations with the specified public authority is fraught with problems when placing securities. It should also be noted that the FFMS may conduct inspections of issuers, to demand the necessary documents, issuers engage in administrative responsibility. So, in response to a complaint by a shareholder non-payment of declared dividends RO FSFR conducted an audit, in which the requested documents from the company over the past 5 years (minutes of meetings, proof of notification of the meeting, mailing lists notice of the meeting of shareholders, proof of payment of dividends, the lists of persons eligible to participate in the meeting in relation to each meeting of shareholders and so on). Submit documents to the specified list for the audited company has been very difficult. 3. Federal Antimonopoly Service of Russia (FAS) FAS is a public authority exercising state supervision compliance with antitrust laws, as well as the prevention and suppression of monopolistic activity, unfair competition and other competition-restricting actions. As practice shows, not many public companies to freely orient in antitrust. Violation of accepted everywhere.

Meanwhile, the penalties for violation of the law "On Competition and Restriction of monopolistic activity on commodity markets "are among the highest in the Code of Administrative Violations. Few of the managers of the enterprise pays attention to the fact that the business entity may be made to the list of businesses with market share exceeding 35 percent. As a rule, the order of the FAS making company in the corresponding list is not being sent to lawyers, that leads to errors in transactions, the establishment of subsidiaries and, accordingly, to administrative responsibility.