Stability and Reasonable Predictability of Russian Tax Legislation: Legal Mechanisms and Enforcement Issues

The subject of this study is the legal mechanisms that ensure a reasonable degree of stability and predictability in the tax legislation of the Russian Federation—an issue of fundamental importance for implementing the constitutional principle of maintaining citizens’ trust in the law and in state action. The research encompasses an analysis of the normative foundations of tax law that enshrine the requirements of legal certainty and the prohibition of arbitrary alteration of tax obligations, as well as special mechanisms designed to preserve the resilience of legal regulation in a dynamic economic environment. The inquiry focuses on such legal constructs as the establishment of transitional periods when tax legislation is amended, the use of stabilization clauses in investment agreements, and the constitutional prohibition on conferring retroactive effect on laws where this would worsen the position of taxpayers. The aim is not only to identify and systematize these mechanisms, but also to assess their practical effectiveness and to delineate avenues for legislative improvement capable of enhancing the predictability of the tax system. Methodologically, the study employs a combination of general scientific and specialized legal methods: formal legal analysis of normative acts and judicial decisions; the comparative-law method to juxtapose domestic and foreign practices of securing stability in tax regulation; and systems and structural-functional approaches that made it possible to reveal the interconnections among, and the effectiveness of, individual legal mechanisms taken together. The scientific novelty lies in a holistic assessment of the mechanisms of stability in tax legislation through the lens of the principle of maintaining trust in the law. The analysis shows that, although Russian law provides key safeguards—transitional periods, stabilization clauses, and a ban on the retroactive effect of tax laws—their implementation faces significant difficulties. There is no uniform criterion for the sufficient duration of transitional periods; stabilization clauses are limited in scope and fragmented; and the prohibition on retroactivity is sometimes circumvented by adopting so-called “clarifying” amendments. Case law exhibits a tendency to prioritize the state’s fiscal interests at the expense of legal certainty, which adversely affects taxpayers’ trust. The study concludes that it is necessary to enshrine in legislation minimum transition periods for the most sensitive tax changes, to develop criteria for the admissibility of retrospective amendments, and to strengthen the transparency of tax policy.