The subject of the study is the mechanism for determining the fiscal fee forthe main transportation of hydrocarbon goods as a resource concept. The purposeof this article is to justify the nature and prospects of using, instead of currentrent, hydrocarbon fiscal-main income as a fiscal payment, which is brought intothe state budget by operators of the main hydrocarbon-transport system as business entities for their transportation of hydrocarbons and products of their processing through main pipelines appropriate to the economic requirements. Theresearch methodology is determined by a combination of methods: a) cognition:legal analysis (study of the regulatory framework for the use of rent); b) justification: abstract logical analysis (definition of the concepts of hydrocarbon fiscalmain income); c) generalization (substantiation of conclusions and proposals).Results of work. In the process of analyzing the regulatory legal acts that regulate the use of current annuity as payment to the budget for the main transportation of hydrocarbons, it was established that it is not a tax in the interpretationof PKU, since the essence does not meet the official definition of tax, does notmeet the accepted definition of the concept of rent. The accepted nature andmechanism of paying rent for the transportation of hydrogen resources and associated revenues of the state and users of the main hydrogen transport systemand the unpromising nature of its use as a fiscal payment are analyzed. Conclusions.It is proposed that the state pay for the territorial pumping of hydrocarbon resources according to our triple principle as hydrocarbon fiscal-main income, whichcorresponds to its essence, and accordingly change the mechanism for calculatingand depositing funds to treasury accounts. Since the funds come to the revenueside of the state budget, that is, inherently belong to state revenue. The creationof such a mechanism needs certain studies, justifications and government decisions. The same applies to land use, since the quality indicators of soils, wherethe laid pipelines are territorially different. In addition, there is a process ofchanging land for its intended purpose, for the property. The fee for movinghydrocarbon resources should be calculated depending on the type of transport,including pipelines, for a set of indicators: quantity and quality of goods, time,main tariffs and distance of its movement. The amount may be adjusted usingfactors officially established by the CMU. Since the pipelines are located in territorial lands, part of this fee should be transferred to the territorial local budgets.Theoretically, the economic use of trunk pipelines should be considered as a typeof economic environmental management. Therefore, this type of government revenue should be determined by a set of indicators, as well as taking into account the economic interests of business entities authorized by the CMU. Thus, theimplementation of our proposed fiscal payment is relevant, has scientific noveltyand promising practical significance, therefore, for state recognition it is proposedto include it in the Tax Code of Ukraine.
CRISIS AND RECOVERY OF BUSINESS ENTITIES IN TOURISM IN THE POST PANDEMIC PERIOD IN SLOVAKIA
