The paradoxes of the law and judicial practice involving the lease of land plots

Introduction: the paradox of thejudicial practice on claims of the municipal authorities on forcing theconclusion of leaseagreements of land plotswith the owners ofparking spacesin the underground parking lots (garages). The Tax Code of the Russian Federation (Article 15 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation) establishes a fee for the use of land. The forms of payment for the use of land are land tax and rent. Article 15 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation establishes that the land tax refers to local taxesand the payment for it goes to thelocal budgetofthe municipalityin whose territory the tax was introduced. The right ofownership of land (real estate) is registered and ispubliclyavailable. The tax authorities immediatelyissue payment receipts and the owners paythe tax, sothe payment for the use of land is observed. Nevertheless, the municipal authorities (the departments of municipal property of the DMI) require owners to conclude lease agreements, lease their propertyand paya fee to the local budget. The courts satisfysuch claims and create a paradox that does not meet the requirements of the Constitution of the Russian Federation (Article 36), therequirements of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, which establishes that the landlord can onlybe the owner or a person authorized by law or the owner to lease the property (Article 608 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). It isparadoxical, but that’s the fact that the owner of his property becomes both a landlord and a tenant of his property. And the departments receive double payment for the use of land in the form ofa local tax and in the form of rent. It is necessary to formulate the norms of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation and the Civil Code of the Russian Federation more clearlyand expressly so that there is nopossibilityofa paradoxical interpretation of the procedure for their application. In addition, the courts recognize the owner as unreasonably enriched, since the registered ownership of the land plot is not considered a sufficient legal basis to use his property. The purpose of the studyis the author’s attempts to show contradictions in the judicial practice on the application of the norms of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the Tax Codeofthe Russian Federation, and the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. Methods: in the process of the research, the method ofa systematic approach to the study of legal concepts, comparative legal analysis, and synthesis was used. Results: the author clearly shows the conflict of interests of the owners of land plots and the departments of municipal property. As a result of the study, it is shown that the wording of the norms of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation and the Civil Code of the Russian Federation allows them tobe interpreted differently and, accordingly, applied differently. Conclusions: the author proposes the rules for the exact interpretation of the norms of law and changes in the judicial practice in such cases.