State Procedure

It is not for me to judge why Eduard Limonov needed to fight a foreign adoption (one must presumably for patriotic reasons), but what he wrote about this is simply illiterate nonsense.

“ An American who has adopted even a healthy child receives more than 13 thousand dollars as a gift ,” Limonov reports his flock and continues: “ We are not sleeping, digging, with my old friend, an American journalist, his name is Mark Ames, how much benefits an American family who adopted the child. The child, the so -called Tax Credit, is over 13 thousand dollars.

If, from the point of view of Limonov and Mark Aims, Tax Credit is a profit, then the won in the lottery, apparently, dividends. Well, what to take from an American journalist and a Russian writer, who do not know how to write the word "adoption" in English, but undertake to talk about finances. The gods refused to challenge the taxes in the sweet fate.

In fact, this is no profit, but the amount of expenses for adoption, excluded from the taxable income of the foster family. This includes the payment of the services of the agency, legal costs, a lawyer's fee and the road to both ends. Of course, the American state, of course, does not pay for the American state.

Last year, this amount amounted to $ 13,370 per child. It is quite obvious that the real expenses of adoptive parents are many more, so the US tax service does not require any documents except confirming the fact of adoption. For a family that earns more than 189 710 dollars a year, the tax benefit will be less, and with an income of $ 229,710, it is not provided at all. The difference between Tax Credit and Tax Deduction is that this money is not only written off from taxes, but is subtracted from the amount of the due federal tax. If the family’s income is small and the amount of tax is less than the amount of tax loan for adoption (international adoption to such families is not a pocket, but no one has the right to prohibit them), then the adoptive parents receive the difference in their hands. It is difficult to call this profit.

In connection with the threat of a “fiscal cliff”, there was a danger that the tax benefit for adoption would be canceled: the validity of the law that introduced it, just expired. However, the Congress and the president at the last moment nevertheless came to a temporary agreement, and this article has remained in the federal budget. Activists of public organizations engaged in adoption issues made a lot of efforts to this, information about which can be gleaned here . Moreover. Starting this year, the benefit of the adoptive parents of a disabled child will be increased by 5-6 thousand dollars. Frankly, it is small in a small way.

Having dealt with Limon's insinuations, let's talk about the legality of the anti -Sirot law.

I already wrote that the law violates the UN Convention on the rights of the child, one of which is the right to adoption. With satisfaction, I state that Deputy Prime Minister Olga Golodets, who did not limit himself to public statements, came to the same conclusion, but sent the corresponding letter to the presidential administration, and did this with the knowledge of the Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev. Now it turns out that the members of the Federal Assembly were in such a hurry to adopt the law that they grossly violated the procedure.

As the famous lawyer Matvey Levant notes , the issues of adoption are regulated by family legislation, and this legislation in accordance with Article 72 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and Article 3 of the Family Code is in joint jurisdiction of the federal authorities and constituent entities of the Federation. However, no one sent the bill to coordinate the regions, no one asked their opinions. Having established the extremely short time of the project (for example, after the decision made by the relevant committee on proposals and comments, one day was allotted), the thought violated its own regulations .

In my opinion, this is not all. What explains the negative comments of four federal ministers, the Commissioner for Human Rights and, as it turned out , the Ministry of Justice? The fact that no one showed them the project either. On the official page of the law there is a letter from the deputy head of the legal department of the Duma David Tsabria addressed to the chairman of the committee on constitutional legislation and state construction, Vladimir Pligin, which says that "the need to obtain the conclusion of the Government of the Russian Federation is not seen." Tsabria in his letter refers to part 3 of Article 104 of the Constitution, which states that the conclusion of the government is necessary only if the bill provides for "expenses covered at the expense of the federal budget."

Tsabria relied on the financial and economic justification drawn up in the same Pligin Committee. It states that the execution of the new law "will not require additional expenses carried out at the expense of the federal budget, and will be carried out within the limits of budget allocations allocated to the federal executive body authorized in the field of foreign affairs." But this justification was drawn up even before the project in the first reading, when there was no notorious article on the ban on adoption in his text, and it just demanded additional allocations.

The direct consequence of the adoption of the "anti -Magnitic law" was the decree signed by Putin on December 28 on the measures of social protection of orphans. In it, the president prescribes to the government (and not just the Ministry of Foreign Affairs) to develop a comprehensive federal program, for the implementation of which budget funds are necessary. Therefore, the Duma violated not only article 72, but also article 104 of the Constitution.

Of course, in the house of the hanged man does not talk about the rope. Nevertheless, it is believed that in Russia there will be initiative people who will try to achieve the abolition of the law due to its unconstitutionality.