Reducing the amount of state duty to the court: procedure, sample petition

Many people are interested in reducing the state duty. We all know that before filing a claim in court, it is necessary to pay the state fee. Without complying with the requirement to pay the state duty in the amounts established by tax legislation, the judge will leave the claim without progress, indicating the absence of a receipt and the deadline for eliminating the deficiency.

What should you do if, based on the cost of the claim, the state duty turns out to be unaffordable for you, or you simply cannot pay it at once? Read our lawyer's advice

The procedure for reducing the amount of state duty to court

The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation has repeatedly stated in its conclusions that the lack of the opportunity for a person applying for judicial protection, due to his property status, to fulfill the obligation to pay the fee in full, should not prevent the exercise of his rights, since, if otherwise , there would be a violation of the provisions of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. In this connection, the possibility of reducing the payment when filing a claim is the best solution to the problem of temporary insolvency, regulated in modern legislation.

There is a way out of this situation - a petition to reduce the amount of the state duty; this procedural document must be drawn up and submitted simultaneously with the filing of the claim, so that the court accepts the application and resolves the issue with the petition aimed at reducing the state duty.

ATTENTION: watch the VIDEO with advice from a lawyer on reducing the state fee, installment payment, exemption from paying the mandatory state fee to the court. In addition, do not forget to subscribe to the YouTube channel to be able to receive legal advice in the comments to the video.

In case of disputes over shares, you need to pay less

A share is worth less than the proportional part of the price of the entire property. This is worth remembering if the claim concerns the recognition or determination of a share in ownership. For example, for a real estate property. And the smaller the share, the more significantly the price drops.

For example, if it comes to determining 1/2 share in an inherited apartment, it is incorrect to take the market or cadastral value and divide it by two. The real price of such a share is 20-30% of the cost. A shared apartment is nothing more than a communal apartment, and the living space in it is sold at a very large discount.

Application for reduction of state duty

It is important to remember in the procedure for drawing up an application for a reduction in state duty:

before drawing up a petition to reduce the state duty, carefully study the benefits, the possibility of exemption from paying the state duty (for example, claims aimed at protecting consumer rights, protecting the rights of an employee, statements in criminal proceedings and others are not subject to duty, since the plaintiffs, by virtue of are exempt from paying it by law);
correctly calculate the cost of the claim, which affects the amount of the state duty, since, for example, expenses for a lawyer, an expert, postage are not claims to be included in the amount for calculating the duty;
moral damage is a claim of a non-property nature, the state duty for citizens is 300 rubles, even if the plaintiff declares the amount of compensation to be 1,000,000 rubles (in labor, consumer cases, etc. the state duty is not paid at all).

Attach to your application for a reduction in state duty all documents that directly or indirectly confirm your temporary financial difficulties at the present time; the fate of the decision on the issue depends on how you justify and confirm your grounds for the application.

How to make an application

The sample petition for reduction of claims has not been approved by law, so the applicant has the right to present it as he sees fit, in free form. The petition must contain the following information:

the name of the judicial authority where it is submitted;
composition of persons participating in the case;
case number;
initial claim volume, reduction amount and final amount;
reason for the decline.

It is customary to include the following blocks in a sample application to reduce claims:

A hat. It contains information about the court, the plaintiff and the defendant.
The main part. It lists the basis and request for reduction of claims.
Application. Here it is appropriate to list the documents that are attached to the application and that can serve as a basis.
Date and signature.

Sample petition to reduce the amount of state duty

To the Ordzhonikidze District Court of Yekaterinburg

Plaintiff:

Respondent:

Petition

on reducing the amount of state duty to court

The plaintiff filed a statement of claim demanding the collection of debt under the loan agreement.

In accordance with Art. 333.20 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation: “courts of general jurisdiction or justices of the peace, based on the property status of the payer, have the right to reduce the amount of state duty payable in cases considered by these courts or justices of the peace, or to defer (in installments) its payment in the manner prescribed by Article 333.41 of this Code".

As the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation indicated, the requirements of the procedural law for citizens' appeals to the court are mandatory. This also applies to the rules governing the procedure for paying state duty, since state duty refers to federal taxes (Article 13 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation) and everyone is obliged to pay legally established taxes (Article 57 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation). At the same time, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation referred to its Determination No. 272-O dated June 13, 2006, which stated that the lack of an opportunity for an interested person - due to his property status - to fulfill this obligation should not prevent him from exercising the right to judicial protection, since otherwise it was contrary would be the Constitution of the Russian Federation. Taking this into account, Art. 333.36 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, a certain category of citizens is exempt from paying state duty in cases heard in courts of general jurisdiction and by magistrates, and clause 2 of Art. 333.20 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation provides for a rule on reducing state duty or deferring its payment.

It is important to take into account that rules similar to modern rules on reducing the amount of state duty were known to Russian law back in the 19th century. Then there was an institution called the law of poverty, the essence of which was to reduce the amount of court fees on the basis of certification that a particular person had insufficient funds to conduct a case. This certificate was issued by the person’s official or public superiors or by a justice of the peace. In this case, the person was obliged to pay an additional fee as soon as his property situation changed for the better. Failure to fulfill this obligation entailed the application of penalties in the form of a fine and collection of underpaid amounts of duty.

Based on the property status of the Plaintiff, the lack of income sufficient to simultaneously pay the state fee and ensure the subsistence level of the Plaintiff and his child, who is in full-time education, I ask you to reduce the amount of the state fee payable.

Based on the aforesaid and guided by Article. 333.20 Tax Code of the Russian Federation

ASK:

reduce the amount of state duty payable to the actual payment made.

Date, signature

Calculation examples

The specifics of calculating the amount of the fee for reducing alimony will depend on many circumstances. The main one is the size of the potential benefit that the plaintiff can receive after the claim is satisfied.

In all cases, to calculate the amount of income, the amount remaining AFTER the deduction of all possible taxes is taken. It is according to this rule that mandatory payments to the child are calculated and withheld.

However, if the calculation includes income from the rental agreement. For which the recipient has not yet paid the tax, it will be taken into account without deducting the personal income tax payable in the future.

Example 1. When reducing alimony in a fixed (fixed amount)

The plaintiff is the payer of alimony in a fixed amount and pays 10,000 rubles. monthly. In his claim, he asks to reduce the payment to 7,500 rubles. per month, citing the birth of another child and a difficult financial situation.

His benefit for the year will be: 2500 * 12 months = 30,000 rubles, which will be the price of the claim.

To calculate the duty you will need to use the formula:

800 + 3% of the amount exceeding RUB 20,000.
3% of 30,000 will be 900 rubles.
800 + 900 = 1700 rub.

This will be the amount of the fee that the plaintiff will need to pay when filing such a claim in court.

Example 2. When alimony is reduced as a share of income

Alimony collected as a share of all types of earnings is somewhat more difficult to calculate. According to established practice, two methods are used, both of which are accepted by the courts without any problems.

Option 1. Average income for the last year

The income of the alimony payer for the past year is taken as the base amount for determining the amount of the duty.

Plaintiff Ivanov pays alimony in the amount of ½ of all types of earnings for three children. Due to the birth of his fourth child out of wedlock, he asks to reduce the amount of alimony to 1/3 of his total earnings.

Ivanov’s income for the past year amounted to 450,000 rubles, which included wages and income from rental housing:

alimony from this amount was withheld 225,000 rubles,
1/3 (or 33.3%) of the specified amount of income will be 149,850 rubles,
225000 – 149850 = 75150 rubles,

Thus, the approximate benefit (aka the cost of the claim) from reducing the amount of child support for the plaintiff will be 75,150 rubles.

The following formula will be used to calculate the duty:

800 rubles + 3% of the amount exceeding 20,000 rubles.
We calculate 3%: 75150-20000 = 55150 * 3% = 1654.5 rubles.
1654.5 + 800 = 2454.5 rub.

This will be the final fee.

Option 2. Calculation of approximate average income for the current year

In this case, the potential income for the current year is calculated. This option can be used for calculation if at least 3 months have passed in the current year.

Plaintiff Ivanov wants to reduce the amount of alimony from 1/3 to ¼ of earnings due to the presence of another child from another marriage.

Over the past 3 months, the payer’s income amounted to:

January 2021: RUR 14,500;
February 2021: RUR 21,400;
March 2021 RUB 17,120.

Consequently, the total income for three months is 53,020 rubles, and the average monthly income is 17,673 rubles.

Based on this, the potential average income for the current year is 212,080 rubles:

the total amount of alimony in the form of 1/3 of all income for the year will be: 70,622 rubles;
the amount of alimony in the form of ¼ of all income will be: 53,020 rubles.
We calculate how much the plaintiff’s potential benefit will be if the claim is satisfied. 70622 – 53020 = 17602 rubles, which will be the price of the claim.
4% of this amount (according to clause 1, part 1, article 333.19 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation) will be 704 rubles.

This will be the amount of the duty under the described circumstances.

Important! Some courts do not accept such a calculation, believing that only the calculation of benefits based on the full annual income for the previous year is correct. But if alimony was not paid last year, the plaintiff can only calculate the cost of the claim only according to the proposed calculation.

In any case, obtain preliminary legal advice before going to court. This will avoid erroneous calculations and return of the claim.

Help from a lawyer to reduce state duty in Yekaterinburg

The employees of our Law Office have seen this in practice more than once. Refusal to satisfy a request to reduce the state fee is a fixable matter; perhaps you should correct the justification or attach additional documents so that the court does not have the opportunity to refuse your request!

USEFUL: follow the link to return state fees to a court of general jurisdiction or arbitration

Author of the article: © lawyer, managing partner of the law firm “Katsailidi and Partners” A.V. Katsaylidi

The Supreme Court defended the plaintiff’s right to increase the amount of claims against the defendants represented by the borrower’s guarantors

On June 9, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation issued Ruling No. 305-ES19-23183 on a dispute over the collection of credit debt from legal entities that are guarantors of an individual.

24 organizations became guarantors for the borrower

In 2011, JSC JSCB RSB 24 entered into a loan agreement with Kirill Podolsky, under the terms of which the bank provided the borrower with $10 million for a period until October 1, 2021 at 10% per annum. Over 20 Russian and foreign companies acted as guarantors under the above agreement. The fulfillment of the borrower's obligations under the loan agreement was also ensured by agreements on the pledge of shares and bills of exchange concluded by the bank with guarantors represented by Bookbilet LLC, RUS E-TICKETS SA, VALARS MANAGEMENT LTD, respectively.

Since Kirill Podolsky and his guarantors did not repay the debt to the bank, the latter filed a corresponding claim with the Moscow Arbitration Court. Subsequently, during the trial, the plaintiff was procedurally replaced by his successor in the person of the company "GalsProfi", which then increased the amount of claims to $11.7 million.

The courts of three instances satisfied the claim partially - in the amount of the claims originally stated by the bank

The courts of three instances satisfied the claim in part, jointly and severally collecting 550 thousand rubles from the guarantors. principal and 100 rubles. penalties. In addition, the courts ordered the foreclosure of the pledged shares of VALARS HOLDING LIMITED by selling them at public auction, setting the initial sale price at $5.9 million. Thus, the courts satisfied the initial claim and refused to satisfy the increased claims due to the expiration of the guarantee agreements issued before October 1, 2016. At the same time, they explained that the plaintiff was not deprived of the opportunity to increase the claims after the claim was accepted for proceedings, but before the expiration of the guarantee period, he did not do this. Accordingly, filing a claim for a minimum amount with its subsequent multiple increase cannot be considered bona fide.

In its cassation appeal to the Supreme Court, the GalsProfi society referred to the incorrect application by the courts of the provisions of Art. 49 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, since an increase in claims does not constitute the presentation of a new independent claim or a change in the one presented. According to the applicant, the lower authorities did not clarify the essential legally significant circumstances, in particular, they ignored the legal relations of the plaintiff and other guarantors whose guarantee period had not expired.

At first, the judge of the Supreme Court refused to transfer the case to the Judicial Collegium for Economic Disputes of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, but after the determination of the Deputy Chairman of the Court Oleg Sviridenko, the applicant’s cassation appeal was transferred to the above-mentioned Collegium.

The Supreme Court did not agree with the lower courts

After studying the materials of case No. A40-117494/2016, the Judicial Collegium for Economic Disputes of the Supreme Court noted that in the case under consideration, the expiration of the guarantee period on the date of increase in the claims was the basis for the conclusion of the lower courts on the termination of the guarantee and, as a consequence, for the refusal of this part of the claims requirements.

With reference to paragraph 33 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated July 12, 2012 No. 42, the highest court noted that the lower courts reasonably indicated that the guarantee period is preclusive and sets time limits for the creditor to exercise his right to file a corresponding claim against the guarantor , which cannot be restored or extended. However, they did not take into account the fact that the creditor, represented by the bank, filed a claim in court before the expiration of the guarantee period for these obligations.

“In accordance with Part 6 of Art. 367 of the Civil Code, the guarantee is terminated not only upon the expiration of the period specified in the guarantee agreement. This norm contains a provision that the guarantee is also terminated if there is no provision in the contract regarding a period within a year from the date of the deadline for fulfillment of the obligation secured by the guarantee, if the creditor does not file a claim against the guarantor, and if the deadline for fulfilling the main obligation is not specified and cannot be determined or determined by the moment of demand, the guarantee is terminated if the creditor does not bring a claim against the guarantor within two years from the date of conclusion of the guarantee agreement,” noted in the definition.

As the Court explained, it follows from the above norm that legally significant in determining the grounds for termination of a guarantee is the establishment of the actions of the creditor to exercise its rights to bring a claim against the guarantor in court before the expiration of the guarantee period or the periods specified in this norm (one or two years) from the day of the circumstances specified therein in cases where there is no provision in the contract regarding the term of the guarantee. The fact of going to court against the guarantors before the expiration of the guarantee agreements concluded with them (regardless of the amount of property claims available on the date of filing the claim) in accordance with Art. 367 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation should be decisive when resolving the issue of termination of the guarantee in the dispute under consideration.

“Bringing a claim against the guarantor for part of the monetary claim against him is the right of the creditor, who realizes it with his own will and in his own interest (Article 2 of the Civil Code), as well as the subsequent increase in claims on the basis of Part 1 of Art. 49 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation in compliance with the procedural requirements for the payment of state duty in the event of an increase in claims. Since the plaintiff took advantage of his procedural right to increase claims, his behavior cannot be considered unconscionable and cannot be denied protection of the violated right when going to court,” the Supreme Court emphasized.

He added that the lower courts, having refused to recover the applicant, pointed out the latter’s right to file another claim against the guarantors whose guarantee period had not expired. At the same time, the claim was also filed against the guarantors represented by Bookbilet LLC, Granwell Trading, STANGLER LTD, whose guarantee terms expire on October 1, 2021. The reasons for refusing the claim against the above guarantors cannot be considered legal and justified due to their absence. In this regard, the Supreme Court overturned the judicial acts of the lower authorities and returned the case for new consideration to the Moscow Court of Justice.

AG experts commented on the Court’s findings

Lawyer of the Yakovlev and Partners legal group Bronislav Sadikov believes that the answer to the question of what exactly is considered a claim by the creditor against the guarantor will determine the court’s conclusion about the expiration or non-expiration of the guarantee period. According to the expert, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation has actually formed a legal position that the proper filing of a claim by a creditor in court against a guarantor should be understood as filing a claim, regardless of the size of the claims initially presented for such a claim. Increasing the amount of claims during the consideration of the dispute to the full amount of the guarantee does not affect the fact of timely filing of the claim. “This position is consistent with the position that an increase in the size of the claims does not affect the essence of the claim (clause 3 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation of October 31, 1996 No. 13),” he noted.

According to the lawyer, in contrast to simply increasing the amount of claims (without changing the subject or basis of the claim), a more interesting and subtle issue is establishing compliance by the creditor with the deadline for filing a claim against the guarantor in the case where the guarantee agreement is not indicated as a basis for the claim by the creditor, but during the consideration of the case, after the expiration of the guarantee period, the plaintiff changes the basis of the claim, indicating the guarantee agreement as its quality. “In this situation, the logic of reasoning should be similar to that applied by the College in the case under consideration, because clause 6 of Art. 367 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation mentions only the filing of a claim against the guarantor (without obligatory indication of the guarantee agreement as the basis for the claim), while the provision provided for in paragraph 1 of Art. 49 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the possibility of changing the basis of a claim without changing its subject is a procedural right of the plaintiff (as well as the right to increase the amount of claims), the implementation of which does not affect the moment of filing the claim itself,” Bronislav Sadikov is convinced.

Thus, he summarized that even in the situation of changing the cause of action on the day the claim was filed in order to resolve the issue of the creditor’s compliance with the provisions provided for in paragraph 6 of Art. 367 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the deadlines should be considered the day the creditor initially filed a claim with the court against the guarantor, regardless of the subsequent change by the creditor of the basis for the claim.

You & Partners junior lawyer Victoria Tugolukova explained that the answer to the question whether a significant increase in the amount of claims against guarantors one and a half years after the start of the process and after the expiration of the guarantee period is an abuse of law depends on the answer to the question whether the guarantee has ceased in this case. “The termination of the guarantee is regulated by Art. 367 Civil Code of the Russian Federation. In this case, the court applied clause 6 of this article, according to which, if the term of the guarantee is not established, then it is terminated provided that the creditor does not file a claim against the guarantor within a year from the date of the date of performance of the obligation secured by the guarantee. Thus, based on this rule, if a claim was brought against the guarantor, as was the case in the case under consideration, then the guarantee was not terminated. Moreover, this rule does not contain a condition that claims must be submitted in full. Also, the right to increase claims is provided for in Art. 49 Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. Thus, in the case under consideration, there is no abuse of right, since the guarantee has not ceased,” she explained.

Victoria Tugolukova noted that such a situation creates uncertainty for the guarantor, since there is no limit on the amount of the claim. In the situation under consideration, the bank, as a professional participant, has every opportunity to make full claims when filing a claim. “Similar issues regarding the termination of a guarantee were previously considered in judicial practice. For example, the Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated October 22, 2013 No. 5737/13 describes the situation when a creditor, within the validity period of the guarantee, filed a claim for the entire amount stipulated by the terms of the guarantee, and the Resolution of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated November 22, 2021 No. 305- ES18-11396 considered the question of whether the deadline for filing a claim against the guarantor could be considered met if such claims were submitted to the court more than once,” the lawyer noted.

Partner at the INTELLECT law firm, Alexander Latyev, pointed out the consistency of the law regarding the fact that an increase in the amount of the claim is not considered as a change in the claim and, accordingly, is not taken into account when determining whether the deadlines for the claims have expired or not. “This can be observed not only in the issue of applying the validity period of the guarantee, but also, for example, in the issue of applying the limitation period. Thus, paragraph 14 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court No. 43 of September 29, 2015 on the limitation period indicates that an increase in the amount of the claim does not affect the fact that the limitation period ceases to run from the moment the claim was initially filed for a smaller amount. Despite the fact that, as in the definition under consideration, it is written that the validity period of a guarantee is fundamentally different from the limitation period, nevertheless, both of them are terms, and when applying both of them, the same questions arise, to which our law gives the same answers: The main thing is that the demand is made within the deadline, but in what amount it doesn’t matter,” he emphasized.

The expert noted that another question is how correct this uniform decision is. “In general, it is quite controversial that substantive conclusions are drawn from the purely procedural issue of the legal qualification of changes in the size of claims. Shouldn't it follow from the fact that a smaller amount was originally claimed that the creditor has waived the rest of his claims? Although such a decision, of course, would also be too categorical and harsh,” warned Alexander Latyev. “Be that as it may, the fact remains: our law is based on the fact that the size of the demand is unimportant, the very fact of its statement is important.”

In his opinion, this naturally entails some abuses, but most often they are associated with damage to the state itself: by first making smaller claims and then increasing them, the plaintiff saves on the state duty that he would have to pay when filing a claim, and then when the amount increases requirements, additional payment from him is no longer required - the amount of the state duty will be collected in the court decision on the merits. Nevertheless, violation of the interests of the state can hardly serve as a basis for refusing to satisfy the claims against the defendant, the expert believes.

“The rights of the defendant with such an increase in the amount of the claim may be violated, for example, when considering a case in general jurisdiction, where the amount of the claim is the dividing line between the jurisdiction of cases by magistrates or a district court: here, indeed, the plaintiff, by declaring an underestimated amount of claims, can send the case to the magistrate , which, after increasing the amount of the claim, will not have to transfer the case to the district court, which will violate the constitutional right of the defendant to have his case considered by the court and the judge determined by law. In arbitration courts, for example, such a question could arise during the initial filing of a claim in summary proceedings, but here the above-mentioned resolution of the Plenum indicates that an increase in the amount of the claim entails a transition to consideration of the case according to the general rules of claim proceedings,” summed up Alexander Latyev.

Legal lawyer Alena Kosina explained that the plaintiff has the right to change the basis or subject of the claim, increase or decrease the amount of the claim at any time before the adoption of a judicial act on the merits of the dispute, i.e. before the court was removed to the deliberation room: “Another interpretation would lead to an infringement of the rights of the plaintiff and a limitation of the principle of discretion in civil proceedings.”

The expert added that in judicial practice there are cases when courts refuse to satisfy plaintiffs’ requests to increase claims, citing their abuse of procedural rights in order to evade paying the state duty in the established amount when filing a claim (in particular, the ruling of the RF Armed Forces dated 2 December 2021 No. 305-ES16-16216 in case No. A40-172062/2015).

Managing partner of the legal entity Artem Denisov called the approach of the Supreme Court system-forming in judicial practice for collection under surety agreements, which confirms the previously stated approaches of the highest courts. “In particular, in order to satisfy a claim against the guarantors, two points must be observed. Firstly, this is an appeal to the court to the guarantors before the expiration of the guarantee agreements concluded with them, regardless of the amount of property claims available on the date of filing the claim. Secondly, the application to increase the requirements in accordance with Art. 49 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation must be done before the final judicial act is issued in the case. A different approach would mean diminishing the creditor’s rights to fair judicial protection,” he noted.

Lawyer, partner of the International Center for the Protection of Rights Globallaw Andrei Saunin noted that recently judicial practice has become so feverish that legal certainty is only a dream for trial lawyers. “So in this case, although the law loves active people, it was activity that the courts of three instances charged the plaintiff with,” he believes. “In the case under consideration, the decision of the RF Supreme Court is consistent and gives us some legal certainty.”

What if you don’t want to pay at all?

Another life hack on the topic of not paying state duty. at all. Again, it relates to disputes over shares in property rights. And this applies to almost all disputes about the division of marital property. This method has been successfully tested many times by our lawyers in the courts of Moscow and the region. But it does not always “pass”: generally speaking, in one case out of three. The essence of the question is the following. A claim for division of property can be formed using different constructions - a claim for recognition of property as common and determination of a share in the right, a claim for determination of a share in the right, a claim for determination of a share in the right and allocation of a share, and a claim for division of property by determination and (or) allocation of shares.

Actually, all these options are different formulations of the same action - division of property. And by and large, it makes no difference which formula is inserted into the petition part. But! It depends on the wording whether the claim will be perceived as property or non-property and to which part of the article on state duty of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation it will be attributed. Let us remind you that the state duty for non-property disputes is 300 rubles.

As a result, a correctly drafted claim, namely as a non-property claim, can help save up to 59,700 rubles (60,000 – 300 = 59,700). How should the requirement be formulated? Which phrase is truly “golden”? About this on the site page:

The practice of forming the price of a claim based on the wording of the claims. Clarifications of controversial issues at the level of courts of constituent entities of the Russian Federation. Go to page

Voluntary reduction of the cost of the claim in terms of penalties

The plaintiff may, before a decision is made in the case, reduce the amount of previously stated claims.

Expert opinion

Lawyer Alexander Vasiliev comments

If the claim for a penalty has been reduced, the state duty corresponding to the amount of such reduction is returned to the plaintiff. It is considered that the state duty has been paid in a larger amount than required by law, and the excess payment must be returned (clause 3 of paragraph 1 of Article 333.22 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated December 22, 2011 No. 81 “On some issues of application of Article 333 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation", paragraph 9).