Tax Audit Interrogation in 2025-2026: Procedures, FTS Intelligence, and Effective Defense Tactics

What Constitutes a Tax Interrogation in 2025-2026

Tax interrogations are governed by Article 90 of the Russian Tax Code. According to the letter of the law, it is a procedure through which the inspectorate obtains testimony from individuals who may be aware of circumstances relevant to tax control.

In the practice of 2025-2026, this is the primary tool for gathering an evidentiary base prior to issuing a field tax audit or desk audit report. The material part of the future accusation is built upon interrogations. Every word in the protocol is either a stone in the wall the inspectorate is building against the taxpayer, or a stone removed from that wall.

In 2024-2025, interrogations expanded beyond the scope of the audit itself and became an instrument of pre-audit analysis. Today, the inspectorate issues summonses even before a decision on a field tax audit is received. This means that when a person sits before an inspector with a notification 'as a witness,' an audit has not yet been formally scheduled for them personally, but the material for its initiation is already being compiled. And this material is gathered, in part, from their own words.

Source: vitvet.com/articles/nalogi/nalogovye_proverki/zachem_vyzyvayut_v_nalogovuyu_na_dopros/.

What this means for a business owner: a summons for interrogation is an indicator that the inspectorate has taken a serious interest. It is not a 'maybe'; it is a certainty. And the scenario into which the interrogation will be integrated has already been drafted in broad strokes.

Who is Summoned and Why: Typical Scenarios of 2024-2026

Under Article 90 of the Russian Tax Code, the inspectorate has the right to summon any individual who may be aware of circumstances relevant to tax control. This phrasing is highly elastic. In practice, it means that virtually anyone within the perimeter of the business can be summoned.

Scenario 1. Interrogation of the Director and Chief Accountant. The most frequent scenario. The objective is to establish elements of intentional actions, prove awareness of counterparties' flaws, and obtain an admission of participation in a scheme. In 2024-2025, the inspectorate increasingly summons the director and chief accountant separately and on different days to subsequently compare testimonies and record contradictions. If the testimonies diverge, this is entered into the report as a 'contradiction indicating the fictitious nature of the document flow.'

Scenario 2. Interrogation of Ordinary Employees. Procurement managers, sales managers, warehouse workers, drivers, foremen. The goal is to obtain testimony regarding the actual mechanics of transactions: who saw whom, how goods were received, through whom documents passed, whether electronic signatures were used. Here, the inspector gathers material to compare against the director's testimony. If the director claims 'we worked directly with this supplier,' while the warehouse worker states 'I have never seen such a supplier, everything was delivered from one warehouse,' this provides a ready-made argument for denying deductions.

Scenario 3. Interrogation of Former Employees. The most dangerous category. Former employees, especially those who left under contentious circumstances, provide 'valuable' testimony for the inspectorate. A former chief accountant harboring resentment toward the owner upon dismissal may disclose cash-out operations, fictitious contracts, and actual financial flows. The inspectorate utilizes these testimonies to their fullest extent. In 2024 practice, there were typical cases where former procurement department employees gave testimony that dismantled the taxpayer's position regarding procurement volumes. Source: vitvet.com/articles/nalogi/nalogovye_proverki/zachem_vyzyvayut_v_nalogovuyu_na_dopros/.

Scenario 4. Interrogation of Counterparties. Directors and employees of companies the business has worked with. Particularly, directors of 'technical' counterparties (shell companies) who admit they conducted no real business activity, signed no documents, and know nothing about the company. These testimonies become the basis for denying VAT deductions and corporate income tax expenses. In a typical 2025 defense case, the inspectorate interrogated a nominal director of a counterparty who stated they conducted no activity; based on this, a VAT deduction of RUB 12 million was denied.

Scenario 5. Interrogation During a Cross-Audit of a Counterparty. This occurs when the business itself is not yet under audit, but its counterparty is, and the individual is invited as a witness under Article 93.1 of the Russian Tax Code. Formally, the individual is outside the scope of the audit. Practically, their testimony may become the basis for auditing their own company. If contradictions 'surface' during the interrogation, the inspectorate will record them and, within 6-12 months, issue a decision for a field tax audit.

Scenario 6. Interrogation During Pre-Audit Analysis. The most opaque area. No audit has been scheduled yet. The inspectorate is 'simply gathering information.' Individuals are summoned 'to provide explanations.' This is the most perilous scenario because the owner arrives relaxed ('I am not under audit'), while the inspectorate is precisely deciding whether to initiate an audit. The answers provided during this interrogation largely determine that decision.

What They Already Know Before the Interrogation: The Reality

This is a critically important section. Most errors during interrogations are made by those who assume 'they are asking because they do not know.' Today, the inspectorate knows almost everything there is to know about a company and its transactions—without the taxpayer's input and prior to their arrival.

What the inspector has in their file by the time of the interrogation:

• All tax returns for three years. For VAT, corporate income tax, personal income tax, and insurance premiums.

• All bank statements for the company's accounts. All receipts, all payments, counterparties, payment purposes. Since 2018, the automatic data exchange between banks and the Federal Tax Service (FTS) has operated seamlessly.

• The chain of VAT deductions via ASK NDS-3. This system tracks not only direct counterparties but also second, third, and seventh-tier counterparties. If there is a 'gap' in the chain (a company that received VAT but failed to remit it to the budget), it is flagged in red within the system. The inspector observes this gap in real time.

• Counterparties exhibiting signs of being 'technical' counterparties (shell companies). The FTS maintains its own registries of technical companies. Anyone who has ever fallen under suspicion due to 'mass registration addresses,' 'mass directors,' or a lack of resources is flagged.

• Interrogation protocols of employees and counterparties. Often, prior to a specific interrogation, the inspectorate has already questioned half the individuals within the business perimeter. They now hold these protocols, ready to compare the provided answers against what others have stated.

• Documents seized from counterparties. During cross-audits, the inspectorate obtains primary accounting documents from counterparties and compares them with those held by the taxpayer. Discrepancies in dates, amounts, or numbers serve as grounds for concluding that the document flow is fictitious.

• Information from open sources. Websites, social networks, data on real estate and vehicle owners, information about family members. This is legal and accessible. The inspector reviews the individual's lifestyle and cross-references it with declared income.

• ASK KKT, ASK DECLO, product labeling systems. All these systems operate in parallel, feeding the inspectorate's information field.

When an individual sits down for an interrogation, the inspector holds printed copies of half the answers to the questions they are about to ask. The purpose of their interrogation is either to obtain confirmation of these answers and secure them with a signature, or to record a contradiction that will subsequently be used against the taxpayer.

'I did not know,' 'I do not remember,' 'the director handled everything'—these are standard responses that the inspector translates into the language of the audit report as 'the witness was unable to explain the circumstances of the transaction, which indicates its formal nature and the absence of actual participation.'

This is not merely a personal observation. Today, this is a standard formulation in tax audit reports for 2024-2025.

Witness Rights: What Exists and What Does Not

Without illusions. A witness during an interrogation under Article 90 of the Russian Tax Code possesses significantly fewer rights than an accused in a criminal case. This is not a criminal proceeding; it is tax control.

What rights exist:

The right to attend with an attorney or other representative. This is enshrined in FTS Letters No. EA-4-15/13203@ of August 17, 2020, and No. AS-4-2/18381@ of October 31, 2012. The attorney has the right to make remarks, which must be entered into the protocol. They cannot answer questions on behalf of the witness. However, the presence of an attorney fundamentally alters the tone of the interrogation. The inspector knows that every action is being recorded and can be challenged. Their conduct becomes more circumspect.

The right not to testify against oneself, one's spouse, and close relatives—Article 51 of the Russian Constitution, duplicated in Paragraph 3 of Article 90 of the Russian Tax Code. This is discussed separately below, as it is a complex instrument.

The right to testify in one's native language and utilize the services of an interpreter (Paragraph 5 of Article 90 of the Russian Tax Code).

The right to review the protocol prior to signing. It must be read carefully. Remarks and clarifications can be entered in the 'Witness Remarks' section or directly into the text. One should not sign if the protocol distorts the testimony.

The right to receive a copy of the protocol after it is drafted—Paragraph 6 of Article 90 of the Russian Tax Code.

What rights do not exist:

There is no right to refuse to appear without a valid reason. The penalty under Article 128 of the Russian Tax Code is RUB 1,000 for the first failure to appear. For a repeated offense, it is RUB 2,000, increasing thereafter. The tax authority may double the fine for a repeated violation under Paragraph 4 of Article 114 of the Russian Tax Code. Source: delo-press.ru.

There is no right to a 'state-appointed attorney' as in criminal proceedings. The attorney is retained at one's own expense. The state will not provide one.

There is no right for a representative of the audited organization to be present during the interrogation of its employee. According to letters from the Ministry of Finance and the FTS, the audited entity or its representative cannot attend the interrogation of its employee. This means that when the inspectorate questions an employee, neither the director nor the company's in-house counsel may enter. Only the employee's personal attorney may attend, provided the employee personally invites them.

There is no right to refuse to testify regarding the operational circumstances of the employing company—this is no longer 'testifying against oneself'; it is an obligation to answer questions pertinent to tax control. Confusion frequently arises here concerning Article 51 of the Russian Constitution, which is addressed below.

Article 51 of the Russian Constitution During an FTS Interrogation: Salvation or a Trap

This is the most frequent question posed by business owners prior to an interrogation. The answer is considerably more complex than it appears.

Article 51 of the Russian Constitution states: 'No one shall be obliged to give evidence against themselves, their spouse, and close relatives, the circle of which is determined by federal law.'

In a tax interrogation under Article 90 of the Russian Tax Code, this right applies, but with critically important caveats.

Where Article 51 definitively applies. If the inspector's question is directly aimed at eliciting testimony that could incriminate the individual in a crime (under Article 198/199 of the RCC) or in another tax violation committed personally, the individual has the right to refuse to answer, citing Article 51. This is an unconditional right.

Where Article 51 does not apply directly. If the question pertains to the activities of the organization where the individual works or worked, rather than the individual personally, it is formally not 'testifying against oneself.' Refusing to answer every consecutive question by invoking Article 51 is classified by the tax authority as an abuse of rights and deliberate obstruction of tax control.

In the practice of the Regional Tax Office (UFNS), there are documented cases where a witness's refusal to testify to all questions, citing Article 51, was classified as 'deliberate obstruction of the exercise of the lawful powers of the tax authority,' resulting in fines and negative conclusions in the audit report. Source: nalog.gov.ru/html/sites/www.new.nalog.ru/docs/resheniya_po_galobam/125.doc.

The psychological effect of Article 51 during an interrogation. This is a paradoxical phenomenon, and it must be discussed candidly. When a witness arrives and refuses to answer all questions citing Article 51, it creates an overall negative impression in the inspector's eyes. It is perceived as 'the witness has something to hide.' In the audit report, this is not recorded as 'the witness exercised their constitutional right,' but rather as 'the witness was unable to explain the circumstances of the transactions and evaded answering substantive questions, which, in conjunction with other evidence, indicates the fictitious nature of the document flow.'

This does not mean Article 51 is ineffective. It means it operates selectively and precisely. It cannot be used as 'universal armor.' It can and should be used for specific questions that could personally incriminate the individual.

Why it is preferable to attend with an attorney. Article 51 is a complex instrument requiring skill. If utilized for the first time, without experience, under pressure from an inspector, and during a video-recorded interrogation, there is a high probability the inspector will find a 'key' and the witness will begin saying things they did not intend to. An attorney is familiar with the inspector's tactics, can deflect leading questions, ask clarifying ones, and disrupt the tone and pace of the interrogation. Their mere presence disciplines both parties. Source: klerk.ru/tribune/nalogadvocat/495113/.

A simple formulation for understanding. For the question, 'Are you acquainted with the General Director of Romashka LLC?', Article 51 does not apply—this is a question regarding the circumstances of tax control. For the question, 'Did you give an oral instruction to the chief accountant to include knowingly false information in the tax return?', Article 51 does apply—this is a question about a personal act potentially constituting a crime under Article 199 of the RCC. The boundary lies in the nature of the question. Distinguishing it on the fly, in the inspector's office, without preparation, is nearly impossible.

Anticipated Questions: Standard Methodology of 2024-2025

In the practice of 2024-2025, there is an established methodology for structuring interrogations in tax cases. It is broadly identical across the country because inspectors are trained under a unified system.

An interrogation is typically structured according to the following scenario:

Block 1. Introductory Questions. Identity, education, work experience, job responsibilities. The goal is to gauge the depth of involvement in the company's affairs. If a director states, 'I only signed documents; the chief accountant handled everything,' this immediately contributes to a finding of 'nominal' leadership.

Block 2. Questions Regarding Business Structure. Who makes decisions on major transactions. How counterparties are selected. Who verifies the reliability of counterparties. The objective is to ascertain who actually controls the company and to establish elements of personal participation in decision-making regarding disputed operations.

Block 3. Questions About Specific Counterparties. 'Explain how the counterparty Alfa LLC emerged?', 'Who approached you with this proposal?', 'With whom did you personally communicate regarding this transaction?', 'What negotiations took place?', 'Where is the counterparty's office located—have you been there?', and so forth. The aim is to identify signs of an absence of actual commercial communication with the counterparty, thereby confirming the fictitious nature of the transaction.

Block 4. Questions on the Mechanics of Specific Transactions. How goods were delivered, who received them, where they were unloaded, what documents were executed. The goal is to uncover contradictions with the testimonies of other witnesses and with the documentation.

Block 5. Leading Questions. The Russian Tax Code contains no explicit prohibition against leading questions. Inspectors utilize them actively. Typical formulations include: 'Did you see the director of your firm meet with the counterparty Romashka LLC on January 15, 2023, at 12:00 PM and sign the contract?', 'Did you witness the loading of products into a MAN truck with license plate XXXXX on March 1, 2023, at 9:30 AM?'. Source: audit-it.ru/articles/account/court/a53/1082405.html.

The purpose of leading questions is to compel the witness either to confirm fabricated circumstances (which will inevitably cause problems, as the circumstances will later be verified) or to provide an uncertain answer ('I do not remember,' 'possibly'), which will be entered into the protocol and interpreted as a lack of actual grounds for confidence in the transaction's legality.

Block 6. Final 'Consolidation' Questions. 'Do you confirm that you personally verified the counterparty's business reputation?', 'Are you certain the transaction had genuine economic substance?'. These are questions requiring a 'yes' or 'no' answer, and the response forms the basis for the final conclusion in the audit report.

Duration of the Interrogation. On average, from one and a half to four hours. Sometimes longer. Under the Russian Tax Code, there is no time limit. This means the inspector can hold the witness for as long as deemed necessary. During a lengthy interrogation, after two hours, an individual fatigues, loses concentration, and begins answering automatically—this is precisely when the key questions are introduced.

Practical Preparation for an Interrogation: A Step-by-Step Strategy

Without overconfidence. Devoid of advice from 2010s textbooks like 'smile and project confidence.' A modern, practical strategy.

Step 1. Receive the Summons and Immediately Engage a Specialized Attorney

Not 'when the gravity of the situation is realized.' Immediately. An attorney must be present at the interrogation. Attending an interrogation alone in 2025-2026 amidst tax risks is tantamount to entering the office of an Investigative Committee (IC) investigator for questioning as a suspect without defense counsel. Technically, the law does not prohibit it. Practically, it is suicidal.

The attorney must specialize in tax law. Not a general criminal defense attorney. Not a corporate lawyer. A tax attorney who regularly handles interrogations and is intimately familiar with current inspectorate methodologies.

Step 2. Obtain a Situational Analysis from the Attorney Prior to the Interrogation

The attorney must understand exactly what will be asked. Based on the notification (if the subject of the interrogation is specified), the nature of the audited company, and the context of the audit. A finalized strategy must be in place before crossing the threshold of the inspectorate, rather than 'figuring it out as we go.'

Step 3. Retrieve Relevant Documentation

All contracts with counterparties about which questions will be asked. All acceptance acts, waybills, correspondence. If the counterparty was legitimate and the transaction was real, there must be facts to operate with. Not 'I recall,' 'something like that happened'—but specific dates, names, and circumstances.

If documents are poorly preserved or partially lost, this is a problem in itself, and it will surface during the interrogation. It is better to recognize this in advance and prepare a position.

Step 4. If Critical Areas Exist, Discuss Article 51

Discuss specifics with the attorney: which questions can be answered, and which will be refused under Article 51 of the Russian Constitution. This must be a meticulously planned map of questions, not a blanket 'I will invoke 51 for everything.' The attorney will advise on the boundary between 'not testifying against oneself' and 'evading tax control.'

Step 5. During the Interrogation Itself

Listen to the question in its entirety. Do not answer based on 'what was heard in the first half of the question.' Inspectors frequently formulate questions such that the second half contains a trap.

Do not make assumptions for the inspector. If a question is ambiguous, ask for clarification. 'Could you please clarify exactly what you mean by "regular contacts"?' This is legal and does not fundamentally disrupt the pace.

Answer only what is known with certainty. 'I do not remember,' 'I do not know,' 'I cannot state definitively' are acceptable answers to questions for which the exact answer is genuinely unknown. This is preferable to inventing something that will later fail verification.

Avoid providing evaluative characterizations. 'The counterparty was reliable,' 'the transaction was economically justified'—these are value judgments. They cannot be relied upon, yet in the protocol, they appear as admissions. It is better to speak in facts: 'the contract was concluded,' 'payment was executed,' 'the goods were received.'

Do not engage in arguments. The purpose of the interrogation is not to prove the inspector wrong. The goal is to navigate the procedure with minimal damage. One does not persuade an inspector; one provides testimony to them.

Do not hesitate to pause. Thinking before answering is normal. It is legal. It is recommended. Fear not the pauses, but rather the swift, ill-considered answers.

Step 6. Prior to Signing the Protocol—Read Carefully

Every single word. Without rushing. If the protocol states something other than what was said, do not sign it; demand that remarks be entered into the 'Witness Remarks' section or directly into the text. Inspectors sometimes phrase answers in a way that shifts the meaning. 'I do not remember the exact date' can transform in the protocol into 'the witness did not confirm the fact of the meeting.' These shifts must be caught before signing.

Once signed, altering anything is virtually impossible.

Step 7. Post-Interrogation

Obtain a copy of the protocol. Analyze with the attorney what transpired, which questions were pivotal, and what could have been phrased differently. This is material for preparing for subsequent actions—at a minimum, for receiving the audit report, which will arrive shortly.

Real Cases from 2024-2025: What Practice Demonstrates

To understand how this operates in reality, here are several typical situations from public practice.

Case 1. Interrogation of a Foreman in the Volga Federal District, Autumn 2024. During a field tax audit of a manufacturing enterprise, the inspectorate summoned a foreman who directly accepted work from a subcontractor. The calculation was that the foreman would confirm the subcontractor did not actually perform the work. The defense prepared the witness in advance—analyzing the chronology and reconstructing the documentary trail: passes, acceptance acts, correspondence. During the interrogation, the foreman provided clear, factual testimony regarding the actual performance of the work. This preserved the taxpayer's VAT deduction. Source: vitvet.com/articles/nalogi/nalogovye_proverki/dopros_svidetelya_v_nalogovoj/.

Conclusion. A prepared witness with a factual foundation is the defense's primary resource during an interrogation.

Case 2. Interrogation of a Nominal Director in the Central Federal District, Spring 2025. During a desk audit for VAT, the inspectorate interrogated the nominal director of a counterparty. He stated that he conducted no activity, signed no documents, and knew nothing about the company. Based on this testimony, the inspectorate denied a VAT deduction of RUB 12 million. The taxpayer appealed the decision, and the court indicated that the testimony of a nominal director alone does not refute the reality of a business operation in the presence of documentary confirmation of the contract's actual execution. The decision was declared unlawful regarding the denial of the deduction.

Conclusion. Even if a counterparty provides negative testimony, a robust documentary foundation can override that testimony in court. However, this foundation must exist.

Case 3. Interrogation of a Director Regarding Subcontractors, Northwestern Federal District, Autumn 2024. The inspectorate summoned a director for questioning regarding interactions with three subcontractors. The prepared director, accompanied by an attorney, provided clear testimony about the actual nature of the work, volumes, and specific individuals interacted with. The interrogation was recorded in the protocol, and a copy was obtained. This became a key piece of evidence in subsequent objections to the audit report. Source: vitvet.com/articles/nalogi/nalogovye_proverki/dopros_direktora_v_fns/.

Conclusion. A clear, prepared interrogation serves as evidence for the defense, not merely against it.

What to Do if the Interrogation Goes 'Off Track'

It happens. A witness, particularly an unprepared one, may at some point provide an answer they later recognize as an error. What should be done?

First. During the interrogation itself—do not compound the error. Do not attempt to 'correct' it with a series of additional explanations that will only solidify the unfortunate phrasing. It is better to state: 'Please clarify the question, I need to think,' or 'I cannot answer this question with certainty,' or simply take a pause.

Second. In the 'Witness Remarks' section prior to signing, any clarifications and corrections can be entered. This is legal. 'Regarding question No. 17, I clarify: I meant that [correct formulation].' Few utilize this section, which is a mistake—it is the opportunity to rectify the protocol before it is signed.

Third. If the interrogation went exceedingly poorly and the protocol records testimony that is genuinely harmful, discuss with the attorney the possibility of a repeat interrogation or additional explanations at the stage of objecting to the audit report. The law does not limit the number of witness testimonies. Sometimes, a subsequent submission with a clarified position is effective.

Fourth. If significant procedural violations are recorded in the protocol (absence of necessary formal elements, failure to explain rights, improper scope of questions, etc.), this can be utilized to have the protocol declared inadmissible evidence in a subsequent challenge to the audit decision.

Criminal Interrogations Differ Fundamentally

This must be noted separately. If a criminal case has been initiated against an individual or their company under Articles 198-199.4 of the RCC, the interrogation is no longer conducted by an inspector under Article 90 of the Russian Tax Code, but by an investigator under Article 189 of the Russian Criminal Procedure Code. This is a different procedure with different rules.

What changes:

• Regulation—the Russian Criminal Procedure Code, not the Russian Tax Code.
• For providing knowingly false testimony—criminal liability under Article 307 of the RCC (rather than a RUB 1,000 fine under Article 128 of the Tax Code).
• The witness has the right to an attorney (Article 189 of the Criminal Procedure Code), and this is no longer merely a 'representative,' but a defense counsel in the criminal procedural sense.
• The interrogation protocol constitutes evidence in a criminal case and is used, among other things, when making decisions regarding preventive measures.
• Article 51 of the Russian Constitution operates in full and more broadly than in a tax interrogation.

The main point. If a summons is received from an Investigative Committee (IC) investigator, it is not a 'continuation of tax control.' It is already a criminal proceeding. One must attend with a criminal defense attorney specializing in Article 199 of the RCC. A tax attorney is suitable here only if they possess parallel practice in criminal proceedings.

There is a chasm between a tax interrogation and an investigator's interrogation. Do not treat this transition as a mere formality.

FAQ

Who can be summoned for an interrogation at the tax office?

Under Article 90 of the Russian Tax Code, the inspectorate has the right to summon any individual who may be aware of circumstances relevant to tax control. In 2024-2025 practice, those summoned include: directors and chief accountants of audited companies, ordinary employees (managers, warehouse workers, drivers), former employees, directors and employees of counterparties, as well as witnesses during cross-audits.

Can one refuse a tax interrogation?

Without a valid reason—no. Failure to appear for an interrogation incurs a penalty under Article 128 of the Russian Tax Code: RUB 1,000 for the first failure, RUB 2,000 for a repeated offense. Valid reasons include illness (with supporting documentation) or being on a business trip. One may request a postponement of the interrogation date if unable to appear, provided the inspectorate is notified in advance.

Can one attend an interrogation with an attorney?

Yes. This is enshrined in FTS Letters No. EA-4-15/13203@ of August 17, 2020, and No. AS-4-2/18381@ of October 31, 2012. The attorney has the right to make remarks, which are entered into the protocol. They cannot answer questions on behalf of the witness. The mere presence of an attorney disciplines the course of the interrogation. Important note: the participation of a representative of the audited organization (e.g., in-house counsel) during the interrogation of its employee is not provided for in practice.

How long does a tax interrogation last?

The Russian Tax Code contains no time limit. In 2024-2025 practice, a typical interrogation lasts from one and a half to four hours. Complex interrogations for field tax audits can continue for an entire working day. This is utilized as a tactic—during a lengthy interrogation, an individual fatigues, loses concentration, and commits errors.

When does Article 51 of the Constitution apply during a tax interrogation?

Article 51 grants the right not to testify against oneself, a spouse, and close relatives. During a tax interrogation, it operates selectively: for questions aimed at eliciting testimony about a personal act potentially constituting a crime (Article 198/199 of the RCC)—yes. For questions regarding the organization's activities as a whole—formally, no. A blanket refusal to answer all questions citing Article 51 is classified by the tax authority as an abuse of rights and leads to negative conclusions. Article 51 must be used precisely and with an understanding of the boundary, preferably with an attorney.

How should one answer if they do not remember the circumstances of a transaction?

State the facts as they are: 'I do not remember,' 'I do not know,' 'I cannot state definitively.' These are acceptable answers. It is far worse to invent an answer that will later fail verification. However, utilize these formulations only where memory genuinely fails. If every question is answered with 'I do not remember,' it will be interpreted as evasion of tax control.

Is it permissible to audio record the interrogation?

There is no explicit prohibition in the Russian Tax Code. It is recommended to record openly, having warned the inspector. This disciplines both parties and allows for subsequent comparison of the audio against the protocol. Technically, the attorney and witness can also record covertly—all smartphones possess a voice recorder function.

How does a tax interrogation differ from a criminal one?

A tax interrogation is governed by Article 90 of the Russian Tax Code, conducted by an inspector, and the liability for refusal or false testimony is a tax fine of RUB 1,000-3,000. A criminal interrogation is governed by Article 189 of the Russian Criminal Procedure Code, conducted by an IC investigator, and providing knowingly false testimony incurs criminal liability under Article 307 of the RCC. During a criminal interrogation, the witness has a full-fledged defense attorney, and Article 51 of the Constitution operates more broadly and without the caveats of the tax context.

What should be done if the interrogation protocol distorts the testimony?

Prior to signing—enter remarks in the 'Witness Remarks' section or directly into the text of the protocol. This is legal and provided for by the Russian Tax Code. After signing, correcting anything is virtually impossible. If significant procedural violations are recorded in the protocol, it can later be challenged as inadmissible evidence when appealing the decision following the audit.

Conclusion

A tax interrogation in 2025-2026 is an instrument where the taxpayer is inherently at a disadvantage. The inspectorate knows almost everything there is to know. Their file contains bank statements, VAT chains, protocols of other witnesses, and counterparty documents. An individual attends an interrogation either to consolidate an already formulated scenario or, with proper preparation, to mitigate it and preserve a position for subsequent defense.

There is no universal 'armor' here. Article 51 of the Constitution operates selectively. An attorney is mandatory, but not a panacea. 'I do not remember' saves on specific questions, but not on every consecutive one. Silence provides a temporary effect but generates a negative impression in the audit report.

What genuinely works:

Preparation with a specialized defense counsel prior to the interrogation. A clear understanding of the information the inspectorate already possesses. A map of questions to which the individual is prepared to answer factually, and those for which Article 51 will be invoked. Answers strictly to the point, without evaluative judgments. Careful reading of the protocol before signing. Remarks in the appropriate sections.

And most importantly—early engagement of defense counsel in the process. Not 'we will figure it out after the interrogation.' But before the summons arrives. If there are already grounds to believe tax risks may exist (field tax audits of competitors in the industry, connections with dubious counterparties, aggressive optimization in the past), the situation requires attention preventively, not on the day the interrogation notification is received.

The interrogation is part of a long chain. It is preceded by pre-audit analysis and the decision on a field tax audit. It is followed by the audit report, the decision, the appeal to the Regional Tax Office (UFNS), a potential criminal case under Article 199 of the RCC, possible bankruptcy, and subsidiary liability. Each stage presents its own defense opportunities, and today's interrogation lays the groundwork for all these subsequent stages.

Attending it prepared or uninformed is a choice that determines the entire subsequent chain.

An expanded framework of the transformation of the legal environment and the post-advocacy role is available in the manifesto 'Algorithm of Complexity' on fishchuk.su and in the project of the Research Institute of System Synthesis at isslab.ru. The 'Kautilya' Telegram channel serves as a laboratory for formulations and current observations.

Here lies the professional diagnosis and the actual principles of conduct. The work follows.

---

Sources (all verified May 4, 2026)

1. https://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_19671/8fdc9c86006fd3400f8e163c1dbbac71729af0a4/ — Article 90 of the Russian Tax Code in its current edition
2. https://vitvet.com/articles/nalogi/nalogovye_proverki/dopros_svidetelya_v_nalogovoj/ — practice of tax interrogations 2024-2025
3. https://vitvet.com/articles/nalogi/nalogovye_proverki/zachem_vyzyvayut_v_nalogovuyu_na_dopros/ — interrogation within the framework of pre-audit analysis
4. https://vitvet.com/articles/nalogi/nalogovye_proverki/dopros_direktora_v_fns/ — specifics of interrogating a director
5. https://stnkrf.ru/90 — commentary on Article 90 of the Russian Tax Code
6. https://www.audit-it.ru/articles/account/court/a53/1082405.html — tax attorney Vaganov on interrogations
7. https://delo-press.ru/journals/law/nalogooblozhenie/46646-esli-rukovodstvo-kompanii-vyzvali-na-dopros-v-nalogovuyu/ — interrogation of an executive
8. https://nalog-advocat.ru/kak-na-samom-dele-prohodit-dopros-direktora-v-ifns/ — practice of Article 51 of the Constitution
9. https://www.klerk.ru/tribune/nalogadvocat/495113/ — Article 51 of the Constitution at an interrogation
10. https://apno.ru/press-tsentr/publikatsii/46843-o-prave-nalogoplatelshchika-khranit-molchanie — the right to remain silent
11. https://www.consultant.ru/law/podborki/otkaz_ot_dachi_pokazanij_po_st._51_konstitucii/ — refusal under Article 51, review of practice
12. https://www.nalog.gov.ru/html/sites/www.new.nalog.ru/docs/resheniya_po_galobam/125.doc — UFNS decision on the abuse of Article 51
13. https://elcode.ru/service/news/daydjest-novostey-zakonodatelstva/kak-podgotovitsya-k-doprosu-v-nalogovom-organe-v-k — preparation for an interrogation
14. https://constitutionrf.ru/rzd-1/gl-2/st-51-krf — commentary on Article 51 of the Constitution

Normative legal acts:

• Article 90 of the Russian Tax Code (participation of a witness)
• Article 128 of the Russian Tax Code (liability of a witness for failure to appear and refusal)
• Article 51 of the Russian Constitution
• Article 189 of the Russian Criminal Procedure Code (general rules for conducting an interrogation)
• Article 307 of the RCC (knowingly false testimony)
• Article 199 of the RCC (evasion of taxes by an organization)
• FTS Letter No. EA-4-15/13203@ of August 17, 2020
• FTS Letter No. AS-4-2/18381@ of October 31, 2012
• Ministry of Finance Letter No. 03-02-07/1/60796 of October 22, 2015
• FTS Order No. MM-3-06/338@ of May 31, 2007 (interrogation protocol form)
• FTS Order No. MM-3-06/333@ of May 30, 2007 (Concept of the field tax audit planning system)