What is the essence of mutual responsibility. Circle guarantee. Mutual responsibility and awareness of the need

"Mutual responsibility" This expression was widely used in the 15th - 16th centuries, where in Russia, the obligation to eradicate crimes and prevent them was imposed. This imposition concerned the communities of the inhabitants of the lip districts. If the duties were not fulfilled, or the offender was not found, the entire community was financially and criminally liable.

Over time, this expression acquired a disapproving connotation, as it began to be used for other reasons.

In modern language, it is used in cases where lawbreakers, out of fear of responsibility, cover each other.
* The expression "standing as if rooted to the spot" occurred in Russia, during the reign of Tsar Alexei 1st Mikhailovich the Quietest (17th century). The case, which had a cruel act of retribution, was as follows: "a woman who encroached on the life of her husband should be buried in the ground up to her ears, and left to a painful death." This is where the expression comes from.

Comments

• Mutual responsibility - group joint and several responsibility. It consists in the fact that the whole group of people is responsible for violated obligations.
  According to the Law Dictionary, mutual responsibility should be understood as the responsibility of all members of a community (another collective) for the actions or performance of duties by each of its members.
  According to the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Efron, mutual responsibility, in the civil law sense, should be understood as a kind of correlative obligation in its Roman form.
  In everyday life, this term means the consent of the members of the group with the actions of any of their members, as well as his support, passive or active. Often used with a negative connotation.
  Principles
  Here, each for all and all for one, the participants in mutual responsibility are connected in all the consequences of duty. Liberation acts that do not matter how the creditor is materially satisfied, if they are allowed in relation to one debtor, are valid in the case of mutual guarantee for all its participants. Thus, the purpose of mutual responsibility is to place before the creditor, instead of individuals, the whole community as such.

  In Russia, until the beginning of the 20th century, this term was applied to the responsibility of a rural community for taxes and arrears of its members. It was emphasized that not members of any union, but only members of a certain territorial unit, can be participants in mutual responsibility. To denote the joint liability of members of other unions (partnerships), the term correlative or joint and several liability was used.

  At the same time, mutual responsibility should not be confused with a simple guarantee and the rule of gradual recovery (beneficium excussionis) should be applied to it. The purpose of mutual responsibility, as well as any joint and several obligation, is to guarantee the timely and immediate fulfillment of the obligation.

  Story
  Russia
  One of the first mentions of mutual responsibility is found in Russkaya Pravda. Mutual guarantee was used, in particular, if a crime was committed in a certain territory (vervi) and the offender remained unknown, the punishment in the form of payment of fines (vira) was imposed on the entire community. Some scholars see a hint of the existence of this institution in Oleg's agreement with the Greeks.

  In the 15th-16th centuries, the inhabitants of the gubernia districts were obliged to prevent and eradicate crimes; for failure to fulfill this duty, they were financially and criminally liable.

  In the Muscovite state, mutual responsibility was also used in case of a shortfall in customs and tavern revenues (the shortfall could be recovered from the tenant, who elected the culprit of the shortfall as a kisser). In addition, the losses caused to the treasury by the contractor were sometimes recovered from the settlement to which he belonged, and by recruiting detachments of archers from free people, the government held them responsible by mutual responsibility for the proper performance of each of his duties and for material damage to the treasury in case of flight from service.

  Over time, the use of the institution of mutual responsibility by the state was preserved only in the field of fiscus: the inhabitants of a certain territorial unit from time immemorial were obliged to pay a certain amount of taxes. The distribution of taxes to be paid by the inhabitants of a particular territorial unit between households was carried out by the inhabitants themselves, and the collection of taxes was entrusted to the persons chosen by the payers. From this, some scholars conclude that the responsibility for the tax-free receipt of taxes lay with the society of payers. There is no doubt, in any case, that tax collectors, governors and other persons in charge of peasants of this category were responsible to the government for arrears. Under fear of this liability (property and personal), they could, when collecting arrears, apply, to a greater or lesser extent, the beginning of the responsibility of some payers for others, even in the case when mutual guarantee was not sanctioned by law.

  In the 18th century, developing more and more bureaucratic orders and refusing to use the principle of mutual responsibility in various branches of public affairs, apparently lost any concept of the circular responsibility of taxpayers, as one of the principles of organizing taxation in former times. In view of this, being forced in the end to turn to mutual guarantee as a means of ensuring the regular receipt of taxes, the government did not immediately introduce it, but applied it at first as an extreme measure and gave this application various motivations. So, in 1739, the royal decree ordered the arrears in the collection of taxes from the merchants and state peasants to be spread among the members of these estates among themselves, and the arrears from the peasants of the palace, factory, monastery, first of all, replenish from the property of patrimonial administrators and clerks, and only in case of their inability to pay shortfall, collect arrears from the peasants themselves.

  A. Korzukhin. Collection of arrears (1868)

  A. Krasnoselsky. Collection of arrears (1869)

  V. Pukirev. Collection of arrears (1870)

  K. Trutovsky. Collection of arrears in the countryside (1886)
  With the establishment in 1797 of the department of appanages and the formation of the category of appanage peasants, it was decided that in the event of accumulation of arrears due to laziness and negligence of the villagers, the perpetrators are brought to justice, and the arrears are recovered from the entire rural community, as punishment for the fact that “seeing his partner in laziness and negligence of the fallen, did not try to turn him to labor and the correction of his debt.

  As a general rule, the obligation of the society to be responsible for the regular payment of taxes was fixed by the Manifesto of May 16, 1811, supplemented by the decree of 1828, but at the same time there were no specific penalties to be applied to the whole village. At the same time, in the manifesto of 1811, in order to prevent arrears, volost heads, elected and headmen were given the right to use malicious defaulters in work in the settlement or send them to the workhouse until the debt was paid, from which they were released for rural work from April to November. Similar measures could be taken against negligent elders and elected ones.

  With the new division in 1833 of the villages of state peasants into societies, the obligation of the latter to be responsible for the regular payment of taxes was confirmed, with the addition that if the arrears of the society increase to an annual salary, then the responsibility is transferred to the entire volost. Thus the government has clearly shown that it does not consider mutual responsibility to consist in connection with the land relations of the members of society. Although with the establishment of the Ministry of State Property, the responsibility of the volost for the arrears of rural communities was abolished, nevertheless mutual responsibility was not brought into connection with land ownership. Only in 1869, the circular responsibility for the collection of state taxes, with communal ownership of land, was limited to the boundaries of a land unit.

  After the peasant reform of 1861, the collection of taxes from the peasants, as well as state, zemstvo and secular dues, was entrusted to elected village elders and collectors, who were under the supervision of the volost foreman. They did not have the right to resort to non-payers to any coercive measures of recovery, with the exception of a short-term arrest and a small fine. Rural communities themselves were endowed with great powers. In particular, according to the legislation, they had the right to resort to more serious measures in relation to non-payers: the sale of real estate belonging to the debtor in order to pay off the arrears, the return of the debtor or any of his family members to outside earnings, with the withdrawal of the earned money to the community fund, the appointment of a guardian to the debtor or the appointment of another member of the same family as a senior in the house in place of the faulty owner. In extreme cases, a rural society, in order to influence the debtor, had the right to resort to more stringent measures: the sale of real estate belonging to the debtor personally (with the exception of the redeemed estate), the sale of that part of the movable property and buildings of the debtor, which does not constitute a need for his economy, arrears of all or part of the land allotment allotted to him. If, despite all the measures taken, the peasant could not pay off his debts by October 1, then the debt was divided by the village assembly among other peasants of the society, who were supposed to pay it off by January 15 of the next year. If the rural society could not cope with the payment of the debt. then it was forced to pay arrears through the local police, and in case of failure of these coercive measures, the arrears were extinguished by the police through the sale of peasant movable property.

  In practice, the procedure for collecting taxes and the use of mutual responsibility proceeded somewhat differently. Thus, coercive measures against defaulters, which, according to the law, only the rural community had the right to apply, as a rule, especially in areas where household ownership of land prevailed, were used by the rural and volost authorities and even the police. When society resorted to them under strong pressure from the police, in most cases it was limited to measures specified in the law as extreme: the sale of the movable property of the debtor or the temporary taking away of his allotment, for renting out to pay off the arrears, bypassing easier measures. as inapplicable in peasant life. Very rarely was the division of the debt of individual peasants among all members of society applied. If this measure was applied, then sporadically, at the request of the police. In these cases, the share of the payment that fell on wealthy peasants sometimes reached 100 rubles or more.

  At the end of the 19th century, each rural society, both in communal and in district or household (hereditary) land use, was responsible for each of its members in the proper service of state, zemstvo and secular duties. Rural communities located within the same volost were given the opportunity, by common agreement, to unite among themselves to facilitate circular guarantees. Peasants who had all the lands of their allotment in separate possession could not be held liable in serving state taxes and duties for other peasants, even those who lived in the same society or village, but did not participate in the said ownership. If in a village or part of a village that had separate land ownership and received a separate salary sheet on this basis, there were less than 40 audit souls who were in salary, then taxes and duties were collected from the peasants without mutual guarantee. Laying responsibility on societies for the proper serving of taxes and duties by their members, the government did not indicate the means to which rural gatherings could resort to compel individual payers to pay fees.

  The use of mutual responsibility in the collection of state and zemstvo dues from the allotment lands of rural communities was significantly limited in 46 provinces of European Russia in 1899. In 1900, mutual guarantee was abolished in the collection of food taxes. In 1903, mutual guarantee was completely abolished in those provinces where the regulation of 1899 was introduced, with the simultaneous release of rural societies from mutual guarantee for the contribution of worldly dues and fees for the use of poor members of these societies in institutions of public charity.

The falsification of documents is influenced by such common factors as 1) a high level of decentralization of the company, control bodies; 2) setting unrealistic financial goals by management;

At the first stage, the state did not have bodies that could levy taxes. Hence the desire of the state to find an intermediary between itself and the payer. It entrusts the entire collection of taxes to a natural or artificial union formed by it - a city or a community - under mutual responsibility, and itself determines only the total amount that it requires from the union. The entire union is responsible for paying the required amount. Between the payer and the state there is such an alliance that shields the payer from the state. During this period, mutual responsibility is beneficial both for the government and for such unions. The union of mutual guarantee guarantees the full payment of the required amount and uses this guarantee as a means of protection against administrative interference in its internal affairs, which was of great importance in the absence of legal guarantees. Mutual responsibility provided not only direct, but also indirect taxes. The so-called salary in indirect taxes is being developed. The government entrusts the collection of indirect taxes to the self-governing unions, with responsibility placed on persons chosen by the union itself to levy.

The second period is characterized by the fact that state institutions are being created that take on part of the functions of the union. The state makes an attempt to approach the payer, but does not dare to stand face to face with him. The amount (quota) is determined by the state, but it is distributed among individual payers not by him, but by unions, each of which the state assigns the amount of taxes. Since the state has abandoned its complete neutrality in the area of ​​tax distribution within the unions, the mutual guarantee is also removed from the union. He lays out according to the norm specified by the government, and this is where his functions end. Each payer is personally responsible for paying the tax. Thus, the state is trying to get closer to the payer in order to better use the solvency of citizens.

These laws established certain rules for the layout of fees by rural gatherings and the exact procedure for their collection, as well as facilitated and simplified the procedure for granting benefits for the payment of both wages and arrears. The use of mutual responsibility was first weakened and streamlined, and from 1903 it was completely canceled. Supervision over the collection of salary fees from the peasants was removed from the police and entrusted to the tax inspection and zemstvo chiefs. The involvement of the authorities of two different departments in the tax case was a weak side.

Their response was the formation of mutual responsibility, mutual blat and the attachment of their children and relatives to advantageous places. But still, they wanted to finally turn the right of disposal into the right of their undivided possession of what so far remained public property.

Finally, there is a fairly clear tendency towards mutual responsibility. Heads of departments or services within departments show a reaction of solidarity in the face of the central directorate, which forces them, for example, to hide the true costs of a particular department that is in a difficult situation.

Corporate mechanisms are associated with attachment to the team, group, organization, solidarity and responsibility are manifested, but mutual responsibility, group egoism can also appear.

Unprincipled characteristics are to a large extent responsible for the promotion of weak workers to leadership positions. By endowing a person with positive qualities that are not inherent in him, the leaders who signed the characteristic grossly violate the principles of working with personnel, corrupt people, and create an atmosphere of mutual responsibility. We obtain convincing evidence of the inconsistency of such characteristics by studying, so to speak, after the fact those of them that were issued on the computer.

With such an independent and voluntaristic approach of the leader to the formation of the administrative apparatus, a particularly dangerous situation can develop - and indeed often develops - when the leader manages to pick up all his surroundings on the basis of personal loyalty. As a result, a collective bonded by mutual responsibility is created. The greatest possibilities for the emergence of this kind of phenomena also exist in the administrative apparatus of relatively small enterprises, associations, internal departments of departments, institutions.

Mutual responsibility (as applied to taxes) - in pre-revolutionary Russia, a way to ensure the timely and complete collection of taxes by making the peasant community as a whole responsible for their payment. Members of the community were responsible for each other with all their property in the event of non-payment of taxes by individual payers, the amount of tax was distributed among the rest of the community. The action of the K. p., which existed in Russia since ancient times, was legalized by certain state acts in the 19th century. it received its clearest expression in the law of November 28, 1833, on the procedure for collecting fees from state peasants. In 1861, when serfdom was abolished, serfdom was extended to the entire rural population, since tsarism was interested in preserving it as a means of enslaving the peasant poor, extorting taxes and collecting arrears. The progressive and revolutionary public in Russia (from N. G. Chernyshevsky to V. I. Lenin) exposed the reactionary essence of the communist party. It was abolished by legislative acts of 1903 and 1906. in connection with the preparation of the Stolypin agrarian reform.

It should be said that labor collectives still differ in terms of their level of social maturity. A healthy, mature team is not one where everyone supports each other on the principle of mutual responsibility, but where a loafer will be forced to work in good faith, a truant and a drunkard will be called to account, and the leader will be helped to correct mistakes if he makes them.

Mutual responsibility - 1) a method of ensuring significant income, a dominant position in a particular area of ​​production, trade, used by a certain group 2) a method of securing tax revenues by imposing on a certain circle of persons the obligation to answer for each other with all their property (it was distributed before the creation tax apparatus).

Why lower-level managers prefer a moral and psychological effect, striving to defend the autonomy of management in resolving the production tasks of today Because their credo is to fulfill the production plan, avoiding incidents and conflicts with subordinate employees, otherwise you will not fulfill it. But their preferences turn out to be distorted if the plan is carried out as a result of forgiveness, condescension, familiarity, mutual responsibility. Fulfilling the plan by any means means devaluing its moral and psychological effect, depriving the workers of a sense of pride in their work.

In those countries where communal land use was preserved, there was a periodic redistribution of arable land among peasant farmsteads, as was the case in Russia. Rent in kind was collected by the landlords (whose role was also played by the state) in general, by the chokh - from the common lands and farmsteads of the community. The peasant assembly itself distributed such dues among the farmsteads on the basis of mutual responsibility. The peasants led not only their patriarchal households, but also participated in communal production and self-taxation in kind for the benefit of the landowner and the state.

Mutual responsibility - in pre-revolutionary Russia, in relation to taxes, a way to ensure the timely and complete collection of taxes or taxes by placing responsibility for their payment on the peasant community as a whole.

Let us especially note the last position. This provision is very important and corresponds to the main trends of modern Western audit. On the one hand, the purpose of the audit is to express the auditor's opinion on the reliability of the statements, and the audit organization enters into an agreement with the audited organization, according to which it is contracted to perform such work for a certain monetary reward. On the other hand, there are certain objective obstacles due to which the audit organization may not be able to fulfill its contractual obligations. Such circumstances primarily include the absence of any important accounting documentation, the failure to provide the auditors with the necessary explanations by the auditees, and in general any cases of serious deviation of the auditees from constructive cooperation with the auditors. The typical vision of an audit by Western experts is that the shareholders invest their money in a certain business, hire a manager who conducts this business on a daily basis, and once a year auditors come and inform the shareholders that the reports of the hired manager on his work and its results are true. Or, on the contrary, auditors open the eyes of shareholders to miscalculations, errors or abuses of the manager or chief accountant. However, sometimes the main shareholder and the manager of the enterprise are the same person or relatives (and in Russian small and medium-sized businesses this situation is generally typical), and the auditor sees that when trying to inform the shareholder about the abuses of the manager, he encounters mutual responsibility or finds himself in a situation when information about abuses is reported only to the person responsible for these abuses, and all this does not allow changing the situation for the better. Western practice recommends that the auditor in such a situation abandon the assignment, demanding payment for the actual labor costs. Rather, the ISA uses this wording If persons responsible for fraud are suspected of committing fraud

TREASON - a violation of loyalty to a common cause, the bonds of solidarity, camaraderie, love. The negative assessment of I., given to her by moral consciousness, is due to the positive value that is attached to these bonds. If these bonds lose their positive meaning or even acquire an antimoral meaning, the violation and rejection of them is no longer I. On the contrary, fidelity in this case is immoral and is regarded as false partnership, mutual responsibility, nepotism, groupism, etc.

In 1885, Bunge joined the State Council with the idea of ​​a universal (except Siberia) abolition from January 1, 1886 of the poll tax, which since the time of Peter I has been the cornerstone of the financial system of the Russian Empire. This measure was supposed to reduce the resources of the state treasury by 57 million rubles, part of which was supposed to be compensated by an increase in the tax on alcohol (from 9 kopecks per degree), and part by an increase in quitrent tax from state peasants (which the government refused to increase in 1886). for 20 years). The State Council, however, decided to transfer the state peasants to a ransom, which was, in fact, nothing more than a disguised increase in the dues tax. The law of June 12, 1886 established a mandatory redemption for state peasants. The abolition of the poll tax was to entail the abolition of mutual responsibility. And in

Redemption payments were also subjected to some reduction, which, although entered into a special painting department, essentially differed from direct taxes only in their urgency. Under Witte, measures were taken to settle the fate of arrears in redemption payments, which accumulated in large numbers after the bad harvests of 1891 and 1892, as well as to reduce their salary. The law of February 7, 1894 ordered the local administration to sort out the reasons for the origin of arrears in individual villages and to establish for each village the share of arrears that could be repaid annually together with the salary for the same cases when their increase to the salary was recognized as impossible, it was allowed to defer payment arrears until the time when the salary payment period expires. The assumptions of the local authorities were subject to the approval of the Ministries of Interior and Finance. The laws of May 13, 1896 and May 31, 1899, were intended to reduce the burden of the salary of redemption payments. This was achieved by providing, at the request of the peasants, an installment plan for the outstanding balance of the redemption debt for new terms - 28, 41 and 56 years. Thus, the redemption debt was converted, which led to a decrease in the annual payment due to the lengthening of the redemption period. In view of the weak application of the laws of 1896 and 1899, the amount of benefits was increased. Laws 1894, 1896 and 1899 gave the local and central administration a huge job that lasted for many years, but turned out to be useless. Studies of the solvency and arrears of individual villages were carried out poorly; their verification in the central administration was impossible. The conversion of the redemption debt was not clear to the majority of peasants. By 1900, the installment of arrears was almost over, but since arrears arose again, work had to be constantly resumed. Of great importance was the Regulation of June 23, 1899 on the procedure for collecting salary dues from allotment lands, supplemented by the Law of February 12, 1903 on the abolition of mutual guarantee.

The situation of a person who has been ostracized is all the more sad because the higher leadership is far from always aware of the presence of mutual responsibility in this team. It is not always and not immediately behind apparent well-being that the truth is guessed that people are united not by high goals, but by collective egoism, one-mindedness, the author of which is the leader. In such a team, there is usually no visible movement forward, but they are vigilantly watching so that someone does not take it into their heads to take dirty linen out of the hut. Do I need to explain how dangerous this kind of phenomenon is.

Needless to say, how intolerable it is also to be placed in positions on the grounds of personal loyalty, kinship and fellowship. On this basis, the role of criticism and self-criticism is belittled, nepotism and nepotism flourish, an atmosphere of undemanding, mutual responsibility, servility and irresponsibility is created, which inevitably leads to various abuses. People who have taken leadership positions without special education and professional knowledge are not in a position, of course, to exercise effective management, and for this reason alone they tend to surround themselves with narrow-minded and low-initiative workers. Some of them, firmly clinging to someone's tails, sometimes reach high positions, by the very fact of being in such a position they undermine people's faith in justice. Is it not clear that these people cannot serve as an example for subordinates, maintain discipline and order, if they themselves are the personification of irresponsibility.

At the same time, it is beneficial for entrepreneurs to exploit all forms of mutual support, joint activities of employees. Even surrogates of collectivity, illusory collectivity, are placed at the service of capital. Especially great attention is paid to the exploitation of imaginary collectivity in the developed capitalist countries in modern conditions. In the USA, Japan and some other imperialist states, the ideas of paternalism, the theory and politics of human relations in production, which the ideologists of capitalism are trying to declare as truly collectivist, have become quite widespread. In Japan, for example, lifetime employment is quite widely practiced, a sophisticated system of circular responsibility for the results of production is used, carried over from pre-capitalist eras and providing the strictest supervision of the behavior of each by each. The system of mutual responsibility and universal strict control over the behavior and actions of employees, which brings dividends to entrepreneurs, of course, has nothing to do with collectivity. According to bourgeois economists, the use of various forms of collectivity (following the example of Japan) can play the role of a factor accelerating the development of the capitalist economy. A well-known specialist in the field of Japanese management in the West, professor at the Graduate School of Management at the University of California at Los Angeles (USA), William Ouchi strongly recommends the widespread introduction of a new philosophy, that is, a conceptual framework for management, which boils down to the use of organizational structures that ensure collective management factories and trade organizations. At the same time, he does not hide the fact that collective efforts are necessary to increase profit, which serves as the only

Class contradictions in pre-capitalist formations developed in the depths of the tribal organization, made their way, destroying various forms of primitive and semi-primitive community of people. The development of the social division of labor was the objective prerequisite that contributed to the formation of new forms of socio-economic community of people. The community organization becomes not only the bearer of the traditions of collectivism and mutual assistance, but also an instrument of relations of exploitation, turning into a fiscal cell bound by mutual responsibility, manifesting itself in the exclusivity of castes, inequality of estates, and antagonism of classes.

In Russia, P.N. was introduced by Peter I instead of the household tax from 1724. This tax was levied in the same amount on the entire male population, regardless of age. From the end of the 18th century B.N. becomes the main income of the state (up to 50% of all income). Gradually, as the wealthy segments of the population were excluded from taxation, P.n. turned into a purely peasant tax. The collection of the tax was conducted by the peasant community, the full receipt of the tax was guaranteed by mutual guarantee, when the amounts unpaid by someone were laid out on the rest of the peasant households. Severe sanctions were applied to non-payers, up to the seizure of property for debts. Such a policy led to the ruin of the peasantry. By decree of Catherine II in 1783, the calculation and collection of the poll tax were changed. Based on these audits and the established salary, the total amount of the tax was determined, which was further decomposed by provinces, counties and volosts. The final distribution of the tax among the individual payers was carried out by the rural communities themselves, and the principle of totality lost its decisive importance and was replaced by property.

Legally, allotment lands became the property of the peasants only after their redemption. Instead of kunchih, special data were issued for the allotment land acquired by the peasants, and the land itself was pledged to ensure the correct payment of redemption payments. And although the peasants were called the owners of the land, the general civil rights did not apply to allotment lands. legislation. They were considered as a special cross, property. For 9 years, these lands could not be alienated. After this period, until the redemption loan was repaid, in order to alienate allotment lands, it was necessary to obtain permission from the provincial presence, and the proceeds were used primarily to pay off the debt on the redemption loan. Subsequently, the pledge and donation of allotments to persons not belonging to the community were also prohibited, and other restrictions were established on the disposal of peasants of their allotments. In addition, but the Regulations of 1861 assigned land to villages. societies, not the peasants. The community answered with mutual responsibility for each householder. She had the right to distribute the land according to the souls, for each land. the allotment corresponded to onredel. the share of duties, from which it was impossible to refuse, because since 1893 leaving the community without the consent of the society was prohibited. So, II. h. retained semi-critical. relations.

Material from ENE

Mutual responsibility- in the civil law sense correlative obligations (see) in its Roman form, the only remnant of this form, it seems, in modern law. Obliging each for all and all for one, the participants in K. bail are bound in all the consequences of the debt. Acts of liberation, which do not matter as to the means of material satisfaction of the creditor, if they are allowed in relation to one debtor, act here and for all: the purpose of the mutual guarantee is precisely to put before the creditor, instead of individual persons, a whole community like this. Therefore, the participants in a bond may not be members of any union, but only members of a certain territorial unit. The liability of members of other unions (partnerships) is always joint liability in the modern sense of this legal concept (see Correal obligation). The approximation of K. bail with a simple guarantee (Gordon) and the application to it of the rules on the gradual collection ( beneficium excussionis): the purpose of K. bail, as well as any solidary obligation, is to guarantee timely and immediate fulfillment of the obligation. Therefore, it is closest to a guarantee for a period, and the latter, in essence, does not differ from a solidary obligation in modern Russian law (cassation decision 69/1186). Therefore, the attempt to establish a distinction between mutual responsibility and joint and several obligations in general, in the form of correlativity or pure solidarity, is also incorrect.

See Gordon, "St. 1548 v. X. part I and the question of K. guarantee and solidarity in obligations ”(“ Journal of the Ministry of Justice ”, vol. 35, 1868).

Mutual responsibility in Russia

At the initial stages of social life, legal subjects are not individuals, but genera. The genus is responsible for the actions of a person, and if the responsibility is transferred to the individual, it is only because the latter is considered as a representative of the genus. Mutual responsibility formula: all for one and one for all - leads, thus, its origin from the times of tribal life. Although the transformation of a tribal union into a communal-territorial union, and then into a state one, is associated with the gradual separation of the individual as a legal entity, nevertheless, the institution of k. , constituting society, partly due to state considerations about the convenience of imposing the execution of certain tasks on the responsibility of territorial unions. The first indications of the existence of K. bail in Russia are found in Russkaya Pravda (some scholars see a hint of the existence of this institution in Oleg's agreement with the Greeks). K. bail, within a certain territorial unit (vervi), was applied to the payment of a penalty (vira, sale) for a crime committed in the district, when the offender remained unknown or when the murder was committed not for the purpose of robbery, but in a quarrel, out of revenge, etc. n. In the XV - XVI centuries. the establishment of K. bail found application in the organization of the province districts, the inhabitants of which were entrusted with the duty of preventing and eradicating crimes, with liability, monetary and criminal, for the improper fulfillment of this duty. The beginning of K. bail was used in the Muscovite state and in some other cases. So, shortfalls in customs and tavern revenues were sometimes collected from townspeople and district people who chose the perpetrators of the shortfall as kissers; losses caused to the treasury by the contractor were sometimes recovered from the settlement to which he belonged; recruiting detachments of archers from free people, the government made them liable under K. bail for the proper performance of each of his duties and for material damage to the treasury in the event of flight from service, etc. Over time, the scope of government application of the institution of K. bail is reduced, and in the end it remains only in the region of the fisk. Inhabitants of this territorial unit from time immemorial were obliged to pay a certain amount of taxes. In the interests of the treasury and the payers themselves, the layout of the collection between households was provided to the population. In the same forms, the collection of taxes was entrusted to persons chosen by the payers. From this, some scientists conclude that in Moscow. state on the society of payers was responsible for the tax-free receipt of taxes. Undoubtedly, in any case, that the responsibility to the government for the arrears in Moscow and the emperor. Russia was carried by tax collectors, governors and other persons in charge of peasants of this category. Under fear of this liability (property and personal), the named persons could, when collecting arrears, apply, to a greater or lesser extent, the beginning of the responsibility of some payers for others, even in the case when K. bail was not sanctioned by law. The government of the 18th century, developing more and more bureaucratic orders and refusing to use the principle of guarantees in various branches of state affairs, apparently lost any concept of tax liability of taxpayers, as one of the principles of organizing taxation in former times. . This is seen from the fact that, being finally forced by life itself to turn to guarantees as a means of ensuring the regular receipt of taxes, the government did not immediately introduce it, applied it at first as an extreme measure and gave this application various motivations. Thus, by a decree of January 15, the arrears in the collection of taxes from the merchants and state peasants were ordered to these estates to spread among themselves "according to the rank of their trades and belongings and ownership of land", and the collection of arrears lying on the peasants of the palace, factory, monastery, etc. ., turn on the peasants themselves only if it cannot be replenished from the property of patrimonial administrators, clerks, etc. due to the laziness and negligence of the villagers, the perpetrators are brought to justice, and the arrears are collected from the society, as a punishment for the fact that “seeing his partner in laziness and negligence, who fell into laziness and negligence, he did not try to turn him to work and correct his debt.” The obligation of the society to be responsible for the regular payment of taxes, as a general rule, was established by the manifesto of May 16, supplemented by the decree of the city; but at the same time, no specific penalties were indicated to be applied to the whole village. With a new division in the city of settlements of the treasury. peasants to societies, the obligation of the latter to be responsible for the regular payment of taxes was also confirmed, with the addition that if the arrears of the society increase to the annual salary, then the responsibility is transferred to the entire volost. By this addition, the government clearly showed that it does not consider K. to be bound by the land relations of members of the society. Although with the establishment of the Ministry of State Property, the responsibility of the volost for the arrears of rural communities was eliminated, nevertheless K. bail was not brought into connection with land ownership. Only in the city of K. was the responsibility for collecting state taxes, with communal ownership of land, limited to the boundaries of a land unit. In the current legislation of Kazakhstan, the responsibility of peasants is determined by Art. 187 common pos. about cr. and note. To her. Each rural society, both in communal and district or household (hereditary) use of land, is responsible for K. guarantee for each of its members in the proper service of state, zemstvo and worldly duties. Rural communities located within the same volost are provided, to facilitate K. guarantees, to unite with each other, according to their common worldly sentence. Peasants who have all the lands of their allotment in separate possession cannot be held accountable for the regular serving of state taxes and duties for other peasants, even if they are members of the same society or village, but do not participate in the said ownership. If in a village or part of a village that has separate land ownership and receives a separate salary sheet on this basis, there are less than 40 audit souls who are in salary, then taxes and duties are collected from the peasants without K. bail. Laying responsibility on societies for the proper serving of taxes and duties by their members, the government initially did not indicate the means to which rural gatherings could resort to compel individual payers to pay the fees due from them. In the law of May 16, volost heads, elected officials and elders, in order to prevent arrears, were given the right to use, by a worldly sentence, stubborn non-payers to work in the village itself or send them to a workhouse, until the arrears are paid, with leave home for rural work on time from April 1 to November. The same measures could be taken in relation to elders and elected officials found guilty of negligence. The sale of movables, "as if ruinous for the peasants and useless for the fidelity of taxes," is prohibited. Much more extensive powers are given to the society in the "Regulations on the collection of fees" on November 28; the rules taught by this Provision, with some changes and additions, have become part of the current legislation. On the basis of the Regulations of February 19, the collection of taxes and other state, zemstvo and secular dues from peasants lies with the duties of elected persons - village elders and collectors, who are under the supervision of the volost foreman. These persons do not have the right to resort to any coercive disciplinary measures, with the exception of a short-term arrest and a small fine (Art. 64 and 86 common. positive). More serious penalties can be applied to faulty payers only by rural companies, namely:

1) application for compensation of arrears of income from real estate owned by the debtor; 2) the return of the debtor or any of the members of his family in extraneous earnings, with the circulation of the earned money to the worldly cash desk; 3) the appointment of a guardian to the debtor or the appointment of a senior in the house, instead of a faulty owner, of another member of the same family; 4) sale of immovable property belonging to the debtor personally, with the exception of the purchased estate; 5) the sale of that part of the movable property and buildings of the debtor, which does not constitute a need for his economy; 6) taking away from the debtor the entire field allotment allotted to him or part of it.

To the measures referred to in paragraphs. 4, 5 and 6, the society should apply only in extreme cases, when other penalties prove to be insufficient (Article 188 of the general provisions) [Approximately the same means of coercion of faulty payers were armed with philistine societies.]. If, despite all the measures taken, the arrears lying on the peasant are not replenished by October 1, then it is laid out by the village meeting for other peasants of the same society and must be cleared by January 15 of the next year (Article 189 general provisions). . In case of failure of the entire rural society, it is forced to pay arrears through the local police (Article 190); and if coercive measures fail, the arrears are replenished by the police through the sale of peasant movable property (Article 191). In practice, the procedure for the collection of taxes in general and the application of K. bail in particular follow a path that deviates significantly from that specified in the law. Thus, the measures for coercion of payers, provided by law to society, all the time, especially in areas with household land, are used by the village and volost authorities and even the police. When society resorts to them (usually under strong pressure from the police), in most cases it is limited to measures indicated by law as extreme: the sale of the movable property of the debtor or the temporary taking away of his allotment, for renting out to replenish the arrears, bypassing funds specified in paragraphs. 1-3 art. 188 total floor., as inapplicable in peasant life. The article of the law regarding the distribution among all members of society of the arrears, unpaid by a certain time by individual peasants, is also very rarely applied. Such an additional layout is far from being carried out everywhere, and if it is applied, then not as a usual measure, but sporadically, at the request of the police, who suddenly took up energetically the collection of neglected arrears; in these cases, the share of the payment that falls on wealthy householders sometimes reaches 100 r. and more. Just as rarely observed is the measure of the sale for shortfalls of the movable property of all members of a rural society; maybe in more than half of the counties of European Russia this measure has not been applied at all over the past 6 years or has been applied to an extremely limited extent; in the remaining uyezds, according to tax inspectors, during the indicated period of time, the property of peasants was sold for arrears of the whole society for several hundred or thousand rubles in each, and in very few uyezds - in the amount of 10 to 20 thousand rubles. Therefore, the ruinous influence of the sale of peasant property for arrears, according to the law on K. bail, does not extend to large areas, but to individual societies. Inventories of peasant property are made immeasurably more often than sales; in most counties, the number of sales is no more than 10-15% of the number of inventories. In one province, or even in one district of any province, the police resort to inventories several times more often than in another province or another district. There are also counties where there is not even one sale for a hundred inventories. These facts lead to the conclusion that the police very often resort to the inventory of peasant property not in the form of preparation for the sale, but solely for the purpose of intimidation; as soon as the frightened population contributes a part of the arrears on them, the matter does not receive further movement. There are, however, areas where the number of sales of peasant property differs little from the number of inventories. The inventory itself, if it is not followed by a sale, does not always leave a trace on the economic situation of the population, since, under the threat of selling property, the arrears are ready to resort to the most ruinous methods of acquiring funds to pay part of the arrears (loans from usurious interest, premature sale of products agriculture, selling their labor, leasing land, etc.). Societies, out of fear of K. responsibility, tend to encourage the peasants to such transactions, and in extreme cases they themselves take away their land. With the exception of the last method of clearing the arrears, undertaken by the society for fear of liability under K. bail, the rest of the means used by the arrears to receive money to pay taxes cannot be considered a product of the law on mutual guarantee, since the sale of the movables of the arrears (as well as the taking away from of them land for rent) is allowed by law and in relation to payers who are not bound by K. responsibility. Although the principle of k. bail is applied very rarely in the form specified in the law, nevertheless it is an inseparable part of the entire land-tax community life, closely intertwined with motives of an economic nature and is applied not only in the tax business, but also in purely economic enterprises. . It serves as one of the reasons for the desire existing in peasant societies to adjust the share of payments they impose on their members, regardless of the nature and origin of the latter, with their economic viability; and since the peasants tend to connect all payments with the land, in areas with a low profitability of the economy, systems of appropriation of communal land (and, consequently, taxes) are used, based on the labor power of householders, as the most important source of income for people who live by the labor of their own hands. At the same time, as auxiliary conditions, extraneous earnings of the family, its household equipment, etc. are sometimes taken into account. changing paying capacity, the community of non-chernozem areas developed a system of private redistribution, the so-called. dumps-piles of souls (land and taxes) - a system by which the transfer of land and taxes from one family, economically weakened, to another, more prosperous, is easily achieved. When laying out the current salary of the dues, the societies sometimes release from all or part of the payments the poorest or most unfortunate of their members, and also take on some of the old, mostly hopeless, arrears. In places, societies monitor the economic activities of their unreliable members, do not allow them to engage in ruinous acts, do not allow them to receive an insurance premium, but order that it be paid for timber for construction or for work on building a hut, etc. Sometimes Societies elect special persons in order to exert a moral influence on the peasants in the sense of compelling them to pay taxes on time. When it is difficult for poor peasants to clear the payments due to them in a timely manner, societies very often cover the next tax from such peasants by borrowing from worldly sums, from income from quitrent items, or resort to public loans of money, usually on unfavorable terms, sometimes with an obligation to pay capital or percent by labor, agricultural products or by giving to the creditor for the use of communal land. Borrowings from worldly capitals are usually credited to the debtors, but a significant part of these debts is not paid back.

Examples

• Construction of the Nikolaev railway;
• Decree on the creation of the Workers 'and Peasants' Red Army;
• Simultaneous shot of all participants in the execution by firing squad (so that everyone thinks of the other that it is the other who is the killer).
• Membership in a credit consumer cooperative.

Federal Law No. 190-FZ of July 18, 2009 “On Credit Cooperation” Art.3. p3. p.p. 8) joint and several bearing by members of a credit cooperative (shareholders) of subsidiary liability for its obligations within the limits of the unpaid part of the additional contribution of each of the members of the credit cooperative (shareholders). where: additional fee - membership fee paid by in case of need to cover losses credit cooperative in accordance with paragraph 4 of Article 116 of the Civil Code of Russia.

Story

Russia

One of the first mentions of mutual responsibility is found in Russkaya Pravda. Mutual guarantee was used, in particular, if a crime was committed in a certain territory (vervi) and the offender remained unknown, the punishment in the form of payment of fines (vira) was imposed on the entire community. In the 15th-16th centuries, the inhabitants of the gubernia districts were obliged to prevent and eradicate crimes; for failure to fulfill this duty, they were financially and criminally liable. Mutual responsibility was also used in case of shortfall in customs and tavern revenues (the shortfall could be recovered from the tenant, who elected the culprit of the shortfall as a kisser). Over time, mutual responsibility was preserved only in the area of ​​fiscus: the distribution of taxes that the inhabitants of a particular territorial unit had to pay between households was carried out by the inhabitants themselves. So, in 1739, the royal decree commanded the arrears in the collection of taxes from the merchants and state peasants to spread among the members of these estates among themselves, and the arrears from the peasants of the palace, factory, monastery, first of all, replenish from the property of patrimonial administrators and clerks.

As a general rule, the obligation of society to be responsible for the regular payment of taxes was fixed by the Manifesto on May 16, 1811. To prevent arrears, volost heads, elected and elders had the right to use persistent defaulters in work in the settlement or send them to a workhouse until the debt was paid, from which they were released for rural work from April to November. Similar measures could be taken against negligent elders and elected ones. The use of mutual responsibility in the collection of state and zemstvo dues from the allotment lands of rural communities was significantly limited in 46 provinces of European Russia in 1899. In 1900, mutual responsibility was abolished in the collection of food taxes.

Mutual responsibility in art

• Bound in one chain - song of the group "Nautilus Pompilius"

see also

• Personal responsibility

Notes

Literature

• // Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Efron: In 86 volumes (82 volumes and 4 additional). - St. Petersburg. , 1890-1907.
• K.A. Sasov Joint and several liability in tax law. - M .: Alpina Publisher, 2011. - 208 p. - ISBN 978-5-9614-1737-1

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010 .

See what "mutual responsibility" is in other dictionaries:

- (agreement; round all by one, one by all). Wed How this mutual guarantee of indulgence was created I do not presume to explain, but that this guarantee was once very strong, this will be confirmed by every provincial. Saltykov. Diary… … Michelson's Big Explanatory Phraseological Dictionary (original spelling)

Mutual assistance, the hand washes the hand Dictionary of Russian synonyms. mutual responsibility hand washes hand (colloquial)) Dictionary of synonyms of the Russian language. Practical guide. M.: Russian language. Z. E. Alexandrova. 2011 ... Synonym dictionary

Circle guarantee. We'll take down the world. See God's Oath of Bail All for one, and one for all. Circle guarantee. See PEOPLE WORLD… IN AND. Dal. Proverbs of the Russian people

Law Dictionary

CIRCLE, a (y), in a circle and in a circle, on a circle and on a circle, pl. and, ov, m. Ozhegov's Explanatory Dictionary. S.I. Ozhegov, N.Yu. Shvedova. 1949 1992 ... Explanatory dictionary of Ozhegov

I in the civil law sense is a kind of correlative obligation (see) in its Roman form, the only one, as it seems, in modern law, the remnant of this form. Obliging each for all and all for one, the participants in K. bail are bound and in all ... ... Encyclopedic Dictionary F.A. Brockhaus and I.A. Efron

Agreement (round all by one, one by all) Cf. How this mutual guarantee of indulgence was created, I do not presume to explain, but that this guarantee was once very strong, this will be confirmed by every provincial. Saltykov. Diary of a provincial. ... ... Michelson's Big Explanatory Phraseological Dictionary

Mutual responsibility- Guarantee, mutual obligations of each member of this group in relation to its other members. We'll throw it off the roof, Vatnin said quietly. And it's high up here!.. Don't try your luck, Colonel. Let's drop it and say later that we ourselves rushed. We have a warrant... Phraseological dictionary of the Russian literary language

Razg. Mutual concealment, mutual gain. BMS 1998, 465; ZS 1996, 206, 220 ... Big dictionary of Russian sayings

mutual responsibility- the responsibility of all members of the community (other collective) for the actions or performance of duties by each of its members. In Russia, it existed from the moment the state appeared until 1903 ... Big Law Dictionary

Books

• Mutual responsibility among the Slavs according to ancient monuments of their legislation. Izd. 2nd, corrected and supplemented. , Sobestiansky I.M.. The book is a reprint edition of 1888. Although serious work has been done to restore the original quality of the edition, some pages may…

Mutual responsibility I

in the civil sense correlative obligations (see) in its Roman form, the only remnant of this form, it seems, in modern law. Obliging each for all and all for one, the participants in K. bail are bound in all the consequences of the debt. Acts of liberation, which do not matter as to the means of material satisfaction of the creditor, if they are allowed in relation to one debtor, act here and for all: the purpose of the guarantee of bail is precisely to place before the creditor, instead of individual persons, a whole community like this. Therefore, the participants in a bond may not be members of any union, but only members of a certain territorial unit. The liability of members of other unions (partnerships) is always joint liability in the modern sense of this legal concept (see Correal obligation). The convergence of K. bail with a simple guarantee (Gordon) and the application of the rules on gradual collection (beneficium excussionis) to it is incorrect: the goal of K. bail, as well as any solidary obligation, is to guarantee timely and immediate fulfillment of the obligation. Therefore, it is closest to a guarantee for a period, and the latter, in essence, does not differ from a solidary obligation in modern Russian law (cassation decision 69/1186). Incorrect, therefore, is the attempt to establish a distinction between a guarantee and a solidarity obligation in general, in the form of a correlation or pure solidarity.

See Gordon, "Art. 1548 vol. X. part I and the question of K. bail and solidarity in obligations" ("Journal of the Ministry of Justice", vol. 35, 1868).

AT. H.

Mutual responsibility in Russia. At the initial stages of social life, the legal subjects are not individuals, but clans. The genus is responsible for the actions of a person, and if the responsibility is transferred to the individual, it is only because the latter is considered as a representative of the genus. Formula K. bail: all for one and one for all - leads, thus, its origin from the times of tribal life. Although the transformation of a tribal union into a communal-territorial union, and then into a state one, is associated with the gradual separation of the individual as a legal entity, nevertheless, the institution of k. , constituting society, partly due to state considerations about the convenience of imposing the execution of certain tasks on the responsibility of territorial unions. The first indications of the existence of K. bail in Russia are found in Russkaya Pravda (some scholars see a hint of the existence of this institution in Oleg's agreement with the Greeks). K. bail, within a certain territorial unit (vervi), was applied to the payment of a penalty (vira, sale) for a crime committed in the district, when the offender remained unknown or when the murder was committed not for the purpose of robbery, but in a quarrel, out of revenge, etc. n. In the XV - XVI centuries. the establishment of K. bail found application in the organization of the province districts, the inhabitants of which were entrusted with the duty of preventing and eradicating crimes, with liability, monetary and criminal, for the improper fulfillment of this duty. The beginning of K. bail was used in the Muscovite state and in some other cases. So, shortfalls in customs and tavern revenues were sometimes collected from townspeople and district people who chose the perpetrators of the shortfall as kissers; losses caused to the treasury by the contractor were sometimes recovered from the settlement to which he belonged; recruiting detachments of archers from free people, the government made them liable under K. bail for the proper performance of each of his duties and for material damage to the treasury in the event of flight from service, etc. Over time, the scope of government application of the institution of K. bail is reduced, and in the end it remains only in the region of the fisk. Inhabitants of this territorial unit from time immemorial were obliged to pay a certain amount of taxes. In the interests of the treasury and the payers themselves, the layout of the collection between households was provided to the population. In the same forms, the collection of taxes was entrusted to persons chosen by the payers. From this, some scientists conclude that in Moscow. state on the society of payers was responsible for the tax-free receipt of taxes. Undoubtedly, in any case, that the responsibility to the government for the arrears in Moscow and the emperor. Russia was carried by tax collectors, governors and other persons in charge of peasants of this category. Under fear of this liability (property and personal), the named persons could, when collecting arrears, apply, to a greater or lesser extent, the beginning of the responsibility of some payers for others, even in the case when K. bail was not sanctioned by law. The government of the 18th century, developing more and more bureaucratic orders and refusing to use the principle of guarantees in various branches of state affairs, apparently lost any concept of tax liability of taxpayers, as one of the principles of organizing taxation in former times. . This is seen from the fact that, being finally forced by life itself to turn to guarantees as a means of ensuring the regular receipt of taxes, the government did not immediately introduce it, applied it at first as an extreme measure and gave this application various motivations. Thus, by decree of January 15, 1739, the arrears in the collection of taxes from the merchants and state peasants were ordered to these estates to spread among themselves "according to the rank of their trades and belongings and ownership of land", and the collection of arrears lying on the peasants of the palace, factory, monastery, etc. etc., to turn on the peasants themselves only if it cannot be replenished from the property of patrimonial administrators, clerks, etc. accumulation of arrears due to the laziness and negligence of the villagers, the perpetrators are brought to justice, and the arrears are collected from society, as punishment for the fact that "seeing his partner in laziness and negligence who fell into labor, he did not try to turn him to work and correct his debt." The obligation of society to be responsible for the regular payment of taxes, as a general rule, was established by the manifesto of May 16, 1811, supplemented by a decree of 1828; but at the same time, no specific penalties were indicated to be applied to the whole village. With the new division in 1833 of the settlements of the treasury. peasants to societies, the obligation of the latter to be responsible for the regular payment of taxes was also confirmed, with the addition that if the arrears of the society increase to the annual salary, then the responsibility is transferred to the entire volost. By this addition, the government clearly showed that it does not consider K. to be bound by the land relations of members of the society. Although, with the establishment of the Ministry of State Property, the responsibility of the volost for the arrears of rural communities was eliminated, nevertheless, K. bail was not brought in connection with land ownership. Only in 1869, K. responsibility for the collection of state taxes, with communal ownership of land, was limited to the limits of the land unit. In the current legislation of Kazakhstan, the responsibility of peasants is determined by Art. 187 common pos. about cr. and note. To her. Each rural society, both in the community and in the district or household (hereditary) use of land, is responsible for K. guarantee for each of its members in the proper serving of state, zemstvo and worldly duties. Rural communities located within the same volost are provided, to facilitate K. guarantees, to unite with each other, according to their common worldly sentence. Peasants who have all the lands of their allotment in separate possession cannot be held accountable for the regular serving of state taxes and duties for other peasants, even if they are members of the same society or village, but do not participate in the said ownership. If in a village or part of a village that has separate land ownership and receives a separate salary sheet on this basis, there are less than 40 audit souls who are in salary, then taxes and duties are collected from the peasants without K. bail. Laying responsibility on societies for the proper serving of taxes and duties by their members, the government initially did not indicate the means to which rural gatherings could resort to compel individual payers to pay the fees due from them. In the law of May 16, 1811, the volost heads, elected and elders, in order to prevent arrears, were given the right to use, according to a worldly sentence, stubborn non-payers to work in the village itself or send them to a workhouse, until the arrears were paid, with leave home for rural work for the period from April 1 to November. The same measures could be taken in relation to elders and elected officials found guilty of negligence. The sale of movables, "as if ruinous for the peasants and useless for the fidelity of taxes," is prohibited. Much more extensive powers are given to society in the "Regulations on the collection of fees" November 28, 1833; the rules taught by this Provision, with some changes and additions, have become part of the current legislation. On the basis of the Regulations of February 19, 1861, the collection of taxes and other state, zemstvo and secular dues from the peasants lies with the duties of elected persons - village elders and collectors, who are under the supervision of the volost foreman. These persons do not have the right to resort to any coercive disciplinary measures, with the exception of a short-term arrest and a small fine (Art. 64 and 86 common. positive). More serious penalties can be applied to faulty payers only by rural societies, namely: 1) application for compensation of arrears of income from real estate owned by the debtor; 2) the return of the debtor or any of the members of his family in extraneous earnings, with the circulation of the earned money to the worldly cash desk; 3) the appointment of a guardian to the debtor or the appointment of a senior in the house, instead of a faulty owner, of another member of the same family; 4) sale of immovable property belonging to the debtor personally, with the exception of the purchased estate; 5) the sale of that part of the movable property and buildings of the debtor, which does not constitute a need for his economy; 6) taking away from the debtor the entire field allotment allotted to him or part of it. To the measures referred to in paragraphs. 4, 5 and 6, the society should apply only in extreme cases, when other penalties prove to be insufficient (Article 188 of the general provisions) [Approximately the same means of coercion of faulty payers were armed with philistine societies.]. If, despite all the measures taken, the arrears owed by the peasant are not replenished by October 1, then it is laid out by the village meeting for other peasants of the same society and must be cleared by January 15 of the next year (Article 189 general provisions). . In case of failure of the entire rural society, it is forced to pay arrears through the local police (Article 190); and if coercive measures fail, the arrears are replenished by the police through the sale of peasant movable property (Article 191). In practice, the procedure for the collection of taxes in general and the application of K. bail in particular follow a path that deviates significantly from that specified in the law. Thus, the measures for coercion of payers, provided by law to society, all the time, especially in areas with household land, are used by the village and volost authorities and even the police. When society resorts to them (usually under strong pressure from the police), in most cases it is limited to measures indicated by law as extreme: the sale of the movable property of the debtor or the temporary taking away of his allotment, for renting out to replenish the arrears, bypassing funds specified in paragraphs. 1-3 art. 188 total floor., as inapplicable in peasant life. The article of the law regarding the distribution among all members of society of the arrears, unpaid by a certain time by individual peasants, is also very rarely applied. Such an additional layout is far from being carried out everywhere, and if it is applied, then not as a usual measure, but sporadically, at the request of the police, who suddenly took up energetically the collection of neglected arrears; in these cases, the share of the payment that falls on wealthy householders sometimes reaches 100 r. and more. Just as rarely observed is the measure of the sale for shortfalls of the movable property of all members of a rural society; maybe in more than half of the counties of European Russia this measure has not been applied at all over the past 6 years or has been applied to an extremely limited extent; in the remaining uyezds, according to tax inspectors, during the indicated period of time, the property of peasants was sold for arrears of the whole society for several hundred or thousand rubles in each, and in very few uyezds - in the amount of 10 to 20 thousand rubles. Therefore, the ruinous influence of the sale of peasant property for arrears, according to the law on bail, does not extend to large areas, but to individual societies. Inventories of peasant property are made immeasurably more often than sales; in most counties, the number of sales is no more than 10-15% of the number of inventories. In one province, or even in one district of any province, the police resort to inventories several times more often than in another province or another district. There are also counties where there is not even one sale for a hundred inventories. These facts lead to the conclusion that the police very often resort to the inventory of peasant property not in the form of preparation for the sale, but solely for the purpose of intimidation; as soon as the frightened population contributes a part of the arrears on them, the matter does not receive further movement. There are, however, areas where the number of sales of peasant property differs little from the number of inventories. The inventory itself, if it is not followed by a sale, does not always leave a trace on the economic situation of the population, since, under the threat of selling property, the arrears are ready to resort to the most ruinous methods of acquiring funds to pay part of the arrears (loans from usurious interest, premature sale of products agriculture, selling their labor, leasing land, etc.). Societies, out of fear of K. responsibility, tend to encourage the peasants to such transactions, and in extreme cases they themselves take away their land. With the exception of the last method of clearing the arrears, undertaken by the society for fear of liability under K. bail, the rest of the means used by the arrears to receive money to pay taxes cannot be considered a product of the law on mutual guarantee, since the sale of the movables of the arrears (as well as the taking away from of them land for rent) is allowed by law and in relation to payers who are not bound by K. responsibility. Although the principle of k. bail is applied very rarely in the form specified in the law, nevertheless it is an inseparable part of the entire land-tax community life, closely intertwined with motives of an economic nature and is applied not only in the tax business, but also in purely economic enterprises. . It serves as one of the reasons for the desire existing in peasant societies to adjust the share of payments they impose on their members, regardless of the nature and origin of the latter, with their economic viability; and since the peasants tend to connect all payments with the land, in areas with a low profitability of the economy, systems of appropriation of communal land (and, consequently, taxes) are used, based on the labor power of householders, as the most important source of income for people who live by the labor of their own hands. At the same time, as auxiliary conditions, extraneous earnings of the family, its household equipment, etc. are sometimes taken into account. changing paying capacity, the community of non-chernozem areas developed a system of private redistribution, the so-called. dumps-piles of souls (land and taxes) - a system by which the transfer of land and taxes from one family, economically weakened, to another, more prosperous, is easily achieved. When laying out the current salary of the dues, the societies sometimes release from all or part of the payments the poorest or most unfortunate of their members, and also take on some of the old, mostly hopeless, arrears. In places, societies monitor the economic activities of their unreliable members, do not allow them to engage in ruinous acts, do not allow them to receive an insurance premium, but order that it be paid for timber for construction or for work on building a hut, etc. Sometimes Societies elect special persons in order to exert a moral influence on the peasants in the sense of compelling them to pay taxes on time. When it is difficult for poor peasants to clear the payments due to them in a timely manner, societies very often cover the next tax from such peasants by borrowing from worldly sums, from income from quitrent items, or resort to public loans of money, usually on unfavorable terms, sometimes with an obligation to pay capital or percent by labor, agricultural products or by giving to the creditor for the use of communal land. Borrowings from worldly capitals are usually credited to the debtors, but a significant part of these debts is not paid back.

Literature. Lappo-Danilevsky, "Organization of direct taxation in the Muscovite state"; S. Kapustin, "Ancient Russian guarantee"; Novikov, "On surety under Russian law"; Ivan Sobestiansky, "K. bail from the Slavs according to the ancient monuments of their legislation"; "Russian Conversation" (1860, No. 2) - Art. "On K. bail" Belyaev; "Proceedings of the Commission Highly Established to Review the System of Taxes and Duties", Vol. I - "Historical and Statistical Information on Poll Taxes", IP Rukovsky; "K. Guarantee in the judgments of the editorial commissions of the main committee" (note by the vice-director of the salary department, N. K. Brzhesky); "Code of opinions of managers of state chambers" (note); "The existing procedure for collecting salary fees from peasants according to information provided by tax inspectors for 1887-93"; "Northern Herald", 1886, No. 7 and 8, Art. Shchepotiev; "Northern Herald", 1886, No. 11, art. gaps; "Russian Thought", 1886, No. 10, Art. Lichkov; "Russian Vedomosti", 1886, No. 101, art. Yakushkin; "Bulletin of Europe", 1893, No. 11, Art. Veretennikov; "Economic Journal", 1893, No. 4, Art. Maksimov.

Encyclopedic Dictionary F.A. Brockhaus and I.A. Efron. - St. Petersburg: Brockhaus-Efron. 1890-1907 .

See what "mutual responsibility" is in other dictionaries:

Mutual responsibility, "Tweed's gang": "Tell me, who stole the people's money?" “That's him” and everyone points fingers at each other. New York, Harper's Weekly July 1, 1871 ... Wikipedia

- (agreement; round all by one, one by all). Wed How this mutual guarantee of indulgence was created I do not presume to explain, but that this guarantee was once very strong, this will be confirmed by every provincial. Saltykov. Diary… … Michelson's Big Explanatory Phraseological Dictionary (original spelling)

Mutual assistance, the hand washes the hand Dictionary of Russian synonyms. mutual responsibility hand washes hand (colloquial)) Dictionary of synonyms of the Russian language. Practical guide. M.: Russian language. Z. E. Alexandrova. 2011 ... Synonym dictionary

Circle guarantee. We'll take down the world. See God's Oath of Bail All for one, and one for all. Circle guarantee. See PEOPLE WORLD… IN AND. Dal. Proverbs of the Russian people