THE DYNAMICS OF THE COLLECTION OF THE MANDATORY STATE PENSION FUND CONTRIBUTION (WITH THE EXAMPLE OF THE FORMATION OF JUDICIAL PRACTICE)

The subject of the study is the conceptual, theoretical, methodological and applied provisions of mandatory state pension insurance in Ukraine through the lens of its regulatory framework and judicial application. Methodology. General scientific methods were used in the research process. The method of comparison was used to generalise the judicial approaches of different levels of courts to the main dominants of law enforcement regarding the payment of state pension insurance contributions. Analysis was used to determine the quantitative and qualitative parameters of current and previous legislation and court practice. Synthesis was used to determine the main features of court practice. The historical-legal method was used for the purpose of researching the historical retrospective of the development of legislation and judicial practice on the given problem. The aim of the article is to analyse the past and current judicial practice regarding the application of exemptions from mandatory state pension insurance contributions in Ukraine, comparing the approaches to the regulatory framework before and after the normative reform of the relevant institution. The results of the study have shown that in order to ensure the effectiveness of the benefit from the payment of the mandatory state pension insurance contribution, it is necessary to transform the current judicial practice and change its vector from a pro-fiscal orientation to the creation of foundations for ensuring the legal rights and interests of private individuals. Conclusion. The recent case law of the Supreme Court regarding the application of the relevant exemption for first-time home purchases is not consistent. In fact, the burden of proof for the first-time purchase of housing is placed solely on the private individual, while the state itself has access to the necessary data to establish the priority of the purchase of housing. Furthermore, the very possibility of refunding funds paid in error (without justification) by a person entitled to the exemption is disputed. In summary, the highest court in the system of general jurisdiction has taken a purely fiscal position on this issue. As for the legal innovations in the regulation of the payment of the mandatory state pension insurance contribution, they are of a somewhat inconsistent nature. In practice, there is an attempt to place the burden of proof for the initial acquisition of a dwelling on the parties to civil legal relations, i.e. the person who acquires the dwelling and the notary who formalises such a legal transaction, despite the fact that the state also has effective mechanisms for establishing the existence of relevant legal facts. As a result, the effective mechanism for the implementation of the exemption under consideration is reduced.