Current legislation provides that if the law on certain persons charged with the responsibility to insure, this insurance should be regarded as mandatory, regardless of whether the said Act of any other provisions, including those provided for in paragraph 4 of Art. 3 of the Law № 4015-1, and paragraph 3 of Art. 935 Civil Code. In the above confusion, the tax authorities are sometimes used in respect of compulsory insurance approach, which is difficult to accept. For example, in a letter MNF Russia from 09.09.2004 № 02-4-10/252 reads: "Insurance premiums (contributions) for compulsory insurance will be recognized as expenses for income tax purposes in accordance with Article 263 of RF Tax Code, if the law Russia Federation of the objects subject to compulsory insurance, the risks from which these objects must be insured, the minimum sum insured and other conditions, and the insurance organization has a license to the appropriate mandatory insurance (st.936 Civil Code, Section 3, Article. 3 , n. 2, Art. 32 of the Law № 4015-1). Since the Federal Law of 27.07.97 № 116-FZ "On industrial safety of hazardous production facilities" does not meet the above requirements, and insurance companies do not have a license for the mandatory liability insurance organizations operating hazardous facilities, the costs of liability insurance for injury the operation of the facility due to non-tax profits in accordance with article 263 of the Tax Code as the cost of compulsory insurance. The jurisprudence on this issue clearly comes from the approach that the criterion for classification of compulsory insurance is that the duty on insurance is set by law. In all known to the author disputes the courts did not question the designation of compulsory insurance on the grounds that the obligation of a contract established by law regardless of whether the above statutory provisions provided for in paragraph 4 of Art. 3 of the Law № 4015-1, and paragraph 3 of Art. 936 Civil Code. In judicial decisions, in particular, noted that the requirements of paragraph 4 of Art. 3 of the Law № 4015-1, and paragraph 3 of Art. 936 of the Civil Code are addressed to the legislature, not the policyholder, and said that in the law does not specify consequences of the absence of laws on compulsory insurance provisions in these rules, the concept of compulsory insurance is given in Section 1, Art. 935 Civil Code. The most significant may be considered that, in a letter to EAC Information RF № 75 dated 28.11.2003 stated that "the responsibility of airlines for injury to a third party was insured by virtue of paragraph 1 of Art. 131 Air Code of Russia, with mandatory liability insurance of the owner of the aircraft to third parties. In Section 1, Art. VC 131 RF stated that liability insurance for the owner of the aircraft to third parties for injury to life or health or property of third parties in the operation of the aircraft is mandatory. The provisions referred to in paragraph 4 of Art. 3 of the Law № 4015-1, and paragraph 3 of Art. 935 of the Civil Code in VC RF absent. Nevertheless YOU Russia acknowledged specified in VC RF insurance mandatory. Numerous regulations relating to compulsory insurance, confirm our approach. In particular, Art. 25 of the Federal Law of 24.07.2002 № 111-FZ "On investment funds for the funded part of labor pensions in Russia" provides for mandatory liability insurance for specialized depositary and management companies. The provisions under paragraph 4 of Art. 3 of the Law № 4015-1, and paragraph 3 of Art. 936 Civil Code, in this Act. Pursuant to the Act adopted the Decision of the RF Government dated 08.09.2003 № 560 "On approval of insurance rates on the responsibility of the specialized depositary and asset management companies, their structure and their use in determining the amount of insurance premiums for compulsory insurance contract." Accordingly, the said insurance made mandatory, as stipulated by the RF Government in this statement. Order of the RF Ministry of Finance from 28.01.2004 № 14n approved procedure for the provision of information by insurers on the conclusion, renewal and termination of the contract mandatory liability insurance specialized depositary and management companies. The said order has lapsed, but his removal was not associated with a change of approach on the recognition referred to insurance as mandatory. Consequently, this order determines the regulatory mentioned insurance as a mandatory, despite the absence of provisions Clause 4 of Article. 3 of the Law № 4015-1, and paragraph 3 st.936 Civil Code, the Federal Law of 24.07.2002 № 111-FZ "On investment funds for the funded part of labor pensions in Russia. Content of the laws on compulsory insurance for determine the amount of statutory obligations of the insured. It can be expressed and that the law only defined the duty to carry insurance, but the amount of responsibilities are not clarified. In this case, the law can not work, or the insured and the insurer agree on all of their own, but then it should be regarded as compulsory insurance with the allocation of the cost of insurance costs. There are laws which provide that insurance is a prerequisite for the implementation of certain activities under the simplified procedure of licensing. In our view, and in these laws should make appropriate provisions in a manner that this insurance was seen as a mandatory (for example, simplified licensing procedures may apply if the contract mandatory liability insurance, etc.). To avoid ambiguity in the interpretation of the question that relates to compulsory insurance, it seems necessary exemption or statement of a Clause 4, Article. 3 of the Law № 4015-1, and paragraph 3 of Art. 936 Civil Code. At the same time, when disputes arise over the issue in relation to liability insurance should be based on Section 7, Art. 3 Tax Code, which stipulates that all of doubt, the contradictions and ambiguities of legislative acts on taxes and fees are to be interpreted in favor of the taxpayer (the payer of fees).