nonproliferation. The responsibilities of such an official would include coordination of the whole range of issues related to implementation of the U.S.-Russian bilateral projects on nuclear nonproliferation.
It is suggested that a bilateral U.S.-Russian Commission on nuclear nonproliferation be set up to directly coordinate all issues related to implementation of bilateral projects on nuclear nonproliferation, including those of confidentiality and information protection. Based on specific arrangements with agencies involved in the nuclear nonproliferation activities, such a Commission could render administrative and legal support to the organizations in implementing the nonproliferation projects. The Commission could also ensure control over spending of budget funds and submit annual reports to both the U.S. Congress and the R.F. Federal Assembly.
As will be seen from the following chapters, the maturity of the legislative basis, the availability of appropriate organizational frameworks and mechanisms to ensure practical application of existing laws, and other legal issues directly affect the implementation of cooperative nuclear nonproliferation programs (as well as those in other areas). The issue is very complicated and of paramount importance, and, therefore, deserves special consideration. Far from pretending to be a comprehensive analysis, an attempt is made to outline specific legal impediments (principally, in the Russian legislation), whose elimination or mitigation would make a significant contribution to further development of U.S.-Russian cooperation on nuclear nonproliferation.
So far within the U.S.-Russian cooperation on nuclear nonproliferation programs of economic, scientific and technical assistance, “aid” has prevailed, wherein the U.S. Government acts as a "donor," while Russian federal, regional and local executive bodies, legal entities and individuals act as "recipients."
To enhance the efficiency in the implementation of such assistance the Agreements on cooperation in Russia provide different sorts of privileges for both "donors" and "recipients." Among them are: exemption from or refund of the value added tax (VAT), income tax, and other taxes collected by the federal budget when using funds, equipment, labor and other services within the R.F. territory during the execution of cooperative programs.
The issue is most fully addressed in the 1992 CTR Agreement, according to which "…the U.S., their personnel, contractors and contractors' personnel are completely exempted from any taxes and dues of the R.F. and its bodies in relation to activities in line with the Agreement.” Similar privileges have been ensured in case of export from/import to Russia of any equipment, materials, or services necessary for the CTR Agreement implementation. Moreover, the R.F. or its bodies have been taxing neither equipment nor services purchased by the U.S. or on behalf of the U.S. within the R.F. territory, when implementing the CTR Agreement.
It should be emphasized that, thanks to the clearness of the tax exemption clauses in the CTR Agreement, no serious complications related to the exemption from taxation within the