In 1913, a controversy raised between lawyer Pyotr V. Vologodsky, as a representative of Tomsk steam mill owner Grigoriy I. Fuksman, and officials of the Treasury. The controversy concerned the amount of the promyslovy nalog (entrepreneurial tax) charged upon the mill for its operations during 1911 and 1912. The position of Vologodsky is expressed in two documents. One of them caused but little trouble to the officials. As stated by law, the representative of Fuksman brought an objection to the raskladochnoye prisutstviye (apportionment office). First of all, he tried to prove in his objection that the book-keeping of the enterprise fit the standard and had to be considered the only true source of the mill''s profit figure. This was rejected by the raskladochnoye prisutstviye and kazyonnaya palata (regional Treasury office). Besides, the lawyer provided figures of market prices for crop and flour during 1911 and 1912 in order to prove that the profit rate imputed to Fuksman was much overestimated. This claim was even easier to reject: taxpayers were not allowed to discuss the "normal profit" rates confirmed by kazyonnaya palata for each industry. On the eve of bringing the objection to the raskladochnoye prisutstviye Vologodsky sent a complaint to the finance minister. Laying book-keeping details aside, he stressed the breach of the official instruction by the tax inspector when working out "normal profit" figures for mills. Upon receiving this document the ministry requested explanation from the local executives, so we have three different responses to compare. The tax inspector tried to support the validity of his figures by the opinion of the taxpayers'' representatives at the raskladochnoye prisutstviye. The kazyonnaya palata in its reply added a new substantial fact: it explained that the "normal profit" rates at Tomsk district were increased after the West-Siberian crop failure of 1911, when the mills increased prices for their products rapidly. The "normal profit" rates increase was introduced by the raskladochnoye prisutstviye, that is by the tax inspector, but he never mentioned this in his explication. Nor had the kazyonnaya palata revealed this reason to Vologodsky itself. It was only the deputy minister Nikolay N. Pokrovsky who appeared decisive enough to show to the taxpayer the true background of his tax problems. The case of Fuksman proves that officials of the late Russian Empire did have means to impose heavier tax on entrepreneurs according to their personal preferences, but these means were restricted by certain legal regulation. Thus, the article is a contribution to the issue of entrepeneurs'' rights in the late imperial Russia. Besides, it provides some features to the personal portrait of Pyotr V. Vologodsky, a prominent actor of the Russian Civil War as the Prime-Minister under Alexander V. Kolchak (1918-1919). The article is based on the documents from the archival funds of the Kazennaya palata and the tax inspector.

В 1913 г. между адвокатом П.В. Вологодским, представлявшим интересы томского мукомола Г.И. Фуксмана, и чиновниками Минфина разгорелся спор, связанный с уплатой промыслового налога за 1911-1912 гг. Вологодский доказывал, что вменённая мельнице Фуксмана прибыль чрезвычайно завышена, причём нарушена должностная инструкция. Чиновники, от податного инспектора до товарища министра, последовательно отклоняли претензии адвоката. В конечном счёте отказ по жалобе опирался на формальное основание отсутствие у плательщиков, не ведущих правильной бухгалтерии, права обжаловать размер вменённой прибыли. На деле же раскладочным присутствием руководило желание наказать мукомола за повышение мучных цен после западносибирского неурожая 1911 г. «Дело Фуксмана» показывает наличие у чиновников поздней Российской империи возможностей отягощать налогообложение предпринимателей исходя из личных предпочтений, ограниченных, однако, заранее известными рамками закона. Статья опирается на документы из фондов казённой палаты и податного инспектора, впервые вводимые в научный оборот.