Russia's Business Lobby Pushes Drone-Defence Tax Relief

The Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs (RSPP) has asked the federal government to ease the tax burden on companies that spend their own money protecting facilities from drone attacks. Union president Alexander Shokhin told Vedomosti that an extensive list of measures was sent to the cabinet before President Vladimir Putin signed Decree No. 604 on 24 August 2026.

The proposals include a moratorium on some environmental fines linked to drone strikes, particularly for disrupted sites in cities taking part in the 'Clean Air' programme. The RSPP also wants companies to be able to classify anti-drone equipment handed to the Ministry of Defence or the National Guard as non-operating expenses, with the measure made retroactive to the start of 2026 so early investors are treated the same as late movers.

Shokhin said the government understands the need for a co-financing mechanism, including a profit-tax preference for part of the costs, and that several ministries have already taken positions. The push is happening alongside the new presidential decree that allows temporary state management of critical infrastructure if owners fail to secure facilities or restore operations after drone attacks.

What the RSPP Proposals and Decree No. 604 Mean for Operators

Why the RSPP wants retroactive cost recognition

Shokhin's core argument is that companies which bought protective systems before the incentives existed should not be worse off than those that invest later. Making the transfer of counter-drone equipment to the Defence Ministry or National Guard a non-operating expense from 1 January 2026 would reduce taxable profit for those purchases and make the tax benefit predictable.

This is not the RSPP's first attempt: a year ago it proposed compensating 50% of actual spending on protective structures and equipment, adding a differentiated excise deduction tied to downtime, and including half of anti-terrorism protection costs and lost income from production stoppages in the federal investment deduction. The Federal Tax Service has separately said such purchases can be recognised as fixed assets under Article 252 of the Tax Code if standard conditions are met.

How Decree No. 604 changes the cost calculation

The 24 August decree gives the government the right to take temporary control of whole or partial real estate, equipment, shares or property rights when critical infrastructure is not protected or restored on time. It covers industrial, communications, utilities and transport-logistics sites of special importance. The cabinet has already formed a sub-commission to review protection levels.

Shokhin says the decree must clarify what 'untimely restoration' means and that restoration deadlines should reflect the type of object and the damage suffered. The RSPP also wants rules on temporary managers' liability and how that responsibility would be funded, including through insurance instruments. These are not abstract legal points: they determine when an owner could lose operational control.

What the government has signalled

After a meeting chaired by First Deputy Prime Minister Denis Manturov, the government said it is considering the RSPP's fiscal proposals. The language points to a co-financing mechanism based on a profit-tax preference, but no final decision has been announced. For business, the near-term outcome is a regulatory package that combines higher enforcement stakes with possible tax relief.

Practical Steps for Critical-Infrastructure Operators

For owners and operators of critical infrastructure covered by Decree No. 604, the immediate practical work is to align tax documentation with the proposals and the decree's compliance requirements.

  • Review drone-protection purchases made since 1 January 2026 and classify equipment transferred to the Ministry of Defence or National Guard so it can be rebooked as a non-operating expense if the RSPP's retroactive measure is adopted.
  • Check existing counter-drone spending against the Federal Tax Service's July guidance that such costs can be recognised as fixed assets under Article 252, and keep invoices, transfer acts and deployment records ready.
  • Identify whether your sites fall within the decree's industry, communications, utilities or transport-logistics categories and document protection and restoration timelines now, because 'untimely' measures are one of the explicit triggers for temporary state management.
  • Submit specific comments through the RSPP or directly to regulators on restoration deadlines by object type and damage level, and on the proposed insurance mechanism for temporary managers' liability.
  • Model the profit-tax impact of the co-financing proposal and the earlier 50% federal investment deduction idea to quantify the after-tax cost of required anti-drone upgrades before committing new capital.

Risk & Opportunity Assessment

Commercial RiskHighDecree No. 604 allows temporary state management over critical infrastructure assets if protection or restoration is deemed insufficient, putting operational control and continued economics at stake.
Competitive RiskMediumRetroactive recognition of non-operating expenses from 1 January 2026 would equalise early investors with late movers, but until then companies that already funded drone defences carry a heavier after-tax burden than those delaying spend.
Regulatory RiskHighThe decree's terms such as 'untimely restoration' are not yet defined, the government sub-commission is still setting protection standards, and liability rules for temporary managers remain undecided.
Reputation RiskMediumFailing to secure critical sites or restore them promptly can lead to temporary state management and public exposure, particularly for urban facilities under the Clean Air programme affected by strikes.
Technology DisruptionMediumCounter-drone systems must be acquired, transferred and classified as fixed assets or non-operating expenses; changing requirements and equipment standards could alter what counts as eligible spending.
Commercial OpportunityHighApproval of co-financing and a profit-tax preference, plus possible inclusion of 50% of protection costs and lost income in the federal investment deduction, would materially lower the net cost of required security investment.