A.E. Smorodina, tax expert

Secrets of selecting applicants for on-site inspection

How do tax authorities decide who to check?

It's no secret that organizations are included in the on-site tax audit plan (ATI) based on a pre-audit analysis. And, despite the fact that planning inspections is officially called an open process Appendix No. 1 to the Order of the Federal Tax Service dated May 30, 2007 No. MM-3-06/333@, in fact, for organizations this action remains a mystery. Especially for you, we obtained information from a reliable source. And now we can lift the veil of secrecy and tell you how organizations are selected for inclusion in the GNP plan.

Pre-test analysis

Pre-inspection analysis was intended as a tool to effectively plan on-site inspections. And it is assumed that “outsiders” come to the GNP already prepared, that is, even if they do not have information about violations, they will at least know where to look for them.

This analysis is carried out by so-called analysts. In some IFTS these are entire departments, in others they are specially created groups.

Of course, in each region, “analysts” have their own approach to selecting applicants for inclusion in the GNP plan, but the general aspects of the pre-test work are the same everywhere.

The selection of applicants for inclusion in the GNP plan resembles a beauty contest: the most “beautiful” and “promising” from the point of view of tax authorities are selected from a large mass of organizations. Only the leaders of such organizations, when they learn about the “victory,” are not very happy about it.

Selection of applicants

To finally decide who will be included in the GNP plan, “analysts” evaluate all organizations registered with a given Federal Tax Service according to a number of criteria. Here are the main ones.

Criterion	A comment
Taxpayer category	The largest taxpayers (for this Federal Tax Service) are required to be checked. Typically once every 2 years
Organization turnover Turnover is estimated for those 3 years that are subject to verification. clause 4 art. 89 Tax Code of the Russian Federation. For example, in 2012, “analysts” are interested in the organization’s turnover for 2009-2011.	The higher the turnover, the more interesting the company is for “analysts”. It is clear that inspections in different regions have their own standards: for some, an annual turnover of 4 million rubles. It will seem wonderful, and for some even 100 million rubles. few. By the way, many company owners in large cities have realized that tax authorities are interested in high-turnover companies. The consequence of this was the fragmentation of the business
Tax regime	Organizations that use the simplified tax system are not very interesting to tax authorities. Especially if the object of taxation is “income”. After all, fiscal officials need additional payments. What can you do to catch a “income earner”? Only on unrecorded proceeds. And this is very difficult. Of course, if you use the simplified tax system, you shouldn’t relax right away. For example, if the majority of payers registered with your inspection are special regimes, then, of course, simplified ones will definitely be included in the GNP plan
Kind of activity	This criterion is important, since the experience of previous GNPs shows in which activities the largest number of tax errors are made. For example, “travelers” are not very fond of companies involved in the purchase and sale of securities: it is quite difficult to find violations with them. Therefore, “analysts” try to weed out organizations with this type of activity. But on the contrary, “travelers” really like builders
The company has liquid assets	This criterion is important when selecting applicants, but not fundamental. The presence of assets in an organization gives tax authorities some confidence that additional taxes accrued during the GNP can be recovered from the property of this organization and clause 10 art. 101 Tax Code of the Russian Federation. But if “analysts” believe that the likelihood of an organization concealing taxes is high, then the absence of assets will not protect it from inclusion in the GNP plan
State and municipal contracts concluded by the organization	From a tax point of view, these contracts are usually of no interest. Just checking such organizations is another way to control the movement of budget money

And so the “analysts”, having selected organizations that “lit up” according to several criteria, begin to study each applicant in detail.

All the information that “analysts” can collect about the organization, and the conclusions based on it, they reflect in the conclusion based on the results of the pre-audit analysis. In addition, the conclusion contains recommendations for “travelers” on what they should pay special attention to during the INP, as well as the expected amounts of additional charges based on the results of the audit. After the GNP plan is approved, the analysts will pass on these conclusions to the field workers.

What do “analysts” pay attention to?

You, too, can check yourself and independently assess the likelihood of your company falling under the radar of the tax authorities. To do this, use:

• criteria for assessing tax risks in Appendix No. 2 to the Order of the Federal Tax Service dated May 30, 2007 No. MM-3-06/333@;
• our cheat sheet. It reflects the main points that most often arouse the interest of “analysts”. We divided the cheat sheet into two blocks in terms of the composition of the analyzed information. We would like to immediately note that the data is taken from annual reports and declarations, and for those declarations that are submitted quarterly, indicators, respectively, are summed up.

Analysis of data about the organization that is available to the Federal Tax Service

Where are they looking?	What are they looking for?	Conclusions of the “analysts”
Extract from the Unified State Register of Legal Entities, Unified State Register of Individual Entrepreneurs	Exceeding the permissible size of the share of founders-legal entities in the authorized capital of organizations using the simplified tax system or UTII subp. 14 clause 3 art. 346.12, subd. 2 clause 2.2 art. 346.26 Tax Code of the Russian Federation, the presence of branches and representative offices of organizations using the simplified tax system subp. 1 clause 3 art. 346.12 Tax Code of the Russian Federation	An organization or entrepreneur does not have the right to use the simplified tax system or UTII
Information on the average number of employees	Exceeding the permissible average headcount for organizations and entrepreneurs using the simplified tax system or UTII subp. 15 clause 3 art. 346.12, subd. 1 clause 2.2 art. 346.26 Tax Code of the Russian Federation
Balance sheet Property tax declaration	Sharp reduction in property value	It is possible to overestimate “profitable” expenses due to rental payments on property transferred as a contribution to the authorized capital to dependent organizations (as a rule, special regime entities), and then leased from them
Balance sheet	A sharp decrease in the amount of accounts receivable	Possible unreasonable recognition of debts as bad and their inclusion in expenses that reduce taxable profit
Balance sheet Income tax declaration (Appendix No. 3 to sheet 02) VAT return (line 090, section 3)	A sharp reduction in the value of property without reflecting these transactions in tax accounting	Possible understatement of income tax and VAT
Profit and Loss Statement (P&L) Income tax return (D-NP) VAT returns (D-VAT)	Inconsistency between income and expenses in various reporting forms At the same time, these discrepancies are analyzed both as a whole and in the context of individual items of income and expenses.	1. Income in income statement > Income in D-NP: possible underestimation of taxable income 2. Income in profit and loss account > 3. Expenses in financial statements 4. Income in D-NP > Income in D-VAT: VAT may be underestimated 5. Income in D-NP
Income tax return (line 030 of Appendix No. 3 to sheet 02, line 010 of sheet 05) Cash flow statement	Discrepancy in proceeds from the sale of fixed assets, intangible assets, securities, etc.	Income in D-NP
VAT returns Declarations on indirect taxes (VAT and excise taxes) when importing goods into the territory of the Russian Federation from the territory of member states of the customs union	Discrepancy between the amount of deductions and the amount payable	Deduction of the amount of tax paid upon import of goods (D-VAT) > Amount of tax calculated for payment to the budget (declaration of indirect taxes): possible unreasonable use of deductions
VAT returns	Discrepancy between the data in section 2 of the declaration and line 210 of section 3	Possible overestimation of agent VAT deduction or underpayment of this VAT

As you can see, many interesting conclusions can be drawn only on the basis of reporting. But analysis of information obtained during control activities can complement the picture of alleged violations.

Analysis of reporting and information obtained from external sources, available without assigning a GNP

Where are they looking?	What are they looking for?	Conclusions of the “analysts”
Bank statements of the organization's accounts, which analysts specifically request from the bank clause 2 art. 86 Tax Code of the Russian Federation	Exceeding the income limit for applying the simplified tax system	An organization or an entrepreneur does not have the right to apply the simplified tax system clause 4.1 art. 346.13 Tax Code of the Russian Federation It is possible to recalculate taxes in accordance with the general taxation regime
	Receipt of money with the allocation of the VAT amount (if an organization, entrepreneur using the simplified tax system)	Possible non-payment of VAT
Bank statement Fiscal CCP reports - taken from the materials of previous CCP audits, or specially taken during a pre-audit analysis Tax reporting*	Discrepancy between turnover reflected in statements and fiscal reports with accounting and tax reporting data	Possible underestimation of income and overestimation of expenses
Bank statement Extracts from the Unified State Register of Legal Entities, Unified State Register of Individual Entrepreneurs Balance sheet	Discrepancy between the actual type of activity and that indicated in registration documents and reporting. Analysts are especially interested in organizations whose type of activity is not clear at all. That is, it seems that the organization deals with everything under the sun. Tax authorities call such companies “dumpsters”	Laundering of money Probability of fictitious transactions The likelihood of an organization or entrepreneur participating in a tax evasion scheme It is possible to additionally charge income tax and VAT, tax under the simplified tax system, personal income tax in case of proof of fictitious transactions and the participation of the organization in the schemes
	Counterparties of the analyzed organization and whether they have signs of shell companies
	One-time transactions for large amounts. Receipt of money in large amounts and their transfer on the same or the next day in the same amount
Information about the organization available on the Internet Help on form 2-NDFL	The discrepancy between the salary indicated in the vacancies open in the organization and the average monthly salary calculated according to Form 2-NDFL	Salaries are issued “in envelopes”** Additional personal income tax may be charged
Help on form 2-NDFL Declaration 3-NDFL Extract from the Unified State Register of Legal Entities Data from registry offices Data from the traffic police Data from Rosregistration	Income and expenses of the owners of the analyzed organization, its officials, as well as members of their families	If expenses are not comparable with income, then it is possible to receive hidden income

*Depending on the applied mode:

• <или>Profit and loss statement, Income tax return, VAT return;
• <или>Declaration when applying the simplified tax system;
• <или>Declaration 3-NDFL (for entrepreneurs in the general regime).

** To dispel their doubts, “analysts” conduct surveys of company employees. As a rule, employees working in the company do not reveal secrets. But “analysts” also interview workers who have already quit. And they usually do not hide the secrets of their former employers.

Of course, the accountant is able to explain almost all discrepancies. They are usually associated with different procedures for recording business transactions for accounting and tax purposes. But analysts do not have this data. Therefore, the reasons for the discrepancies will have to be explained to the “travelers”.

Calculation of the estimated amount of additional charges

After analyzing information about the organization, “analysts” calculate the estimated amount of additional accruals for GNP. It is a kind of confirmation that they justifiably focused attention on a specific organization. “Analysts” can calculate this amount based on any discrepancy shown in our cheat sheet, but most often they do this for the following reasons.

BASIS 1. There are discrepancies between accounting and tax accounting data. In this case, the amount of all income in Form No. 2 (revenue, interest receivable, income from participation in other organizations and other income) is compared with the amount of income in the “profitable” declaration (income from sales, non-operating income, income excluded from profit, and income from transactions with securities and financial instruments). All expenses of the organization are analyzed in a similar way. From the identified discrepancies, “analysts” can conclude that there is a possible understatement of income tax if:

• income according to accounting data exceeds income according to tax data;
• expenses according to tax accounting data exceed accounting expenses.

If there are such discrepancies, the resulting difference is multiplied by the income tax rate. This is how the expected amount of additional charges is obtained. True, it is usually not confirmed during an on-site audit, since discrepancies arise due to different rules for accounting for income and expenses for accounting and tax purposes.

BASIS 2. There are discrepancies between sales turnover reflected in tax returns for VAT and income tax.

• <или>In this situation, “profitable” income is calculated in the same way as when compared with accounting data, and the VAT return summarizes sales taxed at rates of 0%, 10%, 18%, as well as sales not subject to VAT. If there are discrepancies between the turnover on these declarations, “analysts” will calculate the estimated amount of additional charges depending on which income predominates:
• <или>income tax if sales turnover under VAT exceeds profit turnover;

VAT if “profitable” sales exceed VAT sales.

But even here, “travelers” are usually unlucky, because such a discrepancy is explained by the organization’s turnover not subject to VAT, which was not reflected in the declaration either due to an accountant’s mistake, or because it should not be reflected in it. There are deviations of the profitability indicator of the sold goods (works, services) of the organization from the industry average to a lesser extent.

As a rule, “analysts” calculate the amount of additional accruals on this basis when they need to increase the estimated additional accruals, but there are no other reasons for this. You may ask: why should they increase this amount? And then, when protecting the GNP plan, there is an unspoken limit on the amount of additional charges. Accordingly, even if tax authorities have a number of reasons to suspect an organization of violating tax laws, but the estimated amount is below this level, then either such organization will not be included in the plan, or “analysts” will be asked to reconsider the expected level of additional charges.

Let us remind you that profitability is calculated using the following formula:

Since the data for calculating this indicator is taken from Form No. 2, in order to draw a conclusion about a possible understatement of income tax, there should be no discrepancies between the accounting and tax accounting data, or these discrepancies should be minimal.

For clarity, let’s look at how analysts calculate this amount.

Example. Calculation of the estimated amount of additional charges if the level of profitability of the sold goods (works, services) of the organization is lower than the industry indicator/ condition /

According to Form No. 2 for 2010 of an organization engaged in the wholesale trade of furniture, the cost of goods sold amounted to 40,000 thousand rubles, profit from sales - 3,000 thousand rubles. STEP 1. We calculate the profit from sales that the organization should receive at this level of cost in accordance with the industry average: 40,000 thousand rubles. (cost) x 11.7% (industry average profitability for this type of activity in 2010) = Appendix No. 4 to the Order of the Federal Tax Service dated May 30, 2007 No. MM-3-06/333@

4680 thousand rubles. STEP 2. We calculate the lost profit: 4680 thousand rubles. – 3000 thousand rubles. (profit from sales) =

1680 thousand rubles. STEP 3. We calculate the estimated amount of additionally accrued income tax: 1680 thousand rubles. x 20% =

336 thousand rubles. STEP 4. We calculate the estimated amount of additional VAT: 1680 thousand rubles. x 18% =

302 thousand rubles. BASE 4. Such relationships are identified during the analysis of the organization’s bank statement. And the estimated amounts of additional charges on this basis are calculated very simply. For example, the transfer of money in the amount of 1000 thousand rubles is established. (including VAT 153 thousand rubles) to an organization that has the characteristics of a fly-by-night company. The estimated amount of additional charges will be 322 thousand rubles.(153 thousand rubles + (1000 thousand rubles – 153 thousand rubles) x 20%).

As a rule, the amount of additional charges calculated in this way is not included in the total amount, but is reflected in the conclusion based on the results of the pre-audit analysis as a separate line. After all, the presence of signs of shell companies among the counterparties does not yet guarantee that the transaction is fictitious, and the estimated amounts on this basis turn out to be quite large.

The main thing for inspectors is that the inspection is not low-performing by the standards of the given region. Internal documents of tax authorities establish a minimum limit (Min) of additional charges. For example, in Moscow, an audit of an organization belonging to the category of “other” (not major) taxpayers has low results when, as a result of its results, less than 1.5 million rubles were accrued. taxes(Min = 1.5 million rubles).

At the same time, “travelers” should also focus on the amount according to the pre-test analysis. If the amount of additional charges is lower than expected, then most likely the result of the audit will be as follows.

SITUATION 1. Actual additional charges

SITUATION 2. Actual additional charges > Min. Then two options are possible.

If the actual additional charges are greater than both Min and 50% of the estimated amount of additional charges, then the inspectors will leave satisfied with the amount of additional charges.

If the actual additional charges are greater than Min, but less than 50% of the estimated amount of additional charges, then the inspectors will try to “negotiate” with you up to an amount equal to 50% of the estimated amount of additional charges.

3.Department of pre-verification analysis and document request
3.1 Main tasks and functions of the department
And so, now about my department. Its name is the Department of Pre-Check and Request of Documents.
Main tasks of the department:
1. Determination of risk criteria for tax offenses of organizations and individual entrepreneurs;
2. Selection of taxpayers for on-site tax audits based on the principles of directive planning;
3. pre-audit analysis of the financial and economic activities of taxpayers (comprehensive analysis of all information about the taxpayer available to the tax authority and collection of missing information);
4. preparation of opinions on the feasibility of conducting on-site tax audits;
5. Determination of the main areas of inspection, including by types of taxes (fees) and periods of their inspection, with the determination of the necessary tax control measures;
6 Formation of a quarterly plan for conducting on-site tax audits;
7. Interaction with law enforcement and other regulatory authorities on the subject of the department’s activities;
8. Execution and carrying out the necessary control measures on instructions to request documents (information) about the taxpayer, payer of fees and tax agent or information about specific transactions in accordance with Art. 93.1 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation and on instructions to interrogate pipes in accordance with Art. 90 Tax Code of the Russian Federation.
Main functions of the department:
9. Monitoring of tax returns and other documents serving as the basis for the calculation and payment of taxes and fees by taxpayers, taking into account the comparison of indicators of the submitted reports and indirect information from internal and external sources;
10. Analysis of the amounts of calculated tax payments and their dynamics, based on it, taxpayers reduce the amount of accrued tax payments;
11. Analysis of indicators of tax and (or) accounting statements of taxpayers, allowing to determine significant deviations in the indicators of financial and economic activity of the current period from similar indicators for previous periods;
12. Analysis of tax and (or) accounting reporting indicators of taxpayers, allowing to determine significant deviations from the average statistical reporting indicators of similar business entities for a certain period of time;
13. identification of contradictions between the information contained in the documents submitted by taxpayers and (or) information available to the tax authority;
12. analysis of factors and reasons influencing the formation of the tax base;
13. In the case of selecting an object for conducting an on-site tax audit, determining the feasibility of conducting on-site tax audits of counterparties and (or) affiliated persons of the taxpayer being inspected;
14. Selection of taxpayers for inclusion in the plan of on-site tax audits and analysis of the effectiveness of this selection based on the results of on-site tax audits of these taxpayers;
15. Analysis of tax evasion schemes for taxpayers, development of proposals for their prevention;
16. Sending requests for information about the activities of taxpayers from external sources, including to credit institutions about transactions on taxpayers’ accounts;
17. Preparation of opinions of taxpayers included in the plan of on-site tax audits, as well as reports on the inappropriateness of conducting on-site tax audits of organizations that are in the process of liquidation by decision of the founders;
18. Sending instructions for requesting documents (information) about the taxpayer, fee payer and tax agent or information about specific transactions in accordance with Article 93.1 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation and instructions for questioning witnesses in accordance with Art. 90 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation as part of a pre-audit analysis when forming a plan for visiting tax...

Let's talk about tax risks in terms of tax control methodology and preparation for audits.

As I already said, tax control is characterized by two emphases - increasing selectivity and increasing efficiency. Tax authorities have the same KPIs as your employees. Key performance indicators are additional accruals and collection rates (the first does not work without the second).

An inspection that brings in up to 1 million rubles is considered low-performing. additional charges. The expected minimum result is from 5 million rubles. (for Moscow - 11 million rubles).

If you look at the statistics of on-site tax audits (ATI) over time, it turns out that in 2001 approximately 11% of taxpayers were subject to them, and now - about 1%. At the same time, the average additional charges per inspection are growing at a galloping pace, and at the moment they obviously exceed the minimum threshold for bringing to criminal liability under Art. 199 of the Criminal Code - tax evasion (in this regard, steps to decriminalize tax crimes popularized through the media are nothing more than PR).

What allows the tax authority to “shoot” so precisely at the right person? There is a picture on the Internet showing the VAZ-2107 model range from 1978 to 2011, when the last car rolled off the assembly line, and the model range for the same time. And if in this sense you look at the evolution of tax control over the past five years, then the tax office is a BMW, and taxpayers are more like a VAZ-2107. IT technologies and automation are doing their job.

For the same reason, lawyers do not want to go to court with you regarding tax disputes. They work for a “success fee”, and given the statistics, when 84% of such cases are decided in favor of the tax authority, what is the point of taking on the protection of the taxpayer?

The progressive change of emphasis and robotization of tax control have led to massive evasion of the tax authority from on-site tax audits. For the most part, tax control is focused on desk audits - this is precisely what is connected with the introduction of the ASK-VAT system, which builds chains and controls you in terms of paying value added tax. VNP, from the point of view of the mentality of the tax authority, is a last resort - only if you need to pinpoint the person with whom you need to work. A huge amount of work goes into pre-test analysis. Let's figure out how it works.

From an organizational point of view, the tax office has pre-audit analysis departments. At one time, they were formed from employees of the VNP departments and legal departments. If we take the average tax office of a million-plus city, the proportion may look something like this: three or four people from the pre-audit analysis department dig up information for twenty travelers. For an average company with a turnover of 300-500 million rubles. a document of 100 pages is being collected. The pre-verification analysis staff believes that after such a voluminous work at the exit itself, it will only be necessary to consolidate the evidence and then the inspection can be completed. “Travelers,” in turn, believe that with such poor-quality analysis they have to do everything practically from scratch.

The conclusion itself based on the results of the pre-test analysis consists of six sections.

The first is basic information about the taxpayer: date of registration, registration, main type of activity, who, when and why the company was founded; addresses, phone numbers, e-mail, website. And this is interesting when, for example, you decide to participate in government contracts and, in order not to mix this with your main operating activities, you register a new company “not for yourself,” but do not explain this to the lawyer. So he enters your city phone number into the registration form. For the tax authority, this coincidence provides a clue: these companies could potentially be interdependent. This is not proof, but it gives the inspector something to think about.

Basic information about the participants and management is indicated: officers, founders and shareholders (with history), their participation in other legal entities, sources of payments, the composition of the personal property of the founders, directors and (!) members of their families.

I’ll ask as a tax inspector: if I see that a taxpayer has shares in companies, income from three sources, plus he recently received an inheritance, but his total regular income is low, what does this give me?

Taking into account the new rules of subsidiary liability for tax debts, we need a range of potential property - not only companies, but also specific individuals. On the other hand, if there are few sources of income, but there is a lot of property, it means that these devils are taking something out - it remains to understand what.

Please note: data on participation in companies and sources of payments is provided to the inspector in graphical form. The production complex “VAI” (visual analysis of information) is responsible for this - robots rush to the aid of tax control. Data on the composition of property is worked in a tabular format.

The second section provides a general assessment of financial and economic activities. As they say, everything is learned by comparison. Therefore, we look not only at the indicators of financial statements and tax returns (which is obvious), but we compare the tax burden of a given taxpayer with the industry average. We want to understand how you compare to other similar taxpayers. Another thing is that statistics in our country are generated by big business, so inevitably you are compared with it.

What else to do? You can connect the VNP-Otbor information complex (a subsystem of the global AIS-Tax system) and see how your data works in correspondence with each other, with data from past periods and with indicators of companies similar to yours. This is not a tax burden, but data on your business activities (profitability, profitability) against the background of companies of similar scale and localization.

The VNP-Selection system assigns points - God knows how it does it. For each fact of inconsistency, you are given a black pebble in the bag of your good deeds. And when there are a lot of such pebbles, the system recommends you for a tax audit. This part is also robotic.

The solvency of the company, directors and founders is also assessed here.

The third section is assessment according to 12 risk criteria. The corresponding criteria are spelled out in the 2007 “Concept for the planning system for on-site tax audits”. Here is the indicator of the recommended tax burden (by industry), the share of tax deductions, an abnormally low level of profitability, the creation of a “chain of counterparties” without a business purpose.

The fourth section is additional invoice from external and internal sources of information. These are the results of desk audits and previous GNP, financial data on similar taxpayers in the region and analysis of data from additional search complexes (the most popular: PIK Income, PIK Odnodnevka, PIK Customs, PIK Schemes and others). Explanations of officials given at different periods regarding the same facts of economic activity.

Please note: when accountants and financial managers give explanations, it is good that the answers match what you or your predecessors said.

This also includes information about the use of the address and telephone number by other companies. The tax office looks at what is available about you on the government procurement website, studies data from the resources of arbitration courts (a real operating company has sued someone at least once, and since there is no information about the taxpayer or its counterparty on arbitr.ru, then, most likely, anonymous structure) and other information (for example, in the SPARK and FIRA Pro systems).

The fifth section is data on financial flows. Information is requested on the flow of funds on current accounts (including those already closed), and the correspondence of turnover on declared accounts. Information about suppliers, buyers, problematic counterparties is analyzed. The pattern of movement of commodity and financial flows is also studied. If necessary, the flows of three to five links towards the taxpayer’s suppliers are presented in graphical form, the amounts of “cash out” and methods, if any, are established. All this is supplemented by information on interrogations of officials and employees (first carried out with dismissed employees), banks, government agencies and other organizations.

For example, a company declares that it sells metal blanks for processing. The tax office is keenly interested: “Where are the shavings? Perhaps they received permission to export it? Need to check".

The final sixth section is conclusions about possible violations and the advisability of verification. This is how it begins: “Based on the above, additional charges for income tax and value added tax are expected to be so much.” It is indicated whether it is necessary to include law enforcement officers in the inspection, a list of basic questions for the VNP and the necessary measures (most often this is an inspection of the premises, photography and video recording). Keep in mind that there are many interesting things to be found in your offices besides documents. For example, a business uses a new legal shell, mentally distancing itself from the old one. But when you enter the territory, there is a truck with the logo of the old company, a branded watch hangs in the office, and behind the shoulders of the main person in the company - the secretary of the general director - are folders with documents from the departed company.

The final section also indicates the expected composition of the inspection team and the timing. This concludes the pre-test analysis.

Of course, the specific implementation in each individual inspection varies. And how the GNP will actually happen in your company largely depends on the human factor.

For example, since 2013, inspectors are required to request IP and MAC addresses for access to the Internet bank. Previously, this data was simply filed into the audit - some inspectors did not know what to do with it. And now this is a widespread basis for identifying the interdependence and control of several taxpayers.

Based on the pre-audit analysis, a preliminary plan for tax audits is born. The quality of the analysis is inspected by the regional department - some companies are rejected, some conclusions are finalized. The output is the approved quarterly GNP plan. At the same time, inspectors are not 100% loaded - there is also an indicator of the workload per tax inspector. A “window” is left in case of an urgent inspection. In particular, at the request of law enforcement agencies.

To summarize briefly. When you receive a decision to conduct an on-site inspection, the question “will they find anything?” It’s not worth it - you’ve already found it.

Secondly, the Federal Tax Service does not recognize this, but there are indicators of the effectiveness of on-site inspections. And that's reasonable. The resources of fiscal authorities must be spent effectively. Third, the presence of collection indicators (and not just additional accruals) requires an analysis of the solvency of not only the company, but also the owners, directors and even members of their families.

The last circumstance adds another pain point if the business has several owners, and one of them has companies “on the side.”

If you are a scrupulous owner - you read specialized literature, travel all over the country to seminars, scrupulously arrange everything in the company from the point of view of tax security, how do you know that your partner is doing the same?

And that tomorrow they won’t come to him, won’t charge him extra money to a third-party business, won’t bring him to subsidiary liability, won’t include him in the personal bankruptcy procedure and won’t collect his share in your business? We must also learn to cut such “owner’s bridges.”

The text was prepared by Anna Astashkina, especially for the site

Before opening an on-site tax audit, inspectors carry out a lot of work on a pre-audit analysis of the company. They analyze all the information that the inspection has, both internal and external. It turns out that inspectors, even before starting an on-site inspection, have extensive information about the company’s activities, its financial flows, possible violations, profitability, and solvency.

Pre-verification analysis and inspection timeframes

An on-site tax audit is carried out based on the decision of the head (deputy head) of the tax service. The period for conducting an on-site inspection is calculated from the day the decision on the appointment is made until the day the certificate of the inspection is drawn up. An on-site inspection cannot last more than two months. This period can be extended up to four months, and in exceptional cases - up to six months (Clause 6, Article 89 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation).

However, the Tax Code does not establish a deadline for the company to submit a decision to conduct an on-site tax audit (letter of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated February 17, 2016 No. 03-02-07/1/8635).

Drawing up a decision to conduct an inspection does not mean that it will be handed over to the company being inspected on the same day. First, inspectors will send inquiries to the counterparties of interest, their directors, notary chambers and other services that may have useful information on the company being inspected. And only when the inspector needs to enter the taxpayer’s territory and look at or collect the necessary documents to write an inspection report, will he be handed a decision to conduct an inspection. Along with the decision, a requirement to submit documents for verification is issued. The company is obliged to fulfill it within 10 working days from the date of receipt (paragraph 1, paragraph 3, article 93, paragraph 6, article 6.1 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation). That is, by going directly to the company, inspectors know where to look for violations, in what amounts, and what documents are needed.

Conducting a pre-test analysis: collecting information

Information is taken from tax returns, financial statements, counter or desk audits, and materials from past on-site audits are studied. In both accounting and tax reporting, special attention will be drawn to the company's losses and discrepancies between the data in the profit declaration and the balance sheet. In particular, if the accounting income exceeds the income according to tax data or the expenses in the profit declaration will be greater than the accounting expenses.

The pre-audit analysis will also compare taxable income in VAT and income tax returns. Significant amounts of VAT deductions will alert you. Each region has its own safe percentage of VAT deductions. But tax refund in any case will be one of the control points.

For pre-verification analysis, information is also taken from the Internet, from complaints from employees and former employees, competitors, on a tip from government services (PFR, FSS of Russia, police, customs, migration service, licensing and registration authorities, etc.).

Bank statements of the company's accounts help to understand which expenses should be paid special attention to and which counterparties should be checked for signs of fraud. Controllers can determine by eye which counterparties from the statement should be given special attention. So, they will be interested in companies whose fifth digit in the TIN is large. For example, TIN - 7725788451, of which 77 is a region, 25 is affiliation with the inspection, and the remaining numbers are arbitrary, 7 indicates that the company was registered relatively recently, which means that, most likely, it did not have tax audits. Next, they will pay attention to the amount of transfers - usually round sums are transferred to one-dayers, for example 145,000 rubles, and not 145,513.20 rubles. They look at the purpose of the payment - it is written briefly or indicating the name of the product and a reference to the contract. The first option immediately comes under control. In the second option, they look at whether the purchased goods have something in common with the declared activities of the company being inspected. Thus, it is unlikely that a tire production organization will purchase glass containers, etc.

The pre-audit analysis also pays attention to most of the services provided for the taxpayer being audited, since the actual provision of work or services is more difficult to prove than the availability of the purchased product. One-time transactions for large sums will also attract attention. Especially if they are listed in full on the same or the next day.

Directors of the alleged shell companies will be invited to participate in the survey.

Declarations and statements are analyzed for hidden income and inflated expenses. In addition, a bank statement about the company on the simplified tax system will be able to tell whether the income limit was exceeded. The presence of amounts with a allocated VAT amount will attract attention.

They look at the average monthly salary, calculating it from 2-NDFL certificates, and compare them with the salary indicated in the posted open vacancies. Now it is possible to control in more detail the payment of personal income tax on various payments through the new quarterly calculation of 6-personal income tax. Former employees will be invited to participate in surveys to establish actual salary amounts.

If there is a licensed activity, they will send a request to confirm the validity of the license, notary chambers can certify the existence of certification of the transaction, and when importing or exporting, they can send requests to the customs authorities.

Pre-check analysis helps calculate the amount of additional charges

This may seem strange, but when conducting an inspection, the controller already assumes the amount that can be additionally charged to the company.

The amounts of additional accruals may also consist of discrepancies between the income reflected in the accounting records and the profit declaration and VAT declaration.

Therefore, the accountant should prepare explanations: for example, discrepancies arise due to different rules for accounting for income and expenses for accounting and tax purposes, or part of the turnover is not subject to VAT, etc.

Next, they look at the deviation of the company’s profitability indicator from the industry average (Appendix No. 4 to the order of the Federal Tax Service of Russia dated May 30, 2007 No. MM-3-06/333@). If profitability is lower, then officials calculate how much the company needs to charge additionally to bring it to the industry average level. Thus, the profitability of goods sold is calculated as the ratio of profit from sales to the cost of goods sold. Return on assets is the ratio of profit and the value of assets of organizations.

The estimated additional charges are also calculated depending on the company’s tax burden. It should not be lower than the average level for a specific industry (Appendix No. 3 to the order of the Federal Tax Service of Russia dated May 30, 2007 No. MM-3-06/333@). It is calculated as the ratio of the amount of taxes paid and the company's revenue.

The main violation remains shell companies. Therefore, expenses and VAT amounts for supposed one-day counterparties will be included in additional accruals as a result of a pre-audit analysis. This will also include expenses that are not inherent to the company’s activities.

Thanks to pre-audit analysis, tax officials avoid low-yield inspections, simplify inspections for “travelers” and reduce the time inspectors actually spend on the taxpayer’s territory.

Alexander Tarasov — Managing Partner and General Director of the law firm “AVT Consulting”

The secrets of pre-audit analysis are kept in special departments of territorial tax inspectorates and departments of the Federal Tax Service of Russia for the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. The algorithm of actions of employees of these departments is not clearly stated in the law. When selecting applicants for an on-site tax audit, they are largely guided by internal regulations, software of the Federal Tax Service of Russia and proven practice of searching for problem taxpayers.

The tax security of the company depends on the result of the pre-audit analysis. Since if an inspection is ordered, the “unspoken” plan for additional charges will be known in advance. Therefore, one of the ways to minimize tax risks is to create conditions under which the company, based on the results of the pre-audit analysis, will not be included in the on-site tax audit plan. For this to work, it is enough to take some security measures in advance.

Pre-testing events are now in high esteem

It is the preliminary analysis of the financial and economic activities of the company that improves the quality and effectiveness of tax audits. Thus, in 2015 and 2016, the quality of tax audits increased significantly. Head of the Federal Tax Service of Russia Mikhail Mishustin since 2014, it has highlighted among others the goal of increasing the efficiency of the tax administration system. The management of the tax service has already noted that reducing the number and improving the quality of tax audits is bearing fruit (“Main directions of the tax policy of the Russian Federation for 2016 and the planning period of 2017 and 2018”). According to official data from the Federal Tax Service of Russia, the number of on-site inspections decreased by 10% (14.6 in 2015 and 13.1 in 2016). The number of desk inspections increased by 3% (16,617.3 in 2015 and 17,156.5 in 2016).

In 2016, the amount of additional accruals for desk audits increased by 87% compared to the previous year (RUB 33,549.8 thousand in 2015 and RUB 62,320.3 thousand in 2016). Of these, 74% are additional tax charges. As for on-site inspections, the picture is as follows: the number of inspections has decreased by approximately 10%. And the amount of accruals increased by almost 33% (140,404.2 thousand rubles in 2015 and 184,377.3 thousand in 2016).

Taking into account such trends and plans of the Federal Tax Service of Russia, it is necessary to object thoroughly to the essence of the violations. To do this, first of all, it is important to know on the basis of what information and by what criteria the tax authorities will look for violators, as well as who will be included in the quarterly plan of on-site inspections.

The actions of tax intelligence officers help to generate preliminary amounts of additional assessments

The most important secret of the pre-audit activities of the tax authorities lies in the amount - how much additional accrual will be accrued to the company based on the results of their implementation. That is, when inspectors come to the office to conduct an inspection, they already know how much the company has violations. Each subject of the Russian Federation has its own unspoken plan for additional charges. For example, in Moscow now this amount is about 10 million rubles. In the Moscow region - approximately 4 million rubles. These are the results that the management of tax services expects from employees of territorial inspectorates. And companies need to be prepared for this.

How do tax authorities now analyze financial and economic activities?

The main algorithm of the pre-audit analysis staff boils down to well-known and publicly available risk assessment criteria. Thus, according to the results of a preliminary analysis, a company will be accused of having connections with shell companies if it does not have:

• personal contacts of the management of the counterparty company;
• documents confirming the authority of the head of the counterparty company, copies of his passport;
• information about how you found a partner (Internet, dating);
• information about the state registration of the counterparty in the Unified State Register of Legal Entities.

It will be a disadvantage for the company if the pre-audit analysis staff establishes the following facts:

• a counterparty with signs of being ephemeral acts as an intermediary;
• terms of contracts differ from business customs (long deferred payments, delivery of large quantities of goods without advance payment or guarantee of payment);
• there is evidence that the counterparty could not fulfill the contract taking into account the time required for delivery or production of goods, performance of work or provision of services;
• the goods were purchased through intermediaries of goods that are traditionally produced by individuals who are not individual entrepreneurs (agricultural products, secondary raw materials, craft products);
• there is an increase in the debt of the payer (or its counterparty) against the backdrop of continued delivery of large quantities of goods or significant volumes of work (services) to the debtor;
• the counterparty issues or sells bills the liquidity of which is not obvious or has not been investigated, and also issues or receives loans without collateral;
• there is a significant share of expenses for a transaction with “problem” counterparties in the total amount of expenses of the taxpayer (in this case, the controversial transaction is not economically feasible).

Analysis of the balance sheet and profit and loss statement is an effective way to detect patterns in accounting

Practice shows that recently inspectors are increasingly examining accounting data. This helps them gather evidence that the relationship is not real. The inspectors pay close attention to the balance sheet (sections: fixed assets; current assets; accounts receivable), profit and loss statement (sections: revenue; administrative expenses; cost of sales) and cash flow statement (sections: cash flows from current operations; rental payments; payments to suppliers for raw materials, materials, work, services).

Here is an example of how tax specialists read financial statements “in their own way” in order to identify candidates for inclusion in the plan of on-site tax audits.

Document form	Indicators	Note
Balance sheet	Fixed assets - 0 rub. Current assets - 0 rub. Accounts receivable - 10,000 rubles.	The section of the balance sheet “Current assets” shows the balances of inventories intended for use in the production of products, performance of work, provision of services, management needs of the organization (raw materials, materials and other similar values), for sale or resale (finished products, goods ). A zero indicator in this section indicates that the enterprise does not have the assets necessary to conduct the relevant financial and economic activities. The taxpayer, conducting an inventory as of the last date of the reporting (tax) period, must determine the amount of receivables based on its results and reflect it on the accounting accounts. If in the reconciliation act one company has accounts payable in the amount of 1,000,000 rubles, and its counterparty has, by analogy, an amount of receivables in the amount of 1,000,000 rubles, and it is not reflected in the balance sheet, then this indicates the fictitiousness of the reconciliation act , absence of debt and real contractual relations between these legal entities.
	Revenue - 100,000 rubles. Administrative expenses - 0 rub. Cost of sales - 0 rub.	The revenue reflected in the amount of 100,000 rubles does not correspond to the funds actually received into the organization’s current account for the disputed period. Since, for example, only Romashka LLC transferred funds in the amount of 5,000,000 rubles for the supply of equipment. A zero indicator in the column “Administrative expenses” indicates the absence of expenses associated with the maintenance of the administrative and managerial apparatus, the maintenance of general business personnel, etc. A zero cost of sales indicator indicates the absence of sales of goods, works, and services.
Cash flow statement (form 4)	Cash flows from current operations – RUB 500,000. (other income) including from the sale of products, goods, works and services - 0 rub. Rent payments, license payments, royalties, commissions and other similar payments - 0 rub. Payments total - 20,000 rubles. Suppliers for raw materials, work and services - 10,000 rubles.	A zero indicator of revenue from the sale of products, goods, works and services indicates the absence of the sale of property under an equipment purchase and sale agreement, which corresponds to Form 2 (profit and loss statement), where the cost of sales has a 0 indicator, and Form 1 (balance sheet) , in which there is no reflection of receivables under the purchase and sale agreement in the amount of 1,000,000 rubles. A zero indicator indicates that the disputed supplier did not make rental payments: for office space, equipment, transport, etc. For example, payments in the amount of 20,000 rubles. carried out during 2013, of which only 10,000 rubles. was sent to suppliers for raw materials, materials, works and services that do not correspond to the economic activities of the disputed supplier reflected in the primary accounting documents and invoices issued to the taxpayer being audited.

According to tax authorities, zero financial statements indicate the absence of real economic activity of an economic entity. It is logical, because, for example, a company that sells purchased goods must reflect their cost in accounting (Form 1), and the cash flow statement (Form 4) must reflect the revenue received from their sale (of course, with subject to payment by the buyer). Direct expenses related to goods sold must be reflected in the income tax return; cost of goods sold; revenue from the sale of purchased goods. Sections of accounting and tax reporting that have zero indicators indicate that the business entity did not acquire property (goods) and did not sell it to third parties. The position of the tax authorities is also supported by the courts.

What the Federal Tax Service of Russia now recommends that pre-audit analysis employees do

A recent DSP from one of the regional departments recommended doing the following as part of the pre-audit analysis. Firstly, assess in advance the sufficiency of the evidence - so that it is enough to refute the reality or accusations of connections with one-night stands. Do not limit yourself to standard features, but show more creativity and establish cause-and-effect relationships. Secondly, check in advance not only the taxpayer “in development”, but also his counterparties. How they submit reports, how many employees they have, what address they are located at, etc. Thirdly, as part of the preliminary analysis, pay attention to the movement of goods if there is a suspicion that it is fictitious. Consider what evidence will support the relevant arguments. Fourthly, pre-audit analysis staff are recommended not to limit themselves to taxpayer reporting, but to more actively use other sources to obtain information that can prove tax violations. In particular, websites of counterparties, banks, help systems, databases of government agencies, etc.

Avoid being blacklisted by RAS ASK VAT-2

In addition to the standard method of searching for companies with a high tax risk based on pre-audit analysis, tax specialists now have a new effective tool. In 2016, the inspection system introduced the ASK VAT-2 system (automatic value added tax control system in version No. 2). RMS is a risk management system.

This software package automatically analyzes the information in the taxpayer’s reporting and compares it with information provided by counterparties and intermediaries. The unified system contains information from taxpayers, tax agents and other persons maintaining invoice journals. Now inspectors can automatically trace the entire chain of sales of goods, works and services and track the occurrence of the VAT base.

In accordance with the ASK VAT-2 RMS, all taxpayers are divided into three categories:

1. Taxpayers who work only in accordance with the law. They have no problems with counterparties, with issuing invoices and paying VAT.
2. Taxpayers who generally work legally, but have gaps in reporting and inaccuracies in documents.
3. Taxpayers who have the characteristics of a dependent and unscrupulous legal entity.

This is how tax authorities now group all VAT payers. Accordingly, the third group of companies with high tax risk will attract the attention of tax authorities. But organizations from the second group may also be included in the list of applicants for inspection. Since these taxpayers are often associated with the third group.

Moreover, if the risk level of the “ASK VAT-2 RMS” does not correspond to the risk level of the “VAT ASK” risk level, then the risk level of the new “ASK VAT-2 RMS” will be used to assess the taxpayer.

To avoid being blacklisted by this program, it is advisable for a company to take the following actions:

1. Check whether she has documents on the legal capacity of legal entities (her counterparties) and the competence of persons to sign documents. Otherwise, these papers must be requested.
2. Find out whether fixed assets, intangible assets and other assets, the presence of which is determined by the terms of the transactions, are reflected in the counterparty’s reporting.
3. Reconcile the transaction documents with similar documents of the partner. Pay special attention to the mandatory invoice details. Sign the reconciliation reports.
4. Look at the partner's website. Take a screenshot of the page. Look for reviews about the organization on the Internet on other sites. Practice shows that screenshots of such pages often work in favor of taxpayers even at the stage of filing objections to the audit report.
5. Make sure that the counterparty actually has an office or warehouse. Take photographs and save applications for access to these premises when visiting your partner.
6. Check to see if your counterparty is suing. To do this, go to the help system or go to the website http://www.arbitr.ru/ to the file of arbitration cases. Enter the name of the legal entity in the search bar and view court cases.

Such measures will help avoid inconsistencies in tax reporting. And also promptly provide explanations in case of claims from inspectors - and thereby avoid being included in the on-site inspection plan.

Subscribe to the channel "" in Yandex.Zen
Subscribe to our telegram channels "