Scientific supervisor: Morkovkin Dmitry Evgenievich,

Candidate of Economic Sciences, Associate Professor of the Department of Economic Theory,

Federal State Budgetary Institution of Higher Education "Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation".

The history of the formation and development of accounting processes at the national level shows and proves that sooner or later a clash of interests between owners and the state, and the division of such interests at a certain level, becomes inevitable. These interests relate, first of all, to those processes that affect financial accounting, as a result of which it is transformed.

In this regard, the problem of bringing accounting and tax accounting closer together is currently particularly acute. For effective use resources and assets of the company, control of such use; correct and reliable information about the availability, movement and use of company assets is extremely important. This information is generated by accounting. Therefore, it is especially important that accounting and tax accounting are in the closest possible relationship and do not have significant differences from each other. However, now the tax accounting system is far from accounting carried out for accounting purposes.

Processes of integration of tax and accounting in various countries and their analysis showed that it is possible to identify the following 2 main areas of integration.

The first direction is unity, which involves the use of accounting data to determine the taxable object without applying any adjustments.

The second direction is parallelism, i.e. accounting and tax accounting are kept separately from each other.

If you look back and look at Russian practice, then it can be noted that when Russian companies increasingly sought to enter the international market and attracted more and more investors from abroad, this led to the inevitable and increasing separation of accounting from tax accounting.

Later, after the approval of Chapter 25 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation “Tax on the profits of organizations”, in which the concept of “tax accounting” was first introduced as an independent type of accounting, as well as the subsequent adoption of such a document as the “Concept for the development of accounting and reporting in the Russian Federation on medium term", and an increasing focus on international standards financial statements served as reasons for the further separation of accounting and tax accounting.

This process entailed an increase in the number of employees of organizations and, as a consequence, an increase in costs, despite the fact that the quality of tax accounting did not significantly improve.

The main reason for the initial separation of tax and accounting was the difference in ultimate goals. The main goal of accounting is to provide high-quality and reliable information about the financial and economic activities of an organization so that reporting users can make various economic decisions. At the same time, the main goal of tax accounting is to ensure correct and reliable calculation and timely payment of various tax payments, following exclusively the norms of legislation in the field of taxes and taxation.

At the same time, both accounting and tax accounting are based on the same primary documentation and reflect the same facts of economic life, but the methods of accounting for income and expenses differ significantly. Despite the presence of such differences, accounting and tax accounting are built on a single economic basis, which means there is the possibility of their maximum convergence. But here it is necessary to realize that the integration of two types of accounting does not mean their complete synthesis, but the finding of common methods of calculation and the use of the same techniques, the purpose of which is to obtain results within the framework of their focus.

Discussions about the convergence of accounting and tax accounting have been going on for a long time; the need for such a convergence was noted in a document such as “Main Directions tax policy Russian Federation for 2014 and for the planning period 2015 and 2016.”

Since 2015, Chapters 21 and 25 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation have eliminated the concept of amount differences arising under contracts, the price of which is expressed in conventional units. Instead of the wording “total difference”, the Tax Code of the Russian Federation now uses the wording “expressed in foreign currency” in all relevant articles.

Now, as in accounting, in accordance with the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, only those contracts whose price is expressed in foreign currency should be indicated, and settlements under such contracts can be carried out both in foreign currency and in rubles.

Since 2015, the value of property received free of charge is determined as the amount of income taken into account by the taxpayer in the manner prescribed by clause 8, part 2, article 250 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation. According to new edition clause 2 art. 254 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, this means that this value of property is assessed as its market value, on which income tax is paid.

Since 2015, taxpayers have had the opportunity to write off expenses for the purchase of tools, fixtures, equipment, devices, laboratory equipment, workwear and other personal and collective protective equipment that is not depreciable, not at one time. full amount as it is put into operation, and during a period independently determined by the taxpayer, taking into account the period of use of this property or other economically justified indicators. This change allows you to keep records of the specified property in a manner similar to the procedure established for workwear and tools in accounting.

The easiest way to bring tax and accounting accounting closer together is to establish identical methods for depreciation of fixed assets in the accounting policy. This method is suitable for the vast majority of organizations.

In accounting, there are 4 methods of calculating depreciation: linear, the write-off method in proportion to the volume of output, the write-off method based on the sum of the number of years of the useful life (SPI), as well as the declining balance method; while in tax accounting There are only 2 such methods: linear and nonlinear.

Special attention deserves consideration of the features of such a concept as “useful life” or the useful life of an object of fixed assets of an organization.

In accounting, SPI is determined independently by the organization when accepting a fixed asset for accounting. In this case, when determining the SPI, it is necessary to proceed from the following factors:

Expected period of use of the fixed asset;

The expected period of physical wear and tear of the object, which depends on how intensively the fixed asset will be used;

Restrictions of both regulatory, technical and other nature.

In tax accounting, SPI is also determined independently, but in accordance with the provisions of Article 258 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation and taking into account the classification of fixed assets, which is approved by the Government of the Russian Federation.

To reduce the tax burden, in accordance with the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, special increasing coefficients can be used, and the use of a depreciation bonus is also allowed.

The concept of “depreciation bonus” deserves special attention.

Depreciation premium – quite interesting tool tax regulation, and it is very important for the taxpayer, as it allows you to reduce current income tax costs. But there is a minus here. Thus, the use of a depreciation bonus is not always economically justified from the point of view of the residual value of the property depreciated together with the bonus. The depreciation bonus can be up to 30% of the value of the property, and is applied only when the fixed asset is put into operation. Consequently, property that has not yet taken part in the production, management or other activities of the organization already becomes 10, 20, or even 30% cheaper, depending on what percentage of the depreciation bonus was applied. This means that the amount at which the object was accepted for accounting (using bonus depreciation) will not always correspond to the market value of the fixed asset.

Thus, there will be no difference between depreciation amounts in the accounting and tax accounting systems if a number of rules are followed.

Firstly, if the linear depreciation method is chosen for both accounting and tax accounting.

Secondly, if special coefficients are not applied.

Thirdly, the depreciation bonus should not take place when the object is accepted for accounting.

And finally, fourthly, SPI must be determined in accordance with the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, that is, based on the classification of fixed assets that are included in depreciation groups.

Again, the convergence of accounting and tax accounting in this context is not beneficial to the organization in economic terms, since in this case there will be no possibility of tax optimization of the amount of income tax due to depreciation.

Differences in the methodology for calculating depreciation for accounting and tax purposes lead to ineffective and inappropriate costs labor resources organizations. At the same time, the total unification of accounting and tax accounting of fixed assets in terms of depreciation is not economically feasible, since it was already said above that the possibilities for optimizing income tax are reduced.

Currently, any organization has the right to choose certain accounting rules that will help bring accounting and tax accounting closer together and, as a result, simplify the work of accounting services.

And, as a rule, it is accounting that adapts to the requirements of tax accounting, but it is worth noting that existing differences cannot be completely eliminated. But you can reduce this difference to a minimum.

Thus, for the convergence of accounting and tax accounting systems, it is important:

• apply in tax accounting the method of calculating depreciation that corresponds to the method of calculating depreciation used for accounting purposes. In other words, there is an objective need for identical and methodologically uniform methods for calculating depreciation and methods for calculating depreciation charges to bring the two accounting systems closer together;
• establish uniform criteria and conditions for recognizing assets as fixed assets;
• determine the basic rules in the interpretation of the concept of fixed assets and include identical components in the initial cost;
• establish the same methods for determining the value of inventories (raw materials, materials) and goods in both accounting and tax accounting. In tax accounting, as well as in accounting, there are currently 3 methods for determining value: FIFO, valuation at the average cost and valuation at the cost of each unit. By defining a single method for two types of accounting, economic entities will eliminate the difference that arises from different methods of assessment;
• refuse to revaluate fixed assets in accounting. For the most part, the revaluation of fixed assets leads to an increase in the value of the revalued assets, less often - to its decrease. However, distinctive feature is that the results of such a revaluation will be reflected only in accounting, but in tax accounting - the value of the fixed asset will remain unchanged, since the amount of revaluation or depreciation, in accordance with the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, is not recognized as income/expense and will not change the value of the fixed asset funds based on which economic entity calculates depreciation in tax accounting.

You should also include in tax accounting all expenses associated with the acquisition of fixed assets when determining initial cost– how this is done in accounting. This is necessary, first of all, to ensure that no differences or discrepancies arise in the amount of accrued depreciation.

It is worth approving in accounting for tax purposes in the form of direct expenses only those expenses that are reflected in accounts 20 and 23.

A kind of liberation of business entities from the need to maintain two types of accounting, and two parallel types, is economically feasible and extremely effective and useful in terms of conducting financial and economic activities.

Summarizing the study, it is worth noting that, despite the large number of ways that influence the convergence of accounting and tax accounting, there is one pronounced disadvantage - high tax payments compared to the use alternative options maintaining accounting systems.

In the last few years, namely since 2012, work has been carried out at the legislative level to develop ways to bring the two types of accounting closer together. The official position of the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation on this matter is that the direct dependence of taxable parameters on accounting rules will create the preconditions for the occurrence of tax consequences, which consist in reducing the tax burden on certain categories of taxpayers, through changing the accounting rules bypassing tax legislation.

Moreover, the rule of neutrality of accounting information is violated, since the person generating it becomes directly interested in achieving certain results, for example, reducing the tax burden, etc.

The above-described position of the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation is clear and logical. However, the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation explained this position in the context that tax accounting and reporting should be abolished. But if you look at the situation of convergence of the two types of accounting not from this side, but from the side of accounting, then you should not forget that accounting can be adjusted as much as possible to tax accounting, without canceling the latter.

Thus, it is worth noting once again that it is extremely important to bring together the accounting and tax accounting systems, since, in the author’s opinion, a kind of liberation of business entities from the need to maintain two types of accounting, and two parallel types, is economically feasible and extremely effective and useful for conducting financial and economic activities.

Bibliography

1. Tax Code of the Russian Federation [Electronic resource] – URL: http://base.garant.ru/10900200/ (access date: 10/15/2016)
2. Federal Law of December 6, 2011 No. 402-FZ “On Accounting” [Electronic resource] – URL: https://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_122855/ (date of access: 10/15/2016)
3. Accounting Regulations 5/01 “Accounting for Inventories” [Electronic resource] – URL: http://base.garant.ru/12123639/ (access date: 10/15/2016)
4. Accounting Regulations 6/01 “Accounting for Fixed Assets” [Electronic resource] – URL: http://base.garant.ru/12122835/ (access date: 10/15/2016)
5. Accounting Regulations 15/2008 “Accounting for expenses on loans and credits” [Electronic resource] – URL: http://base.garant.ru/12163098/ (access date: 10/15/2016)
6. Breslavtseva N.A. Accounting: textbook. allowance / N.A. Breslavtseva, N.V. Mikhailova, O.N. Goncharenko. – Rn/D: Phoenix, 2014. – 318 p.
7. Starostin S.N. Fixed assets: tax and accounting: 2nd ed., revised. and additional – M.: Phoenix, 2014. – 416 p.
8. Gerasimenko V.A. Features of the development of social infrastructure sectors in Russia // Nauka-rastudent.ru. – 2016. – No. 10 (034) / [Electronic resource] – Access mode. – URL: http://nauka-rastudent.ru/34/3667/ (access date: 10.15.2016)
9. Egorova T.N., Shmanev S.V., Gerasin O.N. Institutional-synergistic approach to innovation and investment activity // News of the South-Western State University. Series: Economics. Sociology. Management. – 2012. – No. 2. – P. 239-247.
10. Zvyagin L.S. Practical financial modeling in the problem of optimal investment distribution // Economics and management: problems, solutions. – 2016. – No. 1. – P. 33-41.
11. Korovyakovsky D.G. Legal and economic aspects attracting foreign investment into the Russian economy // Finance and credit. – 2007. – No. 10. – P. 70-80.
12. Corporate finance. Textbook. Team of authors / Edited by prof. E.I. Shokhina. – M.: Knorus, 2015. – 320 p.
13. Morkovkin D.E. Tax incentives for innovative activities of small businesses as a factor in the socio-economic development of the region // Modern mechanisms for the formation of financial resources of the state and economic entities: materials of the International scientific and practical conference / edited by: Rudenko Yu.S., Romanchenko O.V. [Electronic edition]. – M.: CHOUVO “MU named after. S.Yu. Witte", 2014. pp. 195-200.
14. Morkovkin D.E. Funding issues and priorities innovative development real sector Economics // Bulletin of the Financial University. – 2015. – No. 6 (90). – pp. 39-49.
15. Morkovkin D.E. Improving the lending system for small and medium-sized businesses as a condition for recovery economic growth// Modern Scientific research and innovation. 2016. No. 2. URL: (access date: 03/02/2016).
16. Morkovkin D.E. Development of interaction between the state and business in Russia: state and prospects // Economics in industry. – 2016. – No. 1. – P. 4-7. – DOI: 10.1707/2072-1663-2016-1-4-7
17. Nezamaikin V.N., Yurzinova I.L. Budgeting: methodology or tool // Finance and credit. – 2012. – No. 44 (524). – P. 16-21.
18. Rudenko L.G. Planning and design of organizations: textbook. for bachelors / L.G. Rudenko. M.: Dashkov and K°, 2016. – 240 p.
19. Management of socio-economic processes and systems in Russia: current state and development prospects: monograph / ed. A.V. Semenov. Moscow University named after S.Yu. Witte; Department of Management and Marketing. – M.: ed. "MU im. S.Yu.Witte”, 2014. – 534 p.
20. Khalilova M.A., Romanova Yu.A. Efficiency of public administration in the Russian Federation // Management of economic systems: electronic scientific journal. – 2014. – No. 1 (61). – P. 10.
21. Sorokin D.E. Economic theory, economic reality, economic policy // Journal of Economic Theory. 2014. No. 4. P. 25-39.
22. Tsvetkov V.A. Measures to support the population and the real sector of the Russian economy in times of crisis // Bulletin of the Financial University. – 2015. – No. 3 (87). – pp. 73-78.
23. Yurzinova I.L. The impact of tax policy on economic development regions: diss. ...cand. economic sciences. Moscow, 2004. – 166 p.
24. Yurzinova I.L. Managing the tax burden at the level of business entities: goals, principles, approaches // Tax policy and practice. -2007. – No. 5. – P. 6-9.
25. Yurzinova I.L. Problems of qualitative assessment of the consequences of decisions made in the field of taxation // Economic analysis. – 2002. – No. 2. – P. 25-28.

Number of views of the publication: Please wait

The convergence of accounting and tax accounting is only part of the benefits that a well-designed accounting policy can provide. The main thing is that this document helps OJSC Livgidromash save on property tax, VAT and income tax. But for this it is necessary to correctly draw up the accounting policy at OJSC Livgidromash.

So, in order for the rules that Livgidromash OJSC chose for itself to take effect on January 1, 2005, they were approved by the order of the manager, dated December 31, 2004.

Let's consider the accounting options that the legislation offers, which helped OJSC Livgidromash choose the optimal one for OJSC Livgidromash. In addition, we will consider how the accounting policy of OJSC Livgidromash was developed.

The accounting policy of OJSC Livgidromash for accounting and tax accounting is formalized by a separate order. It indicates what documents are developed to organize accounting and tax accounting. They are designed as applications.

In relation to accounting, the following annexes have been prepared:

1) working chart of accounts. OJSC Livgidromash develops it independently on the basis of the Chart of Accounts for accounting the financial and economic activities of organizations, approved by Order of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated October 31, 2000 No. 94n;

2) form of primary documents for business transactions, for which standard forms have not been approved and which OJSC Livgidromash developed independently. These documents contain details that are listed in Article 9 Federal Law dated November 21, 1996 No. 129-FZ “On Accounting”;

3) the procedure for conducting an inventory of assets and liabilities (list of property subject to inventory, its frequency, timing, composition of the inventory commission);

4) document flow rules. First of all, this is a document flow schedule, which describes the movement of documents in OJSC Livgidromash, from their creation to transfer to the archive;

5) the procedure for monitoring business operations. We are talking about the internal control of OJSC Livgidromash. It is carried out by an internal audit bureau specially created for these purposes.

In relation to tax accounting, forms of tax accounting registers have been approved. For this purpose, accounting registers, tax registers developed independently, or registers recommended by the tax authority are used.

At OJSC Livgidromash, the accounting policy establishes the method of recognizing income and expenses in both accounting and tax accounting. The options offered by the legislation are given in Table 4.

Table 4 - Methods for recognizing income and expenses in accounting and tax accounting of OJSC Livgidromash

Accounting	Tax accounting
There are two ways to recognize income and expenses: Cash method; Accrual method. The first can only be used by small enterprises (clause 20 of the Model Recommendations, approved by order of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated December 21, 1998 No. 64n). The second is used at OJSC Livgidromash	Just like in accounting, there are two ways to record income and expenses: Cash method; Accrual method. The first can only be used by those organizations whose average amount of revenue from the sale of goods (work, services) excluding VAT over the previous four quarters did not exceed 1,000,000 rubles. for each quarter (clause 1 of article 273 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation). The second method is used by Livgidromash OJSC.

Recommendations for bringing accounting and tax accounting closer together, based on Table 4: it is better to establish a single method for recognizing income and expenses in accounting and tax accounting - either the accrual method or the cash method. The first will simplify accounting for differences in accordance with the requirements of PBU 18/02, the second will allow you to save on taxes.

According to PBU 9/99 “Income of the organization”, income from ordinary types of OJSC Livgidromash is revenue from operations that are the subject of the enterprise’s activities.

However, what the subject of activity is is not said here.

Therefore, in order for the reporting to be reliable, OJSC Livgidromash itself determines which income is normal for it.

This right is granted by paragraph 4 of PBU 9/99.

The accounting policy for accounting purposes of OJSC Livgidromash states that income from ordinary activities of the enterprise is revenue that is received regularly, systematically, while engaging in the main activities.

In this case, the main type of activity is that specified in the charter of OJSC Livgidromash and the income from which is significant (their share in the total income is at least 5%).

And systematic income is the income that OJSC Livgidromash receives at least twice a year.

All this allowed the organization to argue why it reflects this or that income on account 90 “Sales” or on account 91 “Other income and expenses.” This is important because for incorrect reflection of business transactions on accounts, as well as for distortion of any line financial statements liability is provided (Article 120 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, Article 15.11 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses).

As for tax accounting, income from rental property is important here.

According to paragraph 4 of Article 250 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, they can relate to both sales income and non-operating income.

Table 5 - Options for accounting for some expenses in the accounting and tax accounting of OJSC Livgidromash

Accounting	Tax accounting
General running costs
Two ways to account for general business expenses: Write off monthly the full amount to the debit of account 90 “Sales”; Distribute to accounts 20 “Main production”, 23 “Auxiliary production”, 29 “Service production and farms”. OJSC Livgidromash uses the 2nd method.	At JSC Livgidromash everything general running costs are indirect, that is, they reduce taxable income in the period in which they are carried out.
Business expenses
Commercial expenses are fully or partially written off to the debit of account 90 “Sales”. With partial write-off, trading companies distribute only transportation costs, and Livgidromash OJSC also distributes product packaging costs.	At OJSC Livgidromash, commercial expenses in the full amount as part of indirect expenses are attributed to the costs of the reporting period in which they were incurred.
Future expenses
Future expenses are written off: Evenly throughout the period to which they relate; Proportional to the volume of production; In a different way.	Expenses at OJSC Livgidromash are written off evenly over the period to which they relate (Clause 1, Article 272 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation).
R&D expenses that yielded positive results
Expenses for research and development are written off over the period established by OJSC Livgidromash, but not more than five years (clause 11 of PBU 17/02).	At OJSC Livgidromash, the cost of developments is included in other expenses for three years.
Expenses for capital construction are written off step by step only if this is provided for in the contract. Otherwise, income and expenses are recognized after complete completion of construction at OJSC Livgidromash	Income and expenses are taken into account as stages of work are completed. And if this is not provided for in the agreement, then OJSC Livgidromash itself distributes income and expenses based on the principle of uniformity (clause 2 of Article 271 and clause 1 of Article 272 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation).

1) general business expenses - in accounting it is better to write off general business expenses to account 90 “Sales”. This will bring accounting and tax accounting closer together. OJSC Livgidromash determines the basis for the distribution of general business expenses independently. Tax authorities may not agree with the methodology established by the company.

However arbitration practice OJSC "Livgidromash" - in favor of the taxpayer. The judges supported the organization, which enshrined in its accounting policy the distribution of general business expenses in proportion to the wages of employees. The tax authorities insisted on distribution in proportion to the size of the proceeds;

2) commercial expenses - in order to bring together accounting and tax accounting at Livgidromash OJSC, write off commercial expenses in accounting in full as expenses of the reporting period;

3) expenses of future periods - in the accounting records of OJSC Livgidromash, it is better to write off expenses of future periods evenly. Then it will be possible to use accounting data to calculate income tax;

4) R&D expenses that yielded a positive result - set in your accounting the period for writing off R&D expenses - three years. This will bring accounting and tax accounting closer together;

5) expenses for capital construction - if the contract provides phased delivery work, it is better to recognize income and expenses in accounting and tax accounting evenly. If there are no appropriate conditions, then to calculate income tax, it is still recommended to distribute income and expenses evenly.

At the same time, it is not clear what criteria to use. But the amount of revenue from sales is important for determining the standard for advertising expenses - it is equal to 1 percent of revenue (clause 4 of Article 264 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation).

Therefore, in order for the advertising expenditure standard to be as high as possible, it makes sense to include rent in sales revenue. In OJSC Livgidromash it is too small and is not included in it.

Table 6 - Options for accounting for fixed assets in the accounting and tax accounting of OJSC Livgidromash

Recommendations for bringing accounting and tax accounting closer together according to Table 6: depreciation should be calculated in both accounting and tax accounting using a linear method. Then you won't have to count depreciation twice. OJSC "Livgidromash" you need to pay attention: the service life both for accounting purposes and for calculating income tax is better set in accordance with the Classification approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated January 1, 2002 No. 1

Thus, the table reflects issues of non-compliance between tax and accounting, and also offers recommendations for OJSC Livgidromash on issues of convergence of tax and accounting policies.

Last year, the Ministry of Finance and the Federal Tax Service published proposals to simplify accounting statements, prepared in accordance with the instructions of the President of the Russian Federation. They wanted to abolish tax accounting and give companies the opportunity to work only within the framework of accounting, and use registers of adjustments and calculations in accounting as a tool for calculating taxes. “Our task is to make accounting data basic,” officials said.

It was precisely this procedure for calculating the tax base for income tax by adjusting balance sheet profits that was in effect before the introduction of Chapter 25 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation “Organizational Income Tax” in 2002. The new chapter introduced the concept of tax accounting as completely independent accounting, using only those accounting data that are necessary to form the tax base.

On the other hand, Russian accounting standards (RAS) have long been developed on the basis of IFRS, despite the fact that they were officially recognized in the Russian Federation only in 2011. The latest PBUs are actually a translation of IFRS, and not always successful, which causes difficulties and ambiguity in their application. So the boundary drawn in 2002 between accounting and tax accounting is becoming more and more reliable, and accounting and tax accounting are “scattering” further and further. Therefore, the news of the convergence of the two accounting systems was perceived by the accounting community as a utopia (a beautiful dream).

The Ministry of Finance and the Federal Tax Service had to submit the corresponding bills on “rapprochement” before March 1, 2013. And this is what happened.

The website of the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation contains a draft of the Main Directions of Tax Policy of the Russian Federation for 2014 and the planning period of 2015 and 2016. This document contains section 1.3 “Simplification of tax accounting and its convergence with accounting.” It states, in particular, that the preparation of tax reporting (tax calculation) solely on the basis of accounting documents can have a number of negative consequences. According to officials, the direct dependence of taxation parameters on accounting rules will create preconditions for the emergence of tax consequences, including reducing the tax burden on certain categories of taxpayers, through changes in accounting rules in circumvention of the legislation on taxes and fees. In addition, the rule of neutrality of accounting information will be violated, since the person creating it becomes directly interested in achieving certain results (reducing the tax burden, etc.). Taking into account the above, the Ministry of Finance concludes, preparing tax reporting based solely on accounting documents is inappropriate. And then it is proposed to “simplify” tax accounting by amending Chapter 25, in particular:

Clarification of methods for writing off the cost of inventories as expenses;

The possibility of depreciation in tax accounting of low-value property, depending on the accounting policy applied by the taxpayer;

Acceptance for tax accounting of property received free of charge at the market value determined on the date of receipt of such property;

Recognition of losses from the assignment of claims after the due date for payment at a time on the date of assignment of claims;

Changes in tax accounting in the procedure for revaluation of obligations and claims expressed in foreign currency, as well as accounting for income and expenses in the form of amount differences.

From this point on, comments are unnecessary...

Records of economic activity facts are maintained at all enterprises. In a competitive environment in the domestic market, many managers maintain both management and accounting records. However, some managers are of the opinion that for successful work it is enough to maintain mandatory accounting, and the use of two systems is too expensive.

Whose position on this issue can be taken as a guide to action? Let's compare the management and accounting systems, evaluate the efficiency of the enterprise when using each system separately and in combination.

DIFFERENCES IN THE TWO SYSTEMS

The main differences between management accounting and accounting:

• end consumers of information;
• degree of detail of information;
• methodology for reflecting facts of economic activity (accounting methodology).

Information consumers

Management accounting information is for internal use and is not subject to public disclosure, as it may contain confidential information.

Based on accounting, financial statements are generated, which are intended for both external and internal consumers. In addition, financial statements are open to public use. It is published in the media and posted on official websites.

• manadgement Department ( CEO, directorate, supervisory board, etc.);
• company owners;
• heads of structural divisions;
• enterprise specialists, etc.

By external users are third party legal entities and individuals:

• investors with direct and indirect financial interests;
• creditors;
• suppliers;
• shareholders;
• buyers;
• fiscal authorities;
• stock markets and etc.

Detail of information

Management accounting contains more detailed information compared to accounting, therefore, based on management accounting information, decisions are made, forecasts are made and conclusions are drawn about the effectiveness of the enterprise’s economic activities. This may be information about the cost structure by functional centers of responsibility, about sales for each manager (allows you to evaluate the effectiveness of the sales department).

Accounting also contains enough analytics: for organizations, employees, divisions, cost items, contracts, types of activities, etc.

Methodology for reflecting facts of economic activity

Accounting is regulated by the accounting law, accounting regulations, and chart of accounts. Accordingly, the methodology for reflecting business transactions, the use of accounting accounts limited by law.

Management Accounting has no restrictions, his methodology is aimed at obtaining reliable, timely information, the meaning of which is clear to the managers and founders of the enterprise. It can be both complicated and simplified in relation to the accounting methodology.

For most organizations, revenue for accounting purposes is recorded on a shipment basis, i.e. income determined upon shipment. Real income (receipt Money from the buyer) is not taken into account.

For management accounting purposes, income, as a rule, is the receipt of real cash. Management accounting can be carried out by payment, that is, determining revenue and expenses incurred at the time of payment. In addition, management accounting can take into account low value property, which is immediately written off as expenses in accounting.

We present in more detail the differences between management and accounting accounting in the table.

Differences between management and accounting
Comparison area	Management Accounting	Accounting
Mandatory	Not mandatory, conducted on initiative. Accounting methods are established by management	Maintenance is mandatory (except for individual entrepreneurs). Established methods for collecting information that is required to document business transactions
Purpose of accounting	Preparation of information for managers at various levels	Generating information about the financial condition of an enterprise for a wide range of users
Users of information	Internal users (leaders and managers of the organization, as well as employees who help them collect and analyze information)	External users (shareholders, creditors, tax authorities, etc.), internal users (organization management, owners)
Information accounting structure	The structure of information depends on user requests	Built on the fundamental balance equation: Assets = Equity (founders' capital) + Liabilities
Accounting Rules	Conducted in accordance with the internal rules of the organization. Double entry is not required	Conducted in accordance with the accounting law, accounting regulations. Double entry is required
Accuracy of information	Information is prepared in a short time, may be approximate	Accounting data must accurately reflect the results of financial and economic activities and have documentary evidence
Degree of openness of information	Is a trade secret, not subject to publication, is confidential	Is open, public
Time reference	Business transactions are reflected at the time of their completion or are planned for the future, that is, they show how it will happen (taking into account the state over the past time)	Business transactions are reflected on the basis of documents at the time or after their completion, that is, they show how it happened
Reporting Frequency	Detailed reports can be compiled daily, ten-day, monthly, quarterly, etc. (frequency set by management)	Financial statements are submitted to the tax authorities annually
Accounting objects	Accounting is maintained by responsibility centers (structural units of the organization)	Accounting must reflect the facts of economic life, assets, liabilities, sources of financing, income and expenses, and other objects if this is established by federal standards
Reporting meters	Information can be presented in both monetary and non-monetary measures	Reporting is prepared in the currency of the Russian Federation
Responsibility for accounting accuracy	A manager can be held accountable only for an incorrect management decision made on the basis of management accounting data	Tax legislation provides for penalties for organizations and managers for incorrectly reflecting the facts of economic activity

ADVANTAGES

Let's look at the main advantages of management accounting over accounting (see diagram).

Compared to accounting, management accounting is more operational and more detailed. Therefore, it allows analysis of activities in any aspect.

Accounting does not provide all the operational information for making management decisions. Assessing the state of affairs at an enterprise based only on accounting data is not enough.

Accounting takes into account documented, already accomplished facts of economic activity. Management accounting can work for the future, make forecasts, and evaluate the effectiveness of a transaction before it is completed.

Management accounting is not limited by legal framework, therefore, each organization adapts this accounting to itself, that is, chooses accounting methods that are convenient for it. The accounting methodology must comply with the accounting regulations.

As a result of implementation management accounting systems The Altair production company, which produces interior items, received a significant economic effect:

• reduction of accounts receivable at the end of the year;
• optimization of accounts payable.

A similar result was achieved through control over accounts receivable, based on online registration of shipments with appropriate payment terms. Monetary discipline was also strengthened due to strict control over the validity of payments.

After the implementation of the management system, payments are made only on the basis of payment documents registered in the system that comply with contractual obligations. This made it possible to eliminate overdue advance payments and introduce limits on the payment of advances for each obligation. Bottom line: advance payments reduced by 15 %.

The introduction of management accounting made it possible to effectively manage costs, create an effective mechanism for cost planning, operational accounting tools and control of actual costs in the main production departments. Thanks to this, the Altair company can keep operational records of costs in monetary and physical terms, and create standard costs for the actual volume of production. In addition, the manufacturing company received additional opportunities when planning capacity utilization and material resources.

Thanks to the implementation of the management system, the company's inventories were reduced by 15 % .

INTERRELATION OF MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTING SYSTEMS

Despite their differences, management and accounting are interrelated because both use information accounting system enterprises.

Generally accepted accounting principles can also apply to management accounting, since business managers cannot be guided solely by unverifiable, subjective estimates and opinions. Therefore, information from both subsystems can be used to make the necessary management decisions (for example, information on cash flows or production output at accounting (planned) prices). In addition, the following will be common to both systems:

• unified accounting objects;
• a unified approach to the selection of accounting goals and objectives (despite the fact that the goals of management and accounting are different);
• usage general principles accounting (assessment, costing, inventory, grouping of accounting objects);
• reflection of information on special accounting accounts.

Don't forget that management system efficiency at the enterprise, including competent budgeting, analysis of profitability of sales and production processes, in many ways depends on the interaction of the accounting and management accounting systems.

CONVERSION OF TWO ACCOUNTING SYSTEMS

Let us consider the possibility of bringing together the accounting systems under consideration.

Facts of economic activity are reflected in the accounting accounts. The structure of such accounts and the procedure for their formation accounting entries established by law in the Chart of Accounts for accounting the financial and economic activities of organizations, approved by Order of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated October 31, 2000 No. 94n (as amended on November 8, 2010).

The organization chooses the methodology for maintaining management accounting independently, depending on the type of activity and the structure of enterprise management.

IN general caseThere are two options for maintaining management accounting:

• autonomous organization of management accounting, which does not depend on accounting;
• management accounting system integrated with the accounting system.

The goals and objectives of constructing accounting and management accounting differ in many ways.

Construction of accounting

Accounting must be reliable, transparent and understandable to third-party users. Analytics in accounting can be compiled in the form of directories (directories on types of materials, fuel, products, types of accruals, types of counterparties, etc.).

When building analytics in accounting, one should avoid piling up analytical information. Three-level analytics for each account is sufficient, and for some accounts two-level analytics is sufficient. Thus, account 60 “Settlements with suppliers and contractors” has two analytical levels: “counterparties” and “contracts”.

Analytical accounting of costs in accounting is carried out:

• by cost centers (divisions, workshops, departments, services);
• types of production (main production expenses, general production expenses, general business expenses, expenses of auxiliary production and farms);
• types of products.

Cost accounts are built on the principle of three-level analytics (see diagram).

With such analytics, direct and overhead costs are actually controlled, that is, the opportunity is provided for any calculation methods.

Issue accounting group finished products(account 40 “Output of products (works, services)”, account 43 “Finished products”) is taken into account by type of product produced.

Capital investments are reflected in terms of costs for objects and contracts. In object-by-object analytics, analytical accounting is carried out according to the method of carrying out construction and installation work (on our own or with the involvement of contractors) for each object under construction.

With more detailed analytics, it is possible to achieve output information for management, but this increases labor costs personnel for processing information accumulated in accounting accounts. At the same time, accounting is not efficient enough; the most complete reporting data on it can be obtained in a month at best. Besides, changes in legislation may affect the organization's chart of accounts. At large quantities analytics, this will lead to additional labor costs for transforming data into a new chart of accounts, reconciling transferred information, and linking it to management accounting data. As a result, management accounting data may be partially lost.

An accounting system can be called effective if:

• annual financial statements prepared on the basis of accounting are reliable and comply with the accounting policies and legal requirements;
• internal and external users of reporting can draw conclusions about the company's assets and liabilities, assess its solvency, profitability and profit.

Construction of autonomous management accounting

In management accounting, it is better to use an autonomous chart of accounts, which can be applied regardless of changes in legislation.

Autonomous organization management accounting involves maintaining management accounting of business transactions in parallel with accounting. In this case, the work of the accounting department is not affected in any way; employees are recruited separately to maintain management accounting. True, this is ideal. In practice, accounting employees may be required to maintain management accounting, that is, to expand the range of their job responsibilities.

Autonomous accounting creates conditions for maintaining trade secrets. Thus, interested external users can conduct audits of the company's activities based on accounting data without touching management accounting, which may contain confidential information.

The risks of implementing such a system should be assessed. Building an accounting system parallel to accounting is a very expensive and time-consuming process. Accordingly, this risk additional expenses per staff. It will be necessary to increase the staff due to an increase in the volume of management information, which must first of all be promptly registered and then subjected to verification and analysis.

For example, the company’s internal regulations oblige craftsmen to record the movement of products, waste and defects at the end of their shift for each type of equipment and each type of product produced. This requires additional working time - 1-2 hours per shift. It is necessary to clearly distribute the responsibilities of individual groups of workers. In addition, it is necessary to automate the process of collecting primary credentials. Accordingly, staff should be recruited to process such data, which will lead to increased staffing costs.

Construction of a management accounting system integrated with accounting

The implementation of such a system is in most cases cheaper than a stand-alone option. At the same time, integration involves making changes to the existing practice of accounting (changing directories of income, expenses, contractors, etc.), expanding the functions of accounting (for example, entering management codes when posting a primary document in the program).

Naturally, this is not always satisfactory accounting service, which has its own clearly defined tasks: the formation and submission of financial statements established by law, monitoring the correctness of tax calculations and their timely payment to the budget, calculating employee salaries, etc.

The integration of management and accounting will not provide any particular economic effect. The costs will not be large, but labor-intensive.

Management reporting in many companies is formed as a result of a complex procedure for transforming accounting data. In this case, part of the reporting data may be lost; a lot of time is spent on combining analytical data and reconciling transferred data.

Maximum convergence of management and accounting

A compromise solution to the problem, which is ideal for many Russian companies, is the maximum convergence of accounting and management accounting, the creation of a unified information base and rules for entering and processing primary data.

By bringing accounting and management accounting closer together, an enterprise significantly reduces the costs of maintaining these systems. Even combining a limited number of accounting processes will lead to a positive result. For example, the moment of reflection and evaluation of transactions for the receipt and disposal of funds for management and accounting is the same. Therefore, combining the posting process bank statements and cash receipts and expenditure orders for accounting and management accounting purposes can provide real savings (especially noticeable if there are a lot of documents to be posted).

Another advantage of the combination is formation of a single internal information space and a clear understanding by employees (accounting and planning department employees, managers) of the essence of the processes that occur in the organization.

When forming unified system accounting increases the efficiency of internal and external control. Maintaining management accounting using accounting rules allows you to improve the quality of management reporting.

conclusions

1. To make the right management decisions, accounting data is not enough.
2. To assess the efficiency of an enterprise's economic activities, it is necessary to use detailed information from management accounting.
3. Maximum convergence of accounting and management accounting is the key to successful operation of an enterprise.

"Tax Policy and Practice", 2008, N 5

According to paragraph 3 of Art. 3 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, taxes and fees must have an economic basis and cannot be arbitrary. In relation to income tax, this means that the amount of tax paid to the budget for a specific period should be determined by the amount of profit received by the organization for the same period.

It is interesting that the Law of the Russian Federation of December 27, 1991 N 2116-1 “On the income tax of enterprises and organizations” directly established: the object of taxation is gross profit, reduced (increased) in accordance with the procedure established by the Law (Article 2). Thus, taxable profit was initially calculated based on the profit before tax recognized in the accounting records. In addition, until 2002 (the entry into force of Chapter 25 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation), for the purpose of calculating income tax, the basic principle used in accounting for the formation of the financial result of an operation was used - the principle of matching income and expenses. According to this principle, profit (loss) from the sale of products (works, services) was determined as the difference between the proceeds from the sale of products (works, services) and the costs of its production<1>.

<1>Clause 13 of the Regulations on the composition of costs.

The result of the fact that when calculating the object of taxation, the amount of profit received by the organization in a specific reporting period was used, was the relative simplicity of the calculation. Despite the fact that the reporting form in force at that time<2>provided for up to 60 adjustments to the gross profit received by the organization, most of them determined the size of the tax base in the reporting period and did not affect the size of the taxable object in the future. Therefore, for tax calculations it was enough to distinguish by accounting objects (income, expenses, fixed assets, intangible assets, inventories, deferred expenses, certain types of reserves) only information on amounts not taken into account for tax purposes.

<2>Appendix No. 4 to Instruction of the Ministry of Taxes of Russia dated June 15, 2000 No. 62 “On the procedure for calculating and paying income tax for enterprises and organizations to the budget.”

Until 2002, only one adjustment to pre-tax profit was temporary in nature, due to the existence of two methods of recognizing revenue for taxation - both “by shipment” (the method used in accounting) and “by payment”<3>. Wherein full information the amounts of paid and unpaid revenue and the corresponding cost could be obtained from the organization’s accounting data.

<3>In this case, only the results of those transactions involving the transfer of work results, the sale of property (products, goods, fixed assets and other property, including valuable papers) and for the provision of services that were paid for (clause 13 of the Regulations on the composition of costs).

In force since 2002, Ch. 25 “Organizational Profit Tax” of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation (Articles 246 - 333) no longer contains an indication of the organization’s gross profit as the initial value for determining the size of the tax base. According to Art. 247 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, the object of taxation for profit tax for Russian organizations is the amount of income received, reduced by the amount of expenses incurred, which are determined in accordance with the provisions of Chapter. 25 Tax Code of the Russian Federation. At the same time, the chapter contains numerous provisions establishing, for the purposes of calculating income tax, special rules for accounting for certain expense and income items, as well as periods for recognizing income and expenses. In addition, some norms establish specific rules for the formation of the value of individual accounting objects. The incomplete consistency of the provisions of the legislation on taxes and fees and accounting legislation today has led to the emergence of many objective reasons for the incomparability of data on performance results generated in accounting and tax reporting indicators.

The main reasons and sources of differences in accounting and tax accounting data

A. By income:

• mismatch of income groups. We are talking about the “movement” of certain types of income and the corresponding expenses from the group “sales proceeds” or “other income” for accounting to the group “non-operating income” or “revenue from sales” for taxation and vice versa. So, for example, revenue from operations of the sale of property rights and other property in accounting is recognized as other income (clause 7 of PBU 9/99), and for taxation these incomes are defined exclusively as proceeds from sales (Article 249 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation) . Income from participation in the authorized capitals of other organizations in accounting can be considered as revenue from sales (clause 5 of PBU 9/99), and for taxation such income is considered non-operating without alternative (clause 1 of Article 250 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation);
• discrepancy between the amounts of income recognized in accounting and for tax purposes. For example, when selling securities, the difference between market<4>and the selling price of a security of the corresponding category (clauses 5 and 6 of Article 280 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation). Also included in income for taxation is market valuation services received free of charge (clause 8 of Article 250 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation). There is no information in accounting about such income. At the same time, an impressive list of transactions recognized for accounting purposes as other income is excluded from the composition of income for taxation, in particular, gratuitous receipt of property from organizations, if the contribution to authorized capital the receiving or transferring party is more than 50% (clause 11, clause 1, article 251 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, see also clauses 6, 7, 11, 12, 15 - 18, 21, 24 - 26, 32 clause 1, clause 2 of article 251 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation);

<4>The minimum price of transactions on the organized market of traded securities or the weighted average price of non-traded securities.

• discrepancy between the moment of recognition of income for accounting purposes and the formation of the object of taxation for income tax. Thus, the performance of work with a long technological cycle requires, for tax purposes, earlier recognition of the portion of income generated by calculation corresponding to the reporting period than this amount will be reflected in accounting (Articles 271, 316 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation). In cases of gratuitous receipt of property (except for those specified in Article 251 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation), recognition for taxation of the amount of non-operating income during the period of receipt of the property is also required (clause 1, clause 4, Article 271 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation). In accounting, income in these cases is recognized as the value of the property received is recognized as expenses (explanations to account 98 of the Instructions for using the Chart of Accounts).

B. For expenses:

• the presence of expenses involved in the formation of profit in accounting, but not taken into account for tax purposes in whole or in part. The list of such expenses is quite long (Article 270 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation). Of these, the most common are regulated expenses (advertising, entertainment expenses, expenses for paying interest on loans - paragraphs 2 and 4 of Article 264, paragraph 1 of Article 269 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation); expenses for certain types of insurance (medical, pension, property insurance) not listed in Art. Art. 255 and 263 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation; expenses in cases of recognition in accounting of losses on bad debts, except for those expressly mentioned in Art. 266 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation (for example, upon the death of an individual debtor); expenses for payment of remuneration in excess of the conditions stipulated employment contracts; expenses for the formation of accounting reserves (clauses 70, 72 of the Accounting Regulations<5>, clause 25 PBU 5/01, clause 8 PBU 16/02, clause 38 PBU 19/02), except for reserves for repairs, warranty repairs, payment of vacations and payment of benefits based on the results of the year (Articles 324, 324.1 , 255, 267 Tax Code of the Russian Federation). In the case of the formation of reserves in accounting, which are also taken into account for tax purposes, their amounts in accounting and for tax purposes may also differ due to different calculation procedures;

<5>Regulations on maintaining accounting and financial statements in the Russian Federation (approved by Order of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated July 29, 1998 N 34n).

• different grouping (by category and composition) of accounting objects (and, as a consequence, differences in the periods of recognition of the value of these objects as expenses for accounting and taxation purposes). So, for example, in accordance with clause 5 of PBU 6/01, starting from 2006, an organization could set a cost limit of up to 20,000 rubles. for objects that must be classified as inventories in accounting (Order of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated December 12, 2005 N 147n). For tax purposes, the limit on the value of depreciable property is 20,000 rubles. established only since 2008 (amendments to Articles 256 and 257 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation were introduced by Federal Law No. 216-FZ of July 24, 2007). Thus, during 2006 - 2007. An organization could theoretically apply different value limits to recognize the same item in different categories property in accounting and taxation.

In addition, in accounting and for calculating the tax base for income tax, the procedure for recognizing special tools, special devices, special equipment and special clothing, as well as the list of intangible assets (which came into force in 2008, part four of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and changes made in this regard to the accounting procedure for such objects reduce the degree of differences only in relation to objects acquired starting from the current year; differences in the procedure for recognizing for taxation already formed accounting units will remain for many years).

The first is the difference in the rules for forming the initial cost of fixed assets and inventories, leading to different accounting and tax value accounting objects.

Indeed, the legally established difference in approaches to the formation of the initial cost of main types of assets entails the recognition of certain types of expenses in accounting and in accounting for tax purposes with the formation of temporary differences in accordance with PBU 18/02. For example, the initial cost of fixed assets and inventories in accounting includes interest on borrowed funds received for the acquisition of investment assets (clause 12 of PBU 15/01) and insurance costs (clause 8 of PBU) accrued before the relevant objects are registered. 6/01, clause 6 PBU 5/01). For taxation purposes, these types of expenses have a special procedure for recognition as part of non-operating and other expenses, respectively (clause 1 of Article 269<6>, art. 263, paragraphs 6 and 8 of Art. 272 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation). Until 2007, the different costs of fixed assets were determined by the amount differences (clause 8 of PBU 3/2000<7>). Similarly, the absence of a legally established requirement to apply the same procedure for determining the value of goods for accounting and taxation purposes (clause 6 of PBU 5/01 and Article 320 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation) leads to the fact that their value may vary significantly. For example, intermediary services when purchasing goods in accounting, the organization is obliged to take into account the value of the value, and for tax purposes it has the right to choose whether to take these amounts into account in the cost of the goods or as part of distribution costs, i.e. both as goods are sold and during the period of their recognition as part of indirect expenses.

<6>In relation to controlled debt, a procedure has been established for accounting for part of the amount of accrued interest, similar to the assessment for tax purposes of the amounts of paid dividends (clauses 2, 3 of Article 275 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation).
<7>This difference has been eliminated since 2007 with the entry into force of PBU 3/2006 (approved by Order of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated November 27, 2006 N 154n).

In addition, the different costs of objects in accounting and for tax purposes are determined by fundamentally different rules for valuing objects (i.e., differences not in the time of recognition of expenses, but in amounts). For example, an asset received under transactions with non-monetary forms of payment is accepted for accounting at its estimated value (if such an assessment is sufficiently reliable) or market value (in other cases) (clause 8 of PBU 6/01, clause 6 of PBU 5/01). For the purpose of calculating income tax, an assessment is used only in the amount of actual expenses for the acquisition of property transferred under the transaction (Article 257, paragraph 2 of Article 254 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation).

If receiving an object is not associated with incurring expenses, then for accounting purposes its initial cost is formed based on market prices for this property (clause 9 of PBU 5/01, clause 10 of PBU 6/01, clause 28 of the Accounting Regulations , clause 29 of the Guidelines for accounting for fixed assets<8>). When calculating income tax, the value of such property is assessed depending on the reasons for its appearance in the organization and almost never (except for the value of fixed assets received free of charge) does not coincide with the assessment of this property in accounting (Table 1).

<8>Approved by Order of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated October 13, 2003 N 91n.

Table 1

Grounds capitalization/ accounting objects	Receipt free of charge	Confession according to the results inventory (surplus)	Staging registered as a result liquidation objects main funds	Staging registered as a result repair, repair modernization and so on.
Basic facilities	100% market cost (special norm clause 1 Art. 257 Tax Code of the Russian Federation)	Zero tax price (actual costs for acquisition (Creation) missing, (special norms about formation other tax no cost provided)	24% market share cost (special norm clause 2 Art. 254 Tax Code of the Russian Federation	Zero tax price (actual costs for acquisition (Creation) missing, special norms about formation other tax no cost provided)
Materials	Zero tax price (actual costs for acquisition (Creation) missing, special norms about formation other tax no cost provided)	24% market share cost (special norm clause 2 Art. 254 Tax Code of the Russian Federation)
Goods	-	-

The second factor is the discrepancy between the element-by-element list of direct expenses allocated to work in progress (WIP) balances when calculating the tax base for income tax, and the list of direct expenses used by a specific taxpayer in accounting when calculating the cost of products of a particular type.

With the entry into force of Federal Law No. 58-FZ dated 06.06.2005, the list of direct expenses established by Art. 318 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, is open in nature. In this case, the organization independently determines in its accounting policy for tax purposes a list of direct expenses associated with the production of goods (performance of work, provision of services). In fact, this means that tax legislation theoretically does not exclude the situation when, for taxation, the list of elements of direct costs distributed to the balances of work in progress, finished and sold products, and the list of expenses of the main, auxiliary and service industries, taken into account as part of the cost of products (works, services) , the taxpayer will have different<9>.

<9>The author believes that it is too early to abandon the point of view that the norm of Art. 318 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation in conjunction with the provisions of Art. Art. 252 and 319 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation (containing the requirement of economic justification of expenses and the requirement of economic justification for the distribution of direct expenses between types of products) means: each case of deviation from the list of direct expenses used in the accounting of an organization must require economic justification. However, it is obvious that the possibility of a different interpretation necessary list direct expenses for tax purposes is a prerequisite for the occurrence litigation between organizations and tax authorities.

Another source of discrepancies in the element-by-element grouping of production costs is quite obvious. In accordance with Art. 260 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, repair costs (in tax assessment) are taken into account in a separate group for which special order accounting as part of other indirect expenses of the current period in full. As a result, if an organization has a repair shop consisting of auxiliary production, the current accounting procedure provides for the distribution of the costs of this division into the cost of manufactured products (explanations to account 23 of the Instructions for using the Chart of Accounts). This means that repair costs incurred by the taxpayer in the reporting period, included financial results activities can be taken into account in full only if the entire volume of products manufactured in this period is sold.

The above procedure determines the differences in the assessment of the accounting and tax value of manufactured products (works), products in warehouses and sold (sold) products (works, services). In this case, when the taxpayer uses products (works, services) of the first type to produce products (works, services) of the next type in the technological chain, the cost of products of the next type in accounting and tax calculations will also be different (clause 4 of Article 254 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation) ;

• the presence within correlated groups (categories) of expenses that form accounting profit (loss) in one reporting period, and the tax base for income tax in another. The most striking example is the procedure for calculating depreciation on fixed assets.

In particular, in accounting, fixed assets include objects that meet the conditions of clause 4 of PBU 6/01. Availability of its own definition of fixed assets in Art. Art. 256 and 257 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation leads to the fact that for tax purposes, objects recognized as fixed assets in accounting but not yet put into operation are not considered as fixed assets.

The appearance of significant temporary differences in accounting for depreciation is also due to the discrepancy between the methods of its calculation<10>, and the ability to determine different useful lives of an object for accounting and tax purposes, and provided for tax purposes additional opportunity one-time recognition of 10% of the new value of depreciable property (clauses 17 - 25 of PBU 6/01, art. 256 - 259 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation).

<10>The procedure for calculating depreciation is completely the same only with the linear accrual method and the same service life.

Tax legislation provides grounds for differences in the periods of recognition of expenses for R&D and for the development of natural resources (explanations to account 97 of the Instructions for using the Chart of Accounts, Articles 262, 261 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation). Only since 2008, the difference in the order of recognition in time of expenses for mandatory and voluntary insurance(Clause 6 of Article 272 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation as amended by Federal Law No. 216-FZ of July 24, 2007). The procedure for writing off expenses that do not have a direct connection with the production of specific products (general business expenses) is also not the same. Since 2006, for tax purposes, there has been a rule on the organization’s independent distribution of such expenses (clause 1 of Article 272 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation) without linking this procedure to that used in accounting<11>. The different period for writing off the cost of accounting items is theoretically due to the absence in tax legislation of a mandatory link between the methods used in accounting and in calculating the size of the tax base for income tax for assessing the cost of materials written off for production, the cost of materials sold and the cost of goods sold (clause 16 PBU 5/01, paragraph 8, article 254, paragraph 3, paragraph 1, article 268 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation). For example, in 2008, writing off the value of these assets using the LIFO method continues to be used only for tax purposes, while this method is no longer used in accounting (clause 16 of PBU 5/01 as amended by Order of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated March 26, 2007 N 26n).

<11>In accounting, from this type of expenses, deferred expenses are first identified (clause 65 of the Accounting Regulations), which are written off during the period to which they relate (the method is determined by the organization independently). Further, administrative and commercial expenses are either recognized in the cost of products, goods, works, services sold in full in the reporting year as expenses for ordinary activities, or distributed according to the rules established by the organization in proportion to the ratio of products (works, services) produced in the reporting year and sold, or purchased and sold goods (clause 9 of PBU 9/99, explanations to accounts 26 and 44 of the Instructions for using the Chart of Accounts).

B. According to the general methodology for generating results:

• differences in the procedure for recognizing losses for tax purposes for certain types of transactions. Thus, losses from the exercise of the right to claim a debt from the taxpayer who purchased this right are not subject to accounting for the purposes of calculating income tax (clause 3 of Article 279 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation). When forming the tax base for income tax, losses when exercising the right of claim before the due date for payment are not fully taken into account (clause 1 of Article 279 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation). They have the specificity of temporary accounting in reducing the results of activities for taxation of transactions for the implementation of the right of claim after the payment deadline, losses from the sale of products (works, services) of service industries and farms, securities of certain categories, depreciable property. In accounting, the financial result for these transactions is recognized in full during the period of sale of these objects. For tax purposes, the loss on these transactions is either evenly partially transferred to later periods (when exercising the right of claim after the payment deadline and for transactions for the sale of depreciable property - clause 2 of Article 279, clause 3 of Article 268 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation), or is recognized for no more than 10 years only upon receipt of profit from similar types of activities (for service industries and farms - Article 275.1 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation) and certain categories of securities (clause 10 of Article 280 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation);
• compliance with the principle of matching income and expenses when generating tax results only for certain types of transactions (sale of goods, other property (except depreciable) and property rights - Articles 268, 320 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation). As for the formation of the result for operations of the sale of products (works, services), here the requirements for compliance with the identification for taxation of the economic indicator of profit for transactions as a whole are not traced (Articles 318, 319 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation). A certain ratio is achieved by distributing part of the expenses incurred (direct expenses) to the balances of work in progress, finished products and shipped but not sold products. However, as already noted, in conditions of different grouping of expenses, it is carried out in a significant gap from established accounting rules.

Tax accounting: more disadvantages than advantages

So, from 01/01/2002 Ch. 25 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, fundamental changes have been made to the procedure for calculating income tax, expressed in the abandonment of the principle of matching income and expenses used in accounting and the introduction of grouping criteria and different recognition dates for a number of incomes and expenses that differ from those used in accounting. In addition, there are rules separate accounting income and expenses for a variety of transactions with a different procedure for accounting for profits and losses.

The presence of differences in accounting and tax accounting of an organization's income and expenses as fundamental components of calculating profit leads to the fact that in parallel a value is calculated that does not have the generally accepted economic meaning of profit. The emerging relationships, when in one reporting period the profit for taxation is less than the financial result of the activity, or, conversely, in another reporting period the taxable profit significantly exceeds the actual increase in property obtained from the activity, necessitated the introduction of a new mechanism for the formation of deferred assets and obligations (PBU 18/02).

In order to fulfill the requirements for the procedure for calculating income tax, organizations are required to maintain a separate tax accounting system based on the grouping of primary documents in accordance with the established Chapter. 25 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation rules (Articles 313, 314 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation).

Practice shows that maintaining a parallel accounting system (along with accounting) leads not only to additional costs for the taxpayer, but also to a decrease in the efficiency of tax control.

The scale of the consequences of the differences in the rules of accounting and tax accounting systematized above can be quite clearly imagined if we compare the data of the accounting and tax accounting registers for accounting objects, the cost of which is formed, including with the participation of an indicator of part of the cost of acquisition (creation) of a fixed asset (i.e. the cost of production contains the element “depreciation of fixed assets”) (Table 2).

table 2

Accounting objects	Factors determining the differences are ok value formation object in accounting and tax accounting	Resulting Score Differences object in tax accounting
Expenses for acquisition depreciable property (account 08), original cost of the object fixed assets (count 01)	Difference in the list expenses amounting to accounting object, (or) difference in ratings individual species expenses<*>	(1) Difference in assessment object value
Depreciation amount (Debit 20 Credit 02)	Difference in assessment object value (1) + difference in terms use<*> + difference in method depreciation<*>	(2) Difference in amount depreciation
Cost estimate main production products (total for debit appropriate subaccounts account 20)	Difference in amount depreciation (2) + difference in the list direct expenses<*>	(3) Difference in assessment cost of the main production of products
WIP cost estimate and released in reporting period finished products (Debit 40 Credit 20)	Difference in assessment cost of the main production of products (3) + different coefficient distributions at WIP assessment<*> + difference in WIP assessment products at the beginning reporting period (5n) <*>	(4) Difference in assessment released in the reporting period finished product period (5k) Difference in WIP assessment products at the end of the reporting period (start of next reporting period
Evaluation of the implemented products (Debit 90 Credit 40)	Difference in assessment released in the reporting period finished period products (4) + different methods write-off finished products<*> + difference in assessment balances in stock finished products for beginning of the reporting period period (7n)<*>	(6) Difference in assessment value realized products (7k) Difference in assessment balances in finished warehouse products at the end of the reporting period (beginning of the next reporting period period)

Notes: 1.<*>the differences that arise at the corresponding stage of formation of the cost of realized (sold) products are highlighted.

1. The letters “n” and “k” indicate the beginning and end of the reporting (tax) period, respectively.

As can be seen from table. 2, at each stage of the formation of accounting objects (from recognizing the initial cost of an item of fixed assets to taking into account the part of its cost corresponding to the reporting period when forming financial results), the current rules for recognizing expenses for the purpose of calculating income tax presuppose the presence of several factors that determine the difference in the assessment of value the corresponding object in accounting and tax accounting. Moreover, from each previous accounting object to the next, the difference in assessment increases. A similar situation is also observed in relation to accounting objects containing material costs and in relation to goods.

Of course, most taxpayers, for the purpose of rational accounting, to one degree or another combine separate approaches to the formation of the value of objects in accounting and tax accounting by declaring the corresponding element of accounting policy (if possible<12>).

<12>Even if desired, this is not always possible. For example, accounting policy The issues of recognizing insurance costs and interest on bank loans when acquiring investment assets, as well as the procedure for recognizing repair costs if there is a repair department, are not regulated.

However, for the author, it seems more important that tax legislation fundamentally allows for differences in the procedure for recognizing the value of accounting objects at each stage of the sequential formation of indicators that make up the financial result of the organization’s activities.

Thus, if the taxpayer does not want to take advantage of the reduced labor intensity of accounting, tax figures can only be reached by manual calculation. However, after just a few periods of using this procedure, it is not possible in principle to link the data obtained by counting for tax purposes with accounting data due to the growing differences in valuation amounts.

In addition, tax legislation does not establish clear rules governing the procedure for maintaining tax accounting, but only defines general provisions for the formalization of final data on income and expenses that form the amount of profit for tax purposes in the reporting period.

Attempts in 2002 tax authorities to establish uniform forms of tax accounting ended with a direct indication in Art. 314 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation gives the taxpayer the right to develop them independently.

This led to the impossibility of developing a unified procedure for conducting tax audits, which makes the tax accounting system opaque and dependent on the individual preferences of participants in economic activities.

It is believed that Federal Law No. 58-FZ of June 6, 2005 made a significant contribution to the convergence of accounting and tax accounting. According to the author, this is not so. Indeed, prepared with the participation of specialists tax service changes to art. Art. 318, 319 and 320 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation were aimed at bringing accounting and tax accounting closer together to the extent that would allow for uniform approaches to the formation of production costs of sold products (works, services). But the final text of the amendments did not include a provision on the need for taxpayers to apply the procedure used in accounting when determining the list of direct expenses. As a result, large taxpayers, who are the main sources of budget replenishment, having the opportunity to maintain parallel accounting systems, for the most part did not change the order they had already established. In addition, these changes made it possible to make accounting and tax accounting data even more disparate as a result of the taxpayer determining a very narrow list of elements of direct expenses.

An analysis of foreign practice leads to the conclusion that there are no analogues to the system of approaches to calculating income tax, keeping records of taxable items and preparing reports currently in force in the Russian Federation. The procedure closest to our system is in effect in the USA (the GAAP system is used in accounting). The existence of special procedures for determining the tax base for income tax without direct linkage to financial reporting indicators has led to the fact that income tax reporting in the United States, similar to the procedure applied in the Russian Federation, is not formed by adjusting the profit indicator reflected in the financial statements<13>, but by consistently reflecting in tax reporting the indicators that determine the size of the tax base of the reporting period. However, US tax doctrine implies that an accounting method is any regulated practice or procedure for determining which items of income and expenses are recognized for accounting purposes.

<13>This procedure for generating income tax reporting indicators is used in countries Western Europe using the IFRS reporting system.

However, in the United States there are actually restrictions on taxpayers' choice of accounting methods for tax purposes. The established procedure for assessing by the tax authorities the correctness of the taxpayer’s choice of accounting methods and calculations of tax liabilities allows the fiscal services to make the following requirements: 1) the tax accounting method must correspond to the method of calculating income that the taxpayer uses to maintain accounting records; 2) the accounting method must correctly reflect the taxpayer’s profit. Taken together, these requirements practically mean the need for the taxpayer to use the cost accounting method used in accounting, which is based on generally accepted accounting principles in a specific sector or industry of the economy. In addition, the current procedure in the United States requires the existence of a tax balance.

Russian tax legislation does not stipulate such requirements for the procedure for maintaining tax accounting and preparing income tax reports. As a result, tax authorities, when conducting audits, each time require an extremely labor-intensive and intellectually demanding procedure for studying the organization’s existing tax accounting system and assessing its compliance with the requirements of tax legislation.<14>. Since the inspector is not able to personally obtain a clear understanding of the accounting system used by the organization, he is forced to seek clarification from the taxpayer, who very often presents information interpreted in accordance with his interests (the objectivity of the explanations, due to limited time, will be checked by the inspector in sufficiently can not). And most importantly, even having identified errors in the methodology for calculating profit in an organization (and they are almost always identified), the inspector in most cases is not able to independently carry out, in accordance with the requirements of tax legislation, a full calculation of the organization’s profit tax for the entire volume of primary documents, since this will require manual processing of this entire volume. As a result, he is forced to limit himself only to the results of sample calculations.

<14>According to surveys conducted at the initiative of the Federal Tax Service of Russia, the labor intensity of checking income tax calculations has increased from 1.8 to 2.7 times. Here and below, the author summarizes the information received from territorial tax authorities, as well as data from surveys of tax inspectors and taxpayers conducted in 2006 and 2007. St. Petersburg state university and GNII RNS Federal Tax Service of Russia.

This is how the current trend is described in the survey results: “The presence of additional tax accounting, which in practice does not exist as a complete system, but is present in fragments, not only complicates the work and increases the labor intensity of the audit, but also increases the risk of “non-detection”, which leads to the emergence of doubts in the reliability of the audit results."

From the above, the following conclusions arise. The current approach to calculating the object of taxation for profit tax leads to a significant discrepancy between the actual profit indicator and the calculated indicator, which represents the object of taxation. This procedure does not correspond to the principle of economic justification of the tax.

Another principle of taxation is not observed - the costs of tax calculation should not be significant. The current procedure for calculating income tax does not meet the needs of both organizations to reduce accounting costs and tax authorities to exercise effective control over the fulfillment by taxpayers of their responsibilities for settlements with the budget for income tax.

Indeed, almost all taxpayers note the increasing complexity and the need to increase costs for the formation of indicators in two accounting systems. Even the presence automated system accounting does not relieve organizations from additional work due to the existence of tax accounting. According to surveys, “almost half of taxpayers are forced to duplicate (in whole or in part) data entry for tax accounting purposes; the number of taxpayers forced to modify registers generated by software reaches 73%.”

The complexity of accounting affects not only the level of income tax administration. In the author's opinion, the following rather unexpected aspects of the operation of a separate tax accounting system are interesting.

In principle, the tax system can and should be used by the state to solve individual macroeconomic problems. It is quite acceptable that one of the main purposes of separating the calculation of profit for tax purposes into a separate system was the initial release for business activities working capital through earlier recognition of certain types of expenses.

However, practice shows that the current procedure does not help stimulate economic activity in certain priority areas determined by the state with the help of tax preferences. Thus, surveys have revealed that due to the complication of the accounting procedure, taxpayers are refusing the benefits of using the opportunities provided by the state for earlier recognition of expenses. In particular, about 60.0% of large, 78.0% of medium-sized and 64.6% of small enterprises refused earlier recognition for taxation of certain types of expenses, for example, a 10% depreciation bonus.

Most likely, the same effect will be obtained as a result of providing a more favorable tax regime to subjects of the innovation system. Thus, since 2008, a depreciation coefficient of 3 was introduced for fixed assets used exclusively in scientific and technical activities. If taxpayers apply the new opportunity in the same way as the bonus depreciation regime, then it is unlikely that the measures taken to stimulate innovation will be highly effective.

In addition, one of the goals of introducing tax accounting at one time was proclaimed to achieve high reliability of accounting data, the role of which in a market economy is difficult to overestimate. It was believed that allowing organizations to generate data for financial reporting without regard to tax consequences should entail more accurate data on the financial performance of organizations. This didn't happen either.

Thus, the conclusion obtained during the ongoing research is alarming: “For the sake of rationalizing the accounting process, the taxpayer in organizing accounting is increasingly focusing on the rules established by Chapter 25 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, neglecting the principles of reliability of financial reporting data.”

To underestimate this negative trend means to agree that as the rules of accounting and tax accounting become more and more divergent (and practice shows that the number of such discrepancies is only increasing), the financial reporting data in the totality will increasingly differ from the indicator actually obtained as a result economic activity profit.

Proposals for bringing accounting and tax accounting closer together

The above circumstances should be considered as a methodological prerequisite that determines the need to reform the system of relations between accounting and tax accounting by introducing changes to tax legislation in terms of regulating the procedure for determining the tax base for income tax.

The expediency of this approach is dictated by the fact that, in contrast to the tax accounting system, accounting uses a double entry system, which is the most important and effective means self-monitoring of the completeness of accounting by the organization of business transactions. Reliability of the accounting system of the most large taxpayers also provides confirmation of its data by independent auditors. During an audit, the use of information from accounting registers makes it possible to reliably identify the completeness and timeliness of the reflection of business transactions that affect the size of the tax base.

The Government of the Russian Federation is already taking certain steps to overcome this situation. Thus, the Concept for the development of accounting and reporting in the Russian Federation for the medium term, developed in accordance with the instructions of the Government of the Russian Federation and approved by Order of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated July 1, 2004 N 180 (hereinafter referred to as the Concept), stipulates that tax reporting should be prepared on the basis of information formed in accounting, by adjusting it according to the rules of tax legislation (section 2.1). At the same time, the convergence of tax and accounting accounting is defined as one of the components of the implementation stage of the Concept (Section 3). Reducing the costs of preparing tax reporting through a significant convergence of tax accounting rules with accounting rules is also provided for by the Program of Socio-Economic Development of the Russian Federation for the medium term (2006 - 2008), approved by Order of the Government of the Russian Federation dated January 19, 2006 N 38-R.

Undoubtedly, the more the tax accounting rules correspond to the accounting rules, the easier the preparation of tax returns, the calculation of tax liability, as well as tax administration. Of course, there will always be some differences, since tax rules reflect tax policy priorities and accounting rules serve to measure the economic health of an organization.

It is optimal if changes in tax legislation still fix the financial result of the activity as an object of taxation, adjusted by certain amounts, taking into account the special procedure for recognizing individual transactions for taxation. This will make it possible to move from drawing up an income tax return independent of financial reporting indicators to a return in a form similar to that used under tax legislation before 2002 and today widely used in Western European countries. If we take into account the direction of transformations in the field of accounting regulation towards the use of a reporting system according to IFRS rules, then the feasibility of using appropriate approaches to the formation of tax reporting indicators for income tax should not raise doubts<15>.

<15>Lack of logic for the simultaneous combination of approaches characteristic of two fundamentally various systems accounting (IFRS and GAAP), in the author’s opinion, does not require additional evidence.

However, it is possible to reduce the costs of calculating income tax and its administration without resorting to such a radical method. The main task of convergence, according to the author, is to change or exclude from the text Ch. 25 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation those norms that predetermine the possibility of differences in the procedure for forming the initial cost of the main accounting objects (fixed assets, intangible assets, materials, goods). It is necessary to legislate that organizations are obligated to use for tax purposes the same mechanisms for determining the cost of manufactured products (works, services), finished products and assessing the tax cost of products sold ( goods sold) as in accounting.

This will create the prerequisites for the tax authorities to have an effective control tool, since in any difficult situations the tax authorities will be able, based on the final accounting data, to make the necessary adjustments to the identified financial result. The basis will be the same element-by-element composition of income and expenses that determine the profit of the reporting period, in which the percentage of amounts taken into account and not taken into account in this period for tax purposes is maintained.

This proposal would require amendments to Art. Art. 254, 257, 318, 319 and 320 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation. However, the author considers it premature to formulate the texts of the necessary amendments: without a clear definition of the mechanisms for bringing together accounting and tax accounting, simply linking the norms of tax legislation to the procedure in force in accounting may have the opposite effect.

So, before the entry into force of Ch. 25 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, the practice of calculating income tax, along with the fairly high efficiency of tax audits, also revealed the negative consequences of direct use for tax purposes of the procedure for forming the financial result of an organization’s activities. In particular, changes in accounting rules alone (without amending tax legislation) were enough to change the tax base, and this did not contribute to stability tax revenue to the budget. In addition, the procedure used by the Ministry of Finance of Russia for introducing amendments to regulatory legal acts on accounting (without repealing contradictory provisions established in other previously adopted acts) led to a large number of discrepancies in the existing regulations and, consequently, different interpretations of them, including by courts authorities.

Considering these circumstances, as well as the fact that the Concept is based on the use Russian standards individual financial statements based on IFRS, which provide high degree application of the professional judgment of an accountant, it is necessary to provide for the development of procedures that ensure, in the context of convergence of tax and accounting rules, the stability of tax revenues and optimize the costs of tax administration.

The relevance of this task is also determined by the conclusions of independent research: “The use of the methodology for calculating financial results, determined in accordance with the provisions of IFRS as the basis of Russian tax legislation, can lead to a significant reduction in the taxable profit of organizations of almost all legal forms, which can cause a significant reduction in tax revenues to the budget in terms of income tax.<...>In addition, discrepancies between the values ​​of financial results calculated within the framework of various options for accounting policies drawn up in accordance with IFRS show that the ability of organizations to manipulate the value of the result through accounting methodology increases significantly. This also necessarily entails a significant increase in the costs of organizing tax control events.”

Thus, before making adjustments to Sec. 25 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, it is necessary to establish a system of interaction between the divisions of the Ministry of Finance of Russia and the Federal Tax Service of Russia in order to eliminate the impact of changes in the procedure for reflecting individual transactions in accounting on the volume of tax revenues.

Only if the system of continuous interaction between the relevant divisions of the Ministry of Finance of Russia and the Federal Tax Service of Russia ensures that the tax authorities can carry out their tasks in the conditions of reforming the accounting and reporting system without reducing the efficiency of work, will it become possible and appropriate to directly indicate in the norms of Chapter. 25 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation on the use of accounting rules for tax purposes.

In particular, the author believes that with the convergence of accounting and tax accounting, the interaction system must necessarily include an examination of the impact of proposed changes in tax or accounting legislation on the complication of accounting and control procedures.

The negative result of the absence of such an examination is obvious. Thus, tax legislation, if it supports certain changes occurring in accounting rules, does so with a time lag of one to two years.<16>. This means that all this time there are additional sources of discrepancies between accounting and tax accounting data, and consequently, the labor intensity of accounting in organizations increases even more, while the effectiveness of tax audits decreases.

<16>This applies to the already mentioned limit on the value of property not considered as depreciable, the use of the LIFO method and amount differences. In addition, since 2008, the procedure for recognizing revenue in foreign currency has changed (changes in PBU 3/2006 were made by Order of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated December 25, 2007 N 147n), which again leads to the need for additional calculations when determining the amount of revenue subject to taxation in cases of receipt prepaid seller.

The feasibility of analyzing the consequences of the proposed changes to tax legislation on the complexity of accounting and control procedures is demonstrated by the example of increasing the VAT reporting period. It would seem that this is a good intention, but it will lead to the fact that organizations carrying out both taxable and non-VAT activities and reporting income tax on a monthly basis will most likely face the problem of having to recalculate data on income tax returns for every second month of the quarter (accrued depreciation for depreciable property items introduced in the first month of the quarter will initially be determined in the absence of accurate data on the initial cost of these items). At the same time, both organizations and tax authorities have already had a number of questions related to the property tax of organizations, which is also calculated based on the residual value of fixed assets recognized in accounting.

Thus, for the harmonious development of tax legislation on income tax in the direction of bringing accounting and tax accounting closer together, meeting the state’s needs for fair and economical taxation, as well as reducing tax administration costs, the following measures are required:

• development of an effective mechanism for interaction between divisions of the Ministry of Finance of Russia and the Federal Tax Service of Russia in order to eliminate the impact of changes in the procedure for reflecting individual transactions in accounting on the volume of planned tax revenues to the budget;
• introduction of a procedure for examining the impact of proposed changes in tax or accounting legislation on the complication of accounting and control procedures;
• making appropriate changes to Ch. 25 Tax Code of the Russian Federation. At the same time, in the author’s opinion, it will be necessary to determine the procedure for transition to new rules, similar to that introduced by Art. 10 of the Federal Law of 06.08.2001 N 110-FZ, in order to ensure element-by-element “alignment” of estimates of the available balances of individual accounting objects. The absence of such a procedure at the transition stage will initially complicate the possibility of using accounting data in tax calculations, since opening balances will significantly distort the necessary ratios of accounting and tax accounting indicators for a very long time.

The author hopes that the focused, professional and thoughtful work of specialists from the Ministry of Finance of Russia and the Federal Tax Service of Russia in the considered direction will ultimately allow us to obtain a harmonious system of accounting for business transactions for various purposes, satisfying the interests of both business entities and the state.

O.G.Lapina

State Advisor

civil service of the Russian Federation