From January 1, 2006, the procedure for determining the tax base for VAT was changed: all taxpayers are required to use a single method, usually referred to as “shipment”. The innovations arising from this, introduced into Article 167 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, were discussed and analyzed in some detail in the media. At the same time, one significant nuance has not yet received, in our opinion, adequate coverage. We are talking about the question of whether the term “shipment of goods” should be linked to the transfer of ownership of it. This question is answered in this article by M.S. Mukhin, head of department and A.R. Nazarov, Deputy Head of the Federal Drug Control Service of Russia.

This problem is most relevant for taxpayers who use a special procedure for transferring ownership when supplying goods (in accordance with paragraph 1 of Article 223 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation), as well as for principals transferring goods to commission agents for subsequent sale. In all these cases, the transfer (shipment) of the goods is not accompanied by a simultaneous transfer of ownership of it.

A number of experts (mainly from the Russian Ministry of Finance and tax authorities) express the opinion that the issue of transferring ownership of the shipped goods has no legal significance from the point of view of determining the VAT tax base for the transferring party. To substantiate their position, they refer to the difference between the new edition of the name of Article 167 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation - “The moment of determining the tax base” - from its previous name, used before January 1, 2006 - “The moment of determining the tax base for the sale (transfer) of goods (works, services )"*. Apparently, they perceived the exclusion of reference to the sale of goods from the title of this article as a basis for changing the approach to the term “shipment.”

Note:
* We were unable to find documentary evidence of this position at the level of letters from the Ministry of Finance or the Federal Tax Service of Russia. In this regard, we rely on the arguments of representatives of these departments, voiced by them publicly (ed.).

Such an interpretation of the provisions of Article 167 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation does not seem convincing to us.

Firstly, the provisions of this article cannot be taken out of the context of Chapter 21 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation and the provisions of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation as a whole. From the systemic interpretation of the rules regulating the very concept of the tax base, the following is clear. The tax base, by virtue of paragraph 1 of Article 53 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, is a characteristic of the object of taxation. In relation to VAT, the object of taxation in the situation under consideration is the sale of goods (subclause 1, clause 1, article 146 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation). The concept of “sale of goods” is disclosed in paragraph 1 of Article 39 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation and is universal in relation to all provisions of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation. The key feature of this concept is the transfer of ownership of the goods. Let us especially emphasize: the legislator does not allow any deviations from this criterion (unlike, say, the criterion of retribution).

Secondly, it should be taken into account that the change in the name of Article 167 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation is due to its universalization - the inclusion in this article from January 1, 2006 of provisions regulating the procedure for forming the tax base when transferring property rights, performing construction and installation work and transferring goods (performing work , provision of services) for own consumption. Under such circumstances, retaining in the title of the article a mention of the tax base only when selling goods (works, services) would give rise to a contradiction between the name and content of Article 167 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation.

Thirdly, it should be noted that the legislator, in Article 167 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, still uses the transfer of ownership of it as a criterion for determining the tax base when shipping goods. This is indicated by paragraph 3 of this article.

In addition to legal arguments, common sense cannot be ignored, which the identification of the concept of “shipment of goods” with the physical movement of things in space clearly contradicts. With such an interpretation of the moment of determining the tax base, not only taxpayers using a special procedure for transferring ownership rights and committents will be under attack, but also, for example, taxpayers transferring goods for storage. Continuing this logic, it is easy to file tax claims against those who return goods to the owner from safekeeping or the committent, or transfer to the committent goods purchased on his behalf. In our opinion, the “tax everything that moves” approach has nothing to do with the law and borders on absurdity. In this regard, it would be useful to recall that, in accordance with paragraph 3 of Article 3 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, taxes must have an economic basis and cannot be arbitrary.

Relatively little time has passed since the new edition of the title of Article 167 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation came into force, and therefore a full-fledged judicial and arbitration practice on the issue under discussion has not yet been developed. However, in some documents the point of view of the judiciary can be seen quite clearly. Thus, in paragraph 7 of the Review of the practice of resolving cases by arbitration courts related to the application of certain provisions of Chapter 25 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation (brought forward by the information letter of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated December 22, 2005 No. 98), the following assessment of the terms of the agreement on the special moment of transfer of ownership of goods in the context of provisions of Articles 39 and 271 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation*:

Note:
* The fact that the letter of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation refers to income tax and not VAT, in our opinion, is not significant, since the tax bases of these taxes are quite close (ed.).

Excerpt from the document “A purchase and sale agreement was concluded between the company and the buyer, in accordance with which the company supplied the goods. Income from the sale of these goods was not taken into account for tax purposes either at the time of shipment of the goods to the buyer, or at the time of the tax audit, despite receiving partial payment. Justifying the legality of the actions taken, the company submitted to the tax authority an additional agreement to the purchase and sale agreement, according to which the ownership of the goods passes to the buyer from the moment of full payment (Article 491 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). Since at the time of the tax audit the goods had not been fully paid for, by virtue of Article 39 and paragraph 3 of Article 271 of the Code, the date on which income from the sale is recognized as received has not arrived. … The appellate court overturned the decision of the first instance court and refused to satisfy the company's claim, guided by the following. Based on paragraph 3 of Article 271 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, when applying the accrual method, the date of receipt of income from the sale of goods is the date of sale, determined in accordance with paragraph 1 of Article 39 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation as the date of transfer of ownership of the goods. Applying the specified norms of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation and Article 491 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the court of first instance did not take into account the following. Article 491 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation provides for the right of the seller to demand from the buyer the return of the transferred goods if they are not paid for. Ensuring this right is the establishment in this article as a general rule of a prohibition for the buyer to alienate the goods or dispose of them in any other way until the transfer of ownership of the goods to him. In the case under consideration, the subject of sale was a product characterized by generic characteristics, intended both for further resale (wheels) and for actual consumption through use in the repair of another item (spare parts). The parties did not take measures to individualize the transferred goods (to distinguish them from other goods of the buyer); the company did not exercise control over the safety of the goods and its availability with the buyer. Based on an assessment of the stated circumstances, the appellate court came to the conclusion that the parties did not ensure the fulfillment of the terms of the contract regarding the retention of ownership of the goods by the seller. The specified agreement of the parties, not reflecting their actual relations and real financial and economic results of activity, cannot be taken into account for tax purposes. In the case under consideration, this means that when accounting for income from the sale of goods for tax purposes in accordance with Article 39, paragraph 3 of Article 271 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, the provisions of the agreement on the retention of ownership rights by the company until full payment for the goods should not be taken into account."

As we can see, the arbitration court paid serious attention to the analysis of the terms of the contract relating to the transfer of ownership of the goods. It is important to emphasize that the taxpayer’s position was not supported by the court only due to the actual failure of the parties to fulfill the terms of the agreement. It is logical to assume that if the issue of transfer of ownership of goods did not play a significant role in determining the tax base, then the court’s reasoning would be different.

At the beginning of this year, a number of letters appeared reflecting the official position of the Ministry of Finance and the Federal Tax Service of Russia on the issue under consideration. It cannot be said that this position is expressed clearly and unambiguously. However, some positive aspects can be seen in these letters. Thus, with regard to taxpayer-committents, a very positive point of view was expressed by the Ministry of Finance of Russia in letter dated March 24, 2006 No. 03-04-11/62: “Under the sale of goods under commission agreements with the principal, the date of shipment of goods is recognized as the date of the first drawing up of the primary document issued to the buyer of the goods (the carrier of the goods or the communication organization - the sender of the goods)”.

Considering that, according to Article 990 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the party in a transaction with the buyer is not the principal, but the commission agent, the primary documents for the shipment of goods are drawn up by the commission agent. Consequently, the operation of transfer of goods by the principal to the commission agent does not generate a VAT tax base. A similar conclusion can be seen in the letter of the Federal Tax Service of Russia dated February 28, 2006 No. MM-6-03/202, in which the main tax authority analyzes the situation somewhat more broadly: "... The date of shipment (transfer) of goods... is the date of the first drawing up of the primary document issued to their buyer...".

The similarity of the terminology used in the letters from the Ministry of Finance and the Federal Tax Service of Russia suggests that we are talking about a coordinated position of the two departments. At the same time, it is very important to correctly understand these letters from the point of view of the civil legal analysis of the situation contained in them. In a controversial situation, the taxpayer must explain to the tax authority employees that the primary documents for the shipment of goods to the buyer under a commission agreement cannot under any circumstances be drawn up by the principal. Unfortunately, in relation to situations with a special procedure for transferring ownership of goods being shipped, the letter from the Federal Tax Service of Russia can hardly be applied. Moreover, with a formal approach (any shipment of goods generates a tax base), it can be used against the taxpayer.

Thus, the problem of correlating the term “shipment of goods” with the transfer of ownership of it, although not completely resolved, is nevertheless close to a positive solution for taxpayers. This is indicated, in particular, by the assessment by the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation of a methodologically similar situation, as well as the point of view of the Ministry of Finance and the Federal Tax Service of Russia regarding one of the components of the problem under consideration - the shipment of goods under a commission agreement.

Federal Agency of the Russian Federation for Education

State educational institution

higher professional education

"Pskov State Polytechnic Institute"

Department of Accounting and Auditing

Test

on taxes and taxation

on the topic “Classification and procedure for determining income and expenses for the purpose of calculating income tax”

Option 10

Completed by the student:

2 correspondence courses

specialty "Accounting, analysis and audit"

groups 672-1204С

Lunkova Anastasia Anatolyevna

Teacher: Nikandrova N.G.

Introduction………………………………………………………………………………

Theoretical part………….…………………………………………..

Practical part……………………………………………………….

Conclusion………………………………………………………………..

Applications……………………………………………………………………………….

List of references………………………………………………………

Introduction

One of the main sources of financing for all areas of state activity and an economic instrument for the implementation of state priorities are taxes. They perform two main functions: fiscal and regulatory, which are interconnected and interdependent, and none of them should develop to the detriment of the other.

Tax as an economic category is a mandatory payment levied by the state from individuals and legal entities. The use of taxes is one of the economic methods of managing and ensuring the relationship of national interests with the commercial interests of entrepreneurs and enterprises, regardless of departmental subordination, forms of ownership and legal form of the enterprise. With the help of taxes, the relationships of entrepreneurs, enterprises of all forms of ownership with state and local budgets, with banks, as well as with higher organizations are determined.

However, constant experimentation with the legislative framework for income tax, expressed in a large number of published changes and additions, often does not allow enterprises to correctly navigate the order of calculating the tax base, which ultimately leads to disputes and disagreements with the tax authorities. In the context of the transition from administrative-directive management methods to economic ones, the role and importance of taxes as a regulator of a market economy, encouragement and development of priority sectors of the national economy are sharply increasing; through taxes, the state can pursue an energetic policy in the development of knowledge-intensive industries and the liquidation of unprofitable enterprises.

The relevance of consideration of this topic is confirmed by the fact that income tax is one of the main revenue items in the budgets of most developed countries, and in the budget of the Russian Federation it ranks second after value added tax.

Theoretical part

1.The concept of income tax

2.Classification of income and expenses

3.Procedure for recognizing income and expenses for tax purposes

4. The procedure for calculating the tax base of an organization’s profit tax

1.The concept of income tax

Income tax is a direct tax levied on the profits of an organization (enterprise, bank, insurance company, etc.). Profit for the purposes of this tax is generally defined as income from activities. It is levied on the basis of the tax return at proportional (less often progressive) rates.

Taxpayers of income tax are Russian organizations and foreign organizations operating in the Russian Federation through permanent representative offices or receiving income from sources in the Russian Federation.

The object of taxation for corporate income tax is the profit received by the taxpayer.

Profit for the purposes of:

1) for Russian organizations - income received, reduced by the amount of expenses incurred, which are determined in accordance with this chapter;

2) for foreign organizations operating in the Russian Federation through permanent missions - income received through these permanent missions, reduced by the amount of expenses incurred by these permanent missions, which are determined in accordance with this chapter;

3) for other foreign organizations - income received from sources in the Russian Federation. The income of these taxpayers is determined in accordance with Article 309 of the NKRF.

2.Classification of income and expenses

There is a certain procedure for determining income and expenses for the purpose of calculating income tax.

When determining income, the amounts of taxes charged by the taxpayer to the buyer (purchaser) of goods (work, services, property rights) are excluded from them.

Income is determined on the basis of primary documents and other documents confirming income received, and tax accounting documents. The classification of income for tax purposes is shown in Appendix 1.

Expenses are recognized as justified and documented expenses (losses) incurred (incurred) by the taxpayer.

Justified means economically justified costs, the assessment of which is expressed in monetary form.

Documented expenses are understood as expenses confirmed by documents that are drawn up in accordance with the law, or in accordance with the business customs of the foreign state in whose territory the expenses were incurred, or documents indirectly confirming the expenses incurred.

Any expenses are recognized as expenses, provided that they are incurred to carry out activities aimed at generating income.

The classification of expenses for tax purposes is given in Appendix 2.

3.Procedure for recognizing income and expenses for tax purposes

To determine income and expenses, taxpayers can use two methods - the accrual method and the cash method. In this case, the accrual method is used as a general method, and the cash method is used in specially provided cases.

Accrual method. Sales revenue is recognized when the goods are shipped or transferred. The date of shipment, according to clause 3 of Article 271 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, is considered the day of transfer of ownership of the goods from the seller to the buyer. Income from work performed or services rendered must be reflected in the reporting period in which a bilateral act was signed indicating that the work was completed and services provided.

According to clause 4 of Article 271 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, there are nine dates when non-operating income is considered received for tax purposes.

Thus, to determine the date of receipt of income in the form of dividends from equity participation in the activities of other organizations or property received free of charge, the date of receipt of funds or signing of the property acceptance certificate is taken.

At the moment when the buyer is presented with payment documents, income from the rental of property and license payments for the use of intellectual property are considered received.

According to paragraph 2 of Article 253 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, costs associated with production and sales are divided into the following groups:

Material costs;

Labor costs;

Depreciation charges;

Other expenses.

For each of these groups of expenses there is a special procedure for determining them. Thus, the cost of materials and raw materials are included in expenses on the day of transfer of material assets into production. The cost of work and services that are of a production nature is accepted as an expense on the day when an act is signed indicating that the services are provided and the work is completed.

As for labor costs and depreciation charges, their amounts are expensed monthly.

For non-operating expenses in clause 7 of Art. 272 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation specifies seven different dates when they are recognized for tax purposes.

Thus, taxes are applied to expenses on the day they are accrued. And on the day when the company is presented with payment documents, expenses include commission fees, the cost of work (services) performed (provided) by third parties, rent, leasing payments, as well as remuneration for the purchase and sale of foreign currency.

Cash method. Under the cash method, income is considered received on the day of receipt of funds into the enterprise's account or its cash desk, or at the time of receipt of any property as payment, provision of services or performance of work, which must be confirmed by an act.

Expenses must be determined in accordance with paragraph 3 of Article 273 of the Tax Code. This means that the goods are considered paid when the buyer repays his obligation to the seller related to the delivery of these goods.

But besides this, individual expenses are recognized in a special manner. Thus, money paid for raw materials and supplies is included in expenses as these assets are written off for production. Depreciation deductions can be included in expenses only for paid-for property. And labor costs are taken into account at the time of payment of wages. As for taxes and fees, they are recognized as expenses at the time they are transferred from the current account.

In tax accounting, determining the date of sale for tax purposes plays an important role, since depending on this date, taxpayers have the obligation to calculate and pay VAT.

According to paragraph 1 of Art. 167 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, an enterprise can use one of the following methods for determining the date of sale for the purpose of calculating VAT payable to the budget:

1) "by shipment". This method is used by taxpayers who have approved in their accounting policies for tax purposes the date of occurrence of the obligation to pay tax upon shipment and presentation of settlement documents to the buyer. In this case, the implementation date is determined as the earliest of the following dates:

Day of shipment (transfer) of goods (works, services);
- day of payment for goods (works, services);
2) "on payment". This method is used by taxpayers who have approved in their accounting policies for tax purposes the date of occurrence of the obligation to pay tax as funds for goods (work, services) are received into the accounts of bank institutions or into the cash desk of the enterprise. In this case, the date of sale is defined as the day of payment for goods (work, services).

Before the entry into force of part two of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, taxpayers using the “by shipment” method of accounting for sales for tax purposes had no problems determining the moment when the obligation to pay VAT arose, since these taxpayers determined the date of sale of goods (work, services) as the day transfer of ownership of goods shipped, services provided or work performed. At the same time, the taxpayer issued an invoice for the shipped goods (work, services), which was registered in the sales book.

At the same moment, the tax base was reflected in the accounting records and the corresponding amount of tax was accrued for payment to the budget:

The tax base was reflected in the credit of account 46 “Sales of products (works, services)” in correspondence with the accounts for settlements with customers (or cash register for retail sales);
-- the amounts of VAT actually received (receivable) from customers for goods sold by them were taken into account on the credit of account 68 “with the budget” (sub-account “for VAT”) and the debit of account 46 “Sales of products (works, services)”.
Thus, the VAT calculation data obtained in tax accounting (based on invoices registered in the sales book) and accounting (based on transactions reflected in account 46 “Sales of products (works, services)”) coincided (and could be used to check the correctness of calculation of the tax base and tax amounts).

Let us remind readers that if the contract does not stipulate the moment of transfer of ownership of the goods, in accordance with paragraph 1 of Art. 223 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the right of ownership of the acquirer of a thing under a contract arises from the moment of its transfer, unless otherwise provided by law or contract. Thus, if the contract does not specifically stipulate the moment of transfer of ownership, then this right arises for the acquirer (buyer) at one of the following moments (clause 1.2 of Article 224 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation):

Handing him the goods;
-- delivery to a carrier for shipment to the purchaser or delivery to a communications organization for shipment to the purchaser of goods alienated without the obligation of delivery;
- concluding an agreement on the alienation (purchase and sale) of goods, if it is already in the possession of the acquirer.
At the same time, the contract can specifically stipulate the moment of transfer of ownership of the goods, linking its occurrence with the fulfillment of some condition (for example, ownership of the goods can pass at the time of its delivery to the buyer, on a specific day, at the time of payment for the goods by the buyer or at the time of fulfillment of any other condition).

In such a situation, it is possible that the goods will be shipped or transferred to the buyer, but ownership of them remains with the seller until the occurrence of the relevant circumstance. At the same time, the goods continue to be listed on the supplier’s balance sheet, and the moment the obligation to pay VAT associated with the sale of goods arises only after the transfer of ownership of the shipped goods.

What has changed after the entry into force of Chapter 21 “Value Added Tax” of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation for taxpayers keeping records of sales for tax purposes “on shipment”?

Let us immediately note that taxpayers can sleep soundly and continue to charge VAT in the previously adopted manner:

Performing work and providing services, provided that they do not sell goods that, in accordance with clause 3 of Art. 38 recognizes any property sold or intended for sale, including inventories, fixed assets, etc. (except for property rights);
-- selling goods under sales contracts with the generally accepted moment of transfer of ownership when the moment of actual transfer of goods and the moment of transfer of ownership coincide.
If an organization sells goods under sales and purchase agreements that provide for a different moment of transfer of ownership than the generally accepted one, or under commission agreements, you should pay attention to the following.

The fact is that for taxpayers who have adopted the “by shipment” method of accounting for sales for tax purposes, clause 1 of Art. 167 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation defines the date of sale as the day of shipment (transfer) of goods (work, services), and in clause 3 of Art. 167 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation stipulates that in cases where there is a transfer of ownership of goods that are not shipped or transported, such transfer is equivalent to its shipment.

From a formal reading of this article, we can conclude that after January 1, 2001, the date of sale of goods should be recognized not as the transfer of ownership of the goods sold, but as the actual transfer of goods, regardless of who owns the ownership of it.

Some experts in the field of accounting and taxation, analyzing the provisions of Art. 167 come to the conclusion that the term “shipment of goods” means precisely the fact of physical shipment of goods, which is now in no way connected with the moment of transfer of ownership of the goods from the seller to the buyer, while proposing to calculate VAT for payment to the budget on the cost of the shipped goods in the period when the shipment was made (regardless of the fact of transfer of ownership of it). In particular, this opinion was expressed by EZh expert T. Krutyakova in the article “Determination of the price and date of sale of goods (work, services) for calculating VAT” (“Accounting supplement” to the weekly “Economy and Life”, No. 21, May 2001 G.).

Indeed, if we analyze this article in isolation from the other provisions of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, then no ambiguities arise and everything seems quite logical. At the same time, turning to the norms laid down in the first part of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, one can draw the opposite conclusion, based on the following.

According to paragraph 1 of Art. 38 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, objects of taxation may be transactions for the sale of goods (work, services), property, profit, income, cost of goods sold (work performed, services rendered) or another object that has cost, quantitative or physical characteristics, the presence of which the taxpayer has Legislation on taxes and fees establishes the obligation to pay tax, and each tax has an independent object of taxation. Thus, the object of taxation is a circumstance that gives rise to the taxpayer’s obligation to pay tax, while other circumstances should not give rise to the obligation to pay taxes.

In relation to VAT, the legislator has defined four objects of taxation (clause 1 of Article 146 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation):

1) sale of goods (work, services) on the territory of the Russian Federation, as well as transfer of ownership of goods, results of work performed, provision of services free of charge;
2) transfer of goods (performance of work, provision of services) on the territory of the Russian Federation for one’s own needs, the costs of which are not deductible when calculating corporate income tax;
3) carrying out construction and installation work for own consumption;
4) importation of goods into the customs territory of the Russian Federation.
Based on the fact that in the absence of any object of taxation, the taxpayer does not have an obligation to pay tax, we can conclude that if the actual sale of goods has not occurred, then there is neither an object of taxation nor an obligation to calculate tax. It should be borne in mind that, according to paragraph 1 of Art. 39 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, the sale of goods recognizes the transfer on a reimbursable basis (and in some cases on a gratuitous basis) of ownership of goods. Consequently, it is the transfer of ownership of the goods being sold that is the operation with which the taxpayer’s legislation on taxes and fees associates the emergence of an obligation to pay tax.

In our opinion, the discrepancy is already inherent in Art. 39 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, clause 2 of which states that the moment of actual sale of goods, work or services is determined in accordance with part two of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation. Since the concept of sale (of goods) is closely related to the transfer of ownership, the moment of transfer of which from buyer to seller is regulated by civil law and is directly dependent on the will of the parties (seller and buyer), tax legislation cannot determine the moment of transfer of ownership. Otherwise, a paradoxical situation arises: despite the absence of an object of taxation and the actual obligation to pay tax, for example, in the case of transfer of goods without transfer of ownership, in accordance with Art. 167 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, the implementation date can already be determined.

Thus, the date of sale for tax purposes cannot be determined earlier than the sale operation itself occurs, that is, until the ownership of the goods passes from the seller to the buyer (in this case, tax legislation may well determine the date of sale and the obligation to pay tax as soon as money is received for goods sold, since in this case the object of taxation has already arisen).

In such a situation, it is not easy for the taxpayer to figure out what he should do so as not to break the law. There is an obvious contradiction contained in the law, and it seems that it is in such cases that the norm of paragraph 7 of Art. 3 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, according to which all irremovable doubts, contradictions and ambiguities in acts of legislation on taxes and fees are interpreted in favor of the taxpayer (payer of fees).

Since the object of taxation is primary in relation to the tax base and the moment the obligation to pay tax arises, in the absence of an object of taxation, the obligation to pay tax cannot arise. Consequently, one must be guided, first of all, by the fact that since in relation to goods the sale is recognized as a paid transfer of ownership, then the object of taxation and, accordingly, the obligation to pay tax (in relation to the sale of goods) arises only after the transfer of ownership of the goods.

Unfortunately, according to our information, the Russian Tax Ministry is forming a different opinion, according to which the physical transfer of goods should be recognized as the moment when the obligation to pay tax arises. Therefore, this issue may soon become the subject of litigation in court.

If an organization does not intend to defend its position in court and wants to 100% protect itself from possible financial sanctions and penalties for late payment of taxes, it can do the following:

Charge VAT at the time of actual transfer of goods;
-- do not sell goods with a time of transfer of ownership different from the generally accepted one;
-- switch to registration for tax purposes "on payment". In this case, you should make the appropriate recalculations for VAT for the first half of 2001 and pay an additional amount of tax and penalties to the budget.

Other options can also be proposed (even absurd ones, for example, not selling goods at all), although it is unlikely that taxpayers will like at least one of the proposed solutions to the current situation. However, the author does not see any other solution until the problem is resolved in court. In this case, there is a contradiction between the norms of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, which can be resolved either by the legislator (which is unlikely), or the final point in the controversial situation that has arisen will be put by the court.

Consulting group Ekon-Profi" together with the newspaper "Accounting. Taxes. Pravo" expresses its readiness to defend the stated position in court. To go to court, we need to present the fact of violation of the rights of the taxpayer by the application by tax authorities of those norms of law (Tax Code of the Russian Federation) discussed in this article. We offer it to any taxpayer organization that has been involved to tax liability (or is currently being brought) on the grounds of arrears on value added tax in connection with the determination by the tax authority of the date of sale of the goods before the transfer of ownership of it to represent its interests in court.

In this case, the taxpayer will only need to pay the state fee (the amount of the state fee when applying to the Constitutional Court will be 1,500 rubles), write out the appropriate power of attorney to transfer the authority to represent his interests, and also submit (for example, by mail) the documents necessary for the trial (in first of all, the act of the tax authority, on the basis of which the taxpayer is involved or brought to tax liability). To clarify the composition of the documents that will be required to protect the interests of the taxpayer in court and other details, you must contact us by contacting the Eco-Profi Consulting Group.

We will definitely inform readers about developments and the results of the trial.

Typical errors in accounting and reporting Svetlana Anatolyevna Utkina

Example 2. An organization recognizes as an expense for the purpose of calculating income tax the cost of a gift to an employee

For the purpose of calculating income tax, expenses for the purchase of gifts given free of charge to employees of the organization are not included in expenses that reduce the income of the current reporting (tax) period.

The value of gifts is a gratuitous transfer of property and therefore, on the basis of sub. 16th century 270 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation is not taken into account for the purpose of calculating income tax.

Since the transfer of gifts is recognized as subject to VAT, the amount of VAT paid to suppliers of gifts (goods) can be deducted only after the goods have been accepted for registration in the presence of an invoice issued by the seller and documents confirming the actual payment of the tax amount (subclause 1 clause 2 article 171, clause 1 article 172 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation).

From the book Banking Audit author Shevchuk Denis Alexandrovich

Peculiarities of calculating value added tax on operations carried out by financial and credit institutions The following operations are included in banking operations, carried out in accordance with Federal Law of February 3, 1996 N 17-FZ "On Amendments and

From the book Accounting Regulations "Accounting for corporate income tax calculations" PBU 18/02 author Author unknown

From the book Accounting policies of organizations for 2012: for the purposes of accounting, financial, management and tax accounting author Kondrakov Nikolay Petrovich

9.3.9. The indicator used for the purpose of calculating and paying profit tax by organizations that have separate divisions. The procedure for calculating and paying profit tax by taxpayers that have structural divisions is established by Art. 288 Tax Code of the Russian Federation. According to

From the book Imputation and Simplification 2008-2009 author Sergeeva Tatyana Yurievna

14.7. The procedure for calculating and paying value added tax when carrying out retail trade The procedure for restoring VAT amounts when a taxpayer switches from the general regime to the taxation system in the form of UTII is prescribed in paragraph 3 of Article 170 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation. VAT at

From the book Typical mistakes in accounting and reporting author Utkina Svetlana Anatolyevna

Example 6. Amounts of depreciation charges for equipment transferred under a contract for free use are taken into account as expenses for the purpose of calculating income tax. In accordance with paragraph 1 of Art. 689 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation under a gratuitous use agreement (loan agreement)

From the author's book

Example 24. When selling a fixed asset after conservation, the procedure for writing off a fixed asset for the purpose of calculating income tax was violated. The fixed asset was transferred to long-term conservation in 2004. In this regard, depreciation on it in tax and

From the author's book

Example 10. For the purpose of calculating income tax, costs for fuel and lubricants are included in expenses in the absence of waybills and for waybills issued in violation of legal requirements In accordance with Art. 9 of the Federal Law of November 21, 1996 No. 129-FZ “On

From the author's book

Example 13. When writing off uninvoiced material assets for production, their value was taken into account in order to reduce the tax base for income tax. Paragraph 36 of the Methodological Guidelines for Accounting for Inventories determined that

From the author's book

Example 25. An organization takes into account the cost of irrecoverable waste as part of expenses when calculating income tax without securing these norms with relevant documents. The Ministry of Finance of Russia in letter dated August 29, 2007 No. 03-03-06/1/606 explained that based on technological

From the author's book

Example 3. The value of a bill of exchange received free of charge from the founder was not included in the taxable base for income tax. For example, the founder of an organization, who has a 58 percent stake in its authorized capital, transferred to it a third party promissory note free of charge. In the same year

From the author's book

Example 10. Compensation paid to an employee for the use of a personal car for business trips in excess of the established standard reduced the taxable base for income tax. In accordance with sub. 11 clause 1 art. 264 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation expenses in the form of compensation for

From the author's book

Example 11. Adjustment of the calculation of income tax for an individual - a foreign worker Before the moment of dismissal, the foreign worker expected to spend less than 183 days in the Russian Federation in a calendar year. In accordance with paragraph 2 of Art. 11 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, such an individual is not

From the author's book

Example 22. When an employee uses a personal mobile phone for business purposes, the organization pays compensation and reimburses the employee’s expenses for communication services and takes them into account for the purpose of calculating the unified social tax. According to clause 3 of Art. 217 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation and sub. 2 p. 1 art. 238 Tax Code of the Russian Federation

From the author's book

Example 29. The amount of bonuses paid to employees by the organization’s accounting department is taken into account as part of labor costs for the purpose of calculating income tax in the absence of a Regulation on bonuses to employees In the Letter of the Department of Tax and Customs Tariff Policy

From the author's book

From the author's book

Example 16. An organization carries out activities subject to UTII. Income and expenses from the sale of fixed assets are not taken into account for profit tax purposes. A special tax regime in the form of UTII cannot be applied to the transaction for the sale of an object of fixed assets,

Arbitration, Civil, Criminal Cases

Study and in-depth analysis of all the circumstances of the case

Development of promising legal protection

Pantyushov & Partners

Effective legal solutions

Lawyers Pantyushov & Partners will reliably protect your interests in court

In courts of general jurisdiction and in arbitration courts, it is desirable for a lawyer to participate in the case, because the court does not have the right to provide legal assistance to participants in the process, therefore, inviting a lawyer will provide qualified legal support in the litigation. In the statement of claim (response to the claim), the lawyer, relying on evidence and the law, asks the court to satisfy or deny the claims, and, in the arbitration court, the legal qualification of the claims is mandatory by law, i.e. the disputant must indicate the rules of law that were violated by the other party and the rules of law on the basis of which judicial protection is sought.

Over 20 years of legal practice

The participation of a lawyer in the process of providing legal assistance has certain advantages, because: the lawyer’s reputation is a guarantee of the lawyer’s conscientious fulfillment of his obligations to the Principal. Every lawyer values ​​his reputation, which develops in the process of legal practice. Our task is to fight for the rights of our Clients. Legal problems can arise in everyone’s life, especially in the process of carrying out entrepreneurial activities of an organization. Inviting a lawyer guarantees the opportunity to find out the legal consequences of certain actions.

Representation of interests in arbitration courts and courts of general jurisdiction

The adversarial nature of the judicial process makes it important for a lawyer to participate in the trial. In arbitration cases that are heard in arbitration courts, the representation of the parties to the dispute is carried out by professional lawyers - full-time employees of companies, lawyers from law firms and, of course, lawyers specializing in arbitration disputes (arbitration lawyers).

Arbitration disputes arise from business relations, which predetermines the mandatory participation of a lawyer (lawyer) in the case, which constitutes a legal position, justifying it with the norms of substantive law. Meanwhile, the arbitration court has the right to give an independent legal qualification of the circumstances of the dispute and make a decision that will be motivated by legal norms other than those specified in the statement of claim or in the response to the statement of claim.

The Pantushov & Partners Law Group is a team of Moscow lawyers with over 15 years of legal experience and significant experience in representing interests in courts of general jurisdiction and in arbitration courts in disputes arising from civil and business relations. Defense in criminal and administrative cases is also an area of ​​our specialization and constitutes a fairly significant volume of our legal practice.

An in-depth analysis of the smallest circumstances of each case provides a high level of legal protection and allows us to find the optimal and legally correct solution to the disagreements that have arisen in the interests of the principal. The initiation of a civil case in court (arbitration court), as well as the initiation of a criminal case, requires the participation of a lawyer as a representative (defender). In the process of exercising his powers, the lawyer develops a legal position on the case, advises the client on various issues arising within the framework of the relevant proceedings, be it a criminal (administrative) process, a dispute in a court of general jurisdiction or proceedings in an arbitration court, and also draws up the necessary procedural documents.

The high qualifications of the lawyers of the Pantyushov & Partners group are ensured by an excellent education (Moscow State Law Academy named after O.E. Kutafin, Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov, University of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation). When providing legal services, lawyers are guided by the law and the code of professional ethics of lawyers. Reasonable and flexible fee policy Complete confidentiality of relations within the framework of the participation of lawyers in the process of exercising their powers. All information obtained by a lawyer while executing the client’s instructions is protected by law and constitutes attorney-client privilege. This is an important guarantee of preserving all information obtained during the provision of qualified legal assistance.

When to seek the services of a lawyer

Lawyers are a separate class of lawyers, which is an independent corporation acting to provide qualified legal assistance to all interested parties. A lawyer is an independent legal adviser who provides legal services in the form of consultations, by drafting legal documents, and by representing interests in court. The need to contact lawyers in order to obtain clarification of legal issues or to invite a lawyer to represent interests in court, arbitration court or for defense in a criminal case may arise in various situations arising from civil relations between citizens, such as in disputes in the process of conducting business activities between organizations.

They trust us

Customer Reviews

On behalf of my company, I express my deep gratitude to the legal team of Pantyushov & Partners for the excellent work done and the excellent result! My company is back afloat! Thank you!

I contacted the law firm Pantyushov & Partners regarding the return of a debt from a supplier. We won the trial. The money was collected. Thank you

I am sincerely grateful to the staff of the Pantyushov & Partners law group for your attentive attitude to my problem. For winning the arbitration court! What would I do without you!

As fate would have it, I had to turn to lawyers. I am very glad that I ended up in your legal group. The case is won. Thank you.

I am very happy that I found out about your organization in such a timely manner. The case has already reached the court, but you managed to pick up my case and set all the priorities correctly. Thank you to your wonderful legal team Pantyushov & Partners. I wish you prosperity!

I contacted the Pantyushov & Partners law group to terminate the lease agreement through the court. Excellent masters of their craft, they did a good job. Please accept my gratitude!

Due to the customer’s failure to comply with the terms of the contract, I had to go to court. We recommended the lawyer group Pantyushov & Partners. I applied and was right. They handled my issue very competently and professionally. We won the trial. The contract with the customer was terminated and a penalty was collected. Thank you. I will recommend you to everyone I know!

I am sincerely grateful to the lawyer group Pantyushov & Partners for the work done in the case of granting an early pension as a teacher. Thank you for being there and helping us! Long life and prosperity!

I am very pleased to cooperate with the company Pantyushov & Partners. Very nice and friendly staff, very good service. We won the arbitration court and now I can live and sleep peacefully. Thanks and good luck!

Based on a recommendation, I contacted this company, Pantyushov & Partners. I really liked the professional approach of the staff. I wish you to live and work in the same spirit!

This is the second time I have contacted the Pantyushov & Partners law group. And the second time you are on top. I am happy to recommend you to everyone, especially those involved in business. Well done and good luck!

I accidentally entered this organization, but your service and professional attitude made us friends. The case was won, the offender pays, I’m happy. Many thanks to the staff of the Pantyushov & Partners law group!

Great company! Prosperity to you and your clients! Thank you for your professionalism!

I recommend this excellent legal group Pantyushov & Partners to anyone who has encountered problems with transaction agreements. They solve all your problems quickly and easily. Great! Thank you!

I saw your page on the Internet and called. I am very glad that fate brought me together with the law firm Pantyushov & Partners. We solved all my problems with customers and won two cases. Thank you! I will recommend it to all my friends and acquaintances!

Happy that you exist. Thank you for your work, approach, and professionalism of your staff! I will recommend your company to all my friends.

They handled the case very professionally and won the trial. I'm delighted! I wish you more clients and interesting things to do!

A friend recommended the lawyer group Pantyushov & Partners. I applied. I can only say good things. It took a long time and hard work, but we won all the cases. I thank everyone for participating in my business.

Great company! Great results! I am very happy and proud of myself and you that all this passed and we won! Thank you very much to the legal team Pantyushov & Partners!

I would like to express my deep gratitude to the PANTYUSHOV & PARTNERS legal team, which saved my husband from a criminal case and me from a heart break. It’s good that my friend gave me timely advice to turn to them, who simply saved my husband from the risk of going to prison. Many thanks to Prof. success!

Before, I would never have thought that I would have such problems with my job; I had not been paid my salary for months, and there were also many other nuances that required me to go to a competent specialist for help. I turned to the PANTYUSHOV & PARTNERS lawyer group, they helped me a lot, I’m grateful.

My ex-husband is a very arrogant and unscrupulous person, but he has money, and during the divorce he wanted to take the children away and leave me with nothing, although when I married him, he didn’t have a penny. In general, I needed a good lawyer to leave the children, there wasn’t much talk about property, let him take it, as long as the children stayed with me. His lawyers did a good job and I was very worried that mine wouldn’t cope. But the lawyers PANTYUSHOV & PARTNERS helped a lot!

The PANTYUSHOV & PARTNERS lawyer group defended my husband in the village. 1, Article 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, they achieved reclassification for causing death by negligence, you just saved my husband. May God grant you health and professional success.

Good criminal lawyers PANTYUSHOV & PARTNERS helped me avoid punishment for a crime that I actually did not commit

After an inspection of the company’s work by a regulatory body, mistakes were revealed for which the employer did not want to be held responsible and decided to shift the responsibility onto me. They asked me to write a letter of repentance, under the pretext that it was only needed as an excuse, and that they would cover me up. But in fact, this letter of repentance ended up in the Department of Economic Crimes and they wanted to solder 165 part 2. The day before, I consulted with lawyer O.V. Pantyushov. just in case, but nevertheless, everything happened so quickly that at the very moment I was still confused, it was so insidious. Thanks to the lawyer’s competent approach, everything was stopped at the pre-investigation stage. During the interrogation, he helped me a lot, words cannot express it. Thank you.

I have a very difficult job. There is literally no free minute, and the issue of inheritance by itself, of course, will not be resolved. It’s good that I found out about the PANTYUSHOV & PARTNERS lawyer group. I didn’t think that now there are lawyers who can work at any time. We met on Sunday evening and agreed on everything. In the end, they decided everything practically without my participation. Very pleased with them.

Lawyer Pantyushov helped me deal with the arbitration case! We won the case! My lawyer is a true professional.

I was looking for a good lawyer in arbitration cases, and it was then that I learned about lawyer O.V. Pantyushov. It seemed to me then that we couldn’t handle it, but we won the case. We are very grateful to him. A wonderful lawyer and just a good person.

I turned to a lawyer from the office of PANTYUSHOV & PARTNERS, since my son was detained for drug distribution, facing 10 to 20 years. They proved that there was actually no sale, but only storage, and they gave a conditional sentence. Thank you very much for not letting my son’s life be ruined.

Lawyers

A lawyer in a lawsuit develops a position by analyzing and examining all the circumstances of the case. The lawyer evaluates the totality of evidence that the opposing party uses as the basis for his position; the lawyer has the right to independently collect evidence in the case, although only the court has the right to add evidence to the case at the request of the lawyer.

Of particular importance in the trial is the final speech of the lawyer in the debate between the parties after the end of the proceedings on the merits. The debate consists of speeches by the parties to the case, the debate provides an analysis of the evidence in the case referred to by the parties, and at the end conclusions are drawn on the essence of the case.