Approval of the concept of exit planning system. Concept of system planning system of field tax checks: Dates and procedure for conducting GNP

"Tax Bulletin: Comments on Regulatory Documents for Accountants", 2007, N 9
To order of the Federal Tax Service of Russia of 30.05.2007 N MM-3-06 / [Email Protected]
"On Approval of the Concept of Exit Planning System
Tax Checks "\u003e
Exit Tax Checks are the main and most effective form. tax control. At the same time, they must meet the requirements of unconditional ensuring the legitimate interests of the state and the rights of taxpayers, increasing their security from the illegal requirements of tax authorities and the creation for taxpayers as comfortable conditions for calculating and paying taxes.
In order to effective solution All these tasks were prepared by the concept of the field planning system tax inspections, approved by order of the Federal Tax Service of Russia of 30.05.2007 N MM-3-06 / [Email Protected] (hereinafter - the concept) providing for new approach To build a system for selecting objects for exit tax checks.
According to the concept of planning field tax checks, this is an open process built on the selection of taxpayers for conducting tax audits on risk criteria for the risk of tax offenses, including publicly available. Previously, the planning of exit tax audits was a purely internal confidential procedure of tax authorities.
In order to ensure a systematic approach to the selection of objects for conducting tax audits, the concept determines the algorithm of such a selection based on the qualitative and comprehensive analysis of all the information that tax authorities (including received from external sources), and the determination of the "risk zones "Making tax offenses.
1. Concept development goals
The concept is designed for purposes:
- creating a unified system planning system for tax audits;
- increasing tax discipline and literacy of taxpayers;
- ensuring the growth of state revenues by increasing the number of taxpayers, voluntarily and fully fulfilled tax liabilities;
- reducing the number of physical and legal entities that make a profit in the "shadow" sector of the economy;
- Inform taxpayers about the basic selection criteria for conducting tax audits.
2. Basic planning principles
Building a unified, open and understandable for taxpayers and tax authorities, the system planning planning tax inspections is based on certain principles to which include:
- the regime of the greatest faults for conscientious taxpayers;
- the timeliness of response to the signs of possible tax offenses;
- inevitability of punishment of taxpayers in case of identifying violations of legislation on taxes and fees;
- the validity of the selection of verification objects.
At the same time I would like to make one terminological refinement. It is not entirely correct to talk about the inevitability of punishment within the framework of tax legal relations. The fact is that the term "punishment" is used in the Criminal Code Russian Federation and in the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses. What concerns Tax Code Of the Russian Federation (Tax Code of the Russian Federation), this term is not mentioned in it. In the legislation on taxes and fees, we are talking about tax liability, and not about the punishment of the taxpayer for the commission of the tax offense.
3. The structure of the selection of taxpayers for conducting
Exit Tax Checks
The selection of objects for conducting tax audits is planned to be carried out on the basis of an analysis of information entering the tax authorities from internal and external sources.
At the same time, information from the internal sources includes information on taxpayers received by the tax authorities independently in the process of performing the functions assigned to the tax authority.
Information from external sources includes information on taxpayers received by tax authorities in accordance with applicable laws or on the basis of agreements on the exchange of information with controlling and law enforcement agencies, state authorities and local governments, as well as other information, including publicly available.
Priority to inclusion in the plan of field tax audits are those taxpayers for which tax author There are information about their participation in taxation schemes or in the schemes of minimizing tax liabilities and (or) the results of the analysis of the financial and economic activity of which indicate the alleged tax offenses.
As practice shows, in the course of tax control measures, tax inspectors reveal the departure schemes from taxation. For example, the tax authority has established that the bank made by the Bank to attract interbank loans testified to the creation of an artificial situation to increase costs in order to minimize income tax, which is incompatible with the purpose of the activities of the credit institution, which consists in extracting profits from its activities that, in its The queue indicated the unscrupulousness of the bank as a taxpayer. The Arbitration Court confirmed the validity of the findings of the inspections (Resolution of the FAS of the Moscow District of June 28, 2006 N Ka-A40 / 5585-06 in case No. A40-47971 / 05-107-393).
In another case, tax inspectors found that the organization received borrowed funds Not applicable, that is, were not aimed at replenishing working capital and receiving income. The court agreed with the conclusions of the tax authority, indicating that the organization acted under a scheme providing for tax evasion, and spent the funds received not for real production needs. The position of the Arbitration Court is reflected in the resolution of the FAS of the Moscow District dated 20.04.2006, 19.04.2006 N Ka-A40 / 3049-06 in case No. A40-31273 / 05-114-232.
As a rule, various tax evasion schemes are detected during exit tax audits as a result of studying the tax authorities of a large array of documents. But in some cases, tax inspectors are able to detect illegal ways to optimize the tax paying system and at cameral tax audits. Confirmation of this is the resolution of the FAS of the North-West District dated January 19, 2006 in case No. A21-10066 / 04-C1.
4. Criteria for self-assessment of risks
For taxpayers
The concept provides for the possibility of carrying out self-assessment of risks based on the results of its financial and economic activities. At the same time, taxpayers can use the following public risk assessment criteria applied by tax authorities in the process of selection of objects for conducting tax audits:
- Tax payer's tax burden below its average level of economic entities in a specific industry economic activity).
Regarding this criterion it is necessary to make one remark. The fact is that the taxpayer cannot have information about the tax burden of similar organizations, since these information is constituted tax secret. Therefore, to use this criterion for assessing risks in practice is very problematic.
In addition, the amount of paid taxes directly depends on the success of the financial and economic activities of the organization. Obviously, in a difficult situation associated with changing market conditions, with a decrease in demand for products, the organization decreases the turnover, on the basis of work for the year there are losses and, as a result, the level decreases tax LoadThat is quite explained. However, according to the concept of developers of the Concept, this circumstance is a sign of the unscrupulousness of the taxpayer and the basis for conducting an exit tax audit;
- reflection in accounting or tax reporting losses over several tax periods.
IN judicial practice There are cases when the unprofitability of the Organization's financial and economic activity did not entail the onset of negative tax consequences over several years. For example, the Arbitration Court did not agree with the opinion of the tax authority, which made the conclusion about the unscrupulousness of the organization on the basis of the fact that in 2002-2003. She operated at a loss (resolution of the FAS of the Moscow District dated 20.04.2006 N Ka-A40 / 2942-06-P in case No. A40-12191 / 05-127-80).
A similar conclusion is made in another judicial decision. The tax authority came to the conclusion about the unscrupulousness of the Company on the basis of the fact that the Company received a loss on the results of economic activity for 2004-2005. However, the court rejected this argument of the tax authority, indicating that the loss on the results of economic activity for 2004 was formed as a result of reflection in the accounting records of past tax periods in the form of exchange differences on foreign currency operations (resolution of the FAS of the North-West District of 28.02. 2007 in case No. A56-17795 / 2006).
According to judges, receiving a loss in the reporting period does not mean unprofitability of a particular transaction and unscrupiance of the taxpayer. This point of view is given in the resolution of the FAS of the Moscow District of 04.10.2005, September 28, 2005 in case N Ka-A40 / 9382-05. A similar approach is reflected in the resolutions of the FAS of the North-Western District dated January 29, 2007 in the case No. A56-60497 / 2005, the FAS of the Ural District of 30.03.2006 N F09-2129 / 06-C2 in case No. A50-34671 / 05.
In addition, by itself, the unprofitability of a separate transaction cannot indicate the unscrupulousness of the taxpayer. Thus, the Arbitration Court rejected the arbitration of the tax authority on the unscrupulousness of the Company, based on the fact that the goods were implemented with a loss, since the causes of the loss, according to the court, were a significant balance of produced goods in stock and its insufficiently high quality compared with the goods produced for Rubeze (Resolution of the FAS of the Moscow District of 06.10.2006, 09.10.2006 N Ka-A40 / 9657-06 in case No. A40-10428 / 06-126-76).
Considering another dispute, the court did not take into account the conclusion of the tax authority on the unscrupulousness of the Company, which was concluded by the Company, the contracts of which were minimal or for which losses were obtained, since tax legislation does not require to take into account the results of taxation of profits in confirming the right to VAT refund. The position of the Arbitration Court is reflected in the resolution of the FAS of the Moscow District of August 31, 2006, 04.09.2006 N Ka-A41 / 8124-06 in case No. A41-K2-795 / 06.
The FAS of the Moscow District recognized the inconsparable argument of the tax authority about the unprofitability of the transaction for the sale of goods for export, since one argument could not serve as a basis for recognizing the taxpayer unfair, since in the course of entrepreneurship, not only profit can be obtained, but also losses (Resolution of the FAS Moscow District of 23.06.2005 in case N Ka-A40 / 5559-05);
- reflection in the tax reporting of significant amounts of tax deductions for certain period.
As practice shows, the tax authorities often prevent claims to organizations that declare the significant amounts of VAT. In particular, according to one of the arbitration disputes, the court recognized the proper conclusion of the tax authority that the situation was artificially created a situation of withdrawal from the federal budget of significant amounts of VAT (Resolution of the FAS of the Moscow District dated January 19, 2007, 01/26/2007 N Ka-A40 / 10685-06 in case No. A40-52301 / 05-4-251).
However, not always such claims are reasonable. Thus, the tax authority believed that the Company included tax deductions The amounts of VAT paid when importing goods into the customs territory of the Russian Federation, noticeably above the amount of accrued VAT, and therefore society systematically presented to reimburse from the budget during 2004 significant VAT amounts. Based on this, the tax authority concluded that the taxpayer did not have the right to refund from the budget of the amount of VAT. At the same time, the tax authority pointed to the unscrupulousness of the Company, believing that the activities of the Organization was not aimed at making a profit from the sale of goods, but on the reimbursement of VAT from the federal budget. However, the court declared a legitimate presentation by the Company to reimburse from the budget of VAT [Resolution of the FAS of the West Siberian District dated January 12, 2006 in case No. F04-9464 / 2005 (18398-A45-15)].
According to another tax dispute, the basis for refusal to compensation for the deposits of VAT was the sign of the unscrupulousness of the Company, which expressed significant amounts of tax from the budget, served as the tax authority. Nevertheless, the court confirmed the taxpayer's right to use the tax deduction (resolution of the FAS Far Eastern District dated 18.04.2007 N F03-A51 / 07-2 / 592 in case No. A51-9609 / 2006-33-253). A similar approach to the decision of the question under consideration is also traced in the decision of the Far Eastern District of 11.04.2006, 04.04.2006 N F03-A51 / 07-2 / 468 in case No. A51-11546 / 2005-8-424;
- a leading growth rate of expenses on the growth rate of income from the sale of goods (works, services).
When implementing tax control measures, tax inspectors pay attention to the ratio of the level of income and taxpayer expenditures in the verified period. In particular, according to the results of the audit, the tax authority decided that the costs of the Company were not economically justified, since exceeded income from sales. According to the Company's Tax Reporting for 2004, as a result of the analysis of the profitability of one direction of the Company's activities, a decline in profits from 263,455 rubles was revealed. From the sale of gold to a loss of 218 341 rubles, which contradicted the provisions of paragraph 1 of Art. 2 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (Civil Code of the Russian Federation), which determines entrepreneurial activities as an activity aimed at systematic profit. Taking into account the foregoing, the court acknowledged that the actions of the taxpayer were aimed at unreasonable obtaining from the budget of VAT sums, therefore were unfair. The position of the Arbitration Court is given in the resolution of the FAS of the East Siberian District dated December 14, 2006 N A33-5875 / 05-F02-6716 / 06-C1 in case No. A33-5875 / 05;
- The average monthly payment wages For one employee below the average level of economic activity in the subject of the Russian Federation.
It should be noted that the tax authorities are fighting against the payment of wages "in the envelope" and pay close attention to taxpayers who establish their employees low level wage. However, in practice, the tax authority does not always manage to prove the application by the Organization-employer illegal salary scheme. In the justice of the foregoing, the decision of the FAS of the North-West District is convinced of October 16, 2006 in case No. A26-9812 / 2005.
Example. The tax authority conducted an on-site tax check of compliance with Tekhprodservis LLC firms on taxes and fees. During the audit, the tax authority established that the Company paid wages below approved subsistence minimum. This, according to the tax authority, was evidenced by the certificate of income and the testimony of the witness of Kapustina Yu.E.
According to the results of the audit, the tax authority ruled on the involvement of a tax liability for tax offense. This decision of the Company was provided by a single social tax, the tax on income of individuals, accrued penalties for the late payment of the above-mentioned taxes, and penalties were charged from society.
The taxpayer did not agree with the conclusions of the inspection and appealed the decision of the inspection in judicial order.
The Arbitration Court supported the position of society, noting the following.
In accordance with Art. 209 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation as an object of taxation on personal income tax is recognized, in particular, the income received by the taxpayer from sources in the Russian Federation, including remuneration for the implementation of labor or other duties, the work provided to the service provided in the Russian Federation (PP. 6 paragraph 1 of Art. 208 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation).
According to paragraph 1 of Art. 236 Tax Code of the Russian Federation, the object of taxation of a single social tax recognize payments and other remuneration accrued in favor of individuals.
In PP. 7 p. 1 Art. The 31 Tax Code of the Russian Federation provides cases in which the tax authorities have the right to identify the amounts of taxes subject to taxpayers to the budget (extrabudgetary funds), calculated on the basis of their information about the taxpayer, as well as on the basis of data on other similar taxpayers.
The Arbitration Court noted that the salary paid by employees of the Society corresponded to the wage specified in the employment contracts. The fact of paying the salary below the subsistence minimum does not serve as the basis for applying the provisions of PP to the taxpayer. 7 p. 1 Art. 31 NK RF.
Similar approach to solving the question under consideration is traced in others court decisions (Resolutions of the FAS Far Eastern District dated January 17, 2007, 01/10/2007 N F03-A73 / 06-2 / 5164 in case No. A73-1862 / 2006-23, FAS Far Eastern District of 04.10.2006, 09/27/2006 N F03-A73 / 06-2 / 3247 in case No. A73-3063 / 2006-19, FAS of the North Caucasus District of January 17, 2006 No. F08-6472 / 2005-2561A in case No. A32-11266 / 2005-22 / 315);
- repeated approximation to the limiting value of the established NK of the Russian Federation the magnitude of indicators providing taxpayers the right to apply special tax regimes.
One of the special tax regimes is a simplified tax system. Paragraph 2 of Art. 346.12 The Tax Code of the Russian Federation provides that the organization has the right to switch to a simplified tax system, if, according to the results of nine months of that year, in which the organization submits an application for the transition to a simplified tax system, revenues defined in accordance with Art. 248 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, did not exceed 15 million rubles.
The specified value of the limiting amount of the organization's revenues, which limits the organization's right to move to a simplified taxation system is subject to indexing to the deflator coefficient, established annually for each next calendar year and takes into account the change in consumer prices for goods (works, services) in the Russian Federation for the previous calendar year, and also on deflator coefficients, which were used in accordance with paragraph 2 of Art. 346.12 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation. The deflator coefficient is determined and is subject to official publication in the manner prescribed by the Government of the Russian Federation.
The procedure and conditions for the beginning and termination of the use of a simplified taxation system are spelled out in Art. 346.13 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation. According to paragraph 4 of Art. 346.13 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, if, according to the results of the reporting (tax) period, the taxpayer income defined in accordance with Art. 346.15 and PP. 1 and 3 p. 1 tbsp. 346.25 Code, exceeded 20 million rubles. and (or) during the reporting (tax) period, a non-compliance of the requirements established by paragraph 3 and 4 of Art is allowed. 346.12 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, such a taxpayer is considered to be the right to apply a simplified taxation system from the beginning of the quarter, in which the specified excess and (or) non-compliance with the specified requirements.
Practice shows that the tax authorities closely monitor the income taxpayers applying a simplified taxation system not exceeded the maximum amount established by law. In case of exceeding the income limits by the taxpayer, it is detached to the amounts of taxes payable according to the general tax system (resolution of the FAS of the North Caucasus District of 02.05.2007 No. F08-2251 / 2007-911A in case No. A01-1566 / 2006-11).
However, such claims of controlling bodies are not always reasonable. The justice of said convinces the decision of the FAS of the West Siberian District of 31.05.2007 No. F04-3299 / 2007 (34566-A45-29) in case No. A45-16939 / 2006-36 / 502.
However, the repeated approach of the income of the taxpayer to the limiting value of the income established by the Tax Code of the Russian Federation for the right to apply a simplified taxation system, according to the developers of the concept, in itself is a sufficient basis for carrying out the taxpayer of an on-site tax audit;
- Reflection individual entrepreneur The amounts of consumption as close as possible to the sum of its income received for the calendar year.
The generalization of arbitration practice shows that the tax authorities and courts pay serious attention to the analysis of the financial and economic activities of individual entrepreneurs, in particular the economic validity of the costs produced by them. So, allowing the tax dispute on the merits, the court, assessing the income and expenses of the taxpayer in controversial periods, found that the income from the rental of property for rent slightly exceeded the expense of an individual entrepreneur, which indicated the unreasonableness of these expenses.
In addition, the court also indicated that the individual entrepreneur did not substantiate how much the costs were needed and how rational were the costs of business turnover and the usual costs that would carry out another taxpayer dealt with similar activities.
Under such circumstances, the court concluded that the expenses of an individual entrepreneur for the payment of legal and information and consulting services were not correlated with the economic results of its activities and, therefore, were not economically justified (Resolution of the FAS of the East Siberian District from 09/08/2005 case N A33-10368 / 04-C3-F02-4349 / 05-C1);
- Building financial and economic activities based on the conclusion of contracts with counterparties - dealers or intermediaries ("chains of counterparties") without the presence of reasonable economic or other reasons (business goal).
In such a situation, there are signs of obtaining the organization of unreasonable tax benefits. This follows from the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration of the Russian Federation of 12.10.2006 N 53 "On the assessment of the arbitration courts of the validity of the taxpayer of the tax benefit."
In particular, according to one of the disputes, the court refused to satisfy the Company's claim in terms of compensation 2 290 348 rubles. Tax deductions related to the implementation of products for export. The fact is that the sale of this product was carried out on a chain of organizations created specifically for the purposes of compensation from the BDS budget, which indicated the unscrupulousness of the Company. Since the export of goods was absent, the obligations for reimbursement from the VAT budget from the tax authority did not arise.
The Arbitration Court appreciated and gave the legal importance of the validity of the tax benefit by the Company from the point of view of the presence in its actions of reasonable economic or other reasons (business goal), including the possibilities of real exercise by him and its Russian providers of economic operations, taking into account the time and location of the property. The court pointed out the lack of evidence of paying to the VAT budget suppliers of the Company and on the lack of documents confirming the facts of real transfer of goods between supplier counterparties. These conclusions were made in the decision of the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of January 23, 2007 No. 8300/06 in case No. A21-9656 / 04-C1;
- Failure to submit by the taxpayer explanations to notify the tax authority on identifying the inconsistency of performance indicators.
Based on PP. 7 p. 1 Art. 21 Tax Code of the Russian Federation It can be concluded that the submission of explanations on calculating and paying taxes, as well as on acts of the tax audits carried out is the right, but not the responsibility of the taxpayer.
At the same time, tax legislation does not provide for responsibility for failure to provide an explanation organization. Confirmation of this - Resolution of the FAS of the Volga-Vyatka district of 28.08.2006 in case No. A82-17032 / 2005-27, FAS of the East Siberian District of 11.08.2005 in case No. A33-31274 / 04-C4-F02-3864 / 05- C1.
At the same time, failure to provide explanations at the request of the tax authority may serve as a reason for organizing an exit tax audit;
- repeatedly withdrawal and registration in taxpayer tax authorities in connection with the change in location ("migration" between tax authorities).
As practice shows, the tax authorities consider one of the signs of unscrupiance of the taxpayer its withdrawal from tax accounting in one region and registering in another. Nevertheless, the arbitration courts believe that this circumstance cannot entail the unfavorable legal consequences for the taxpayer (Resolution of the FAS of the Volga-Vyatsky District of August 11, 2006 in case No. A82-15623 / 2005-27, FAS of the Volga district dated November 22, 2006 in case N A72-4732 / 06-7 / 230, FAS of the Volga district dated November 22, 2006 in case No. A72-3938 / 06-7 / 209);
- a significant deviation of the level of profitability according to accounting From the level of profitability for this area of \u200b\u200bactivity according to statistics.
When evaluating the above indicators, the tax authority analyzes the possibility of extracting unreasonable tax benefits or its presence, including according to the circumstances specified in the Resolution of the Plenum of the Worth of the Russian Federation "On the assessment of the reasons for the validity of the tax benefit of the tax benefit."
It should be noted that the low level of profitability of the transaction is one of the signs of the unscrupulousness of the taxpayer. This follows from the resolution of the FAS of the West Siberian District of 10/17/2005 in case No. F04-7249 / 2005 (15829-A70-34).
But it should be noted that the low level of profitability of individual civil law transactions in itself is not sufficient evidence of the unscrupulousness of the participant of tax legal relations. So, the court did not take into account the conclusion of the tax authority that the acquisition of the forest and its implementation by an individual entrepreneur was carried out by SEVERLES LLC in almost the same prices using the minimum trade markup, which, according to the tax authority, indicated low profitability Transactions. The level of profitability of the provider's transactions with third parties cannot indicate the unscrupulousness of the taxpayer and serve as a basis for refusing to apply tax deductions. The tax authority did not provide evidence of the lack of a real economic goal at the taxpayer and did not question the profitability of the sale of forest products for export. The position of the court is reflected in the resolution of the FAS of the East Siberian District of February 26, 2007 No. A19-20063 / 06-56-F02-568 / 07-C1 in case No. A19-20063 / 06-56.
In another case, as a result of the analysis of tax control data received during measures, the tax authority concluded that the organization's low profitability. However, the court rejected this argument of the tax authority, since it came to the conclusion that the financial analysis It is a comprehensive procedure that takes into account many factors in close connection with the economic content behind the financial statements. As a consequence, the coefficient analysis is only part, one of the tools and in the overwhelming majority of cases is absolutely insufficient for the formation of final conclusions. At the same time, the court has taken into account confirmation by the taxpayer for calculating loans by cash obtained from the implementation of entrepreneurial activities, and the absence of overdue debts on loan contracts.
When establishing a low profitability of the organization and, as a result, the impossibility of returning the borrowed funds The tax authority did not take into account the specifics of the taxpayer's activities, the feature of which was that the cost of acquiring property paid off over several years by receiving lease payments in which the profit was laid. As follows from the Company's certificates, it did not have overdue debts on loan agreements. As a result, the court did not accept the reasons for the tax authority that the Company did not suffer the real cost of paying the amount of VAT (Resolution of the FAS of the Moscow District from 03.05.2007, 10.05.2007 N Ka-A40 / 3436-07 in case No. A40-51392 / 06 -116-250).
In another case, the tax authority referred to the absence of information about state registration In the US foreign counterparty - the taxpayer, low profitability of the Company's activities, the structure of whose balance sheet showed the lack of liquid property and the tendency to increase receivables, the lack of a regular schedule for the organization of a sufficient number of executive positions for the normal functioning and implementation of the organization's economic activity, the lack of at the balance sheet of premises, Suitable for storage of goods, failure to provide proof of negotiations with a partner. According to the tax authority, all of the above circumstances indicated the absence of the applicant the right to apply tax deductions and for VAT reimbursement.
At the same time, the court acknowledged that the right to apply tax deductions is not to depend on the organization received from entrepreneurial activity, which, in accordance with Art. The 2 Civil Code of the Russian Federation is independent and is carried out on its risk (that is, the organization of the organization may be both profitable and unprofitable). The position of the court is given in the resolution of the FAS of the Moscow District dated 24.04.2007, 26.04.2007 N Ka-A40 / 3128-07 in case No. A40-52019 / 06-151-300.
5. Results of the implementation of the Concept
The concept determines the basic priorities, principles and directions for the implementation of a single approach to planning exit tax audits.
The proposed planning system will allow:
- taxpayers - to minimize the likelihood that the exit tax audit in the current year will affect the law-abiding taxpayer who fully fulfilled its obligations to the budget;
- Tax authorities - to identify the most likely "risk zones" (violation of legislation on taxes and fees), to respond to a possible tax offenses and determine the necessary tax control measures.
Principles laid down in the concept will be implemented:
- formation of a single approach to planning field tax audits;
- stimulation of taxpayers in terms of compliance with tax legislation and fees;
- increasing tax literacy and discipline of taxpayers.
O.A. Miasnikov
K. Yu. n.,
Tax lawyer
Signed in print
03.08.2007

THE FEDERAL TAX SERVICE

On approval of the concept
Exit Tax Check Planning Systems

(as amended by the orders of the Federal Tax Service of Russia of 14.10.2008 N MM-3-2 / [Email Protected],
from 09/22/2010 N MMB-7-2 / [Email Protected], from 04/08/2011 N MMB-7-2 / [Email Protected],
from 10.05.2012 n MMB-7-2 / [Email Protected])

In order to create unified system Planning on-site tax audits, increasing tax discipline and literacy of taxpayers, as well as improving the organization of the work of tax authorities in the implementation of powers in relations regulated by the legislation on taxes and fees provided by the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, order: 1. To approve the concept of planning system for field tax inspections according to Appendix N 1 to this order.
(paragraph 1 as amended. Order of the Federal Tax Service of Russia of 14.10.2008 N MM-3-2 / [Email Protected]) 2. To approve the public criteria for self-assessment of risks for taxpayers used by tax authorities in the process of selecting objects to conduct exit tax audits (hereinafter referred to as criteria), according to Appendix N 2 to this order.
(paragraph 2 as amended. Order of the Federal Tax Service of Russia of 14.10.2008 N MM-3-2 / [Email Protected]) 3. To approve the values \u200b\u200bof the criterion 1 in accordance with Appendix N 3 to this order.
(p. 3 as amended. Order of the Federal Tax Service of Russia of 14.10.2008 N MM-3-2 / [Email Protected]) 4. To approve the values \u200b\u200bof the criterion 11 in accordance with Appendix N 4 to this order.
(p. 4 as amended. Order of the Federal Tax Service of Russia of 14.10.2008 N MM-3-2 / [Email Protected]) 5. To approve the recommended form of an explanatory note to the refined tax (s) declaration (PM), presented in connection with the identification of financial and economic activities with high tax riskAccording to Appendix N 5 to this order.
(paragraph 5 as amended. Order of the Federal Tax Service of Russia of 14.10.2008 N MM-3-2 / [Email Protected]) 6. Head (acting by the head) of analytical management every year until May 5, to determine the average industry indicators, which characterize the financial and economic activities of taxpayers, to clarify the value of the criteria NN 1 and 11 and post on the official website of the Federal Tax Service of Russia. (Section 6 as amended . Order of the Federal Tax Service of Russia of 10.05.2012 N MMB-7-2 / [Email Protected]) 7. Head (acting by the head) of the control department in conjunction with the heads (executing chiefs) of the management of taxation, legal management and management of pre-trial audit on the results test work Taking into account the pre-trial settlement of disputes with taxpayers and the emerging arbitration practice, to conduct regular analysis of the detected methods for conducting financial and economic activities with a high tax risk applied by taxpayers.
(p. 7 as amended. Order of the Federal Tax Service of Russia of 10.05.2012 N MMB-7-2 / [Email Protected]) 8. Head (acting by the head) of information management to accommodate this order and annex to it on the official website of the Federal Tax Service of Russia in the "Tax Control" section, subsection "Tax Checks". (as amended by the orders of the Federal Tax Service of Russia from 09/22/2010 N MMB-7-2 / [Email Protected], 05/10/2012 n MMB-7-2 / [Email Protected]) 9. Head (acting chief) of the Control Department to renew information on how to conduct financial and economic activities with high tax risk on the official website of the Federal Tax Service of Russia.
(as amended by the orders of the Federal Tax Service of Russia from 09/22/2010 N MMB-7-2 / [Email Protected], 05/10/2012 n MMB-7-2 / [Email Protected]) 10. Departments of the Federal tax Service In the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, bring this order to the lower tax authorities and organize work on familiarizing taxpayers with the provisions of this order and the applications to it.
(clause 10 introduced by order of the Federal Tax Service of Russia of 14.10.2008 N MM-3-2 / [Email Protected]) 11. Control of the execution of this order to entrust to the Deputy Head of the Federal Tax Service, which oversees the activities of the Control Department.
(as amended by the order of the Federal Tax Service of Russia of 10.05.2012 N MMB-7-2 / [Email Protected])

Exit tax checks deliver a lot of trouble to accountants and managers of organizations. A few tax authorities will protect themselves from the attention of the tax authorities, the criteria for independent risk assessment criteria will be helped by conducting verification. The very appearance of the concept experts assesses as a whole positive step. As far as it is applicable in practice, taking into account the additional clarification of the Federal Tax Service of Russia, assesses M.S. Mukhin, Head of Department and A.R. Nazarov, Deputy Head of the Office of the Federal Drug Control Service of Russia.

Exit tax audits were and remain one of the most unpleasant tax control tools for taxpayers. For this reason, the issue of their organization and planning directly affects the interests of those whose activities are subject to verification. For a long time, this area of \u200b\u200btax authorities was hidden from prying eyes.

In such a situation, approval by order of the Federal Tax Service of Russia of 30.05.2007 No. MM-3-06 / [Email Protected] The concepts of the planning system of field tax checks (hereinafter - the concept) undoubtedly became a step forward. For the first time, the principle of openness in the planning of inspections is proclaimed, and the taxpayers brought a fairly compact list of the criteria for self-assessment of risks, entailing its conduct.

At the same time, the concept does not solve all the problems, remaining a methodically weak document that benefits only against the background of the caricature "109 signs of unreliability", which appeared in the media in early 2007.

Eleven criteria for independent assessment of taxpayer risks (section 4 concepts) deserve more detailed analysis.

This criterion seems sufficiently reasonable from the point of view of planning field tax audits. At the same time, its flawlessness is obvious. In particular, the concept is not taken into account that the tax burden of the newly created organization may be lower than the average industry for quite objective reasons.

Issues remain and in order to determine the taxpayer of its tax burden. According to the explanations of the Federal Tax Service of Russia, data on the official website of the department *, the average consumer tax burden is determined as a percentage and is calculated as the ratio of the amount of taxes paid according to the reporting data of the tax authorities and turnover (revenues) of organizations ** according to the Federal Service state statistics (hereinafter referred to as Rosstat). Apparently, in the Federal Tax Service of Russia, it is believed that the taxpayer should determine its own tax burden in a similar way, replacing the "reporting of tax authorities" on its own tax Declarations (For no one time), but "turnover (revenue)" - to revenue from the sale of goods (works, services). Such a chemless collapse of the tax authority to the guessessness of taxpayers has nothing to do with objective risk assessment.

The phrase simply does not have a meaningful completion - it is not clear what the performance indicators do not correspond. In addition, the notification in itself does not require any explanation.

Clarifications of the official website of the Federal Tax Service of Russia only aggravate the problem. According to their authors, we are talking about situations described in paragraph 3 of Article 88 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation. According to this paragraph, the tax authority in certain cases has the right to demand from the taxpayer to submit an explanation or making corrections to documents.

First, such a situation, as the "inconsistency of performance indicators" in Article 88 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, is not provided at all.

Secondly, the criterion given in paragraph 9 of section 4 of the concept can be compared not with all the situations described in paragraph 3 of Article 88 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, but only with one to identify the inconsistency of the information submitted by the taxpayer, the information contained in the documents available from Tax authority, and received by him during tax control. Other situations - identifying errors in the tax declaration (calculation) and (or) contradictions between the information contained in the submitted documents - the concept is not mentioned even indirectly. Meanwhile, in clarifications they are named.

Thirdly, paragraph 3 of Article 88 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation provides a taxpayer with a choice: to submit to the Tax authority to explain or make corrections to the documents. According to the concept, the taxpayer must submit to the explanation, that is, making corrections to the documents are still considered as a risk of tax offense.

So obvious contradictions between the concept, its clarifications and the norms of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation can not be disturbed, for extremely, according to a long tradition, will undoubtedly be a taxpayer.

If you analyze this criterion without taking into account the clarification of the official website of the Federal Tax Service of the Federal Tax Service of Russia, its unreasonable looks obvious. Change location legal entity By virtue of the requirements Federal Law 08.08.2001 No. 129-FZ "On state registration of legal entities and individual entrepreneurs" entails the need to make changes to constituent documents. Therefore, it is difficult to understand why the authors of the concept consider the law-abiding actions of the taxpayer as the risk of a tax offense.

Clarifications are somewhat smoothed by the situation, indicating that it is about making a taxpayer's changes to constituent documents at least two times when conducting a departure tax audit. With this approach, the criterion under consideration will not deliver big problems taxpayers. We add that the authors of the explanation comment on the criterion for selecting candidates for the on-site tax audit, recommend analyzing the behavior of the taxpayer with the exit tax audit.

And in this case, it is necessary to state the blur and flawfulness of the criterion - it is unknown, which deviation should be considered significant, and it is not clear what "statistical data" means. In addition, the literal following the criterion leads to the absurd conclusion that a significant excess of the taxpayer middle Consumer Indicator profitability should also be considered the risk of a tax offense. Issues remain and relative to the period for which the indicator is investigated.

Clarifications of the official website of the FNS of Russia are partially responsible for these issues. Under significant deviation is understood "Deviation (in the direction of reducing) of profitability according to the accounting record of the taxpayer from the average consumer indicator of profitability by a similar type of activity according to statistics by 10% or more."

No reference to the indicators of Rosstat explanations do not contain. And it is not clear that taxpayers should be focused on what statistical indicators - individual entrepreneurs, since they are not mentioned in clarifications.

Summarizing the above, we can conclude that both the concept itself and its explanations are contrary to each other and in part - the current legislation. The criteria are blurred in the concept and leave the ability to arbitrary interpretation. The concept does not contain a mechanism internal control For the reasonable assignment of exit tax checks. In other words, the tax authority is Vain to appoint an exit tax audit regarding the taxpayer who does not fall under one of the criteria. Under such circumstances should not be seduced regarding the prospects for the application of the concept.

At the same time, the adoption of the concept should be welcomed as the first step on streamlining the procedure for the purpose of the departure tax audits. In addition, the concept is the first noticeable document of the Federal Tax Service of Russia, which contains a direct indication of tax authorities in assessing the tax benefits to be guided by the decision of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Often ignored.

THE FEDERAL TAX SERVICE

ORDER

On approval of the concept

(as amended orders of the Federal Tax Service of the Russian Federation of 14.10.2008 N MM-3-2 / [Email Protected],

from 09/22/2010 N MMB-7-2 / [Email Protected])

In order to create a unified system planning system for field tax inspections, increasing tax discipline and literacy of taxpayers, as well as improving the organization of the work of tax authorities in the implementation of authority in relations regulated by law on taxes and fees provided by the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, order:

1. To approve the concept of the planning system of exit tax audits in accordance with Appendix N 1 to this order.

(paragraph 1 as amended. Order of the Federal Tax Service of the Russian Federation of 14.10.2008 N MM-3-2 / [Email Protected])

2. To approve the publicly available criteria for self-assessment of risks for taxpayers used by tax authorities in the process of selecting objects to conduct exit tax audits (hereinafter - criteria), according to Appendix N 2 to this order.

(p. 2 as amended. Order of the Russian Federal District of the Russian Federation of 14.10.2008 N MM-3-2 / [Email Protected])

3. To approve the values \u200b\u200bof the criterion 1 according to Appendix N 3 to this order.

(p. 3 as amended. Order of the Russian Federal Tax Service of the Russian Federation of 14.10.2008 N MM-3-2 / [Email Protected])

4. Approve the values \u200b\u200bof the criterion 11 according to Appendix N 4 to this order.

(p. 4 as amended. Order of the Federal Tax Service of the Russian Federation of 14.10.2008 N MM-3-2 / [Email Protected])

5. Approve the recommended form of an explanatory note to the refined (s) declaration (PM), presented in connection with the identification of financial and economic activities with a high tax risk, according to Appendix N 5 to this order.

(paragraph 5 as amended. Order of the Federal Tax Service of the Russian Federation of 14.10.2008 N MM-3-2 / [Email Protected])

6. Analytical management (N.S. Drugov) annually until May 5, to determine the average industry indicators, which characterize the financial and economic activities of taxpayers, to clarify the values \u200b\u200bof the criteria and post on the official website of the FTS of Russia.

(paragraph 6 as amended. Order of the Federal Tax Service of the Russian Federation of 09.22.2010 N MMB-7-2 / [Email Protected])

7. Control Department (L.A. Arshintseva), together with the management of taxation (N.S. Chamskin), legal administration (S.V. Bobkov) and the Office of the Pre-trial audit (MA Ivanov) on the results of the test work, taking into account the pre-trial The settlement of disputes with taxpayers and the emerging arbitration practice to conduct regular analysis of the detected methods of financial and economic activities with a high tax risk applied by taxpayers.

(paragraph 7 as amended. Order of the Russian Federal Tax Service of the Russian Federation of 09.22.2010 N MMB-7-2 / [Email Protected])

8. Informatization management (V.G. Kolesnikov) Place this order and applications to it on the official website of the Federal Tax Service of Russia in the "Tax Control" section, subsection "Tax Checks".

(paragraph 8 as amended. Order of the Federal Tax Service of the Russian Federation of 09.22.2010 N MMB-7-2 / [Email Protected])

9. Control Department (L.A. Arshintsev) to provide updating information on the ways of conducting financial and economic activities with high tax risk on the official website of the Federal Tax Service of Russia.

(p. 9 as amended. Order of the Federal Tax Service of the Russian Federation of 09.22.2010 N MMB-7-2 / [Email Protected])

10. The Offices of the Federal Tax Service on the constituent entities of the Russian Federation to bring this order to the lower tax authorities and organize work on familiarizing taxpayers with the provisions of this order and the applications to it.

(p. 10 introduced by order of the Federal Tax Service of the Russian Federation of 14.10.2008 N MM-3-2 / [Email Protected])

11. Control of the execution of this order to entrust to the Deputy Head of the Federal Tax Service T.V. Shevtsov.

(p. 11 introduced by order of the Federal Tax Service of the Russian Federation of 14.10.2008 N MM-3-2 / [Email Protected])

Head of federal

tax Service

M.P.Mocretsov

Appendix N 1.

to order of the Federal Tax Service of Russia

from 30.05.2007 N mm-3-06 / [Email Protected]

CONCEPT

Exit Tax Check Planning Systems

(as amended by the order of the Federal Tax Service of the Russian Federation of 14.10.2008 N MM-3-2 / [Email Protected])

Introduction

The President of the Russian Federation identified that the state tax policy should be formed on the basis of the need to stimulate positive structural changes in the economy, consistent decrease in total tax burden, high-quality improvement tax administration.

State held by everything last years Tax burden relief by reducing tax rates, cancels of individual taxes and removal of unjustified restrictions creates optimal conditions For business and execute tax liabilities.

Quality tax administration is one of the conditions for effective functioning. tax system and state economy.

Positive development of the main components tax Policy States with which the reduction in total tax burden and improving tax administration is inextricably linked with tax control, the purpose of which is to ensure the timely and complete flow of taxes and other mandatory payments to the budget, including through the achievement of a high level of tax discipline and literacy of taxpayers.

The main and most effective form of tax control are exit tax checks. As a result of the field tax audits, several tasks must simultaneously be solved by tax authorities, the most important of which are:

identification and prevention of violations of legislation on taxes and fees;

prevention of tax offenses.

At the same time, on-site tax checks must meet the requirements of unconditional ensuring the legitimate interests of the state and the rights of taxpayers, increasing their security from the illegal requirements of tax authorities and the creation for the taxpayer as comfortable conditions for calculating and paying taxes.

In order to effectively solve all these tasks, the real concept of the field tax scheduling planning system (hereinafter referred to as the Concept) providing for a new approach to building an object selection system for conducting tax audits.

According to the concept of planning field tax checks, this is an open process built on the selection of taxpayers for conducting tax audits on risk criteria for the risk of tax offenses, including publicly available. Earlier, the planning of exit tax audits was a purely internal confidential procedure of tax authorities.

In order to provide a systematic approach to the selection of objects for exit tax checks, the concept determines the algorithm for this selection. The selection is based on a qualitative and comprehensive analysis of all the information that tax authorities (including external sources) and the definition of the "risk zones" of the tax offenses on its basis.

Thus, in this Concept, planning of exit tax audits is interpreted with the formation and development of taxpayers to the correct understanding of the legislation on taxes and fees, belief in the inadmissibility of its violation and the need for accurate compliance with laws.

1. Concept development goals

This concept is designed for purposes:

1) creating a unified system planning system for tax audits;

2) increasing tax discipline and literacy of taxpayers;

3) ensuring the growth of state revenues by increasing the number of taxpayers, voluntarily and fully fulfilled tax obligations;

4) reduce the number of taxpayers operating in the "shadow" sector of the economy;

5) informing taxpayers about the basic selection criteria for exit tax audits.

2. Basic planning principles

Building a single, open and understandable taxpayers and tax authorities, the system planning planning of tax audits is based on certain principles. These include:

1. Mode of greatest faults for conscientious taxpayers.

2. The timeliness of response to the signs of possible tax offenses.

3. The inevitability of the punishment of taxpayers in the event of the identification of violations of legislation on taxes and fees.

4. The validity of the selection of check objects.

In accordance with the new approach to the organization of the planning system, the selection of objects is changed for conducting tax audits. The basis of this system is a comprehensive analysis of the entire information available at the tax authority at each stage of planning and training of an exit tax audit.

At the same time, the taxpayer can use its right to an independent risk assessment and assess the advantage of independently identifying and correcting the mistakes made when calculating taxes.

Each taxpayer should understand that the transparency of its activities, the completeness of calculation and payment of taxes in the budget depends on the possibility of not included in the plan of departure tax audits.

Thus, in accordance with this concept, planning of exit tax inspections is based on the principle of bilateral liability of taxpayers and tax authorities, subject to the first to seek the fulfillment of their tax liabilities, and the second to the informed selection of taxpayers for conducting tax audits.

3. The structure of the selection of taxpayers for conducting

exit Tax Checks

An informed selection of objects for conducting tax inspections is impossible without a comprehensive analysis of all information coming into tax authorities from internal and external sources.

Information from internal sources includes information on taxpayers received by the tax authorities independently in the process of fulfilling the functions assigned to the tax service.

Information from external sources includes information on taxpayers received by the tax authorities in accordance with the current legislation or on the basis of agreements on the exchange of information with controlling and law enforcement agencies, state authorities and local self-government, as well as other information, including publicly available.

The analysis of taxpayers for conducting tax audits An analysis of the financial and economic indicators of their activities contains several levels, including:

analysis of the amounts of calculated tax payments and their dynamics, which allows you to identify taxpayers who reduce the amount of tax payments;

analysis of the amount of paid tax payments and their speakers, conducted for each type of tax (collection) in order to control the completeness and timeliness of transfer of tax payments;

analysis of tax indicators and (or) accounting reporting Taxpayers, which makes it possible to determine significant deviations of financial and economic activities current period from similar indicators for previous periods or deviations from the average reporting indicators of similar economic entities for a certain period of time, as well as to identify contradictions between the information contained in the documents submitted and (or) the inconsistency of the information that the tax authority has;

analysis of factors and reasons affecting the formation tax base.

If an object is selected to conduct an exit tax audit, the tax authority determines the feasibility of conducting exit tax checks of counterparties and (or) affiliated persons of the taxpayer verified.

In accordance with the basic goals and principles of this Concept, the choice of objects for conducting tax audits is built on a targeted selection, careful and permanent analysis of all the information available from the tax authorities, regardless of its ownership and amounts of tax liabilities. When implementing planning, all essential aspects of both a separate transaction and the taxpayer's activities are subject to analysis.

The priorities for inclusion in the planning tax audits are those taxpayers for whom the tax authority has information about their participation in taxation schemes or minimization schemes of tax liabilities, and (or) the results of the analysis of financial and economic activities of the taxpayer testify to the alleged tax offenses.

4. Criteria for self-assessment of risks

for taxpayers

This concept provides for the taxpayer of an independent risk assessment on the results of its financial and economic activities under the criteria below.

The public criteria for self-assessment of risks for taxpayers used by the tax authorities in the process of selecting objects for conducting tax audits may be:

When evaluating the above indicators, the tax authority in obligatory Analyzes the possibility of extracting either the presence of unreasonable tax benefits, including according to the circumstances specified in the decision of the Plenum of the Higher Arbitration Court Of the Russian Federation of 12.10.2006 N 53.

Systematic conducting self-assessment of risks on the results of its financial and economic activities will allow the taxpayer to evaluate timely tax risks and clarify your tax liabilities.

5. Results of the implementation of the Concept

This concept determines the basic priorities, principles and directions for the implementation of a single approach to planning exit tax audits.

The proposed planning system will allow:

1) for taxpayers - the maximum reduce the likelihood that the exit tax check in this year will affect the law-abiding taxpayer who fully fulfilled its obligations to the budget;

2) for tax authorities - to identify the most likely "risk zones" (violation of legislation on taxes and fees), to respond in a timely manner to the possible tax offenses and determine the necessary tax control measures.

The principles laid down in this Concept will be implemented:

1. Formation of a single approach to planning on-site tax audits.

2. Stimulating taxpayers in terms of compliance with tax legislation and fees.

3. Increase tax literacy and discipline taxpayers.

Appendix N 2.

to order of the Federal Tax Service of Russia

from 30.05.2007 N mm-3-06 / [Email Protected]

Public criteria

Self-assessment of risks for taxpayers,

Used by tax authorities during the selection of objects

For exit tax checks

(introduced by order of the Federal Tax Service of the Russian Federation of 14.10.2008 N MM-3-2 / [Email Protected],

as amended Order of the Federal Tax Service of the Russian Federation of 09/22/2010 N MMB-7-2 / [Email Protected])

1. The tax burden of this taxpayer is lower than its average level of economic entities in a particular industry (species of economic activity).

Calculation of the tax burden, starting in 2006, according to the main types of economic activity, in Appendix N 3 to the order of the Federal Tax Service of Russia of 30.05.2007 N MM-3-06 / [Email Protected]

The tax burden is calculated as the ratio of the amount of taxes paid according to the reporting of tax authorities and the turnover (revenues) of organizations according to the Federal State Statistics Service (Rosstat).

2. Reflection in the accounting or tax reporting of damages over several tax periods.

Implementation of financial and economic activities with a loss within 2 or more calendar years.

Upon receipt of the organization, a loss on the results of financial and economic activities for 2008, the tax authority may not take into account this calendar year, among the 2 years, when the activity was carried out at a loss, provided that the taxpayer received losses on objective reasons what the tax authority There is relevant information and supporting documents submitted by the taxpayer.

(paragraph introduced by order of the Federal Tax Service of the Russian Federation of 09.22.2010 N MMB-7-2 / [Email Protected])

3. Reflection in the tax reporting of significant amounts of tax deductions for a certain period.

The share of deductions for value added tax from the amount of tax accrued from the tax base is equal to either exceeds 89% for a period of 12 months.

4. An advanced growth rate of expenses on the growth rate of income from the sale of goods (works, services).

On the income tax of organizations.

The inconsistency of the growth rate of expenditures compared with the growth rate of income according to the tax reporting data with the growth rates of expenditures compared with the growth rate of income reflected in the financial statements.

5. Payment of average monthly wages per employee is below the middle level of economic activity in the subject of the Russian Federation.

Information about statistical indicators The average level of wages by type of economic activity in the city, the area or in general on the subject of the Russian Federation can be obtained from the following sources:

1) Official Internet sites of the territorial bodies of the Federal State Statistics Service (Rosstat).

Information about the addresses of Internet sites of the territorial bodies of the Federal State Statistics Service (Rosstat) is located on the official website of the Federal State Statistics Service (Rosstat) www.gks.ru.;

2) collections of economic and statistical materials published by the territorial bodies of the Federal State Statistics Service (Rosstat) (Statistical Collection, Bulletin, etc.);

3) upon request to the territorial body of the Federal State Statistics Service (Rosstat) or the tax authority in the relevant subject of the Russian Federation (inspection, the management of the Federal Tax Service of Russia in the subject of the Russian Federation);

4) Official Internet sites of the Federal Tax Service of Russia in the constituent entities of the Russian Federation after placing the relevant statistical indicators on them.

Information about the addresses of Internet sites of the Federal Tax Service of Russia in the constituent entities of the Russian Federation is located on the official website of the FTS of Russia www.nalog.ru.

6. A repeated approximation to the marginal value of the values \u200b\u200bof indicators providing the right to apply special tax regimes established by the Tax Code of the Russian Federation.

In terms of special tax regimes, approximation (less than 5%) is taken into account to the limiting value of the values \u200b\u200bestablished by the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, which affect the calculation of tax for taxpayers applying special tax regimes (2 or more times during the calendar year).

In terms of a single agricultural tax.

Approximation to the limiting value of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation established by Article 346.3 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, which is necessary for the use of the taxation system for agricultural producers:

The share of income from the sale of agricultural produced products, including the production of primary processing produced from agricultural raw materials own production, in total income from the sale of goods (works, services), determined by the results tax periodis at least 70 percent.

In terms of a simplified tax system.

A repeated approximation to the limit values \u200b\u200bof the Tax Code of the Russian Federation of the indicators necessary for the use of a simplified taxation system of the taxation of the Tax Code of the Tax Code of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation:

The share of other organizations is no more than 25 percent;

The average number of employees for the tax (reporting) period, determined in the manner established by the federal executive authority authorized in the field of statistics, is no more than 100 people;

Residual value of fixed assets and intangible assetsdefined in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation on accounting is not more than 100 million rubles;

The maximum amount of income, determined by the results of the reporting (tax) period in accordance with Article 346.15 and subparagraphs 1 and 3 of paragraph 1 of Article 346.25 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, is no more than 60 million rubles.

(as amended by the order of the Federal Tax Service of the Russian Federation of 09/22/2010 N MMB-7-2 / [Email Protected])

In terms of the unified tax on the imputed income.

A repeated approximation to the limit values \u200b\u200bof the Tax Code of the Russian Federation of the indicators necessary for the application of the taxation system in the form of a single tax on imputed income:

Square of the shopping hall of the store or pavilion for each object of the organization retail It is no more than 150 square meters. meters;

Square of visitors service hall for each object of the organization cateringhaving a visitors' service hall is not more than 150 square meters. meters;

Number of ownership of or other rights (use, possessions and (or orders) motor vehiclesintended to provide motor transport services is not more than 20 units;

The total area of \u200b\u200bbedrooms in each facility used to provide temporary accommodation and accommodation services, not more than 500 square meters. meters.

7. Reflection by an individual entrepreneur summary sums as close as possible to the amount of its income received for the calendar year.

On the income tax of individuals.

The share of professional tax deductions provided for in Article 221 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation declared in the tax declarations of individuals registered in the procedure established by the current legislation and implementing business activities Without the formation of a legal entity, in the total amount of their income exceeds 83 percent.

8. Building financial and economic activities based on the conclusion of contracts with counterparty-dealers or intermediaries ("chains of counterparties") without reasonable economic or other reasons (business goal).

Circumstances indicating the taxpayer to receive unreasonable tax benefits specified in the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation of 12.10.2006 N 53.

9. Failure to submit by the taxpayer explanations to notify the tax authority on identifying the inconsistency of performance indicators.

The absence without objective causes of the taxpayer's explanations relative to the errors identified during the challenge tax audit in the tax return and (or) contradictions between the information contained in the submitted documents or the discrepancies of the information submitted by the taxpayer, the information contained in the documents available from the tax the body and the tax control obtained by him in the event that for the purposes provided for in paragraph 3 of Article 88 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, the taxpayer is summoned to the tax authority on the basis of a written notice of a taxpayer call (collecting payer, tax agent), provided for by paragraphs. 4 of paragraph 1 of Article 31 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, which contains the requirement to submit the necessary explanations within five days or make relevant corrections within the prescribed period.

10. Removal deprotection and registration in taxpayer tax authorities due to a change in location ("migration" between tax authorities).

Two or more cases from the moment of state registration of a legal entity, submission when conducting an exit tax audit to the registering authority of the state registration of changes made to the constituent documents of a legal entity in terms of making changes to the address on the address (location) of a legal entity, if the indicated changes Increased the need to change the place of registration at the location of this taxpayer-organization.

11. A significant deviation of the level of profitability according to accounting data from the level of profitability for this area of \u200b\u200bactivity according to statistics.

Calculation of sales and assets, starting in 2006, according to the main types of economic activity, it is shown in Appendix N 4 to the order of the Federal Tax Service of Russia of 30.05.2007 N MM-3-06 / [Email Protected]

In terms of income tax organizations:

Deviation (aside as a reduction) of profitability according to the accounting record of the taxpayer from the average diversary indicator of profitability for a similar type of activity according to statistics by 10% or more.

12. Maintaining financial and economic activities with high tax risk.

The Federal Tax Service of Russia according to the results of the test work, taking into account the pre-trial settlement of disputes with taxpayers and the current arbitration practice, determines the most common ways of maintaining financial and economic activities with a high tax risk aimed at obtaining unreasonable tax benefits.

Information on the ways of conducting financial and economic activities with a high tax risk is posted on the official website of the Federal Tax Service of Russia www.nalog.ru in the section "Public Criteria for Independent Risk Assessment".

When assessing tax risks that may be associated with the nature of relationships with some counterparties, the taxpayer is recommended to investigate the following signs:

Absence personal contacts leadership (authorized officials) of the Supplier and Management Company (authorized officials) of the buyer's company when discussing the supply conditions, as well as when signing contracts;

Lack of documentary confirmation of powers of the head of the contracting company, copies of the document certifying his identity;

Lack of documentary confirmation of the powers of the representative of the counterparty, copies of the document certifying his identity;

Lack of information on the actual location of the counterparty, as well as the location of warehouse and / or production and / or retail space;

Lack of information on the state registration of counterparty to the register (shared access, the official website of the Federal Tax Service of Russia www.nalog.ru).

The presence of such signs indicates a high degree of risk of qualifying a similar counterparty by tax authorities as a problematic (or "one-day"), and transactions committed with such a counterparty are dubious.

Additionally increase such risks the simultaneous presence of the following circumstances:

The counterparty with the above features acts as an intermediary;

The presence in contractual contracts differ from the existing rules (customs) of business turnover (for example, long-term delay of payment, delivery of large batches of goods without prepayment or warranty of payment, non-inflated with the consequences of violation by the Parties to contracts with penalties, calculations through third parties, payments bills, etc. P.);

Lack of obvious evidence (for example, copies of documents confirming the presence of the production capacity of the production capacity, the necessary licenses, qualified personnel, property, etc.) the possibilities of real fulfillment by the counterparty terms of the contract, as well as the availability of reasonable doubts about the possibilities of real fulfillment of the contractual terms of the contract, taking into account the time required for the delivery or production of the goods, the performance of work or the provision of services;

Acquisition through intermediaries of goods, production and preparation of which is traditionally produced individualsnot owned by entrepreneurs (agricultural products, secondary raw materials (including scrap metal), fishery products, etc.);

The lack of real actions of the payer (or its counterparty) to recover the debt. The growth of the debt of the payer (or its counterparty) against the background of continuing the delivery to the debtor of large parties of goods or significant amounts of work (services);

Issue, purchase / sale by counterparties bills whose liquidity is not obvious or not examined, as well as issuing / obtaining loans without collateral. At the same time, the negativeness of this feature exacerbates the lack of conditions for interest on debt obligations of any kind, as well as the duration of the repayment of these debt obligations for more than three years;

The essential share of the transaction costs with the "problematic" counterparties in the total amount of the taxpayer costs, while the lack of economic substantiation of the feasibility of such a transaction with the simultaneous absence of a positive economic effect on its implementation, etc.

Accordingly, the more the above characteristics are simultaneously present in the relationship between the taxpayer with counterparties, the higher the degree of its tax risks.

Taxpayers, P. independent assessment which risks of the present item of the criteria are high and wishing to reduce or completely eliminate the specified risks, it is recommended:

Eliminate dubious operations when calculating tax liabilities for the corresponding period;

Notify the tax authorities on measures taken by them to reduce these risks (clarifying tax liabilities), for the possibility of timely accounting for the revised tax obligations of taxpayer data when selecting objects for exit tax checks.

The notification is made by filing to the tax authority, at the location of the organization (or at the place of accounting as the largest taxpayer), refined tax declarations for taxes for those periods in which activities with high tax risk were carried out.

To identify the purpose of filing this updated declaration (reduction / exclusion of risks under paragraph 12 of the criteria), taxpayers are offered simultaneously with a refined declaration to submit an explanatory note in the form recommended by the Federal Tax Service (Appendix N 5 to the order of 30.05.2007 N MM-3-06 / [Email Protected]) (hereinafter referred to as an explanatory note).

In a similar order, the taxpayer may declare the refined tax liabilities arising from the adoption of measures to reduce tax risks in the implementation of financial and economic activities using methods aimed at obtaining unreasonable tax benefits, but not presented on the site.

The tax authority that received refined tax declarations, as well as the explanatory note presented with them, holds a challenge tax check in accordance with Art. 88 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation. When conducting cameral tax inspections of the specified updated declarations with submitted to them Explanatory note additional documents The taxpayer does not exterminate.

The fact of filing a taxpayer of a refined declaration in order to reduce (exclude) risks under paragraph 12 criteria Tax authorities take into account the objects of selection of objects for exit tax checks (or adjusting already approved planning tax audits) in combination with other criteria.

If the tax authority has information on conducting activities with signs of violations tax legislation, With regard to the taxpayer who announced the measures taken by him to reduce risks on clause 12 of the criteria, the decision to appoint an exit tax audit only after prior approval from the Federal Tax Service of Russia.