On average, one field tax audit of an organization in 2018 accounted for about 24 million rubles of additional charges (additional charges for inspections of individual entrepreneurs - 5.3 million rubles, for checks of individuals who are not individual entrepreneurs - 3.3 million rubles). An interview with Sergei Razgulin, the 3rd class acting state adviser of the Russian Federation, is devoted to certain issues of the initial and repeated field tax audit.

• What is the purpose of an on-site tax audit?
• The on-site tax audit is designed to identify violations caused by the taxpayer's abuses in the tax area, his desire to evade taxation. Moreover, the Constitutional Court orients the tax authorities to solve this problem (ruling of 08.04.2010 No. 441-o-o).

Conducting an on-site audit means that with a probability of 98%, additional taxes, penalties and fines will be assessed based on its results.

The amount of tax arrears revealed as a result of a tax audit may entail the risk of criminal liability, as well as subsidiary liability of the authorized persons of the taxpayer, both in bankruptcy proceedings and in filing claims for compensation for damage caused to the budget by non-payment of tax.

• Is the tax authority obliged to conduct an on-site audit of the taxpayer at a certain frequency?
• No. The total number of taxpayers (organizations and entrepreneurs) registered with tax authorities exceeds 8 million. It is physically impossible to cover all of them with an on-site inspection (even once every three years). Currently, checks affect 0.18%: two organizations or individual entrepreneurs out of a thousand are checked.

When assigning tax audits, a risk-based approach is applied.

The audit is preceded by a pre-audit analysis carried out in accordance with the Concept of the planning system for field tax audits, approved by order of the Federal Tax Service of May 30, 2007 No. MM-3-06 / [email protected]

One of the criteria for assessing risks when selecting for inspection is the level of the tax burden below the average level in a particular industry. In the absence of a sectoral load value, the load value for the whole of Russia is used (letter from the Federal Tax Service dated 22.08.2018 No. GD-3-1 / [email protected]).

The FTS has developed the concept of the Taxpayer Behavior Management System. The meaning of this system is in the transition from checking an individual taxpayer to creating a transparent control environment in industries and markets.

It is expected that by 2020 scheduled on-site tax audits will be formed by 90% using the automated information system of the Federal Tax Service for risk management.

But at the same time there is no prohibition for the appointment of unscheduled inspections. The generated annual (broken down by quarters) plan for conducting field tax audits may be adjusted depending on newly discovered circumstances (letter of the Ministry of Finance dated 19.07.2012 No. 03-02-08 / 62).

The provisions of the Federal Law of December 26, 2008 No. 294-FZ "On the Protection of the Rights of Legal Entities and Individual Entrepreneurs in the Exercise of State Control (Supervision) and Municipal Control" do not apply to relations arising in the process of tax control.

• Is the number of on-site inspections decreasing?
• The downward trend has continued over the past years. In 2017, a little more than 20 thousand inspections were carried out. In 2018, the number of on-site inspections decreased by 30%: to just over 14 thousand.

But the influence on this figure is largely exerted by the possibilities of cameral control that the tax authority has, the "development" of the application of Article 54.1 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation to individual taxpayers.

In addition, in practice, taxpayers are subject to checks by the internal affairs bodies, which are not formally endowed with tax control functions. But their verification of information about a crime is, in fact, indistinguishable from the control of financial and economic activities in relation to taxpayers.

The Constitutional Court considers that the protection of violated rights during inspections by the internal affairs bodies and tax authorities is possible in court, and the change in the current regulation is within the competence of the legislator (definition of September 27, 2016 No. 2153-О).

• What rules are stipulated by the Tax Code of the Russian Federation for on-site inspection?
• The audit is carried out on the basis of the decision of the tax authority (paragraph 2 of Article 89 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation). In relation to the largest taxpayer, this is the decision of the tax authority, in which the first one is registered as the largest. With regard to a branch or representative office of an organization, this is a decision of the tax authority at the location of the branch or representative office.

Most often, the decision on an on-site tax audit of an organization is made by the tax authority at its location.

For some categories of taxpayers (SEZ residents, participants in production sharing agreements, a consolidated group of taxpayers, participants in a regional investment project), the Tax Code of the Russian Federation provides for the specifics of conducting field tax audits.

• The basis for the check is the decision to conduct it. What should it contain?
• The form of the decision is given in Appendix No. 5 to the order of the Federal Tax Service dated 07.11.2018 No. ММВ-7-2 / [email protected] The decision must contain:
• the number of the decision and the date of its issuance,
• the name of the taxpayer in respect of which the audit is being carried out.

When appointing an audit of a branch or representative office separately from the audit of an organization, the decision shall indicate the name of the branch or representative office. In respect of separate subdivisions that are not registered as a branch and representative office, an inspection cannot be appointed.

Verification of branches and dealerships is possible only for regional, local taxes and trade fees. An independent field tax audit of branches and representative offices on the correctness of the calculation and payment of federal taxes and fees, including those provided for by special tax regimes, is not carried out (letter of the Ministry of Finance dated 28.03.2011 No. 03-02-08 / 32).

• What period can be covered by the audit?
• The "depth" of the audit is the period of financial and economic activity during which the audit is carried out. As a general rule, the audit can cover a period not exceeding the period of three calendar years preceding the year of the decision to conduct the audit. Law enforcement practice proceeds from the fact that in this case the deadline for the past calendar years is indicated, and there is no prohibition on including the periods of the current calendar year during the verification period (determination of the Supreme Court dated 09.09.2014 No. 304-KG14-737).

When a decision is made in 2019, the audit can cover the periods 2016, 2017, 2018 and the periods of 2019 that have elapsed before the month of the decision.

It should be borne in mind that the tax authority, in order to verify the correctness of the calculation and payment of income tax within the period covered by the on-site audit, has the right to verify the correctness of the formation of the loss.

The taxpayer must document the validity of the loss for the entire period when he reduces the tax base by the amount of the previously received loss (Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of July 24, 2012 No. 3546/12).

Therefore, the actions of the inspectorate to verify the losses of previous years declared in the audited period, including the periods of its formation not covered by the audit decision, are based on the norms of tax legislation and are legitimate (Resolution of the CA of the Ural District of 09/07/2015 No. F09-5869 / 15).

Separately, we would like to draw your attention to the fact that the three-year limitation period for bringing to responsibility for non-payment of tax is calculated from the next day after the end of the tax period in which the offense was committed in the form of non-payment of tax (clause 15 of the resolution of the Supreme Arbitration Court dated July 30, 2013 No. 57). This means that since the amount of income tax, say, for 2018 must be paid in 2019, the statute of limitations for prosecution for non-payment of income tax for 2018 under article 122 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation will begin to be calculated from January 1, 2020 and will end 1 January 2023.

• Can an audit decision cover the months of the year in which the audit decision is made?
• The audit period may include the months of the year in which the decision on the audit was made, if it is, for example, an audit of a tax agent for personal income tax, whose duty in terms of withholding and transferring tax is not related to the end of the tax period (Resolution of the Presidium of the SAC dated 05.07.2011 No. 1051/11). Thus, it is possible to bring a tax agent to responsibility and based on the results of an audit of a month that has not yet expired tax period.
• What is the significance of listing the types of taxes to be checked in the decision?
• The types of taxes for which the audit is carried out are the subject of the audit. The audit can concern one, several or all taxes ("for all taxes, fees, insurance premiums").

The Tax Code of the Russian Federation restricts the ability to conduct audits for the same taxes for the audited period.

In the decision to conduct an audit, let us assume, only corporate income tax may be indicated. If an error in VAT is found, then according to the results of the audit, it is impossible to prosecute in terms of VAT, since VAT was not indicated in the decision on the audit. Similar consequences occur when the tax authority detects an offense for a period that was not included in the decision on the audit.

In such circumstances, the tax authority must make a new decision to conduct an audit.

But this situation, in the opinion of the judicial authorities, should be distinguished from a situation where errors or typographical errors were made in the decision. These include the absence in the decision to conduct an audit of the list of audited taxes or the wording “for all taxes”. In itself, this does not mean that the decision does not comply with the norms of tax legislation, if the inspectorate timely and independently eliminated the technical error that was made, which did not affect in any negative way the rights and obligations of the taxpayer and did not entail any negative consequences for him (Resolution of the AU of the Moscow District from 18.01.2019 No. F05-22585 / 2018).

• Can employees who are not listed in the decision carry out verification activities?
• The decision contains the full name, positions of the inspectors. These persons have the right to access the territory of the inspected person, carry out all the necessary control measures.

If, from the moment of making the decision to conduct an audit until the completion of a certificate at its end, a change in the composition of the inspection group is required, then a decision must be made to amend the decision to conduct an audit (Appendix No. 5 to the letter of the Federal Tax Service dated 15.01.2019 No. ED-4-2 / [email protected]).

However, according to the resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court dated 24.01.2012 No. 12181/11, the mere fact of signing a tax audit act by a person who did not conduct the audit cannot indicate a significant violation of the rights of the taxpayer being audited. The taxpayer must indicate what the violation of his rights consisted of (these may be obstacles in the exercise of the right to file objections, submit explanations).

• Where does the check begin?
• The actual check begins with making a decision. The Tax Code of the Russian Federation does not establish a deadline for handing over to the taxpayer the decision to conduct an on-site tax audit (letter of the Federal Tax Service of March 10, 2016 No. ED-4-2 / [email protected]).

Upon delivery of the decision, the taxpayer gets acquainted with it against signature. On the copy of the decision, which remains with the tax authority, a mark is put on the receipt of the decision by the representative of the taxpayer. In certain cases, the decision is sent by registered mail or transmitted electronically via the TCS through the electronic document management operator.

If the taxpayer provides a place for inspectors to work at his premises, then the audit is carried out at the taxpayer's location. A separate notification will be adopted about the audit at the location of the tax authority (the form is given in Appendix No. 1 to the letter of the Federal Tax Service dated January 15, 2019 No. ED-4-2 / [email protected]).

• How long does the check take?
• During two months. For the purpose of calculating the period of inspection, it does not matter whether the inspectors are on the taxpayer's territory or not.

The term is calculated from the date of the decision and until the last month of the term.

The term is calculated as follows. First, the total number of calendar days that are included in the check period is determined. If there is no corresponding last day in the month, then the term ends on the previous day. If the last day falls on a weekend, then the term ends on the next working day following it. But the check can be extended and suspended.

• What are the grounds for extending the verification period?
• The extension of the term is allowed up to six months, that is, in total, taking into account the extension, the check cannot last more than six months (letter of the Ministry of Finance dated 11.07.2011 No. 03-02-07 / 1-234).

The list of grounds for extending the verification period is established by Appendix No. 6 to the order of the Federal Tax Service dated 07.11.2018 No. ММВ-7-2 / [email protected]

The new version of this list is of a closed nature and includes eight grounds, in particular, an audit of the largest taxpayer, an audit of a taxpayer, which includes separate subdivisions, the presence of obstacles in conducting an audit both by the audited entity and other persons (for example, failure to submit documents, obstruction of access, non-appearance of a witness, etc.).

The same basis can be used twice to extend the test.

The taxpayer must be presented with a decision to extend the verification period (the form is given in Appendix No. 6 to the letter of the Federal Tax Service dated January 15, 2019 No. ED-4-2 / [email protected]).

• Can the check be suspended?
• The Tax Code of the Russian Federation provides for a procedure for suspending an audit.

Examples of suspension of an inspection for up to six months are as follows:

1. retrieval of documents (Article 93.1 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation). The check can be suspended as many times as the documents are requested from as many different persons;
2. conducting expert examinations (Article 95 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation);
3. translation of documents into Russian (Article 97 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation)

On such grounds as receiving information from foreign government bodies, the inspection is suspended for up to 9 months.

The taxpayer must be presented with a decision to suspend and resume the audit.

What tax control measures can the tax authority carry out during the suspension of the audit?

Everything, with the exception of requesting documents from the taxpayer and those events that are held in the taxpayer's territory.

For example, the tax authorities have the right to request explanations from the officials of the taxpayer being audited, calling them to the tax authority (letters of the Ministry of Finance dated 05.05.2011 No. 03-02-07 / 1-156, dated 18.01.2013 No. 03-02-07 / 1-11 ).

The suspension of the on-site inspection does not change the deadline for fulfilling the requirement to submit documents sent before the decision to suspend the inspection is made (letter of the Ministry of Finance dated 06.28.2013 No. 03-02-07 / 1/24644, paragraph 26 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court dated July 30, 2013 No. 57) ...

When can the tax authority re-audit?

Repeated checks are specifically prohibited - checking the correctness of the calculation and payment of the same taxes for an already checked period. The exceptions to this prohibition are as follows:

• in connection with the reorganization or liquidation of the organization,
• appointment of a repeated audit by a higher tax authority in order to control the activities of the tax authority that conducted the initial audit. There may be several such inspections, given the centralized structure of tax authorities (inspection - Office - FTS). According to the position of the regulatory authorities, if the organization changes its location, the audit will be able to be carried out by a higher tax authority in relation to the tax authority that conducted the initial audit;
• when the taxpayer submits a revised declaration, in which the amount of tax is declared in a smaller amount than in the primary one. This basis for the appointment of an inspection falls under the submission of revised declarations, in which the amount of the initially claimed loss is increased (Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court dated March 16, 2010 No. 8163/09). Since September 4, 2018, this is also stated in the new version of subparagraph 2 of paragraph 10 of Article 89 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation.

Please note that when submitting a revised declaration, an on-site tax audit, both initial and repeated, may check the period for which the declaration is submitted (clause 4 of Article 89 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation). That is, it may be longer than the three years preceding the year of the decision on the audit.

Are there any specifics of the re-inspection scheduled in connection with the submission of the amended declaration?

An inspection can be assigned only for the tax and for the period for which the revised declaration is submitted (letter of the Ministry of Finance dated December 21, 2009 No. 03-02-07 / 2-209).

In the opinion of the courts, the subject of such a repeated check may be the information of the revised declaration, the change of which entailed a decrease in the amount of the previously calculated tax. Data that have not changed cannot be re-checked (Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court dated March 16, 2010 No. 8163/09).

Since September 4, 2018, the specified position of the court almost twenty years ago has been included in subparagraph 2 of paragraph 10 of Article 89 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation.

The introduced change potentially reduces the volume of required documents, objects of evidence. But the cases of the appointment of repeated checks are quite rare.

I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the submission by the taxpayer of the revised declaration cannot change the circumstances reflected in the court decision made following the results of the appeal against the results of the initial audit.

The taxpayer has submitted a revised declaration. How long can a second check be scheduled?

A decision on verification in case of submission of a revised declaration can be made within the period of storage of documents established by the Tax Code of the Russian Federation. As a general rule, this period is 4 years and begins to be calculated after the tax period in which the relevant document was used to confirm the income received and expenses incurred, the calculation and payment of tax.

In judicial practice, an approach has been developed according to which the term for the appointment of an inspection cannot be significant. Such, in particular, is the term for the appointment of a repeated field tax audit 1 year and 10 months after the submission of a tax return to the tax authority. If a dispute arises, the court must assess the validity of the arguments of the tax authority about the timing of the appointment of an audit in such circumstances (ruling of the Supreme Court dated March 16, 2018 No. 305-KG17-19973).

If the tax authority does not provide evidence of the reasonableness of the timeframe for the appointment of an on-site audit, the decision on the audit will be canceled. This conclusion was reached by the Arbitration Court of the North-West District, considering a case in which an audit was scheduled 2 years and 11 months after the submission of a revised tax return to the tax authority (Resolution No. F07-8502 / 2018 of 20.08.2018).

Who is checked during the second audit: the tax authority or the taxpayer?

Taxpayer. But when the basis for the audit is the decision of the higher tax authority, then the act of the repeated audit, the decision based on its results should indicate the circumstances of the audit of the activities of the tax authority that conducted the audit, analysis of the results of the initial audit, violations committed during the initial audit (determination of the Supreme Court from September 16, 2014 No. 301-KG14-1038, resolution of the Arbitration Court of the North Caucasus District dated March 16, 2015 No. F08-10889 / 2014).

There are examples when a re-inspection was invalidated if it was carried out for the purpose of additional tax assessment only in the circle of those circumstances and violations that were revealed as a result of the initial inspection (Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court dated 03.04.2012 No. 15129/11). The aforementioned judicial act served as a directive for the higher tax authorities to eliminate procedural violations committed by the lower tax authority when considering an appeal, and not to appoint a re-examination.

With the exception of such a reason for the appointment of a repeated inspection, such as the submission of a revised declaration, when scheduling repeated inspections, the limitation on the period that can be covered by the inspection remains: three years preceding the year of the decision to conduct it. In other words, the later a second check is scheduled, the shorter the period it can cover.

Re-audit can be carried out by officials who are employees of any tax authority, including the one that conducted the original audit.

There are no differences in the scope of measures taken against the taxpayer between the initial and repeated checks.

Can a taxpayer be held liable following a re-audit?

The application of tax sanctions during repeated inspections is actually excluded, since the collusion between the taxpayer and the officials of the tax authority must first be proven in court, which did not allow the detection of violations during the initial audit (paragraph 10 of Article 89 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation).

An exception is a re-examination in connection with reorganization or liquidation (clause 11 of Article 89 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation). In this case, bringing the organization to responsibility is not made dependent on the fact of establishing collusion between the taxpayer and the tax authority during the initial audit.

The fact that the inspectorate conducted a desk audit does not matter and does not have any effect on the period of the on-site audit. In arbitration practice, there are examples of court decisions confirming the legality of this conclusion (see, for example, the definitions of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated April 27, 2010 No. VAS-5083/10, dated May 19, 2009 No. VAS-1588/09, decisions of the FAS Povolzhsky District of March 4, 2010 No. A65-26158 / 2009, North-Western District of December 2, 2008 No. A52-5071 / 2007, Far Eastern District of May 19, 2008 No. F03-A04 / 08-2 / 1276) ...

Situation: can the inspectorate change the period of the on-site inspection during its conduct?

The answer is yes, it can.

The specific periods of the on-site inspection must be indicated in the inspectorate's decision to conduct an on-site inspection (paragraph 7, clause 2, article 89 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation). The Tax Code of the Russian Federation does not prohibit the inspection from making changes to this decision (clause 2 of article 89 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation).

Moreover, by order of the Federal Tax Service of Russia dated May 7, 2007 No. MM-3-06 / 281, a special form of decision on amending the decision to conduct an on-site inspection was approved.

Based on the above, it can be concluded that the inspectorate has the right to amend the decision on the inspection during its implementation, in particular, to change the inspection period. In this case, the new verification period must be indicated in a special decision, which is an annex to the main decision.

The arbitration courts confirm the legality of this conclusion (see, for example, the resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Moscow District of September 11, 2009 No. KA-A41 / 7737-09).

Situation: is it possible to challenge the decision of the inspection based on the results of the on-site inspection? The inspection went beyond the three-year inspection period limit.

Answer: yes, you can, in terms of the conclusions that were made in relation to the periods that are not subject to on-site inspection.

As part of an on-site inspection, the inspection can control any periods that do not exceed three calendar years preceding the year of the decision to conduct an inspection (paragraph 2, clause 4, article 89 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation). Going beyond the three-year limit would be an inspection violation. Therefore, the decision of the inspection based on the results of the on-site inspection can be challenged in the part of the conclusions that relate to the periods that do not fall under the on-site inspection (paragraph 1 of clause 12 of article 101 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation).

In arbitration practice there are examples of decisions confirming the legitimacy of this conclusion (see, for example, Resolutions of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the North-Western District of April 30, 2009 No. A05-11647 / 2008, Volgo-Vyatka District of October 27, 2008 No. A39-1580 / 2008, North Caucasian District dated October 13, 2008 No. F08-6070 / 2008).

Situation: is it possible to challenge the decision of the inspection based on the results of the on-site inspection? The inspectorate reviewed a period that falls within the three-year limit, but exceeds the period specified in the decision to conduct an inspection.

Answer: yes, it is possible, but only in the part of the conclusions that were made in relation to the periods not specified in the decision to conduct an audit.

The specific periods of the on-site inspection must be determined in advance and indicated in the decision on the inspection (paragraph 7, clause 2, article 89 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation). Inspectors cannot retreat from them. Otherwise, the decision of the inspection based on the results of the on-site inspection can be canceled, but only in the part of the conclusions that were made in relation to the periods not indicated in the decision. In arbitration practice, there are examples of court decisions confirming the legitimacy of this conclusion (see, for example, the resolution of the FAS of the Ural District of September 15, 2009 No. F09-6838 / 09-C3).

Checking the assignee

Situation: can the tax inspectorate conduct an on-site audit of the successor organization for the period preceding the reorganization?

The answer is yes, it can.

As part of an on-site inspection, the inspection can control any periods that do not exceed three calendar years preceding the year of the decision to conduct an inspection (paragraph 2, clause 4, article 89 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation). At the same time, tax legislation does not establish special requirements for conducting an on-site audit in a successor organization. Consequently, the tax office can audit such an organization for the period preceding its reorganization. The main thing is that the specified period does not go beyond the three-year limit. Similar clarifications are contained in the letters of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated July 29, 2011 No. 03-02-07 / 1-267, dated February 5, 2009 No. 03-02-07 / 1-48.

Arbitration practice confirms the legitimacy of this approach (see, for example, the definition of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation of May 19, 2008 No. 5863/08, resolution of the FAS of the Volgo-Vyatka District of January 14, 2008 No. A82-4644 / 2007-14).

Personal data processing policy

1. Terms and accepted abbreviations

1. Personal data (PD) - any information relating directly or indirectly to a specific or identifiable individual (PD subject).

2. Processing of personal data - any action (operation) or a set of actions (operations) performed using automation tools or without using such tools with personal data, including collection, recording, systematization, accumulation, storage, clarification (update, change), extraction, use, transfer (distribution, provision, access), depersonalization, blocking, deletion, destruction of personal data.

3. Automated processing of personal data - processing of personal data using computer technology.

4. Personal data information system (ISPD) - a set of personal data contained in databases and information technologies and technical means that ensure their processing.

5. Personal data made publicly available by the subject of personal data - PD, access to an unlimited number of persons to which is provided by the subject of personal data or at his request.

6. Blocking of personal data - a temporary suspension of the processing of personal data (unless the processing is necessary to clarify personal data).

7. Destruction of personal data - actions as a result of which it becomes impossible to restore the content of personal data in the information system of personal data and (or) as a result of which material carriers of personal data are destroyed.

8. A cookie is a piece of data that is automatically stored on your computer's hard drive every time you visit a website. Thus, a cookie is a unique browser identifier for a website. Cookies make it possible to store information on the server and make it easier to navigate the web space, as well as allow site analysis and evaluation of results. Most web browsers allow cookies, but you can change your settings to opt out of cookies or track the path they are sent. However, some resources may not work correctly if cookies are disabled in the browser.

9. Web tags. On certain web pages or emails, the Operator may use “web tagging” technology (also known as “tags” or “fine GIF technology”) on the Internet. Web landmarks help analyze the performance of websites, for example, by measuring the number of site visitors or the number of “clicks” made on key page positions on a site.

10. Operator is an organization that independently or jointly with other persons organizes and (or) carries out the processing of personal data, as well as determines the purposes of processing personal data, the composition of personal data to be processed, actions (operations) performed with personal data.

11. User - a user of the Internet.

12. The site is a web resource https://lc-dv.ru owned by the Legal Center Limited Liability Company

2. General provisions

1. This Policy regarding the processing of personal data (hereinafter referred to as the Policy) has been drawn up in accordance with paragraph 2 of Article 18.1 of the Federal Law "On Personal Data" No. 152-FZ of July 27, 2006, as well as other regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation in the field of protection and processing of personal data and applies to all personal data that the Operator can receive from the User during his use of the Internet Site.

2. The operator protects the processed personal data from unauthorized access and disclosure, misuse or loss in accordance with the requirements of the Federal Law of July 27, 2006 No. 152-FZ "On Personal Data".

3. The operator has the right to make changes to this Policy. When making changes in the heading of the Policy, the date of the last revision is indicated. The new version of the Policy comes into force from the moment it is posted on the website, unless otherwise provided by the new version of the Policy.

3. Principles of processing personal data

1. The processing of personal data by the Operator is carried out on the basis of the following principles:

2. legality and fair basis;

3. Restrictions on the processing of personal data to achieve specific, predetermined and legitimate goals;

4. preventing the processing of personal data incompatible with the purposes of collecting personal data;

5. preventing the unification of databases containing personal data, the processing of which is carried out for purposes incompatible with each other;

6. processing only those personal data that meet the purposes of their processing;

7.conformity of the content and volume of processed personal data to the stated processing objectives;

8. Preventing the processing of personal data that is redundant in relation to the stated purposes of their processing;

9. ensuring the accuracy, sufficiency and relevance of personal data in relation to the purposes of processing personal data;

10. destruction or depersonalization of personal data upon achievement of the goals of their processing or in case of loss of the need to achieve these goals, if it is impossible for the Operator to eliminate the violations of personal data, unless otherwise provided by federal law.

4. Processing of personal data

1. Obtaining PD.

1. All PD should be received from the PD subject himself. If the subject's PD can only be obtained from a third party, then the subject must be notified of this or consent must be obtained from him.

2. The operator must inform the PD subject about the purposes, intended sources and methods of obtaining PD, the nature of the PD to be received, the list of actions with PD, the period during which the consent is valid, and the procedure for withdrawing it, as well as the consequences of the PD subject's refusal to give written consent to receive them.

3. Documents containing PD are created by receiving PD via the Internet from the PD subject during his use of the Site.

2. The operator processes PD if at least one of the following conditions is met:

1. The processing of personal data is carried out with the consent of the subject of personal data to the processing of his personal data;

2. The processing of personal data is necessary to achieve the goals provided for by an international treaty of the Russian Federation or by law, for the implementation and fulfillment of the functions, powers and duties imposed by the legislation of the Russian Federation on the operator;

3. The processing of personal data is necessary for the administration of justice, the execution of a judicial act, an act of another body or official, subject to execution in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation on enforcement proceedings;

4. The processing of personal data is necessary for the execution of an agreement, to which the subject of personal data is a party or beneficiary or guarantor, as well as for concluding an agreement on the initiative of the subject of personal data or an agreement under which the subject of personal data will be the beneficiary or guarantor;

5. The processing of personal data is necessary to exercise the rights and legitimate interests of the operator or third parties or to achieve socially significant goals, provided that this does not violate the rights and freedoms of the subject of personal data;

6. The processing of personal data is carried out, access to an unlimited number of persons to which is provided by the subject of personal data or at his request (hereinafter - publicly available personal data);

7. Processing of personal data subject to publication or mandatory disclosure in accordance with federal law.

3. The operator can process PD for the following purposes:

1. increasing the awareness of the PD subject about the products and services of the Operator;

2. conclusion of contracts with the PD subject and their execution;

3. informing the PD subject about the news and offers of the Operator;

4. identification of the PD subject on the Site;

5.Ensuring compliance with laws and other regulatory legal acts in the field of personal data.

1. Individuals who are in civil law relations with the Operator;

2. Individuals who are Users of the Site;

5. PD processed by the Operator - data received from the Users of the Site.

6. The processing of personal data is carried out:

1. - using automation tools;

2. - without the use of automation tools.

7. Storage of PD.

1. PD of subjects can be obtained, undergo further processing and transferred to storage both in hard copy and in electronic form.

2. PD recorded on paper are stored in lockable cabinets or in locked rooms with limited access rights.

3. PD of subjects processed using automation tools for different purposes are stored in different folders.

4. It is not allowed to store and place documents containing PD in open electronic catalogs (file sharing) in ISPD.

5. Storage of PD in a form that allows identifying the subject of PD is carried out no longer than the purpose of their processing requires, and they are subject to destruction upon reaching the processing goals or in case of loss of the need to achieve them.

8. Destruction of PD.

1. Destruction of documents (carriers) containing PD is carried out by burning, crushing (grinding), chemical decomposition, transformation into a shapeless mass or powder. For the destruction of paper documents, the use of a shredder is allowed.

2. PD on electronic media are destroyed by erasing or formatting the media.

3. The fact of destruction of PD is confirmed by documentary act of destruction of carriers.

9. Transfer of personal data.

1. The operator transfers PD to third parties in the following cases:
- the subject has expressed his consent to such actions;
- the transfer is provided for by Russian or other applicable law within the framework of the procedure established by law.

2. The list of persons to whom the PD is transferred.

Third parties to whom PD is transferred:
The operator transfers the PD to Legal Center LLC (which is located at the address: Khabarovsk, 680020, Gamarnika st., 72, office 301) for the purposes specified in clause 4.3 of this policy. The operator instructs the processing of PD by LLC Legal Center with the consent of the PD subject, unless otherwise provided by federal law, on the basis of an agreement concluded with these persons. LLC "Legal Center" processes personal data on behalf of the Operator, must comply with the principles and rules for the processing of personal data provided for by Federal Law-152.

5. Protection of personal data

1. In accordance with the requirements of regulatory documents, the Operator has created a personal data protection system (PDS), consisting of legal, organizational and technical protection subsystems.

2. The subsystem of legal protection is a complex of legal, organizational, administrative and regulatory documents that ensure the creation, functioning and improvement of the SZPD.

3. The subsystem of organizational protection includes the organization of the management structure of the data protection system, the authorization system, information protection when working with employees, partners and third parties.

4. The subsystem of technical protection includes a set of technical, software, software and hardware that ensure the protection of personal data.

5. The main PD protection measures used by the Operator are:

1. Appointment of a person responsible for the processing of PD, who organizes the processing of PD, training and instruction, internal control over the compliance of the institution and its employees with the requirements for PD protection.

2. Determination of current threats to the security of PD during their processing in the ISPD and the development of measures and measures to protect PD.

3. Development of a policy regarding the processing of personal data.

4. Establishing the rules for accessing PD processed in the ISPD, as well as ensuring registration and accounting of all actions performed with the PD in the ISPD.

5. Establishment of individual passwords for employees' access to the information system in accordance with their production responsibilities.

6. Application of information protection means that have passed the conformity assessment procedure in accordance with the established procedure.

7. Certified anti-virus software with regularly updated databases.

8. Compliance with the conditions ensuring the safety of PD and excluding unauthorized access to them.

9. Detection of facts of unauthorized access to personal data and taking measures.

10. Recovery of PD, modified or destroyed due to unauthorized access to them.

11. Training of the Operator's employees who are directly involved in the processing of personal data, the provisions of the legislation of the Russian Federation on personal data, including the requirements for the protection of personal data, documents defining the Operator's policy regarding the processing of personal data, local acts on the processing of personal data.

12. Implementation of internal control and audit.

6. Basic rights of the PD subject and obligations of the Operator

1. Basic rights of the PD subject.

The subject has the right to access his personal data and the following information:

1.confirmation of the fact of PD processing by the Operator;

2. the legal grounds and purposes of PD processing;

3. the purposes and methods of PD processing used by the Operator;

4. the name and location of the Operator, information about persons (with the exception of the Operator's employees) who have access to PD or to whom PD can be disclosed on the basis of an agreement with the Operator or on the basis of federal law;

5. terms of processing personal data, including the terms of their storage;

6. the procedure for the exercise by the subject of PD of the rights provided for by this Federal Law;

7. name or surname, first name, patronymic and address of the person who processes PD on behalf of the Operator, if the processing is entrusted or will be entrusted to such a person;

8. contacting the Operator and sending him requests;

9. appeal against the actions or inaction of the Operator.

10. The Site user can revoke his consent to PD processing at any time by sending an e-mail to the following e-mail address: [email protected], or by sending a written notice to the address: 680020, Khabarovsk, st. Gamarnika, house 72, office 301

eleven. . After receiving such a message, the processing of the User's PD will be terminated, and his PD will be deleted, unless the processing can be continued in accordance with the law.

12. Obligations of the Operator.

The operator is obliged:

1. when collecting PD, provide information on the processing of PD;

2. in cases where the PD was not received from the PD subject, notify the subject;

3. if the subject refuses to provide PD, the subject is explained the consequences of such a refusal;

5. take the necessary legal, organizational and technical measures or ensure their adoption to protect PD from unauthorized or accidental access to them, destruction, modification, blocking, copying, provision, distribution of PD, as well as from other illegal actions in relation to PD;

6. give answers to inquiries and appeals of PD subjects, their representatives and the authorized body for the protection of the rights of PD subjects.

7. Features of processing and protection of data collected using the Internet

1. There are two main ways by which the Operator receives data via the Internet:

1. Provision of PD by PD subjects by filling out the forms of the Site;

2. Automatically Collected Information.

The operator can collect and process information that is not PD:

3.information about the interests of Users on the Site based on the entered search queries of the Site users about the services, goods sold and offered for sale in order to provide up-to-date information to Users when using the Site, as well as generalization and analysis of information about which sections of the Site, services, goods are in the greatest demand among the Users of the Site;

4. processing and storing search queries of the Site Users in order to summarize and create statistics on the use of the Site sections.

2. The Operator automatically receives some types of information obtained in the process of interaction of Users with the Site, correspondence by e-mail, etc. We are talking about technologies and services such as cookies, Web marks, as well as applications and tools of the User.

3. At the same time, web marks, cookies and other monitoring technologies do not provide an opportunity to automatically receive PD. If the Site User at his own discretion provides his PD, for example, when filling out the feedback form, then only then the processes of automatic collection of detailed information are launched for the convenience of using the Site and / or to improve interaction with Users.

8. Final provisions

1. This Policy is a local regulatory act of the Operator.

2. This Policy is publicly available. The general availability of this Policy is ensured by publication on the Operator's Website.

3. This Policy may be revised in any of the following cases:

1.when changing the legislation of the Russian Federation in the field of processing and protection of personal data;

2.in cases of receipt of instructions from the competent state authorities to eliminate inconsistencies affecting the scope of the Policy

3. by the decision of the Operator;

4. when the goals and timing of PD processing are changed;

5. when changing the organizational structure, structure of information and / or telecommunication systems (or the introduction of new ones);

6. when applying new technologies for processing and protecting personal data (including transmission, storage);

7. if there is a need to change the process of processing PD related to the activities of the Operator.

4. In case of failure to comply with the provisions of this Policy, the Company and its employees are liable in accordance with the current legislation of the Russian Federation.

5. Control over the fulfillment of the requirements of this Policy is carried out by the persons responsible for organizing the processing of the Company's Data, as well as for the security of personal data.

Companies often have disputes with tax authorities about the periods that the latter are entitled to check as part of an on-site tax audit. Based on judicial practice and explanations of officials, we will consider in which cases companies have a chance to defend their case, and in which they do not.

An on-site tax audit is carried out on the basis of the decision of the head (deputy head) of the tax authority (clause 1 of article 89 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation). Within its framework, a period not exceeding three calendar years preceding the year in which the decision to conduct an audit was made (clause 4 of article 89 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation) can be checked.

How to count three years

In practice, there are situations when several months pass between the decision to conduct an inspection and the inspection itself, and it takes place already in the next year. In such cases, some companies consider that the three-year period should be counted from the year in which the audit is actually carried out. But the courts do not support them.

Thus, the CA of the Ural District, in a resolution dated July 17, 2017 in case No. A60-47352 / 2016, considered the following situation. In 2016, the company underwent an on-site tax audit, during which the tax authorities checked the periods from April 2012 to December 2014 inclusive. The company believed that since the audit was conducted in 2016, the tax authority had the right to audit 2015, 2014 and 2013. And the inclusion in the audit of 2012 contradicts the provisions of paragraph 4 of Art. 89 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation.

The court found the company's arguments erroneous. He noted that in accordance with paragraph 4 of Art. 89 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, a three-year period is counted from the year in which the decision was made to conduct an audit, and not from the year in which it was actually carried out. The decision to conduct an on-site tax audit was made by the head of the inspectorate on June 30, 2015. So, on the basis of the provisions of paragraph 4 of Art. 89 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, the tax authority could audit the period from 2012 to 2014, and the controllers did not go beyond the three-year limit of the audit period.

Another example is the dispute considered by the CA of the West Siberian District in a resolution dated December 25, 2018 in case No. A75-918 / 2017. The tax authority decided to conduct an on-site tax audit on December 28, 2015, which actually took place in 2016. The court recognized that the inspection carried out by the inspection for 2012, 2013 and 2014 was lawful.

Please note: in such cases, the earliest year covered by a tax audit goes beyond the three-year limitation period (Article 196 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). In this regard, some companies believe that tax authorities are not entitled to charge additional tax. For example, the FAS of the Povolzhsky District, in its decision of 03.19.2013 in case No. А06-3630 / 2012, considered the situation when the decision to conduct an on-site audit was made by the tax inspectorate on December 26, 2011, and the audit itself took place already in 2012. the period from January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2010 was checked. The Company tried to challenge the additional tax assessment for 2008 due to the expiration of the statute of limitations. But the court rejected this argument. He indicated that the additional accrual was made lawfully, since according to paragraph 4 of Art. 89 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, as part of an on-site tax audit, a period not exceeding three calendar years preceding the year in which the decision to conduct the audit was made can be checked. At the same time, the arbitrators noted that the company was not reasonably fined for non-payment of tax in 2008, since the statute of limitations for tax liability had expired. Let us remind you that according to clause 1 of Art. 113 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, a person cannot be held liable for a tax offense if three years (limitation period).

Verification period when submitting a revision

In paragraph 4 of Art. 89 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation states that when a taxpayer submits a revised tax return within the framework of a relevant on-site tax audit, the period for which the revised tax declaration is submitted is checked.

Explaining the procedure for applying this provision, the Federal Tax Service of Russia in letters dated 25.07.2013 No. AS-4-2 / [email protected] and dated May 29, 2012 No. AS-4-2 / ​​8792 indicated that:

1) the norm is an exception to the general rule on the period that may be covered by the on-site inspection;

2) the norm applies if the taxpayer submits a revised tax return for a period exceeding three calendar years preceding the year in which such a declaration was submitted;

3) the norm grants the tax authority the right to conduct an on-site audit for the period for which the revised tax return is submitted;

4) the specified on-site tax audit can be carried out if the relevant period was not previously covered by the on-site tax audit;

5) the moment of submission of the revised tax return (during the on-site tax audit, before it, after it) does not matter for the application of the norm.

And in the letter dated 03.09.2010 No. AS-37-2 / [email protected] Specialists of the Federal Tax Service of Russia noted that if an updated tax return is submitted, the period for which it is submitted is checked, including if the specified period is outside the three calendar years preceding the year in which the decision to conduct the audit was made.

Thus, when submitting a revised declaration, the tax authorities can check a period that goes beyond the three-year limit. The courts confirm this.

In the dispute considered in the resolution of the CA of the North Caucasus District of 13.08.2014 in case No. A53-11519 / 2013, the tax inspectorate in 2012 conducted an on-site tax audit for 2009 and 2010. At the same time, in the course of monitoring the correctness of the calculation and payment of income tax for 2009, the tax authority examined, among other things, the revised income tax returns for 2008 and 2009, filed in October 2010. The Company considered that the inspectorate had no right to check the correctness of the calculation of income tax for the tax period preceding the audit period.

But the courts of three instances judged differently. They indicated that paragraph 4 of Art. 89 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation provides for an exception to the general rule on the three-year depth of tax audit. If a company has submitted a revised declaration, the tax authorities have the right to check the period for which such a declaration was submitted when conducting an on-site audit for the period whose performance was influenced by the revised declaration data. It does not matter that the specified period is outside the three calendar years preceding the year in which the decision to conduct the audit was made. By the ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated November 28, 2014 No. 308-KG14-4417, it was refused to transfer the case to the Judicial Collegium for Economic Disputes of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation.

Rechecking when submitting a revision

A repeated on-site inspection may be appointed if the taxpayer has submitted a revised declaration, which indicates the amount of tax in an amount less than the previously declared one. The subject of such a repeated field tax audit is the correctness of the tax calculation based on the changed indicators of the revised tax declaration, which entailed a decrease in the previously calculated amount of tax (increase in loss) (subparagraph 2 of paragraph 10 of article 89 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation).

When conducting a repeated field tax audit, a period not exceeding three calendar years preceding the year in which the decision was made to conduct a repeated field tax audit can be checked (clause 10 of article 89 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation). The question arises: is the tax authority entitled to conduct a repeated field tax audit if the period for which the revised tax return is filed exceeds three calendar years preceding the year in which the tax authority made a decision to conduct a repeated field tax audit?

Officials believe they have the right. In a letter dated 19.04.2013 No. 03-02-07 / 1/13473, the Ministry of Finance of Russia indicated that within the framework of a repeated field tax audit, appointed in connection with the submission of a revised declaration, the period for which it was submitted is checked. Therefore, the period checked during the said repeated on-site inspection may exceed three calendar years preceding the year in which the decision to conduct it was made. A similar conclusion is contained in the letter of the Federal Tax Service of Russia dated July 25, 2013 No. AS-4-2 / ​​13622.

The Supreme Court is of the same opinion. In the Decision dated 05.03.2015 No. 305-KG15-606, he considered the situation when the company on December 26, 2011 submitted revised declarations for June, August and December 2009, which reflect the amount of excise taxes paid for import the territory of the Russian Federation, and the amount of tax is indicated in an amount less than previously declared. In 2013, the tax inspectorate conducted a second on-site audit of the period for which the revised declarations were submitted. The company considered that the tax authorities exceeded the three-year period established by paragraph 10 of Art. 89 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation.

The courts of three instances indicated that the start date of the inspection is the day of the decision to conduct the inspection (December 29, 2012), therefore the disputed period (2009) does not go beyond the three-year period established in paragraph 10 of Art. 89 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation. They also noted that tax legislation provides for the possibility of filing a revised declaration for a period that is beyond three years. In this regard, the possibility of a repeated tax audit outside the specified period is consistent with the principles and objectives of tax regulation and does not violate the balance of private and public interests.

Please note: in the Definition of March 16, 2018 No. 305-KG17-19973, the Judicial Collegium for Economic Disputes of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation expressed its legal position that a repeated field tax audit cannot be initiated by the tax authority without taking into account the assessment of the reasonableness of the period that has passed since the submission of the updated tax declaration. When assessing the reasonableness of the timing of the appointment of a repeated on-site inspection, all circumstances related to ensuring a balance of private and public interests should be taken into account, in particular:

the tax authority has the ability to timely identify circumstances indicating the groundlessness of changes in the calculation of tax declared in the revised declaration;

the ability of the taxpayer, in the event of an on-site inspection, to ensure the protection of his rights after the expiration of the established paragraph 1 of Art. 23 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, a four-year storage period for documents required for calculating and paying taxes;

the presence or absence of signs of opposition to tax control in the actions of the taxpayer (provision of inaccurate and (or) incomplete documents to the tax authority, etc.).

In this case, a repeated on-site tax audit was scheduled 1 year and 10 months after the submission of a revised tax return to the tax authority, which the arbitrators recognized as a significant period. In this regard, the panel of judges sent the case for a new trial, instructing the courts to assess the reasonableness of the timing of the appointment of an on-site tax audit, to adopt legal and substantiated judicial acts.

The legal position of the Supreme Court is used by the courts when making decisions. So, taking into account this legal position, the CA of the North-Western District, in its resolution of 08.20.2018 in case No. А21-10802 / 2017, recognized the decision to conduct an on-site audit, taken 2 years 11 months after the submission of the revised tax return, as violating the rights and legitimate interests companies.

Checking the current period

Disputes often arise over whether tax authorities can control the current period as part of an on-site tax audit.

Tax officials and financiers believe that clause 4 of Art. 89 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation does not contain a prohibition on conducting field tax audits for the reporting periods of the current calendar year in which the decision was made to conduct a tax audit (letters of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated July 26, 2018 No. 03-02-07 / 1/52519, FTS of Russia dated April 17. 2019 No. ЕД-4-2 / ​​7305). This conclusion is confirmed by judicial practice.

In the Decision dated 09.09.2014 No. 304-KG14-737, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation considered the following situation. The tax authority on March 30, 2012 decided to conduct an on-site tax audit in the company for the period from January 1, 2009 to February 29, 2012. Based on the results of the audit, the company was held liable under Art. 123 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation for the period from September 2, 2010 to December 31, 2011 and for January, February 2012.

The court of first instance found it unlawful to bring the company to justice for January and February 2012. In its opinion, from the provisions of paragraph 4 of Art. 89 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation does not directly follow that the check can cover the current calendar year. A broad interpretation of the provisions contained in the law, or their extension to cases not specified in it, is unacceptable. In addition, according to paragraph 7 of Art. 3 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, all irremovable doubts, contradictions and ambiguities in acts of legislation on taxes and fees are interpreted in favor of the taxpayer. Thus, the on-site tax audit for January and February 2012 does not comply with the provisions of paragraph 4 of Art. 89 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation.

But the courts of appeal and cassation did not agree with this conclusion. They indicated that paragraph 4 of Art. 89 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation does not contain a prohibition on conducting field inspections for the reporting periods of the current calendar year. Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation of February 28, 2001 No. 5 "On some issues of application of the first part of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation" clarified that tax legislation does not contain a prohibition on auditing the periods of the current calendar year. From this, the courts concluded that the audit of the reporting periods of the current year as part of an on-site tax audit does not violate the norms of tax legislation. The Supreme Court upheld this conclusion.

The fact that the inspection of an on-site tax audit of the reporting periods of the current year does not contradict the norms of the Tax Code and does not violate the rights and legitimate interests of the taxpayer is stated in the resolutions of the CA of the West Siberian District dated 05/10/2017 in case No. A45-28037 / 2015, Vostochno- Siberian District of 19.04.2017 in case No. A33-8287 / 2016, Moscow District of 12.11.2015 in case No. A41-32783 / 2015, FAS of the Far Eastern District of 26.02.2013 No. F03-453 / 13 (By the definition of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated 26.04. 2013 No. BAS-4862/13 refused to transfer the case for review).

Exit over a three-year period

Sometimes, as part of an on-site tax audit, inspectors make additional charges on transactions related to periods beyond a three-year period. The courts consider such actions unlawful.

An example is the resolution of the CA of the North Caucasian District of 06/27/2018 in case No. A63-11808 / 2017. In 2016, the Inspectorate conducted an on-site inspection of the timeliness of the transfer of personal income tax by an individual entrepreneur to the budget for the period from January 1, 2013 to February 29, 2016, as a result of which additional tax was charged to the businessman. The reason was that the entrepreneur received real estate in 2012 as compensation. The ownership of this property was registered for him in court in 2013. The controllers considered that the businessman received the real estate only from the moment of state registration of the transfer of ownership of it. In this regard, the income from the transaction should be recorded in 2013.

But the courts of three instances did not agree with this. They pointed out that the procedure for determining the date of receipt of income by individuals does not depend on the fact of state registration of the transfer of ownership of the property. The date of receipt of income in this case is the date of the deed of transfer (October 15, 2012). And since the deal was completed in 2012, its tax consequences are related to this tax period. Therefore, the inspectorate did not have the right to accrue personal income tax for 2013 on operations performed in 2012. The controllers went beyond the statutory period for conducting an on-site tax audit (no more than three calendar years preceding the year in which the decision to conduct the audit was made).

In practice, there are situations when the tax authorities, based on the results of the audit, make additional charges, taking into account the accounts payable formed beyond the three-year period. The courts consider this to be a way out of the inspection (decisions of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation of 05/29/2012 No. 17259/11, FAS of the Central District of 11/21/2012 in case No. A35-439 / 2012, the Ural District of 10/12/2012 in case No. A60-613 / 2012).

So, in the dispute considered in the resolution of the CA of the North Caucasian District of 08/22/2018 in case No. A01-2762 / 2017, the company had tax debts as of January 1, 2014. During the on-site tax audit conducted in 2017, the tax authorities checked the period from January 1, 2014 to March 31, 2017. They additionally charged the company with tax taking into account its accounts payable as of January 1, 2014.

The court canceled the additional accruals. He pointed out that the tax inspectorate does not have the right to check the activities of the taxpayer (tax agent) beyond the three-year period established by paragraph 4 of Art. 89 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation. The disputed debt was formed outside the audited period. Tax legislation does not provide for the inclusion in the results of field tax audits of all credit balances available on the personal account of the taxpayer (tax agent) as of the date of the beginning of the audited period, as well as the inclusion of such balances in the results of audits.

Exit beyond the verification period specified in the decision on its conduct

It happens that tax authorities check taxes within the three-year period established by law, but at the same time go beyond the dates indicated in the decision to conduct an on-site audit. The courts consider this a violation and cancel additional charges.

In the resolution of the FAS of the Ural District of 15.09.2009 on case No. А71-13315 / 2008А19, the situation was considered when the tax authorities, as part of an on-site audit, charged penalties on arrears in 2004 for income tax and VAT. The court ruled that the accruals were unfounded, since, according to the decision to conduct an on-site tax audit, the period from January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2006 was subject to control.

And in the situation considered by the Nineteenth AAC in Resolution No. 19AP-2131/09 of 28.05.2009, in the decision to conduct an on-site tax audit, the controlled period was limited to 2006 and 2007. However, according to the results of the inspection, the inspectors made additional charges for 2005. They explained this by the fact that the decision to conduct the inspection had a typo and instead of "January 1, 2005" was printed "January 1, 2006".

The court declared the additional charges for 2005 unlawful. He pointed out that since at the time of the audit there was no application to clarify the audited period, the tax authorities were obliged to conduct an audit for the period from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2007. In this regard, the tax authority did not have the right to verify the correctness and timeliness payment of taxes for 2005

Tax audits are necessary to control the payment of mandatory tax amounts by entrepreneurs, to identify and eliminate violations. The Tax Service controls the correctness of calculations and the timeliness of payment.

The implementation of tax audits is simplified. Non-standard control methods are introduced.

Changes in tax policy in 2020

In the plans of tax policy for 2020, increase tax revenues to the budget, avoiding an increase in the tax burden. There are more tools for obtaining the reasoning for the need for checks.

Administration and reporting of contributions have changed significantly. The rules for calculating some taxes have also undergone changes.

Administration of insurance payments

The tax authorities control the payment of insurance premiums to the Social Insurance Fund, Pension Fund of the Russian Federation, FFOMS.

The calculation is provided monthly, no later than the 30th day of the current month (for the previous month). Payment is carried out the next month until the 15th.

From 01.01.17, payers whose total income for 9 months did not exceed 90 million rubles will receive the right to use this system. If in a year it does not exceed 120, work in the STS will continue. The marginal residual value of funds under the conditions of the transition to the simplified taxation system should not exceed 150 million rubles.

Zero tax rate

It is used for main gas pipelines and gas production. This also includes the development of minerals, subsoil, helium production, capital construction projects. The complete list of objects is approved by the government of the Russian Federation.

In incentive payments

Lump-sum incentive payments for sports projects, namely, for prizes in Olympic, Deaflympic, Paralympic games, to participants and their coaches (specialists participating in training) are not taxed.

What these changes mean for taxpayers

Pros for taxpayers:

1. Reducing the period for filing objections based on the results of examinations and other events. Its length has decreased to 10 working days since the end of the controversial event.
2. Eligibility of the Inspectorate's claim for additional information on tax benefits. In addition to supporting documents, the provision of explanations on property problems, operations in the field of benefits may be initiated. This information must be provided within 5 days. All explanations on VAT are accepted only in electronic form. The paper version of the declaration is unacceptable. For failure to provide an electronic version of the document, penalties are imposed.
3. More frequent verification of the information on the Unified State Register of Legal Entities. Moreover, all complaints and claims are considered (for example, from a competitor). On received signals, additional checks are initiated, carried out within a month. Any suspicion of fictitiousness of the company or its legal address raises suspicion. For example, several legal entities are registered at one address. At the time of checking the questionable information, the tax control has the right to suspend the registration of the company. But in time it should last no more than a month. If the presence of false information is confirmed, the business reputation of the manager and the entire company is damaged.

What will be checked more often in 2020

1. Registration, registration. The operation of a company without registration is classified as "illegal business" (faces up to 5 years in prison).
2. The legality of income and full payment of taxes. Wages and other income of employees are taken into account. The presence of "gray" salaries is being found out, although these violations are difficult to prove. When assessing additional contributions, only specifically refined amounts are taken into account.
3. Creation of "left" firms. With the illegal creation of legal entities and the use of documents for this purpose, there is a risk of imprisonment for up to 5 years, and for cashing out funds through shell companies - up to 7.
4. Artificial inflated cost, purchase prices. In 2020, there is an increase in tax sanctions for the application of non-market prices.

Types of checks

Checks are represented by office and field checks, planned and unscheduled.

Cameral

It is carried out at the tax authority using the data of tax returns. It is legal to check the documentation if (Article 88 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation):

• the tax return is declared to the budgetary refund;
• an application was submitted by the organization for a tax reduction, an increase in the amount of losses 2 years after the first declaration;
• a number of inconsistencies or inconsistencies were found;
• the use of the tax credit is claimed.

If violations are identified based on the results of a desk audit, an exit visit may be initiated.

Exit

To avoid stressful situations, you must always be ready for such meetings. Information can come from the counterparty, tax inspector. The database is closed for public access.

On-site inspections provide for a thorough examination of financial statements with the possibility of subsequent imposition of sanctions (from a fine to arrest). It is impossible to know about the upcoming visit in advance. But for 2020, the tax authorities are obliged to carry out an on-site audit following the results of a desk audit if there are any shortcomings.

Stages of carrying out:

1. Analysis of the documentation. It is carried out on the territory of the organization (enterprise) with a preliminary notification and presentation of an official certificate. Procedures: requesting documentation, obtaining the necessary explanations, inspection of the territories, seizure of the necessary financial documents. The test duration should not be more than 2 months. The extension is valid for up to 4 months in the following cases: the property is one of the largest taxpayers, force majeure circumstances.
2. Summing up the results with a report. The report compiles the taxable base, analyzes the identified violations, makes recommendations for their correction. If necessary, additional taxes are charged, and sanctions are imposed.

What do tax officials want to find in the first place? If earlier the search priority was unreasonable expenses for additional accrual of profit and VAT, now the search for undeclared revenue has been added. Even complaints from employees who have been dismissed from the organization are considered. Courts more often take the side of the tax authorities.

Suspension and renewal

An inspection of taxpayers (field or office) may be suspended in the following cases:

• implementation of a counter check;
• seizure of the necessary documents;
• examination.

Renewals can be implemented for many reasons:

• if the taxpayer is one of the largest;
• according to available information from various sources about tax violations;
• in case of emergencies of force majeure (fire, flood, others);
• if the company has separate subdivisions;
• in case of failure to provide the requested documents on time;
• for other reasons.

The duration of a standard on-site inspection is two months (can be increased to 4-6).

Scheduled and unscheduled tax audits

Scheduled inspections are carried out mainly once every three years. The company is notified of them no later than three days in advance. But there are also unplanned ones. They can be carried out by Rospotrebnadzor in places of public catering and sale of medicines.

The table presents situations, which may become the reason for the initiation of unscheduled tax control in 2020.

What is the signal for verification (reasons for control)	What violations are assumed
Reduction of the tax burden in relation to the industry average (by 10% and below)	There is a suspicion of saving on taxes
Lack of active communication during the period of conclusion of the contract, violation of the rules for its execution, lack of reliable information about the location of the areas	Interaction with counterparties causing suspicion (distrust)
Exceeding the rate of increase in expenses over income	Assumption of underestimation of income, overestimation of expenses
Continuous losses	Inconsistency of losses with an increase in sales proceeds
Low employee salaries (below the industry average by 10%)	Suspicion of payments "in envelopes"
Doubtfulness of contracts with existing intermediaries	A suspicion, for example, of manipulation with a product, which is in a given volume, at this time simply could not be produced. The discrepancy between the designated material resources and the actual data, another.
Change of location	Special deferral to correct identified violations
Mismatch with the industry average level of profitability	Underreporting

Common measures of tax authorities to search for information and evidence are the following:

1. Interviewing contractors (employees under the contract), all possible witnesses.
2. Penalizing witnesses for failure to appear.
3. Visiting witnesses, if they do not appear on call, at home with drawing up a protocol and recording on video.
4. Using the capabilities of the district inspector in the search for witnesses, interrogating him in order to obtain information.
5. Search for an informal approach, alternative sources, the use of photo, audio, video recording of facts, which since May 2016 are eligible as evidence in court.
6. Search for information, evidence on the Internet, in the 2-NDFL database, on requests from banks, traffic police, PRF.
7. Seizure of material evidence (hard drives, computers) in the presence of police officers.
8. Using printouts of cellular calls and social telephone surveys.

Tips on the best options for the director's behavior in the event of an audit can be as follows:

In 2020, enterprises will be included in the plan of tax audits in the following cases:

1. If the amount of violations is more than 10 million rubles.
2. In the presence of gross violations or complete disregard of the requirements of tax reporting.
3. If the organization is included in the plan for 2020 based on the results of a desk audit.
4. If the balance is zero, the liquidation process is initiated.
5. When joining the list of the largest taxpayers.
6. On behalf of law enforcement agencies.

Responsibility for results

The Inspectorate has the right to apply tax liability sanctions to entrepreneurs and legal entities. Some documents can be transferred to the Department of Internal Affairs to initiate a criminal case. The degree of punishment depends on the violations identified and the conditions that aggravate or mitigate them.

Removal of tax liability is assumed in following cases: upon expiration of the statute of limitations, innocence of a tax-related offense. Exclude the fault of natural disasters, force majeure, the execution of instructions in writing by the controlling departments.

The list of mitigating and aggravating conditions is reflected in article 112 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation. Tax liability does not guarantee exemption from criminal or administrative matters.