If there are compelling reasons for a tax audit, inspectors will not wait the “required” 3 years after the creation of the company. They will come, check, and if there are violations, they will charge you more and fine you. During the year they can check twice, but within the framework of one tax - only once. Today we will talk about who comes to the attention of the Federal Tax Service and is taken into “development” for the implementation of the GNP. There are certain criteria for this.

The tax burden is a very important indicator - the greater it is, the larger part of his income the businessman pays in the form of taxes. The tax burden is calculated using the formula:

Amount of taxes / Revenue * 100%

Note! Personal income tax which the employer pays for employees is included in the calculation of taxes, and insurance premiums - No.

For each industry it is calculated own level of tax burden. If a businessman has this level below the industry average, then his chances of being included in the inspection plan increase.

For example, in the catering industry the level of tax burden is 9,5% . Let's say a businessman earned a year from his cafe 10 million rubles and paid from them in the form of taxes 600 thousand rubles. The level of tax burden will be 600 000 / 10 000 000 * 100% = 6% , which is lower than the industry average. This does not mean that the businessman will automatically be included in the inspection plan, but the likelihood of such a development of events will increase.

Losses

Permanent losses for two or more consecutive years may arouse suspicion among tax inspectors. Are they created artificially in order to avoid paying taxes? This could be an additional pebble in the balance in favor of a tax audit.

Low wages

Such a check involves requesting constituent documents, confirming the powers and identity of the director, checking information about the company in open sources, as well as obtaining data from the Register of Legal Entities or Individual Entrepreneurs. We recommend that you read the details and avert the suspicions of the tax authorities.

Fly-by-night counterparties are dangerous because may not pay the VAT that you claim for deduction. If there is a suspicion that one of the counterparties could have acted in such bad faith, it is recommended to exclude the VAT amounts presented to him from deductions. And if such deductions have already been claimed, restore the tax and submit an updated return.

Borderline indicators for special regime officers

For the application of special tax regimes, the Tax Code establishes certain limit values. Once they are exceeded, the application of the tax regime will be prohibited.

For example, for the simplified tax system the following values ​​are set:

• annual income should not be more than 150 million rubles;
• residual value of fixed assets - also no more 150 million rubles;
• share of organizations in the authorized capital - no more ¼ ;
• number of employees - no more 150 people.

If over the course of a year, for example, annual income approaches the specified amount, and then “rolls back”, this may raise suspicion. Isn’t income being understated so that the simplified tax system can continue to be applied? The same applies to the remaining limit values.

The safe VAT deduction percentage has been exceeded

If a business entity applies the general taxation regime and deducts VAT, it needs to monitor. There is a federal threshold for this value - today it is 89% . This indicator is also calculated quarterly for each region- the inspection will focus specifically on him.

Low level of profitability

Profitability is an indicator of the efficiency of resource use. Return on sales is calculated using the formula:

Profit from sales / Cost * 100%

Return on assets is calculated as follows:

Profit / Assets * 100%

For example, let's calculate the return on sales. Let the owner of a cafe receive a profit of 600 thousand rubles at the end of the year, and the cost of his products amounted to 7 million rubles. The profitability of sales will be:

600 000 / 7 000 000 * 100% = 8,57%

At the end of each year, the Federal Tax Service calculates the profitability of each area of ​​activity. In public catering it amounts to 7%. It turns out that the businessman from the example is above the reference level in terms of return on sales. This means that according to this indicator he is out of the risk zone.

Expense growth exceeds income growth

Expenses are considered business expenses that reduce the tax base. If they are growing faster than income, then this is a reason for suspicion. Maybe it’s a matter of the market conditions that have developed at the moment, or not very effective management. But it is possible that the businessman inflates his expenses or hides his income to pay less taxes.

An entrepreneur's expenses are approaching his income

Individual entrepreneurs in the main tax regime pay personal income tax on their own income, reduced per size tax deductions - documented expenses. If expenses are close to income, then there is nothing to pay tax on. Therefore, if expenses are very high, there may be a suspicion that they are artificially inflated.

It is believed that The safe share of individual entrepreneur deductions is 83%. If within two years an entrepreneur’s expenses amount to more than 83% of income, then this may become a reason for suspicion and the appointment of an income tax.

Important conclusion

A complex multi-stage process carried out using special analytical systems. If according to some criterion you have come to the attention of the Federal Tax Service, this does not mean that inspectors will come knocking on your door tomorrow. The decision to include GNP in the plan is made taking into account amounts of tax violation, availability of evidence, and opportunities to collect arrears.

The above criteria are given to a greater extent for self-control. Companies and entrepreneurs are advised to periodically review their performance and promptly eliminate risks.

What are the grounds for an on-site inspection?

Desk audit of the VAT return. Grounds for on-site inspection.

Question: When refunding VAT from the budget, the tax authority conducts a desk tax audit. Are there grounds for conducting an on-site tax audit in this case?

Criteria by which candidates for on-site inspection are selected

The “Tax Audit Risk” wizard will help you check whether tax inspectors are coming to visit you.

Indicators of the tax burden for the main types of economic activity for 2006-2011 are given in

Dear taxpayers! A year ago, the Federal Tax Service of Russia, in the Concept of tax planning for on-site tax audits, identified and named eleven criteria for assessing tax risks for taxpayers, which are used by tax authorities in the process of selecting objects for conducting on-site tax audits.

The taxpayer's tax burden is below its average level for business entities in a specific industry (type of economic activity).
. Reflection of losses in accounting or tax reporting over several tax periods.
. Reflection in tax reporting of significant amounts of tax deductions for a certain period.
. The faster growth rate of expenses than the growth rate of income from the sale of goods (works, services).
. Payment of average monthly wages per employee below the average level for the type of economic activity in the subject Russian Federation.
. Repeatedly approaching the maximum value of indicators established by the Tax Code of the Russian Federation that grant taxpayers the right to apply special tax regimes.
. Reflection by an individual entrepreneur of the amount of expenses that is as close as possible to the amount of his income received for the calendar year.
. Construction of financial and economic activities based on concluding agreements with counterparties-resellers or intermediaries (“chains of counterparties”) without reasonable economic or other reasons (business purpose).
. Failure by the taxpayer to provide explanations to the notification of the tax authority about the identification of discrepancies in performance indicators.
. Repeated deregistration and registration in tax authorities taxpayer due to a change in location (“migration” between tax authorities).
. Significant deviation in the level of profitability according to the data accounting on the level of profitability for a given field of activity according to statistics.

In fact, by analyzing his activities over the last three years, the taxpayer can most likely determine whether an audit will be ordered against him or not. If there are risks in the organization’s activities, he will be able to eliminate them independently by clarifying his tax obligations. If the taxpayer does not want to do this for one reason or another, then he cannot avoid a visit from the tax authorities.

Order of the Federal Tax Service of Russia dated October 14, 2008 No. MM-3-2/467@ "On amendments to the Order of the Federal Tax Service of Russia dated May 30, 2007 No. MM-3-06/333@".

Methods of conducting financial and economic activities with high tax risk

The Federal Tax Service of Russia has developed the 12th criterion for self-assessment of tax risks Press release

Tax Code of the Russian Federation (Part One) Chapter 14 Tax Control

Criteria for self-assessment of risks for taxpayers, used by tax authorities in the process of selecting objects for conducting on-site tax audits

Order of the Federal Tax Service of Russia dated May 31, 2007 No. MM-3-06/338@ On approval of document forms used by tax authorities when exercising their powers in relations regulated by the legislation on taxes and fees

Order of the Federal Tax Service of Russia dated May 30, 2007. No. MM-3-06/333@ On approval of the Concept of the planning system for on-site tax audits

Order of the Federal Tax Service of Russia dated March 6, 2007 No. MM-3-06/106@ “On approval of document forms to be used by tax authorities when conducting tax audits”

Order of the Federal Tax Service of Russia dated December 25, 2006 No. SAE-3-06/892@ On approval of document forms used when conducting and processing tax audits; grounds and procedure for extending the period for conducting an on-site tax audit; the procedure for interaction between tax authorities to carry out orders to request documents; requirements for drawing up a tax audit report

Letter of the Federal Tax Service of Russia dated December 3, 2007 No. ШТ-6-06/925@ On the registration of the results of desk tax audits and on decisions made based on the results of reviewing the materials of the audit of reporting according to a single social tax related to the implementation of Article 243 Tax Code Russian Federation

Letter of the Federal Tax Service of Russia dated October 11, 2007 No. ШТ-6-06/774@ On requesting from banks documents and information necessary for tax control

Everyone knows that an on-site tax audit is a responsible matter, because, as statistics show, during an audit the Federal Tax Service assesses huge amounts of additional money. How to assess the likelihood of an on-site inspection based on self-control criteria?

Note that even if there are only “crystal clear transactions”, any taxpayer has an understandable desire to know: “will they come or not?” And he tries in every possible way to predict the fact whether it falls under the verification criteria.

Is it possible to plan an on-site inspection so that the arrival of inspectors is not like a “bolt from the blue” for the company? What should a taxpayer know in order to minimize such losses?

Despite the fact that the legislation does not allow payers to have access to tax inspection plans, there are key criteria for assessing the activities of entities that have been developed by the Federal Tax Service. Taxpayers can take these criteria into account to plan an on-site audit for themselves.

So,

How to independently assess the risk of conducting an on-site tax audit?

I .) Familiarize yourself with the key provisions of the order of the Federal Tax Service of Russia dated May 30, 2007 N MM-3-06/333@ (as amended on May 10, 2012) “On approval of the Concept of the planning system for on-site tax audits.”

So, self-monitoring criteria for planning on-site inspections establishedby order No. MM-3-06/333 dated May 30, 2007:

1. The tax burden on the company is below the industry average(clause 1).

Formulas for calculating the tax burden can be found in Appendix No. 3 of the document. It is necessary to compare the obtained tax burden data with data for previous periods, and then compare with control values ​​in Appendix No. 3 on the Federal Tax Service website. It must be remembered that the data is updated every year.

2. The company reflects losses in its financial statements over several tax periods(clause 2).

3. The reporting documents contain too large amounts of deductions for a particular period(clause 3). Namely, the amount of VAT deductions amounting to 89% or more of the accrued VAT.

4. An accelerated dynamics of cost growth was recorded in comparison with the rate of increase in revenue (clause 4).

Discrepancy between the growth rate of expenses compared to the growth rate of income according to both tax and accounting (financial) reporting. If expenses are growing faster than income, it means that the payer may be trying to reduce his tax liability in a less than honest way;

5. The company pays employees a lower salary than the industry average(clause 5).

This may indicate that salaries were paid in envelopes, and as a result, personal income tax and insurance contributions were not received.

Information on statistical indicators of the average wage level by type of economic activity in a city, district or in a whole subject of the Russian Federation can be obtained from the following sources:

1. Official Internet sites of territorial bodies Federal service state statistics (Rosstat).
2. Upon request to the territorial body of the Federal State Statistics Service (Rosstat) or the tax authority in the relevant constituent entity of the Russian Federation;
3. Official Internet sites of the departments of the Federal Tax Service of Russia for the constituent entities of the Russian Federation after posting the relevant statistical indicators on them.

6. The company’s indicators, which give the right to operate under special tax regimes, are close to the maximum permissible (clause 6). For example, in terms of income for taxable period when applying the simplified tax system (clause 4 of article 346.13 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation).

7. Individual entrepreneurs show in their reporting expenses that are as close as possible to the amount of income ( item 7).

8. The company forms an unreasonably long chain of counterparties, consisting of intermediaries and resellers(clause 8) without reasonable economic reasons for this.

9. The organization does not provide the Federal Tax Service with explanations in response to notifications received about the non-compliance of certain performance indicators with the established criteria, and does not transfer the requested documents (clause 9). Of course, this should alert tax authorities and gives reason to doubt the reality of the company’s transactions.

10. The owners of the company frequently re-register their business in different territorial structures of the Federal Tax Service(clause 10). This behavior, according to tax authorities, indicates tax evasion and receipt of unjustified tax benefits.

11. The company has noticeable deviations in profitability from the industry average(clause 11).

Calculation of return on sales and assets, starting from Appendix No. 4 of this order of the Federal Tax Service.

12. According to Federal Tax Service specialists, the company operates with a high tax risk(clause 12).

Information on methods of conducting financial and economic activities with high tax risk posted on the official website of the Federal Tax Service of Russia.

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

– lack of personal contacts between the management (authorized officials) of the supplier company and the management (authorized officials) of the buyer company when discussing the terms of delivery, as well as when signing contracts;

– lack of documentary evidence of the authority of the head of the counterparty company, copies of his identity document;

– lack of documentary confirmation of the powers of the counterparty’s representative, copies of a document proving his identity;

– lack of information about the actual location of the counterparty, as well as the location of warehouse and/or production and/or retail space;

– lack of information about the method of obtaining information about the counterparty (no advertising in the media, no recommendations from partners or other persons, no website of the counterparty, etc.). Moreover, the negativity of this attribute is aggravated by the presence of available information (for example, in the media, outdoor advertising, Internet sites, etc.) about other market participants (including manufacturers) of identical (similar) goods (works, services), including number of those offering their goods (works, services) for more low prices;

– lack of information about the state registration of the counterparty in the Unified State Register of Legal Entities (public access, official website of the Federal Tax Service of Russia www.nalog.ru).

The presence of such signs indicates a high degree of risk of classifying such a counterparty by the tax authorities as problematic (or “fly-by-night”), and transactions made with such a counterparty are questionable.

The simultaneous presence of the following circumstances contributes to an increase in tax risks: :

– a counterparty having the above characteristics acts as an intermediary;

– presence in contracts of conditions different from existing rules(customs) of business transactions (for example, long deferred payments, delivery of large quantities of goods without advance payment or guarantee of payment, incomparable with the consequences of violation of contracts by the parties with penalties, settlements through third parties, settlements with bills, etc.);

– absence of obvious evidence (for example, copies of documents confirming that the counterparty has production facilities, necessary licenses, qualified personnel, property, etc.) of the possibility of the counterparty actually fulfilling the terms of the agreement, as well as the existence of reasonable doubts about the possibility of the counterparty actually fulfilling the terms of the agreement with taking into account the time required for delivery or production of goods, performance of work or provision of services;

– acquisition through intermediaries of goods, the production and procurement of which are traditionally carried out by individuals who are not entrepreneurs (agricultural products, secondary raw materials (including scrap metal), craft products, etc.);

– absence of real actions by the payer (or his counterparty) to collect the debt. An increase in the debt of the payer (or its counterparty) against the backdrop of continued delivery of large quantities of goods or significant volumes of work (services) to the debtor;

– issuance, purchase/sale by counterparties of bills of exchange, the liquidity of which is not obvious or has not been studied, as well as issuance/receipt of loans without collateral. At the same time, the negativity of this attribute is aggravated by the absence of conditions on interest on debt obligations of any type, as well as the repayment terms of these debt obligations for more than three years;

– a significant share of the costs of a transaction with “problem” counterparties in the total amount of expenses of the taxpayer, while there is no economic justification for the feasibility of such a transaction and at the same time there is no positive economic effect from its implementation, etc.

It turns out that the more coincidences on the specified points the Federal Tax Service records in relation to the activities of a particular company, the higher the likelihood of an audit, and the more quickly it can be carried out

II.) Familiarize yourself with the key provisions of the letter of the Federal Tax Service of Russia “On the work of commissions of tax authorities on the legalization of the tax base” dated July 17, 2013 No. AS-4-2/12722.

Letter of the Federal Tax Service of Russia dated July 17, 2013 No. AS-4-2/12722 . contains formulas for calculating the tax burden for specific taxes and tax regimes, and also lists the criteria for tax risks. If the order of the Federal Tax Service No. MM-3-06/333 dated May 30, 2007 gives formulas for calculating the total tax burden, then this letter gives exactly the calculation formulas for each tax. For more details, see the article.

There are 40 criteria for tax risks for tax authorities in the letter of the Federal Tax Service, and not 12, as in the order of the Federal Tax Service. Many of these criteria overlap and complement each other and, in my opinion, can also be used by taxpayers to independently assess the risk of conducting an on-site tax audit, as well as for legalization tax base, the formation of which will not raise doubts among the tax authorities.

Even though the letter Federal Tax Service No. AS-4-2/12722 dated July 17, 2013 was canceled in March 2017 in terms of organizing the work of commissions on issues of the correct formation of the tax base and the completeness of tax payment, all other parameters of this document for tax authorities remain relevant.

Here are just a few of the 40 criteria for assessing risk by tax authorities:

1. Sharp increase accounts payable with a simultaneous decrease in the volume of assets, or a significant excess of the amount of accounts payable over the amount of proceeds from the sale of goods (works, services) and accounts receivable. This circumstance may indicate preparation legal entity to liquidation or bankruptcy.
2. Significant reduction in accounts receivable. The reason for this circumstance may be the unreasonable inclusion in expenses when calculating income tax, the amount of bad debts.
3. A discrepancy in revenue from sales (works, services) according to tax returns for income tax, VAT and the financial results statement may indicate that certain financial transactions were not included in the sale and, as a result, an understatement of the tax base
4. Movement of significant amounts of cash Money(cash flow statement indicators) in the absence of significant changes in indicators balance sheet, which may indicate an understatement of sales revenue
5. Transferring the tax burden for income tax and (or VAT) to another organization
6. Inclusion in expenses of significant amounts of interest on debt obligations (loans, credits), in cases where the amount of receivables held by the organization is so significant that, in the event of its repayment, the need to attract borrowed money disappears and (or) among the largest debtors of the taxpayer are the founders of these organizations, subsidiaries, and other interdependent persons
7. Accounting in the current tax period for expenses relating to future periods, etc.

As we can see from the examples listed above, the criteria are quite realistic, and they can be used not only by tax authorities, but also by taxpayers.

Tax officials can conduct an on-site tax audit (hereinafter referred to as the IAT) in absolutely any organization and at any location. individual entrepreneur. However, this is a costly matter and requires a considerable amount of time. Therefore, regulatory authorities come with GNP first of all to those whose activities raise questions.

Back in 2007, the Federal Tax Service of Russia approved the Concept of the planning system for on-site tax audits (clause 1 of the Federal Tax Service Order No. MM-3-06/333@ dated May 30, 2007). It establishes what financial and economic indicators of activity inspectors must analyze (based on the information available to them) in order to assess the need for an IRR for a particular taxpayer. The concept also defines criteria for self-assessment of risks for taxpayers.

Let us remind you that the period of on-site tax audit general rule is 2 months, but can be extended up to 4 months, and in some cases - up to 6 months (Clause 6 of Article 89 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation).

Selection of taxpayers for on-site tax audits

The selection of organizations and individual entrepreneurs for conducting GNP is carried out based on the results (Section 3 of the Concept

• analysis of the amounts of calculated and paid taxes. Thanks to it, tax authorities can not only monitor the compliance of amounts paid with accrued amounts, but also monitor the dynamics of tax payments. The downward trend in accruals will certainly alert controllers;
• analysis of tax and financial statements. Using it, you can track deviations in the performance indicators of the current period from similar indicators for previous periods, or from the average statistical indicators, as well as identify inconsistencies between the information provided by the payer and the information available to the specialists of the Federal Tax Service;
• analysis of factors and reasons influencing the formation of the tax base.

At the same time, tax officials first target those payers who, according to the tax authority, are involved in tax evasion schemes, schemes to minimize tax liabilities, or have allegedly committed tax offenses. And then they evaluate the performance of the others.

Risk assessment criteria in the concept of planning on-site tax audits

The concept of planning on-site tax audits also includes publicly available criteria for self-assessment of risks for taxpayers. That is, any organization, based on the given list of criteria, can assess whether there is a high probability that it will soon be approached with GNP. Among these criteria are named (Section 4 of the Concept, approved by Order of the Federal Tax Service of May 30, 2007 N MM-3-06/333@):

• below its average level for other similar organizations (IEs) in a certain industry;
• losses in accounting or tax reporting based on the results of several tax periods. In practice, inspectors often ask for an explanation of the occurrence of losses. And if the arguments in the explanation look convincing, the GNP may not take place;
• significant amounts of tax deductions in reporting. Namely, the amount of VAT deductions amounting to 89% or more of the accrued VAT;
• higher growth rate of expenses compared to the growth rate of sales revenues. If expenses are growing faster than income, it means that the payer may be trying to reduce his tax liability in a less than honest way;
• the average monthly salary of the taxpayer’s employees is below the average level for the relevant type of economic activity in the region where he operates. This may indicate that salaries were paid in envelopes, and as a result, personal income tax was not received;
• the taxpayer’s performance indicators are on the verge of meeting the limit values, compliance with which is mandatory for the application of the special regime. For example, in terms of the volume of income for the tax period when applying the simplified tax system (clause 4 of article 346.13 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation);
• indication by the individual entrepreneur of the amount of expenses that is as close as possible to the amount of his income received for the calendar year;
• conclusion by the payer of contracts with resellers or intermediaries without reasonable economic reasons;
• failure by the taxpayer to provide explanations in response to a notification from the tax authority about the identification of discrepancies in performance indicators, failure to provide requested documents or provide them with information about their loss (destruction, damage, etc.);
• repeated deregistration and registration with the tax authorities due to a change in location (“migration” between inspections);
• a noticeable deviation of the level of profitability according to accounting data from the level of profitability for the corresponding field of activity according to statistics;
• conducting activities with high tax risk.