Balance sheet changes 2013:
First of all, it should be noted that when filling out the balance sheet for 2013, you need to rely on the Law “On Accounting” No. 402 of December 6, 2011.
The main change is that since 2013 the balance sheet must be submitted only once a year: the annual balance sheet for 2013 - until the end of March 2014 (no later than 3 months after the end of the reporting year). There is no longer a need to submit interim reports during the year.
Another important change is that from January 1, 2013, all organizations had to maintain accounting records using any taxation system. Accordingly, all organizations must fill out and submit a balance sheet for 2013. This change did not affect individual entrepreneurs; individual entrepreneurs still do not need to do accounting and submit financial statements.
For 2013, you need to fill out 2 copies of the balance sheet: one for the tax office, the other for the State Statistics Committee.
For small enterprises, some simplifications have been made; special abbreviated financial statements for small enterprises have been developed for them, including a balance sheet and a statement of financial results. In these forms, information is indicated in an abbreviated, collapsed form.
When filling out the balance sheet for 2013, you must use the form approved by Order of the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation dated July 2, 2010 No. 66n (as amended on December 4, 2012).
The developed form of the balance sheet is not mandatory for use; an organization can change the standard form depending on its needs, while maintaining the necessary set of mandatory details. The forms of the amended forms must be approved by management and reflected in the accounting policies of the organization.
Balance sheet 2013: what the Russian Ministry of Finance recommends (“New Accounting”, No. 03, 2014)
Every year, financial department specialists issue recommendations to auditors on how to conduct an audit of annual financial statements. This year was no exception. In letter dated January 29, 2014 No. 07-04-18/01, the Russian Ministry of Finance explained what points auditors should pay attention to. Recommendations from financiers will also be useful to accountants, as they will allow them to avoid mistakes when preparing annual financial statements.
Fixed assets
With regard to accounting for fixed assets, the Russian Ministry of Finance considered four important issues.
The property was purchased with borrowed funds
As a general rule, interest payable to the lender (creditor), directly related to the acquisition, construction and (or) production of an investment asset, is included in the cost of this asset (clause 5 of PBU 15/2008 “Accounting for expenses on loans and credits”) . But what about interest if the loan was taken to pay off a debt obligation that was intended to purchase fixed assets?
Let's illustrate the situation with an example. An investor-developer company is building a shopping center. In January 2013, a loan in the amount of 10 million rubles was received. at 10% per annum. The loan was taken out for three years with the possibility of early repayment. The entire amount was allocated to contractors in 2013. Interest in the amount of 1 million rubles. included in the cost of the investment asset (debit of account 08 “Investments in non-current assets”).
In January 2014, the company had the opportunity to take out a loan from another bank, but at 8% per annum. It is clear that the company wants to refinance, which it does by taking out the same 10 million rubles on credit. for the same three years (until December 31, 2021). The received loan is fully used to repay the first loan. Construction was completed on December 31, 2014. RUB 800,000 was included in the cost of the investment asset in 2014.
Can the second loan be considered spent on the acquisition, construction and (or) production of an investment asset? Formally, if we talk about direct, immediate spending, it is impossible. But from the point of view of economic content, the economic relationship of the facts of economic life, apparently, it can be assumed that the second loan was used for construction purposes. Does this mean that, guided by the requirement to reflect the facts of economic life based on the priority of the economic content and business conditions over the legal form (clause 6 of PBU 1/2008 “Accounting Policy of the Organization”), it is possible to include interest on the second loan in the cost of the investment asset?
On the one hand, no general principle can cancel a specific norm if its literal meaning is unambiguous. In addition, the principle of priority of content over form should not be applied in isolation, but in conjunction with other requirements - the principles listed in paragraph 6 of PBU 1/2008, one of which is a greater willingness to recognize expenses and liabilities in accounting than possible income and assets, avoiding the creation of hidden reserves (requirement of prudence). And this principle speaks in favor of the fact that in controversial, ambiguous situations, when there are arguments for both the capitalization of expenses and their one-time recognition, preference should be given to the immediate write-off of expenses.
On the other hand, the inclusion of interest on the second loan in the cost of the asset does not increase its value and does not improve the financial performance of the organization compared to what it would be if, in the absence of refinancing, interest on the initial borrowed funds was capitalized. That is, in general, the requirement of prudence is met and, accordingly, the interests of users of accounting (financial) statements do not suffer.
In the Recommendations, the Russian Ministry of Finance noted that PBU 15/2008 does not contain provisions limiting the inclusion in the value of an investment asset of interest for the use of borrowed (credit) funds received for the purpose of refinancing (on-lending) loans (credits) previously used for the acquisition, construction and ( or) production of that investment asset. That is, financiers allow interest on the second loan received for refinancing to be included in the initial cost of the asset.
We recommend that when including in the cost of an investment asset interest on borrowed funds used for refinancing (on-lending) borrowed funds used for the acquisition, construction or production of investment assets, this circumstance should be disclosed in the notes to the balance sheet and the income statement.
Modernization and reconstruction of the facility
Considering the conditions for increasing the initial cost of an object of fixed assets by the amount of costs for its modernization and reconstruction, the Ministry of Finance of Russia indicates that such a basis may be, in particular, an increase in the remaining useful life of the object while all other performance indicators remain unchanged (power, quality of use, etc.). P.). This instruction is based on the principle of reflecting and presenting the facts of economic life based on the priority of economic content over the legal form (clause 6 of PBU 1/2008). And the economic goal and content of additional capital investments in fixed assets is to improve their functioning, which should be manifested in a change in at least one of its parameters. Therefore, if all other performance indicators remain unchanged, then the useful life should increase.
This recommendation of financiers should first of all be taken into account by those organizations whose accounting policies state that in accounting the useful life of fixed assets is established in accordance with Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated January 1, 2002 No. 1 “On the classification of fixed assets included in depreciation groups” "(hereinafter referred to as the resolution). Let us assume that when an item of fixed assets was accepted for accounting, a maximum useful life for its depreciation group was established. Then, for tax purposes, it cannot be increased by the organizational and administrative document of the organization, since this is prohibited by clause 1 of Art. 258 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, and tax legislation does not require the priority of content over form. But in accounting, the opposite is true: there is no restriction on increasing the useful life and there is a specified requirement that must be observed, especially in situations where there are no unambiguous standards or there is a choice from several standards.
Compliance with this principle, as stated in paragraph 6 of PBU 1/2008, must be ensured by the accounting policy of the organization. Therefore, the accounting policies of organizations that determine the useful life of fixed assets according to the resolution must state that this rule does not apply to cases where this resolution does not allow the implementation of regulatory requirements for accounting policies, for example, if it is necessary to increase the useful life of fixed assets funds in excess of the limit for tax purposes.
Revaluation
Financiers paid attention to two points. Firstly, the Ministry of Finance reminds that the revaluation of an object of fixed assets is carried out by recalculating its original cost or current (replacement) cost, if this object was revalued earlier, and the amount of depreciation accrued for the entire period of use of the object (clause 46 of the Methodological guidelines for accounting for fixed assets funds, approved by order of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated October 13, 2003 No. 91n). Quoting this norm, officials seem to warn against using another possible revaluation method, in which the amount of accumulated depreciation is not revalued, but is subtracted from the gross book value of the asset, after which the net value is recalculated to the revalued value of the asset (subparagraph “b”, paragraph 35 IAS 16 Property, Plant and Equipment).
Secondly, it is noted that in the event of revaluations of fixed assets as of December 31, comparative data for the periods preceding the reporting period do not change. Thus, it is proposed to apply clauses 17, 18 of IFRS (IAS) 8 “Accounting policies, changes in accounting estimates and errors” when preparing annual accounting (financial) statements. According to these standards, despite the fact that the first revaluation is a change in accounting policy, its results are not subject to the rule on retrospective reflection of the consequences of a change in accounting policy.
According to clause 3 of PBU 21/2008 “Change in estimated values,” a change in the method of assessing assets and liabilities is not a change in the estimated value. At the same time, PBU 1/2008 does not contain any exceptions from the general procedure for reflecting the consequences of changes in accounting policies in terms of the valuation of fixed assets. This means that when conducting the first revaluation of fixed assets, which means a transition from valuing them at historical cost (based on actual costs) to valuing them at current market (revalued) value (that is, a change in accounting policy), the data of previous years presented in the reporting must be retrospective recalculated in such a way as if they were also formed using a new method of assessment (clause 15 of PBU 1/2008).
According to clause 25 of PBU 4/99 “Accounting statements of an organization”, the explanations must indicate that the financial statements were prepared by the organization based on the accounting and reporting rules in force in the Russian Federation, except in cases where the organization made deviations from these rules when preparing the financial statements in accordance with clause 6 of PBU 4/99. In addition, in the Recommendations under consideration, the Ministry of Finance emphasizes that the auditor’s report must indicate in accordance with what established rules the financial statements are prepared. For example: “in accordance with Russian rules for preparing financial statements”, “in accordance with international financial reporting standards”.
Consequently, if the lack of retrospective reflection of the results of the first revaluation is not due to the impossibility of obtaining sufficiently reliable data (clauses 15, 22 of PBU 1/2008), then based on clause 25 of PBU 4/99 it should be disclosed in the financial statements as a deviation from the established rules its compilation. If the statements are subject to an audit, then the validity of the deviation will be assessed by the auditor in accordance with clause 2 of the Federal Standard on Auditing (FSAD 2/2010) “Modified opinion in the auditor’s report” (approved by order of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated May 20, 2010 No. 46n).
Write-off of fixed assets
As the Ministry of Finance of Russia notes, if an item of fixed assets is recognized by the organization as unsuitable for further use or sale and, therefore, is not capable of generating economic benefits (income) in the future, it is subject to write-off from accounting (clause 29 of PBU 6/01 "Accounting for fixed assets"). In this case, the residual value of the specified object is written off as other expenses of the organization.
The letter of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated January 27, 2012 No. 07-02-18/01 “Recommendations for audit organizations, individual auditors, auditors on conducting an audit of the annual financial statements of organizations for 2011” helps to better understand the meaning of this recommendation. It emphasized that an object is written off from accounting when at least one condition for accepting the asset for accounting as fixed assets ceases to apply. One of these conditions is precisely the ability of the object to bring economic benefits (income) to the organization in the future (sub-clause “d”, clause 4 of PBU 6/01). Accordingly, if an object of fixed assets loses such ability, it must be written off from accounting, regardless of its actual disposal.
In accounting, writing off an operating system that is unsuitable for further use or resale looks like this:
- when using account 01 “Fixed Assets” to determine the residual value of the subaccount “Retirement of fixed assets,” it must be immediately “closed” and written off to the debit of account 91 “Other income and expenses.” Otherwise, there is no fact that fixed assets are written off from accounting. The transfer of the initial cost and depreciation to this sub-account is a purely transit, technical entry that does not affect the financial statements and therefore does not even have the right to be called an “operation” (Clause 8, Article 3 of the Federal Law of December 6, 2011 No. 402-FZ “On accounting”, hereinafter referred to as Law No. 402-FZ);
- when writing off fixed assets from the accounting records before their actual disposal, in the event that material assets are received during the subsequent liquidation of fixed assets, they are accounted for in correspondence with the credit of account 91, that is, the results of the disposal of fixed assets in this case will be reflected in accounting in detail: in the debit of account 91 - expenses in the form of the residual value of the written-off fixed asset (and then liquidation expenses), on the credit of account 91 - income in the form of received values.
At the same time, if the indicated expenses and income take place in the same year, they may well be reflected in the annual accounting (financial) statements in a scaled-down manner if they are not significant for characterizing the financial position of the organization (clause 34 of PBU 4/ 99, clause 18.2, 21 PBU 9/99 “Income of the organization”).
For your information
The fixed asset must not only be recognized as incapable of bringing economic benefits (income) to the organization in the prescribed manner, but also actually be taken out of service. As for fixed assets with a long period of dismantling, they are subject to write-off from accounting during the period when management makes a decision on dismantling, regardless of the period of completion of dismantling. The basis for write-off will be a document that clearly indicates the actual decommissioning of an asset (for example, an act on transferring an asset for liquidation). This opinion is expressed in Explanation R-12/2013-KPT “Procedure for writing off fixed assets during liquidation, taking into account the long dismantling period,” adopted by the NRBU BMC Foundation.
In the commented Recommendations, the Russian Ministry of Finance considered the situation when an object is recognized by an organization as unsuitable for further use or sale.
Now let's assume it's salable. In the balance sheet, is it necessary to transfer fixed assets for which a decision to sell has been made from the “Fixed Assets” account to some other account? If yes, which one? On account 41 “Goods” - it’s impossible. This opinion was expressed by the Ministry of Finance in letter dated 03/02/2010 No. 03-05-05-01/04. Thus, in accounting, the object remains part of fixed assets, and by virtue of the reference in Art. 374 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation to the rules of accounting continues to be subject to (if it was subject to before) property tax.
As for accounting (financial) reporting, then, in our opinion, it is necessary to take into account the main requirement for accounting (financial) reporting by Law No. 402-FZ. Namely, reporting must provide a reliable picture of the financial position of an economic entity as of the reporting date, the financial result of its activities and cash flows for the reporting period, which is necessary for users of these reporting to make economic decisions.
Let’s say an organization reflects the fixed assets for which the decision to sell was made in the “Fixed Assets” account. The user sees these objects as part of the operating system and assumes that they will generate income and generate cash flows during their useful life. But in fact, this is not so - the OS will be sold, the income will be received at a time and it will not be classified as income from ordinary activities, but as other income. This means the user will receive a distorted picture. Therefore, it would be better to show such fixed assets separately as part of current assets under the group of items “Inventories” or “Other current assets”.
We will come to the same conclusion by turning, on the basis of clause 7 of PBU 1/2008, to IAS 5 “Long-term assets held for sale and discontinued operations” (subclause “b” of clause 1, clauses 3, 6, 38, appendix A). Please note that an asset can be classified as held for sale only if the conditions provided for in clauses 7 and 8 of the said IFRS are met:
— the asset is ready for immediate sale in its current condition;
— a decision has been made to sell and the search for a buyer is underway.
Attention!
Tax authorities may not agree with writing off a decommissioned but not liquidated object from account 01. After all, in this case the object is “withdrawn” from property tax.
Financial investments
In the Recommendations, financiers considered the issue of applying clause 20 of PBU 19/02 “Accounting for financial investments”. According to this norm, financial investments for which the current market value can be determined are reflected in the financial statements at the end of the reporting year at the current market value by adjusting their valuation as of the previous reporting date. In this case, the current market value of securities is understood as their market price, calculated in the prescribed manner by the organizer of trading on the securities market (clause 13 of PBU 19/02).
Let's imagine the situation. The parent organization owns 900 shares of the subsidiary OJSC, which is 90% of the total number of issued shares. The parent company, suppose, purchased these shares in one package on the market, or received them as a contribution to the authorized capital, or paid for them when establishing a subsidiary and does not intend to sell them. The initial cost of the block of shares at which it was accepted for accounting is 900,000 rubles, that is, the cost of one share is 1,000 rubles. (RUB 900,000: 900 shares).
The remaining 10% (100 pcs.) of the shares of the subsidiary OJSC, owned by other shareholders (not the parent company), are traded on the organized securities market.
On December 31, a package of ten shares was sold on the Moscow Exchange for 7,000 rubles, that is, at a price of 700 rubles. per share. Should the parent company, in accordance with clauses 13, 20 of PBU 19/02, reduce the book value of the shares of the subsidiary OJSC (Debit 91 Credit 58) by 270,000 rubles. [900,000 rub. – ( x 900 shares)], reducing by this amount the value of financial investments in the balance sheet, in the income statement - net profit and in the statement of changes in equity - the value of net assets? Or it may choose not to do so, believing, on the basis of economic substance over legal form, that the transaction price for a ten-share stake representing less than 1% of the charter capital does not reflect the fair market value of the parent company's 900-share stake representing 90% of the charter capital. capital, since it does not take into account the so-called control fee, which would necessarily increase the transaction price if a block of 51% of the total number of shares was sold, or even, say, only a blocking block of shares, or another package representing certain additional rights according to Federal Law dated December 26, 1995 No. 208-FZ “On Joint-Stock Companies”?
In relation to such situations, the Russian Ministry of Finance stated: PBU 19/02 does not make the use of market prices of securities to adjust their valuation as of the previous reporting date dependent on the total number of these securities that are the subject of transactions, as well as on the ratio of the specified quantity to the number of securities owned by the organization. That is, in the above example, the parent company is obliged to carry out a revaluation of financial investments in the subsidiary OJSC, which worsens its accounting (financial) statements.
Nevertheless, in practice, the parent company still has the opportunity to do otherwise - to present in the reporting financial investments in the subsidiary OJSC at their original cost, disclosing in it, in accordance with paragraph 25 of PBU 4/99, the fact of deviation from the established rules for its preparation. And auditors, guided by these rules and their professional judgment, will assess whether compliance with the standards of PBU 19/02 would actually make the reporting less reliable than it became when deviating from them (clause 2 of FSAD 2/2010).
Reserves
In the Recommendations, financiers expressed two interesting approaches to accounting for inventories.
The goal determines the score
The first recommendation of the Russian Ministry of Finance, regarding the group of articles “Inventories”, serves as another good lesson in how familiar norms in new conditions begin to reveal the meaning that has long been embedded in them, but for the time being not perceived.
As the Ministry of Finance of Russia reminded, in accordance with clause 2 of PBU 5/01 “Accounting for inventories”, the following assets are accepted for accounting as inventories:
- used as raw materials, materials, etc. in the production of products intended for sale (performance of work, provision of services);
- intended for sale;
- used for the management needs of the organization.
Since raw materials, materials and similar assets used to create the company's non-current assets do not meet the specified characteristics, they cannot be recognized as part of the organization's inventory.
Indeed, all the areas of use of assets classified as inventories listed here - production, sales, management - are ordinary activities, as they are defined in PBU 9/99 and PBU 10/99 “Organizational Expenses”. Let's give an example. Let’s say the company is not engaged in construction, that is, construction is not a normal activity for it. Therefore, if, for example, she has bricks in her warehouse, intended partly for repairs and partly for capital construction, then the first part is stocks, and the second is not stocks. And if the purpose of any of the parts changes, then their qualifications for accounting purposes will also change. For example, if, due to a lack of funds for construction, it is decided to sell the materials intended for it, then they can be considered inventories and reflected in the balance sheet in the corresponding group of items.
And where, then, should those bricks that are supposed to be used for construction be reflected in the balance sheet? The answer suggests itself: in that part of the balance sheet where everything that has not yet become, but will become fixed assets as a result of construction, is presented, that is, as part of non-current assets. This is exactly the recommendation given by the Russian Ministry of Finance. To specify it, let's say that this should be a group of articles “Fixed assets” (and not “Other non-current assets”), in which, if necessary, the article “Construction in progress” is highlighted.
If the price is below cost
The second recommendation of the Russian Ministry of Finance states that if there is an agreement for the sale of finished products at a price below cost, in accounting for the difference between the cost of production and the contract price for its future sale, a reserve should be created to reduce the cost of inventories. This is done by posting: Debit 91 Credit 14. In the balance sheet, these products must be presented in accordance with clause 35 of PBU 4/99 at cost minus the reserve.
Let us note that the condition formulated by the Russian Ministry of Finance for creating the specified reserve and reducing the cost of products in the balance sheet by its value is the most minimal. Because even without the existence of concluded contracts, if at the end of the reporting period there is only a high (more than 50%) probability of selling finished products at a price below cost, all of these actions must be performed by the organization so as not to mislead reporting users regarding the amount of expected cash streams. After all, by default, the user believes that, at a minimum, each asset presented in the reporting will definitely reimburse its cost.
Moreover, in the situations described, a reserve must be created to reduce the cost of not only finished products, but also those inventories from which they are made (clause 20 of the Guidelines for accounting of inventories, approved by order of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated December 28 .2001 No. 119n). Accordingly, they should be presented in the balance sheet not at their nominal book value, but at their value reduced by the amount of the reserve.
Future expenses
The problem of reflecting deferred expenses in accounting arose in 2011, and in three years, it would seem that everything possible has already been said about it. But the Russian Ministry of Finance decided to return to it again.
Based on the Instructions for the application of the Chart of Accounts for accounting the financial and economic activities of organizations, approved by Order of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated October 31, 2000 No. 94n, and a number of other regulatory legal acts on accounting, account 97 can reflect expenses of a significantly different nature incurred by the company in a given reporting period, but relating to future reporting periods.
The main thing that the Ministry of Finance of Russia points out is the need, in accordance with clause 11 of PBU 4/99, for separate disclosure in the balance sheet of information on account 97, that is, on a separate line “Including” data on significant costs recorded at the end of the year on account 97 Let us recall that in accordance with the balance sheet structure prescribed by clause 20 of PBU 4/99, this should be an item in the “Inventories” group of items.
At the same time, it should be noted that, according to paragraph 7 of Art. 5 of Law No. 402-FZ, deferred expenses can be presented in the balance sheet only in cases established by accounting standards, to which the current Chart of Accounts, as is known, does not apply (clause 2 of Article 5 of the former law “On Accounting”, letter of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated March 15, 2001 No. 16-00-13/05). These cases are clause 39 of PBU 14/2007 “Accounting for intangible assets” and clauses 16, 21 of PBU 2/2008 “Accounting for construction contracts”).
Accounts receivable, other current assets
The Ministry of Finance of Russia recommends that the asset “Accrued revenue not presented for payment”, recognized in accounting according to PBU 2/2008, be reflected in the balance sheet as part of current assets as a separate indicator detailing the group of items “Accounts receivable”. The need for such a recommendation is due to the fact that PBU 2/2008 does not say for which group of balance sheet items the estimated amount of revenue accrued by the contractor in accordance with clause 17 of PBU 2/2008 is reflected quarterly before it has the right of presentation according to the contract to its customer for payment.
Moreover, paragraph 26 of PBU 2/2008 states that when issuing invoices to the customer for payment of intermediate or fully completed work, accrued revenue not presented for payment is written off to accounts receivable (that is, by posting: Debit 62 Credit 46). From this formulation it can be assumed that in the balance sheet, the amount recorded as the debit of account 46 is shown not as part of accounts receivable (since it is only written off to it later), but as part of other current assets.
Therefore, the general message contained in the recommendation of the Ministry of Finance of Russia, the significance of which goes beyond the specific situation, is that there is no need to clutter the groups of “Other” articles, at the slightest opportunity moving data from them to those groups of articles in which they should be in in accordance with clause 20 of PBU 4/99 or in which the corresponding accounting objects will be reflected in the future after their “transformation” under certain conditions. This is especially important when we are talking about significant amounts, because they should not be included in “Other” (letter of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated January 24, 2011 No. 07-02-18/01 “Recommendations for audit organizations, individual auditors, auditors for conducting audits annual financial statements of organizations for 2010").
Estimated liabilities
According to clause 20 of PBU 8/2010 “Estimated liabilities, contingent liabilities and contingent assets”, if the amount of the recognized estimated liability is insufficient, the organization’s costs to pay off the obligation are reflected in the organization’s accounting records in the general manner. Taking into account the above, the Ministry of Finance indicates that if the amount calculated in the reporting period for payment of vacations and payment of compensation for unused vacations exceeds the amount of the recognized estimated liability, the amount of the specified excess is attributed to expenses for ordinary activities or other expenses or is included in the value of the asset. That is, using the example of vacations, the Russian Ministry of Finance explains what “in general order” means. This means that the costs are included in the same accounting accounts and items in the accounting (financial) statements, where these costs would be reflected without the creation of estimated liabilities for this type of cost. Therefore, if, say, an employee goes on vacation “in advance,” then the accruals associated with the vacation are reflected not in the debit of account 96, but in the debit of cost accounts or other expenses, or when this employee participates in capital construction - in account 08.
At the same time, let us recall that the list of “vacation” costs for which estimated liabilities should be formed is not limited to the costs of paying vacation pay - such costs also include formally “not guaranteed”, but in practice with a high (more than 50%) probability of paid additional payments for vacations provided for by collective or labor agreements or local regulations.
We should also not forget about other types of costs that are subject to estimated reserves, a significant part of which are given in Appendix 1 to PBU 1/2008: payment of bonuses at the end of the year, warranty repairs, costs associated with reorganization, with lawsuits, with the abandonment of unprofitable contracts or violation of technical regulations, etc.
Cash flow statement
The Ministry of Finance of Russia recommends that when preparing a cash flow statement (CFS) in the section “Cash flows from current operations”, payments for wages of employees should be reflected in an amount that includes, among other things, amounts subject to deduction from wages of employees (for example, amounts of accrued personal income tax, payments according to writs of execution).
This emphasizes that personal income tax amounts subject to withholding and transfer to the budget by the organization as a tax agent on the basis of Art. 226 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, are for the organization an “own” expense and “own” cash flow (payment), and not a tax payment.
For your information
Amounts that are reflected in ODDS on a collapsed basis in cases where receipts from some persons lead to corresponding payments to other persons include, for example, indirect taxes as part of receipts from buyers and customers, payments to suppliers and contractors, payments to the budget system of the Russian Federation or reimbursement from her (subparagraph “b”, paragraph 16 of PBU 23/2011 “Cash Flow Statement”).
The situation is the same as with personal income tax and with amounts withheld by a Russian organization as a tax agent from the income of a foreign organization in accordance with Art. 310 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, as well as when paying any persons income from equity participation in other organizations (clause 3 of Article 275 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation). In both of these cases, in the ODDS, the entire amount of money “left” by the organization is shown as a single payment, regardless of the fact that some of it “went” to the budget.
The situation is different with funds transferred by an organization to the budget as a tax agent for VAT (Article 161 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation). They are not reflected in the cash flow statement as cash flows (payments) of the tax agent, since they are not his “own” expenses, but originally arose as a payment intended for the budget. After all, before the amount of tax was transferred to the budget, it (one might say, precisely for this purpose) was increased in accordance with clause 1 of Art. 168 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation is the selling price of goods (works, services), the place of sale of which is recognized as the territory of the Russian Federation. What does not happen (should not happen) when determining the amount of income of an individual and a foreign organization from sources in the Russian Federation - the Tax Code of the Russian Federation does not require increasing these incomes by the amount of tax.
This difference between the amounts withheld by the tax agent for personal income tax and income tax, on the one hand, and for VAT, on the other, is indirectly manifested in the order in which they are presented on the balance sheet:
- accounts payable for wages, to a foreign organization and for dividends (which is an expense according to clause 6 of PBU 10/99) is reflected in the full amount, including the amount of tax subject to withholding, that is, in detail - Debit 20 (84) Credit 70, 60, 75 , Debit 70, 60, 75, Credit 68 (clause 34 PBU 4/99);
- while “agency” VAT is not included in accounts payable (expense) - Debit 20 Credit 60, Debit 19 Credit 68.
Moreover, we believe that the amount of VAT transferred by the tax agent to the budget should not be reflected in the ODDS even in the case when it, not being indicated in the contract price, is paid by the tax agent “at its own expense.” As the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation noted, this circumstance does not change the nature of the withheld tax, duties and rights of the tax agent (Resolution No. 16907/09 dated May 18, 2010).
Thus, in the cash flow statement of the organization - tax agent, “agency” to the budget shows:
- personal income tax amounts - on line 4112 “in connection with wages” (and not on line 4129 “other payments”);
- the amount of tax withheld from foreign organizations and dividends - on the same lines as the amount of payment to these organizations, shareholders, participants (and not on lines 4129, 4229, 4329 “other payments”;
- The VAT transferred by the agent is taken into account as part of the rolled-up VAT amounts as a whole.
Balance sheet form 1 sample for 2013
The procedure for filling out the balance sheet for 2013 has not changed; you still need to indicate data for 3 consecutive years: the reporting year and the two previous ones. As an example of filling out Form 1, you can use the sample balance sheet presented on our website, which can be found in this article.
Balance form 1 download the current form for 2013: [wpdm_file id=219]
Along with the balance sheet for 2013, you must also provide a statement of financial results, a statement of changes in capital, form 3, and a statement of cash flows, form 4.
