Ask VAT 2 forum

We have been familiar with the ASK VAT-2 software package for many years ─ it helps tax authorities stop illegal VAT deductions by identifying tax gaps based on declaration data. For businessmen, this results in an additional headache: from regular provision of explanations to a whole range of unexpected events: inspection of territories, interrogation of employees, sudden on-site inspection and even criminal prosecution.

Colleagues, each of us can suffer!

Here are just a few examples of the problems that ASK VAT-2 can cause:

The companies charged additional VAT in the amount of RUB 66,085,0181 . due to connection with one-day events (Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Moscow District dated February 13, 2018 in case No. A40-64246/2017).
Tax officials tried to prove the business’s dishonesty ─ the company had to go to court to justify the right to a deduction in the amount of 14 million rubles. (Resolution of the Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal dated March 12, 2018 N 09AP-4856/2018).
Inspectors established the chain of movement of goods and, without an on-site inspection, assessed additional VAT in the amount of 4 million rubles. after a regular chamber (Resolution of the Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal dated December 13, 2017 N 09AP-59460/2017),
The tax authorities proved that the deductions shown by the company's counterparty were claimed for relationships with fly-by-night companies that do not have the resources to perform any work. The company was denied a VAT refund in the amount of more than 8 million rubles. (Resolution of the Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal dated May 18, 2017 N 09AP-10542/2017).

Can ASK VAT-2 affect special regime officers?

Undoubtedly! The use of a special regime does not mean that you will not become a potential “victim”. And in the most unexpected way.

Don’t forget that since 2018, some special regime employees at the Unified Agricultural Tax have received the right to voluntarily pay VAT, and large agricultural producers have been forced to pay VAT (Federal Law of November 27, 2017 N 335-FZ).

All this means that at any time you can move from the category of “untouchable” to VAT payers. Each submitted declaration is a mandatory control in the ASK VAT-2 system! Therefore, you need to know how it works and how to protect yourself from unfounded attacks by inspectors.

How does ASK VAT-2 work?

You submit a VAT return.
The system independently analyzes data for each operation along the chain of movement of goods and identifies tax gaps in transactions for which there is a deduction, but VAT has not been paid.
Unscrupulous VAT payers are automatically detected, and a tree of connections with other participants in the trade turnover is built.
The totality of the data obtained allows tax authorities to identify the beneficiary of VAT tax deductions. It can be absolutely any organization or individual entrepreneur claiming a tax deduction ─ after all, the right to deductions is given to those who buy goods (works or services) from their counterparties who present the amount of tax (clause 2 of Article 171 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation).

This is when your counterparty:

Or submitted a zero VAT return.
Or he didn’t pass it at all.
Or you submitted the declaration, but did not reflect the invoice issued to you in the sales book (or distorted the data).

Thus, often all the headaches from ASK VAT-2 are caused by erroneous actions/inactions of our counterparties or the existence of relationships they have with shell companies.

If contradictions are identified in the VAT declaration, the system automatically generates a requirement to provide explanations (Letter of the Federal Tax Service of the Russian Federation dated November 6, 2015 N ED-4-15/19395). And then, other tax control measures are just around the corner.

Keep in mind that the powers of tax inspectors when conducting desk audits have expanded significantly today. Let's say a tax gap has been identified. To identify the recipient of an unjustified tax benefit, inspectors can use an expanded list of tax control measures already within the chamber: requesting a voluminous list of documents, inspecting premises and territories, interviewing employees.

Well, you don’t need to explain to anyone that the camera will provoke an unscheduled on-site inspection - such prospects are unlikely to make anyone happy.

How to protect yourself from combining ASK VAT-2 with the customs service base? Interview on Business FM

The automatic report data of this program can initiate a criminal case (if the amount of violations exceeds the amount established by law).

Lately, tax officials have gotten the hang of sending information to the Department of Economic Crimes immediately after a camera meeting ─ we are gradually being accustomed to the idea that conducting any tax audit automatically means an inspection by the security forces and criminal prosecution. Moreover, it will not be possible to accuse the tax authorities of illegal actions (Article 4 of the “Agreement on interaction between the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation and the Federal Tax Service” dated October 13, 2010 N ММВ-27-4/11, Letter of the Federal Tax Service of the Russian Federation dated April 22, 2015 N PA-4-6/6929 ).

The number of tax audits initiated thanks to the VAT-2 ASK is growing and, as judicial practice shows, most of these audits resulted in a victory for the tax authorities in the form of additional assessments or denials of deductions.

Don't want to become another "victim"?

More details about the event program can be found here

Please confirm your participation by registering using the link

ASK VAT-2: where should taxpayers expect threats?

Starting from the first quarter of 2015, taxpayers submit VAT returns using a new form (Order of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated October 29, 2014 No. ММВ-7-3 / [email protected] ). Now the company reports to the tax authorities information from the purchase book and sales book and information about issued invoices (sections 8–12 of the declaration).

The tax authorities have at their disposal a special automated control system for VAT-2 (hereinafter referred to as ASK VAT-2). This system stores and accumulates all information on taxpayer transactions. Let's consider what claims tax authorities make based on the results of the analysis of the ASK VAT-2 database.

Counterparty error

If the counterparty does not have a record of the invoice specified in your VAT return, you can take the following steps. Of course, if possible, it is worth finding out with your business partner the reason for the absence of an invoice; it is worth sending a written message requesting changes to the statements. Of course, when the counterparty adjusts the declaration, the claims of the tax authorities must be exhausted. At the same time, do not forget about a timely response to the request of the tax authority, in which it is necessary to explain the reason for the discrepancy in the reporting of the taxpayer and his counterparty, indicate the legality of accepting VAT for deduction, you can also reflect the fact of correspondence with a business partner, it would be useful to attach a message from the partner about correcting the identified discrepancies.

note

At the same time, one should not forget about a timely response to the request of the tax authority, in which it is necessary to explain the reason for the discrepancy in the reporting of the taxpayer and his counterparty, indicate the legality of accepting VAT for deduction, and you can also reflect the fact of correspondence with a business partner.

Unfortunately, for a number of reasons, it is not always possible to obtain oral or written consent from a business partner to make changes to the statements. For example, he has an error in the invoice that does not affect the amount of tax payable or reimbursement from the budget, in which he does not have the obligation to provide a corrective declaration.

An error may also indicate that the counterparty does not have an invoice due to the non-identity of the information specified in the invoices of the seller and the buyer.

If the counterparty does not submit an updated declaration, it is necessary to respond to the request of the tax authority in the same manner, explaining the reason for the discrepancy in the data and indicating the legality of accepting a VAT deduction.

The system identifies discrepancies in declarations

ASK VAT-2 allows tax authorities to compare information from purchase books and sales books along the chain from the supplier to the final buyer. The program verifies counterparties, invoices and tax amounts indicated on them. The system can detect several types of discrepancies.

Discrepancies of the type “VAT”. The program identifies these discrepancies when the tax is indicated in the declarations, but there are errors in them. The list of such errors is known to many accountants. These are discrepancies in the transaction code, incorrect invoice number or date, as well as discrepancies in the amount of VAT payable by the seller and deductible by the buyer.

Some accountants agree with the requirements of inspectors and submit updated declarations. However, if there are technical errors that do not affect the amount of tax, it is sufficient to provide an explanation. They must be accompanied by invoices and other documents. In this case, providing clarification is the right, and not the obligation of the taxpayer (paragraph 2, paragraph 1, article 81 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation). This includes typos in invoice numbers and dates and incorrect transaction codes. If the company does not match the amount of VAT declared for deduction on the invoice from the supplier, then the most common case is the presentation of VAT for deduction in a later period. For example, the supplier reflected the invoice in the first quarter of 2021, and the buyer accepted VAT for deduction in the second quarter of 2016.

Discrepancies of the “gap” type. We are talking about the so-called tax gap. When comparing data from the purchase and sales books, it turns out that the counterparty whose invoice is stated in the declaration is simply not in the Unified State Register of Legal Entities.

Either he does not submit tax reports, or he submits them with zero indicators. With this type of gap, the taxpayer receives an invoice, the amount of tax for which is not reflected in the counterparty’s declaration. If the company is a supplier and VAT is declared for payment, then, most likely, this will not cause suspicion, since VAT has been paid to the budget. But if the company is a buyer and has declared this VAT deductible, then the inspectorate will most likely immediately formulate a requirement to submit documents (clause 8.1 of Article 88 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation).

However, if the company has submitted the entire package of documents, then it is not yet possible to refuse deductions based on discrepancies identified according to the AKS VAT-2 data. A sign of a deduction is the presence of an invoice (Article 169 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation). And if the inspectors intend to refuse deductions, then they are obliged to carry out tax control measures. These measures must prove the fictitiousness of one-day transactions or the presence of other unjustified tax benefits.

In judicial practice, there are interesting cases of losses for tax authorities when they refused to allow companies to make deductions on invoices of counterparties that were not included in the Unified State Register of Legal Entities. In one of the cases, the accountant of a company expelled from the Unified State Register of Legal Entities continued to issue invoices for two years on behalf of a non-existent company (decision of the Moscow City Court of June 20, 2013 No. A40-18764/13).

The tax authority denied deductions. The company redid the invoices and submitted them to the court. The arbitrators indicated that the organization did not suspect that the invoices were invalid and could not verify this fact. The court canceled the additional assessments. At the same time, the company could check the status of the counterparty using publicly available services on the website of the Federal Tax Service of Russia. Therefore, such court decisions are rather isolated and cannot be relied upon.

Taxpayers are faced with a tax gap when ASK VAT-2 cannot compare invoices for advances issued and when offsetting these advances. This is due to the fact that the company that paid the counterparty an advance prepares the invoice itself. Even if you have the correct transaction code, ASK VAT-2 often generates a requirement indicating the absence of a “twin” invoice. In this case, it is enough to provide written explanations and attach documents to them.

How to respond to requests from the new ASK VAT-2 service

We found out from the specialists of the Federal Tax Service of Russia what explanations to provide them. We share detailed information with you.

If tax authorities require clarifications on VAT, form them in a new format. From January 1, 2021, an amendment is in force stating that companies must electronically send three types of explanations about the VAT return to the inspectorate:

about errors that the Federal Tax Service program detected (responses to so-called auto-requests);
about other discrepancies and contradictions in reporting;
about tax reduction in clarification.

For answering on paper, inspectors will fine the company 5,000 rubles. The fine for repeated violation within a calendar year is RUB 20,000. (Clause 1, 2 of Article 129.1 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation).

In the request for clarification on the VAT return, code 1

If you receive a request code 1, check your purchase ledger against the supplier's sales ledger. It is possible that either you or the counterparty registered an invoice with several errors at once: in the details, INN/KPP, cost. So the program cannot match the entries for this invoice in the declarations. If the supplier is not ready to reconcile, then at least find out from him whether he recorded the disputed invoice in the sales book.

The buyer entered an invoice with errors in the purchase ledger. If the reconciliation reveals an error in your purchase book, please provide the correct information in the explanations. To do this, fill out Table 2 (the recommended form is in the letter of the Federal Tax Service of Russia dated April 7, 2015 No. ED-4-15/5752).

The supplier recorded an invoice with errors in the sales ledger. And everything in your reporting is correct. Then you, as the buyer, must inform the tax authorities that everything in your purchase book is correct. To do this, fill out Table 1 from the same letter No. ED-4-15/5752. In it, provide the entry for the invoice without changes.

After the tax authorities receive such a response from the buyer, they will send a request to the supplier. And he will inform them of the correct invoice data by filling out table 2.

The supplier forgot to register an invoice or the sales book for the old quarter was attached to his declaration. The buyer must inform the tax authorities in Table 1 that he indicated the correct data in the declaration. And the supplier will have to submit a clarification.

The dishonest supplier did not charge VAT. This is the riskiest option for the buyer. Such a supplier is unlikely to submit a clarification. Therefore, there is a high probability that inspectors will remove deductions, accusing the buyer of receiving an unjustified tax benefit. Then the company will need documents confirming the reality of the transaction and due diligence:

contract;
invoices;
extract from the Unified State Register of Legal Entities for the supplier company, etc.

You can immediately attach these documents to the explanations. Another option is to say in the explanation only that the declaration is correct. And provide the documents only when the tax authorities request them.

Code 2 in the request for clarification from the Federal Tax Service

Code 2 means that the company's sales book and purchase book differ in data about the same transaction. That is, we are talking about inconsistencies within the reporting of the company itself, and not about discrepancies between the declarations of the buyer and the supplier. The company registers the same invoice in the sales book and the purchase book if it first charges tax and then itself accepts it for deduction. Let's look at common situations.

Advance VAT. The supplier charges VAT on the advance payment, and upon shipment of goods declares a deduction of this amount (clause 6 of Article 172 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation). The program will generate a request if it detects that there is a deduction in the declaration, but the company did not charge tax on this invoice.

When you receive a request with code 2, check whether the company has recorded the advance invoice in the sales ledger. If not, then reflect it in an additional sheet of the sales book for the quarter in which the advance was received, pay additional tax and penalties and submit an amendment (clause 1 of Article 81 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation).

The problem may not be that the sales ledger doesn't have the correct invoice. The problem is that this invoice was registered with errors. If the error affects the amount of tax in the declaration, then submit an amendment. If it does not affect, then it is enough to send an explanation. To do this, fill out the recommended table 2.

Agent VAT. Tax agents can also receive requests with code 2. For example, companies that rent municipal property. Such organizations withhold VAT, draw up an invoice and register it in the sales book. And then they declare a deduction on this invoice in the purchase book. After receiving the request, follow the same algorithm as for advance VAT.

The update request contains code 3

Code 3 means that there are inconsistencies in the intermediary's declaration between the journal of invoices received and the invoices issued. When shipping goods to the buyer, the commission agent issues invoices and registers them in part 1 of the accounting journal. Then the commission agent must receive invoices from the principal for the shipment of these goods and register them in part 2 of the accounting journal.

If the commission agent does not sell, but purchases goods for the principal, then he receives invoices from suppliers and reflects them in part 2 of the accounting journal. Then reissues invoices to the principal and records them in Part 1 of the accounting journal.

In both cases, the program can identify discrepancies between invoice data in Part 1 and Part 2. For example, errors in the invoice details or TIN of counterparties. Then the correct data can be sent to the tax authorities in Table 2 of the explanations.

Code 4 in the request for clarification on the VAT return

Code 4 means errors in individual columns of the purchase book and sales book. As a rule, this happens if the buyer provides incorrect invoice details, supplier TIN or cost of goods in the purchase book. By the way, most of the requirements come with code 4.

In which details to look for an error, you can also determine by the code. In the requirement, after code number 4, the number of the column in which the company most likely indicated incorrect data is given in parentheses. This column number is not in the approved form of the purchase book, but in the version of the purchase book that is given in the tax authorities’ requirement.

Let’s say the inspectors sent you a request for a purchase book and indicated 4 [3] in the “Possible error code” column. Column 3 in the purchase book, which is given in the request, is the invoice number. This means that it is in this props that we must look for an error.

If the error does not affect the VAT amount, indicate the correct indicators in Table 2, which was recommended by the inspectors:

in the “Difference” line, provide the erroneous entry without changes;
in the “Explanation” line - the correct data in exactly those columns in which there were errors.

For example, if there is an error in the invoice number, indicate the correct number in the “Explanation” line in the “Invoice number” column. It is better not to fill in the remaining columns of this line.

If the error affects the amount of VAT, no explanations may be required. It is enough to submit an updated declaration.

The purpose of introducing ASK VAT-2 is to combat fly-by-night scams

ASK VAT-2 helps tax authorities identify an unscrupulous link in the trade chain - a fly-by-night. The stage at which the tax has not reached the budget. This is necessary to find the ultimate beneficiary who receives unjustified benefits from tax gaps. The risk management system “SUR ASK NDS-2” is responsible for searching for beneficiaries. Its main tasks are described in the letter of the Federal Tax Service of Russia dated 06/03/16 No. ED-4-15 / [email protected] “On the assessment of RMS risk indicators.” Taxpayers may fall into low, medium and high risk groups. Companies with low tax risk have material and labor resources, conduct real activities, and pay taxes. They have on-site inspections.

Organizations with persistent signs of ephemeral activity are classified as high-risk. They have no assets or personnel, pay little taxes with high turnover, and use third parties to make payments. Inspectors mark the company's risk group in the program using color indicators. Tax authorities use the results of “SUR ASK VAT-2” when deciding on VAT refunds and planning on-site audits.

For the effective use of ASK VAT-2, inspectors received expanded powers at their desks. They use almost the same list of control measures as during on-site inspections. Inspectors may require the company to provide:

documents due to discrepancies in transactions (clause 8.1 of Article 88, Article 93 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, Appendix No. 15 to the order of the Federal Tax Service of Russia dated 05/08/15 No. ММВ-7-2 / [email protected] );
explanations (clause 3 of Article 88 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, Appendix No. 1 to the order of the Federal Tax Service of Russia dated 05/08/15 No. ММВ-7-2/ [email protected] ).

If the organization has received a request, it is necessary to send a receipt of receipt of the electronic document via telecommunication channels within six working days. Otherwise, the inspectorate may block bank accounts (subclause 1.1, clause 3, article 76 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation).

Taxpayers send a response to the request for the submission of documents to the inspectorate within 10 working days from the date of receipt of the request (clause 8.1 of Article 88, Article 93 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation). And written explanations - within five working days (clause 3 of article 88 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation).

Companies rarely ignore document submission requirements. This is fraught with a fine (Article 126 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation) and denial of deductions on formal grounds.

It is better to provide explanations too. Otherwise, the inspector will draw up a desk inspection report (clause 5 of Article 88 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation). Then you will have to recoup additional charges by filing objections or in court.

However, confirmation of the right to deduction during a camera meeting does not guarantee that the company will not be assigned an on-site inspection (Article 89 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation). The duration of a desk inspection is limited to three months, so inspectors often do not have time to collect evidence that can stand up in court. The courts believe that inspectors have the right to order an on-site inspection of a period that has already been inspected off-site. Taxpayers are not exempt from liability for detected offenses (Resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the West Siberian District dated June 24, 2011 No. A75-8783/2010).

Tax officials can also schedule an on-site audit after tax control activities, which will be carried out by the pre-audit analysis department. The maximum period for an on-site inspection is 15 months. Subject to extension (up to six months) and suspension (six or nine months). In such an impressive period of time, inspectors will definitely collect the necessary evidence.

Managing Risk Levels

The risk management system "SUR ASK NDS-2" automatically, based on available information, distributes taxpayers into three groups of tax risk: high, medium, low (letter of the Federal Tax Service of Russia dated June 3, 2016 No. ED-4-15 / [email protected] ):

Low tax risk is assigned to taxpayers who conduct real financial and economic activities, fulfill their tax obligations to the budget in a timely manner and in full, have appropriate resources (assets), and their activities can be checked by scheduled on-site tax control.
The “high tax risk” badge is awarded to organizations that, according to the Federal Tax Service of Russia, do not have sufficient resources (assets) to conduct the relevant activities, do not fulfill their tax obligations or fulfill them in a minimal amount. These facts are signs of an organization being used to obtain unjustified tax benefits.
The RMS classifies all other taxpayers as being in the medium tax risk group.

Transactions involving organizations with a high level of tax risk are given special attention to prevent VAT refunds from unscrupulous taxpayers. If the fact of bad faith is revealed after receiving the deduction, it may turn out that it is no longer possible to recover it, since the company is either insolvent or liquidated. “ASK VAT-2” builds a “connection tree”, with the help of which the chain of VAT movement is monitored and the real role of each company in this chain is revealed.

There are a number of facts that serve as a signal to tax authorities that the transaction may be aimed at unlawfully withdrawing VAT from the budget (letters from the Federal Tax Service of Russia dated 03.08.2016 No. GD-4-14/ [email protected] and dated 03.08.2016 No. GD-4 -14/ [email protected] ):

an individual who acts on behalf of a legal entity without a power of attorney (including on behalf of the management organization) is disqualified, and the period of disqualification has not yet expired;
there is information about the death of an individual who can act on behalf of a legal entity without a power of attorney;
a person who has the right to act on behalf of a legal entity without a power of attorney, acts as such in more than five legal entities;
participants of a legal entity are such in more than 10 legal entities;
the address of the legal entity indicated in the Unified State Register of Legal Entities is the address of more than 10 legal entities;
the management organization is such in more than 20 legal entities.

As soon as such a company appears in the “tree of connections,” inspectors take a look at both it and its counterparties. After which, a detailed study of completed transactions begins along the entire chain from the closest counterparties to more distant ones in order to find the real beneficiary of the operation for illegal VAT refund or evasion of its payment. This means that the taxpayer’s main task is to avoid systematically involving such counterparties in their own transactions.

Look at your reporting through the eyes of the Federal Tax Service. The service verifies and verifies data according to the principles of the Federal Tax Service “ASK VAT-2” system

To learn more

Judicial practice on ASK VAT-2 has not yet been formed

The argument about “tax gaps” in the ASK VAT-2 database is new for judicial practice. So far it is rare. There are several reasons for this.

Firstly, ASK VAT-2 is an internal database of the tax authorities; there is no public access to it. The courts do not recognize information from internal information resources as proper evidence (resolution of the Moscow District Court of December 28, 2015 No. F05-18124/2015). The company may learn about the fiscal conclusions made on the basis of internal information no earlier than negative tax consequences occur.

Second, the tax gap itself does not prove that the tax benefit is unreasonable. This gap is only a mathematical result of the control ratios of the numbers in the two declarations. If the numbers are different, this is just a reason to check.

Nevertheless, information from the ASK VAT-2 has already begun to appear in judicial practice. And not only in disputes related to VAT deductions.

For example, in the resolution of the Volga Region Autonomous District Court dated June 24, 2016 No. Ф06-9933/2016, the company challenged the tax authority’s refusal to register the liquidation of a legal entity in the Unified State Register of Legal Entities*. The company compiled a liquidation balance sheet and submitted it to the inspectorate. However, the inspection, based on the results of two chamber VAT declarations, denied the company deductions for an impressive amount and handed over inspection reports.

* Read more about this in the article “Tax officials refused to liquidate a company with an unreliable balance sheet” on the website e.nalogplan.ru or in “PNP” No. 9, 2021, p. 82.

After the cameral decisions come into force, the tax authority could post the VAT debt on a personal account and become a creditor of the company. In addition, at the time of filing the liquidation application, the company had not submitted another VAT return. As a result, the inspectorate recognized the company's balance sheet as unreliable and refused state registration of the changes. In the decision of the appellate instance, the judges indicated that the tax authority, with the help of the VAT-2 ASK, established the existence of a tax gap in the form of an unlawfully declared VAT deduction (Resolution of the Twelfth AAS dated April 15, 2016 No. 12AP-2681/2016).

The tax authorities issued demands for the presentation of documents. The company ignored the demands and did not provide documents. The head of the company also avoided appearing for questioning.

The company believed that at the time of filing the liquidation balance sheet, the tax authority did not have a decision on desk audits. Therefore, the amount of VAT payable was unknown to him. However, the court took into account the fact of opposition and evasion of society from submitting documents. And I came to the conclusion that the application for liquidation was filed to avoid additional charges due to inspections.

The court decided that the company knowingly provided false information, and the liquidation procedure cannot be considered complied with. The legality of additional accruals based on desk audits was not the subject of the dispute. Therefore, regarding the unreliability of the balance sheet, the court supported the inspection.

The unusual case was considered by the Nineteenth AAS (resolution dated 08/31/16 No. A14-16854/2015). The evidence found in the ASC VAT-2 was stated by one of the parties in a civil dispute. It was between two legal entities regarding the falsification of the manager’s signature in an agreement.

The company went to court with a demand to collect from the counterparty the debt under the supply agreement for 12 tons of fishmeal. However, the buyer unexpectedly declared in court that the manager’s signature on the contract was fake. This means that the deal was not concluded and there are no grounds for compensating the seller for losses.

As evidence of the reality of the shipment, the supplier presented a contract, an invoice for goods acceptance, emails to the buyer and replies to them. In addition, the seller submitted a letter from the inspectorate stating that, based on the results of desk audits of the declarations of both companies, the tax authority found an invoice for the supply of fishmeal in both the seller’s declaration and the buyer’s declaration. The tax authorities found the invoice by cross-comparing declarations in the ASK VAT-2 system.

The tax authorities confirmed that the buyer claimed a deduction due to the fact that the seller reflected the transaction in the declaration and paid VAT on it to the budget.

ASK VAT-3: how it works and who will be checked first

However, the court took into account the fact of opposition and evasion of society from submitting documents. And I came to the conclusion that the application for liquidation was filed to avoid additional charges due to inspections.

The tax authorities confirmed that the buyer claimed a deduction due to the fact that the seller reflected the transaction in the declaration and paid VAT on it to the budget. The court concluded that the buyer concealed information about the delivery from the court and did not allege falsification of evidence. In connection with this, the court decided to recover the entire amount of debt and a penalty from the negligent buyer.

ASK NDS-2

ASK VAT-2 has been operating for three years. It stores information from invoices, VAT returns, and transaction information. The system collects data on VAT payment throughout the entire trade chain: from the primary supplier to the final consumer.

The system is operated by data processing centers (DPCs) in Nizhny Novgorod and the Moscow region. In 2017–2020, the authorities plan to build a backup data center in the Volgograd region.

Data centers allow the Federal Tax Service of Russia to implement other administration tools. This includes tax monitoring, a system for monitoring the use of cash register equipment (ASK KKT), and electronic services. They also support the operation of information systems of the Ministry of Finance, the Federal Tax Service, the Treasury and other institutions of the financial department.

11/14/2016. Article topic:

Reference

Abbreviation PC ASK NDS-2

stands for “software package for automated control over value added tax, second version.”
At the end 2013
, the Federal Tax Service launched the ASK VAT-1 PC for the first time.
From this moment on, the Federal Tax Service takes control of data on transactions subject to VAT. A year later, the Federal Tax Service reported a double reduction in illegal attempts to refund taxes, which added 102 billion to the budget. rubles At the beginning 2015
, the Federal Tax Service launched the second version of the ASK VAT-2 program. The work of the ASK VAT-2 program is aimed at identifying organizations that do not pay VAT and do not reflect the corresponding tax charges in the tax return.

What should I say to the auditors?

The procedure for responding to the requirements of tax authorities when errors and inconsistencies are identified in the submitted declaration depends on the reason for the notification.

If the demand is sent in accordance with paragraph 3 of Article 88 of the Tax Code, the company is actually required to provide explanations, but there is no obligation to provide supporting documents. However, you have the right to additionally provide them, for example, invoices. Often these papers are enough. Moreover, as part of a desk audit, auditors independently request the necessary documents from counterparties to monitor compliance with tax laws.

Companies entrusted with the obligation to submit a VAT return in electronic form send the explanations provided for in paragraph 3 of Article 88 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation in electronic form through the TCS in the established format.

If a request is sent in accordance with clause 6 or clause 8.1 of Article 88 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, in addition to providing the relevant explanations, the auditors will request invoices, primary and other documents. It is better to submit explanations in the form of a register of supporting documents in the form recommended by the Federal Tax Service.

A list and forms of standard agreements are attached to the register. If you submit clarifications on this form, the tax office will not require all the documents regarding the benefit from you, but only part of them; Exactly how many documents will be required depends on the degree of tax risk. Inspectors will determine the risk using the ASK VAT-2 program.

Documents can be submitted in the form of paper copies, via TKS or through the taxpayer’s personal account. Some papers can be sent in a ready-made electronic format (tax registers, invoices), while others (agreements with suppliers, invoices, orders, instructions, write-off statements, production reports) will have to be scanned and converted into a digital graphic format.

Partner news

When the appraiser pays insurance premiums himself

“Children’s” deduction for personal income tax in the absence of income is not provided

Reduced tariff on insurance premiums for IT companies

Pension reform: a new criminal article

Benefit for energy efficient property

Advertising on cars: registration rules, accounting and taxation

How to avoid paying tax on a stolen car

The Ministry of Finance insists: pay contributions from compensation for delayed wages

ASK VAT-2: find out about your potential VAT risks and ways to reduce them!

All information is accumulated in the Big data

, which is used to process data from PC ASK NDS-2.
Thus, all VAT reports (and therefore all invoices) now fall into the all-Russian database (data center of the Federal Tax Service of Russia in Dubna). The program is aimed at comparing data on each operation along the goods movement chain. Big Data
is a system for processing huge amounts of data, formed in the late 2000s, as an alternative to the traditional database management system (DBMS).

Defining Characteristics of Big Data:

data volume,
data processing speed,
variety of simultaneous processing of various types of data.

Since 2013, big data as an academic subject has been studied in emerging university programs in data science, computational science and engineering.

Algorithm of operation of ASK VAT-2

The program compares the VAT charged by the seller (according to his sales book) and the VAT accepted for deduction by the buyer (according to his purchase book).
If these data do not match, the program finds out what is wrong: whether the seller reflected the sale and how lawfully the buyer declared tax deductions.
Everything happens without the participation of an inspector: the tax office automatically sends requests for explanations to the buyer and seller.
You have five days to respond, and then the local inspectorate begins an inspection.
As a result, taxpayers either correct payment errors themselves or receive notification of additional assessments.

Scheme of operation of ASK NDS-2

RESULT:

By introducing the PC ASK VAT-2, tax officials actually automated the classic “counter check”, for greater efficiency, also introducing the necessary amendments to the Tax Code, which began to work from the beginning of 2015. The use of new Big Data technologies makes it possible to automatically compare the data of counterparties, quickly identify and suppress the illegal activities of fraudulent companies that do not fulfill their tax obligations. Now the Federal Tax Service, having identified inconsistencies in the reporting of the buyer and seller, can request invoices and primary documentation from companies. And a company that has not confirmed receipt of tax demands or notifications may have its accounts blocked by tax authorities.

How tax authorities and ASK VAT-2 work

You submit a VAT return.
The system independently analyzes data for each operation along the chain of movement of goods and identifies tax gaps in transactions for which there is a deduction, but VAT has not been paid.
Unscrupulous VAT payers are automatically detected, and a tree of connections with other participants in the trade turnover is built.
The totality of the data obtained allows tax authorities to identify the beneficiary of VAT tax deductions. It can be absolutely any organization or individual entrepreneur claiming a tax deduction - after all, the right to deductions is given to those who buy goods (work or services) from their counterparties who present the tax amount (clause 2 of Article 171 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation).

What does "tax gap" mean?

This is when your counterparty:

Or submitted a zero VAT return.
Or he didn’t pass it at all.
Or you submitted the declaration, but did not reflect the invoice issued to you in the sales book (or distorted the data).

Thus, often all the headaches from ASK VAT-2 are caused by erroneous actions/inactions of our counterparties or the existence of relationships they have with shell companies.

If contradictions are identified in the VAT declaration, the system automatically generates a request for explanations.
This is followed by other tax control measures. Let's say a tax gap has been identified. To identify the recipient of an unjustified tax benefit, inspectors can use an expanded list of tax control measures already within the chamber: requesting a voluminous list of documents, inspecting premises, territories, interviewing employees, etc. ...
Conscientious taxpayers are also under attack. Most audits after identifying tax gaps end unfavorably. Claims from inspectors regarding violations of third parties can be made specifically against bona fide companies and, more likely, against those who have property. Even in cases where you yourself interact with a bona fide counterparty, but there are “gray” or “black” companies in the chain.
The number of tax audits initiated thanks to the VAT-2 ASK is growing and, as judicial practice shows, most of these audits resulted in a victory for the tax authorities in the form of additional assessments or denials of deductions.
Tax authorities continue to improve the tax administration of VAT. ASK NDS-3
is coming .

Taxpayers submit electronic VAT returns

, containing indicators of the purchase book and sales book. In 2015, the Federal Tax Service launched the ASK VAT-2 PC to control declarations.