How business inspections will be carried out from 2021. Changes in legislation

Control and supervisory authorities periodically conduct scheduled inspections in various organizations and individual entrepreneurs. How to prepare for scheduled inspections, how are they carried out, and when? You will find answers to these questions, as well as other questions, in our material.

ATTENTION : our lawyer will help protect your interests in checking entrepreneurs: professionally and on time. Call and apply for help!

Schedule of scheduled inspections

Scheduled inspections are called scheduled because they are planned a year in advance. That is, each control (supervisory) body develops a plan for conducting inspections for the year, indicating in which localities, in which organizations, and at what time the inspection will be carried out. Inspection plans are subject to agreement with the prosecutor's office.

Consolidated plans for scheduled inspections of legal entities and individual entrepreneurs, local government bodies and officials, and state authorities of the subject are posted on the websites of the prosecutor's office. Control authorities post their inspection plans on their official websites.

Posting the relevant plans allows interested parties to review them and take action to prepare for the relevant audits.

Reasons for conducting a scheduled inspection

There is only one basis for conducting a scheduled inspection - an annual inspection plan, which is developed by the control (supervisory) body and agreed upon by the prosecutor's office.

Thus, there are not as many reasons for conducting scheduled inspections as, for example, when conducting unscheduled inspections. Do not forget that in addition to scheduled inspections, unscheduled inspections may occur, which can be discussed in more detail at the link on our website.

Moreover, as a general rule, inspections should be carried out in relation to individual legal entities and individual entrepreneurs no more than once every 3 years.

About scheduled inspections within the framework of a risk-based approach

From January 1, 2018, in order to optimally use labor, material and financial resources involved in the implementation of state control, reduce costs of legal entities, individual entrepreneurs and increase the effectiveness of their activities, state control (supervision) bodies when organizing certain types of state control (supervision), determined by the Government of the Russian Federation, a risk-based approach will be applied.

The risk-based approach is a method of organizing and implementing state control (supervision), in which the choice of intensity (form, duration, frequency) of control measures is determined by the attribution of the activities of a legal entity, individual entrepreneur and (or) production facilities used by them in carrying out such activities objects to a certain risk category or a certain class (category) of danger (Article 8.1 of Law No. 294-FZ).

Follow us

Subscribe to the newsletter and be the first to receive the latest and most relevant information from the Faculty of Medical Law.

By submitting an application, you agree to the terms of processing and use of personal data.

Based on Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated August 17, 2016 No. 806, the types of state control (supervision) that are carried out using a risk-oriented approach include federal state fire supervision, federal state sanitary and epidemiological supervision, state control of the quality and safety of medical activities, federal state supervision in the field of circulation of medicines, state control over the circulation of medical products and many other types of control.

At the same time, the frequency of scheduled inspections using a risk-based approach is established on the basis of the provisions of the relevant types of state control (supervision) depending on the assignment of the activities of the inspected person and (or) the production facilities they use to a certain risk category or a certain class (category) of hazard, designated as hazard classes or hazard categories. Eg:

It should be noted that scheduled inspections, the frequency of which is established by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of November 23, 2009 No. 944, are in any case carried out, regardless of the classification of objects of state control (supervision) to a certain risk category or a certain hazard class (application of a risk-oriented approach). This provision is established by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated August 17, 2016 No. 806 “On the application of a risk-oriented approach when organizing certain types of state control (supervision) and introducing amendments to certain acts of the Government of the Russian Federation” (clause 15 of the Rules for the classification of activities of legal entities and individual entrepreneurs and ( or) the production facilities they use are classified as a certain risk category or a certain class (category) of hazard).

When an object of state control (supervision) is classified as hazard class 6 or low-risk hazard class within the framework of a risk-oriented approach, scheduled inspections are not carried out in relation to legal entities and individual entrepreneurs.

For more information about the use of a risk-oriented approach in the above types of state control (supervision), as well as the frequency of scheduled inspections within its framework, read our article: “On the application of a risk-oriented approach in organizing certain types of state control (supervision).”

Notification of the planned inspection

The legal entity (IP) must be notified that a scheduled inspection will be carried out no later than 3 business days before the inspection begins.

Notification is carried out by sending a copy of the order or order of the head of the body that will conduct the inspection about the start of the scheduled inspection. Notice may be given by certified mail or by email.

If the control (supervisory) body does not comply with the specified requirements of the law on notification, then this is considered a gross violation.

USEFUL : read more about the inspection by the Federal Tax Service via the link, watch the video

Preparing for a scheduled inspection

You can prepare for a scheduled inspection in advance by tracking information on inspection plans. Knowing when and by whom the inspection will be carried out, as well as about what, you can review all the documents so that they are in order and check the availability of such documents.

If you only learned about the inspection from a notification, then it is difficult to make any special preparations for the inspection in 3 days. You can appoint a responsible person who will contact the inspectors and then act according to the situation. The inspectors will most likely request documents for verification, will conduct site visits, etc., so everything must comply as much as possible, i.e. the information on paper must correspond to the fact.

Procedure for conducting scheduled inspections

As we know, inspections can be documentary (at the location of the control body) and on-site (at the location of the person being inspected).

The general rules for inspections are that there must be an order or order from the head of the control body to conduct an inspection; the person being inspected must be notified of the inspection.

1. During a documentary check, inspectors examine documents , may request additional documents from the person who must provide them within 10 working days, and also request clarification. Draw up an inspection report.
2. More serious is the on-site inspection . During an on-site inspection, authorized persons come to the person being inspected and must present official identification, as well as an order and order to conduct the inspection. Appropriate officials must be appointed by order to carry out the inspection.
3. The representative of the person being inspected must be familiarized with the powers of the inspectors, the tasks and purposes of the inspection, what types of activities will be carried out by the inspectors and to what extent. And an important point is to familiarize yourself with the terms and conditions of the inspection.
4. During the inspection, the person being inspected is obliged to provide all the necessary documents as part of the inspection and, if necessary, provide access to the facility, premises, etc.
5. , an inspection report must be and handed over to the person who was inspected.

Frequency of unscheduled inspections

Current legislation, as noted earlier, does not provide for the frequency of unscheduled inspections. In other words, an unscheduled inspection is carried out in relation to a medical and (or) pharmaceutical organization whenever there are grounds for conducting an inspection specified in Part 2 of Art. 10 of Law No. 294-FZ:

• Expiration of the deadline for execution by a medical (pharmaceutical) organization of a previously issued order to eliminate violations;
• Order (instruction) of the head of the state control (supervision) body, issued in accordance with the instructions of the President of the Russian Federation, the Government of the Russian Federation and on the basis of the request of the prosecutor to conduct an unscheduled inspection as part of supervision over the implementation of laws on materials and appeals received by the prosecutor's office;
• Identification, when carrying out activities without interaction with the person being inspected when carrying out types of state control (supervision) within the framework of a risk-oriented approach, of the parameters of the activity of the person being inspected, compliance with or deviation from which, according to risk indicators, is the basis for an unscheduled inspection;
• Receipt by the regulatory authorities of an application from a medical organization for the granting of legal status, a special permit (license) for the right to carry out certain types of activities or permission (approval) to carry out other legally significant actions, if the conduct of a corresponding unscheduled inspection of such an organization is provided for by the rules for granting legal status, special permits (licenses), issuance of permits (approval);
• A reasoned presentation by an official of a regulatory body based on the results of an analysis of control measures without interaction with the person being inspected, consideration or preliminary verification of information received by the regulatory authorities about the following facts: the emergence of a threat of harm to life, health of citizens, harm to animals, plants, the environment..., and also threats of natural and man-made emergency situations;
• causing harm to the life and health of citizens, harm to animals, plants, the environment, ... the occurrence of emergencies of a natural and man-made nature;
• violation of consumer rights (in the event of an appeal to the Rospotrebnadzor authorities by citizens whose rights have been violated, provided that the applicant applied for protection (restoration) of his violated rights to the person being inspected and such an appeal was not considered or his demands were not satisfied).

Scheduled inspection dates

The duration of a scheduled inspection cannot exceed 20 working days. The specified period is the same for both documentary and on-site inspections. In cases specified by law, the inspection period may be shorter.

If the inspection is carried out in relation to a small business entity (hereinafter referred to as SMB), then the total period of scheduled on-site inspections cannot be more than 50 hours for a small enterprise and 15 hours for a micro-enterprise per year.

IMPORTANT : in some cases the verification may be suspended.

If during the inspection it is necessary to carry out some complex research, tests, etc., then the inspection period can be extended, but no more than 20 working days, for small enterprises - no more than 50 hours, for microenterprises - not more than 15 hours.

If an organization operates on the territory of several subjects and has branches and representative offices, then for each branch the inspection period cannot be more than 20 working days, and in general the inspection period for all branches cannot be more than 60 working days.

Inspected periods during on-site inspection

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

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

How to count three years

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

Thus, the Arbitration Court of the Ural District, in a resolution dated July 17, 2017, in case No. A60-47352/2016, considered the following situation. The company underwent an on-site tax audit in 2016, during which tax officials checked the periods from April 2012 to December 2014 inclusive. The company believed that since the audit was carried out in 2021, the tax authority had the right to audit 2015, 2014 and 2013. And the inclusion of 2012 in the audit contradicts the provisions of paragraph 4 of Art. 89 Tax Code of the Russian Federation.

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

Another example is a dispute considered by the Court of Justice of the West Siberian District in a resolution dated December 25, 2018 in case No. A75-918/2017. The tax authority decided to conduct an on-site tax audit on December 28, 2015, which actually took place in 2021. The court found it lawful for the inspectorate to conduct an audit for 2012, 2013 and 2014.

Please note: in such cases, the earliest year covered by the tax audit goes beyond the three-year limitation period (Article 196 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). In this regard, some companies believe that tax authorities do not have the right to make additional tax assessments. For example, the FAS Volga District, in a resolution dated March 19, 2013 in case No. A06-3630/2012, considered a situation where the decision to conduct an on-site audit was made by the tax inspectorate on December 26, 2011, and the audit itself took place already in 2012. Within its framework The period covered was from January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2010. The company attempted to challenge the additional tax assessment for 2008 due to the expiration of the statute of limitations. But the court rejected this argument. He indicated that the additional accrual was made lawfully, since in accordance with clause 4 of Art. 89 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, as part of an on-site tax audit, a period not exceeding three calendar years preceding the year in which the decision to conduct the audit was made. At the same time, the arbitrators noted that the company was not justifiably fined for failure to pay taxes in 2008, since the statute of limitations for bringing tax liability had expired. Let us remind you that according to paragraph 1 of Art. 113 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, a person cannot be held accountable for a tax offense if three years have elapsed from the date of its commission or from the next day after the end of the tax (accounting) period during which this offense was committed and before the decision to bring to liability is made. years (statute of limitations).

Verification period when submitting clarification

In paragraph 4 of Art. 89 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation states that when a taxpayer submits an updated tax return, within the framework of the corresponding on-site tax audit, the period for which the updated tax return was filed is checked.

Explaining the procedure for applying this norm, the Federal Tax Service of Russia, in letters dated July 25, 2013 No. AS-4-2/ [email protected] and dated May 29, 2012 No. AS-4-2/8792, indicated that:

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

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

3) the norm gives the tax authority the right to conduct an on-site audit for the period for which the updated tax return was submitted;

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

5) the moment of submission of the updated tax return (during the on-site tax audit, before it, after it) is not significant for the application of the norm.

And in a letter dated 09/03/2010 No. AS-37-2 / [email protected] , specialists of the Federal Tax Service of Russia noted that in the case of filing an updated tax return, the period for which it was submitted is checked, including if the specified period is beyond three calendar years preceding the year in which the decision to conduct the inspection was made.

Thus, when submitting an updated return, tax authorities can check a period beyond the three-year limit. The courts confirm this.

In the dispute considered in the resolution of the Administrative Court of the North Caucasus District dated August 13, 2014 in case No. A53-11519/2013, the tax inspectorate in 2012 conducted an on-site tax audit for 2009 and 2010. At the same time, in the course of monitoring the correctness of calculation and payment of income tax for 2009, the tax authority examined, among other things, updated income tax returns for 2008 and 2009, filed in October 2010. The company believed that the inspectorate did not have the right check the correctness of income tax calculations for the tax period preceding the audit period.

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

Repeated check when submitting clarification

A repeat on-site audit may be scheduled if the taxpayer has submitted an updated declaration, which indicates an amount of tax that is less than previously declared. The subject of such a repeated on-site tax audit is the correctness of tax calculation based on the changed indicators of the updated tax return, which resulted in a decrease in the previously calculated amount of tax (increase in loss) (subclause 2, clause 10, article 89 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation).

When conducting a repeat on-site tax audit, a period not exceeding three calendar years preceding the year in which the decision to conduct a repeat on-site tax audit was made (Clause 10, Article 89 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation) can be checked. The question arises: does the tax authority have the right to conduct a repeat on-site tax audit if the period for which an updated tax return is filed exceeds three calendar years preceding the year in which the tax authority made a decision to conduct a repeat on-site tax audit?

Officials believe they have the right. In a letter dated 04/19/2013 No. 03-02-07/1/13473, the Russian Ministry of Finance indicated that as part of a repeat on-site tax audit appointed in connection with the filing of an updated declaration, the period for which it was submitted is checked. Therefore, the period checked during the specified repeated on-site inspection may exceed three calendar years preceding the year in which the decision to conduct it was made. A similar conclusion is contained in the letter of the Federal Tax Service of Russia dated July 25, 2013 No. AS-4-2/13622.

The Supreme Court shares the same opinion. In Determination No. 305-KG15-606 dated 03/05/2015, he considered the situation when the company, on December 26, 2011, submitted updated declarations for June, August and December 2009, which reflected the amounts of excise taxes claimed for reimbursement paid when importing goods to territory of the Russian Federation, and the amount of tax is indicated in an amount less than previously declared. In 2013, the Tax Inspectorate conducted a second on-site audit of the period for which updated declarations were submitted. The company considered that the tax authorities had gone beyond the three-year period established by clause 10 of Art. 89 Tax Code of the Russian Federation.

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

Please note: in Determination No. 305-KG17-19973 dated March 16, 2018, the Judicial Collegium for Economic Disputes of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation expressed the legal position that a repeated on-site tax audit cannot be initiated by the tax authority without taking into account the assessment of the reasonableness of the period that has passed since the filing of the updated tax declarations. When assessing the reasonableness of the period for scheduling a second on-site inspection, all circumstances relevant to ensuring a balance of private and public interests must be taken into account, in particular:

• the existence of the tax authority's ability to timely identify circumstances indicating the unfoundedness of changes in tax calculations declared in the updated declaration;
• the ability of the taxpayer, in the event of an on-site inspection, to ensure the protection of his rights after the expiration of the established paragraph 1 of Art. 23 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation for a four-year storage period for documents necessary for the calculation and payment of taxes;
• the presence or absence in the taxpayer’s actions of signs of resistance to tax control (providing the tax authority with unreliable and (or) incomplete documents, etc.).

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

The legal position of the Supreme Court is used by courts when making decisions. Thus, taking into account this legal position, the AC of the North-Western District, in a resolution dated August 20, 2018 in case No. A21-10802/2017, recognized the decision to conduct an on-site audit, taken 2 years 11 months after the submission of an updated tax return, as violating the rights and legitimate interests companies.

Checking the current period

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

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

In Determination No. 304-KG14-737 dated September 09, 2014, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation considered the following situation. On March 30, 2012, the tax authority decided to conduct an on-site tax audit of the company for the period from January 1, 2009 to February 29, 2012. Based on the results of the audit, the company was held liable under Art. 123 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation for the period from September 2, 2010 to December 31, 2011 and for January, February 2012.

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

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

The fact that the inspection's conduct of an on-site tax audit during the reporting periods of the current year does not contradict the norms of the Tax Code and does not violate the rights and legitimate interests of the taxpayer is stated in the decisions of the AS of the West Siberian District dated May 10, 2017 in case No. A45-28037/2015, East Siberian District dated April 19, 2017 in case No. A33-8287/2016, Moscow District dated November 12, 2015 in case No. A41-32783/2015, FAS Far Eastern District dated February 26, 2013 No. F03-453/13 (Determination of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated April 26. 2013 No. VAS-4862/13 refused to transfer the case for review).

Output over a three-year period

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

An example is the resolution of the Administrative Court of the North Caucasus District dated June 27, 2018 in case No. A63-11808/2017. In 2021, the inspectorate conducted an on-site inspection of the timeliness of the individual entrepreneur’s transfer of personal income tax to the budget for the period from January 1, 2013 to February 29, 2021, as a result of which additional tax was assessed to the businessman. The reason was that the entrepreneur received real estate as compensation in 2012. The ownership of this property was registered in court in 2013. The controllers considered that the businessman received the real estate only from the moment of state registration of the transfer of ownership of it. In this regard, income from the transaction should be taken into account in 2013.

But the courts of three instances did not agree with this. They indicated that the procedure for determining the date of receipt of income by individuals does not depend on the fact of state registration of the transfer of ownership of the property. The date of receipt of income in the case under consideration is the date of the transfer act (October 15, 2012). And since the transaction took place in 2012, its tax consequences are associated with this tax period. Therefore, the inspectorate did not have the right to charge personal income tax for 2013 on transactions performed in 2012. The inspectors went beyond the statutory period for conducting an on-site tax audit (no more than three calendar years preceding the year in which the decision to conduct the audit was made).

In practice, there are situations when tax authorities, based on the results of an audit, make additional assessments taking into account accounts payable formed beyond the three-year period. The courts consider this to be beyond the scope of the review (resolutions of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated May 29, 2012 No. 17259/11, FAS Central District dated November 21, 2012 in case No. A35-439/2012, Ural District dated October 12, 2012 in case No. A60-613/ 2012).

Thus, in the dispute considered in the resolution of the Arbitration Court of the North Caucasus District dated August 22, 2018 in case No. A01-2762/2017, the company had tax payables as of January 1, 2014. During the on-site tax audit conducted in 2021, tax officials checked the period from January 1, 2014 to March 31, 2021. They assessed additional taxes to the company taking into account its accounts payable as of January 1, 2014.

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

Going beyond the inspection period specified in the decision to conduct it

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

The resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Ural District dated September 15, 2009 in case No. A71-13315/2008A19 considered the situation when tax authorities, as part of an on-site audit, assessed penalties on the 2004 debt on income tax and VAT. The court found the charges unfounded, since according to the decision to conduct an on-site tax audit, the period from January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2006 was subject to control.

And in the situation considered by the Nineteenth AAS in Resolution No. 19AP-2131/09 dated May 28, 2009, in the decision to conduct an on-site tax audit, the controlled period was limited to 2006 and 2007. However, based on the results of the audit, the controllers made additional accruals for 2005. They explained this by the fact that in the decision to conduct the audit there was a typo and instead of “January 1, 2005” was printed "January 1, 2006".

The court declared additional accruals for 2005 illegal. He indicated that since at the time of the audit there was no statement to clarify the period under audit, the tax authorities were obliged to conduct an audit for the period from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2007. In this regard, the tax authority did not have the right to check the correctness and timeliness payment of taxes for 2005

Violations during conduct and appealing the results of a scheduled inspection

During scheduled inspections, violations may be committed that are gross in accordance with the law, namely:

• verification can be carried out in the absence of grounds for such verification, i.e. there is no inspection in the plan of scheduled inspections for the year, or inspection is carried out more often than once every 3 years if there is no reason for it
• failure to properly notify the organization (IP) of the inspection in a timely manner
• violation of inspection deadlines
• request for documents and information that are not relevant to the verification
• failure to deliver a report based on the results of the inspection
• illegal extension of inspection deadlines
• carrying out an inspection in the absence of an order or instruction for an inspection
• participation in the inspection of experts and expert organizations who are employees of the organization (IP) being inspected

IMPORTANT : if you do not agree with the results of a scheduled inspection, they must certainly be appealed.

As the law says, if there are gross violations of the requirements of the law, then the results of the inspection are invalid, cannot be evidence of violations by legal entities (IP) and are subject to cancellation by a higher control (supervision) body or court. Cancellation is carried out on the basis of an application from a legal entity (IP).

When appealing to a court, a legal entity (IP) must prepare and submit an appropriate application to invalidate the results of the inspection or the inspection report.

HEALTHY:

Grounds for unscheduled inspections by the licensing authority

It should be noted that for some types of control, other or additional grounds for unscheduled inspections may be provided. For example, in accordance with paragraph 10 of Art. 19 of the Federal Law of May 4, 2011 No. 99-FZ “On licensing of certain types of activities,” the grounds for unscheduled inspections by the licensing authority may be:

• Expiration of the deadline for the licensee to fulfill an order previously issued by the licensing authority to eliminate the identified violation of licensing requirements;
• Receipt of appeals and statements from citizens, including individual entrepreneurs, legal entities, information from state authorities, local governments, and the media about gross violations of licensing requirements by the licensee to the licensing authority;
• Expiration of the period for which the license was suspended in accordance with parts 2 and 3 of Article 20 of this Federal Law;
• The presence of a licensee's request for the licensing authority to conduct an unscheduled on-site inspection in order to establish the fact of early execution of the licensing authority's order;
• Receipt of an application from a license applicant or licensee to obtain or re-issue a license;
• The presence of an order (instruction) issued by the licensing authority in accordance with the instructions of the President of the Russian Federation or the Government of the Russian Federation.

Lawyer providing support for scheduled inspections in Yekaterinburg

The services of our lawyers at the Law Office "Katsailidi and Partners" in support of inspections may include the following:

• in consulting on scheduled inspections
• examination of verification documents to determine their legality
• participation in the inspection as a representative of a legal entity and identification of violations by authorized persons of the control (supervisory) body
• appealing the actions of inspectors
• appealing the inspection results
• provision of other legal assistance related to a scheduled inspection or simply to the business activities of an organization or individual entrepreneur

Carrying out inspections is always stressful for the managers of a legal entity, for individual entrepreneurs and employees, so it is worth preparing for scheduled inspections in advance, and during the inspections it makes sense to think about having a lawyer accompany such an inspection on your part. Call us today!