In some cases, the company conducts sales of goods at prices below cost.
In principle, selling goods at a loss is not prohibited.
But tax authorities can check prices for compliance with market prices and charge additional taxes.
Situations when a company sells goods at reduced prices
Situations when a company sells goods at reduced prices may be as follows:
Products are not in demand for a long time and become obsolete;
Goods (raw materials, supplies) are purchased for the needs of the enterprise, but there is no longer a need for them;
The shelf life of the product expires;
The customer refuses specific products produced according to his order. But they don’t find another buyer;
Inventory balances are sold due to reorganization, liquidation, change of location or due to a change in the direction of the company;
Seasonal demand decreases during periods of low consumer activity;
The company sells experimental models and samples in order to familiarize consumers with them.
Controlled transactions
Tax authorities control only transactions:
Between interdependent persons;
Foreign economic transactions on world goods stock trading;
Transactions in which one of the parties is a person registered offshore.
If a sales transaction does not fall into one of these three categories, then it is not controlled.
Therefore, prices used in other transactions, as well as income (profit, revenue) received from these transactions, are recognized as market prices by default (Clause 1, Article 105.3 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation).
Reserve for reduction in the value of material assets
According to clause 25 of PBU 5/01: inventories that are morally outdated, have completely or partially lost their original quality, the current quality of which has decreased, are reflected in balance sheet at the end of the reporting year less provision for impairment material assets.
Note that the amount of the created reserve is an estimated value, that is, it serves to generate reliable information about the cost of inventories in the balance sheet (clause 3 of PBU 21/2008 “Changes in estimated values”).
Thus, as of December 31, a reserve must be created for a decrease in the value of goods (debit to account 91 “Other income and expenses”, subaccount 91-2 “Other expenses”, credit to account 14 “Reserves for a decrease in the value of material assets”).
In the next reporting period at the time of sale of the goods for which the reserve has been formed, the reserved amount is restored: an entry is made in the accounting Debit 14 Credit 91, subaccount 91-1 “Other income”.
Example
The organization sells cabinets. Their lineup is regularly updated. The company sells unsold goods from the previous collection at a price below cost.
In stock trade organization There are five cabinets left.
The purchase price of each cabinet is 11,800 rubles. (including VAT - 1800 rubles).
A commission consisting of specialists from the sales department drew up a depreciation act for inventory items and set the possible price for their sale - 5,900 rubles. for 1 piece (including VAT - 900 rubles).
Five cabinets were sold at total amount RUB 29,500 (including VAT - 4500 rubles). Buyer - Russian organization, which is not interdependent in relation to the seller.
Since transactions between non-interdependent Russian companies are not controlled, then the selling price of the monitors is initially recognized as the market price and is not subject to verification.
Since the cabinets were sold at a price below cost, the difference in price needs to be created.
On the date of drawing up the depreciation act, the following posting should be made:
Debit 91-2 Credit 14
25,000 rub. (((11,800 rub. - 1,800 rub.) - (5,900 rub. - 900 rub.)) x 5 pcs.) - a reserve has been accrued for reducing the value of material assets.
When calculating income tax, the expense in the form of the amount of the accrued reserve is not taken into account. A permanent difference arises against which a permanent tax liability must be calculated:
5000 rub. (RUB 25,000 x 20%) - a permanent tax liability has been accrued.
When selling depreciated goods, the previously accrued reserve must be restored. The amount of the reserve in this case is recognized as other income.
On the date of sale of discounted cabinets, the accountant will record:
Debit 62 Credit 90-1
RUB 29,500 - revenue from the sale of cabinets is reflected;
Debit 90-3 Credit 68, subaccount “VAT calculations”,
4500 rub. - VAT is charged on sales;
Debit 90-2 Credit 41
50,000 rub. ((RUB 11,800 - RUB 1,800) x 5 pcs.) - written off actual cost cabinets;
Debit 14 Credit 91-1
25,000 rub. - the previously accrued reserve was restored.
The amount of the restored reserve is not recognized as income in tax accounting. Therefore, a constant difference arises, with which a constant is calculated tax asset:
Debit 68, subaccount "Calculations for income tax", Credit 99
5000 rub. (RUB 25,000 x 20%) - a permanent tax asset has been accrued.
Sale of goods at a loss to related parties
If the company sold the goods at a price below cost, for example, to its subsidiary.
In this case, the parties to the transaction are recognized as interdependent persons (clause 1, clause 2, article 105.1 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation).
However, in order for tax authorities to check the prices used in a transaction for compliance with market prices, in addition to interdependence, it is necessary that the transactions are also recognized as controlled.
Transactions are considered controlled if the amount of annual income from transactions exceeds the uncontrollable threshold.
In 2015, it amounts to one billion rubles (clause 1, clause 2, article 105.14 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation).
In this case, only taxable income (excluding VAT) for all transactions is taken into account without taking into account expenses (clause 9 of Article 105.14 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation).
So, if a product was sold at a non-market price and such a transaction is controlled (the uncontrolled threshold is exceeded - 1 billion rubles), it is necessary:
(or) voluntarily calculate income tax and VAT based on the market price (immediately or after tax period) (clauses 3, 6 of article 105.3 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation);
(or) during the “price” audit, prove to the tax authorities that the transaction price is well within the range of prices at which such goods are sold by non-dependent persons (subclause 1, clause 1, clause 3, article 105.7, clauses 1, 7, article 105.9 of the Tax Code RF).
Let's consider the organization's actions in each of these options.
First option
The company voluntarily makes tax adjustments upon expiration calendar year, namely, it will charge income tax and VAT based on the market price (clause 6 of Article 105.3 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation).
Example
The organization sold the technological equipment at a price below its cost to its subsidiary.
Proceeds from the sale amounted to RUB 2,360,000,000. (including VAT - RUB 360,000,000). The purchase price of the equipment was RUB 2,200,000,000.
The organization maintains tax accounting using the accrual method.
The market selling price of the goods is RUB 3,540,000,000. (including VAT - RUB 540,000,000).
To minimize tax risks, it was decided to charge income tax and VAT at market prices.
Then, for tax purposes, revenue should be reflected at the market price. And in accounting - based on actual sales prices.
This will create a permanent difference between accounting and tax accounting in the amount of 1,000,000,000 rubles. ((RUB 3,540,000,000 - RUB 540,000,000) - (RUB 2,360,000,000 - RUB 360,000,000)).
In accounting, a permanent difference will form a permanent tax liability in the amount of 200,000,000 rubles. (RUB 1,000,000,000 x 20%).
The following entries must be made in the organization's accounting:
Debit 62 Credit 90-1
RUB 2,360,000,000 - actual revenue from the sale of equipment is reflected;
Debit 90-2 Credit 41
RUB 2,200,000,000 - the cost of equipment is written off;
Debit 90-3 Credit 68, subaccount “Calculations for VAT,
540,000,000 rub. - VAT is charged on potential revenue (when selling products at market price);
Debit 99 Credit 68, subaccount "Calculations for income tax",
200,000,000 rub. - a permanent tax liability has been accrued;
Debit 68, subaccount "VAT calculations", Credit 51
540,000,000 rub. - VAT is transferred to the budget, calculated based on the market price;
Debit 68, subaccount "Calculations for income tax", Credit 51
200,000,000 rub. - income tax accrued based on the market price is transferred to the budget.
Symmetrical adjustments
If the seller independently calculates and pays taxes at the market price on income from a controlled transaction, then the buyer will not be able to recalculate tax base in the direction of decrease.
After all, he will have such a right only if, after checking prices and paying the arrears by the seller, the buyer receives from tax authority notification to carry out symmetrical adjustments (Clause 1 of Article 105.3, paragraphs 1, 2 of Article 105.18 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation).
Thus, in order to recalculate the tax base during a symmetrical adjustment, the other party to the transaction must be aware that its related party has been checked and additionally assessed taxes (Clause 2 of Article 105.18 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation).
If the company voluntarily pays additional taxes to the budget, the Federal Tax Service will send a notification about the possibility of symmetrical adjustments to another participant in the controlled transaction within one month (clause 4 of Article 105.18 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation).
Second option
In this case, the company will have to prove to the tax authorities during a “price” check that the product was not in demand and the price of such a transaction falls within the range of prices at which such goods are sold by non-dependent persons (clause 1, clause 1, clause 3, article 105.7, p. 7 Article 105.9 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation).
If the tax authorities nevertheless consider that the prices were not comparable with market prices, then after a “price” check they will go to court in order to collect arrears and penalties for income tax and VAT (Clause 5 of Article 105.3, paragraph 4 of paragraph 2 of Art. 45 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation).
If the income from the transaction relates to 2015, then the tax authorities may also impose a fine in the amount of 20% of the amount of unpaid taxes (Clause 1 of Article 129.3 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation; paragraph 9 of Article 4 of the Law of July 18, 2011 N 227-FZ) .
Notice of controlled transactions
No later than May 20 of the next year, it is necessary to submit to the tax inspectorate a notice of controlled transactions completed by it during the past year (clause 2 of Article 105.16 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation).
Costs of purchasing goods sold at a loss
Tax authorities may insist that the costs of purchasing goods sold at a loss are economically unjustified and therefore cannot be taken into account when calculating income tax.
To confirm the validity of your expenses, you can give the following arguments:
The costs of purchasing goods were economically justified, since the goods were purchased for sale at a profit.
But since circumstances have changed not for the better, it is more important to sell the goods at a loss to free up working capital, which allows you to avoid even greater losses from complete write-off of the goods.
Thus, expenses will be economically justified if they were aimed at making a profit. The end result is not decisive.
Input VAT on goods sold at a loss
Tax authorities may see an unprofitable transaction as receiving an unjustified tax benefit for the following reasons:
The absence of a reasonable economic goal for concluding a loss-making transaction is one of the signs of obtaining an unjustified tax benefit (Clause 1, 3, 9 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated October 12, 2006 N 53);
The deduction upon purchase was greater than the amount of tax accrued upon the sale of the goods.
Based on this, tax authorities may insist that if goods are sold at a loss, then the “input” VAT on them cannot be deducted.
However, the tax benefit in the form of VAT deduction when selling goods at a loss can be justified in court proceedings.
In legal disputes, the case is resolved in favor of the taxpayer if he provides the court with evidence of the existence of a reasonable economic goal that was pursued when concluding a loss-making transaction (see, for example, Resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Moscow Region dated May 30, 2013 N A40-40420/12-91-224, dated 05.05.2012 N A40-43413/11-90-184).
But if there was no such goal, and by all indications the organization is a participant tax scheme, then tax deductions will be removed due to the lack of an economic purpose.
In addition to the lack of an economic purpose, controllers may identify other signs of obtaining an unjustified tax benefit.
For example, an organization purchased a consignment of goods, but where it was stored for a whole month is unclear, since the organization neither owns nor leases warehouse premises, and although a custody agreement was concluded, it was not executed (see Resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the North Kazakhstan region dated 01/24/2013 N A32-3122/2012).
Thus, a tax benefit in the form of VAT deduction on goods sold at a loss can be justified if the organization proves that it pursued a reasonable expectation when concluding a loss-making transaction. economic goal, for example, to avoid even greater losses from complete write-off of goods.
But if the goods were sold only on paper and there were no real transactions, then the tax authorities will remove such deductions.
Cost justification
To confirm the validity of expenses and strengthen your position in the event of a dispute with the tax authorities, you can do the following.
First, the manager must issue an order to reduce prices (mark down goods).
Secondly, the markdown must be justified. For this purpose, a commission is created, which includes quality experts, sales department specialists and other employees who can professionally assess the actual condition of the product and set the possible selling price.
The results of the commission’s work can be formalized in an act of depreciation of inventory items (form N MX-15 or in any form) and attached to the order.
The act must indicate:
Characteristics, properties and quality of the product;
For what reasons is it impossible to sell it at a profit;
The commission's conclusions about reducing the price of the product.
Thus, the expenses will be economically justified, since they are aimed at making a profit.
In this case, the final result is not decisive.
Sale of goods at a loss by organizations under a special regime
Let us note that “simplifiers” and “presumers” should not worry about price control.
So, if a company sells goods using the simplified tax system at a reduced cost related party, she does not face additional charges of “simplified” tax on controlled transactions. And even if it sells at a price below cost.
The fact is that the Federal Tax Service does not have the right to accrue additional single tax under the simplified tax system. Since, according to the law, it can do this only in relation to four taxes (clause 4 of Article 105.3 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation):
Income tax;
Personal income tax on entrepreneur’s income;
VAT (if one of the parties to the transaction is an organization (entrepreneur) that does not pay VAT or is exempt from fulfilling the duties of a taxpayer).
A similar situation arises if the UTII payer sells goods at a loss. First of all, because additional assessments for controlled transactions are possible only in relation to the four aforementioned taxes. In addition, UTII is paid based not on real, but on imputed income.
Therefore, payers of the “simplified” tax and UTII are not subject to the price control of the Federal Tax Service and do not have to submit notifications about controlled transactions.
INCOME TAX
In most cases, the seller is not going to “gift” the buyer just like that. The conditions for receiving an additional batch of goods or other property are stipulated in the contract, i.e., in order to receive a “gift”, the buyer must fulfill certain conditions, for example, purchase goods for a certain amount. How should the free receipt of such a bonus be classified for profit tax purposes?
A gratuitous agreement is an agreement under which one party undertakes to provide something to the other party without receiving payment or other consideration from it1. But in our situation there are counter obligations. The supplier will supply free goods only if certain conditions are met. Thus, it is impossible to unambiguously recognize the transfer of goods as a bonus as a gift, which means that the buyer should not receive income in the form of property received free of charge. At the same time, according to the Russian Ministry of Finance2, providing free goods is gratuitous transfer property. Therefore, the buyer must include in non-operating income market value bonus product 3.
The taxation of the transaction depends on how the transaction is qualified. The risky option is to capitalize the goods at a “zero” price. A safe option is to follow the official recommendations of the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation, especially since from 01/01/2015 this option will not lead to additional costs. Organizations now have the opportunity to take into account the tax expenses the market value at which it was included in non-operating income. Corresponding amendments have been made to paragraph. 2 p. 2 art. 254 Tax Code.
IN tax accounting income in the form of property received free of charge is reflected on the date the parties sign the act of acceptance and transfer of property, regardless of the method of recognition of income and expenses used in tax accounting4.
As already mentioned, when receiving property free of charge, income is assessed based on market prices determined taking into account the provisions of Article 105.3 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, i.e. this price may be the price provided for by the contract and indicated in the primary documents5. But in accordance with paragraph 8 of Art. 250 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, recognized income should not be lower than the costs of production or acquisition of “bonus” goods received. Information about prices for the taxpayer - the recipient of the property must be confirmed documented or by conducting independent assessment. So, when receiving a “gift,” it would be good to obtain from the supplier documents confirming his costs for purchasing the transferred “bonus” batch of goods in order to be sure that the market value of the “bonus” is not lower than the supplier’s costs. In practice, taxpayers determine the market value of “free” acquisitions by the price of purchasing similar goods from the same supplier for a fee or by the price of their subsequent sale. Tax authorities, as a rule, do not argue with this, since otherwise they themselves will have to calculate market price goods and prove the correctness of its definition in court.
If the taxpayer decides to follow the instructions of the Ministry of Finance, he will avoid not only disputes with the tax authorities, but also the differences between accounting and tax accounting of income and expenses. Of course, if the “bonus” goods are accepted for accounting and tax accounting at the same price. ABOUT accounting We will tell you about the products a little later.
SPECIAL MODES
If a buyer applying the simplified tax system receives bonus goods, then when determining the object of taxation, he must take into account their market value in non-operating income6. Taxpayers using the simplified tax system apply the same procedure for assessing and accounting for bonus goods as payers of corporate income tax7.
The Ministry of Finance explained that if the buyer combines OSNO or simplified tax system with UTII (engaged in wholesale and retail trade), then income in the form of bonus goods can be taken into account for the purpose of calculating income tax or simplified tax system only partially8. In income, the taxpayer will reflect only those bonus goods that will not be used for UTII. In this case, the buyer is obliged to conduct separate accounting property, liabilities and business transactions in relation to entrepreneurial activity subject to UTII taxation, and business activities in respect of which the taxpayer pays taxes in accordance with a different taxation regime9.
The transfer of a bonus product, even with a zero cost, from the seller will be considered as a gratuitous sale of this product, unless he proves that the cost of the “gift” is already included in the price of the main product10. Therefore, the seller must calculate VAT on the market value of the “gift”11. However, the buyer does not have the right to deduct such VAT, since deduction is possible if the tax is presented for payment and the supplier does not require payment for the “bonus” goods12.
ACCOUNTING
#FOOTNOTE#Goods received free of charge are accepted for accounting at the actual cost, which recognizes its current market value as of the date of receipt13. In clause 9.2 of the Accounting Concept in market economy Russia14 has proposed several options for assessing assets in such cases. The buyer has the right to accept the bonus product for accounting at the regular price of its purchase from a given supplier or at the current market value, that is, according to the amount Money, which can be obtained as a result of the sale of this product. The latter is consistent with the assessment of goods received free of charge, established by clause 9 of PBU 5/01.
According to the author, the choice of method for valuing a bonus product depends on the purpose of its acquisition, i.e. if the bonus product is not intended for resale, for example, it will be used in production, it should be valued at the regular purchase price of such goods (excluding value added tax and excise taxes), and if the received goods are sold, then at the price of possible sale.
When receiving a bonus product, the following entries are made in the buyer’s accounting records:
Dt sch. 60 “Settlements with suppliers and contractors” Set of accounts. 91 “Other income and expenses”, subaccount “Other income” - income from receiving “bonus” goods is reflected. Dt sch. 41 “Goods” Set of accounts. 60 “Settlements with suppliers and contractors” – bonus goods received from the supplier.
EXAMPLE
For achieving the purchase volume, the contract provides for the provision of a bonus to the buyer in the form of the supply of an additional 10 units of the same product. According to the supply agreement, bonus products are supplied at a price equal to zero. Under the terms of the supply agreement, the cost of previously supplied products does not change. The usual price for purchasing 10 units of this product from this supplier is 11,800 rubles, including VAT of 1,180 rubles. The received goods were sold wholesale by the organization for 16,520 rubles, including VAT of 2,520 rubles.
|
Debit |
Credit |
Sum,rub. |
Primarydocument |
|
|
Other income was recognized in connection with the receipt of bonus goods |
||||
|
Received a bonus product from the supplier |
||||
|
Packing list |
||||
|
Accounting information |
||||
|
VAT charged on sale |
Invoice |
|||
|
|
|
Debit |
Credit |
Sum,rub. |
Primarydocument |
|
|
Other income is recognized upon receipt of a bonus product |
Supply contract, Accounting information |
|||
|
Bonus item accepted for accounting |
Supplier shipping documents, Certificate of acceptance of goods |
|||
|
Revenue from sales of goods is reflected |
Packing list |
|||
|
The actual cost of the bonus product sold was written off |
Accounting information |
|||
|
VAT charged on sale |
Invoice |
|||
|
Reflected financial results(excluding other operations) |
Accounting certificate-calculation |
We hope our article will allow you to avoid mistakes when reflecting the buyer of a bonus product in the accounting and tax records.
Currently, many organizations are forced to sell goods at a price lower than the purchase price. Some accountants doubt the legality of such actions. ABOUT tax consequences For such transactions, read the material prepared by specialists of the 1C:Consulting.Standard project.
The basis for writing the material was a question received at the consultation line of the project "1C: Consulting. Standard":
Russian legislation does not contain a prohibition on selling goods at a price lower than the purchase price. Therefore, of course, you can sell this product for 600,000 rubles.
But in this case, you should keep in mind the possibility of adverse tax consequences.
Charge of lack of a reasonable business purpose.
Referring to the unprofitability of the transaction, the inspectors say about the absence in the actions of the taxpayer reasonable business purpose and about their receipt unjustified tax benefit in the form of illegal VAT refund from the budget. At the same time they try challenge the right to deduct input tax for this product. And in this case, judges support controllers quite often.
For example, the FAS of the East Siberian District, in resolution dated January 17, 2007 No. A33-5877/05-F02-7258/06-S1 in case No. A33-5877/05, supported the tax authorities, indicating that the transactions performed by the taxpayer were not economically feasible, because the purchase price of the goods was higher than the selling price for export.
In the decision of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Volga District dated March 29, 2006 in case No. A12-27621/05-C21, the judges came to the conclusion that there was no reasonable business purpose, since the transactions were obviously unprofitable for the taxpayer.
And the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the West Siberian District refused to deduct VAT from the taxpayer, since the purchase price of the goods was inflated seven times, and the subsequent the sale price did not cover all the taxpayer's costs. The court also noted that similar business transactions are not carried out unless otherwise hidden behind them(resolution dated August 10, 2005 in case No. F04-5166/2005(13823-A46-18)).
Fortunately, there are examples court decisions in favor of taxpayers in arbitration practice is also sufficient. For example, in the Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated June 20, 2006 No. 3946/06 in case No. A40-19572/04-14-138, the arbitrators concluded that the fact of sale of goods for export at a price that is lower than the purchase price goods from a Russian supplier, in itself, without connection with other circumstances of a particular case, cannot indicate bad faith of the company and be considered as an objective sign of bad faith.
Similar conclusions can be found in the decisions of the FAS Moscow District dated March 11, 2008 No. KA-A40/1209-08 in case No. A40-35330/07-99-146, the FAS Volga District dated January 15, 2008 in case No. A65-1289/07- SA3-48, FAS of the Ural District dated June 13, 2007 No. F09-4305/07-C2 in case No. A07-28178/06, FAS of the Central District dated February 19, 2008 in case No. A35-1831/07-C18.
In the Resolutions of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated February 28, 2006 No. 13234/05 in case No. A40-245/05-117-4 and dated February 28, 2006 No. 12669/05 in case No. A40-3898/05-118-48 it is stated that the fact Selling a product at a price lower than the purchase price does not indicate the absence of a reasonable business purpose.
And the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Ural District, in its resolution dated February 11, 2008 No. F09-208/08-S2 in case No. A71-4398/07, stated that on its own the fact that there is no profit does not indicate bad faith on the part of the taxpayer, as well as the lack of real economic effect from relationships with these suppliers.
The judges also point out that right to use tax deductions not dependent on profit, which the taxpayer received. In accordance with Art. 2 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, entrepreneurial activity is independent and is carried out at its own risk, that is, as a result, the organization’s activities may turn out to be both profitable and unprofitable (resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Moscow District dated January 21, 2008 No. KA-A40/12666-07 in case No. A40-67664 /06-75-390).
Similar conclusions are contained in the resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Moscow District dated August 14, 2008 No. KA-A40/6296-08 in case No. A40-59005/07-129-351. The court rejected the inspector’s argument that the taxpayer’s activities were unprofitable, pointing out that this fact is not a basis for refusing a VAT refund, since current legislature does not link the right to apply a deduction with the presence of profit or loss, that is, with the profitability of transactions.
Another example from arbitration practice. In our opinion, it may be useful in the situation under consideration. This is the resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Central District dated 06/04/2008 in case No. A54-2364/2007С21. In making its decision, the court rejected the tax authority’s argument that the transaction was unprofitable and indicated that the taxpayer sold the goods at a price lower than the purchase price due to a decrease in its quality. Of course, when using this argument, the taxpayer must be prepared to confirm the fact of a decrease in the quality of the goods.
Tax authorities control prices to ensure their compliance with market prices.
According to paragraph 1 of Article 40 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, for tax purposes, the price of goods, work or services indicated by the parties to the transaction is accepted. Until proven otherwise, it is assumed that this price corresponds to the level of market prices.
Tax authorities have the right to check the correctness of application of prices for transactions only in the following cases (clause 2 of article 40 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation):
- between interdependent persons;
- on commodity exchange (barter) transactions;
- when making foreign trade transactions;
- if there is a deviation of more than 20% upward or downward from the level of prices used by the taxpayer for identical (homogeneous) goods (works, services) within a short period of time.
If the price of a product differs from the market price by more than 20%, the tax authorities have the right to check the correctness of the application of prices and make a reasoned decision on additional tax and penalties, calculated in such a way as if the results of this transaction were assessed based on the application of market prices for the corresponding goods (clauses 2 and 3 of Article 40 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation).
At the same time, Art. 40 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation contains the principles for determining market prices. Note that according to paragraph 3 of Article 40 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, when determining the market price discounts may be taken into account caused by:
- seasonal and other fluctuations in consumer demand for goods (works, services);
- loss of quality or other consumer properties of goods;
- expiration (approximation of the expiration date) of the shelf life or sale of goods;
- marketing policy, including when promoting new products that have no analogues to markets, as well as when promoting goods (works, services) to new markets;
- implementation of experimental models and samples of goods in order to familiarize consumers with them.
IN in this case If, taking into account the provisions of Article 40 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, the tax authorities come to a reasonable conclusion that the price of goods applied by the taxpayer deviates from the market price by more than 20%, they have the right to charge additional taxes based on market prices. In this case, both VAT and income tax will be additionally charged, as well as corresponding penalties for these taxes.
Note! When applying Article 40 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, the disputed price must be compared specifically with market prices for identical (similar) goods. Comparison with the purchase price of goods (with the cost of products, works, services) is not allowed. This has been brought to the attention of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation more than once. Thus, in the Information Letter of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated March 17, 2003 No. 71 (clause 4), the judges indicated the invalidity of the tax authority’s decision to assess additional taxes under Article 40 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation for the reason that the tax authority did not examine the issue of the level of deviation during the audit transaction prices from market prices. Wherein market prices were not set at all, and for the purpose of recalculating income tax the cost of services indicator was used(services were sold at prices below cost).
Not long ago, the highest judicial body confirmed its point of view regarding this issue (see Determination of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated May 6, 2008 No. 5849/08). In making the decision to assess additional value added tax, penalties and fines to the company, the inspectorate proceeded from the fact that, selling the product below purchase price, society is operating at a loss. The judges did not take into account the tax authority’s argument about lowering prices below cost, since the issue of establishing the market price of goods was not investigated by the inspectorate.
It's no secret that if you offer a buyer several options for one product to choose from, he will prefer the one that will be the most profitable in terms of price (if it is profitable not to buy, then, rest assured, people will do so). When it comes to free products, some researchers believe that consumers act somewhat differently and do not simply subtract the costs from the perceived benefits, as they usually do, but perceive the value of such products to be much higher.
In relation to this assumption, a study was conducted in which the demand for two products that differed in price was contrasted, but the price difference was such that the cheaper product was offered either at a very low price or completely free.
Introduction
The symbol "0" was originally invented by the Babylonians, but was used not as a number, but as a kind of placeholder, while the very concept of zero as a symbol of emptiness was denied by the ancient Greeks over the centuries: first by Pythagoras, Aristotle, and then by their followers. In many ways, this attitude arose due to ancient Greek religious beliefs: the ancient Greeks considered God to be infinite, therefore the very possibility of the existence of “emptiness”, “nothing” was rejected. Such argumentation also found support in mathematics, which, as is known, was based by the ancient Greeks on geometry, where negative numbers and the number “0” simply lose all meaning. This inability to accept the concept of “0” was one of the reasons why the development of mathematical science was inhibited for many centuries.
India became the first country where the symbol “0” began to be used as a symbol of number: unlike the ancient Hellenes, Indians initially separated algebra and geometry, and their religious views implied infinity and emptiness as constituent elements of one system. Later, the number “0” migrated to Arab countries and from there found its way to Europe. Since Aristotle rejected the symbol “0”, and Christianity was largely based on Aristotelian philosophy, this figure was not widely used in Europe at first. This continued until the Age of Enlightenment.
IN modern history the concept of "0" helps to understand various aspects of human psychology. The theory states that the absence of a reward for completing a task can increase liking for it, as opposed to a situation where a small reward does occur. Further research in this area has led to the understanding that removing the reward for an action performed can ultimately affect the nature of motivation, change the individual's self-perception and affect his sense of competence and control.
For example, researchers Gneezy and Rustichini found that while performance on a task (such as raising money for charity or taking an IQ test) increased with higher rewards, performance on the same tasks did not occur when there was no reward. at a higher level.
These discoveries led to the conclusion that in situations where there is a price for a product, people are guided by market norms, and when there is no price (that is, the price of the product is zero), they are guided by social norms. This is confirmed by the result of an experiment in which students were offered to buy candy at a price of 1 cent per piece. Due to the low price, students took 4 candies at a time. When the same candy was offered for free, students took no more than one (decreasing demand as price decreases).
This article presents an experiment that somewhat expands the research field of “zero” psychology ( psychology of zero) psychology of “free” ( psychology of free). Intuition and some anecdotal evidence suggest that people perceive free things to be worth much more than their actual value. You don’t have to look far for examples: many people are willing to stand in line for hours to get something for free, although the product itself may be sold at a relatively low price. At first glance, an increase in demand at a low price (or its complete absence) is not surprising, but this fact cannot be explained only by economic arguments. The purpose of the experiment is to establish the causes of this phenomenon.
Measuring reaction/over-reaction to zero price
Experiment 1: Hypothetical choice
60 people took part in the experiment. Each of them was asked to make a hypothetical choice between two products: Hershey's chocolates or Ferrero Rocher chocolates - or to refuse to buy both (participants were provided with images of both brands). Prices for goods rose and fell by the same amount. A total of 3 experiments were carried out.
In the first experiment, the cost of Hershey's and Ferrero Rocher candies was 1 cent and 26 cents, respectively. In the second, the price was reduced by 1 cent, that is, now buyers had to choose between candy for 25 cents and free. In the third experiment, prices were increased by 1 cent. The point of the third experiment was to compare the change in demand when the price decreases by 1 cent in a situation where this decrease reduces the price of a cheap good to a minimum, and in the situation when a cheap good becomes free.
results
In the figure below you can see the results of the first series of experiments.
As you may have noticed, the demand for the cheaper option increased significantly after this option became free. However, with a one-time reduction in the price of an expensive and a cheap product, at which the price of the latter becomes equal to 1 cent, the changes in demand are insignificant, and even almost imperceptible compared to the dynamics of demand in the first experiment.
Thus, albeit hypothetically, it was proven that the theoretical model of behavior at zero price also takes place in practice: the increase in demand is explained by the fact that participants saw greater value in the free product than just a benefit in price.
Experiment 2. Real purchases
Although the results of the first experiment clearly show that buyers have a very significant reaction to a product price reduction to zero relative to price reductions in other price ranges, their reaction was still relevant to a hypothetical situation, so it is questionable whether it would have held true in an actual purchase after completion. the experiment remained open.
To fill this gap, it was decided to conduct a field study with the participation of 398 people. As in the previous experiment, participants were asked to choose between two candy options: Hershey's (cheap candy) and Lindt truffle (expensive option). In the first experiment, people were asked to choose between candies whose prices were, respectively, 1 cent and 15 cents, in the second - 0 and 15, and in the third - 0 and 10. The third experiment (in which the change in the price of an expensive product was almost a third) was necessary in order to give participants a stronger incentive not to take the free product, that is, to act contrary to the hypothesis that was formulated above.
The experiment was conducted in a hall at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), in the center of which was a massive booth with a large vertical sign: “One candy per person.” Inside the booth there were two boxes of candy. Next to each box there was a table on which the prices were indicated, but from a distance it was not possible to make out what exactly was written on the plate: the inscriptions were visible only to those standing directly in the booth or nearby. This was done in order to calculate the percentage of people who will become familiar with the cost of candy, but decide not to participate (that is, they will not buy anything).
results
The results are shown in the illustration below:
In general, they correspond to what was obtained in the first series of experiments. As soon as the price reduction resulted in one of the products becoming free, the demand for it increased sharply, while the demand for the other fell sharply. In addition, it was found that the demand for cheap Hershey's candies in experiments numbered 2 and 3 changed slightly, while the demand for the expensive Lindt truffle brand even fell in the same experiments (as we remember, the cost of Hershey's was zero in both experiments, and Lindt truffle changed from 14 to 10 cents). This contradiction can be explained a large percentage those participants who refused to buy anything at all. One way or another, this experiment showed that reducing the price to zero motivates people to buy much more than significant discounts on an expensive product.
But what is more surprising is the significant percentage of those who refused to make a purchase. This lack of interest can be explained by the not entirely successful way to encode this behavior model: some people might not even see the offer itself, but since they walked past the booth and looked inside, they were automatically assigned to the category that did not choose any of the offered products. Otherwise, this can be explained by the fact that buying even such an insignificant thing as chocolate required time and attention, and not everyone wanted to interrupt their business for this.
As a result, the second series of experiments empirically confirmed the hypothesis that a free product is considered by buyers in a slightly different evaluation system and its purchase seems to be a more profitable deal, even if there is a significant discount on a more expensive product. The revealed drop in demand for an expensive product in experiments number 2 and 3 is theoretically and completely impossible, but, one way or another, it takes place.
What is the reason for the zero price effect?
The first part of this article demonstrated the role that zero price plays in buyer analysis. economic efficiency any transaction. Now it is important to determine the psychological reasons for such a hyperreaction.
The researchers considered three possible explanations for the existence of the zero-price effect.
1. Social norms
The possible psychological effect that underlies the zero-price effect may have something to do with social norms that characterize an individual's attitude toward free products. We already wrote above that in conditions when both products cost some money, people evaluate their value according to market rules and laws, however, when one of these products becomes free, then its value is assessed according to slightly different criteria, which researchers call social. However, social norms are likely to emerge only in cases where price is not part of the transaction and, therefore, does not affect the value of the purchase.
2. Difficulty of assessment
Another possible explanation can be provided by such a feature of a person as the difficulty he experiences in expressing the usefulness of a particular product in monetary terms. In the experiments above, people found it difficult to cope with this task, so they made decisions that guaranteed a successful outcome in any case. For example, buying free chocolate seems more profitable than buying expensive chocolate, which may or may not meet your expectations. Thus, the difficulty people face every day when evaluating products may be the deciding factor that sways them towards the free option.
3. Emotions
Researchers believe that the opportunity to purchase something for free evokes extremely positive emotions in people, and these emotions are the main reason why consumers value free products so highly.
An additional study was conducted in which participants were asked to rate how good a given price of chocolate would be. The already beloved Hershey’s and Lindt truffle candies were presented in two price positions: Hershey’s for 1 cent and for free (H0 and H1, respectively) and Lindt truffle for 13 and 14 cents (L13 and L14).
243 people participated in the survey, each of them was given answer forms with illustrations of sweets and a scale for assessing their own state: the scale consisted of 5 emoticons, each of which denoted a particular emotion. To evaluate one or another option, all you had to do was circle the desired emoticon.
The research results are shown in the graph below:
Option H0 caused the most favorable reaction among respondents. But why did this option, and not L13, provoke a more positive response, because, logically speaking, the value of Lindt truffle brand candies is higher? However, the results of this experiment show that free Hershey's candy evokes stronger emotions. One reason for this is the simplicity of the action required: the decision to take a free chocolate bar does not require much effort.
At the same time, it should be taken into account that Hershey’s is a benefit that costs nothing, and Lindt truffle requires some money. It can also be assumed that options that include both benefits and costs have negative impact due to the simultaneous presence of both components, while those products that only have benefits appear more significant.
Any buyer likes to get something for free. It is this magic word that is considered the most effective in advertising. And quite often suppliers give bonus goods to buyers for a certain volume of purchases. These may be products similar to those that the buyer has already purchased. Or there may be completely different ones - chosen at the discretion of the seller himself. Suppliers also often give free samples of their products or goods to those who have not purchased them before. Moreover, not only Russian sellers do this; foreign companies also resort to distributing free bonus products and samples.
Refusing free goods or other valuables that can be sold or used in some way (for example, as raw materials or supplies) is, of course, stupid. However, if the invoice for such goods has a zero price, then the recipient may have tax difficulties. However, they may also be from the seller himself. Therefore, when an accountant sees an item in the invoice with at zero cost, questions arise: how to take this into account, what taxes to pay and what to do so that such difficulties do not arise in the future?
Accounting difficulties for the buyer
So, you have received a product or sample for free from your supplier. If the invoice for their receipt indicates a zero price, this is grounds for inspectors to consider them received free of charge. And as a result, special requirements must be presented when calculating taxes.
We include the cost of free goods received in “profitable” income
Of course, the first thing inspectors require you to pay is income tax on the value of the goods received free of charge. A clause 2 art. 248, paragraph 8 of Art. 250 Tax Code of the Russian Federation; Letter of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated January 19, 2006 No. 03-03-04/1/44; Letter of the Federal Tax Service of Russia for Moscow dated April 29, 2008 No. 20-12/041762.1. The Ministry of Finance believes that it should be determined as a market price and taken into account in income X Art. 40, paragraph 8 of Art. 250, sub. 1 clause 4 art. 271 Tax Code of the Russian Federation.
If you buy similar goods from your supplier, then the market value is easy to determine: it will be equal to the price of a regular purchase And clause 5 art. 40 Tax Code of the Russian Federation.
But if the supplier gave you other goods that you had not previously purchased from him, or if you received free samples new products or goods, then the market value is difficult to determine. You simply don’t have the data for this in the first place. Therefore, in order to avoid difficulties with inspectors, it is better to stock up on documents that would show the cost of the goods you received (or at least similar ones).
The simplest thing is to ask the seller for a certificate (signed and stamped) about the normal price for the sale of goods or other valuables that he gave you for free. If you received goods from a foreign counterparty, then you can take their customs value as the market price.
Well, if none of the above options suits you, then you can request data on the same products from other organizations. Or you can take the price from official sources about market prices for goods, works or services and stock exchange quotes X clause 11 art. 40 Tax Code of the Russian Federation.
It’s even more difficult if there is no market as such for the valuables you received for free. We will have to focus on the price of their subsequent sale. And clause 10 art. 40 Tax Code of the Russian Federation. In this case, the market acquisition price will be equal to the difference between the price at which you sold or are going to sell the goods to your customers and your normal costs for such resale (excluding the purchase price of the goods).
But in any case, your organization should be interested in having documentary evidence of the market price on hand. Otherwise tax office can determine the market value itself - and this price may turn out to be more than you think.
The situation is the same with simplifiers: in order not to argue with the inspection, they must take into account in their income the goods received free of charge at their market value And clause 1 art. 346.15, paragraph 8 of Art. 250 Tax Code of the Russian Federation.
Of course, you can argue with this point of view. After all, transferring a bonus product is not a gift e clause 2 art. 423, para. 2 p. 1 art. 572 Civil Code of the Russian Federation; clause 3 of the Information Letter of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated December 21, 2005 No. 104. Judge for yourself: there is no talk of any gratuitousness. You receive a bonus product only if strictly certain conditions are met. And property is considered received free of charge if, with its appearance, the recipient does not have a reciprocal obligation to transfer property, property rights, perform work or provide services And clause 2 art. 248 Tax Code of the Russian Federation. But such logic is unlikely to be supported by the tax inspector.
Impostors do not have to pay taxes on bonus goods received
Retail traders on UTII are luckier than simplifiers and income tax payers. If the receipt of such goods is associated with an activity for which UTII must be paid, then you will not have to pay any taxes on goods received free of charge. After all, the concept of “trade” includes not only the sale, but also the acquisition of goods. V clause 1 art. 11, Art. 346.27 Tax Code of the Russian Federation; clause 1 art. 2 of the Federal Law of December 28, 2009 No. 381-FZ “On the fundamentals of state regulation of trading activities in the Russian Federation”. And if, in the course of “imputed” activities, you received goods for free and then sold them as part of retail trade, then these operations together fall under UTII.
And if, in addition to retail trade, you have other general activities or activities on the simplified tax system, for example wholesale, then you will have to distribute income in the form of free goods received between different types activities. The Ministry of Finance recommends doing this based on separate accounting data A Letter of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated January 28, 2010 No. 03-11-06/3/11. But how exactly depends on the situation. For example, you received free bonus goods worth 100 rubles from a supplier. for buying a batch of goods worth 10,000 rubles. Moreover, from this batch of goods worth 3,000 rubles. sold at retail, and the goods cost 7,000 rubles. sold wholesale. Income 100 rub. can be divided like this. 30 rubles can be attributed to activities on UTII. (proportional to the cost of goods sold at retail). A to general regime then you need to pay the remaining 70 rubles. But you can distribute the income received differently. The main thing is to justify your approach and consolidate it in accounting policy.
It will not be possible to write off the market value of goods on which the tax was paid as “profitable” expenses.
Let's assume that you took the safe route and took into account in your income the cost of the goods you received for free from the supplier. And they paid income tax on it. It is quite logical to assume that in your tax accounting the cost of free goods has been determined, by which you can reduce the proceeds when selling them. Or take this cost into account as part of your expenses - if you use these goods as raw materials or materials.
However, the Ministry of Finance does not agree with this position. For bonus products or samples received free of charge from suppliers, the Tax Code does not have any rules for determining costs. And clause 2 art. 254, Art. 268 Tax Code of the Russian Federation. Taking advantage of this, inspectors consider the cost of their acquisition to be zero. th Letters of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated September 26, 2011 No. 03-03-06/1/590, dated January 19, 2006 No. 03-03-04/1/44.
Attention
It is dangerous to reflect the market value of free items and expense that as their purchase price.
As you already understand, this position is not entirely logical. Indeed, when selling goods received free of charge, there is double taxation of their market value: once as non-operating income, the second - as part of sales revenue. And the same income should not be subject to income tax twice - this is directly enshrined in Chapter. 25 NK R F clause 3 art. 248 Tax Code of the Russian Federation. Therefore, if you decide to argue with the inspectors, you can take into account as your tax expense the market value of the goods on which you paid income tax when you received them And.
Similar disputes arose previously during the sale of valuables capitalized during inventory or dismantling of fixed assets. V clause 2 art. 254 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation (as amended, valid until 01/01/2010); Letters of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated December 18, 2006 No. 03-03-04/1/841, dated June 15, 2007 No. 03-03-06/1/380. The courts supported taxpayers that when selling surplus, their value can be written off as expenses equal to the amount taken into account in income on which income tax was paid b Art. 268 Tax Code of the Russian Federation; Resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of Ukraine dated April 27, 2011 No. Ф09-2353/11-С3. And since 2010, changes have been made to the Tax Code, and now revenue can be reduced by the market value of assets without any dispute V clause 2 art. 254 Tax Code of the Russian Federation.
Additional costs can be taken into account without any problems
Just because a supplier doesn't charge you for bonus items doesn't mean you don't have costs associated with receiving them. The most common associated costs are transportation. And when receiving bonus goods from foreign suppliers, additional costs will inevitably arise for storage, insurance and payment of customs duties. Where to put these additional costs? After all, it is clear that if you use free goods in your business activities, then all such expenses are economically justified s Art. 252 Tax Code of the Russian Federation. Both the Ministry of Finance and the Moscow tax authorities agree with this And Letter of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated September 22, 2010 No. 03-03-06/1/605; Letter from the Federal Tax Service of Russia for Moscow dated March 4, 2011 No. 16-15/020443@. But what specific type of expenses include related costs depends on your accounting policy for tax purposes.
OPTION 1. According to the accounting policy, costs associated with the acquisition of goods are taken into account as independent expensesArticles 318, 320 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation; Letter of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated May 29, 2007 No. 03-03-06/1/335. In this case:
- expenses not related to the delivery of goods to you from the supplier can be immediately written off as indirect (for example, these could be insurance costs or customs duties);
- the costs of delivering goods to you must be taken into account as direct costs;
- the cost of goods received free of charge in tax accounting will be zero.
OPTION 2. The accounting policy stipulates that expenses associated with the receipt of goods must be distribute between batches of purchased goods and include them in their cost. In this case, you have the opportunity to form the purchase price of free goods.
If you distribute the associated costs in proportion to the weight or quantity of goods, there will be no difficulties. But if you distribute the costs associated with the acquisition of goods (both purchased for money and free ones) in proportion to purchase prices, then you need to decide how much your free goods will “cost” for the purposes of such distribution. On the one hand, they have a zero price. On the other hand, for tax purposes you need to “draw” their market value and pay income tax on it. Therefore, you can choose for yourself:
- <или>focus on the zero cost of goods - then free goods will still be listed with you at a zero price;
- <или>focus on market value - then part of the associated costs can be attributed to the cost of free goods.
It is better to write down the chosen option in your accounting policy - so that inspectors clearly know how exactly you calculate income tax.
In accounting, there are several approaches to determining the value of free goods and samples received.
In accounting, unlike tax accounting, goods or other valuables received free of charge are reflected at market value And clause 9 PBU 5/01 “Accounting for inventories”, approved. By Order of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated 06/09/2001 No. 44n. In addition, as usual, the cost of the valuables you receive must include associated costs associated with receiving bonus items. V clause 6 PBU 5/01.
As soon as you determine in your accounting the market price of the freely received valuables, you will need to take into account the same amount in other income X clause 7 PBU 9/99 “Income of the organization”, approved. By Order of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated 05/06/99 No. 32n.
For posting free goods and other inventory items Special attention should be addressed to importers. Because if you received a free product from a foreign supplier, then without accepting the product for accounting, you will not be able to deduct the VAT paid at customs.
STEP 1. Determine the accounting market price of goods received or samples with a zero price
The most difficult thing is to determine what the market price should be: the acquisition price or the possible sale price? PBU 5/01 does not have a clear answer to this question. Therefore, we will consider several possible options.
OPTION 1. The market price of goods and materials received free of charge is the market price of their possible acquisition.
That is, their purchase price. In this case, this price will coincide with the price on which you paid income tax. And therefore, the amount of income from this operation in tax and accounting will be the same.
But when writing off the cost of free values received to the financial result, you cannot avoid the differences between tax and accounting.
OPTION 2. The market price of goods and materials received free of charge is the market price of their possible sale.
Moreover, this price must be determined regardless of whether you are going to sell these goods and materials or whether you will use them yourself - for example, as materials or raw materials. The main thing is to determine the price at which such valuables can be sold. If you go this route, you will immediately have to determine the income in the form of their selling price. And in tax accounting, income will be determined in the amount of their purchase price. As a result, “tax” income will differ from income in accounting. And you will have to reflect permanent differences according to PBU 18/02 pp. 4, 7 PBU 18/02 “Accounting for corporate income tax calculations”, approved. By Order of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated November 19, 2002 No. 114n. When writing off in accounting the cost of goods (raw materials, materials) received free of charge, also do not forget that the amount of expenses in the form of the cost of inventory items written off as expenses is zero in tax accounting, but not in accounting.
OPTION 3. The market price of goods received under an invoice with a zero value should be determined based on the terms of the contract under which they were received.
After all, such goods, in principle, cannot be called received free of charge - if in order to receive them the organization must perform predetermined actions. Experts from the Ministry of Finance adhere to this position.
From authoritative sources
Head of Methodology Department accounting and reporting of the Department of State Regulation financial control, auditing activities, accounting and reporting of the Ministry of Finance of Russia
“Even if the goods were received with a zero price on the invoice, but in order to receive them the buyer had to fulfill certain contractual obligations (for example, buy a certain volume of goods), then such receipt cannot be called gratuitous. After all, in order to receive a bonus product, the organization first had to pay for all previous shipments.
Therefore, to determine the cost of bonus goods in accounting, you must do this. The amount paid for previous games must be distributed between them in such a way that the corresponding part goes to the bonus game. Most often, the prospects for achieving a certain volume of purchases are clear to the buyer in advance when the condition for the provision of bonuses follows from an agreement with the supplier or its public statements. It is unlikely that the bonus for the buyer was a complete “surprise”.
If, however, such prospects were not immediately known to the buyer, then within one reporting year, upon receipt of a bonus batch or individual bonus goods, it is necessary to redistribute the cost of previous batches to them, including reducing by the appropriate amount the amount of recognized expenses in that part , in which previous batches have already been sold. If these events exceed the annual reporting date, then you need to do the same, applying the norms of PBU 7/98 “Events after the reporting date » approved By Order of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated November 25, 1998 No. 56n” .
From an economic point of view this approach the most correct. However, as we see, it is the most labor-intensive for an accountant. Since to form the cost of bonus products or free samples, other accounting data must be adjusted. For example, reduce the cost of previously recorded goods purchased from the same supplier. Because of this, the cost of all goods (both free and not) in tax and accounting will be different.
In addition, this approach means that no income arises in accounting in connection with receiving bonus products or free samples. This is, of course, a common sense approach. Only now, as we have already said, when calculating income tax, inspectors insist on reflecting income and paying income tax on it. As a result, there are differences between accounting and tax accounting and the need to once again apply PBU 18/02.
STEP 2. Report income from receiving free goods or samples
This must be done if you determined the value of bonus goods or free samples according to option 1 or 2. That is, you recognized them as free values, focusing on source documents(on an invoice with a zero price).
Read about changes in accounting for income and expenses of future periods:Previously, many accountants reflected the value of property received free of charge, including free goods, on account 98 “Deferred income”. But as of this year, the Accounting Regulations no longer contain clause 81, dedicated to accounting for future income. V clause 81 of the Regulations on accounting and financial reporting in the Russian Federation, approved. By Order of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated July 29, 1998 No. 34n; pp. 19 clause 1 of the appendix to the Order of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated December 24, 2010 No. 186n. And on the line “Deferred income” the balance A Order of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated July 2, 2010 No. 66n it is necessary to reflect only targeted budget financing e pp. 9, 20 PBU 13/2000.
So, of course, you can use account 98 in accounting to reflect income from receiving free valuables th Instructions for using the Chart of Accounts... approved. By Order of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated October 31, 2000 No. 94n. But then it will be more difficult for you to correctly compose financial statements. Therefore, when receiving free valuables, it is better to record income in account 91-1 “Other income”.
Moreover, for convenience, you can post these amounts through account 60 “Settlements with suppliers and contractors”. Then it will be clear from whom exactly you received the goods. As a result, the wiring diagram may look like this (we do not consider including associated costs in the price - these wiring are standard).
| Contents of operation | Dt | CT |
| Bonus free goods (raw materials, materials) received from the supplier and capitalized at market value | 41 "Products" (10 "Materials") |
|
| The market value of free goods (raw materials) is reflected as other income | 60 “Settlements with suppliers and contractors” | 91-1 “Other income” |
| A permanent tax asset is reflected (the difference between the accounting and tax market value of goods or materials received free of charge x 20%) | 68 “Calculations for taxes and fees”, sub-account “Income Tax” | 99 "Profits and losses" |
| This posting will only occur if you decide in accounting to determine the market value of values received for free as the market price of their possible sale, that is, according to option 2 | ||
When selling free goods (or when assigning the cost of raw materials and materials to the financial result in accounting - either directly or indirectly as part of the cost of finished products), it is necessary to reflect constant differences s pp. 4, 7 PBU 18/02.
For clarity, let’s consider the accrual of constant tax liability using the example of the sale of goods received free of charge from suppliers (we do not provide the VAT calculation procedure - it is well known to everyone).
Conclusion
Receiving bonus goods and free samples at a zero price, which the buyer “earned” by fulfilling certain conditions of the contract with the supplier, results in difficulties in accounting: both in accounting and tax.
Tax difficulties for the seller
If your organization is a supplier who has decided to distribute free goods or its products to its customers, then not everything is going smoothly for you either.
Attention
When transferring a bonus product to a buyer, the seller must charge VAT on its market price.
In accounting the cost of such goods (products) can be included in selling expenses or in expenses for common types activities And pp. 5, 7, 9 PBU 10/99 “Expenses of the organization”, approved. By Order of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated 05/06/99 No. 33n and reflect on the debit of account 44 “Sales expenses” or account 91-2 “Other expenses”. There will be no proceeds from sales on account 90 “Sales”, since you are giving away your goods for free.
But from the cost of freely transferred goods or products (which is determined as their regular selling price) it is necessary to charge VAT, since for the purposes of ch. 21 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, such a transfer is equivalent to the sale And subp. 1 clause 1 art. 146, paragraph 2 of Art. 154 Tax Code of the Russian Federation. And you will have to issue an invoice at clause 3 art. 168 Tax Code of the Russian Federation(although your buyer will not have a right of deduction on it at Letter of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated March 21, 2006 No. 03-04-11/60).
We warn the manager
To avoid problems with the tax authorities, everything It is better to record bonuses for customers in the customer loyalty program, marketing policy or other internal document with similar content.
Otherwise, inspectors will consider them ordinary gifts and deduct their value from expenses when calculating income tax. b clause 16 art. 270 Tax Code of the Russian Federation.
Accrued VAT can be reflected either as commercial expense on account 44 “Sales expenses”, or as other things on subaccount 91-2 “Other expenses”.
When calculating income tax You have nothing to include in your income (since you transferred the goods at zero price). And in expenses you can take into account as other expenses d subp. 49 clause 1 art. 264 Tax Code of the Russian Federation; Letters of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated 08/31/2009 No. 03-03-06/1/555, dated 08/04/2009 No. 03-03-06/1/513:
- <если>you transfer your products as bonuses - their value (defined as the amount of direct costs for their production ev Letters of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated March 11, 2010 No. 03-03-06/1/123, dated December 8, 2009 No. 03-03-06/1/792. Although some organizations manage to prove the opposite. True, only to court e Resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of North Kazakhstan Region dated August 13, 2010 No. A32-2525/2009-70/36.
It is better to avoid “free cheese” by changing the terms of the supply agreement
As we see, back side free goods - tax costs. For the buyer - in the form of income tax, and for the supplier - in the form of VAT.
Therefore, it is better to avoid free bonus products and samples altogether. To do this, you can consider the following options for contract terms.
OPTION 1. The supplier gives the buyer a cash bonus, which is then offset against payment for certain goods.
That is, first the supplier simply charges a premium. The buyer then selects an item for an amount equal to the premium amount. And the third step is to offset the debt for the goods and the debt in the form of unpaid premiums. It can be done at the request of one of the parties.
The buyer must include such a premium in his income when calculating income tax. Please note that buyers - UTII payers You do not have to pay income tax on cash bonuses, bonuses and discounts received b Letters of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated July 1, 2009 No. 03-11-06/3/178, dated May 15, 2009 No. 03-11-06/3/136. Of course, if there are no other types of activities other than “imputed” ones.
With this approach, goods for which a premium is included as payment will have their own price. It can be taken into account in expenses - both in accounting and when calculating income tax. Input VAT can be taken for deduction.
The supplier can take such a premium into account in its non-operating expenses X subp. 19.1, 20 clause 1 art. 265 Tax Code of the Russian Federation; Letter from the Federal Tax Service of Russia for Moscow dated 03/05/2010 No. 16-15/023302@. And as usual, income tax and VAT must be charged on the proceeds from the sale of shipped goods, and an invoice must also be issued to the buyer.
OPTION 2. The supplier ships bonus items or free samples with a specific price (not zero) along with the regular product shipment. And the declared cost of free goods reduces the cost of regular goods.
As you can see, with this option, the total price of goods does not increase by the cost of bonus goods (free samples). Because of this, the supplier must reduce the price of each item on the invoice (or several of them).
If the supplier decides to reduce the price of all regular goods supplied under the invoice, then the unit price of each item will decrease.
As you can see, with this option, bonuses turn into an ordinary discount. And the buyer will have a clear price for all goods received, which means they will be justified and documented confirmed expenses for their purchase, which can be taken into account when calculating income tax. And there will be the right to deduct VAT.
Only the supplier needs to ensure that the price of bonus or free goods and samples does not exceed the total price of the “discount” batch of goods. To achieve this, some provide various restrictions. For example, they stipulate in the contract and in their marketing policy that bonus goods should not account for more than 30% (50%, 60%, etc.) of the cost of the batch of goods with which they are supplied.
The texts of the Letters from the Ministry of Finance and the Federal Tax Service of Russia mentioned in the article can be found: section “Financial and personnel consultations” of the ConsultantPlus system (information bank “Financier”)As you can see, the saying about free cheese does not lose its relevance. And even if the buyer must earn it, tax authorities still consider it a gift received “just like that.” In such situations, proper formalization of the buyer-seller relationship will help. After all, if in order to receive something, the buyer must fulfill certain conditions, then there should be no talk of any free goods. And if all the goods received have their own price, then there will be no problems with accounting, taxes, or inspectors.