Ch. editor of the magazine “Municipal Management Practice” Tatyana Kalinina took part in the meeting of the Council for Local Self-Government under the Chairman of the Federation Council “Ways to achieve balanced budgets of municipalities. Optimization of expenditure obligations: improved management of budget expenditures, increased transparency and openness local budgets».

Ch. magazine editor " Municipal management practice» Tatyana Kalinina took part in the meeting Local Government Council under the Chairman of the Federation Council “Ways to achieve balanced budgets” municipalities. Optimization of expenditure obligations: improving the management of budget expenditures, increasing the transparency and openness of local budgets.”

Parliamentarians, representatives of federal and regional government bodies and administration, local government, public organizations discussed the problems of optimizing the expenditure obligations of local budgets.

The meeting was opened by Chairman of the Federation Council Sergei Mironov. He emphasized not just the relevance, but the super-relevance of the topic presented for discussion. It is no coincidence, according to him, that the head of state, in his Address to the Federal Assembly in November last year, noted the need to prepare proposals for the Government to change the existing proportion of income distribution between budgets of different levels.

Head of the Chamber Russian parliament recalled that ensuring that budget revenues match their expenses was one of the main goals of the local government reform in 2003. However, this goal has not yet been achieved, he stated. At present, S. Mironov said, local budgets are formed mainly through transfers - their share in the revenue side of budgets, according to the Accounts Chamber, is almost 60 percent.

As emphasized Chairman of the Federation Council, the share of local budget revenues from local taxes is scanty. Thus, on average, revenues from land taxes amount to 3-4 percent of local budgets, he said, and from property taxes individuals- about half a percent.

Most experts estimate state of local budgets as a crisis, said the head of the chamber of the Russian parliament.

Improving interbudgetary relations between levels of government, continued S. Mironov, has been a priority for many years priority direction activities of the Federation Council. Among the priorities, he included the development of effective measures to reduce significant imbalances in the socio-economic development of regions, reducing the imbalance in the budgetary provision of constituent entities of the Russian Federation and municipalities, as well as eliminating the discrepancy between budgets and the volume of expenditure obligations.

Solving the problems of balancing local budgets, according to the Chairman of the Federation Council, requires integrated approach. The task is difficult to implement in practice, he emphasized, but we must begin to solve it. “I’m sure,” said WITH.Mironov, - that without amendments to the Budget and Tax codes not enough. We hope to see a change in the Treasury's position on this issue."

The head of the Federation Council drew attention to the fact that our country’s international obligations also require bringing local budget revenues into line with their expenses. A direct indication of this, according to him, is contained in the European Charter of Local Self-Government. “We are obliged to fulfill this requirement,” S. Mironov emphasized. The principles of budgetary autonomy of local authorities are disclosed in detail in the recommendations of the Cabinet of Ministers to member countries of the Council of Europe, adopted in 2005; and they are also advisable to follow, he added.

The Chairman of the Federation Council drew attention to the fact that the chamber Russian parliament I have addressed this issue many times. “It is enough to mention the annual proposals of the chamber on the formation federal budget ", - he said. Specific proposals, he said, are also contained in the recommendations of parliamentary hearings, round tables, working meetings of committees and commissions, including those held in the regions. S. Mironov recalled some of the recommendations: local budgets’ own revenues should be increased through additional tax sources; To local taxes it is necessary to include the tax levied under the simplified taxation system. A breakthrough in the entire budgetary policy of the state, the Chairman of the Federation Council indicated, would be to assign part of the income tax to local budgets. “I know,” he said, “that such a decision could lead to a sharp differentiation of their incomes. But the law contains and applies in practice the institution of negative transfers. I think that using this institution to take away part of tax revenue from “high-income” municipalities in favor of the budget of the subject of the Federation, will help smooth out these differences.”

The Chairman of the Chamber of the Russian Parliament drew attention to the need to take other legislative measures that will help solve the problem. These include, in particular, the improvement of legal mechanisms that provide unconditional compensation for the decrease in tax revenues of local budgets as a result of decisions taken at the federal level; simplification of procedures for registering land plots and property as property; introduction of a mechanism for crediting personal income tax at the place of residence, rather than work. “These measures,” according to S. Mironov, “would allow increasing revenues to the municipal treasury.”

The Chairman of the Federation Council dwelled on issues that, in his opinion, the local governments themselves should resolve. Local government, S. Mironov noted, should make efforts to identify internal reserves for optimizing costs and increasing revenues. An opportunity for this, according to him, could be inventory and optimization of expenditure obligations, improvement of work with municipal orders, as well as assessment of the validity and effectiveness of providing benefits for the payment of local taxes.

The head of the Federation Council emphasized the special importance of the formation of control bodies of municipalities. Control in the budgetary sphere, he said, is the most important link in ensuring publicity and transparency of the activities of local government. An effective control mechanism, according to him, is the informal organization of public hearings on the budget, which are now held in many municipalities only “for show.” There is no real discussion by the population of the main directions of planned expenditures, noted S. Mironov.

Deputy Minister of Finance of the Russian Federation Anton Siluanov made a report at the meeting. Co-reports to the Council were presented by the Deputy Head Federal service registration, cadastre and cartography Yuri Akinshin and deputy head of the Federal tax service Russia Natalya Zavilova. Members of the Council for Local Self-Government under the Chairman of the Federation Council took part in the discussion.

Materials on this topic will be reflected on the pages “ Local government practices».

UDK 336.14:352
BBK 65.261.7(2Po

Purpose. The study of management problems balance of local budgets, assessment of financial dependence of municipalities on regional funding, identification of related risks of social and economic development.

Methods. The study is based on economic and statistical analysis of budget parameters of 52 municipalities of the Nizhny Novgorod region. The authors have considered indicators of the structure of municipalities income, defined average values ​​obtained relative values ​​based on the constructed time series (for the period from 2009 to 2013.), performed analytical group of municipalities in terms of specific volumes of financial assistance from the regional budget in the total amounts of income areas.

Resultsand practical significance. In the present study, the authors discussed in detail and analyzed the performance of municipal budgets Nizhny Novgorod region, identified common trends and regional differences due to the differentiation of the level of economic development. Groups of areas, characterized by varying degrees of subsidies from the regional budget were defined. The conclusions about the presence in the region significantly depending on municipal budgets from the regional budget. Authors identified risks associated management balanced socio-economic development of municipalities related to the current financial dependence on their budgets. The results can be used to develop efficiency measures subsidizing the budgets of municipalities, as well as strategy development areas.

Scientific novelty. Scientific novelty of the work is due to perform the analysis control balance of the budgets of municipalities on the basis formed by a unique set of data interpretation of the results and conclusions obtained for the first time for the region.

Keywords: regional budget, deficit, local budget, surplus, a balanced budget.

IN modern conditions effective management process public finance is largely associated with the need to ensure sustainability budget system Russian Federation, as well as maintaining a balanced budget at various levels. Output effective methods Budget deficit management is a problem that is relevant for many constituent entities of the Russian Federation, and perhaps the most difficult to resolve for local governments, since their ability to financially maneuver on the basis of the municipal budget base is severely limited. At the local level, in addition to the traditional mechanisms for maintaining a balance of revenue and expenditure, financial assistance from the subfederal level budget on a gratuitous basis plays a special role in ensuring balance.

The principle of budget balance, formulated in Art. 33 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation (BC RF), means that the volume of budgeted expenses must correspond to the total volume of budget revenues and receipts from sources of financing its deficit. In terms of the current budget legislation, balance is the basis of financial stability, reality and feasibility of the budget approved for the coming year.

In the scientific literature devoted to issues of organization budget process And budget device, various approaches to the typology of budget balancing are proposed. First of all, the types of imbalance are the excess of income over expenses (budget surplus) and the excess of expenses over income (budget deficit). In addition to this, E.V. Kuznetsova, for example, identifies the following types: overall budget balance (by attracting repayable financial resources), basic balance (due to interbudgetary transfers included in the total budget revenues of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation), own balance (without taking into account gratuitous revenues). According to the methodology proposed by N.Ya. Krivonosova, the type of balance can also be qualified on the basis of other criteria: duration ( short-term, long-term), relation to the plan (planned, unplanned), level of management (federal, regional, municipal).

Budget balancing factors identified by different researchers can be grouped as economic-regional ( geographical position, natural and climatic conditions, demographic structure, spatial and sectoral infrastructure, innovation and investment activity), fiscal (population, revenues from personal income tax and personal property tax per capita, budget revenues), managerial (security local governments with their own revenue sources, optimization budget expenditures and others) .

The type of balance (imbalance), the level of the budget and levels of management determine the difference in the methods used to achieve compliance between the amounts of income and expenses. The problem of absorbing the emerging budget surplus seems significantly less important than identifying sources of income to cover the deficit and implementing measures aimed at optimizing the budget structure. T.G. Skurikhina shows that at the local level, initiatives of municipal authorities aimed at ensuring balance by mobilizing their own reserves for the growth of tax and non-tax revenues are of paramount importance. Optimal planning of investment budget expenditures can not only have a positive impact on income growth, but also ensure the solution of social and social problems. economic development municipalities. Managing the balance of the local budget at the federal and regional levels includes improving the mechanism for distributing tax revenues and spending powers between budgets of different levels, and building an effective system of budget regulation. Of particular importance is the development of effective mechanisms for the distribution of regional financial assistance in the field of interbudgetary relations, the provision of subsidies from regional fund financial support for municipalities.

Subsidies for equalizing the budgetary provision of municipalities are additional support for ensuring budget balance. According to Article 138 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation, “subsidies for equalizing the budgetary provision of municipal districts (city districts) are provided for in the budget of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation in order to equalize the budgetary provision of municipal districts (city districts).” In accordance with the law, subsidies for equalizing the budgetary provision of municipal districts of constituent entities RF receives only those municipalities whose level of estimated budgetary provision does not exceed the level established as a criterion for equalizing the estimated budgetary provision of municipal districts (urban districts).

At the same time, Article 138 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation also defines the level of estimated budgetary provision of municipal districts (city districts) as the ratio of tax revenues per capita that can be received by the budget of a municipal district (city district), based on the level of development and structure of the economy and (or) tax base(tax potential) taking into account differences in the structure of the population, socio-economic, climatic, geographical and other objective factors and conditions affecting the cost of providing municipal services per capita. Thus, subsidies are allocated to increase the income of municipalities with the least developed tax base, that is, to compensate for income and expenses exceeding them that cannot be covered from their own income. An increase in subsidies in the structure of budget revenues indicates a decrease in tax and non-tax revenues, which in turn indicates a deterioration economic situation in these areas. Currently, the methods for distributing budget subsidies differ significantly in different regions of Russia; they imply the achievement of different goals, the use various conditions and mechanisms for the distribution of funds, therefore the analysis of regional practices in managing the balance of local budgets seems very relevant. Its applied significance is determined not only by the need to develop effective subsidy systems, but by the importance of identifying the risks of socio-economic development associated with the financial dependence of municipalities on higher-level budgets.

Let us further analyze the problem of financial dependence of municipal budgets on regional budget using the example of the Nizhny Novgorod region. The regional budget, like the budgets of other constituent entities of the Russian Federation, provides subsidies to equalize the budgetary provision of municipal districts and urban districts. Subsidies are carried out with the aim of equalizing the financial capabilities of local government bodies to exercise powers to resolve issues of local importance. The right to receive subsidies to equalize the budgetary provision of all municipalities is provided for in Article 9 of the Law “On Interbudgetary Relations in the Nizhny Novgorod Region”; the law determines the procedure for calculating the total amount of subsidies to equalize the budgetary provision of municipal districts (city districts), as well as the methodology for their distribution.

For the purpose of analyzing the role of the region in achieving a balanced budget of municipalities of the Nizhny Novgorod region, the authors compiled an array of empirical data on the budget parameters of municipalities for 8 years (from 2006 to 2013). The sources of information were the decisions of Zemstvo Assemblies, posted in information and reference systems, as well as on the official websites of municipalities of the Nizhny Novgorod region. Data on the volume of transfers to equalize the budgetary provision of municipal districts were assessed on the basis of the laws on the budget of the Nizhny Novgorod region related to the time period under consideration.

The Nizhny Novgorod region is one of the industrially developed regions of the Russian Federation. In the absence of significant reserves of material and raw materials, the region is characterized by high scientific and technical potential, as well as a powerful educational base, more than 30% of the gross regional product(GRP) is formed through manufacturing industries. In 2013, the region took 7th place in the ranking Russian regions In terms of the volume of products produced by manufacturing enterprises, the share of GRP of the Nizhny Novgorod region in the total GRP of the regions of the Russian Federation was 1.7%. According to administrative and territorial characteristics, the Nizhny Novgorod region includes 4 cities of regional significance and 48 municipal districts.

The degree of differentiation of municipalities of the Nizhny Novgorod region according to the level of socio-economic development can be judged by the differences in the amounts of their total budget revenues(Table 1) and budget income per capita (Table 2).

The range of variation in municipal budget revenues in 2013 in the region amounted to 7,929.6 million rubles. with an average value of 451 million rubles. It is obvious that the set of municipalities is heterogeneous in terms of budget revenues, which is confirmed by a significant oscillation coefficient - 1758%. An analysis of the distribution by level of budget income shows that the group with the highest incomes is formed by 3 cities of regional significance: Nizhny Novgorod, Bor and Sarov, that is, less than 6% of the total number of municipalities. The next “successful” group consists of areas in which large industrial enterprises are located. At the same time, the vast majority of municipalities (73.1%) specialize in the light industry, food industry or agriculture, are characterized by relatively low budget revenues. Statistically, the overall distribution is asymmetrical relative to the modal interval (105.1 - 261.7 million rubles), there is a right-sided asymmetry (asymmetry coefficient: 6.76). Indicators of variation in the volume of budget revenues make it possible to characterize the Nizhny Novgorod region as a region in which objective differences in the socio-economic development of municipalities cause significant differences in tax revenues.

Table 1 - Distribution of municipalities of the Nizhny Novgorod region by budget revenues in 2013

It should be noted that these municipalities are the most economically developed areas, which are also characterized by a high population compared to other municipalities of the Nizhny Novgorod region, therefore the most significant source of budget revenues are tax revenues, including personal property tax and land tax.

Since economically developed areas are characterized by a relatively high population, it is advisable to adjust budget revenues taking into account the demographic factor of municipalities. Analytical grouping by the budget performance coefficient, which takes into account the average population of the territories in the period under review, demonstrates less asymmetry relative indicators for municipalities. However, a right-sided bias is also observed in the resulting distribution. (Average value of budget income per capita: 10.1 thousand rubles; median value: 9.9 thousand rubles; fashion: 9.6 thousand rubles).

Table 2 - Distribution of municipalities of the Nizhny Novgorod region by budget income per capita and the amount of transfers to equalize budgetary security in 2013

In 70% of municipalities, the level of budget income per capita is in the range of 5.7 - 11.3 thousand rubles. Note that groups of districts based on the budget performance coefficient do not correlate with groups of municipalities formed based on nominal amounts of budget revenues. So, most high level relative economic well-being(14.0 - 16.8 thousand rubles per capita) was observed in municipal districts that are not leaders in absolute volumes of budget revenues. And on the contrary, cities of regional significance, noted among the leaders in terms of budget revenues, are included in the group with the lowest indicators of budget performance (5.7 - 8.5 thousand rubles). The results obtained reveal the existence of gaps in the levels of absolute and relative well-being of cities and districts of the Nizhny Novgorod region. At the same time, the volumes of tax and non-tax revenues to the budget of municipalities, which serve as a source of covering expenditure items, are one of the important factors, determining the long-term socio-economic development of territories. In the short term, their differences, at a minimum, create unequal financial opportunities municipalities to resolve issues of local importance. Equalization of the budgetary provision of the region's districts is carried out through subsidies from the regional fund for financial support of municipalities.

A retrospective analysis showed that in the period 2006-2013, significant amounts of financial assistance to municipalities were allocated from the budget of the Nizhny Novgorod region. It is enough to note that all municipalities of the region received subsidies to equalize budgetary provision with one exception (Kstovsky district, 2010). On average, 2,944.3 million rubles were allocated annually from the regional budget to equalize the budgetary provision of municipalities. (taking into account inflation, in 2005 prices), while the dynamics of subsidies is non-monotonic and has a pronounced oscillatory nature (Fig. 1). Two periods of recession followed by progressive growth are clearly visible: in 2009, when the total volume of subsidies to equalize budgetary provision decreased by 40.52% compared to the level of 2008, and in 2012, which showed an even deeper decline, when total amount subsidies decreased by 54.99% compared to previous year. On average, taking into account the annual volume of subsidies, the volume of subsidies decreased by 212.4 thousand rubles. (taking into account inflation).

Fig.1. The total volume of subsidies to equalize the budgetary provision of municipalities of the Nizhny Novgorod region from 2006 to 2013. (in 2005 prices).

Note that the downward dynamics of the total volume of subsidies reflects both the unfavorable manifestations of the recession in the economy and the state of public finance, caused by the crisis of 2008-2009, and the positive phenomena of economic growth against the backdrop of increasing federal revenues in 2012. In a steadily developing economy, the downward dynamics of total subsidies can create incentives to achieve balance through own funds municipalities, optimization of the structure of tax and non-tax revenues, development of mechanisms to achieve financial independence from higher level budgets.

Reduction in the allocation of subsidies to local budgets in 2012. was characterized by significant uneven distribution of transfers between municipalities. This is clearly illustrated by the Lorenz curve, constructed on the basis of data on subsidies to municipal districts (Fig. 2). Thus, almost 3/4 of all municipal districts received a little more than half (55.1%) of the amount of all subsidies, and only 24% (12 districts) received the remaining funds allocated from the regional budget.

Fig.2. Inequality Lorenz curve for 2012

Having analyzed the correlation of the distribution of average amounts of transfers to equalize budgetary provision in groups of municipalities according to indicators of budgetary performance, one can see that a negative dependence can be traced for 2-4 groups (Table 1). In the group of districts with the lowest indicators of budget performance (5,740.0 - 8,504.8 million rubles), the average amount of subsidies to equalize budgetary security is minimal. Obviously, to achieve the level of estimated budgetary provision of municipalities belonging to the first group, smaller amounts of funding from the regional budget are needed.

Dynamics of the average share of transfers to equalize budgetary security in the income of districts of the region in 2009-2013. similar to dynamics total volumes subsidies (Fig. 3). In the post-crisis years 2010-2011. municipalities of the Nizhny Novgorod region experienced the greatest difficulties in maintaining balanced budgets and achieving the estimated budgetary security.

Fig.3. The average share of subsidies for equalizing budgetary security in the budget revenues of municipalities of the Nizhny Novgorod region in 2009 - 2013.

The results of calculating the average shares of regional transfers in budget revenues illustrate existing dependence municipalities of the Nizhny Novgorod region from the budget of a higher level (Table 3). On average for the period 2009-2013. over 40% of municipalities in the structure of budget revenues had from 16% to 42% subsidized funding. At the same time, more than a third of budgets received less than 8% of transfer income, having sufficient financial independence in managing the balance of their budgets. The degree of financial dependence varied noticeably over the years; its manifestation to the greatest extent can be seen in 2011, which was characterized by the maximum nominal volume of financing of local budgets.

Table 3 - Distribution of municipalities of the Nizhny Novgorod region by average share of subsidies in total income

Share of subsidies in the structure of local budget revenues	Share of municipalities, received subsidies
				Average, for 2009-2013
from 8% to 16%
from 16% to 24%
from 24% to 32%
from 32% to 42%

In general, the economic and statistical analysis carried out budget indicators municipalities of the Nizhny Novgorod region allowed us to come to the following conclusions:

• Achieving a balanced budget for almost all municipalities of the Nizhny Novgorod region is carried out at the expense of the regional budget. There is a significant gap between local budget revenues due to differences in levels of socio-economic development. The high degree of differentiation of both absolute and relative indicators of budget revenues determines the unequal financial capabilities of municipalities to resolve issues of municipal governance.
• In the Nizhny Novgorod region, there is a large proportion of municipalities that have little financial potential to fulfill expenditure obligations, low level The own balance of local budgets is confirmed by significant shares of subsidies in the structure of their income. The budgetary activities of municipalities of this type are characterized by high risks depending on the state of the regional budget.
• Stable equalization of the level of budgetary security due to transfers from the regional budget is a factor in weakening the budgetary independence of a number of regions. In this regard, we can talk about the risks of a slowdown in socio-economic development, both for individual territories and for the region as a whole. Relying only on achieving a basic balance, municipalities can lose incentives for their own actions to mobilize reserves for increasing tax and non-tax revenues. It is obvious that, in addition to filling the revenue side of their budgets, subsidized municipalities need to develop and implement measures aimed at increasing the investment activity of territories, improving the mechanism for distributing tax revenues and spending powers, and building an effective system of budget regulation.

Literature

1. Budget Code of the Russian Federation dated July 31, 1998 No. 145-FZ (as amended on October 28, 2014) [ electronic resource]. Access from the reference legal system "ConsultantPlus".

2. Kuznetsova E.V. Methodological basis and features of ensuring balanced budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation // regional economy: theory and practice. 2011. No. 12(195). P.53-60.

3. Krivonosova N.Ya. Theory and practice of balancing budgets at the subfederal level // News of the Irkutsk State Economic Academy. 2013. No. 6. P.61-65.

4. Skurikhina T.G. Innovation and investment activity as a factor in balancing local budgets // Scientific notes of Petrozavodsk State University. 2011. T 2. No. 7. pp. 114-117.

5. Cherkharova N.I. Checking the balance of the local budget using methods cluster analysis// Young scientist. 2010. T.2, No. 8(19). P.44-48.

6. Sorokina T.V. Ensuring the balance of local budgets in the context of implementing the reform of the budgetary process // News of the Irkutsk State Economic Academy. 2010. No. 4. P.26-31.

7. Litvinenko A.V. Problems of balancing the budgets of municipalities of the Moscow region. // Society, state, law: online magazine. 2011. No. 1. [electronic resource]. URL: http://gosuprav.ru/issue-1-3-2011.html (date accessed 10/15/2014)

8. Skurikhina T.G. The concept of the local budget and methods of ensuring its balance [electronic resource] // Management Issues. 2012. No. 1 [website]. URL: http://vestnik.uapa.ru/ru-ru/issue/2012/01/17/(access date 10/15/2014)

9. Levina V.V. Managing the balance of local budgets using interbudgetary transfers // Municipal Management Practice. 2014. No. 5. P. 46-52.

10. Law on interbudgetary relations in the Nizhny Novgorod region dated December 6, 2011. No. 177-Z (as amended by the law of the Nizhny Novgorod region dated December 18, 2013 No. 166-Z) [electronic resource]. Access from the reference and legal system "ConsultantPlus" URL: www.consultant.ru/document/regbase_doc_RLAW187_65384/

11. Official website of the Government of the Nizhny Novgorod Region [electronic resource]. URL: http://government-nnov.ru/?id=1458 (date accessed 01.11.2014)

Bibliography

1. Budget Code of the Russian Federation: Federal Law of July 31 1998 No. 145-FZ (as amended on 10/28/2014). Access of reference and legal system "ConsultantPlus".

2. Kuznetsova E.V.Methodological bases and characteristics of budgets balance in the Russian Federation // Regional economics: theory and practice.2011. No. 12(195). pp. 53-60.

3. Krivonosova N.Yu. Theory and Practice of Budget Balancing at Subfederal Level // Izvestiya of Irkutsk State Economics Academy. 2013. No. 6. pp. 61-65.

4. Skurikhina T.G. Innovation and investment activity as a factor of balance of local budgets // Proceedings of Petrozavodsk State University. 2011. Vol.2. No. 7. pp. 114-117.

5. Cherharova N.I. Checking the balance of the local budget means cluster analysis // Molodoy uchenyy. 2010. Vol.2, No. 8(19). Pp.44-48.

6. Sorokina T.V. To balance local budgets in the conditions of implementation of the reform of the budget process // Izvestiya of Irkutsk State Economics Academy. 2010. No. 4. pp. 26-31.

7. Litvinenko A.V. Problems of balancing the municipalities budgets in the Moscow region // Obshchestvo, gosudarstvo, pravo: internet-zhurnal. 2011. No. 1. . URL: http://gosuprav.ru/issue-1-3-2011.html (date of access 10/15/2014)

8. Skurikhina T.G. The concept of local budget and methods to ensure its balance // Management Issues. 2012. No. 1. URL: http://vestnik.uapa.ru/ru-ru/issue/2012/01/17/ (date of access 10/15/2014)

9. Levina V.V. Management of balance of local budgets using intergovernmental transfers // Praktika municipal "nogo upravleniya. 2014. No. 5. Pp. 46-52.

10. The Law on intergovernmental relations in the Nizhny Novgorod region of December 6, 2011 No. 177-L. Access of reference and legal system "ConsultantPlus".

11.05.2016

In 2015, the Fifth Arbitration Court of Appeal considered 41 cases related to the application of budget legislation, which is 0.4% of the total number of cases considered in 2015 (9146). Of these: 9 cases are related to the provision legal entity budget funds on a returnable and compensated basis, 10 - with the recovery of losses from the funds of the corresponding budget related to the implementation of laws on the provision of benefits separate categories citizens, 3 - with misuse of budget funds, 3 - with appeals against actions (inactions) of bodies executing judicial acts, 16 - with the implementation of a compulsory procedure for the return of unused subsidy funds.

Based on the results of consideration of appeals against judicial acts in cases related to the application of budget legislation, in 8 cases the judicial act of the court of first instance was canceled by the Fifth Arbitration Court of Appeal, in 1 case the judicial act of the court of first instance was changed.

Based on the results of an analysis of the practice of resolving disputes related to the application of budget legislation, the following general approaches to its application have been identified:

1. Targeted and effective use of budget funds.

1.1. The federal government agency appealed to arbitration court with an application to partially invalidate the submission of the Territorial Administration of the Federal Service for Financial and Budgetary Supervision, issued based on the results of an audit of the legality and efficiency of the use of federal budget funds, as well as federally owned property, which revealed facts of misuse of allocated budget allocations by the recipient of budget funds, and The powers of the recipient of budget funds in terms of the effectiveness of their use have also not been fulfilled.

At the same time, in support of the stated requirements, the institution indicated that it did not allow any misuse of budget funds. All allocated funds were used efficiently and for approved purposes within the established limits.

The court decision partially satisfied the stated requirements. The submission of the Territorial Administration of the Federal Service for Financial and Budgetary Supervision was declared illegal in terms of conclusions about misuse Money, paid for the installation of a pontoon pier; for work on the construction of a slope-type protective structure; for berth rental services. The rest of the stated claims were denied.

The Fifth Arbitration Court of Appeal, upholding the decision of the first instance court, proceeded from the fact that the case materials confirmed the facts of partial misuse of allocated budgetary allocations by the recipient of budgetary funds, and also confirmed the fact of failure to fulfill the authority of the recipient of budgetary funds in terms of the effectiveness of their use.

By virtue of Article 34 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the Budget Code of the Russian Federation), the principle of efficient use of budget funds means that when drawing up and executing budgets, participants in the budget process, within the framework of the budgetary powers established by them, must proceed from the need to achieve specified results using the least amount of funds (economy) and (or) achieving the best result using the amount of funds determined by the budget (effectiveness).

In accordance with Article 38 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation, the principle of targeting and targeted nature of budget funds means that budget allocations and limits budget obligations communicated to specific recipients of budget funds indicating the purpose of their use.

Article 162 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation stipulates that the recipient of budget funds ensures the effectiveness and targeted nature of the use of the budget allocations provided for him.

In the framework of the case considered, the court found that the Federal State Institution entered into a contract to carry out work on the reconstruction of the building. The scope of work to be performed was agreed upon by the Target Program, and the cost of the work was established by the corresponding estimate.

At the same time, having examined the volume of work performed, the court found that part of the work performed and paid for by the institution was not provided for by the target Program and was not included in the estimate.

Thus, the fact of partial misuse of budget funds was confirmed.

At the same time, the courts of both instances found that the Federal Treasury also spent budgetary funds in accordance with their intended purpose, however, they did not submit properly executed documents on the implementation of the relevant work for which these budgetary funds were provided. In fact, budget funds were spent effectively and for their intended purpose. Since the fact that there are no documents for all the work when they are actually performed cannot be absolute evidence of misuse of budget funds, the requirements in this part were satisfied.

(Resolution of the Fifth Arbitration Court dated 09.09.2015 No. A51-7019/2014).

1.2. Federal agency sea ​​and river transport went to court with statement of claim to the administration of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation for the recovery of funds allocated to the administration as a subsidy and used for purposes other than their intended purpose, to the federal budget.

In support of the requirement, the agency indicated that the subsidy targets were: the acquisition of two units of passenger ships with a capacity of 233 people; rental of one cruise ship with a capacity of 2100 people. Meanwhile, the administration, in addition to purchasing two units of passenger ships and leasing one cruise ship

liner, purchased a luxury ship with a capacity of 112 people.

At the same time, the administration did not provide a justification for the need to purchase a luxury vessel, which indicates inappropriate spending of funds allocated as a subsidy.

The court of first instance satisfied the agency's demands and recovered from the administration the funds used for other purposes.

Overturning the decision of the court of first instance, the appellate panel supported the court's conclusion about the misuse of funds, since according to Article 306.4 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation, misuse of budgetary funds is recognized as the direction of budget funds of the budget system of the Russian Federation and the payment of monetary obligations for purposes that do not fully or partially correspond to the goals determined by the law (decision) on the budget, consolidated budget list, budget list, budget estimate, contract (agreement) or other document that is the legal basis for the provision of these funds (clause 1).

Inappropriate use of budget funds, expressed in inappropriate use by financial authorities (main managers (managers) and recipients of budget funds to which they are allocated intergovernmental transfers interbudgetary subsidies, subventions and other interbudgetary transfers that have a specific purpose, as well as loans to the budgets of the budgetary system of the Russian Federation, entail the indisputable recovery of the amount of funds received from another budget of the budgetary system of the Russian Federation, and fees for their use or suspension (reduction) of the provision of interbudgetary transfers (except for subventions).

Meanwhile, the appellate court came to the conclusion that this dispute is not subject to consideration in the arbitration court, since in fact the funds spent by the administration on the purchase of a representative class vessel with a capacity of 112 people are the unused balance of targeted budget funds, and in accordance with Article 242 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation and By Order of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated June 11, 2009 No. 51n, the collection of unused balances of interbudgetary transfers provided from the federal budget is carried out by the territorial body of the Federal Treasury on the basis of an order of the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation on the collection of unused balances of targeted funds.

Thus, by virtue of the direct indication federal law funds that must be returned to the federal budget within the framework of Article 242 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation are subject to recovery out of court (in the manner established by the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation), and not in court.

(Resolution of the Fifth Arbitration Court of Appeal dated March 17, 2015 in case No. A51-26891/2014).

1.3. The Ministry of Transport and Road Facilities appealed to the arbitration court with an application to the Territorial Administration of the Federal Service for Financial and Budgetary Supervision to invalidate the submission, which the latter indicated the failure of the Ministry to effectively use federal budget funds, the failure to utilize funds allocated from the federal budget due to an untimely decision by the subject of the Russian Federation. Federation of organizational issues regarding the redistribution of funds to other objects, failure to ensure control over compliance with deadlines for completing work in accordance with work schedules.

In turn, the ministry indicated that it did not allow inefficient use of funds, since the funds allocated for the construction of the road could not be used, since the road was supposed to lead to a fish factory, the construction of which was postponed until 2017, accordingly the grounds for there was no road construction or use of allocated funds.

Satisfying the requirements, the court of first instance proceeded from the fact that the authorized body, when deciding on the presence or absence of a violation of the rules governing budget legal relations, must not only establish the event of the violation, but also the person obliged to commit an action, the failure of which is a violation, as well as the presence such person has the necessary powers (rights) to perform such an action, as well as legal means for their implementation.

Thus, the court of first instance considered that the person responsible for making the decision to begin work, including procurement, for the “Construction of a Highway” project is not the ministry, but the Regional Government, since it is the executive body coordinating the work ministries and agencies subordinate to him, for the implementation of the federal target program regarding the construction of factories and roads to them, in connection with which the actions of the ministry in in this case determined by government decisions, as higher authority executive power.

Taking into account the above circumstances, the court of first instance came to the conclusion that in this case the ministry is not the person who allowed the subsidy funds allocated for the “Construction of a Highway” project to not be used, just as the ministry is not the executive authority of the Sakhalin Region region, which in this case is responsible for the untimely resolution of organizational issues regarding the redistribution of funds to other objects or the exclusion of the “Construction of a highway” object from the List of works to be performed.

The appellate court considered that the court's conclusions were erroneous, since the fact of failure to complete the road construction work was confirmed by the case materials, and accordingly the ministry made inefficient use of funds.

At the same time, the Charter of the constituent entity of the Russian Federation establishes that the government includes senior officials, including those heading the Ministry of Transport and Road Facilities of the constituent entity of the Russian Federation. The government exercises its powers through executive bodies created by it.

The Ministry carries out the functions of developing and implementing regional policy in the field of road management. One of the main tasks of the ministry is the development and implementation of regional public policy in the field of transport and road construction. The ministry also exercises powers in the established field of activity, in particular, develops, including jointly with federal executive authorities and their territorial bodies, other executive authorities of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation, concepts and programs for the development of the transport complex and road infrastructure in the territory of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation; exercises certain powers in accordance with budget legislation; carries out road activities in relation to highways regional or intermunicipal importance through subordinate institutions and state unitary road enterprises of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation, created for the purpose of performing work on the maintenance and repair of highways common use necessary to ensure the safety of highways, improve their transport and operational condition and safe operation.

Thus, the rights and responsibilities for implementing policy in the field of road construction are assigned to the ministry by a regulatory legal act - the Regulations on the Ministry.

In connection with the above, the judicial panel indicated that the conclusion of the court of first instance that only the Government of this subject has obligations to fulfill agreements on behalf of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation does not correspond directly to the current Regulations on the Ministry.

Under such circumstances, Rosfinnadzor justifiably and legally issued an order to the ministry.

(Resolution of the Fifth Arbitration Court of Appeal dated December 28, 2015 in case No. A59-1546/2015).

2. Receipt (refusal to receive) subsidies by small businesses.

Society with limited liability appealed to the arbitration court with a statement to the city administration to recognize as illegal the decision to refuse to provide a subsidy to reimburse part of the costs associated with promoting the development of equipment leasing.

To support its arguments, the company indicated that it had submitted all documents to receive subsidies.

In refusing to satisfy the demands, the courts of the first and appellate instances proceeded from the fact that, in accordance with paragraph 1 of Article 17 of Law No. 209-FZ, the provision of financial support to small and medium-sized businesses and organizations that form the infrastructure for supporting small and medium-sized businesses can be carried out in accordance with the law of the Russian Federation at the expense of funds from the budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, funds from local budgets by providing subsidies, budget investments, state and municipal guarantees for the obligations of small and medium-sized businesses and organizations that form the infrastructure for supporting small and medium-sized businesses.

Subsidies from the local budget are provided in cases and in the manner prescribed by the decision of the representative body municipality on the local budget and municipal decisions adopted in accordance with it legal acts local administration(Clause 2 of Article 78 of the BC RF).

In this regard, in order to ensure favorable conditions for the sustainable functioning and development of small and medium-sized businesses in accordance with the priorities of the economic development of the Primorsky Territory, the municipal program “Development of small and medium-sized businesses in the city of Vladivostok” was approved by the Vladivostok city administration decree dated September 18, 2013 No. 2673. for 2014-2018”, Appendix No. 10 to which is the Procedure for providing financial support to small and medium-sized businesses in the city of Vladivostok, producing and (or) selling goods (work, services) intended for the domestic market of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the Procedure).

According to clause 3.3. The order of financial support in the form of subsidies to small and medium-sized businesses producing and selling goods (work, services) to reimburse part of the costs of activities related to promoting the development of leasing of equipment, devices, mechanisms, Vehicle(except for passenger cars), machines, instruments, devices, units, installations, machines, means and technologies (hereinafter referred to as equipment), with the exception of equipment intended for wholesale and retail trading activities, to implement one of the following areas:

Subsidizing the payment by small and medium-sized businesses of the first installment (advance payment) when concluding an equipment leasing agreement;

Subsidizing part of the costs associated with the payment by small and medium-sized businesses of leasing payments under leasing agreements.

Subsidies are provided to small and medium-sized businesses under financial lease (leasing) agreements, the subjects of which are: devices, mechanisms, devices, apparatus, units, installations, machines, means and technologies (hereinafter referred to as equipment), motor vehicles(except for passenger cars) directly related to the type of activity being carried out entrepreneurial activity and actually in use at the time of application (without subleasing) (clause 3.3.1 of the Procedure).

As established by the court, the applicant was a small and medium-sized business and participated in the municipal program “Development of small and medium-sized businesses in the city of Vladivostok” for 2014-2018, to provide financial support to these entities.

In order to receive subsidies from the budget within the framework of municipal program“Development of small and medium-sized enterprises” the company presented a financial lease agreement, an additional agreement to the financial lease agreement, and an equipment sublease agreement.

Based on the results of consideration of the documents submitted by the company by the Commission on the provision of financial support to small and medium-sized businesses, it was established that the leased asset is subleasing.

At the same time, clause 3.3 of the Procedure directly establishes that subsidies are not provided to applicants in the event of the transfer of the leased asset into subleasing, and therefore the refusal to provide a subsidy was lawful.

(Resolution of the Fifth Arbitration Court of Appeal dated July 1, 2015 in case No. A51-35890/2014).

3. Reimbursement of benefits overpaid to citizens.

A state institution - the regional branch of the Social Insurance Fund of the Russian Federation filed a lawsuit against the Ministry social protection of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation on the recovery of losses caused by improper fulfillment of an obligation.

The district department of social protection established the fact that citizen G. received child care benefits for children up to one and a half years old in two places, namely in two cities of different constituent entities of the Russian Federation. As a result, she was overpaid in benefits. As of July 1, 2011, citizen G. returned part of the funds. However, part of the funds was not deposited into the cash desk of the district social protection department, controlled by the defendant.

Believing that the Ministry of Social Protection of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation committed violations of clauses 2.3.5 and 2.3.6 of the agreement dated December 16, 2010, by which the defendant is obliged to monitor the legality of the assignment and payment of benefits, the applicant considered that he suffered losses in the amount of unreimbursed funds.

In refusing to satisfy the claims, the courts proceeded from the fact that legal relations regarding the appointment and payment of child care benefits during the period of time relating to the emergence of controversial legal relations were regulated by the Order of the Ministry of Health and social development RF dated December 23, 2009 No. 1012n “On approval of the Procedure and conditions for the appointment and payment of state benefits to citizens with children,” and Order of the Ministry of Social Protection of the Population of the Sakhalin Region dated September 30, 2010 No. 263-n “On approval of administrative regulations for the provision of public services “ appointment and payment monthly allowance for child care for parents who are citizens of the Russian Federation, not subject to mandatory social insurance in case of temporary disability and in connection with maternity (including full-time students in educational institutions and those on parental leave) whose child was born on the territory of the Russian Federation.”

Since, when applying for a benefit to the district department of social protection, all the documents necessary to assign a child care benefit were submitted, the specialists of the specified department had no grounds for refusing to assign a benefit, taking into account the orders indicated in the paragraph above.

Thus, the court did not establish violations of the above regulations or other regulations regulating the assignment of child care benefits by employees of the district department of the Ministry of Social Protection of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation.

Taking into account the above, the court did not establish any guilty actions of officials government agency Ministry of Social Protection of the Population of a Subject of the Russian Federation, which are the basis for the recovery of damages.

(Resolution of the Fifth Arbitration Court of Appeal in case No. A59-3882/2014).

4. Use of budget funds in excess of established limits.

The Department of the Federal Penitentiary Service appealed to the arbitration court with a request to invalidate paragraphs 2 - 3 of the submission of the Territorial Directorate of the Federal Service for Financial and Budgetary Supervision, which established the fact that budget obligations exceeded the established budget limits in 2013.

From the case materials it follows that the Office of the Federal Penitentiary Service is both a manager and a recipient of budget funds, for which personal accounts have been opened in the Office of the Federal Treasury, one of which is intended only for distribution by the Office of budgetary allocations to the subordinate recipient of budget funds, the second - only for accounting for accepted budgetary obligations of the Office of the Federal Penitentiary Service through conclusion government contracts within the limits of budget obligations brought to it, as well as to pay accepted monetary obligations.

On the personal account intended to account for accepted budgetary obligations as of December 30, 2013 and December 31, 2013, there were no limits on budgetary obligations for accepting budgetary obligations for 2014 in the Office of the Federal Penitentiary Service. However, through the conclusion of government contracts and agreements, the management accepted budgetary obligations for 2014 in the absence of limits on budgetary obligations for 2014 that were completed in 2013.

By the decision of the court of first instance, the applicant’s claims were satisfied, since the court of first instance concluded that as a result of the adoption of budget obligations by the Office of the Federal Penitentiary Service in December 2013 through the conclusion of government contracts for 2014, only the procedure for accounting for budget obligations was violated, and this is not led to exceeding the limits of budget obligations.

In overturning the decision of the court of first instance, the appellate court proceeded from the fact that, in violation of Article 162, paragraph 3 of Article 2018 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation, the Office of the Federal Penitentiary Service exceeded the volume of limits on budgetary obligations.

Thus, the limit of budget obligations is defined as the volume of rights in monetary terms to a government institution accept budget obligations and (or) their execution in the current financial year(current financial year and planning period), and budget obligations are expenditure obligations subject to fulfillment in the corresponding financial year, then the acceptance and expenditure of budget funds under agreements and contracts concluded by the Department is possible only within the limits of budget obligations communicated to them and the approved budget estimate, in connection with which the acceptance of budget obligations for 2014, which were not communicated to the Department in 2013, is a violation of budget legislation.

Thus, the board came to the conclusion that the Office of the Federal Penitentiary Service, as a recipient of budget funds, did not have the right to accept budget obligations for 2014 in the absence of established limits in 2013, and therefore the order issued by Rosfinnadzor complied with the norms of substantive law and did not violated the rights and legitimate interests of management.

(Resolution of the Fifth Arbitration Court of Appeal dated December 7, 2015 in case No. A24-2384/2015).

5. Execution of judicial acts providing for foreclosure on budget funds.

The administrative commission of the city district appealed to the arbitration court with a statement to the Federal Treasury Department to recognize the latter’s actions as illegal, expressed in the refusal to accept and execute the resolution in the case of administrative offense; on the obligation to eliminate the violation of the rights and legitimate interests of the applicant by accepting the specified resolution for execution.

When considering the case by the courts, it was established that by resolution in the case of an administrative offense, the Department of Road Facilities of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation was brought to administrative responsibility with the imposition of punishment in the form of administrative fine in the amount of 50,000 rubles.

The Department did not voluntarily execute the resolution in the case of an administrative offense, in connection with which the Administrative Commission of the city district sent an application to the Federal Treasury Department with a request to accept for execution the executive document, namely: the resolution in the case of an administrative offense.

Having considered that the Federal Treasury Department does not have the right to accept for execution this document, the letter was returned without execution.

Satisfying the stated requirements and obliging the Federal Treasury to accept the resolution of the administrative body for execution, the courts proceeded from the fact that the Road Management Department is an executive body, financing the activities of the Department is carried out from the regional budget through personal accounts opened with the federal treasury authorities

The procedure for the execution of judicial acts providing for foreclosure on funds from the budget of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation for monetary obligations government institutions of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation, including, by virtue of the provisions of Article 161 of the RF BC, for monetary obligations of public authorities (state bodies), is established by Article 242.4 of the RF BC.

According to the provisions of this article executive document, providing for the foreclosure of funds from the budget of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation for the monetary obligations of its state institution - the debtor, is sent by the court at the request of the claimant or by the claimant himself, along with the documents provided for in Article 242.1 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation, to the body that opens and maintains the personal account of the state institution of the subject of the Russian Federation Federation, at the place where the debtor, as a recipient of the budget funds of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation, opens personal accounts to record operations for the execution of budget expenditures of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation.

Thus, since the Department, which is budgetary institution, there are no accounts in a bank or other credit institution, the resolution in the case of an administrative offense, as a corresponding executive document issued by the administrative body - the Administrative Commission of the City District, is subject to execution by the Federal Treasury in the manner provided for in articles 242.3-242.5 BC RF.

Under such circumstances, if the territorial body of the Federal Treasury receives a decision from a state body on the imposition (collection) of an administrative fine, the territorial body of the Federal Treasury informs the debtor in writing about the receipt of the said resolution and the need to submit a payment document for payment in the prescribed manner.

(Resolution of the Fifth Arbitration Court of Appeal dated July 10, 2015 in case No. A51-3567/2015).

6. The procedure for collecting debts from executive authorities.

An individual entrepreneur applied to the arbitration court with a statement to declare illegal the inaction of the Financial Department of the city district, which resulted in failure to comply with the requirements of the writ of execution within a three-month period, and the imposition of a fine.

From the case materials it followed that the entrepreneur in Financial management city ​​district was presented performance list to recover unjust enrichment from the city district administration.

Due to the fact that after three months the amount of debt to the entrepreneur has not been repaid in in full, the applicant considered that the inaction of the Financial Department was illegal, and therefore went to court to protect the violated right.

Refusing to satisfy the demands, the courts of the first and appellate instances indicated that in paragraph 3 of paragraph 3 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated June 22, 2006 No. 23, explanations are provided, from which it follows that, in accordance with paragraph 6 of Article 242.2 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation, execution judicial act the collection of funds from the municipality at the expense of budget funds must be carried out by the relevant financial authority within three months from the date the specified body received the writ of execution for execution. According to paragraph 5 of Article 242.2 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation, the execution of judicial acts on claims for the recovery of funds from the treasury of a municipal entity is carried out at the expense of appropriations provided for these purposes by the law (decision) on the budget. When judicial acts are executed in volumes exceeding the allocations approved by the law (decision) on the budget for these purposes, appropriate changes are made to the consolidated budget list.

A mechanism that ensures, if necessary, the possibility of the financial body of a municipal formation taking organizational and technical measures to redistribute budget funds held in treasury accounts is provided for by the current budget legislation. By virtue of Article 217 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation, the procedure for drawing up and maintaining a consolidated budget list is established by the relevant financial authority.

In accordance with paragraph 3 of Article 217 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation, changes can be made to the consolidated budget list in accordance with the decisions of the head of the financial body (the head of the government management body extra-budgetary fund) without making changes to the law (decision) on the budget, including in the case of execution of judicial acts providing for the levy of execution on funds from the budgets of the budget system of the Russian Federation.

The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation in its Determination dated October 1, 2009 No. 1312-0-0 indicated that, in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 4 of Article 21, paragraph 4 of Article 217 and paragraph 3 of Article 219.1 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation, amendments to the consolidated budget list without amending the decision on the budget , including during execution court decisions to foreclose on funds from local budgets can only be carried out in order to redistribute expenses within one type (article, section, etc.), i.e. in the case of directing appropriations allocated for specific expenses to other expenses of the same kind, determined for the same purpose.

Meanwhile, from the case materials it was established that at the time the writ of execution was received, there were no funds available to pay the debt under the received writ of execution.

At the same time, in accordance with the budget of the city district for the year, 25 million rubles were allocated for the execution of judicial acts this year, while the total debt on writs of execution providing for the collection of funds from the local budget amounted to more than 130 million rubles.

The financial department put forward an initiative to the City District Duma to redistribute budget allocations to increase costs for the execution of court decisions. However, the redistribution of funds was not made, and therefore, for objective reasons independent of financial management, the writ of execution presented by the entrepreneur was not executed.

Under such circumstances, the courts of first and appellate instances came to the conclusion that the fact of illegal inaction of the administrative body to execute the controversial judicial act was not proven, since the Financial Department was not to blame for the non-execution of judicial acts. The said body, within the framework of its powers, took all possible measures aimed at executing judicial acts providing for the recovery of funds from the municipal budget.

At the same time, when making a decision, the courts took into account that the Financial Department does not have the right to direct other types of expenses to the execution of judicial acts in the absence of changes to the budget decision. The consolidated budget list must correspond to the basic parameters of the budget; a different approach would indicate interference in the exclusive competence of the representative body of the municipality and create a threat to the balance of the budget.

ST 139 BC RF

1. Subsidies to local budgets from the budget of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation are understood as interbudgetary transfers provided to the budgets of municipalities in order to co-finance expenditure obligations arising in the exercise of powers of local governments on issues of local importance.

The second paragraph is no longer valid.

2. The budget of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation may provide for subsidies to local budgets to equalize the provision of municipalities for the implementation of their individual expenditure obligations.

3. The goals and conditions for the provision and expenditure of subsidies to local budgets from the budget of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation, the criteria for selecting municipalities for the provision of these subsidies and their distribution between municipalities are established by the laws of the constituent entity of the Russian Federation and (or) regulatory legal acts of the highest executive body state power of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation in accordance with the requirements of this Code.

The highest executive body of state power of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation approves for a period of at least three years a list of expenditure obligations of municipalities arising in the exercise of powers of local governments on issues of local importance, for the purpose of co-financing which subsidies are provided from the budget of the constituent entity of the Russian Federation, target performance indicators for the provision of subsidies and their meanings.

Allocation of subsidies from the budget of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation to local budgets (with the exception of subsidies from funds reserve fund the highest executive body of state power of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation) for the purposes and (or) in accordance with the conditions, not provided for by laws of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation and (or) regulatory legal acts of the highest executive body of state power of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation is not allowed.

4. The distribution of subsidies to local budgets from the budget of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation between municipalities is established by the laws of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and (or) regulatory legal acts of the highest executive body of state power of the constituent entity of the Russian Federation.

5. The conclusion of agreements on the provision of subsidies to local budgets from the budget of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation for a period exceeding the validity period of the approved limits of budget obligations is carried out in cases provided for by regulatory legal acts of the highest executive body of state power of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation, within the limits of funds and for periods that established by these acts.

Commentary to Art. 139 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation

Art. 139 The Budget Code regulated the main provisions of the relationship between the budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and local budgets.

Providing financial assistance from the budget of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation to the local budget can be provided (Article 139 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation) in the following form:

Financial assistance to equalize the level of minimum budgetary provision of municipalities in order to ensure financing of those minimum state social standards, the responsibility for financing of which is assigned to local governments;

Providing subventions to finance certain targeted expenses;

Other forms provided for by the budget legislation of the constituent entity of the Russian Federation. These are, for example, budget loans from the budget of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation to cover temporary cash gaps that arise in the execution of local budgets, as well as subsidies.

The procedure for providing and calculating financial assistance to equalize socio-economic development are determined by the law of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation or the law of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation on the budget for the next financial year.

The procedure for providing and calculating subventions to finance targeted expenses are determined similarly to the procedure in force for the federal budget, i.e. V in this case are determined by the law of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation or the law of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation on the budget for the next financial year.