Shipment to the branch which checkpoint to specify. Putting the checkpoint of the payer in the payment order
In accordance with the terms of the supply agreement, the goods are shipped to the buyer on a self-delivery basis, that is, the goods are transferred to the buyer at the warehouse of the organization and their further transportation is carried out by the buyer. The supply contract contains the details of the buyer, including the address, TIN and KPP of the parent organization. But a letter was received from the buyer with an order to fill out TORG-12 and invoices indicating in them the checkpoint and the address (in the line "Consignee") of a separate division - a warehouse where the buyer himself will transport the purchased goods. Is the buyer's claim correct?
After considering the issue, we came to the following conclusion:
Taking into account the presence of a letter from the buyer specifying his details, in the invoice issued upon shipment of goods, your organization should indicate the checkpoint of a separate subdivision of the buyer (warehouse). It is not necessary to indicate the TIN and KPP of the buyer (consignee and payer) on consignment notes in the TORG-12 form.
In addition, we recommend, in order to insure the buyer against possible claims from the tax authorities, in this case, in the line "Consignee and his address" of the invoice, reflect both addresses: the actual address of the separate subdivision and the legal address of the buyer.
Given the presence of a letter from the buyer specifying his details, we believe that in the appropriate lines of the TORG-12 form, the seller should indicate the address of the separate subdivision of the buyer (address of its warehouse).
Please note that, in the opinion of the tax service, the address of the consignee indicated on the invoice must match the address indicated on the consignment note form TORG-12.
Rationale for the conclusion:
Civil law relations
Within the meaning of Art. 431 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, a letter sent to your address about specifying in invoices and waybills the details of a separate unit (checkpoint and address of the buyer's warehouse) can be considered as a document clarifying the details of the buyer under the contract for the supply of goods, especially since these clarifications do not change the essential conditions supply contracts.
Thus, we can conclude that the goods are purchased by the buyer through his own.
Rules for filling out the TORG-12 form
According to p.p. 1 and 2 Art. nine federal law dated November 21, 1996 N 129-FZ "On Accounting" (hereinafter - Law N 129-FZ), all business transactions carried out by the organization must be formalized supporting documents. These documents serve as primary accounting documents, on the basis of which it is maintained.
Primary accounting documents are accepted for accounting if they are drawn up in the form contained in the albums of unified forms of primary accounting documentation, and documents whose form is not provided for in these albums must contain a list of required details.
At the same time, the data of primary documents compiled when making business transactions, including on persons carrying out operations for sending and receiving cargo, must correspond to the actual circumstances (Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation of October 18, 2005 N 4047/05).
Therefore, in the form TORG-12 (approved by the Decree of the State Statistics Committee of Russia dated December 25, 1998 N 132), compiled during the sale (vacation) of inventory items, the actual consignees and payers should be indicated.
Since the buyer picks up the goods himself and your organization does not ship it to third parties specified by the buyer, the consignee of the goods in this case is the buyer.
The TORG-12 form does not specify the address of the consignee and the payer, therefore it can contain both the legal and actual address of the buyer (warehouse address). In our opinion, when filling in these details, one should be guided by the details of the parties specified in the supply agreement.
However, given the presence of a letter from the buyer with clarification of his details, we believe that the seller should indicate in the appropriate lines of the TORG-12 form the address of the separate subdivision of the buyer (address of its warehouse).
Note that in the unified form of the consignment note TORG-12, the lines "Consignee" and "Payer" must indicate: organization, address, telephone, fax and Bank details. Form TORG-12 does not contain the requirement to indicate the TIN and KPP in these lines.
Rules for filling out invoices
Paragraph 2 of Art. 169 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation it is established that it must meet the requirements established by paragraphs. 5, 5.1 and 6 Art. 169 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation.
The last amendments to these paragraphs were made in paragraph 4 of Art. 2 of the Federal Law of July 27, 2010 N 229-FZ (hereinafter Law N 229-FZ). However, the same law established that before the approval of the Government of the Russian Federation new form invoices Compilation and issuance of invoices are carried out taking into account the requirements established before the entry into force of Law N 229-FZ (clause 4, article 10 of Law N 229-FZ).
Therefore, at present, when filling out invoices, one should be guided by the Rules for maintaining registers of received and issued invoices, books of purchases and books of sales when calculating value added tax, approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of December 2, 2000 N 914 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) (See also the letter of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated 12.10.2010 N 03-07-09/46).
The Tax Code of the Russian Federation requires that the TIN of the seller and the buyer be indicated on the invoices (clauses 5 and 5.1 of Article 169 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation). The Rules also contain a requirement to indicate the checkpoint.
As the Ministry of Finance of Russia and the tax service explain, when purchasing goods (works, services) by divisions of the organization, line 6b "TIN / KPP of the buyer" indicates the KPP of the corresponding division (see letters of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated 14.01.2010 N 03-07-09 / 01, Federal Tax Service Russia for the city of Moscow dated March 20, 2008 N 19-11 / 026593).
Taking into account the presence of a letter from the buyer specifying his details, in the invoice issued upon shipment of goods, your organization should indicate the checkpoint of a separate subdivision of the buyer (warehouse).
Consignee address
The rules require that invoices indicate the full or abbreviated name of the consignee in accordance with the constituent documents and his postal address. Since it does not specify what should be understood as a postal address, then on the basis of paragraph 1 of Art. 11 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, the institutions, concepts and terms of civil, family and other branches of the legislation of the Russian Federation used in the Tax Code of the Russian Federation are applied in the sense in which they are used in these branches of legislation, unless otherwise provided by the Tax Code of the Russian Federation.
According to clause 2 of the Rules for the provision of services postal service, approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of 15.04.2005 N 221, the postal address is the location of the user indicating the postal code of the corresponding postal facility.
In a letter dated 10.08.2005 N 03-04-11 / 202, the Ministry of Finance of Russia indicated that when filling in the indicator line 4 "Consignee and his address" of the invoice, the address is indicated structural unit organization (warehouse), where you want to deliver the goods. In this case, the consignee should be understood as an organization (its structural subdivision) or individual entrepreneur, to the warehouse of which the actual acceptance of goods is carried out, regardless of the type of transport on which these goods are transported (see also letters of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated November 09, 2006 N 03-04-09 / 18).
That is, it turns out that if the recipient is a structural unit, then its postal address must be indicated.
A similar opinion is expressed in the letter of the Federal Tax Service of Russia for Moscow dated April 24, 2007 N 19-11 / 37426.
And in a letter dated March 20, 2008 N 19-11 / 026593, the Federal Tax Service of Russia for Moscow additionally informs that when purchasing materials that are sent to construction sites separate subdivisions, in line 4 "Consignee and his address" indicate "the full or abbreviated name of the consignee in accordance with the constituent documents and his postal address. In this case, the indication of the name of the consignee must comply with the terms of the contract for the supply of goods."
That is, if the parent organization is indicated in the contract as the consignee, the name of the parent organization and its address are entered in the line. If, under the terms of the contract, the recipient of the goods is a structural unit, the line indicates its name and postal address, that is, the address of the unit where the goods are delivered.
Thus, the name of the consignee in the invoices must comply with the terms of the contract for the supply of goods.
In the decision of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Urals District dated 02.05.2007 N F09-3164 / 07-C2, the court indicated that Art. 169 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation does not contain a condition on the need to indicate in the column "Consignee and his address" of the invoice the address of the parent organization upon receipt of the goods by its separate subdivision.
However, one can notice a gradual change in the position of the Russian Ministry of Finance.
So, if in a letter dated December 14, 2007 N 03-01-15 / 16-453 financial authority was of the opinion that in line 4 "Consignee and his address" indicate the address of the buyer in accordance with its constituent documents only if the buyer and consignee are the same person and the address at the location of the buyer indicated in the constituent documents coincides with a postal address.
Then, in a letter dated 08.26.2008 N 03-07-09 / 24, the Ministry of Finance of Russia changed its position, indicating in relation to the consignor that the invoice must indicate the postal address contained in the organization's constituent documents. At the same time, the financial authority added that, if desired, it is possible to additionally reflect the postal address of the warehouse owned or leased by the consignor (read: consignee) and from which (read: to which) goods were shipped (read: acceptance), and this will not be the basis for recognizing the invoice drawn up in violation of the established procedure.
Arbitration practice testifies to the presence of claims from the tax authorities, both in cases of specifying the address of the taxpayer contained in the constituent documents (see the resolutions of the FAS of the East Siberian District of November 25, 2008 N A33-808 / 2008, of July 10, 2008 N A19-12735 / 07 -51, FAS of the North-Western District of 12.02.2007 N A56-36691 / 2006), and in cases where the address of the structural unit is indicated (resolution of the FAS of the North Caucasian District of 16.09.2008 N F08-5552 / 2008, FAS of the Moscow District of 05/07/2007 N КА-А41 / 3396-07).
At the same time, the courts in all cases support taxpayers.
Therefore, in order to insure the buyer against possible claims from the tax authorities, we recommend that two addresses be reflected in the line "Consignor and his address": the actual address of a separate subdivision and the legal address of the organization.
We also want to draw attention to the fact that, according to the tax service, the invoice is drawn up on the basis of the primary accounting document - the consignment note TORG-12. Therefore, when filling out line 4 of the invoice, in terms of the consignee, you should indicate the data reflected about this person in the corresponding lines of the TORG-12 consignment note (see, for example, letter of the Federal Tax Service of Russia dated 01.21.2010 N 3-1-11 / 22).
For your information:
Tax liability for incorrect completion of invoices for a taxpayer - seller of goods of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation is not provided.
With regard to the deduction of VAT from the buyer, we note the following. Errors in invoices that do not prevent the tax authorities during a tax audit from identifying the seller, buyer of goods (works, services), property rights, the name of goods (works, services), property rights, their value, as well as tax rate and the amount of tax presented to the buyer are not grounds for refusing to accept tax amounts for deduction (paragraph two of clause 2 of article 169 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation).
Therefore, even if the invoices indicate "incorrect", from the point of view of the tax authority, the checkpoint or the address of the consignee, we believe that the tax authority has no grounds for refusing to deduct VAT.
Prepared answer:
Legal Consulting Service Expert GARANT
auditor, tax advisor II rank Varlamova Victoria
Response quality control:
Reviewer of the Legal Consulting Service GARANT
professional accountant Rodyushkin Sergey
The material was prepared on the basis of an individual written consultation provided as part of the Legal Consulting service.
If there are separate subdivisions, regardless of where they are located, what status they have (branch, representative office or other OP), whether they are allocated to a separate balance sheet or not, a Russian organization must pay VAT and submit reports for all OP only at its location. After all, it is the organization that is the payer of VAT Art. 143, paras. 2, 5 art. 174 Tax Code of the Russian Federation. But, despite this, the OP has to keep VAT records when goods (works, services) are sold and purchased through it.
Implementation via OP
The main questions relate to the preparation of invoices.
Calculate in order
One of the mandatory details of the invoice is the serial number sub. 1 p. 5 art. 169 Tax Code of the Russian Federation. Invoice numbers of separate subdivisions must contain the index assigned to the subdivision through the separating sign "/".
Until October 1, 2014 Rules for filling out invoices Government Decree No. 1137 dated December 26, 2011 it was determined that invoices issued by the OP should contain a separating line, but it was not clarified which one. Therefore, any separator character could be used. But since October 1, clarifications have been made to the Rules Decree of the Government of July 30, 2014 No. 735. Now the numbers of invoices issued by the OP must contain exactly such a separator character - "/".
The OP may number the invoices as follows:
- <если>the organization and the OP keep records separately (in stand-alone accounting programs) - the invoices of the OP and GP are assigned their own serial number and par. 3 sub. "a" clause 1 of the Rules for filling out an invoice, approved. Decree of the Government of December 26, 2011 No. 1137 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules);;
- <если>OP and GP work in the same accounting program with remote access - you can keep a continuous numbering of all invoices.
Although, in fact, the absence of a separating line in the invoice number issued by the OP is not a violation and should not serve as a basis for refusing to deduct the buyer par. 2 p. 2 art. 169 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation; Letter of the Ministry of Finance of October 11, 2013 No. 03-07-09/42466.
Correctly fill in the details
Departments issue invoices on behalf of the organization.
If lines 2 and 2a of the invoice contain the name of the OP and its address, then the buyer may have disputes with the tax authorities regarding the deduction on such an invoice, because the OP is not a VAT payer.
But even in this case, according to the TIN of the organization, the tax authorities can identify the seller, therefore, they have no right to refuse to deduct VAT from the buyer Decree of the FAS SKO dated April 20, 2011 No. A53-12954 / 2010.
Issued an invoice: who will sign?
In the invoice issued by the OP, instead of CEO and the chief accountant are signed by authorized employees (for example, the head of the EP, deputy chief accountant (accountant), etc.) paragraph 6 of Art. 169 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation; Letter of the Ministry of Finance No. 03-07-09/39 dated April 23, 2012. This right is granted on the basis of:
- <или>order of the head of the organization;
- <или>power of attorney issued on behalf of the organization.
We reflect VAT from sales in accounting
OP, allocated to a separate balance sheet, makes the following entries when selling goods (works, services).
If the EP is not allocated to a separate balance sheet, then all transactions are recorded by the accounting department of the SE in the usual manner on the basis of documents submitted by a separate subdivision.
We acquire property, works, services through the OP
Checking received invoice
After all, the fate of the VAT deduction will depend on the correctness of its filling.
We reflect the input VAT
If the accounting of operations of the OP is centralized, then the documents for the supply are transferred to the GP and, on their basis, entries are made in the accounting. But if the OP is allocated to a separate balance sheet, then the following entries are reflected in its accounting.
Contents of operation | Dt | CT |
In the accounting of OP | ||
Goods (works, services) received | 10 "Materials", 41 "Goods", 25 "General production expenses", 26 "General expenses" | |
Reflected VAT presented by the supplier | 60 "Settlements with suppliers and contractors" | |
Accepted for VAT deduction | 68 "Settlements with the budget", subaccount "VAT" | 19 "VAT on acquired valuables" |
VAT amount transferred from OP to GP | 79 "Domestic expenses", sub-account "Settlements on current operations" | 68, sub-account "VAT" |
In the accounting of GP | ||
Reflected VAT transferred from OP to GP | 68, sub-account "VAT" | 79, sub-account "Settlements on current operations" |
There are many divisions, but there is something in common
The organization, even in the presence of an OP, maintains a single register of invoices issued and received, as well as a single book of purchases and a single book of sales. They can be formatted like this.
OPTION 1. The accounting department of the EP transfers information about the issued and received invoices to the accounting department of the head unit. And already the accounting department of the GP compiles a register of invoices issued and received, as well as a book of purchases and a book of sales for the whole organization (taking into account the data of the OP).
OPTION 2. The accounting department of the EP compiles for its division a journal of invoices issued and received, a book of purchases and a book of sales, but only as sections of a general journal, common books purchases and sales books. Further, sections of the journal and books for a separate division are transferred to the head division of the organization. The accounting department of the GP forms sections of the journal of invoices and books of purchases and sales for its division, combines with sections of the journal and books of the OP and stitches them together.
FROM AUTHENTIC SOURCES
DUMINSKAYA Olga Sergeevna
Counselor of the State Civil Service of the Russian Federation, 2nd class
“Both of the above options are acceptable. At high revolutions, the second option is most preferable for the OP. If the OP has small turnovers, then it is possible to keep a log of received and issued invoices, books of purchases and sales according to the first option.
The main thing is to fix the order of registration of the magazine and books in accounting policy organizations for tax purposes”.
Do not forget to fix the method of numbering invoices issued by a separate subdivision in the accounting policy, and the procedure and terms for transferring these invoices, sections of the journal and books to the State Enterprise - in the regulation on document flow.
The invoice is the main document on the basis of which the sellers apply the VAT deduction. But, unfortunately, sometimes invoices contain errors and shortcomings. What defects can deprive the company of a deduction, and which ones can not, read in the article.
minor defects
Various inaccuracies in invoices, unfortunately, are quite common. If an error is found in an invoice from a supplier or contractor, the accountant asks himself the question: is it possible to deduct VAT on an invoice with an error, or is it necessary to contact the counterparty and ask him to issue a corrected document? The answer depends on what kind of mistake the counterparty made when filling out the invoice.Article 169 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation contains all the details that an invoice must contain. However, the absence or error in specifying one or another requisite is not always fraught with the “withdrawal” of the VAT deduction. The fact is that in paragraph 2 of Article 169 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation there is one important rule, which, by the way, the tax authorities can “forget” during the audit. And it will not be superfluous for them to be reminded of it. The rule says: if an error in the invoice does not prevent the tax authorities from identifying the seller, buyer, name and cost of goods (works, services, property rights), as well as the VAT rate and amount, such an error is not an obstacle to deduction.
Therefore, if your inspector, having found an inaccuracy in the spelling of, for example, the address of the seller, on the invoice, points to the illegality of the deduction, then you have every reason to argue the opposite. To help you will be the Letter of the Ministry of Finance in Letter No. 03-07-09 / 18318 of 04/02/2015. Officials explain that an error in the address, if all other important indicators can be identified, is not a reason for refusing to deduct. As well as the indication of the old legal address should not lead to negative consequences(Letter of the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation dated 08.08.14 No. 03-07-09 / 39449).
For convenience, we decided to combine all other situations in which the refusal to deduct VAT is illegal in a table.
Description of the situation | Arguments in favor of the legitimacy of the VAT deduction | Documents (letters from officials, judicial practice) |
Violation of the five-day deadline by the seller when issuing an invoice | Subparagraph 1 of paragraph 5 of Article 169 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation provides that the invoice must indicate the serial number and date of the invoice. However, neither this subparagraph, nor any other provisions of Article 169 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation establish a requirement to comply with a five-day period | Letter from the Interdistrict Inspectorate of the Federal Tax Service of Russia for the largest taxpayers on Sverdlovsk region dated 04/08/13 No. 02-31 / 3364, Resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the North-Western District dated 10.25.2012 in case No. A26-9024 / 2011 |
Columns 2, 2a, 3 and 4 for services are not filled | If the relevant data cannot be determined, then it is not necessary to enter them in the invoice drawn up for the services. In this case, dashes should be | Letter of the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation of October 15, 2012 No. 03-07-05 / 42 |
There is no reference to the contract in the "advance" invoice | The rules approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of December 26, 2011 No. 1137 do not contain the obligation to indicate the details of the contract in the invoice | Resolution of the Fourth Arbitration Court of Appeal No. A19-15281/2014 dated March 19, 2015, upheld by the decision of the Arbitration Court of the East Siberian District dated June 19, 2015 No. A19-15281/2014 |
The invoice contains additional details that are not provided for in Article 169 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation | The Tax Code does not prohibit the indication of such additional invoice details as the position of the employee who signed it | Letter of the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation No. 03-07-09/11863 dated April 10, 2013 |
Missing (incorrectly specified) checkpoint of the seller or buyer | The checkpoint is not mentioned among the mandatory details of the invoice listed in paragraph 5 of Article 169 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation | Decisions of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Volga Region dated January 20, 2014 in case No. А55-27704/2012, the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the East Siberian District dated June 20, 2013 No. А19-19838/2012, Arbitration Court of the North Caucasian District of March 10, 2015 No. F08-10982 / 2014 |
The invoice does not contain the details of payment orders | The absence of payment numbers does not prevent inspectors from identifying the seller | Letter of the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation of October 31, 2012 No. 03-07-09 / 147, Resolution of the FAS PO of February 17, 2014 No. A12-3794 / 2013 |
In column 2 of the invoice, there is no code for the unit of measurement of goods | Such an invoice does not prevent tax authorities from identifying all important indicators (seller, buyer, name of goods, etc.) | Letter of the Federal Tax Service of Russia dated July 18, 2012 No. ED-4-3 / [email protected] |
Product name must be accurate
At the beginning of the article, we indicated errors that may deprive you of the right to deduct VAT on completely legal grounds from the IFTS.So, the first mistake: an error that does not give the tax authorities the opportunity to identify the name of the product (work, service, property right). If the invoice contains the wrong name, then the company faces a "withdrawal" of the deduction. The Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation in Letter No. 03-03-06/1/47252 dated August 14, 2015 confirms that in such a situation, the refusal to deduct is legitimate.
Also, check that the name on the invoice matches the name on the invoice. primary document(consignment note, certificate of completion, etc.). With a difference in wording, even the court may not help here. For example, in the Resolution of the Twentieth Arbitration Court of Appeal dated November 28, 2011 No. 20AP-4364/11, the dispute was resolved in favor of the Federal Tax Service. The judges considered a situation where the invoice was listed as "work to repair the garage", and in the act of work performed - "repair railway". The arbitrators considered that the contractor should have corrected the invoice properly, otherwise the right of deduction is lost.
It happens that a specific name is not indicated in the invoice, but only a reference to the contract is given (for example, services under a contract such and such). We want to warn you right away that it is better not to allow such formulations. In practice, tax authorities often do not accept such invoices, believing that such registration does not allow understanding the exact name of goods, works or services. And even judicial review dispute does not guarantee a decision in your favor. For example, in the Resolution of the Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal dated January 17, 2013 No. 09AP-38028 / 2012 in case No. A40-80881 / 12-91-445, the fact that the invoices in the column " name of the goods” did not disclose the types of services provided, but contained the general wording “services under the contract”. As a result, the dispute was resolved in favor of the inspection.
Although in arbitration practice one can also find decisions made in favor of companies (Resolutions of the Tenth Arbitration Court of Appeal dated 04/09/12 No. 10AP-301/12 and the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Moscow District dated 08.24.11 No. Ф05-8167/11). One of the main arguments is as follows: since the details of the contract are indicated in the invoice, nothing prevents the auditors from opening the contract and finding out the exact name.
And if information about goods (works, services) is given in the invoice, but it is incomplete? This issue was considered by the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation in Letter No. 03-07-09/10 of May 10, 2011. The agency clarified that if the invoice contains incomplete information about the goods, but the invoice does not prevent the tax authorities from identifying the above information, then such a document is not a basis for refusing to accept VAT amounts for deduction.
Name and TIN of the seller and buyer
Second error: the name of the seller and (or) buyer is missing or incorrectly indicated.It happens that when issuing an invoice, the company made an inaccuracy in the name of the buyer. For example, capital letters are replaced by lowercase letters and vice versa, or extra characters (dashes, commas) are added. If other required details are correct and do not prevent the tax authorities from identifying the counterparty, then the deduction on such an invoice is legal (letters of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated 02.05.12 No. 03-07-11 / 130 and dated 08.15.12 No. Decree of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Moscow District dated January 16, 2006 No. КА-А40/13545-05).
An invoice in which the counterparty erroneously indicated the letter “e” instead of “e” and vice versa will not be an obstacle to deducting VAT. Such conclusions can be drawn, guided by the letter of the Federal Tax Service of Russia for Moscow dated 08.06.11 No. 16-15 / 55909.
But is the absence or incorrect indication of the TIN of the seller (or buyer) a sufficient reason for “withdrawing” the deduction? Practice shows that for inspectors this may be a reason for refusing to deduct.
However, if the supplier made a mistake in indicating the TIN of the buyer, or did not indicate his number at all, then such an error does not prevent the tax authorities from identifying the buyer, because it is they who check it (Resolutions of the Arbitration Court of the North Caucasus District of August 27, 2014 in case No. A32-11444 / 2012, FAS of the Moscow District dated April 27, 2011 No. KA-A40 / 2549-11 in case No. A40-160091 / 09-142-1315).
The same is true if the counterparty made a mistake in writing his TIN, while the error is in the nature of a typo or typo (for example, an extra zero is put in, or one digit is doubled). The Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Central District in its Decree dated 04/08/2013 in case No. А14-7612/2011 noted that such a typo does not interfere with the identification of the seller. In the Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the North Caucasus District dated December 30, 2014 No. F08-9625 / 2014 in case No. A32-26444 / 2012, the court considered that a typo in writing the TIN should not prevent the taxpayer from deducting VAT.
In other cases, the position of the courts is contradictory. For example, in the Decree of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the North-Western District dated July 23, 2012 in case No. A42-2345 / 2010, the court did not accept the incorrect TIN of the seller as an argument for "withdrawing" the deduction. The arbitrators noted that the company could not know about the unreliability of the TIN. In favor of the companies, the Decree of the Eighteenth Arbitration Court of Appeal dated January 22, 2015 No. 18AP-15113/2014 in case No. A47-7539/2013 was also issued. But there are also decisions with the conclusions of the courts that an incorrect indication of the TIN on the invoice deprives the buyer of the VAT deduction (Resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Central District of 04/05/2012 No. A68-2733 / 11).
If arithmetic "suffers"
The cost of goods, works or services, as well as the amount of tax must be indicated in the invoice in without fail. And errors in these details, including arithmetic or technical ones, may prevent the identification of the value of the goods or the amount of tax when tax audit. Therefore, such errors can deprive the buyer of the VAT deduction for quite legal grounds(Letters of the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation dated September 18, 2014 No. 03-07-09 / 46708, dated May 30, 2013 No. 03-07-09 / 19826).In what cases can we speak of an arithmetic error? In particular, when the quantity of goods (works, services) multiplied by the price is not equal to the cost of goods (works, services) without VAT. Another example is that the value without VAT multiplied by the rate does not equal the amount of tax. Moreover, even in the case when an inaccuracy is made in one or two lines, the inspectors cancel the deduction for the entire invoice.
However, it should be borne in mind that arithmetic errors may be associated with features accounting program supplier. For example, in a dispute considered by the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the North-Western District in Resolution No. A56-17988/2011 of 19.01.12, the program was set up in such a way that when filling out an invoice, the total cost of the entire supply without VAT was divided by the quantity, and the result was multiplied on a bet. Since the cost of a unit of goods was very small, such an algorithm led to rounding errors. The judges considered that small inaccuracies did not deprive the buyer of the right to a deduction.
Invalid currency code
The name of the currency is also a mandatory requisite of the invoice (clause 6.1 clause 5, clause 4.1 clause 5.1 article 169 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation). The name of the currency and its digital code according to All-Russian classifier currencies OK (MK (ISO 4217) 003-97) 014-2000 are indicated in line 7 of the invoice. So, when issuing an invoice in Russian currency line 7 of the invoice must be completed as follows: " Russian ruble, 643".The Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation, in Letter No. 03-07-08/68 dated March 11, 2012, explains that an incorrect indication of the currency code or its absence may prevent the identification of the cost of goods (works, services) and the amount of VAT indicated in this invoice. In this regard, invoices with such errors, according to officials, are not registered in the purchase book. Therefore, the department adds, they need to be corrected in the manner prescribed by paragraph 7 of the Rules for filling out an invoice, approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of December 26, 2011 No. 1137.
About signature
The invoice is signed by the head and chief accountant of the organization (clause 6, article 169 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation). And if the state does not have the position of chief accountant?Obviously, not indicating the signature of the chief accountant in the invoice due to the lack of such a position in staffing does not prevent the tax authorities from identifying the seller and buyer of the transaction, the cost of goods, works, services, the rate and amount of tax (paragraph 2, clause 2, article 169 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation). Therefore, the absence of the chief accountant's signature in such a situation should not be grounds for refusing to deduct VAT. A similar conclusion can be drawn from the Letter of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated July 2, 2013 No. 03-07-09 / 25296. Judicial practice confirms the legitimacy of deducting VAT on an invoice that does not contain the signature of the chief accountant, in the absence of such a position in the staff of the supplier (Resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the East Siberian District of 12.04.11 No. A19-11133 / 08, FAS of the Moscow District of 20.01.12 No. A40-144847/10-98-1227).
To minimize tax risks, the buyer can ask the seller to make an entry in the invoice that she does not have the position of chief accountant.
Instead of the director and chief accountant, the invoice can be signed by a person authorized to do so by an order (other administrative document) for the organization or a power of attorney on behalf of the organization. Please note that the legislation does not provide for the obligation of the supplier to provide the buyer with a copy of the administrative document or power of attorney for the right to sign invoices by authorized persons. Therefore, the tax authority does not have the right to demand from the taxpayer-buyer a certified copy of these documents of the seller. Similar explanations are given by the Federal Tax Service in the Letter of 08/09/2010 No. ШС-37-3 / 8664.
And finally, we want to draw attention to the fact that in order to avoid tax risks, the signature on the invoice must be affixed by hand. That is, it is not desirable for the supplier to sign by using a facsimile (Letter of the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation of 06/01/2010 No. 03-07-09 / 33, Resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the North Caucasus District of 05.30.14 No. A32-2968 / 2012, of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of 27.09 .2011 No. 4134/11). True, in judicial practice there are decisions made in favor of the legitimacy of the VAT deduction on the basis of invoices signed in facsimile. But most of the disputes are resolved in favor of the IFTS.
Indication of a separate division of the parent organization in place of the checkpoint in the invoice instead of the checkpoint may lead to a refusal to deduct VAT.
In the case of the acquisition of goods or services by a separate division Russian organization in line 6b of the invoice "TIN / KPP of the buyer" the KPP of a separate subdivision must be indicated, and the TIN is assigned to the organization as a whole, separate subdivision does not have its own TIN.
In lines 6 "Buyer", 6a "Address" and TIN of the buyer indicate the data of the head office of the organization. Line 4 "Consignee and his address" must contain information of a separate consignee unit.
The rationale for this position is given below in the materials of the Glavbukh System
1. Situation:Whose name should be indicated in line 6 "Buyer" and in line 6b "TIN / KPP of the buyer" of the invoice - a separate division or head office of the organization. The customer of services is a separate division of the organization
The answer to this question depends on which subdivision of which organization – Russian or foreign – is acquiring services.
If services are purchased by a separate subdivision of a Russian organization, then the invoice must be drawn up as follows. As a buyer, line 6 “Buyer” of the invoice should contain the name of the head office of the organization *. After all, branches are not independent taxpayers. So, the buyer is the organization.
In line 6b, “TIN / KPP of the buyer” should be a checkpoint of a separate subdivision *. All this follows from the provisions of the articles and tax code of the Russian Federation, subparagraphs "i", "l" of paragraph 1 of Appendix 1 to and is confirmed by the letter of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated April 13, 2012 No. 03-07-09 / 35.
Separate subdivisions (branches, representative offices) foreign organizations tax registered in Russia are recognized as independent taxpayers. This follows from the provisions of Article 143, paragraph 7 of Article 174 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation. Therefore, if services are purchased by such a unit, it is its details that must be indicated in lines 6 and 6b of the invoice.
Olga Tsibizova,
2. Situation:How to indicate in the invoice information about the buyer and consignee if the products are shipped at the location of a separate subdivision of the buyer organization
If you are shipping products to a separate subdivision, issue an invoice anyway in the name of the buying organization itself. However, in line 4 "Consignee and his address" and the buyer's checkpoint, indicate the data of a separate division *.
This follows directly from the rules. So, in lines 6 "Buyer", 6a "Address" and the TIN of the buyer indicate the information of the buyer organization. Separate subdivision Russian companies it is not a separate organization. Therefore, fill in this information based on the constituent documents of the buyer-organization.
But for line 4 "Consignee and his address" and the buyer's checkpoint, it is possible to indicate the information of a separate consignee unit.
All these rules are spelled out in subparagraph "g" of paragraph 1 of Appendix 1 to the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated December 26, 2011 No. 1137, this is also indicated in the letter of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated May 15, 2012 No. 03-07-09 / 55.
Olga Tsibizova,
head of the department's indirect taxes
tax and customs tariff policy of the Ministry of Finance of Russia
3. Article: The Ministry of Finance clarified which errors in invoices will not lead to a refusal to deduct VAT, and which ones can
Errors in invoices, in the presence of which the Ministry of Finance of Russia does not allow VAT to be deducted
When buying goods by a separate division, not its checkpoint is indicated, but the checkpoint of the parent company
Separate subdivisions of organizations are not VAT payers (clause 1, article 143 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation). This means that even if a separate division acts as a buyer of goods, works, services or property rights, the parent company * must be indicated as a buyer in invoices. Such clarifications were repeatedly given by the Ministry of Finance of Russia (letters No. 03-07-09/55 dated May 15, 2012 and No. 03-04-11/127 dated August 9, 2004).
At the same time, in the case of the purchase of goods by a separate subdivision, the invoice should reflect exactly its KPP, and not the KPP of the parent organization. This was recently confirmed by the Russian Ministry of Finance * (letters
The organization is registered in Moscow, the warehouse is located in the Moscow region (the recipient of the goods). A separate subdivision is registered at the location of the warehouse; it does not have its own current account.
Which checkpoint (parent organization or separate division) should be indicated in the sales contract, invoice, payment order?
ANSWER
After considering the issue, we came to the following conclusion:
The contract must necessarily indicate the details of the parent organization, including the checkpoint. Considering that the goods are delivered to a warehouse, which is a separate subdivision, the details of the warehouse (including the checkpoint and delivery address) must also be indicated in the contract.
In the invoice issued to the buyer, in our opinion, in line "Buyer" should indicate the checkpoint of the parent organization. Details of a separate subdivision can be indicated as additional information in line "Consignee and his address".
Considering that settlements with the seller are carried out from the current account of the parent organization, the checkpoint of the parent organization must be indicated in the payment order.
Rationale for the conclusion:
According to Art. eleven Separate subdivision of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation - any subdivision territorially isolated from the organization, at the location of which stationary workplaces are equipped.
A separate subdivision of an organization is recognized as such regardless of whether or not its creation is reflected in the constituent or other organizational and administrative documents of the organization, and on the powers vested in the specified subdivision.
Carrying out financial and economic activities, a separate subdivision does not have the right to conclude contracts on its own behalf. Responsibility for the obligations of such a unit is entity, i.e. head organization ( Art. 56 Civil Code of the Russian Federation). Therefore, the contract can only be concluded on behalf of the organization.
Therefore, the details of the parent organization, including the checkpoint, must be indicated in the contract without fail. Considering that the goods are delivered to a warehouse, which is a separate subdivision, the details of the warehouse (including the checkpoint and delivery address) must also be indicated in the contract.
Indication of the buyer's checkpoint in the invoice
According to paragraph 3 of Art. 169 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, the obligation to draw up invoices, keep registers of received and issued invoices, books of purchases and books of sales is assigned to VAT payers.
Invoices may be the basis for accepting the amounts of tax presented to the buyer by the seller for deduction only if the requirements established by paragraph 5, paragraph 5.1, paragraph 5.2 and paragraph 6 of Art. 169 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation (clause 2 of article 169 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation).
By virtue of par. 2 p. 5, p. 2 p. 5.1 and pp. 3 p. 5.2 Art. 169 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, the invoice must indicate the name, address and identification numbers (TIN) of the seller (taxpayer) and the buyer.
The form and composition of the invoice indicators are established by the Rules for filling out an invoice, approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of December 26, 2011 N 1137 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules).
Appendix No. 1 to the Rules provides that the invoice should reflect:
- in line 6 - the full or abbreviated name of the buyer in accordance with the constituent documents;
- in line 6a - the location of the buyer in accordance with the constituent documents;
- in line 6b - identification number and code of the reason for the delivery to the taxpayer-buyer.
At the same time, the new Rules that have come into force, as well as the previous ones, do not contain any clarifications on the issue under consideration, in contrast to the procedure for filling in line 2b "TIN/KPP of the seller", in which, when selling goods through a separate division, the checkpoint of the corresponding division is indicated.
Based on the explanations of the Ministry of Finance of Russia, in the event that the delivery is made to the address of a separate subdivision, line 6b "TIN / KPP of the buyer" indicates the KPP assigned to the organization at the location of the separate subdivision (letters of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated 14.01.2010 N 03-07-09 /01, dated 08.12.2009 N 03-07-11/310, dated 17.09.2009 N 03-07-09/47, dated 01.09.2009 N 03-07-09/43, dated 22.10.2008 N 03-07 -09/33, dated 04/20/2007 N 03-07-11/114).
However, in 2012, a letter from the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated 01.26.2012 N 03-07-09 / 03 was issued, containing a directly opposite position, namely in the case of the purchase of goods (works, services) by the parent organization for its divisions in line 6b "TIN / KPP of the buyer "The checkpoint of the head organization is indicated in the invoice.
We believe that this position may be due to the fact that, by virtue of Art. 11 and Art. 143 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, separate subdivisions are not VAT payers. Accordingly, a separate subdivision by itself cannot exercise the right to deduct, only the parent organization has this right, since it is this organization that is the VAT payer. Consequently, it is the name, location and TIN of the parent organization that must be indicated on the invoices, in the lines relating to the buyer (6, 6a and 6b) (see also letter of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated 09.08.2004 N 03-04-11 / 127 ).
In this case, the details of a separate subdivision can be indicated as additional information in column 4 "Consignee and his address" (letter of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated 03.04.2012 N 03-07-09 / 31).
At the same time, given that the said letter is a response to a private request from the taxpayer, we assume that the position expressed by the specialists of the Russian Ministry of Finance may be due only to certain features contained in the text of the request.
In turn, we note that the indication of the checkpoint in the invoice is provided only by the Rules, the Tax Code of the Russian Federation does not establish such an obligation. Recall that acts of executive authorities, including the Government of the Russian Federation, cannot change or supplement the legislation on taxes and fees, that is, the norms of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation in general and Chapter 21 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation in particular, which is directly established by the norm of paragraph 1 of Art. 4 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation.
At the same time, by virtue of paragraph 3, paragraph 2, Art. 169 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, failure to comply with the requirements for an invoice that are not provided for in paragraphs. 5 and 6 this article, cannot be a basis for refusal to accept for deduction the amount of tax presented by the seller.
Therefore, if the invoice contains a checkpoint that is “not correct” from the point of view of the tax authority, this cannot be a basis for refusing to apply tax deduction by VAT.
To eliminate ambiguities, your organization can use the right granted to taxpayers in paragraphs. 2 p. 1 art. 21 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, and apply to the Ministry of Finance of Russia for written explanations on the application of the legislation of the Russian Federation on taxes and fees in the situation under consideration.
The powers of the Ministry of Finance of Russia to give explanations to taxpayers on the application of the legislation of the Russian Federation on taxes and fees are enshrined in paragraph 1 of Art. 34.2 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation.
The letters of the Ministry of Finance of Russia, issued in accordance with the specified norm, are not aimed at establishing, amending or abolishing legal norms or general rules, specifying normative instructions, are not normative legal acts subject to mandatory execution, and are exclusively advisory in nature. Therefore, the taxpayer must independently decide whether to be guided by specific situation explanations of the Ministry of Finance of Russia.
We note that in accordance with paragraphs. 5 p. 1 art. 32 Tax Code of the Russian Federation tax authorities are obliged to be guided by written explanations of the Ministry of Finance of Russia on the application of the legislation of the Russian Federation on taxes and fees. However, from the point of view of specialists from the Ministry of Finance of Russia, the Tax Code of the Russian Federation "does not establish the obligation of tax authorities to be guided by written explanations of the Ministry of Finance of Russia addressed to specific applicants (due to the fact that these explanations do not contain legal norms), but obliges tax authorities to be guided by explanations addressed to the Federal Tax Service of Russia "(letter of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated 08/07/2007 N 03-02-07 / 2-138).
Please note that, based on the provisions of paragraph 8 of Art. 75 and pp. 3 p. 1 art. 111 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, it can be concluded that the implementation by the taxpayer of written explanations of the Ministry of Finance of Russia (in cases where such explanations are given directly to the taxpayer or addressed to an indefinite circle of persons) is the basis for non-calculation of penalties on the amount of arrears that was formed by the specified person as a result of the implementation of such a written clarification, and is also recognized as a circumstance excluding the guilt of a person in committing a tax offense.
Putting the checkpoint of the payer in the payment order
A payment order is one of the types of settlement documents used in the implementation of cashless payments (clause 2.3 of the Regulations of the Central Bank of 03.10.2002 N 2-P "On cashless payments in Russian Federation"(hereinafter referred to as the CBR Regulation).
TO required details payment order includes the name of the payer, his account number, taxpayer identification number (TIN) (clause "d" clause 2.10 of the CBR Regulation).
The code of the reason for registering the recipient of funds is reflected in field N 102.
According to paragraphs. "m" clause 2.10 of the Regulations of the CBR fields "Payer", "Recipient", "Purpose of payment", "TIN" (TIN of the payer), "TIN" (TIN of the recipient), as well as fields 101-110 in settlement documents for transfer and collection of tax and other obligatory payments are filled out taking into account the requirements established by the Federal tax service, the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation and the Federal Customs Service in regulatory legal acts adopted jointly or in agreement with the Bank of Russia.
Thus, specific requirements for filling out the checkpoint are established only when filling out payment orders for the transfer of tax and customs payments.
How should field N 102 be filled in in the case of transferring payments for the purchased goods, the recipient of which is a separate division, in none of the regulatory legal act is not explained. There are no official clarifications on this issue.
In our opinion, taking into account that the payment for the cargo is carried out directly from the current account of the head organization, the payment order should indicate the checkpoint of the head organization, and not the checkpoint of a separate subdivision.
The material was prepared on the basis of an individual written consultation provided as part of the Legal Consulting service. For getting detailed information about the service, contact your manager.
Prepared answer:
Legal Consulting Service Expert GARANT
Member of the Chamber of Tax Advisers
Titova Elena