Repeated tax audit, or When "double two" is outlawed (S. Remchukov)

Date the article was posted: 01/28/2015

tax code contains such a concept as "repeated tax audit". Such, in particular, is appointed for the purpose of monitoring the activities of the inspectorate that carried out the initial audit. The problem is that as a result of such checks tax liabilities the taxpayer is adjusted, and, as a rule, by no means downward. And in order to challenge such additional charges, it is necessary to find out whether the inspectors have overstepped the boundaries of what is permitted ...

In accordance with paragraphs. 2 p. 1 art. 31 of the Tax Code, tax authorities have the right to conduct audits of taxpayers in the manner prescribed by the Code. Basic forms tax control are cameral (Art. 88 of the Tax Code) and field tax audits (Art. 89 of the Tax Code).
In turn, the concept of "repeated field tax audit" is disclosed in paragraph 10 of Art. 89 of the Code. In accordance with this provision, this means an on-site tax audit carried out regardless of the time of the previous audit for the same taxes and for the same period. The restrictions on the number of tax audits specified in clause 5 of Art. 89 of the Code, in this case, do not apply.
When conducting a repeated field tax audit, a period not exceeding three calendar years preceding the year in which the decision to conduct it was made may be checked.
A repeated field tax audit of a taxpayer can be carried out:
1) by a higher tax authority - in order to control the activities of the tax authority that conducted the audit;
2) the tax authority that previously conducted the audit, on the basis of the decision of its head (deputy head) - if the taxpayer submits a "clarification", which indicates the amount of tax in an amount less than previously declared. As part of this repeated field tax audit, the period for which the revised tax return is submitted is taken into account.
It must be said that in the general case, if during the repeated field tax audit it is revealed that the taxpayer has committed tax offense that was not identified during the initial audit will not be fined. There is only one exception to this rule: a fine will be imposed if the failure to identify the fact of a tax violation during the initial audit was the result of an agreement between the taxpayer and a tax official. True, the representatives of the Federal Tax Service of Russia in the Letter dated June 27, 2013 No. CA-19-9 / [email protected] clarified that if the taxpayer, during the re-inspection, does not present the claims claimed in accordance with Art. 93 of the Code documents, then tax authority conducting such a check, can bring him to justice on the basis of paragraph 1 of Art. 126 of the Code.
In any case, additional charges based on the results of a repeated on-site inspection and without fines can be very, very significant. Such additional charges are especially unpleasant and unexpected for those taxpayers who were re-checked in order to control the activities of the inspectorate that carried out the initial audit. We can say that they did not have time to survive one test - and here you are, as they say, bam - and the second shift.

Working on bugs?

So, as already mentioned, in accordance with paragraphs. 1 p. 10 art. 89 of the Tax Code, a repeated field tax audit of a taxpayer may be carried out by a higher tax authority in order to control the activities of the tax authority that conducted the initial audit. The problem is that the Code does not contain a specific list of grounds on which a re-examination can be ordered. In this regard, in practice, abuse by the tax authorities is quite possible. After all, it turns out that, hiding behind a repeated tax audit, they can bypass quite a lot of restrictions (in particular, on the number of checks). And as a result of such work on the mistakes made by the inspectors, the invoice will be issued to the taxpayer ...

Constitutional protection

In this light, of interest is the Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of March 17, 2009 N 5-P. It literally says the following. Based on the nature of the activities of tax authorities as directly related to tax control in relation to taxpayers, an audit of a lower tax authority allows you to determine how effective, legal and justified the decisions it makes, as well as eliminate shortcomings in its work and improve the tax collection mechanism for the most complete implementation of public functions of tax. All this, in fact, cannot be done without referring to the previously carried out tax control measures in relation to a specific taxpayer, including without analyzing his tax and accounting statements and the actual circumstances of the entrepreneurial or other economic activity... Accordingly, as representatives of the Constitutional Court rightly noted, the very process of control over the activities of the tax authority as part of a repeated field tax audit (due to the fact that the list of possible measures, as well as the method, methods and procedure for their implementation are similar to the elements of an on-site tax audit carried out in general order), and the results and consequences of this control inevitably affect the taxpayer, affecting his rights and legitimate interests.

Note! The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, in its Resolution of July 16, 2004 N 14-P, indicated that the Tax Code proceeds from the inadmissibility of causing unlawful harm during tax control. Otherwise, this control may turn from a necessary instrument of tax policy into an instrument for suppressing economic independence and initiative, excessive restriction of freedom of entrepreneurship and property rights, as well as in excess of their powers by tax authorities (their officials), etc.

But, perhaps, the most important for us is the conclusion made by the Constitutional Court in Resolution No. 5-P. It lies in the fact that a repeated field tax audit conducted by a higher tax authority in order to control the activities of inspectors who previously checked the company must meet the criteria of necessity, validity and legality. This is necessary so that such repeated control does not turn into an undue burden on taxpayers.

"Higher" gaze

This problem is also devoted to Definition The Supreme Court RF of September 16, 2014 N 301-KG14-1038, when passing which the judges took into account the position of the Constitutional Court presented in the Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation N 5-P.
As follows from the materials of the case, the Federal Tax Service for the Komi Republic initiated a repeated field tax audit, the subject of which was to verify the correctness and completeness of the calculation and payment of income tax, VAT and property tax for the period from December 1 to December 31, 2008. Based on the results of this audit, the company additional tax arrears and related penalties and fines were charged. Note that the initial check was carried out in 2009, and the second one was carried out in 2011 - 2012.
The company did not agree with this turn of events and decided to challenge the named additional charges. Moreover, in the course of the trial, arguments were presented that testified, in the opinion of company representatives, that this repeated check was generally illegal. And the judges agreed with this.
For us, the arguments that allowed the company to nullify the results of the check are important. So, the judges took into account the fact that when drawing up the inspection report and making the decision, the Office used the documents it received in 2011 and 2012. as part of a repeated on-site inspection. At the same time, evidence that the inspectorate that carried out the initial check was known and (or) it could have obtained the information contained in these documents during the control measures. In addition, in the impugned decision, the Office did not argue that the initial check, taking into account the known criteria for assessing risks, was ineffective, was fragmentary and was not aimed at checking these circumstances. And, finally, neither the contested decision, nor the act of the repeated field tax audit indicated the circumstances of the audit of the activities of the tax authority that conducted the audit, there was no analysis of the results of the initial audit, the violations identified and the evidence collected. In such circumstances, the judges decided that the repeated inspection carried out by the UFSA was actually not such, since it was not intended to ensure the legality and validity of the decision taken by the inspection.

Problematic issues

It should be noted that at one time before the Highest Of the Arbitration Court there were a sufficient number of cases related to repeated tax audits. Moreover, one can single out two main questions to which the highest judges were required to answer: the legality of additional charges made based on the results of repeated inspections, as well as the legality of such an audit as such, with all that is called arising. And, frankly, there are indeed a few controversial points here.
First, we are talking about the most ordinary checks disguised as repeated checks. In this part, the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation, in Resolution No. 15129/11 of April 3, 2012, indicated that if a repeated field tax audit would actually not be such, since it was carried out for the purpose of additional tax assessment in the circle of those circumstances and offenses that were revealed as a result initial tax audit, such audit would be illegal. By the way, in this Resolution, the high judges noted that the reason for the appointment of a repeated on-site audit is the fragmented nature of the initial tax audit and its ineffectiveness. As you can see, the Supreme Court took this argument as a basis.
Secondly, clarification is required that a higher tax authority has the right to appoint a repeated tax audit. This issue is relevant, first of all, when the taxpayer changes the legal address. The answer to it is contained in the Definition of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation of March 6, 2012 N BAC-17239/11. The high judges agreed that the provisions of Art. 89 of the Code do not provide for any restrictions when appointing a repeated field tax audit in order to control the activities of a lower tax authority when a taxpayer transfers to the time of its appointment to a tax authority subordinate to another higher tax authority. Moreover, within the meaning of clause 10 of the named article, a repeated inspection is carried out in order to control the activities of the lower tax authority, which conducted the initial inspection. And from this it follows that a re-audit cannot be appointed by a tax authority that is not superior to the one that carried out the audit.
Thirdly, the Tax Code does not establish a time frame for making a decision on a repeated tax audit. Accordingly, while the higher authority was thinking, the company may well judicial procedure challenge the decision made by the inspectorate following the initial audit. Can the episodes for which there is an effective court decision be verified as part of the re-examination? As indicated by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation in Resolution No. 5-P, a repeated on-site tax audit conducted by a higher tax authority should not change the rights and obligations of a taxpayer determined by a judicial act not revised and not canceled in accordance with procedural law.
At the same time, as follows from the Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation of March 16, 2010 N 14585/09, the court's decision still cannot be regarded as a kind of insurance against additional charges based on the results of a repeated tax audit. The high judges explained that the said prohibition does not apply to cases when the court did not assess the evidence and factual circumstances, as well as the conclusions made by the inspection on their basis, "the validity and legality of which are subject to the control of the higher tax authority during the re-audit." Moreover, in October 2010, the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court once again clarified that a repeated on-site tax audit is inadmissible only if there are grounds to believe that its results may conflict with the factual circumstances previously established by the court and the evidence in the case that was not confirmed a judicial act revised in accordance with the established procedural procedure. If there are no such contradictions, then there are no contraindications for the appointment of a second revision. Moreover, the subject of control can be an assessment of the effectiveness of the initial check in terms of identifying violations tax legislation, as well as the conclusions made in the course of this check that there were no such violations.

A repeated on-site tax audit is an exclusive measure of tax control. The possibility of holding it, as conceived by the lawmakers, in itself should stimulate the inspectors in the field to properly relate to the performance of their official duties (if anything, then it is possible to remain without a bonus). Moreover, it was assumed that thereby the taxpayers would also have certain guarantees that they would not have to answer for the mistakes of the inspectors who carried out the initial check. Another thing is that life in this part makes its own adjustments. And in practice, a repeated check is often carried out only with the aim of making additional tax assessments. In general, as they say, they wanted the best, but it turned out ... It is also paradoxical that the higher tax authority first makes a decision on the taxpayer's complaint against the decision made following the results of the initial audit, and then ... appoints a second one. on-site check... With such an interesting scenario, what guarantees for taxpayers can we talk about?

1. GENERAL PROVISIONS
1.1. The personal data processing policy (hereinafter referred to as the Policy) was developed in
According to Federal law from 27.07.2006. № 152-ФЗ "On personal data" (hereinafter - ФЗ-152).
1.2. This Policy defines the procedure for the processing of personal data and measures to ensure the security of personal data in the Law Firm “Tax Advocates” LLC (hereinafter referred to as the Operator) in order to protect the rights and freedoms of a person and citizen when processing his personal data, including protecting the rights to privacy. life, personal and family secrets.
1.3. The Policy uses the following basic concepts:
- automated processing of personal data - processing of personal data using computer technology;
- blocking of personal data - temporary termination of the processing of personal data (except in cases where processing is necessary to clarify personal data);
- personal data information system - a set of personal data contained in databases and ensuring their processing information technologies and technical means;
- depersonalization of personal data - actions as a result of which it is impossible to determine, without the use of additional information, the belonging of personal data to a specific subject of personal data;
- processing of personal data - any action (operation) or a set of actions (operations) performed using automation tools or without using such tools with personal data, including collection, recording, systematization, accumulation, storage, clarification (update, change), extraction , use, transfer (distribution, provision, access), depersonalization, blocking, deletion, destruction of personal data;
- operator - a government agency, municipal authority, a legal entity or an individual, independently or jointly with other persons organizing and (or) carrying out the processing of personal data, as well as determining the purposes of processing personal data, the composition of personal data to be processed, actions (operations) performed with personal data;
- personal data - any information relating directly or indirectly to a specific or identifiable individual (subject of personal data);
- provision of personal data - actions aimed at disclosing personal data to a certain person or to a certain circle of persons;
- dissemination of personal data - actions aimed at disclosing personal data to an indefinite circle of persons (transfer of personal data) or to familiarize with the personal data of an unlimited number of persons, including the disclosure of personal data in the media, posting in information and telecommunication networks or providing access to personal data in any other way;
- cross-border transfer of personal data - the transfer of personal data to the territory of a foreign state to the authority of a foreign state, to a foreign individual or foreign legal entity.
- destruction of personal data - actions as a result of which it is impossible to restore the content of personal data in the information system of personal data and (or) the result of which is destroyed tangible media personal data;
1.4. The company is obliged to publish or otherwise provide unrestricted access to this Policy for the processing of personal data in accordance with Part 2 of Art. 18.1. FZ152.
2. PRINCIPLES AND CONDITIONS OF PERSONAL DATA PROCESSING
2.1. Principles of processing personal data
2.1.1. The processing of personal data by the Operator is carried out on the basis of the following principles:
- legality and fair basis;
- restrictions on the processing of personal data to achieve specific, predetermined and legitimate goals;
- preventing the processing of personal data that is incompatible with the purposes of collecting personal data;
- preventing the unification of databases containing personal data, the processing of which is carried out for purposes incompatible with each other;
- processing only those personal data that meet the purposes of their processing;
- compliance of the content and volume of processed personal data with the stated processing objectives;
- the inadmissibility of processing personal data that is redundant in relation to the stated purposes of their processing;
- ensuring the accuracy, sufficiency and relevance of personal data in relation to the purposes of processing personal data;
- destruction or depersonalization of personal data upon achievement of the goals of their processing or in case of loss of the need to achieve these goals, if the Operator cannot eliminate the violations of personal data, unless otherwise provided by federal law.
2.2. Personal data processing conditions
2.2.1. The operator processes personal data in the presence of at least one of following conditions:
- processing of personal data is carried out with the consent of the subject of personal data to the processing of his personal data;
- the processing of personal data is necessary for the administration of justice, the execution of a judicial act, an act of another body or official, subject to execution in accordance with the legislation Russian Federation about enforcement proceedings;
- the processing of personal data is necessary for the execution of an agreement to which the subject of personal data is either a party or a beneficiary or guarantor, as well as for concluding an agreement on the initiative of the subject of personal data or an agreement under which the subject of personal data will be a beneficiary or guarantor;
- the processing of personal data is necessary to exercise the rights and legitimate interests of the operator or third parties or to achieve socially significant goals, provided that this does not violate the rights and freedoms of the subject of personal data;
- processing of personal data is carried out, access of an unlimited number of persons to which is provided by the subject of personal data or at his request (hereinafter - publicly available personal data);
- processing of personal data subject to publication or mandatory disclosure in accordance with federal law.
2.3. Confidentiality of personal data
2.3.1. The operator and other persons who have gained access to personal data are obliged not to disclose to third parties and not to distribute personal data without the consent of the subject of personal data, unless otherwise provided by federal law.
2.4. Publicly available sources of personal data
2.4.1. In order to information support the Operator may create publicly available sources of personal data of personal data subjects, including directories and address books. With the written consent of the subject of personal data, publicly available sources of personal data may include his last name, first name, patronymic, date and place of birth, position, contact phone numbers, e-mail address and other personal data reported by the subject of personal data.
2.4.2. Information about the subject of personal data must at any time be excluded from publicly available sources of personal data at the request of the subject of personal data, an authorized body for the protection of the rights of subjects of personal data, or by a court decision.
2.5. Special categories of personal data
2.5.1. The processing by the Operator of special categories of personal data concerning race, nationality, political views, religious or philosophical beliefs, health status, intimate life is allowed in cases where:
- the subject of personal data has given his consent in writing to the processing of his personal data;
- personal data is made publicly available by the subject of personal data;
- the processing of personal data is carried out in accordance with the legislation on state social assistance, labor legislation, the legislation of the Russian Federation on state pensions pension provision, about labor pensions;
- the processing of personal data is necessary to protect the life, health or other vital interests of the subject of personal data or the life, health or other vital interests of others and it is impossible to obtain the consent of the subject of personal data;
- the processing of personal data is carried out for medical and preventive purposes, in order to establish a medical diagnosis, to provide medical and medical and social services, provided that the processing of personal data is carried out by a person who is professionally engaged in medical activities and is obliged in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation to maintain medical secrecy;
- processing of personal data is necessary to establish or exercise the rights of the subject of personal data or third parties, as well as in connection with the administration of justice;
- the processing of personal data is carried out in accordance with the legislation on compulsory types of insurance, with insurance legislation.
2.5.2. The processing of special categories of personal data, carried out in the cases provided for in paragraph 4 of Article 10 of FZ-152, should be immediately terminated if the reasons due to which they were processed are eliminated, unless otherwise provided by federal law.
2.5.3. The processing of personal data on criminal records can be carried out by the Operator only in cases and in the manner that are determined in accordance with federal laws.
2.6. Biometric personal data
2.6.1. Information that characterizes the physiological and biological characteristics of a person, on the basis of which it is possible to establish his identity - biometric personal data - can be processed by the Operator only with the consent of the subject of personal data in writing.
2.7. Ordering the processing of personal data to another person
2.7.1. The operator has the right to entrust the processing of personal data to another person with the consent of the subject of personal data, unless otherwise provided by federal law, on the basis of an agreement concluded with this person. The person who processes personal data on behalf of the Operator is obliged to comply with the principles and rules for processing personal data provided for by Federal Law 152 and this Policy.
2.8. Processing of personal data of citizens of the Russian Federation
2.8.1. In accordance with Article 2 of the Federal Law of July 21, 2014 N 242-FZ "On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation in terms of clarifying the procedure for processing personal data in information and telecommunication networks" when collecting personal data, including through information and telecommunication network "Internet", the operator is obliged to ensure the recording, systematization, accumulation, storage, clarification (update, change), extraction of personal data of citizens of the Russian Federation using databases located on the territory of the Russian Federation, except for the cases:
- the processing of personal data is necessary to achieve the goals provided for by an international treaty of the Russian Federation or by law, for the implementation and implementation of the functions, powers and duties imposed by the legislation of the Russian Federation on the operator;
- the processing of personal data is necessary for the administration of justice, the execution of a judicial act, an act of another body or official, subject to execution in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation on enforcement proceedings (hereinafter referred to as the execution of a judicial act);
- the processing of personal data is necessary for the execution of the powers of federal executive bodies, state bodies extrabudgetary funds, executive bodies of state power of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, local self-government bodies and the functions of organizations involved in the provision of state and municipal services, respectively, provided for by the Federal Law of July 27, 2010 N 210-FZ "On the organization of the provision of state and municipal services", including registration of the subject personal data on a single portal of state and municipal services and (or) regional portals of state and municipal services;
- processing of personal data is necessary for the implementation of the professional activity of a journalist and (or) the legitimate activity of the mass media or scientific, literary or other creative activity, provided that this does not violate the rights and legitimate interests of the subject of personal data.
2.9. Cross-border transfer of personal data
2.9.1. The operator is obliged to make sure that the foreign state, to the territory of which the transfer of personal data is supposed to be carried out, provides adequate protection of the rights of subjects of personal data, prior to the commencement of such transfer.
2.9.2. Cross-border transfer of personal data on the territory of foreign states that do not provide adequate protection of the rights of subjects of personal data can be carried out in the following cases:
- availability of written consent of the subject of personal data for the cross-border transfer of his personal data;
- execution of a contract to which the subject of personal data is a party.
3. RIGHTS OF THE PERSONAL DATA SUBJECT
3.1. Consent of the subject of personal data to the processing of his personal
3.1.1. The subject of personal data decides on the provision of his personal data and agrees to their processing freely, of his own free will and in his interest. Consent to the processing of personal data can be given by the subject of personal data or his representative in any form that allows to confirm the fact of its receipt, unless otherwise provided by federal law.
3.2. Rights of the subject of personal data
3.2.1. The subject of personal data has the right to receive information from the Operator regarding the processing of his personal data, if such a right is not limited in accordance with federal laws. The subject of personal data has the right to demand that the Operator clarify his personal data, block or destroy them if the personal data is incomplete, outdated, inaccurate, illegally obtained or not necessary for the stated purpose of processing, as well as take measures provided for by law to protect their rights ...
3.2.2. The processing of personal data in order to promote goods, works, services on the market by making direct contacts with the subject of personal data (potential consumer) using communication means, as well as for the purposes of political campaigning, is allowed only with the prior consent of the subject of personal data.
3.2.3. The operator is obliged to immediately stop, at the request of the subject of personal data, the processing of his personal data for the above purposes.
3.2.4. Acceptance on the sole basis of automated processing personal data decisions that give rise to legal consequences in relation to the subject of personal data or otherwise affecting his rights and legitimate interests, with the exception of cases provided for by federal laws, or with the consent in writing of the subject of personal data.
3.2.5. If the subject of personal data believes that the Operator is processing his personal data in violation of the requirements of FZ-152 or otherwise violates his rights and freedoms, the subject of personal data has the right to appeal against the actions or inaction of the Operator to the Authorized body for the protection of the rights of subjects of personal data or in court ...
3.2.6. The subject of personal data has the right to protect his rights and legitimate interests, including compensation for damages and (or) compensation for moral damage.
4. ENSURING THE SECURITY OF PERSONAL DATA
4.1. The security of personal data processed by the Operator is ensured by the implementation of legal, organizational and technical measures necessary to meet the requirements of federal legislation in the field of personal data protection.
4.2. To prevent unauthorized access to personal data, the Operator applies the following organizational and technical measures:
- appointment of officials responsible for organizing the processing and protection of personal data;
- limiting the composition of persons admitted to the processing of personal data;
- familiarization of subjects with the requirements of federal legislation and normative documents Operator for the processing and protection of personal data;
- organization of accounting, storage and circulation of media containing information with personal data;
- identification of threats to the security of personal data during their processing, the formation of threat models on their basis;
- development of a personal data protection system based on the threat model;
- use of information security tools that have passed the procedure for assessing compliance with the requirements of the legislation of the Russian Federation in the field of information security, in the case when the use of such means is necessary to neutralize current threats;
- checking the readiness and effectiveness of the use of information security tools;
- differentiation of user access to information resources and software and hardware for information processing;
- registration and accounting of user actions information systems personal data;
- use of anti-virus tools and means of restoring the personal data protection system;
- the use of firewalling, intrusion detection, security analysis and cryptographic information protection means, if necessary;
- organization of access control to the territory of the Operator, protection of premises with technical means for processing personal data.
5. FINAL PROVISIONS
5.1. Other rights and obligations of the Operator in connection with the processing of personal data are determined by the legislation of the Russian Federation in the field of personal data.
5.2. Operator's employees guilty of violating the rules governing the processing and protection of personal data bear material, disciplinary, administrative, civil or criminal liability in the manner prescribed by federal laws.

Hello! In this article, we will talk about a tax re-audit.

Today you will learn:

1. How the repeated NP differs from the office and primary NP;
2. Under what conditions can a repeated NP be carried out;
3. What factors affect the arrival of the tax.

A re-tax audit is carried out only for those taxes and periods that have already been audited as part of a regular on-site audit. The rule of two checks per year is no longer valid here - there can be as many as you like. So if the tax authorities have already been to your office twice in the current year, you are not insured against additional visits.

A consoling circumstance is the fact that the inspection has only two grounds for repeated checks. These points are disclosed in detail by Article 89 of the Tax Code.

Possible grounds for a repeated tax audit

The head of a higher tax authority may decide to check how well the representatives of the local tax authority have worked. Such measures help prevent collusion between auditors and auditees.

It is important to understand that no one will choose you unreasonably - and if the choice fell on you, then the tax authorities have questions about the legality of your transactions.

The regional inspectorate checks the local

For such a check, certain rules apply, which must be strictly followed by the inspection, otherwise the visit will violate your rights as:

• The commission may include inspectors from the local inspectorate of the Federal Tax Service, but it cannot be composed entirely of “local” ones. Otherwise, the whole meaning and legitimacy of such a check is lost;
• The period that can be checked again is limited to three calendar years. Inspectors have no right to request documents that are four years old or more. For example, if the repeated GNP is held in 2018, the commission may review documents for 2017, 2016 and 2015. For 2014 the documents are considered “closed”;
• You cannot be fined if errors and arrears are found. After a thorough audit, tax authorities may find discrepancies, you may be charged additional tax, but penalties are applicable only if the information was hidden due to collusion with the first inspectors;
• The decision on the first check was contested in court. In this case, new decisions as a result of repeated GNP should not contradict the court order.

You have submitted an updated tax reduction declaration

It is possible that for a certain period the tax authority has already spent your GNP, and you have submitted a revision for an already checked period. In this case, the tax authorities have the right to come to you with a repeated GNP.

This type of check also has its own characteristics:

• In such a declaration, the amount of tax is less than in the primary one. In addition, the tax office will want to check you if in the revision you declared a larger loss than you originally had;
• The verification period is not limited to three recent years... If your return is for a period outside this time range, the tax office has the right to check it;
• You can check only those data that have been corrected. All information not related to this will not be considered. For example, you had a GNP for 2016. You later brought it to the tax office where you stated additional expense... Then the visiting inspection will study the documents only for this expense;
• If along the way the tax office finds any errors in a document that is not related to your adjustment, they are not entitled to change their decision on this data;
• You may have a court decision on the first check. This will not prevent the tax authorities from coming for a second visit, but they, as in cases with a check from a higher inspectorate of the Federal Tax Service, cannot overestimate the judicial conclusions and change tax burden to the enterprise.

For example, the tax authorities did not recognize your expenses for one of the suppliers, citing the unreality of the transaction with him. You challenged this decision in court. Later, you submit a revised declaration, where you declare even higher costs for the transaction with this counterparty.

In this case, the commission will come with a second check only for increased costs. The issue of the invalidity of the transaction will no longer be considered.

It is important to know that you can avoid repeated GNP, even if you have passed the revision for reduction tax base... This is possible if you noticed an error and corrected it while it was still detected.

You have a liquidation or reorganization

Tax inspections in these circumstances are completely repeated in terms of the powers of the inspectors and the procedure for conducting them. Of particular interest to the inspection is the fact of the merger of an unprofitable and prosperous company. With the confusion that occurs during the reshaping of organizations, it is very easy to hide part of the profit in the connecting balance sheet and evade taxes.

Whatever the reason for the arrival of the inspectors, it is your responsibility to facilitate the inspection. This is expressed in the timely (within ten days) submission of the requested documents.

The tax office has the right to ask you:

• Documents that you have already submitted to the inspection in the form of an original, but then they were returned to the organization;
• Papers that you once provided during previous inspections, but which were lost by the tax authorities in connection with force majeure;
• Other documents, related activities enterprises.

It should be remembered that the inspection does not have the right to carry out another cameral check on the same data - it does not exist, just as the concept itself does not exist.

With regard to retests, you have the right to challenge the review decision, although it is considered that you have little chance of doing so.

Cameral and field tax audits

According to Russian laws, legal and individuals are obliged to pay taxes on their business activities. Before paying independently calculated amounts, companies submit declarations and calculations to the local tax authority, in which the funds to be paid to the budget are registered and documented.

From the moment the taxpayer submits documents to the tax authority, a mandatory period begins office check when specialists check the correctness of your calculations without leaving their institution.

For some reason, the tax authority decides to come to your company and independently review your statements - that is, to make the so-called GNP – on-site tax audit. For example, if she suspects that you are evading taxes by falsifying some data.

In some cases, the Federal Tax Service Inspectorate has the right to come to you again. It is no longer a question of a simple GNP, but of a repeated one.

comparison table distinctive features tax audits:

How to know if there will be a repeat onsite check

Accountants dislike on-site audits largely because there are no clear criteria for her appointment. The taxpayer's uncertainty about its implementation helps the tax authorities instill additional fear. This is justified, since in the end this approach helps the Inspectorate of the Federal Tax Service to keep the company "in good shape" - that's why the pike is in the sea so that the crucian carp does not sleep.

Like any organization, the IFTS strives to reduce the cost of its maintenance. Numerous GNPs are unprofitable for it, since the costs of the work of inspectors will not justify themselves. They will come to you again not for prophylaxis, but only if they have good reason for it.

We can only talk about a greater or lesser proportion of the likelihood of their arrival. In the previous paragraphs, we have listed the conditions when the tax office can come, but is not obliged at all.

You should pay attention to the following characteristics that affect the arrival of inspectors:

• You are a small fish... As a rule, the tax authorities do not waste their time where they do not expect to “hit the jackpot”. Even if the costs in your revision are overestimated in comparison with the initial declaration, the arrival of the inspection is unlikely if the amounts differ slightly or, in general, we are talking about not very big money;
• You have submitted a clarification not on a declaration, but only on advance payments... Such calculations are not equivalent to declarations, and if you find an error and change the data in such a way that it led to a tax reduction, the tax office will not come to you with a second check;
• Even if yours or is reorganized, this does not always automatically mean a return visit to the tax... If you have a clean history and, in general, the structure has no complaints about you, there may not be a second check;
• You are at risk if your company tends to change frequently legal address, including through the merger procedure. Such an organization raises suspicions, since there is a desire to attach to the new IFTS to hide data;
• You are also at risk if you merge with a company that is on the verge of... Or, on the contrary, you yourself are such an organization.

Experts advise not to rush to pay the fines accrued during the initial on-site inspections. If you feel right or the issue is very controversial, it is worth investing in a lawyer and trying to win the dispute.

If you are willing to pay all fines “just to be behind”, the tax authorities will suspect that not all of your income is “white”.

The decision to conduct an on-site tax audit of an organization that received the status of a participant in a project to carry out research, development and commercialization of their results in accordance with the Federal Law "On the Skolkovo Innovation Center" or a project participant in accordance with Federal Law No. 216-FZ of July 29, 2017 "On innovative scientific and technological centers and on amendments to certain legislative acts of the Russian Federation" is issued by the tax authority in which this organization is registered.

An independent field tax audit of a branch or representative office is carried out on the basis of a decision of the tax authority at the location of such a separate subdivision.

The decision to conduct an on-site tax audit must contain the following information:

full and abbreviated name or surname, name, patronymic of the taxpayer;

the subject of the audit, that is, taxes, the correctness of the calculation and payment of which is subject to verification;

The periods for which the check is carried out;

Positions, surnames and initials of the tax authority employees entrusted with the audit.

(see text in previous edition)

If the taxpayer submits an updated tax return within the framework of the relevant on-site tax audit, the period for which the revised tax return is submitted is checked.

5. The tax authorities are not entitled to conduct two or more field tax audits for the same taxes for the same period.

Tax authorities are not entitled to conduct more than two field tax audits in respect of one taxpayer during a calendar year, except for cases when the head of the federal executive body authorized to control and supervise taxes and fees makes a decision on the need to conduct an on-site tax audit of a taxpayer in excess of the specified restrictions.

When determining the number of field tax audits of a taxpayer, the number of independent field tax audits of its branches and representative offices is not taken into account.

5.1. Tax authorities are not entitled to conduct field tax audits for the period for which tax monitoring is carried out in relation to taxes, the obligation to calculate and pay which, in accordance with this Code, is imposed on the taxpayer, except for the following cases:

1) conducting an on-site tax audit by a higher tax authority - in order to control the activities of the tax authority that conducted tax monitoring;

2) early termination tax monitoring;

3) failure by the taxpayer to comply with the reasoned opinion of the tax authority.

In the event of an on-site tax audit on the grounds specified in this subparagraph, the subject of the on-site tax audit is the correctness of calculation and the timeliness of payment of taxes in accordance with a reasoned opinion;

4) submission by the taxpayer of an updated tax declaration (calculation) for the period of tax monitoring, in which the amount of tax payable in budget system Russian Federation, in comparison with the previously submitted tax return (calculation).

5.2. As part of an on-site tax audit international company registered in accordance with the Federal Law of August 3, 2018 N 290-FZ "On International Companies", the periods preceding the registration of such a company in the Russian Federation as an international company cannot be verified, with the exception of on-site tax audits in relation to separate subdivisions foreign organizations registered on the territory of the Russian Federation before the date of registration of such organizations as international companies.

6. An on-site tax audit cannot last more than two months. The specified period can be extended up to four months, and in exceptional cases - up to six months.

The grounds and procedure for extending the term for conducting an on-site tax audit are established federal body executive power, authorized to control and supervise in the field of taxes and fees.

7. As part of an on-site tax audit, the tax authority has the right to audit the activities of the branches and representative offices of the taxpayer.

The tax authority has the right to conduct an independent field tax audit of branches and representative offices on the issues of correctness of calculation and timeliness of payment of regional and (or) local taxes.

A tax authority conducting an independent field inspection of branches and representative offices is not entitled to conduct two or more field tax audits in relation to a branch or representative office for the same taxes for the same period.

The tax authority is not entitled to conduct more than two field tax audits in relation to one branch or representative office of a taxpayer during one calendar year.

When conducting an independent field tax audit of branches and representative offices of a taxpayer, the audit period may not exceed one month.

7.1. As part of an on-site tax audit, the tax authority has the right to check the activities of the taxpayer related to his participation in the investment partnership agreement, as well as request from the participants of the investment partnership agreement the information necessary for conducting an on-site tax audit, in the manner prescribed by Article 93.1 of this Code.

In the event that an on-site tax audit is carried out in relation to a taxpayer who is not a managing partner responsible for maintaining tax accounting(hereinafter referred to as the managing partner), the requirement to submit documents and (or) information related to his participation in the investment partnership agreement is sent to the managing partner. If the managing partner has not submitted documents and (or) information within the prescribed period, the requirement to submit documents and (or) information related to the participation of the audited taxpayer in the investment partnership may be sent to other participants in the investment partnership agreement.

9. The head (deputy head) of the tax authority has the right to suspend the on-site tax audit for:

2) obtaining information from foreign government agencies within the framework of international treaties of the Russian Federation;

4) translation into Russian of documents submitted by the taxpayer in a foreign language.

Suspension of an on-site tax audit on the basis specified in subparagraph 1 of this paragraph is allowed no more than once for each person from whom documents are requested.

Suspension and resumption of an on-site tax audit shall be formalized by the appropriate decision of the head (deputy head) of the tax authority conducting the said audit.

The total period of suspension of the on-site tax audit cannot exceed six months. If the audit was suspended on the grounds specified in subparagraph 2 of this paragraph, and within six months the tax authority was unable to receive the requested information from foreign state bodies within the framework of international treaties of the Russian Federation, the period for suspending the said audit may be increased by three months ...

For the period of validity of the suspension of the on-site tax audit, the actions of the tax authority on requesting documents from the taxpayer are suspended, to which in this case all originals requested during the audit, with the exception of documents obtained during the seizure, are suspended, and the actions of the tax authority on the territory are suspended. (in the premises) of the taxpayer related to the specified audit.

10. A repeated field tax audit of a taxpayer is a field tax audit conducted regardless of the time of the previous audit for the same taxes and for the same period.

When appointing a repeated field tax audit, the restrictions specified in paragraph 5 of this article shall not apply.

When conducting a repeated field tax audit, a period not exceeding three calendar years preceding the year in which the decision was made to conduct a repeated field tax audit may be checked.

A repeated field tax audit of a taxpayer can be carried out:

1) by a higher tax authority - in order to control the activities of the tax authority that conducted the audit;

2) the tax authority that previously conducted the audit, on the basis of the decision of its head (deputy head) - if the taxpayer submits a revised tax return, which indicates the amount of tax in an amount less than previously declared. The subject of such a repeated field tax audit is the correctness of the tax calculation based on the changed indicators of the revised tax return, which entailed a decrease in the previously calculated tax amount (increased loss).

(see text in previous edition)

If during the repeated field tax audit it is revealed that the taxpayer has committed a tax offense that was not revealed during the initial field tax audit, the taxpayer shall not be applied tax sanctions, except for cases where the failure to identify the fact of a tax offense during the initial tax audit was the result of an agreement between the taxpayer and an official of the tax authority.

There are situations when the IFTS needs to conduct a repeated tax audit. It is important for the manager and accountant of the organization to understand the reasons that gave rise to this audit, the procedure for conducting the audit and legal aspects, knowledge of which may allow to challenge the results obtained during the audit. In the article we will tell you in what cases a repeated tax audit is carried out, we will consider its procedure.

When is the next tax audit carried out?

A repeated tax audit is carried out in those companies where the audit has already been carried out. According to paragraph 10 of Art. 89 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, a repeated tax audit can be carried out at any time, regardless of the time of the first audit, but a prerequisite is an:

• checking the same taxes;
• checking the same tax period.

Who conducts a re-tax audit

In accordance with paragraph 10 of Art. 89 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, a repeated tax audit can be carried out by various authorities and for different reasons:

What is the subject of a re-tax audit?

The subject of a repeated tax audit is the organization's activities for the period that has already been audited. During the audit, a reassessment of the conclusions obtained during the initial audit is not ruled out, the drawing up of a new jurisdictional act, which will reflect the arrears on taxes and penalties received during the audit (Resolution Constitutional Court Of the Russian Federation dated March 17, 2009 No. 5-P).

What period is covered by re-verification

A repeated tax audit may cover different periods, depending on the situation (Article 89 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation):

Example 1. LLC "ABV" in 2016 received a letter from the Inspectorate of the Federal Tax Service with a Resolution on the conduct of a repeated tax audit. Thus, on the basis of the decision, the tax authority has the right to audit the organization for the period from 2013 to 2015. Periods prior to 2013 cannot be subject to tax audit.

Algorithm for a repeated tax audit

A repeated tax audit is carried out only on the basis of the Decision to conduct this audit. The suddenness of a repeated tax audit is excluded! When conducting a repeated tax audit, the following procedure is possible:

Re-tax audit after challenging the initial audit

Example 2. LLC "ABV" challenged in court the result of the audit, where the IFTS made a decision to exclude the counterparty LLC "GDE" from the transaction and declare the transaction illegal with the imposition of appropriate penalties. The court ruled on the legality of the transaction. Thus, when re-checking, the duty of the Federal Tax Service Inspectorate is to revise this situation, taking into account the court order.

The reason for making a decision that contradicts the decision of the court may be the circumstances revealed during the inspection, which were not investigated by the court and, accordingly, did not receive a proper judicial assessment.

Sanctions applied to an organization after a repeated tax audit

According to paragraph 10 of Art. 89 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation during a repeated tax audit, sanctions may or may not be applied:

Heading "Questions and Answers"

Question number 1. During the repeated tax audit, the inspector asked us for the originals of the documents, although we provided all copies. Is it legal?

Question number 2. During the repeated tax audit, the IFTS requested the provision of documents, the presence of which in this moment we are not able to organize. What can we do in this case?

According to paragraph 3 of Art. 93 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, the provision of the necessary documents must be carried out within 10 days from the date of receipt of the corresponding request.

If for some reason the provision of documents is not possible, it is necessary to notify the tax authority in writing about the impossibility of providing Required documents within the specified time frame, indicating the reasons why the required documents cannot be provided. In this same notification, it is necessary to indicate the time frame during which the inspected person can provide the requested documents.

Question number 3. We had a second tax audit, but I disagree with the results. What can I do?

At the same time, the person in respect of whom the tax audit (his representative) was carried out has the right to attach to the written objections or, within the agreed period, submit to the tax authority documents (their certified copies) confirming the validity of their objections. "