Subsidy for lost income. The municipality will compensate for lost revenues Lost revenues in a budget institution example

Question: We were given a subsidy for “lost income.” Lost revenue is the difference between approved tariffs and actual revenue. Is it possible and is there any judicial practice in this regard, this subsidy should not be reflected in other income but in line 2 of form (report on financial results) called "revenue". i.e. revenue from core activities? the minus of this enterprise will not coincide with the base for accrual of VAT; the letters write that in this case there is no base for VAT. In what case should we pay VAT then? I need information in what cases. If you mentioned this, then tell me, based on regulatory documentation, which

Answer:

Debit 51 Credit 76

Debit 76 Credit 90-1

On the issue of taxation

Do not include subsidies for compensation of lost (lost) income due to state regulated prices or preferential tariffs in the VAT base. Such subsidies are not related to payment for goods. And in other cases, the state’s reimbursement of the organization’s lost income is recognized as a sales fee. In these cases, you will pay VAT on the subsidy. This follows from paragraph 2 of Article 154, subparagraph 2 of paragraph 1 of Article 162 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation. Similar clarifications are in letters of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated May 18, 2016 No. 03-07-11/28466, Federal Tax Service of Russia dated April 29, 2016 No. SD-4-3/7921, dated March 3, 2016 No. SD-4-3/3531.

Rationale

In accounting and taxation, include the amount of the subsidy received in income.

The organization receives this subsidy from the budget on a free and irrevocable basis. By its purpose, this is compensation for lost income (losses in income) in connection with the sale of goods (work, services).

Accounting

Debit 51 Credit 76
– the receipt of funds to finance the shortfall (lost) income is reflected;

Debit 76 Credit 90-1
– the lost portion of the proceeds from the sale of goods (works, services) is reflected in the amount of the budget debt for the provision of subsidies.

Income tax

Debit 51 Credit 76

Debit 76 Credit 90-1

Some enterprises have the right to receive subsidies from the budgets of the budgetary system of the Russian Federation. Such funds may be allocated, for example, in order to compensate an enterprise for income lost due to the latter’s application of state-regulated prices for services provided to preferential categories of citizens. However, the procedure for accounting for budgetary funds for accounting and tax accounting is not directly stated in any of the regulations governing these areas. Which, accordingly, raises the question of how and at what point these budget funds should be taken into account. We invite you to analyze this and many other issues together.

What is lost income?

The policy of the state is such that it seeks to shift to citizens the entire burden of costs for the services they receive. At the same time, realizing that this burden for many citizens will be unbearable, the state (including in order to limit the appetites of monopolists - service providers) introduces restrictions on the increase in prices and tariffs for certain types of goods and services. In particular, the possibility of state regulation of prices is established in paragraph 1 of Art. 424 Civil Code of the Russian Federation. At the same time, the very foundations of state regulation are laid down in Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of February 28, 1995 N 221, Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation N 239 and a number of federal laws.

In other words, receiving subsidies from the budgets of the budgetary system of the Russian Federation allows enterprises to restrain the growth of retail prices for certain consumer goods and services controlled by the state, since part of the cost of these goods (services) is paid from budgetary funds.

Currently, there are several ways to implement state price regulation, but we are interested in only one of them - establishing benefits for certain categories of consumers. In such a situation, an enterprise that sells services at reduced tariffs (prices) often does not cover the costs of production and supply of services. As a result, so-called lost income is formed, which is compensated by the state (represented by the constituent entities of the Russian Federation or municipalities). By the way, the current legislation does not directly establish the unconditional obligation of the state to compensate enterprises for lost income in in full. In arbitration practice, there are many decisions from which it follows that disputes arise not only because of the amount of amounts to be reimbursed, but also because of the very obligation to compensate for outstanding expenses (see resolutions of the FAS UO dated December 13, 2013 N F09-12420/13, FAS MO dated November 8, 2013 N A40-155306/12-55-1420, FAS Eastern Military District dated December 16, 2013 N A29-3869/2011).

Note that there is no normative definition of the concept of “lost income” in relation to the situation under consideration. Nevertheless, this circumstance does not prevent participants in these legal relations from actively using it, including in regulatory documents (see, for example, Order of the Government of the Russian Federation dated April 3, 2013 N 511-r). Obviously, lost income should be understood as those losses incurred by an enterprise as a result of providing services to preferential categories of citizens, which will subsequently be compensated by the state.

Using a specific example

The motor transport company sold travel tickets in March 2014, including social travel tickets, which give the right to free travel to certain categories of citizens.

Revenue for the specified period amounted to 5,500,000 rubles, expenses - 5,900,000 rubles.

The amount of lost income resulting from the sale of social travel tickets by the enterprise amounted to 250,000 rubles.

The manager of budget funds - the local government - on May 12, 2014, decided to reimburse only part of the said amount from the local budget (we do not undertake to assess for what reasons), and in the same month (05/22/2014) 200,000 rubles were credited to the enterprise’s account.

How should these business transactions be reflected in accounting?

Accounting legislation...

...does not contain any special instructions in this regard.

Let us immediately make a reservation that the rules established by PBU 13/2000 “Accounting for State Aid” do not apply in this case. By virtue of clause 3, the said accounting standard does not apply to economic benefits associated with government regulation of prices and tariffs.

Accounting for the receipt of subsidies received in order to compensate for lost income generated due to the use of state-regulated prices is carried out in accordance with the generally established procedure. That is, income related to the provision of services must be reflected by the motor transport enterprise according to the rules established by PBU 9/99 “Income of the organization”.

In this case, revenue is accepted for accounting in an amount calculated in monetary terms and equal to the amount of receipt cash and other property or the amount of receivables, that is, regardless of its actual receipt. The amount of revenue is determined based on the price and conditions established by the agreement between the organization and its counterparty, and in no way depends on other circumstances (clause 6, 6.1 of PBU 9/99).

Regarding budget funds allocated to compensate for lost income, it is necessary to clarify the following.

These funds cannot be considered as targeted financing, since in terms of their economic content they are part of the income (economic benefit) received by an economic entity from the sale of services. The above is consistent with the legal position reflected in the Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated March 2, 2010 N 15187/09.

At the same time, it is not worth including in revenue as of March 31, 2014 the lost amount of income (in our case, 250,000 rubles), since this contradicts the principles of income recognition established in clause 12 of PBU 9/99. According to this paragraph, the amount of income must simultaneously meet the following conditions:

Its size can be reliably determined;

There is confidence in increasing the economic benefits of the enterprise.

There are no difficulties in determining the amount of lost income in this situation. The same cannot be said about the second criterion - about confidence: as a rule, it appears only after the manager of budget funds makes an appropriate decision.

The budget compensation under consideration should be qualified as other income, that is, in accordance with clause 7 of PBU 9/99. Such income must be recognized in the reporting period when the manager of budget funds makes a decision on compensation for lost income. In other words, at the moment when the enterprise has confidence in receiving the specified funds.

Recognition of these amounts at the time of provision of services, if there is no certainty of their further compensation from the budget, in the author’s opinion, will lead to distortion of financial statements.

Thus, the following entries must be made in the accounting of the enterprise:

			Amount, rub.
31.03.2014
Reflects revenue from the sale of services (including the sale of travel tickets)*
The cost of services sold is reflected
The amount of the received loss is reflected
12.05.2014
Income is recognized in the form of an amount due for reimbursement from the budget
22.05.2014
Funds received from the budget to compensate for lost income
* Issues related to VAT calculations are not considered in the example.

Tax accounting

Chapter 25 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation does not contain clear instructions on the procedure for recognizing subsidies received by taxpayers in order to compensate for lost income as income. In other words, the provisions of this chapter do not resolve two issues:

On the very possibility of recognizing the subsidies in question as income taken into account when taxing profits;

On the qualification of the specified income (non-operating or sales income). The date of recognition of income depends on this: either at the time of sale of services, or at the time of actual receipt of funds from the budget. This nuance in the context of the subsidies under consideration is important, since their transfer to the direct executor occurs after the fact and not always in full.

But in ch. 25 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation contains a norm that formally allows excluding from income when determining the taxable base any budgetary funds for income tax, if we consider them as funds for targeted financing (clause 14, clause 1, article 251). The key words here are budget funds and targeted funding. After all, there is no doubt that these funds were received from the budget, just as there is no doubt that all budget funds are allocated for specific purposes.

Guided by this norm, taxpayers often made attempts to minimize their tax obligations in the event of receiving budget funds allocated to compensate for income lost due to the use of state-regulated prices and tariffs. And the arbitrators supported them (see, for example, Resolution of the FAS Moscow Region dated March 16, 2009 N KA-A40/1547-09).

The tax inspectors were not happy with this situation (for obvious reasons). So…

…is there taxable income in this situation?

In the dispute considered in the Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated March 2, 2010 N 15187/09, the controllers finally took revenge - and what kind of revenge! They were able to convince senior arbitrators that budget funds received by the taxpayer in order to compensate for income lost due to the use of state-regulated prices for services provided to preferential categories of citizens should be recognized as income taken into account when calculating income tax.

After the publication of the aforementioned judicial act (as well as the Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated May 31, 2011 N 16814/10, containing a similar conclusion), taxpayers had practically no chance to save on income tax in such a situation. Typical example- Resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service UO dated June 25, 2013 N F09-5589/13.

But having resolved one of the issues raised, the tax department was in no hurry to stop there.

…at what point should revenue be recognized?

Controllers began to insist that funds received as compensation for lost income should be taken into account at the time the service is provided, that is, regardless of the actual receipt of funds by the taxpayer.

In a word, the tax authorities qualified the analyzed amounts exclusively as income from sales, that is, in strict accordance with the position of the highest arbiters from Resolution N 15187/09: such funds, in their economic content, are part of the income (economic benefit) received by the taxpayer from the sale of services.

The arbitrators agreed with them. For example, in the Resolution of the FAS UO dated June 25, 2013 N F09-5589/13 on this issue, the following is noted. The receipt by a taxpayer of subsidies from the budget later than the date of sale of transportation services to consumers at preferential prices is not a basis for including these funds in the taxpayer’s income during the period of their receipt. Chapter 25 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation does not provide for this when a taxpayer uses the accrual method (see also Resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Eastern Military District dated April 18, 2013 N A38-223/2010).

Although the Ministry of Finance, in letters dated October 16, 2008 N 03-03-06/1/590, dated February 15, 2008 N 03-03-06/1/99, explained that the funds received by organizations from the relevant budget to cover the amounts of excess expenses over income in connection with the provision of services to preferential categories of citizens, for tax purposes, profits should be taken into account as part of non-operating income.

The controversial situation was resolved thanks to the Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated December 10, 2013 N 10159/13, which, in our opinion, provides a comprehensive answer to the question of at what point should budget funds allocated be recognized as income taken into account when taxing profits to compensate for lost income.

Here are the main points:

1. Based on the provisions of Art. 41, 247 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, the basis for the emergence of a taxable base for income tax is the receipt of income that can be assessed and the moment of recognition of which is established by Art. 271 Tax Code of the Russian Federation.

2. At the time the service is provided, the taxpayer cannot determine the amount of compensation for lost income, which will ultimately be made by the corresponding budget in voluntarily or by court decision.

3. The lost amount of income, which was not compensated by the corresponding budget, is subject to recovery as damages from a public legal entity on the basis of Art. 16 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.

Let us add that the last thesis is based on the legal position set out in paragraph 16 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated June 22, 2006 N 23. In cases where public law education in legal acts adopted for the purpose of implementing laws that established benefits provides for the following compensation for payment not received from consumers; failure to fulfill this obligation to compensate entails losses for the person who provided services at preferential prices or without receiving payment from the consumer.

The final verdict of the highest arbiters is as follows: despite the production nature of the taxpayer’s activities, the moment of recognition of income in the form of compensation received from the budget must be determined according to the rules established by paragraphs. 4 p. 4 art. 271 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation for recognizing expenses in the form of amounts of compensation for losses: this is the date of recognition of the debt by the debtor or the entry into force of a court decision.

But let's return to our example. If we take into account the above conclusions of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court, which will obviously be used in the future (by both taxpayers and tax inspectors), it turns out that a motor transport enterprise bears minimal risk if:

When calculating income tax for the first quarter of 2014, the amount of lost income will not be included in taxable income - 250,000 rubles;

When calculating income tax for the second quarter of 2014, as part of non-operating income, only the amount actually received from the budget in the amount of 200,000 rubles will be taken into account.

* * *

Let's summarize. Budgetary funds allocated to an economic entity as compensation for lost income generated as a result of its application of state-regulated prices and tariffs for the sale of goods (work, services) to preferential categories of citizens are not targeted financing funds. In accounting they are reflected according to general rules, in accordance with the requirements of PBU 9/99. For profit tax purposes, these amounts are recognized as non-operating income and are taken into account in the taxable base as they are actually received from the budget.

In accordance with the letters from the Russian Ministry of Finance given below, the subsidy for compensation of lost income is not non-operating income, regardless of its VAT taxation, but refers to sales revenue.

As for the VAT taxation of the subsidy amount, this issue is controversial due to the contradiction inherent in the norms of Chapter. 21 Tax Code of the Russian Federation. The Russian Federal Tax Service believes that such a subsidy is not subject to VAT, while the Russian Ministry of Finance expresses the opposite opinion. You can read about this in the collection below. Due to the presence of two opposing points of view from regulatory agencies, risks certainly exist. The non-inclusion of the subsidy in the VAT tax base is consistent with the point of view of the Federal Tax Service of Russia, but contradicts the legal position expressed by the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation, which makes the development of the situation unpredictable in the event of a legal dispute. Therefore, in our opinion, it is safer for you to clarify this issue with your tax office and be sure to submit an official request to the Russian Ministry of Finance. An explanation received from the Russian Ministry of Finance, addressed personally to your organization, exempts you from tax liability.

Rationale

1. From Letter of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated June 10, 2015 N 03-03-05/33757

“Subsidies received by commercial organizations in order to reimburse costs or lost income in connection with the production (sale) of goods, performance of work, provision of services are not mentioned in Article 251 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, and therefore are taken into account when determining the tax base for corporate income tax in the generally established manner *.”

2. From LETTER OF THE RUSSIAN MINISTRY OF FINANCE dated July 27, 2012 No. 03-03-06/4/80

"Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court Russian Federation in paragraph 1 of Information Letter No. 98 dated December 22, 2005 “Review of the practice of resolving cases by arbitration courts related to the application of certain provisions of Chapter 25 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation” indicated that the funds received by the organization from a public legal entity in connection with the sale of services under regulated tariffs, as well as in connection with the reimbursement of unpaid fees for services provided to preferential categories of citizens free of charge or at preferential prices as part of the implementation of benefits established by law, in their economic content they represent part of the revenue for the services provided.

A similar conclusion is contained in the Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated March 2, 2010 No. 15187/09.”

How can a management company take budget funds into account when calculating income tax? Subsidies are allocated in connection with the provision of utility services, taking into account benefits for certain categories of consumers

Budget funds should be included in sales income (clause 2 of Article 249 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation).

Subsidies from the budget cannot be classified as targeted financing. This follows from subparagraph 14 of paragraph 1, paragraph 2 of Article 251 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation and paragraph 1 of the review approved by the information letter of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated December 22, 2005 No. 98.

Revenue from the sale of utilities management company reflected as part of income from sales (Article 249 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation). And sales revenue must be determined based on all revenues related to the provision of services (clause 2 of Article 249 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation). In this situation, budget subsidies are directly related to the provision of public services. Therefore, they must be recognized as income from sales.

4. From LETTER OF THE FTS OF RUSSIA dated September 23, 2011 No. ED-4-3/15677

“In accordance with paragraph 3 of Article 154 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, the amounts of subsidies provided by the budgets of the budget system of the Russian Federation in connection with the use by the taxpayer of state regulated prices, or benefits provided to individual consumers in accordance with the law, are not taken into account when determining the tax base.

Thus, this norm does not specify what the subsidy is allocated for: to cover losses or the difference between the selling price and the regulated price. Therefore, we believe that budget funds received in connection with the use of state regulated prices or benefits provided to individual consumers in accordance with the law should not be subject to VAT.

However, in a number of explanations, experts are guided by the position of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation (clause 1 of the Review of the practice of resolving cases by arbitration courts related to the application of certain provisions of Chapter 25 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, attached to the information letter of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated December 22, 2005 No. 98), according to which reimbursement from the budget represents part of the revenue for services rendered and brings income (economic benefit) to the organization.

In addition, according to letters of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated 09/06/2007 No. 03-07-11/389, dated 08/27/2007 No. 03-07-11/355, dated 07/24/2007 No. 03-07-11/259, if funds are allocated from the budget to pay for services provided to the privileged category of citizens, such amounts, according to specialists from the Russian Ministry of Finance, are recognized as amounts received to increase income and on the basis of paragraph 2 of paragraph 1 of Article 162 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation are subject to VAT. A similar opinion was expressed by tax department specialists in a letter from the Federal Tax Service of Russia for Moscow dated December 18, 2007 No. 19-11/120978. In our opinion, the reference to paragraph 1 of the Review in relation to paragraph 3 of Article 154 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation is untenable, since .To. This Review is devoted to the application of the provisions of Chapter 25 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation - corporate income tax, and these letters from the Ministry of Finance of Russia conflict with the norms of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation.

Based on the above, we believe that the subsidies allocated to JSC Russian Railways in 2008-2009 should not be subject to VAT.”

What rights and responsibilities do taxpayers have?

Taxpayers have the right:

receive free information (including written information) from the tax inspectorates at your place of registration about current taxes and fees, the procedure for their calculation, and the powers of tax authorities and their employees;
receive free valid tax reporting forms and explanations on the procedure for filling them out from tax inspectorates;
receive written clarifications on the application of tax legislation from the Russian Ministry of Finance (regional and local financial authorities);
enjoy tax benefits provided by law. For example, transport tax benefits;
not to comply with the requirements of tax inspectorates that contradict current legislation;
appeal acts of tax inspectorates, as well as actions (inaction) of their employees;
participate in the consideration of tax audit materials;
carry out a joint reconciliation of tax calculations (fees, penalties, fines) with the tax inspectorate and receive a reconciliation report.

In addition, taxpayers have the right:

for timely offset (refund) of overpaid or collected taxes, penalties, and fines;
to comply with and maintain tax secrecy;
for full compensation for losses caused by illegal acts, actions (inaction) of tax inspectorates and their employees.

A complete list of taxpayer rights is given in Article 21 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation.

How to contact the tax office for information regarding the calculation and payment of taxes

You can contact the tax office:

orally (by phone or in person to an employee of the taxpayer relations department). This is how questions of an organizational nature are usually asked (for example, about the appointment schedule of a particular inspector or department);
by email via the Internet;
via telecommunication channels. When preparing and sending electronic requests, you should be guided by the Methodological Recommendations approved by Order of the Federal Tax Service of Russia dated June 13, 2013 No. ММВ-7-6/196;
in writing. Recommended samples for preparing written requests are given in Appendices 6, 7, 8 and 9 to the Administrative Regulations, approved by Order of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated July 2, 2012 No. 99n. The request can be sent by mail or delivered in person to the Taxpayer Services Department.

In addition, samples of requests (letters, applications), as well as information on how they should be completed and to what address to send them, are posted in each tax office on information and thematic stands. This is stated in subparagraphs 2.2.1, 4.4.1.5 and 4.4.1.6 of the regulations approved by order of the Federal Tax Service of Russia dated September 9, 2005 No. SAE-3-01/444. This document is applied to the extent that it does not contradict the Administrative Regulations approved by Order of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated July 2, 2012 No. 99n.

A letter sent to the inspection must be signed by a legal or authorized representative of the organization. For example, the chief accountant is an authorized representative of the organization. Therefore, he can sign a request to the tax office only by attaching to the letter a copy of the power of attorney for the right to sign (clause 3 of article 26, clause 3 of article 29 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation). Tax inspectors have the right not to consider anonymous requests, as well as requests signed by authorized representatives without attaching copies of powers of attorney. In addition, the basis for refusing to consider a request is the absence of the organization’s seal on it. A stamp is required regardless of how the request is made: on a regular piece of paper or on letterhead. This is stated in subparagraph 2 of paragraph 27 of the Administrative Regulations, approved by order of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated July 2, 2012 No. 99n, paragraph 4.3.2.1 of the regulations approved by order of the Federal Tax Service of Russia dated September 9, 2005 No. SAE-3-01/444.

The tax office must respond to the request no later than 30 calendar days from the date of its registration. The period for consideration of a written request may be extended to 60 calendar days. But the tax office must inform the organization about this and indicate the reasons for the extension. This procedure is established by clause 4.3.2 of the regulations, approved by order of the Federal Tax Service of Russia dated September 9, 2005 No. SAE-3-01/444.

To obtain prompt information, call the tax office helpline. The telephone number can be found at the information stand, on the inspection website or in local media. Such rules are established by clauses 4.3.1 and 4.3.3 of the regulations, approved by order of the Federal Tax Service of Russia dated September 9, 2005 No. SAE-3-01/444. The telephone numbers of Moscow tax inspectorates are given in the table.

How to contact the Russian Ministry of Finance (regional and local financial departments) for clarification on tax legislation

You can contact the Ministry of Finance of Russia (regional and local financial departments) only in writing (clause 1, 2, article 34.2 and subclause 2, clause 1, article 21 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation).

The procedure for drawing up a written appeal is not regulated by law. The help desk of the Russian Ministry of Finance explains that the request can be sent in any form. The only mandatory condition that the Russian Ministry of Finance imposes on a written request is the availability of information about the organization (TIN, KPP, address). In this case, without a power of attorney, only the head of the organization (its legal representative) can sign the request. All others (authorized representatives) must attach to the request a power of attorney confirming their authority. Such clarifications are contained in the letter of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated December 19, 2007 No. 03-03-07/24.

Address of the Ministry of Finance of Russia: 109097, Moscow, st. Ilyinka, 9. Addresses of regional or local financial authorities can be found in the media or on their official websites on the Internet.

The Ministry of Finance of Russia and territorial financial authorities must respond to a written request within two months from the date of registration of the request. By decision of the head of the financial authority, this period may be extended by another month. This procedure is established by paragraph 3 of Article 34.2 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation.

How to reflect in accounting and tax accounting a budget subsidy to compensate for lost (lost) income. Do I need to pay VAT on the subsidy?

Question:

Answer: In accounting and taxation, include the amount of the subsidy received in income.

On the issue of reflection in accounting

This is stated in Article 78 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation.

In accounting, reflect the subsidy for compensation of losses in income in account 90-1 “Revenue”. Indeed, in this case, the state compensates the organization for the revenue it lost, resulting from the sale of goods (work, services), taking into account the discount (benefits) provided to the buyer. The organization can use the funds received at its own discretion and is not required to report on the purposes for which they are spent. Therefore, funds received from the budget should not be taken into account as targeted financing (in account 86 “Targeted financing”). This means that such a subsidy is part of the organization’s income. In accounting, reflect it with the following entries:

This procedure follows from paragraph 6 of PBU 9/99 and the Instructions for the chart of accounts (accounts 51, 76, 86 and 90). A similar procedure for reflecting in the accounting records of organizations the amounts of incoming subsidies to compensate for losses in income is confirmed by letter of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated September 6, 2007 No. 03-07-11/389.

Judicial practice on this issue has not developed.

On the issue of taxation

An organization that has received a subsidy to compensate for losses in income has an economic benefit. Therefore, include these funds in income from sales on the date of crediting the funds (Article 249, subparagraph 2, paragraph 4, Article 271, paragraph 2, Article 273 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, letters of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated February 10, 2015 No. 03-03-06 /4/5600, Federal Tax Service of Russia dated December 3, 2012 No. ED-4-3/20368).

Rationale

How to reflect in accounting and tax accounting a budget subsidy to compensate for lost (lost) income

In accounting and taxation, include the amount of the subsidy received in income.

This is stated in Article 78 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation.*

Accounting

In accounting, reflect the subsidy for compensation of losses in income in account 90-1 “Revenue”. Indeed, in this case, the state compensates the organization for the revenue it lost, resulting from the sale of goods (work, services), taking into account the discount (benefits) provided to the buyer. The organization can use the funds received at its own discretion and is not required to report on the purposes for which they are spent. Therefore, funds received from the budget should not be taken into account as targeted financing (in account 86 “Targeted financing”). This means that such a subsidy is part of the organization’s income. Reflect it in accounting with the following entries:*

Debit 51 Credit 76
– the receipt of funds to finance the shortfall (lost) income is reflected;

Debit 76 Credit 90-1
– the lost portion of the proceeds from the sale of goods (works, services) is reflected in the amount of the budget debt for the provision of subsidies.

Income tax

An example of how to reflect in accounting and tax accounting the receipt of a subsidy to compensate for lost income*

Alpha LLC provides passenger transportation services. In the first quarter, Alpha provided transportation services, including to the preferential category of citizens. Lost income amounted to 100,000 rubles.

In April, Alpha sent a demand to the authorities to reimburse the lost fare for the first quarter in the amount of 100,000 rubles.

Subsidy from the budget in the amount of 100,000 rubles. arrived in the second quarter.

Alpha's accountant made the following entries at the time of receipt of funds:

Debit 51 Credit 76
– 100,000 rub. – reflects the receipt of state aid funds to finance shortfalls (lost) income;

Debit 76 Credit 90-1
– 100,000 rub. – the lost portion of the proceeds from the sale of goods (works, services) is reflected in the amount of the budget debt for the provision of subsidies.

In tax accounting, the accountant included these funds as income. He did this on the date the funds were credited.

Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated July 1, 2014 N 603 (as amended on October 17, 2015) “On the procedure for calculating the amount of compensation for organizations carrying out regulated activities in the areas of municipal solid waste management, electric power,...

Approved

Government resolution

Russian Federation

RULES

CALCULATION OF THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION TO ORGANIZATIONS IMPLEMENTING

REGULATED ACTIVITIES IN THE AREAS OF CIRCULATION

WITH SOLID MUNICIPAL WASTE, ELECTRIC POWER INDUSTRY,

HEAT SUPPLY, WATER SUPPLY AND (OR) WATER DISPOSAL,

LOST REVENUE ASSOCIATED WITH THEIR IMPLEMENTATION

REGULATED ACTIVITIES

1. These Rules determine the procedure for calculating the amount of compensation to organizations engaged in regulated activities of municipal solid waste management, electric power, heat supply, water supply and (or) sanitation (hereinafter referred to as regulated organizations), lost income related to their implementation of regulated activities, paid at the expense of the budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and (or) local budgets in cases provided for in Article 23, Article 24.9, Article 10 of the Federal Law “On Heat Supply” and Article 32 of the Federal Law “On Water Supply and Sanitation” (hereinafter referred to as the amount of compensation for lost income).

2. The concepts used in these Rules mean the following:

“long-term regulatory parameters” - long-term parameters for regulating the activities of electric power industry entities carrying out regulated types of activities, and (or) long-term parameters for regulating activities in the field of municipal solid waste management, and (or) long-term parameters for state regulation of prices (tariffs) in the field of heat supply, and (or) long-term parameters for regulating tariffs in the field of water supply and sanitation;

(see text in the previous edition)

“required gross revenue” - the required gross revenue of the regulated organization, the amount of which is determined in accordance with the pricing framework in the relevant areas using long-term regulatory parameters;

“regulatory body” - an executive body of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation, authorized in accordance with the federal laws “On Electric Power Industry”, “On Production and Consumption Waste”, “On Heat Supply”, “On Water Supply and Sanitation” or normative legal acts adopted in connection with them acts on the implementation of state regulation of tariffs in the areas of activity of regulated organizations, or local government bodies - if they are vested with the specified powers in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation;

(see text in the previous edition)

"Basics of pricing in relevant areas" - Fundamentals of pricing in the field of municipal solid waste management, approved by the Government of the Russian Federation, Fundamentals of pricing in the field of regulated prices (tariffs) in the electric power industry, approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated December 29, 2011 N 1178 "On pricing in the field of regulated prices (tariffs) in the electric power industry", Fundamentals of pricing in the field of heat supply, approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of October 22, 2012 N 1075 "On pricing in the field of heat supply", Fundamentals of pricing in the field of water supply and sanitation, approved by Government Decree Russian Federation dated May 13, 2013 N 406 "On state regulation of tariffs in the field of water supply and sanitation."

(see text in the previous edition)

3. The calculation of the amount of compensation for lost income is carried out by the regulatory body if the said body plans to make decisions on changing long-term tariffs in the field of municipal solid waste management, long-term tariffs in the electric power industry and in the field of heat supply, tariffs in the field of water supply and sanitation, calculated on the basis of long-term parameters regulation, and (or) the required gross revenue, and (or) long-term regulatory parameters established by the regulatory body, and (or) on the establishment of tariffs based on long-term regulatory parameters different from the long-term regulatory parameters established by the regulatory authorities or agreed upon by these authorities in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation on concession agreements, which will lead to the emergence of lost income associated with the implementation of regulated activities by regulated organizations (hereinafter referred to as decisions of the regulatory body), except for the cases provided for in paragraph 4 of these Rules.

(see text in the previous edition)

4. The amount of compensation for lost income is not calculated in the following cases:

a) adjustments to prices (tariffs), the amount of required gross revenue and other cases provided for by the pricing principles in the relevant areas;

b) if the decisions of the regulatory body are planned to be made on the basis of a decision of the Government of the Russian Federation, adopted in accordance with paragraph three of part 6 of article 23 of the Federal Law “On Electric Power Industry”, part 8 of article 24.9 of the Federal Law “On production and consumption waste”, part 6.3 of article 10 Federal Law "On Heat Supply" and (or) part 21 of Article 32 of the Federal Law "On Water Supply and Sanitation", except in the case of a decision of the regulatory body to compensate the corresponding lost income to regulated organizations from the budget of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation or the local budget;

(see text in the previous edition)

c) if decisions of the regulatory body are planned to be taken in connection with the implementation of the mechanism provided for in Article 8 of the Federal Law “On Electric Power Industry” for the transfer of electric grid facilities included in the unified national (all-Russian) electric grid to lease to territorial grid organizations.

5. The calculation of the amount of compensation for lost income is made by the regulatory body before the decision of the regulatory body is made.

6. The amount of compensation for lost income for the long-term period (RLN) is determined by the formula:

Where:

The last year of the current long-term regulatory period (in case the decisions of the regulatory body lead to lost revenues in the current long-term regulatory period) or last year the next long-term regulatory period (if the decisions of the regulatory body lead to lost revenues in the next long-term regulatory period);

The year of the current long-term regulatory period during which decisions of the regulatory body are made (in the event that these decisions of the regulatory body will lead to the emergence of lost revenues in the current long-term regulatory period), or the first year of the next long-term regulatory period (in the event that the decisions of the regulatory body lead to the emergence of lost income in the next long-term regulatory period);

The amount of compensation for lost income in i-th year.

7. The amount of compensation for lost income in the i-th year () is determined by the formula:

Where:

The required gross revenue that the regulated organization must receive in the i-th year if the decisions of the regulatory body are not adopted;

The required gross revenue that the regulated entity must receive in the i-th year if the decisions of the regulatory authority are adopted.

9. When calculating, the method of tariff regulation is used, which was used when setting tariffs of the regulated organization before the decisions of the regulatory body were made, if the regulatory body does not plan to change the method of tariff regulation.

If the regulatory body plans to change the tariff regulation method, the planned tariff regulation method is used in the calculation, and the previous tariff regulation method is used in the calculation.

10. For organizations carrying out regulated activities on the basis of a concession agreement, the calculation is carried out using long-term regulatory parameters established or agreed upon by the regulatory body in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation on concession agreements.

For organizations not related to these organizations, the calculation uses long-term regulatory parameters in force in the i-th year before the decisions of the regulatory body are made. The calculation uses long-term regulatory parameters in accordance with the planned decision of the regulatory authority.

When calculating and in addition to long-term regulatory parameters, other prices, values, parameters adopted by the regulatory body are used to calculate the required gross revenue for the corresponding year, taking into account their adjustment in accordance with the pricing principles in the relevant areas. If the regulatory body plans to make decisions on changing the values of only long-term regulation parameters, other prices, values, parameters are taken the same when calculating and.

If by decisions of the regulatory body it is planned to change not only long-term regulatory parameters, but also other prices, values, parameters, or only other prices, values, parameters, the initial other prices, values, parameters are used in the calculation, and other prices, values are used in the calculation , parameters in accordance with the planned decision of the regulatory body.

11. If the regulatory body plans to make decisions related, inter alia, to amending the legislation of the Russian Federation in the field of state regulation of prices (tariffs) in the electric power industry, in the field of municipal solid waste management, heat supply, water supply and sanitation, with the establishment and (or) changing maximum price levels (tariffs) in the field of heat supply, electricity, establishing and (or) changing marginal indices, the quantitative values of which are determined in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation in the field of water supply and sanitation, in the field of regulation of prices (tariffs) for services organizations carrying out regulated activities in the field of municipal solid waste management (hereinafter referred to as changes in legislation taken into account when calculating compensation), the calculation is carried out in accordance with changes in legislation taken into account when calculating compensation, which will lead in the i-th year to the need to make decisions by the body regulation. When calculating, the provisions of regulatory legal acts that were in force before the amendments to legislation taken into account when calculating compensation are applied.

(see text in the previous edition)

12. If the regulatory body plans to make decisions related, among other things, to changes in legislation taken into account when calculating compensation, the amount of compensation for lost income that will arise in connection with changes in legislation taken into account when calculating compensation is separately allocated in the amount of compensation for lost income, and the amount of compensation for lost income that arises as a result of reasons not related to changes in legislation taken into account when calculating compensation. The amount of compensation for lost income that will arise in connection with changes in legislation taken into account when calculating compensation is determined in accordance with paragraphs 6 of these Rules.

13. The calculation of the amount of compensation for lost income, signed by the head of the regulatory body, contains the following information:

a) the amount of compensation for lost income determined in relation to the regulated organization for the long-term period of regulation, broken down by year;

b) the amount of compensation for lost income that will arise in connection with changes in legislation taken into account when calculating compensation for the long-term period of regulation, broken down by year;

c) the amount of compensation for lost income that will arise due to reasons not related to changes in legislation taken into account when calculating compensation, for the long-term period of regulation, broken down by year;

d) the amount of required gross revenue that the regulated organization must receive in the i-th year if no decisions of the regulatory body are made;

e) the amount of required gross revenue that the regulated organization must receive in the i-th year if decisions of the regulatory body are adopted;

f) the values of long-term regulation parameters valid before the decisions of the regulatory body are made, by year of the long-term regulation period;

I would like to clarify the date of reflection of the shortfall in income in accounting and accounting records, in relation to the housing and communal services sector (because in the examples you cite the passenger transportation service, where it is difficult to determine the period of provision of the service), and in housing and communal services - according to the principle of rationality - billing period- month and income is reflected on the last day of each month. It is unknown when these funds will be received from the budget, since there is not yet an agreement with the State Housing Center for the provision of subsidies, and services are already provided to the owners of apartment buildings taking into account benefits; 2) Tariff for those. service in the management company is commercial (under an agreement with the owners of the apartment complex), the budget will be reimbursed at the regulated city tariff adopted by law (it is much less). In this case, does the management company reflect its commercial tariff or the city tariff as part of the lost income? 3) I don’t really understand about VAT: 1. If the subsidy is received in connection with the sale of goods (work, services) at state regulated prices or the provision of benefits to consumers in accordance with the law, then it is not subject to VAT (clause 2 of Article 154 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation ). 2. But if funds are received as payment for goods, works or services sold, then such funds must be subject to VAT (subclause 2, clause 1, article 162 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation). In our case, in essence, the budget partially (only within the city tariff) pays for services sold to consumers of benefits. So should we tax the shortfall in income or not, and at what rate (commercial or urban)?

1. In accounting and tax accounting, reflect income on the date of actual receipt of funds from the budget ( clause 12 PBU 9/99 , , subp. 2 clause 4 art. 271 , clause 2 art. 273 Tax Code of the Russian Federation).

2. Urban (after all, the management company calculates revenue precisely at the state-regulated price and consumers of services do not have receivables in excess of the regulated tariff).

3. No, do not tax. Apply VAT on revenue only within the city tariff limits. And the amount of compensation received is not subject to VAT. Compensation for losses received from the budget in connection with the organization’s use of state regulated prices, not subject to VAT ( clause 2 art. 154 Tax Code of the Russian Federation ).

Rationale

From recommendation Oleg the Good, Head of the Department of Profit Taxation of Organizations of the Department of Tax and Customs Tariff Policy of the Ministry of Finance of Russia How to reflect government assistance (subsidies, budget loans, etc.) in accounting and taxation

Situation: how to reflect in accounting and tax accounting a budget subsidy to compensate for lost (lost) income

In accounting and taxation, include the amount of the subsidy received in income.

Income tax

An organization that has received a subsidy to compensate for losses in income has an economic benefit. Therefore, include these funds in the income from sales on the date of crediting the funds (subparagraph 2, paragraph 4, article 271, paragraph 2, article 273 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, letters of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated February 10, 2015 No. 03-03-06/ 4/5600, Federal Tax Service of Russia dated December 3, 2012 No. ED-4-3/20368).

VAT

Is it necessary to pay VAT on the subsidy received? The answer to this question depends on what purposes the funds are allocated for. If the subsidy is received in connection with the sale of goods (work, services) at state regulated prices or the provision of benefits to consumers in accordance with the law, then it is not subject to VAT (clause 2 of Article 154 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation). But if funds are received as payment for goods, works or services sold, then such funds must be subject to VAT (subclause 2, clause 1, article 162 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation).

Similar clarifications are provided in letters of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated February 8, 2013 No. 03-07-11/3144, dated March 22, 2011 No. 03-07-11/65, dated June 9, 2011 No. 03-03-06/ 1/337.*

An example of reflecting in accounting and tax accounting the receipt of a subsidy to compensate for lost income

In April, Alpha sent a demand to the authorities to reimburse the lost fare for the first quarter in the amount of 100,000 rubles.

Subsidy from the budget in the amount of 100,000 rubles. arrived in the second quarter.

Alpha's accountant made the following entries at the time of receipt of funds:

Debit 51 Credit 76
– 100,000 rub. – reflects the receipt of state aid funds to finance shortfalls (lost) income;

Debit 76 Credit 90-1
– 100,000 rub. – the lost portion of the proceeds from the sale of goods (works, services) is reflected in the amount of the budget debt for the provision of subsidies.

In tax accounting, the accountant included these funds as income. He did this on the date the funds were credited.

Setting tariffs in the energy sector is a process regulated in detail by law. In accordance with the established procedure, information is collected, calculations are made, and then the tariff is approved. The process is annual.

Energy supply organizations are commercial companies whose goal is to make a profit from their activities. In addition, the energy sector requires its constant maintenance in a condition that allows it to function around the clock, and sometimes in emergency mode. Therefore, it is a costly process.

On the other hand, there are consumers of energy resources, and a considerable proportion of them are citizens, whose interests the state is obliged to respect, and therefore all tariff calculations must be correlated, among other things, with the population’s ability to pay for consumed energy.

In this situation, energy supply companies experience so-called lost income: income not received by energy-saving companies, but income comparable to market realities, which can be a financial loss for such companies.

Fable of the case

The heat supply company, against which bankruptcy proceedings were initiated, filed a claim in court for compensation for losses caused by the inter-tariff difference. The court decided to reject the claim, and the court of second instance upheld this decision.

As part of the trial in the court of first instance, the plaintiff was denied an examination in order to determine an economically justified tariff; the court qualified the plaintiff’s demands as a claim for compensation for losses, believing that the losses stemmed from the regulatory legal act that approved the tariff and which was not declared invalid. Consequently, losses are not recoverable.

The courts of the first and second instances, when issuing judicial acts, were guided by the fact that, by virtue of the current legislation, the inter-tariff is the difference between the economically justified tariff and the preferential tariff, while the company was set one tariff (the preferential tariff of the heat supply organization was not determined). The certain tariff was qualified as economically justified. In the absence of a preferential tariff, the company has no lost income.

The plaintiff appealed to the arbitration court of the third, cassation instance. The arguments of the complaint were: the court’s refusal to conduct an examination of the case and incorrect qualification of the plaintiff’s claims.

Facts referred to by the heat supply organization regarding the qualification of claims as losses: the tariff was determined by a regulatory legal act in the prescribed manner; the regulatory legal act determines the amount of the plaintiff’s shortfall in income and the timing of their payments - therefore, the economic unjustification of the tariff is confirmed; the company is in the bankruptcy stage, deprived of the status of a single heat supply organization, and therefore, otherwise than in judicial procedure cannot receive the shortfall in income. The company also insisted that there were shortfalls in its activities in the absence of an approved preferential tariff.

The cassation court sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.

Judicial act: Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the West Siberian District of January 18, 2018 in case No. A03-21157/2016.

Court position

1. When making a decision, the court examined the legal nature of the losses from the normative legal act by which the tariff was approved (which was the main position in the case of two lower instances), as well as the issue of recovery of damages in the event that the specified normative legal act was not declared invalid . The court came to the conclusion that the qualification of inter-tariff differences as losses is unacceptable;

2. The court established: the fact of the legality of the regulatory act that approved one tariff; the fact of confirmation of the lack of economic justification for the tariff and the unfoundedness of the conclusion of the lower courts about the impossibility of collecting the inter-tariff difference under the conditions of one approved tariff;

3. When transferring the case for a new trial to the court of first instance, the cassation court considered it necessary to point out the following:

4. Determination of an economically justified tariff by expert means is allowed, including the Supreme Court previously indicated this;

a. When considering a case, it is necessary to analyze the actions of the government body when setting the tariff in the way in which it was established in the situation under consideration;

b. Re-evaluate the legality of the actions of the persons involved in the case in the matter of attributing shortfalls to 2018 expenses;

c. The court noted the need to conduct a legal analysis of the termination of the company’s activities as a single heat supply organization as an ordinary business risk;

d. The court stated that the responsibility to protect the size of the tariff and confirm its economic justification lies with the resource supplying organization, and legally determined measures of subsequent tariff regulation require compensation for lost income not by the body that approved the tariff, but at the expense of resource consumers.

Comments

1. Protection of the tariff size should be carried out on the basis of real economic facts and calculations, the law and compliance with the procedure for approving the tariff;

Lost income is a concept that denotes the difference between full cost a particular utility service and the tariff for this service, which is established for the population. Municipalities, as a rule, compensate utility service providers for lost revenue by allocating funds for this from the city budget.

Typical The situation in the area of compensation for lost income has also developed in Severouralsk. For Kommunalshchik LLC, which is engaged in the technical maintenance and repair of elevators, the city administration approved two tariffs for payment of services: economically justified and preferential (for the population). The economically justified tariff was calculated by the administration itself and provided for full reimbursement to the contractor of all costs associated with servicing the elevators. The tariff set by the municipality for the population, of course, did not cover all of Kommunalshchik’s expenses for maintaining the city’s elevator facilities. And the city authorities agreed to pay the difference between these two tariffs to the contractor in the form of subsidies from the local budget, about which an agreement was concluded.

However, subsequently a dispute arose between the parties to the agreement regarding the amount of compensation for lost income for three months: December 2013, January and February 2014. The municipality refused to pay compensation for this period for two reasons. Firstly, the city administration indicated that the agreement provides for a limit on the payment of compensation in the amount of one million rubles per year, and by December 2013 this amount had already been transferred to the contractor. And secondly, the agreement to compensate for lost income was signed only for 2013, due to which the contractor, according to the city administration, has no right to demand compensation for lost income for two months of 2014.

This position of the authorities forced Kommunalshchik LLC to go to court to protect its rights. Represented the interests of the plaintiff in court lawyer of the INTELLECT-S Group of legal companies Evgeniy Komolov.

By the decision of the Arbitration Court Sverdlovsk region the claims were satisfied in full: the administration of Severouralsk was charged with lost income for the three disputed months, as well as interest in case of non-fulfillment of the judicial act from the moment the decision entered into force until full payment of the collected amount.

The municipality, not agreeing with this decision, filed a complaint with the court of appeal, and it changed the decision of the court of first instance. The plaintiff was denied compensation for lost income for December 2013 due to the exhaustion of the limit established by the agreement. In addition, referring to the letter of the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation dated September 16, 2014 No. 08-04-06/3095, the court refused to collect interest from the plaintiff in case of failure to comply with the judicial act. The fact is that for the execution of court decisions that impose penalties on local budget funds, the Budget Code of the Russian Federation provides for a three-month period. The court of first instance, contrary to this provision, provided the city administration with only one “interest-free” month to implement the decision. Therefore, the appeal concluded that it was inadmissible to pre-calculate interest before the expiration of the three-month period and refused to collect it in general.

In such a situation, the plaintiff had to appeal the decision of the appellate court, which was successfully done. Evgeniy Komolov, INTELLECT-S lawyer, who defended the interests of Kommunalshchik LLC, based his cassation appeal on the following arguments.

The Court of Appeal actually applied a “dual” approach to the recovery of damages (lost income) having the same legal nature. The only difference is in the period of their formation. However, the appeal refused compensation for lost income for December 2013, and decided to fully compensate for lost income for January and February 2014.

This approach was not in accordance with Articles 16 and 1069 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, which provide for the principle of full compensation for losses caused government agencies and local government bodies, as well as the practice of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation in cases with similar circumstances.

The preferential tariff for the maintenance of elevator facilities for the population is approved by the municipality, as well as an economically justified tariff, recalls Evgeny Komolov, lawyer at INTELLECT-S.– Therefore, the emergence of inter-tariff differences (lost revenues) is a direct consequence of the implementation by the administration of Severouralsk of its powers to regulate utility tariffs. And this, in turn, entails the obligation of the city authorities to compensate the service organization for such inter-tariff difference.

Thus, the limit on the payment of subsidies established by the agreement cannot serve as a basis for refusing to reimburse lost income that exceeds this limit if the service provider has proven the fact of its proper provision.

Regarding the collection of interest in case of non-execution of a judicial act Evgeniy Komolov in the cassation appeal, he noted that the budget system of the Russian Federation does provide for a three-month period for the execution of court decisions when foreclosure is made on budget funds. However, this feature cannot be a basis for exemption from liability for failure to comply with a judicial act.

A different approach would be contrary to paragraph 1 of Art. 124 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, which states: in relations regulated by civil legislation, municipalities act on an equal basis with other participants in these relations - citizens and legal entities. “On an equal footing” means, inter alia, an equal degree of civil liability. It follows from this that the municipality does not have immunity in relation to liability for the unlawful use of other people's funds (Article 395 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).

In addition, the resolution of the plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated April 4, 2014 No. 22 “On some issues of awarding money to a recoverer for failure to comply with a judicial act” does not allow us to draw the conclusions indicated in the letter of the Ministry of Finance mentioned above about the inadmissibility of collecting interest from public legal entities in case of non-fulfillment judicial acts.

It should be noted that the letter of the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation is addressed to the departments of the Federal Treasury for the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and is not binding for arbitration courts - in contrast to the decisions of the plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation, which are binding for all arbitration courts, including after the abolition of the Supreme Arbitration Court.

The Arbitration Court of the Ural District, having considered the cassation appeal, changed the ruling of the Seventeenth Arbitration Court of Appeal: in favor of Kommunalshchik LLC, the lost income for all three controversial months was recovered, as well as interest in the event that during the three months provided for by the Budget Code of the Russian Federation, the municipality will not comply with the court decision.

Subsidy for lost income. The municipality will compensate for lost revenues Lost revenues in a budget institution example

What is lost income?

Using a specific example

Accounting legislation...

31.03.2014

12.05.2014

22.05.2014

Tax accounting

…is there taxable income in this situation?

…at what point should revenue be recognized?

* * *

How to reflect in accounting and tax accounting a budget subsidy to compensate for lost (lost) income