Accounts receivable accounting. Features of the check. Accounts receivable. Concept, types and general rules for writing off debt not confirmed by debtors, what does it mean?

If the company does not have any problems with debts, then it has the right to independently set a date, an inventory, and a list of accounts that are subject to verification. But there are cases when inventory requires a deep check:

• The property is subject to purchase or lease.
• Change of financially responsible person.
• The inventory is planned and takes place at the end of the reporting year.
• Theft of property.
• Change of the head of the organization.
• Unforeseen situations not related to the human factor.

The inventory check is considered valid if all legal rules have been complied with. Procedure for carrying out inventory Each of the parties has its own procedure for carrying out inventory of debt. However, their data must match.

Bad request

If the debt is collected in a lawsuit, then the details of the agreement and documents that describe the problem of the debt are entered into the act. Also, the inspection report must be signed by the head of the enterprise. What documents and accounts are subject to verification during the inventory process of receivables and payables When checking inventory, the debtor often determines which method to use, and there are two of them:

• Complete inventory of accounts.
• Selective inventory of accounts.

As a rule, the second option is chosen most often.

Inventory of receivables and payables

Example #1. Postings during inventory of goods Let's consider an example of conducting an offset. The company Alt LLC made an advance payment in the amount of 25,000 rubles to the company Corvette LLC against the future delivery of goods. The amount was recorded as the debit of account 60.02 in correspondence with the payment account.

Important

The supply of goods was made in the amount of 28,000 rubles (the company does not charge VAT) and is indicated in the accounting under the credit of account 60.01. After delivery, the accountant of Alt LLC did not offset the advance payment and the amounts were listed as debit and credit to account 60. After the audit, the commission noted in the inspection report the need to offset the advance payment against payment for the supply by posting: Debit 60.01 Credit 60.02 in the amount of 25,000 rubles.

How is the accounts payable inventory carried out? + sample act and certificate

Despite the strict requirements of control authorities for financial reporting indicators, the main task of inventory is to obtain data to solve the financial problems of a business. The existence of accounts payable affects liquidity, turnover, and solvency indicators and can be used by third parties when providing investment assistance, concluding partnership agreements, and obtaining favorable deferments in the form of a trade loan. Information about the reasons for the occurrence of debts and the timing makes it easier to manage the movement of capital.
Structure of accounts payable Debts to the enterprise's counterparties are divided by maturity into short-term and long-term with subgroups of deferred, overdue and bad debt.

Inventory of calculations before preparing annual reports

Thus, work on debt inventory can and, most likely, will be carried out after December 31, accordingly, and the documents documenting the inventory will be dated at a later date. However, in accounting, the results of the inventory, for example, the write-off of debt with an expired statute of limitations or not supported by documents, must be reflected on the date as of which the inventory is carried out, that is, December 31 of the reporting year (clause 4 of article 11 of Law No. 402- Federal Law). In addition to the mandatory inventory, the organization has the right to reconcile receivables and payables in those terms and with such frequency that best meet the needs of accounting, management, etc.

Reasons for carrying out The basis and purpose of the reconciliation must be indicated in the order of the manager approving the commission and task for the financial and legal departments, and in some cases for the auditors. The main reasons for checking are:

• change of financially responsible persons;
• during reorganization or liquidation of a business entity;
• before providing accounting and tax reporting;
• after natural disasters or fire, as a result of which part of the documentation was lost.

Accounts payable inventory report and its sample All transactions identified during the control of settlements are recorded in a single report, which reflects the values ​​of accounts payable and receivable. With suppliers and buyers, these checks are reflected in the INV-17 form. The document is drawn up in two original copies.

Features of accounts payable inventory

From this article you will learn: 1. When and why it is necessary to carry out a debt inventory. 2. What documents and accounts are subject to verification during the inventory of receivables and payables. 3. How to formalize a debt inventory in order to make the most effective use of its results.

Accounts receivable and payable, as part of the assets and liabilities of the organization, are subject to mandatory inventory, in accordance with Article 11 of Law No. 402-FZ “On Accounting”. It is no secret that the importance of inventory is often underestimated and is carried out only “for show” before drawing up annual financial statements, so as not to formally violate the law. However, in the case of debts of debtors and creditors, such an approach is not applicable and, moreover, is not beneficial to the organization itself.

Inventory report of receivables and payables sample

Attention

Reconciliation is carried out for each basis - agreement or obligation, counterparty - legal entities, employees, banks, budgets of all levels separately. The act must be signed by all members of the commission. Important: when drawing up the document, it is necessary to take into account that the debtors with whom the company periodically exchanged reconciliation reports must be taken into account in the inventory report. In this case, it is impossible to write off the debt due to the expiration of the statute of limitations, since the exchange of documents interrupts the period of 3 years.

All about debt inventory

A joint verification of calculations in this case can be organized within the framework of Federal Law No. 212 on insurance premiums. The results are reflected in unified forms 21-PFR and 21-FSS of the Russian Federation. Important: for effective monitoring of the financial situation at the enterprise, it is desirable to reconcile payments for all payment orders, statements and cash receipts.

Since most of the accounts payable are accounted for under agreements with banks and under investment agreements, operations are carried out on accounts 66, 67 of accounting. Debt is divided into short-term (with a repayment period of less than 12 months) and long-term (with a repayment period of more than 1 year). The sources of inventory are primary documents, these are bank statements, contracts, invoices, turnover sheets and other acts.
The information obtained from them is compared with the data allocated to certain accounts according to the category of the counterparty.
Help contains:

• Complete information about the lender, indicating the location address and contact phone number.
• Amount of debt, period of occurrence and a brief description of the reasons for formation.

The data is indicated in the context of contracts, indicating the details of supporting documents - names, numbers and dates of the form. The certificate and the act do not contain information about the amount of VAT included in the debt. At the request of data users, the amount can be allocated in the amount of the debt. Based on the certificate data, the main indicators are transferred to the act. Execution of an inventory act The form of the act No. INV-17 or a form developed by the enterprise independently is used with the obligatory inclusion of its form in the document flow of the accounting policy.

Write-off of accounts receivable

Accounts receivable can be terminated by fulfillment of the obligation or sold, and also written off as unrecoverable after the expiration of the limitation period or due to the impossibility of fulfilling the obligation.

The statute of limitations for writing off overdue receivables is established by the Civil Code and is three years (Article 196 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation). Its beginning is determined by the deadline for fulfilling obligations, which is indicated when concluding the contract (clause 2 of Article 200 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). If the date for fulfillment of obligations is not specified in the contract, it is necessary to proceed from a reasonable period, after which the debtor is given seven days to fulfill the demand presented by the creditor (Article 314 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).

Prepare your documents.

In order to write off receivables, the taxpayer must document the existence of an outstanding debt: the legal basis, the amount of the debt and the date of its occurrence. Since the right to reduce the tax base arises at the end of a specified period of time, an important point is the correct determination of the starting date of this period. Therefore, in order to recognize a debt as bad due to the expiration of the statute of limitations, it is necessary to have documents that allow you to establish the date of occurrence of the receivables. In most cases, such documents are:

Agreement with the buyer or other debtor;

Invoice for shipment of goods, acceptance certificate for work performed, services rendered;

As well as other documents, in particular payment documents for the transfer of an advance to a supplier who has not fulfilled its obligations, a debt reconciliation act.

To confirm that at the time of writing off the debt has not been repaid, you need to have inventory reports of receivables at the end of the reporting (tax) period, and based on the results of the inventory, the manager issues an order to write off the receivables as a bad debt. This procedure is established by clause 77 of the Regulations on accounting and financial reporting in the Russian Federation, approved. Order of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated July 29, 1998 N 34n and Letters of the Federal Tax Service of Russia for Moscow dated December 13, 2006 N 20-12/109630, dated June 27, 2008 No. 20-12/060959 confirms this procedure.

An inventory of settlements is carried out with suppliers and customers, with the budget and extra-budgetary funds, employees and other debtors and creditors and verifies the validity of the amounts listed in the accounting records.

The main purpose of the inventory is to confirm the reliability of accounting for debts and obligations, to establish the timing of their occurrence and repayment.

The time for conducting the inventory is determined by the manager by his order, as well as the composition of the inventory commission. It is possible to conduct an inventory within the time limits specified in the organization’s accounting policies. Accounting rules oblige every organization to conduct an inventory on January 1. The inventory results must be formalized in an act using the unified form N INV-17 “Inventory act of settlements with buyers, suppliers and other debtors and creditors”, approved by Resolution of the State Statistics Committee of Russia dated September 18, 1998 No. 88 “On approval of unified forms of primary accounting documentation for accounting of cash transactions , for recording inventory results."

The organization must keep supporting documents for all business transactions, including accounts receivable, for at least five years, as required by paragraph 1 of Art. 17 of the Law on Accounting No. 129-FZ of November 21, 1996. The period established by tax legislation for storing documents necessary for the calculation and payment of tax is four years (clause 8, clause 1, article 23 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation). Please note that storage of primary documents is a responsibility, not a right of the organization. Therefore, an organization that has not retained the primary accounting documents for accounts receivable with an expired statute of limitations is questioned about the grounds for writing it off as a reduction in taxable profit as part of non-operating expenses (clause 2, clause 2, Article 265) and the possibility of writing it off to the financial result organizations. The storage period for documents confirming the inclusion of a particular amount in accounts receivable should be calculated from the moment it is written off. This conclusion was made in the Resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service NWO dated 05.12.2005 N A56-3215/2005. This point of view is based primarily on the storage period of primary documents necessary for the calculation and payment of taxes. Indeed, in order to write off receivables after the statute of limitations has expired, the organization needs to confirm its occurrence. In addition, the debt inventory act and the manager’s order to write off the bad debt must also be kept from the date of the transaction, that is, from the moment it was written off.

When to recognize receivables.

The Ministry of Finance expressed its opinion on the date of recognition of these expenses for profit tax purposes in Letter No. 03-03-04/1/475 dated January 11, 2006. In this case, you must be guided by paragraphs. 3 paragraph 7 art. 272 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, based on which, the date of attribution of the amount of loss from a bad debt to non-operating expenses will be the date of expiration of the limitation period.

We repeat that about The general limitation period is three years(Article 196 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). The course of this period begins from the day when the person learned or should have learned about the violation of his right (Clause 1 of Article 200 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). The period, calculated in years, expires in the corresponding month and day of the last year of the term (clause 1 of Article 192 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).

Please note that the limitation period may be suspended or interrupted. Then a special procedure for its calculation is applied (Articles 202 - 204 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, Letter of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated September 21, 2007 N 03-03-06/2/184).

So, based on the provisions of Article 203 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation running of the limitation period, in particular, interrupted by the obligated person performing actions indicating recognition of the debt. After the break, the limitation period begins again; the time elapsed before the break does not count towards the new term. Therefore, the limitation period for recognizing a debt as uncollectible if a reconciliation with the debtor was carried out or there was a written acknowledgment of the debt should be counted from the date of signing the reconciliation act with debtors or from the date by which the debtor promised to repay the debt in writing (a similar position was expressed in the Letter Federal Tax Service of Moscow dated August 2, 2006 No. 20-12/68343). I would like to draw your attention to the fact that an action indicating the recognition of a debt can be the payment of interest on the principal debt or partial payment of the debt. Then the period will run from the moment of this payment.

We consider it necessary to note that when conducting an audit, the tax authority may require the taxpayer to confirm actions to collect (claim) the debt. The tax authorities' claims regarding expired debts written off as expenses are conditioned as follows: if the organization had filed a claim in court, the debt would not have become hopeless, so the expenses arose precisely because of the company's inaction. This means that they are economically unjustified and cannot be taken into account in expenses (clause 1 of Article 252 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation). According to tax authorities, documentary evidence of actions to collect (claim) a debt can be either letters from an organization sent to the debtor demanding repayment of the debt amount, or materials related to the creditor’s appeal to the court.

Please note that the requirements of the tax authorities are not based on the norms of tax legislation. It does not follow from the above rules that the legislation makes the write-off of receivables as non-operating expenses dependent on the presence of any actions to collect the debt on the part of the creditor organization. For example, a creditor's appeal to court, as recommended by tax department experts, will lead to an interruption of the statute of limitations, which means the start of a new statute of limitations.

Judicial practice confirms the unfoundedness of the tax authorities’ position, since the courts make decisions in favor of taxpayers. The arbitrators confirm the right of the taxpayer to write off a bad debt, regardless of the fact of collection of the debt from the debtor (Resolutions of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the North Caucasus District dated 02.28.2007 N F08-731/2007-288A, Northwestern District dated 02.26.2007 N A56-60454/2005B, Resolutions FAS VSO dated January 25, 2006 N A19-18204/05-20-Ф02-7115/05-С1), as well as regardless of filing the relevant demands in the arbitration court (Resolutions of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the North-Western District dated February 19, 2007 N A56-35936 /2005, dated November 28, 2005 N A66-1584/2005, Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Moscow District dated August 7, 2007 No. KA-A40/5187-07).

Moreover, the Ministry of Finance in Letter dated September 30, 2005 N 03-03-04/2/68 recognized that the fact that the statute of limitations had expired is sufficient to recognize the debt as bad and write it off as a loss, equated to non-operating expenses for profit tax purposes. In this case, no other measures are required to recognize receivables as bad.

Thus, upon expiration of the limitation period, in the presence of documents on the formation of debt, as well as written justification and order of the manager, the tax base can be reduced by the amount of the debt when calculating income tax.

If the documents have not been preserved.

In case of loss of documents confirming the occurrence of a debt, we recommend assessing the possibility of having contracts, invoices, payment documents, reconciliation statements and any correspondence with the counterparty regarding this debt in related departments or separate divisions.

The impossibility of debt collection can be confirmed by extracts from the Unified Register of Legal Entities, if the debtor is excluded from it.

But if primary documents confirming the occurrence of receivables (agreements, acts, invoices, payment documents) have not been preserved, then defending the costs of writing off such debt seems to be a very difficult and dubious task.

Tax authorities and courts are unanimous on this issue. The Federal Tax Service for Moscow, in Letter dated December 19, 2007 No. 20-12/121646, explaining the situation regarding accounting for expenses when primary documents are missing, concludes:

« An organization cannot take into account the amount of losses as part of non-operating expenses when forming the tax base for calculating income tax. according to undocumented bad debts with an expired statute of limitations."

FAS West Siberian District dated August 28, 2007 in Resolution No. F04-5734/2007 (37452-A03-15) in case No. A03-16023/2006-21 “ indicated that it is impossible to attribute written off receivables to non-operating expenses, since only payment documents, in the absence of relevant agreements, are not grounds for recognizing such a debt as an expense.”.

In the Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal (Resolution dated May 29, 2008 No. 09AP-4637/2008-AK in case No. A40-67028/07-127-395), the taxpayer wanted to defend the costs of writing off accounts receivable, proving its existence with internal documents of the organization, since primary documents confirming this debt have not survived. However, the court also supported the tax authority in this case, justifying its position with the following conclusions:

« Having analyzed the presented documents, the appellate court cannot agree with the Applicant’s position that the evidence presented by him is sufficient to confirm the legality of writing off the disputed amount for non-operating expenses, and the Applicant did not have the obligation to store documents of a number of named debtor organizations at the time of the tax audit.

Taking into account the specifics of accounts receivable, it should be concluded that the primary documents justifying the inclusion of a particular amount in accounts receivable are the primary accounting documents for the operation of writing off accounts receivable, and, therefore, the storage period of these documents should be calculated from the moment of write-off accounts receivable.

Under such conditions, in violation of paragraph 1 of Art. 252 Tax Code of the Russian Federation, Part 1, Art. 65 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the Applicant did not document either the amount or the date of formation of the receivables for the specified organizations, therefore, did not prove the validity of the stated requirements to invalidate the decision of the Tax Authority in full.

Thus, the Tax Authority rightfully excluded the amount of RUB 5,790,131.06 from non-operating expenses in the contested decision. as not supported by documents in violation of paragraph 1 of Art. 252 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation.

The presented cards of mutual settlements, orders of the executive body are internal documents of the taxpayer and cannot objectively reflect the fact of the existence of an obligation between the Applicant and the debtor organization, violations committed by the Applicant's counterparties during the execution of contracts: short delivery of products, delivery of low-quality products, etc., which would indicate the date and the grounds on which the counterparty’s debt arose.”

Reflection in accounting.

In accounting, in accordance with clause 77 of the Accounting Regulations, receivables for which the statute of limitations has expired and other unrealistic debts can be written off using one of the following methods:

On the financial results of the organization’s activities (if debt amounts were not reserved);

Due to the reserve for doubtful debts.

Please note: recognizing debts as a loss does not entail cancellation of the debt. This debt must be accounted for in off-balance sheet account 007 “Debt of insolvent debtors written off at a loss” for 5 years. According to the Chart of Accounts approved by Order of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated October 31, 2000 No. 94n “On approval of the Chart of Accounts for accounting financial and economic activities and Instructions for its application,” analytical accounting on an off-balance sheet account is maintained for each debtor whose debt is written off at a loss, as well as for each debt written off at a loss.

If, after writing off the receivables, the buyer repays them, the funds received will be non-operating income. In this case, the amount of the repaid debt is written off from the off-balance sheet account (Credit 007 - for the amount of the debt). An entry on the credit of account 007 is also made if the five-year monitoring period for the specified debt has expired and the possibility of collecting it has been completely exhausted.

The write-off of unrealistic debt for collection, for which a reserve was previously created, is reflected in accordance with the Chart of Accounts by the debit of account 63 “Provisions for doubtful debts” in correspondence with the corresponding accounts for settlements with debtors 62 “Settlements with buyers and customers”, 76 “Settlements with various debtors and creditors."

For example. The organization, by order of the manager, carried out an inventory, on the basis of which it created a reserve for doubtful debts. In December 2009, the statute of limitations for the debt owed to the buyer in the amount of 472,000 rubles expired. (including VAT). The debt is written off against the created reserve.

If the debt amounts were not reserved, then the organization, according to the Chart of Accounts, writes off the receivables from the settlement account 62 "Settlements with buyers and customers", 76 "Settlements with various debtors and creditors" to the debit of account 91 "Other income and expenses", subaccount "Other" expenses". This rule is based on the norms of paragraph 11, 14.3 of PBU 10/99, according to which the amounts of receivables for which the statute of limitations has expired, as well as other unrealistic debts, are other expenses of the organization.

For example. In 2006, there was a supply of goods worth 472,000 rubles, including VAT. The buyer did not pay for the goods. The organization, according to its accounting policy, does not create a reserve for doubtful debts. According to the director's order, an inventory was taken, on the basis of which the debt of 2006, for which the statute of limitations had expired, was written off.

In tax accounting, timely written off receivables, confirmed by documents, reduce the income tax base in accordance with paragraphs. 2 clause 2 of article 265 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation. In this case, the taxpayer has the right to write off as expenses the amount of bad receivables in full, including value added tax (Letter of the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation dated October 21, 2008 No. 03-03-06/1/596). VAT amounts on such debt are not accepted for deduction.

Is it possible to write off a forgotten “receivable” later?

Untimely write-off of accounts receivable leads to distortion of financial statements. Such a violation, as well as violation of the procedure and terms for storing accounting documents, leads to the imposition of an administrative fine on officials in the amount of two to three thousand rubles (Article 15.11 of the Administrative Code). An organization may also be subject to tax liability under Article 120 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation.

In case of recognition of receivables that are documented and arose 4-10 years ago, a decrease in the profit base of the current tax period may lead to claims from the tax authorities.

The fact is that an enterprise has the right to write off a debt after the expiration of the limitation period if it was not interrupted, but, in the opinion of the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation, expressed in Letter dated January 11, 2006 N 03-03-04/1/475, date of recognition of expenses for tax purposes, profits in the form of non-operating expenses from bad debt will be Date of Expiry statute of limitations.

In the event of liquidation of the debtor, the basis for recognizing the debt as hopeless will be the entry on its exclusion from the Unified State Register. The Federal Tax Service for Moscow, in Letter dated May 19, 2005 No. 20-12/36141, explains that it is necessary to take into account the expenses of an organization as part of non-operating expenses when forming the tax base for calculating income tax for the reporting (tax) period in which the corresponding entry was made on the liquidation of the debtor in the State Register.

This position of the tax authorities is not controversial, but in some courts it is supported by arbitrators. Thus, the Moscow Arbitration Court, in its decision dated March 2, 2006 in case No. A40-138/06-14-1, agreed with the inspectorate that the timely identification and write-off of debt depends entirely on the taxpayer and his manager. Therefore, writing off the debt in a later period in the above case led to additional income tax and penalties. The court considered: " Expenses must be written off precisely in the period in which the taxpayer acquired the right to write off, and the order of the head of the enterprise to write off receivables must be issued by the head of the enterprise only in the period in which the taxpayer acquired the right to write off».

In the Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal, another taxpayer was able to defend the attribution of expenses for writing off receivables at a later date according to the existing procedure at the enterprise, which spells out the entire document flow for writing off debt and indicates the deadlines for the approval of internal documents (see Resolution dated November 29, 2007 No. 09AP-15342 /07-AK).“ The taxpayer's allegations are substantiated that writing off receivables without complying with the specified Procedure could lead to the unreasonable recognition in tax accounting of undocumented amounts of receivables. Due to compliance with the debt write-off procedure provided for by the Procedure, accounts receivable were not included in non-operating expenses, and the tax base for income tax was not unreasonably underestimated. At the same time, the corresponding amounts of receivables were taken into account in tax accounting for 2002, no damage was caused to the budget».

In this case, the judges considered that “The current legislation on accounting, as well as tax legislation, does not provide for restrictions in accordance with which the taxpayer is obliged to write off receivables during the period of expiration of the limitation period or liquidation of the debtor. The Tax Code of the Russian Federation, the Regulations on maintaining accounting and financial statements in the Russian Federation do not define the period in which it is necessary to write off the debt, and also do not contain requirements for the deadline for submitting a written justification.

In this regard, determining the moment of debt write-off by the head of the organization does not contradict current legislation; failure by the taxpayer to include expenses in the tax base on the date of expiration of the limitation period (before the date of issuance of the order of the head of the enterprise to write off receivables) could lead either to an overstatement of the tax base and overpayment of income tax (if the financial result was positive at the end of the tax period) or to an overstatement of the loss (with a negative financial result). In this regard, based on the results of writing off bad debts as non-operating expenses as of the date of issuance of the order to write off receivables, there is no understatement of income tax

...... Based on the above, the arbitration court of appeal considers it legitimate the conclusion of the court of first instance that the applicant included losses from writing off accounts receivable as losses from writing off bad debts as part of non-operating expenses when calculating income tax for 2002, and not when calculating income tax for previous tax periods, cannot be considered a violation of the legislation on taxes and fees; the write-off is economically justified and documented.”

Thus, in a situation where documents confirming accounts receivable have not been preserved, and the debt itself has not been written off on time, reducing the income tax base leads to significant risks.

Financial newspaper

№13, 2010

Specialists of the Tax and Financial Consulting Department of AKG "Intercom-Audit"

The possibility of taking into account the debt as part of non-operating expenses as hopeless should be considered depending on the grounds on which the collection was refused

The joint stock company has accounts receivable (posted revenue, income) in its balance sheet that are not confirmed by primary documents from the counterparty. The services were actually provided, but the agent's report was signed on the part of their consumer by an unauthorized person. The court refused to allow the organization to collect the debt reflected in the organization’s accounting from the debtor. Is it possible to write off the specified debt (including in connection with recognition as erroneously reflected) in accounting before the expiration of the established limitation period and accept it when forming the tax base for profit tax purposes?

On this issue we take the following position:

In our opinion, in connection with the emergence of new information (court decision), the asset previously reflected in accounting and reporting (in the form of debt for services rendered) should be excluded, and the corresponding accounting entries should be made in the current reporting period.

The ability of an organization to take into account debt as part of non-operating expenses for profit tax purposes as hopeless should be considered depending on the grounds on which the collection of such debt is refused. If an organization is denied debt collection due to the lack of proof of the fact of provision of services and the volume of services provided, the organization has no grounds for accounting for tax purposes such debt as bad debt due to the lack of proof of the existence of the debt itself. Taking this into account, the tax base and tax amount are recalculated for the period in which the disputed debt was reflected as income.

Justification for the position:

Considering the situation, we will proceed from the fact that the contract for the provision of services provides for a specific date (the deadline) for payment of services, from which the debt is considered overdue.

Accounting

By virtue of part 1 of Art. 30 of the Federal Law of December 6, 2011 N 402-FZ “On Accounting” (hereinafter referred to as Law N 402-FZ), until the state accounting regulatory authorities approve the federal and industry standards provided for by this law, the rules for maintaining accounting records and preparing financial statements are applied , approved by the authorized federal executive authorities and the Central Bank of the Russian Federation before the entry into force of Law N 402-FZ, in the part that does not contradict it (see information from the Ministry of Finance of Russia N PZ-10/2012).

In accordance with clause 77 of the Regulations on accounting and financial reporting in the Russian Federation, approved by order of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated July 29, 1998 N 34n (hereinafter referred to as Regulation N 34n), accounts receivable for which the statute of limitations has expired, other debts that are unreal for collection, are written off for each obligation based on the data of the inventory, written justification and order (instruction) of the head of the organization and are attributed, accordingly, to the account of the reserve for doubtful debts or to the financial results of a commercial organization, if in the period preceding the reporting period, the amounts of these debts were not reserved in the manner prescribed by clause 70 of Regulation No. 34n.

Thus, receivables that are unrealistic for collection are subject to write-off from accounting accounts on the basis of:

1) data from the inventory carried out;

2) written justification;

3) order (instruction) of the head of the organization.

As we see, in accounting, the organization independently determines the unreality of collecting certain debts. That is, to write off the debt, you only need to fulfill the conditions listed in clause 77 of Regulation No. 34n.

According to the Ministry of Finance of Russia, when determining the unreality of a debt for collection in accounting (as well as in tax accounting), one should be guided by the provisions of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (letter of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated January 29, 2008 N 07-05-06/18).

Settlements with suppliers and contractors are subject to mandatory inventory before drawing up annual financial statements (clause 27 of Regulations No. 34n, clauses 1.5, 3.44, Methodological guidelines for the inventory of property and financial obligations, approved by order of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated June 13, 1995 N 49, hereinafter - Methodological instructions). In the process of inventorying settlements, the inventory commission checks the validity of the amount of receivables, including those for which the statute of limitations has expired (clause “c” of clause 3.48 of the Methodological Instructions). Discrepancies identified during the inventory between the actual availability of objects and the data of the accounting registers are subject to registration in accounting in the reporting period to which the date as of which the inventory was carried out (parts 1, 3, 4 of Article 11 of Law N 402-FZ) .

By virtue of Art. 5, parts 2 art. 10, Law N 402-FZ, omissions or withdrawals are not allowed when registering accounting items in accounting registers. In this case, in essence, there is a reflection of an unreal asset.

Based on clause 2 of PBU 22/2010 “Correcting errors in accounting and reporting” (hereinafter referred to as PBU 22/2010), an error means, inter alia, the failure to reflect the facts of economic activity in the accounting and (or) financial statements of the organization due to incorrect application legislation of the Russian Federation on accounting and (or) regulatory legal acts on accounting, incorrect use of information available on the date of signing the financial statements, dishonest actions of officials of the organization and for other reasons. By virtue of clause 4 of PBU 22/2010, identified errors and their consequences are subject to mandatory correction.

Inaccuracies or omissions in the reflection of facts of economic activity in the accounting and (or) financial statements of an organization, identified as a result of obtaining new information that was not available to the organization at the time of reflection (non-reflection) of such facts of economic activity (letter from the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated 13.08) are not considered errors. .2012 N 03-03-06/1/408, dated 10/17/2013 N 03-03-06/1/43299).

In our opinion, in connection with the emergence of new information (court decision), the previously recognized asset (in the form of debt for services rendered) should be excluded, and the corresponding accounting entries should be made in the current reporting period.

Since in this case there is a decrease in economic benefits as a result of the disposal of assets (cash, other property), it entails the need to recognize in accounting other expenses in the amount of previously recognized debt (clauses 2, 4, 8, 12 PBU 10/99 "Expenses of the organization", clauses 7.2 and 8.3 of the Concept of accounting in the market economy of Russia, approved by the Methodological Council on Accounting under the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation, the Presidential Council of the Institute of Professional Accountants on December 29, 1997).

Corporate income tax

The object of taxation and the tax base for income tax for Russian organizations that are not members of a consolidated group of taxpayers is profit (its monetary value), which is the difference between the income they received and the amount of expenses they incurred, which are determined in accordance with Chapter 25 of the Tax Code RF (clause 1 of article 247, clause 1 of article 274 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation).

The general criteria that a taxpayer’s expenses must satisfy in order to recognize them for profit tax purposes are named in paragraph 1 of Art. 252 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation (see also the resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Volga District dated December 12, 2014 N F06-18264/13 in case N A12-16466/2014). According to this paragraph, the taxpayer reduces the income received by the amount of expenses incurred (with the exception of expenses specified in Article 270 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation), which means justified (economically justified) and documented expenses (and in cases provided for in Article 265 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, losses ), carried out (incurred) by the taxpayer. Any expenses are recognized as expenses, provided that they are incurred to carry out activities aimed at generating income.

When assessing the compliance of the costs incurred with the specified criteria, one should take into account the legal positions expressed in the definitions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated June 4, 2007 N 320-O-P and N 366-O-P, the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated October 12, 2006 N 53, about which evidence, for example, letters of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated 05/26/2015 N 03-03-06/1/30165, dated 02/06/2015 N 03-03-06/1/4993, dated 02/10/2010 N 03-03-05/23, dated 02.02.2010 N 03-03-05/14.

Expenses, depending on their nature, as well as the conditions for implementation and areas of activity of the taxpayer, are divided into expenses associated with production and sales, and non-operating expenses (clause 2 of Article 252 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation).

Based on paragraphs. 2 p. 2 art. 265 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, non-operating expenses are equated to losses received by the taxpayer in the reporting (tax) period, in the form of the amount of bad debts, and if the taxpayer has decided to create a reserve for doubtful debts (hereinafter referred to as the reserve), the amount of bad debts not covered at the expense of reserve funds.

Clause 2 of Art. 266 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation determines that bad debts (debts that are unrealistic for collection) are those debts to the taxpayer for which:

The established limitation period has expired (Article 196 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation);

The obligation is terminated due to the impossibility of its fulfillment (Article 416 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation);

The obligation was terminated on the basis of an act of a state body (Article 417 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). This refers to legislative and regulatory legal acts of state authorities and local governments (laws, decrees, resolutions, orders, regulations, including, in particular, instructions of the Bank of Russia (for example, on the introduction of a moratorium on satisfying the creditor’s claims on a loan debt) etc.);

The obligation was terminated due to the liquidation of the organization (Article 419 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).

In addition, bad debts (debts that are unrealistic for collection) are debts, the impossibility of collection of which is confirmed by a resolution of the bailiff on the completion of enforcement proceedings, issued in the manner established by Federal Law of October 2, 2007 N 229-FZ “On Enforcement Proceedings”, in case of return of the writ of execution to the claimant on the grounds provided for in clause 2 of Art. 266 Tax Code of the Russian Federation.

Thus, an organization that has receivables can classify them as bad debts and write them off in tax accounting only upon the occurrence of one of the listed events, to which the court’s refusal to collect the debt does not apply (see, for example, letters from the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated December 9, 2016 N 03-03-06/1/73533, dated 11/14/2016 N 03-03-06/1/66459, dated 07/22/2016 N 03-03-06/1/42962, dated 03/23/2015 N 03-03-06 /1/15764).

So, for example, in the letter of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated July 26, 2006 N 03-03-04/4/132, in response to the taxpayer’s question regarding the possibility of recognizing receivables in connection with its liquidation, it is explained: the fact that the taxpayer is in the process of liquidation is not a basis for recognition his debts as bad debt, since tax legislation does not contain exceptions for this circumstance.

In addition, in order to write off receivables, it is necessary to have documents confirming the fact of their occurrence (letters of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated 04/08/2013 N 03-03-06/1/11347, Federal Tax Service of Russia for Moscow dated 04/13/2011 N 16-15 /035618.1@, dated March 22, 2011 N 16-15/026842@).

As follows from the explanations we have encountered, in the situation under consideration, the organization does not have direct grounds for recognizing the debt as bad and writing it off in tax accounting.

In a letter dated 02.02.2006 N 03-03-04/1/72, the Ministry of Finance of Russia directly stated that a debt in respect of which there is a court decision refusing to collect it for any reason is not hopeless for profit tax purposes. Such debt, according to financiers, cannot be taken into account in reducing the tax base, since refusal to collect debt in court is not provided for in paragraph 2 of Art. 266 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation as a basis for recognizing it (the debt) as hopeless.

In our opinion, the wording of the conclusion in the above letter is not correct enough, since in a number of cases, when a dispute arises, it is the court that establishes the existence of grounds for the occurrence of the debt of the counterparties and the amount of actual debt. For example, in paragraph 1 of Art. 8 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation provides that civil rights and obligations arise not only from contracts (and other transactions provided for by law or not contrary to it), but also from a court decision that established civil rights and obligations.

Moreover, if we take the commented letter of the Ministry of Finance of Russia literally, then a taxpayer who has gone to court to protect his rights in terms of debt collection is placed in a worse position compared to taxpayers who are inactive while waiting for the expiration of the statute of limitations in order to write off the debt on formal grounds ( Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated July 15, 2010 N 2833/10). Thus, in our opinion, in the situation under consideration it is necessary to pay more attention to the reasons on which the court refused to collect the debt from the client to the organization (creditor). Depending on the grounds for refusal to collect the debt, it is necessary to make a decision on calculating the limitation period for the subsequent write-off of the debt as bad as part of non-operating expenses for tax purposes.

For example, the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Volga District in its resolution dated July 26, 2011 N F06-5612/11 in case N A55-18090/2010 indicated that the norms of paragraphs. 2 p. 2 art. 265 and paragraph 2 of Art. 266 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation does not exclude the possibility of recognizing a debt as bad in subsequent tax periods, when the taxpayer is convinced that the debt is hopeless, for example, if a court decision is made to refuse to collect a debt for which the statute of limitations has expired.

At the same time, from the decisions of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Ural District dated November 30, 2012 N F09-11741/12 in case No. A60-3357/2012, the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Northwestern District dated January 12, 2006 N A66-7113/2005, in our opinion, it follows that the court may recognize as legitimate the write-off of debt, for which the court refused to collect the creditor, in tax accounting, based on the actual circumstances of the controversial situation.

Another example. By Resolution of the Administrative Court of the East Siberian District dated September 24, 2015 N F02-4788/15 in case N A58-3849/2014, the write-off as a bad debt, the collection of which the taxpayer had previously been denied in court, was declared unlawful. At the same time, the following circumstances of the refusal to collect debt from the taxpayer's counterparty were taken into account: the contract was recognized as not concluded, the volume of services provided was unproven. And this is despite the fact that the taxpayer presented the contract itself, invoices and certificates of work performed (services rendered) issued to the counterparty as evidence of claims for debt. We only note that the issue of calculating the limitation period was not considered in this case.

If the court previously refused to collect the debt due to lack of proof of its occurrence (for example, the creditor in his claim did not provide sufficient evidence of the transfer of property under the purchase and sale agreement), then the debt reflected in the creditor’s accounting cannot be written off as uncollectible due to the expiration limitation period. Such conclusions, in particular, can be drawn from the resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Moscow District dated May 22, 2013 N F05-3037/13 in case N A41-15350/2012 (by the decision of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated September 13, 2013 N VAS-12534/13 in transferring the case for review supervision was denied).

Regarding the possibility of making adjustments to accounting, considering that previously recognized revenue is not justified, we note the following.

As the AS of the Moscow District indicated in its resolution dated 04/07/2015 N F05-17025/14 in case N A41-67765/2013, in order to recognize a debt as bad due to the expiration of the statute of limitations, an organization must have documents that allow one to establish the date of occurrence of the receivables. To confirm that at the time of writing off the debt has not been repaid, you need to have inventory acts of receivables at the end of the reporting (tax) period, an order from the manager to write off receivables as a bad debt, as well as an agreement and primary documents confirming the formation of the debt itself.

Similar explanations were given in letters from the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated 04/08/2013 N 03-03-06/1/11347 and the Federal Tax Service of Russia dated 06/12/2010 N ШС-37-3/16955.

If errors (distortions) are detected in the calculation of the tax base relating to previous tax (reporting) periods in the current tax (reporting) period, the tax base and tax amount are recalculated for the period in which these errors (distortions) were made (clause 1 Article 54 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation).

If it is impossible to determine the period of errors (distortions), the tax base and tax amount are recalculated for the tax (reporting) period in which the errors (distortions) were identified. The taxpayer has the right to recalculate the tax base and the amount of tax for the tax (reporting) period in which errors (distortions) relating to previous tax (reporting) periods were identified, also in cases where the errors (distortions) led to excessive payment of tax (paragraph three of clause 1 of article 54 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation).

The decision of the Fourth Arbitration Court of Appeal dated March 24, 2014 N 04AP-249/14 supported the position of the court of first instance that there are no legal and factual grounds for classifying the disputed amount as a bad debt, for example, if the taxpayer (being the plaintiff) had not previously been in court proved the actual volume of sales to the counterparty. It is also noted that if disputed amounts are previously recognized in tax accounting as income, these amounts are subject to adjustment in the same period. Since lost proceeds from sales are not expenses of the company, the application of paragraph three of clause 1 of Art. 54 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation is unreasonable. Let us note that by the decision of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the East Siberian District dated July 31, 2014 N F02-2898/14 in case N A58-2816/2013, the decision of this appellate instance was left unchanged.

The named courts adhered to a similar position until recently (see the resolution of the Fourth Arbitration Court of Appeal dated July 15, 2015 N 04AP-3164/15, left unchanged by the ruling of the Administrative Court of the East Siberian District dated September 24, 2015 N F02-4788/15 in case N A58- 3849/2014).

Thus, information about undocumented debt, the collection of which was refused by the court, is subject to clarification in the period of its initial recognition.

• money orders;
• invoice;
• cash order;
• reference.

ACT OF RECONCILIATION OF ACCOUNTS. CONTROVERSIAL OPINION Sometimes advertisements for tenders contain a mention of the presence of such a document as a statement of reconciliation of calculations. This document is signed by the parties as There are different opinions regarding the reconciliation act. According to some, this act is not the primary accounting document confirming the completion of a business transaction. Others have the opposite opinion. For example, the Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated September 17, 2014.

How are accounts receivable confirmed?

Important

Federal Law of December 6, 2011 No. 402-FZ “On Accounting”. Among the most common in economic activity are the following primary documents:

• money orders;
• certificate of work performed (services rendered);
• invoice;
• cash order;
• reference.

3. Act of reconciliation of calculations The act of reconciliation of calculations itself is not a primary accounting document and, accordingly, is not indisputable evidence confirming the amount of debt of one party to the other.

Documents confirming receivables

To confirm that at the time of writing off the debt has not been repaid, you need to have inventory reports of receivables at the end of the reporting (tax) period, and based on the results of the inventory, the manager issues an order to write off the receivables as a bad debt. This procedure is established by clause 77 of the Regulations on accounting and financial reporting in the Russian Federation, approved. By Order of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated July 29, 1998 N 34n and Letters of the Federal Tax Service of Russia for the city.
Moscow dated December 13, 2006 No. 20-12/109630, dated June 27, 2008 No. 20-12/060959 confirms this procedure. An inventory of settlements is carried out with suppliers and customers, with the budget and extra-budgetary funds, employees and other debtors and creditors and verifies the validity of the amounts listed in the accounting records.

How to write off unconfirmed receivables?

In this regard, based on the results of writing off bad debts as non-operating expenses on the date of issuance of the order to write off receivables, there is no underestimation of income tax...... Based on the foregoing, the arbitration court of appeal considers the conclusion of the trial court to be legitimate that the applicant’s inclusion of losses from write-off accounts receivable as losses from writing off bad debts as non-operating expenses when calculating income tax for 2002, and not when calculating income tax for previous tax periods, cannot be recognized as a violation of the legislation on taxes and fees, the write-off is economically justified and documented."

Write-off of accounts receivable

Info

Accounts receivable often become the subject of litigation. Long-term failure by counterparties to fulfill their obligations may lead to the collection of receivables through the courts. Among the main problems that arise when collecting receivables through the court is documentary evidence of the existence of receivables.

Agreement Original or duly certified copies of agreements or other title documents. But even an agreement cannot be considered a document sufficient to confirm the debt, since it is not the primary document indicating the completion of a business transaction, and therefore the fact of the existence of a debt. Thus, the corresponding “primary” must be attached to the contract.

2. Primary documentation The sufficiency of primary documents is determined by their compliance with the requirements of Art.

What documents should be used to confirm accounts receivable in court?

Moscow in Letter dated December 19, 2007 No. 20-12/121646, explaining the situation regarding accounting for expenses when primary documents are missing, concludes: “an organization cannot take into account non-operating expenses when forming a tax base for calculating income tax the amount of losses based on documents not confirmed bad debts with an expired statute of limitations.” The Federal Antimonopoly Service of the West Siberian District dated August 28, 2007 in Resolution No. F04-5734/2007 (37452-A03-15) in case No. A03-16023/2006-21 “indicated that written off receivables cannot be attributed to non-operating expenses, since only payment documents, in the absence of relevant agreements, are not grounds for recognizing such a debt as an expense.”

The procedure for writing off old debt for which there are no documents left

The tax authorities' claims regarding expired debts written off as expenses are conditioned as follows: if the organization had filed a claim in court, the debt would not have become hopeless, so the expenses arose precisely because of the company's inaction. This means that they are economically unjustified and cannot be taken into account in expenses (clause 1 of Article 252 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation). According to tax authorities, documentary evidence of actions to collect (claim) a debt can be either letters from an organization sent to the debtor demanding repayment of the debt amount, or materials related to the creditor’s appeal to the court.

Please note that the requirements of the tax authorities are not based on the norms of tax legislation.
This rule is based on the norms of paragraph 11, 14.3 of PBU 10/99, according to which the amounts of receivables for which the statute of limitations has expired, as well as other unrealistic debts, are other expenses of the organization. For example. In 2006, there was a supply of goods worth 472,000 rubles, including VAT. The buyer did not pay for the goods. The organization, according to its accounting policy, does not create a reserve for doubtful debts.
According to the director's order, an inventory was taken, on the basis of which the debt of 2006, for which the statute of limitations had expired, was written off. Contents of transactions Debit Credit Amount, rub. Primary document Accounting records in December 2006 Recognized revenue from the sale of goods/provision of services 62 90-1 472 000 Bill of lading/act of services rendered Reflects the amount of VAT presented to the buyer 90-3 76-5 72 000 Invoice Accounting records in December 2009

No supporting documents for accounts receivable

Attention

In the event of liquidation of the debtor, the basis for recognizing the debt as hopeless will be the entry on its exclusion from the Unified State Register. The Federal Tax Service for Moscow, in Letter dated May 19, 2005 No. 20-12/36141, explains that it is necessary to take into account the expenses of an organization as part of non-operating expenses when forming the tax base for calculating income tax for the reporting (tax) period in which the corresponding entry was made on the liquidation of the debtor in the State Register. This position of the tax authorities is not controversial, but in some courts it is supported by arbitrators.

In order to write off receivables, the taxpayer must document the existence of an outstanding debt: the legal basis, the amount of the debt and the date of its occurrence. Since the right to reduce the tax base arises at the end of a specified period of time, an important point is the correct determination of the starting date of this period. Therefore, in order to recognize a debt as bad due to the expiration of the statute of limitations, it is necessary to have documents that allow you to establish the date of occurrence of the receivables.

In most cases, such documents are: - an agreement with the buyer or other debtor; — invoice for the shipment of goods, acceptance certificate for work performed, services rendered; — as well as other documents, in particular payment documents for the transfer of an advance to a supplier who has not fulfilled its obligations, a debt reconciliation act.
The organization must keep supporting documents for all business transactions, including accounts receivable, for at least five years, as required by paragraph 1 of Art. 17 of the Law on Accounting No. 129-FZ of November 21, 1996. The period established by tax legislation for storing documents necessary for the calculation and payment of tax is four years (clause 8, clause 1, article 23 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation). Please note that storage of primary documents is a responsibility, not a right of the organization.
Therefore, an organization that has not retained the primary accounting documents for accounts receivable with an expired statute of limitations is questioned about the grounds for writing it off as a reduction in taxable profit as part of non-operating expenses (clause 2, clause 2, Article 265) and the possibility of writing it off to the financial result organizations.
KG14-1683 contains a position indicating that reconciliation acts confirm the existence of the debtor's debt to the creditor. The truth, as always, is somewhere nearby, and these opinions are correct. But, as individual opinions, they are simply taken out of context, without taking into account the accompanying circumstances. "

A bare act, with a minimum of information, will certainly not be considered by the court as evidence. This is exactly what the Arbitration Court of the Ryazan Region did when it issued a ruling on June 4, 2014 in case No. A54-5035/13, the legality of which was confirmed by the Twentieth Arbitration Court of Appeal. In this case, by the way, one legal entity bought the receivables from the original creditor.

The court pointed out that the act of reconciliation of accounts itself is not a primary accounting document and, accordingly, is not indisputable evidence confirming the amount of debt of one party to the other.

"New in accounting and reporting", 2008, N 21

An accounts receivable audit allows you to confirm and reconcile the amount of debt recorded in the accounting accounts, as well as identify discrepancies and reflect them accordingly. Let's look at how to account for and write off accounts receivable.

Accounts receivable inventory

Inventory of settlements with suppliers (contractors), buyers (customers), accountable and other persons consists of checking the validity of the amounts listed in accounts 60 “Settlements with suppliers and contractors”, 62 “Settlements with buyers and customers”, 71 “Settlements with accountable persons ", 73 "Settlements with personnel for other operations" and 76 "Settlements with various debtors and creditors." In particular, account 60 must be subjected to a thorough check in relation to goods paid for but in transit, and settlements with suppliers for uninvoiced deliveries: it is checked against documents in accordance with the data of the corresponding accounts.

The organization determines the frequency of inventory of settlements with debtors independently and approves it in its accounting policy (clause 5 of PBU 1/98)<1>.

<1>The accounting regulation “Accounting policy of the organization” PBU 1/98 was approved by Order of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated December 9, 1998 N 60n.

Any audit of accounts receivable should begin with checking the availability of inventory documents and their correct completion. All submitted documents are checked for the presence and authenticity of signatures of officials, as well as the absence of erasures and corrections.

The verification can begin with acts of reconciliation of settlements with counterparties. There is no unified form of the act, therefore the organization must approve its version of the act in the annex to the accounting policy. It must indicate the date and number of documents for shipment, the cost of goods (work, services), the amount of VAT, as well as the payment amounts and details of payment documents. Considering that the purpose of inventory of receivables is to confirm financial statements and accounting data, reconciliation statements must be drawn up as of the reporting date.

The data in the annual financial statements must confirm the balances displayed as of December 31 of the reporting year, therefore, in fact, reconciliation of calculations as part of the annual mandatory inventory is possible only in January 2009.

The mandatory execution of reconciliation acts sent by the other party is not established by law. In addition, the organization may not receive part of the reconciliation acts from the counterparty until the preparation of financial statements, and this is not required. The organization has the right to independently recognize its calculations as correct (clause 73 of the PVBU)<1>.

<1>The regulations on maintaining accounting records and financial statements in the Russian Federation were approved by Order of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated July 29, 1998 No. 34n.

It is necessary to check the use of unified forms of primary documents for recording inventory results, which are approved by Resolution of the State Statistics Committee of Russia dated August 18, 1998 N 88. You should fill out form N INV-22 "Order (resolution, order) on conducting an inventory."

To document the inventory results, you need to use form N INV-17 “Inventory report of settlements with buyers, suppliers and other debtors and creditors” and the Appendix to it “Certificate for the inventory report of settlements with buyers, suppliers and other debtors and creditors.”

The act must be drawn up in two copies and signed by the responsible persons of the inventory commission on the basis of data on the balances of amounts identified from the documents listed in the relevant accounts. One copy of the act is transferred to the accounting department, the other remains with the commission.

The act must indicate:

• name of the debtor organization;
• accounting accounts on which the debt is recorded;
• debt amounts confirmed and not confirmed by debtors (columns 4 and 5);
• amounts of debt for which the statute of limitations has expired (column 6).

By type of debt, a certificate is attached to the settlement inventory report (Appendix to Form N INV-17). The inventory report is drawn up using synthetic accounts.

The results of the inventory calculations must be considered at a meeting of the inventory commission. Its tasks include identifying the reasons why it is necessary to make clarifications in the accounting registers, and forming recommendations for reflecting inventory results in accounting. The head of the organization, having familiarized himself with the conclusions and proposals of the inventory commission, issues an administrative document that approves the procedure for regulating discrepancies proposed by the commission.

Discrepancies discovered during the inventory between the actual amount of receivables and accounting data must be reflected in the accounting and reporting of the month in which the inventory was completed, and the results of the annual inventory - in the annual financial statements.

Checking reporting indicators

It is necessary to check the interrelation of indicators of different reporting forms. Accounts receivable should be reflected in lines 230 “Accounts receivable (payments for which are expected more than 12 months after the reporting date)” and 240 “Accounts receivable (payments for which are expected within 12 months after the reporting date)” of the balance sheet (Form N 1<2>). These amounts must be linked to the indicators in the Appendix to the balance sheet (Form No. 5<2>) under the section "Accounts receivable and payable".

Also, on lines 230 and 240 of Form No. 1, it is necessary to reconcile the total amount of receivables unpaid as of the reporting date with the accounting data for receivables.

Reflection of receivables as long-term and short-term in synthetic and analytical accounting is not provided. This breakdown must be confirmed by a certificate. There is no unified form of the certificate, so its form must be approved as an annex to the accounting policy.

Creation of reserves

The creation of a reserve (accounting and tax) must be stipulated in the accounting policy. An organization may or may not create reserves for doubtful debts in settlements with other organizations and citizens for products, goods, works and services, attributing the amounts of reserves to the financial results of the organization’s activities (clause 70 of the PVBU). In this case, it is necessary to prescribe the same conditions for both accounting and tax accounting or not to create such a reserve.

If a reserve for doubtful debts is created, you need to determine the conditions for its formation in accounting:

• a reserve can be created only for settlements with other organizations and citizens for products, goods, works and services (clause 70 of the PVBU);
• the reserve is created based on the results of an inventory of the organization's receivables, during which the inventory commission, through a documentary check, establishes the correctness and validity of the amounts of receivables, including those for which the statute of limitations has expired (clause 70 of the PVBU and clause 3.48 of the Methodological Instructions for Inventory of Property and financial obligations<1>), and a doubtful debt is an organization’s receivables that are not repaid within the time limits established by the agreement and are not secured by appropriate guarantees;
• the creation of a reserve indicating its total size, the amount for each doubtful debt and the probability of repayment of the debt should be enshrined in the accounting policy of the organization (PBU 1/98).

If the accounting policy of the organization for accounting purposes provides for the creation of a reserve, then it is necessary to check all the listed conditions.

The formation of a reserve for the amount of penalties is not provided for by law. Penalties are recognized as a sum of money determined by law or contract, which the debtor is obliged to pay to the creditor in the event of non-fulfillment or improper fulfillment of an obligation, in particular in case of delay in fulfillment.

Thus, penalties are a way of ensuring the fulfillment of an obligation, but not part of the payment for shipped goods. From this we can conclude that the accounting legislation does not provide for the creation of reserves for the buyer’s debt in the amount of penalties recognized by him but not paid (clause 1 of Article 329 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). Consequently, the organization has no grounds for creating a reserve for such debt (Clause 1, Article 11 of the Federal Law of November 21, 1996 N 129-FZ “On Accounting”).

The creation of the reserve in question is reflected by the posting:

D 91 “Other income and expenses”, subaccount 2 “Other expenses”, - K 63 “Provisions for doubtful debts”.

To write off the amount of the reserve for doubtful debts on the date of repayment by the buyer of debt that the organization previously recognized as doubtful, the following entries are made:

D 51 “Current accounts” - K 62 - funds received;

D 63 - K 91, subaccount 1 “Other income” - the amount of the reserve for doubtful debts is written off.

If by the end of the reporting year following the year in which the reserve for doubtful debts was created, this reserve has not been used in some part, then the unspent amounts are added to the financial results when drawing up the balance sheet at the end of the reporting year. In accounting, the addition of such amounts to the profit of the reporting period following the period of creation of the reserve must also be shown by posting:

D 63 - K 91-1 - unused amounts are written off.

When reflected in the balance sheet, the credit balance on account 63 at the beginning and end of the reporting year is included in the reduction of the debit balance on the settlement account. In other words, the amount of accounts receivable listed in the accounting records, for which a reserve has been created, is entered in the balance sheet minus the amount of the created reserve. The amount of the reserve formed and reflected in the accounting records is not shown separately in the liabilities side of the balance sheet. Reduction of accounts receivable by the amount of the reserve is made without entries in synthetic accounting accounts.

In tax accounting, when creating a reserve for doubtful debts, bad debts are also subject to write-off at the expense of the created reserve. And only if it is insufficient can the difference be immediately written off as non-operating expenses.

If there is a reserve for doubtful debts, it is unlawful to include bad debts in non-operating expenses.

If a reserve for doubtful debts is not created, then in accounting the amount of receivables is written off as other expenses in the debit of account 91.

In tax accounting, the full amount of bad debt is included in the organization’s non-operating expenses on the date of its write-off (clause 2, clause 2, article 265 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation). In this case, the entire amount of debt, including VAT, is written off as expenses (Letter of the Federal Tax Service of Russia for Moscow dated June 5, 2007 No. 20-12/052920).

Write-off of accounts receivable

Writing off overdue accounts receivable and other debts that are unrealistic to collect is the responsibility of the organization. If such amounts are not written off, then the financial statements are distorted, including information about the organization’s profit (loss).

In accounting, debts are subject to write-off (clause 77 of the PVBU):

• for which the statute of limitations has expired;
• unrealistic for collection on other grounds.

The write-off of debt must be attributed accordingly to the reserve for doubtful debts or to financial results, if in the period preceding the reporting period, the amounts of these debts were not reserved.

In tax accounting, bad debts are subject to write-off. It is necessary to check the correctness of attributing amounts to bad debts.

Bad debts (uncollectible) can be considered debts (clause 2 of Article 266 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation), for which:

• the established limitation period has expired (similar to the requirements of accounting legislation);
• in accordance with civil law, the obligation is terminated due to the impossibility of its fulfillment, on the basis of an act of a government body or the liquidation of an organization (as we see, in tax accounting the requirements are more stringent than in accounting).

It is also necessary to check the documentation of the write-off, i.e. Availability:

• order (instruction) of the head of the organization to write off receivables;
• written justification from the organization’s accounting department regarding the need for write-off (accounting certificate);
• act of inventory of settlements with buyers, suppliers and other debtors and creditors (form N INV-17);
• primary documents (contracts, etc.).

To account for receivables that were written off from the balance sheet due to the insolvency of the debtor or the expiration of the statute of limitations, an off-balance sheet account 007 “Debt of insolvent debtors written off at a loss” is provided. Such debt must be kept on the balance sheet for five years from the date of write-off in order to monitor the possibility of its collection in the event of a change in the debtor’s property status.

Maintaining off-balance sheet accounting on account 007 and compliance with the control procedure for written off debt are also subject to verification.

Analytical accounting for account 007 should be kept for each debtor whose debt is written off at a loss, and for each debt written off at a loss. If the debtor repays the debt within five years, then an entry must be made in the accounting records for the credit of account 007. If after five years the debt has not been repaid, then it is also necessary to make an entry for the credit of account 007 based on the accounting certificate.

M.N. Chirkova

Auditor of LLC AF "Finance NN"

Nizhny Novgorod