Fiscals intend to expand their powers to give yourself the right to cancel an electronic invoice.
The idea was initiated by the state revenue Committee and it met criticism and resistance companies.
The Chairman of the Board of the Kazakhstan Association of tax consultants Saken Karin is in the working group to consider the next amendments to the Tax code. On his page on Facebook he recalled how 2 years ago the tax authorities tried to try on a judicial robe, to independently recognize fictitious transactions for tax purposes.
“Then, to my surprise, this provision does not conceded that members of Parliament — wrote in your post Karin. — Currently I am a member of the joint working group of the state revenue Committee of the Ministry of Finance and the ANC No. 9 “Tax administration deals with unreliable taxpayers”. And here
again, the state revenue Committee once again wants to assign the functions of the court!
But this time the question of further unprecedented powers there approached more creatively.
What exactly do they offer? And
they propose to give itself the right to make cancellation of electronic invoices by decision
And what is the reason for the cancellation? The basis of only one thing: if the financial and economic operation, which was issued an invoice, the SRC seems doubtful.”
Return to liebesnest
This news does not applaud, as the impact of the adoption of this rule will be unpredictable. Saken Karin more advanced commented on the media portal 365info how to change Kazakhstan in case of success of the tax.
— Cancellation of e-invoices without trial. This means that a tax collector sitting in his office in a bad mood, and he saw something and he takes and cancels the deal. Corruption as the norm, agree?
— This story originates from the time when the Criminal code existed an article “pseudo-entrepreneurship”. Speaking everyday language, this rule was the cause of ills honest taxpayers, buyers of goods, works and services. How, you ask? For example, the company acquired a product or service from another company. All necessary documents were duly executed and the provider was registered with the tax authorities. All within the law.
However, later in court it became clear that some customers, this provider subscribed to fictitious documents, cashed the money. For this reason, the court has recognized his “repreparation”.
And all the other honest taxpayers-the people who actually bought a product or service, the tax authority had issued notice on the adjustment of taxes
At the time this procedure was based on the provisions of the law. And since such a supplier often had thousands of contractors, harm the interests of the business were enormous.
New — well forgotten old
— This article of the Criminal code is excluded, isn’t it?
— Yes, because
entrepreneurs began to be indignant, and the investment climate to deteriorate
Accordingly, the situation began to improve.
The courts on claims of tax authorities for recognition of the transaction void began to carefully consider each transaction separately, and studied all of its “history” and “matter”. Business interests were protected, but from the Arsenal of tax was lost as one of the effective methods for the collection of taxes.
Further, in order to improve the tax administration system was introduced e-invoices (of ESF). Once implemented, all information on transactions between business entities at the disposal of the tax.
Now they set themselves a new challenge: to return to the old method of dealing with the cashing of funds
And to this end suggested for consideration and discussion of amendments to the Tax code. They will allow them in the course of the desktop audit to check transactions in “fictitious”, not waiting tax audits and court decisions. Namely, I propose to give them authority for the cancellation of the “questionable” e-invoices.
Your own judge
— And what they can do, sitting in the office, to make such a decision?
— Exactly! But while this is within the framework of a tax audit. Although the practice is also flawed. So as to exclude the amounts of deductions, the VAT amount of the offset is not enough just to question and speculate. Is all you need to justify the position of accounting and taxation, and clear requirements of the Tax code.
I myself participated in the courts and face similar situations. Logic sneaks: they removed the VAT from the offset, explaining that the taxpayer was provided by some UI, which has no employees and the amount of work done is calculated not for one but for 10 people. But it’s UI could draw workers not on the labour-based, and contractual. That is, to perform a specific scope of work. And it is a tax before the court is not checked.
Or here’s another point. This SP on the balance sheet no assets. But the company can rent. And from such subjective conclusions “we believe” the transaction was deemed bogus.
There is a big “but”. The civil code says that a dummy transaction can be recognized only by a court decision
It is the court that sets out all the circumstances cause the parties to the transaction, examines and evaluates the evidence and their population decides. But now the tax people want to discuss amendments, in fact, to usurp the functions of the court. Is this normal, sitting in the office and not conducting a documentary audit, to conclude that the transaction was questionable, and to cancel it in the database?
If the rate still will be, in the future it will be possible to take any time to cancel the deal. The one who wrote out the invoice, it is believed the penalty under article 280 of the administrative code. And the one who bought the product or service will have to be removed from the standings paid in the transaction to VAT. And no need even to prove anything.
Will evaluate the transaction according to the established in unilateral criteria. Because it seemed to them. Categorically so
And to appeal it would be difficult, because in the court to appeal against actions of tax authorities, we will lose. The court will refer to the right of the tax authority.
Unreliability in the minds of
— Actually, the word “dubious” as a brand in the enterprise.
Now they have replaced the word “unreliable”. Which in the legal field country does not exist. Not only that, they came up with this concept, and posted on its website a list of “unreliable taxpayers”. There is, of course, there are criteria, and published it with the intention to let people know that they are in this list. But to call them unreliable is impossible – for businesses this creates a negative background.
If the enterprise has debts under taxes, it is not unreliable or questionable. After all, we have a presumption of good faith of a taxpayer and member of the civil Prvoboraca.
And of course, with that label with him for afraid to make deals. But the repayment of debt contributes to the active activities, including tax, isn’t it?
And this public “unreliability” is nothing but the intervention of the tax authorities in entrepreneurial activity
In the Business code contains clear articles prohibiting regulatory authorities create obstacles to legitimate business.
Bankruptcy in the end of the tunnel
And to undo these actions of the tax authorities, the parties will be in court for months, arguing that they are not criminals?
— Right. But it will be difficult to do because of the vague “right” that they want to legalize in the Tax code. VAT – a tax that was invented in the bowels of the tax system, and it has no direct relation to civil law transaction. The court would say that confirms the legality of transactions, but the tax authorities have the right to recognize them as questionable and remove you actually paid VAT. If such a right arise, the business entities will be in an unenviable position.
— What consequences await the business, if such rules still will be?
— Unpredictable. Now we don’t even know the criteria by which tax authorities are going to act. Plus there are doubts about the qualifications of tax officials.
In addition, they often carry out inspections without the involvement of experts. Although such a possibility provided by the Tax code
For example, there is a check rail industry need of professionals in this industry. Check agriculture — involvement of experts in this field. And so on. It is impossible to understand the essence of all processes in the industries without the experience of the specialists. I have no statistics on judicial proceedings specifically “on false deals”. But there is information that the courts in some regions is heavily loaded with such cases.
And if such things be done in-house control, I believe that the number of transactions, with the light hand of the tax authorities recognized the “dummy” will increase in tens times. And that could lead to bankruptcy of the successfully operating enterprises.