If the check point is incorrect. Incorrect indication of the checkpoint in the invoice. Buyer's old legal address is indicated

Mistake in payment order in the purpose of payment

Consider 2 situations when an error is detected by the payer:

• Until the bank executes the payment order. In this case, this order is revoked, in return for which the execution in credit organization a new, revised document is sent with the proper purpose of payment.
• After listing money the bank to the address of the payee. The process of correcting an error in a payment order in in this case is not regulated at the legislative level, therefore it is necessary to rely on the established practice, including the judicial one.

For the bank to make corrections in field 24 of the payment order, the initiating party must:

• inform the second party to the agreement, under which the payment was made, about the need to adjust the purpose of the payment and obtain consent to this;
• submit a letter on making adjustments to the payment order to the bank (if there is the consent specified in the previous paragraph);
• receive the specified letter with the credit institution's mark of acceptance;
• receive a message from the bank about the completed correction in the purpose of payment.

Clarification of payment in a similar way is done in cases where taxes were paid. In this case, a letter on changing the purpose of payment is sent to the Federal Tax Service of the Russian Federation (clause 7 of article 45 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, hereinafter - the Tax Code of the Russian Federation).

Clarifying a payment and changing the purpose of a payment order: how to compose a letter

It is necessary to note some positions of the courts on the possibility of correcting such an error in a payment order:

• In itself, the change in the purpose of payment on the basis of a letter sent to the counterparty does not contradict the law (Resolution of the AU of the North-West Okrug dated 13.06.2017 in case No. A56-33705 / 2015). The parties can resolve the issue of changing the named requisite through mutual agreement, without contacting the bank after that.
• None of the parties is entitled to unilaterally change the purpose of the payment (see the resolution of the CA of the North Caucasus region of 19.07.2017 in case No. A63-12573 / 2016).
• A link to an error in the payment order will not be taken into account by the court if the relevant party does not confirm its intention to correct this error by timely letters sent to the bank or counterparty (decision of the Moscow City Court of Arbitration dated December 7, 2012 in case No.

Thus, the courts classify letters on the correction of errors in payment documents as admissible evidence of the good faith of the parties, and also consider them as an appropriate basis for correcting an error in the purpose of payment.

Such a letter is drawn up in free form and must contain the following information:

• the correct wording of the purpose of the payment;
• date of correction;
• signatures of the persons who made up the payment order to which the correction is made (clause 7 of article 9 of the Law "On accounting" dated 06.12.2011 No. 402-FZ);
• information about the consent of the second party to the legal relationship to change the purpose of payment.

A letter about changing the purpose of payment in a payment order can be drawn up according to the template we offer: Payment change letter - sample.

If the checkpoint is incorrectly specified in the payment

Upon receipt of a written order from the client for the transfer of funds, the bank is obliged to conduct a comprehensive check of the data specified in it, including the details of the payee (clauses 2.1, 2.7 of the provisions "On the rules for transferring funds", approved by the Bank of Russia on 19.06.2012 No. 383-P, hereinafter - regulation No. 383-P).

In this case, the procedure for acceptance for execution, revocation and return of customer orders is established by the bank itself (clause 2.2 of Regulation No. 383-P). Including the credit institution determines the list of payment order details mandatory for verification, which usually include:

• the name of the payee;
• his TIN;
• BIK of the beneficiary's bank.

Failure to indicate or incorrect indication of the checkpoint details in a payment order rarely causes negative consequences for both the sender and the recipient of the payment.

If there is an error in the checkpoint of the payee, then the funds themselves will be transferred to his account, although in some situations the bank may request clarification from the sender of the payment order.

If the funds are sent to the account budget institution, then they will go to the correct checking account, but they may remain in the treasury of such an institution as unidentified payments.

OKTMO is incorrectly specified in the payment order

An error in a payment order in the case of an incorrect indication (or failure to indicate) the required OKTMO by itself will not entail such a tax offense as failure to fulfill the obligation to pay tax.

So, according to sub. 4 p. 4 art. 45 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation can be recognized as a tax offense (that is, failure to fulfill the obligation to pay tax) errors when filling out a payment order to transfer funds to the budget as payment of tax, due to which:

• the account was entered incorrectly Federal Treasury and the name of the beneficiary's bank;
• the funds did not reach the required account in the budgetary system of the Russian Federation.

The error in OKTMO is not indicated in this case as one of the grounds entailing the named offense. Consequently, it is only on the basis of this that the payer cannot be recognized as a violator in accordance with sub. 4 p. 4 art. 45 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation (of course, provided that all other necessary details are specified correctly).

So, errors in the appointment of a payment order already executed by the bank can be corrected by agreement of the parties (preferably fixed in writing) and a written notification of the bank about the need to make the appropriate adjustments.

Errors in specifying the recipient's KPP usually do not affect the bank's ability to transfer funds to the recipient. An error in OKTMO by itself does not entail a tax violation in the form of failure to fulfill obligations to pay tax.

Failure to indicate or incorrect indication of the checkpoint details in a payment order rarely causes negative consequences for both the sender and the recipient of the payment. If there is an error in the checkpoint of the payee, then the funds themselves will be transferred to his account, although in some situations the bank may request clarification from the sender of the payment order. If the funds are sent to the account of a budgetary institution, then they will go to the required current account, but they may remain in the treasury of such an institution as unidentified payments. The OKTMO is incorrectly indicated in the payment order An error in the payment order if the required OKTMO is incorrectly indicated (or not indicated) by itself will not entail such a tax offense as failure to fulfill the obligation to pay tax. So, according to sub. 4 p.

Online magazine for an accountant

In this article, we will consider errors in a payment order and their consequences. And possible options fixes them. Let's analyze the legislative acts regulating the system of payment orders.
There are two types of payment orders:

1. Drawn up for making payments on taxes and fees to budgetary or extra-budgetary state funds;
2. Drawn up for an organization (conducting commercial or non-commercial activities) or for an individual entrepreneur, that is, the payment is intended for the counterparty.

The main mistakes in payment documents are:

• overpayments (for which you can almost always issue a refund),
• or underpayment of any amounts (when the way out of the situation is to make a surcharge or, if possible, offset the overpaid funds).

If the payment is being processed by the bank, it is not too late to send a clarification letter to the back office.

The old checkpoint of the recipient is indicated in the payment order

But there are such errors in filling out payments, the consequences of which are more serious, and most importantly, the tax is not considered paid (accordingly, there will be fines, penalties or other penalties, especially significant for legal entities). Read also the article: → "Validity period of a payment order: operations, documentation and validity period" So, a tax or fee is considered unpaid if the following happened:

1. Wrong indication of the beneficiary's account.
   The money will not be transferred to the budget of the Russian Federation, or it will go to the account of the Federal Treasury, to which the money was not supposed to be sent;
2. Incorrect indication of the bank name. The same consequences as in the case of an erroneous indication of the beneficiary's account;
3. Incorrect indication of the account of the Federal Treasury or the name of the bank due to the fault of the bank.
   The consequences are similar to the first two points.

Errors in a payment order to a counterparty

On accounting "dated 06.12.2011 No. 402-FZ);

• information about the consent of the second party to the legal relationship to change the purpose of payment.

A letter on changing the purpose of payment in a payment order can be drawn up according to the template we offer: Letter on changing the purpose of payment - sample. If the checkpoint is incorrectly indicated in the payment order.When receiving a written order from the client for the transfer of funds, the bank is obliged to conduct a comprehensive check of the data specified in it, incl.

including details of the payee (clauses 2.1, 2.7 of the

On the rules for transferring funds ", approved. Bank of Russia June 19, 2012 No. 383-P, hereinafter - Regulation No. 383-P).

How to clarify in case of an error in a payment order?

Field 102 in the payment order

A63-12573 / 2016).

• A link to an error in the payment order will not be taken into account by the court if the relevant party does not confirm its intention to correct this error by timely letters sent to the bank or counterparty (decision of the Moscow City Court of Arbitration dated December 7, 2012 in case No.

Thus, the courts classify letters on the correction of errors in payment documents as admissible evidence of the good faith of the parties, and also consider them as an appropriate basis for correcting an error in the purpose of payment.
Such a letter is drawn up in free form and must contain the following information:

• the correct wording of the purpose of the payment;
• date of correction;
• signatures of the persons who made up the payment order to which the correction is made (clause 7 of Art.

Answers to common questions Question # 1: The company paid income tax, after which the accountant noticed an error in the payment order: the name of the wrong bank was indicated. What to do in this situation? Answer: You will have to send the amount due to the payment of tax again, because in case of an incorrect indication of the name of the bank or the Fed account.
Treasury money will not reach its destination.

Specification of the payment in this situation is impossible. Question # 2: What period of time is given by the tax service to clarify the payment in case of an error? Answer: Legally, the deadlines for submitting an application to clarify the details of payment (for taxes and fees, in which case this is generally possible) are not defined, but this can be done without problems no later than 3 years. To resolve issues with earlier errors, you need to go to court.

Attention

The requisite denotes the relevant information about the registration of a legal entity with the tax authority, without the presence of a checkpoint in the payment order it is impossible to make any money transfers. What is kbk in a payment These two details are required to be reflected in payment documents when transferring funds.

Without their indication, the payment is considered invalid, and employees of the Treasury, upon discovering a gross error, will not carry out such an operation. It is worth pointing out that individual legal entitiesrelated to status individual entrepreneurs do not receive this requisite, which means that the checkpoint is not included in the payment order.

The cell indicates "0". Also in other reporting documents, where there is a column "KPP", dashes are put down, or they remain empty. Deciphering the checkpoint The decoding of the code is given in a special departmental reference book.

The checkpoint is incorrectly specified in the payment order to the supplier

An error in a payment order in the purpose of payment Clarification of a payment and change of purpose in a payment order: how to compose a letter If the checkpoint is incorrectly specified in the payment order.

• Until the bank executes the payment order. In this case, this order is revoked, in exchange for which a new, revised document with the proper purpose of payment is sent to the credit institution for execution.
• After the bank transfers funds to the recipient of the payment.

  In this case, the process of correcting an error in a payment order is not regulated at the legislative level, therefore it is necessary to rely on the established practice, including the judicial one.

If the checkpoint is incorrectly specified in the payment order to the supplier

Legislative acts on the topic The documents are represented by the following acts: Letter of the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation dated 01.03.05 No. 03-02-07 / 1-54 On further actions in case of an error in the purpose of payment Art. 75 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation On the accrual of penalties for the amount of untimely paid tax the federal law from 23.12.04 No. 174-FZ On new 20-digit BCC and on the refusal of banks to accept payment orders with old BCC from 01.01.05 Order of the Ministry of Finance of Russia 12.16.04 No. 116n “On approval of the Procedure for accounting by the Federal Treasury of receipts to the budget system of the Russian Federation and their distribution among budgets budgetary system Russian Federation "On the inclusion of funds sent on a payment order with an absolutely incorrectly specified or old BCC, to the category of unclassified payments cl.

Errors in a tax payment order that can be corrected To correct a mistake, you need to clarify the data by submitting an application to the Federal Tax Service (you will need to present a copy of the payment order). Error in the column in the payment order Correct option Incorrect status of the payer 101 01 - for transferring funds to pay tax to compulsory insurance (medical, pension), recipient - extrabudgetary fund; 02 - calculation of personal income tax; 08 - payments to the social fund insurance; 09 - payments to individual entrepreneurs. Invalid KPP or TIN of the recipient 61 or 103 KPP consists of nine digits, TIN - of ten digits Invalid BCK 104 Correct BCK consists of twenty digits Invalid OKATO 105 Includes eleven digits. If a mistake is made when paying local taxes (personal income tax, UTII), funds may erroneously go to the budget of the wrong district.

Online magazine for an accountant

Civil Code of the Russian Federation On unjust enrichment of the counterparty in the amount of funds mistakenly received by him Art. 395 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation On the accrual of interest on the amount of the erroneously sent payment for each day of its withholding. AS of the North Caucasian District dated 04.12.2014 No. F08-8670 / 2014; FAS of the East Siberian District of May 14, 2013 No. A33-8935 / 2012; Federal Antimonopoly Service of the North-West District of December 22, 2010 No. A42-2893 / 2010; FAS of the Moscow District dated January 23, 2013 No. A40-12057 / 12-90-57, dated December 08, 2011 No. A40-36137 / 11-140-159; FAS Central District dated 31.01.2013 No. A64-5684 / 2012; Federal Antimonopoly Service of the West Siberian District dated June 30, 2011 No. A67-5567 / 2010. Arbitrage practice. Tax, penalties, fines are considered paid if the BCC is indicated by mistake.

The old checkpoint of the recipient is indicated in the payment order

An error in field 102 of the Payment is filled in by payers, strictly observing the recommendations of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation, respectively, all fields should display only truthful information, both about the payer and the recipient money transfer... Any violation of legal norms entails unpleasant consequences. Field 102 and field 103 in the payment order must display the registration reason code that was assigned to the legal entity.
Inconsistency of the data indicates the invalidity of the payment document. In accordance with Order No. 125n, the absence or inaccuracy of the details is the basis for the treasurers to classify the amount in the payment document as unclear transfers. At the same time, the question of whether a checkpoint is mandatory in a payment order is considered ambiguous, since it is completely related to the status of the recipient of the money transfer.

Errors in a payment order to a counterparty

• Incorrect indication of counterparty details. Sometimes companies forget to inform their partners about the change of payment details, and the funds remain in the bank until the circumstances are clarified. For the next 5 days, a bank employee will inquire about who the payment was intended to. There are two options here. Either notify the bank about the error, or receive the money returned on the 6th day and reissue the payment document).

Read also the article: → "Payer statuses in a payment order" What are the errors in a payment order? The following errors can occur in a payment order: Error Possibility to correct (no other errors) What to do? The purpose of the payment is indicated incorrectly Yes - Organize a reconciliation with the Tax Inspectorate, - draw up a reconciliation act, - sign the act yourself and give it to the IFTS employee for signature.

How to clarify in case of an error in a payment order?

• 5 and 6 digits indicate the registration code of the subject;
• The remaining 3 digits indicate the serial number in the registration book.

The decryption is as follows:

• the values \u200b\u200b02, 03, 43 indicate the process of registering a division of a Russian organization;
• the values \u200b\u200b04, 05, 44 indicate the origin of the registration of a separate branch of a company operating in the territory of the Russian Federation;
• values \u200b\u200b31, 32, 45 reflect information about the opening of economic activities of a branch of a Russian company.

These codes are no longer assigned to newly created organizations, but those legal entities that were registered under them continue their activities with these designations, respectively, the KPP field in the payment order is filled in according to the registration certificate.

Field 102 in the payment order

Federal Antimonopoly Service of the West Siberian District of 09.04.2010 No. A27-25035 / 2009; FAS of the Moscow District dated 26.10.2009 No. KA-A41 / 10427-09; Federal Antimonopoly Service of the North Caucasian District of 06.02.2008 No. F08-180 / 2008-68A; Resolutions of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation of July 23, 2013 No. 784/13; AS of the North Caucasian District of March 22, 2016 No. F08-1378 / 2016; AS of the Moscow District dated 06.10.2015 No. F05-13213 / 2015; FAS of the Ural District of 10.10.2012 No. F09-9057 / 12; FAS of the East Siberian District dated 06.12.2011 No. A33-17476 / 2010, dated 01.09.2011 No. A33-3885 / 2010; Federal Antimonopoly Service of the North-West District of 04.07.2011 No. A05-5601 / 2010; FAS of the Moscow District dated January 23, 2013 No. A40-12057 / 12-90-57, dated June 30, 2011 No. KA-A40 / 6142-11-2; Resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Volgo-Vyatka District of August 31, 2010 No. A29-1642 / 2010. Arbitrage practice. Tax, penalties, fines are considered paid if TIN, KPP, name are indicated by mistake tax authority, OKATO, basis of payment.
Letters of the Federal Tax Service of Russia dated 10.10.2016 No. SA-4-7 / 19125 @, dated 04.09.2015 No. ZN-4-1 / 3362 @, dated 31.03.2015 No. ZN-4-1 / 5201 @, dated 06.09.2013 No. ZN-3-1 / 3228 and dated 12.09.2011 No. ZN-4-1 / 14772 @ On recognition of tax unpaid in case of erroneous indication of the recipient's account or the name of the bank Letter of the Federal Tax Service of the Russian Federation dated 02.09.2013 No. 3N-2-1 / 595 @ О accrual of penalties to a taxpayer for non-payment of tax in the event that the bank employee in the payment order incorrectly indicated the account number of the Federal Treasury Department or the name of the bank, para. 9 Art. 12, art. 15 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation On the right of a taxpayer to file claims against a bank, through whose fault the account of the Federal Treasury or the name of the bank, clause 1 of Art. 864 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation On the compliance of the content of the payment order with the requirements of the law and banking rules of the Resolution of the FAS of the Moscow District of May 5, No.
Appendix No. 2 to the Order of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated November 24, 2004 No. 106n On instructions tax period in the payment order clause 9 of Appendix No. 2 to the order of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated November 24, 2004 No. 106n About indicating the type of payment in the payment order Letter from the Pension Fund of Russia dated April 6, 2011 No. TM-30-25 / 3445 About the details of payment orders for payments to the Pension Fund Order of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated December 21, 2011 No. 180n Approval of the 20-digit BCC Letter of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated July 31, 2008 No. 03-02-07 / 1-324 On the timing of the decision to clarify the payment by the tax service or the fund ( 10 days) clause 4 of Art. 45 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation On recognizing a tax payment with an incorrectly indicated name of a bank or an account of the Federal Treasury that has not been received by the budget Letter of the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation No. 03-02-07 / 1-64 of March 4, 2011 On clarification of an insurance payment in case of an incorrect indication of the BCC item 1 Art.

The checkpoint is incorrectly specified in the payment order to the supplier

Clarification of payment and change of purpose in a payment order: how to compose a letter It is necessary to note some positions of the courts on the possibility of correcting such an error in a payment order:

• In itself, the change in the purpose of payment on the basis of a letter sent to the counterparty does not contradict the law (Resolution of the AU of the North-West Okrug dated 13.06.2017 in case No. A56-33705 / 2015). The parties can resolve the issue of changing the named requisite through mutual agreement, without contacting the bank after that.
• None of the parties is entitled to unilaterally change the purpose of payment (see the resolution of the AU of the North Caucasian env.

If the checkpoint is incorrectly specified in the payment order to the supplier

The tax that was originally supposed to be paid will be recognized as unpaid (penalties will be charged), and tax collection, Whose BCC was misused, an overpayment will occur. Option 1: Make a return to the bank account. Option 2: Transfer the entire amount again, do nothing with respect to the overpayment, and then set it off when paying a similar tax. Option 3: Immediately offset against the payment of other taxes to the same budget.

The BCC indicated both the wrong tax and the other fund None. The tax will be unpaid and interest will be charged. Transfer the entire amount again. (The payment will be accepted by a budget of another level, whose BCC was incorrectly indicated, an overpayment of tax will be generated.

The offset of funds against taxes cannot be made between funds of different levels.) Column 101 incorrectly indicates the status of the payer None. The tax will not be considered paid, because.

In order not to leave the organization without VAT deduction, it is necessary to carefully monitor the correctness of filling out invoices (S / F). Clause 2 of Article 169 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation lists the main mistakes in the S / F that prevent the deduction of VAT. But in practice, there are many more mistakes.

Thus, the company may remain without deduction if specialists do not determine:

a buyer or seller;

the goods purchased by the company, as well as the amount of the prepayment and the cost of the goods (in the case when it comes to the "advance" C / F);

the size of the rate, as well as the amount of value added tax.

However, in practice, there are much more errors in S / F. It is often incomprehensible that incorrect filling in of which details can prevent tax specialists from understanding who is the buyer and who is the seller, what product and at what cost the company acquired it, as well as the amount of deduction that the company is entitled to. In order to avoid mistakes in the S / F, we suggest that you familiarize yourself with the most common mistakes that are made when filling them out.

Mistake 1: lack of TIN or incorrect filling in

Often, errors in the S / F, which prevent tax deduction, arise when filling out one of the main details of the company - TIN. If there is no TIN in the S / F or a mistake has been made in this requisite, tax specialists will immediately refuse to deduct value added tax. Recall that the TIN is a unique and non-repeating set of numbers assigned by the tax authorities to each company and organization. With its help, it is possible to identify the company even when the counterparties have identical names and registration addresses. So, S / F with an incorrect TIN will become a reason for refusing to deduct the company's VAT.

In rare cases, VAT deduction can be defended in court. This is possible when the inspectors have the ability to identify the seller, as well as the buyer, using other specified details. However, judges often agree with tax specialists and believe that an incorrect TIN or its absence completely deprives the buyer of the right to deduct tax. The judges agreed with this opinion in the decisions of the arbitration courts of the West Siberian (З-С) from 26.06.15 No. Ф04-20747 / 2015 and Uralsky from 08.04.16 No. Ф09-2716 / 16 districts. If you are not in the mood for litigation, the easiest and most reliable option is to get an error-free S / F from your supplier. But, judges often cancel deductions due to errors in the TIN, if there are other errors in the submitted papers. For example, an address is indicated that does not coincide with the data in the Unified State Register of Legal Entities, the checkpoint is incorrectly indicated, or the certificates are stamped by another company.

Mistake 2: indicating the wrong gearbox

The requisite of the company's KPP does not apply to the mandatory S / F details. In accordance with the explanation of the Ministry of Finance of Russia, the checkpoint is exclusively an addition to the TIN.

However, tax specialists still remove tax deductions if there is no checkpoint in the S / F or it is indicated incorrectly. In this case, the judges usually take the side of the firms and argue that the incorrectly specified in the C / F KPP or its absence cannot be a reason for the company to refuse a deduction. The judges came to such conclusions in the decisions of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of Povolzhsky dated 20.01.14 No. A55-27704 / 2012, East Siberian (В-С) dated 20.06.13 № А19-19838 / 2012 and North Caucasian (С-К) dated 09.06. 12 No. A53-10773 / 2011 districts.

After all, since the checkpoint is not obligatory requisite C / F, then there are no reasons for refusing to deduct company tax for an error or absence.

Often there are cases when judges make decisions in favor of the tax authorities. In rare cases, judges, as well as inspectors, make a decision to refuse to deduct the S / F tax due to the incorrect filling of the checkpoint. In addition, there are other minor flaws in the S / F. These include the indication of an incorrect address and a signature provided by a facsimile method. This is confirmed by the decisions of the FAS Povolzhsky dated 01.20.14 No.А55-27704 / 2012 and В-С dated 06.20.13 No.А19-19838 / 2012, Arbitration ships S-K from 10.03.15 No. Ф08-10982 / 2014 of districts.

Mistake 3: Invalid Currency Specification

The name of the currency belongs to the obligatory S / F details. If you make a mistake in this requisite or specify an incorrect currency code, the amount of VAT deducted will be determined incorrectly. After all, there will be ambiguities in what currency the C / F was issued by the supplier. And, therefore, the incorrect filling of the currency code, as well as its absence at all in line 7 of the currency information, is a dangerous defect.

Suppliers occasionally put a graphic symbol of the country's currency instead of the currency name in line 7. According to financiers, this cannot be considered wrong. If on line 7 of S / F a graphic symbol of the ruble was indicated instead of the name and currency code, this is not a reason for deducting VAT. However, tax professionals often have a different opinion. If the firm does not intend to argue, it will be easier to check that the name of the currency, as well as the code, is recorded in the C / F by the supplier.

Mistake 4: Invalid Buyer Address

Errors in providing the customer address are errors, although they are not serious. It should be noted that the buyer's address is a mandatory S / F requisite. However, officials are of the opinion that errors in the address are not significant and are not a reason for depriving the right of deduction. Even if the supplier mistakenly indicated the old registered office of the company, the error is not considered serious.

Most often, tax specialists make claims for errors in specifying the address. For example, if the address is not indicated in the S / F at all, or certain details, including the postal code, were incorrectly indicated. The judges are of the opinion that such a mistake does not provide grounds for depriving the buyer of the right to deduction. The main thing here is to confirm the reality of the transaction.

Error 5: Invalid S / F number

Each S / F must contain a serial number. If there are errors in it, then this is a reason for refusing to deduct tax.

Thus, if the S / F does not have a mandatory requisite, then the document cannot confirm the right to deduct tax. However, inaccuracies do not prevent inspectors from identifying the seller or buyer, the purchase and its purchase price, as well as the rate and amount of tax.

Tax specialists withdraw deductions for S / F without numbers, so a reliable option is to obtain a corrected document from the supplier with the assigned number. If this is not possible, then the tax deductions can be defended in court. The judges are of the opinion that such defects are formal and confirm the right to a tax deduction. However, both judges and tax specialists will immediately withdraw an S / F deduction without a number if they fail to identify the purchase.

Mistake 6: incorrect or inaccurate product name

The name of goods, services or works is written by the supplier in column 1 of the C / F. If the inspectors fail to identify the product, an error in this requisite will be dangerous. In confirmation of this, there is a letter from the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated August 14, 2015 No. 03-03-06 / 1/47252.

If the supplier has incorrectly indicated the name of the product, then tax specialists have the right to deprive the VAT deduction. In addition, it is dangerous to write in the column where the names of the goods, works or services, the number and the date of the contract must be indicated. The court is confident that this error may cost the company the deprivation of the right to deduct tax.

Sometimes in court, they may leave the right to deduct the S / F tax without the presence of decryptions of specific goods, works or services. But this is permissible only if the purchase can be identified by other documents. For example, it can be a contract, invoices, specifications. In the event that the name of the goods, services or works is not indicated in the S / F, as well as in the contract itself, and the price is not agreed, the right to deduct the log will not be defended in court.

Error 7: Facsimile signature in s / f

The C / F must be signed directly by the representative of the firm. In the event that instead of the original signature on the S / F there is a facsimile, the company does not have the right to deduct tax. To protect yourself, make sure that the counterparty has put a "live" signature on the S / F. In practice, a court decision will not be in favor of the firm.

In the past, firms sometimes argued in court that a facsimile tax deduction was valid. However, now the court is sure that the deduction in this case is inadmissible.

The Ministry of Finance, as well as tax authorities, also believe that facsimiles cannot be used in the S / F when processing primary documents.

Often in arbitration, primary documents with a facsimile signature are recognized as invalid (Resolutions of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated September 27, 2011 No. 4134/11, FAS В-С dated April 29, 2013 No. А19-11729 / 2012 and Povolzhsky dated April 1, 2014 No. А57-4665 / 2013 districts).

Error 8: S / F is signed by an unauthorized employee

The C / F must be signed by the head of the form, as well as by the accountant or other persons. On the basis of an order or a power of attorney, an employee can be authorized to sign an invoice. In the case when the S / F was issued by the entrepreneur, he either signs the papers himself or transfers these powers by power of attorney.

If the s / f was signed by an unauthorized employee of the company, then such a document deprives the company of the right to deduct tax. For example, if the S / F was signed by a former director general the seller, the tax specialists will deprive the company of the deduction, and the court will be on the side of the auditors.

The arbitration is of the opinion that if the C / F was signed by an unauthorized employee of the company, then this is a serious reason for the deprivation of the right to deduct tax. In confirmation of this, there are decisions of arbitration vessels BC from 10.02.16 No. F02-7338 / 2015, Far Eastern from 17.02.16 No. F03-5999 / 2015, З-С dated 07.04.16 No. F04-996 / 2016 and Moscow districts dated 09.03.16 No. F05-1236 / 2016.

However, there were also cases when the court took the side of the firms. If the document was signed by an unauthorized person, this does not give reason to believe that the transaction was invalid. This is strong evidence that an unjustified tax benefit was received by the firm.

Mistake 9: inaccuracies in the tax rate

If the wrong tax rate was applied in the S / F, then the error is serious. For example, if the rate is 0%, the rate is 18%. This type of S / F deprives the buyer of the right to deduct tax. The fact that the supplier pays VAT to the budget does not change the essence.

The tax rate is established by law country element of taxation. It is mandatory for everyone. If the supplier indicated the wrong rate in the document, the buyer is deprived of the right to deduct VAT.

Mistake 10: incorrect indication of the value of goods or inaccuracies in the amount of tax

Wrong indication of the tax amount, as well as the cost of goods, services or works may result in the deprivation of the right to deduct VAT. This is confirmed by the letter of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated 09/18/14 No. 03-07-09 / 46708.

It happens that suppliers round off S / F amounts, which in itself is acceptable. S / F is drawn up in rubles and kopecks. The company calculates taxes only in rubles. Rounding follows the rules of mathematics. But these rules apply exclusively during the tax calculation. They do not apply to primary documents and S / F.

The invoice is the main document on the basis of which sellers apply the VAT deduction. But, unfortunately, sometimes invoices contain errors and omissions. What defects can deprive the company of a deduction, and which ones cannot, read the article.

Insignificant defects

Article 169 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation contains all the details that an invoice must contain. Nevertheless, not always the absence or error in the indication of one or another requisite is fraught with "withdrawal" of VAT deduction. The fact is that in paragraph 2 of Article 169 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation there is one important rule, which, by the way, the tax authorities can "forget" about during the audit. And it will not be superfluous for them to remind about it. The rule states: if an error in the invoice does not prevent the tax authorities from identifying the seller, the buyer, the name and cost of goods (works, services, property rights), as well as the rate and amount of VAT, such an error is not an obstacle to deduction.

Therefore, if your inspector, having discovered an inaccuracy in the writing of, for example, the seller's address, on the invoice, indicates the illegality of the deduction, then you have every reason to assert the opposite. The Letter from the Ministry of Finance in the Letter dated 02.04.2015 No. 03-07-09 / 18318 will help you. Officials explain that there is a mistake in specifying the address, if all the others can be identified important indicators, is not a reason for denial of the deduction. As well as the indication of the old legal address should not entail negative consequences (Letter of the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation of 08.08.14 No. 03-07-09 / 39449).

For convenience, we decided to combine all other situations in which the refusal to deduct VAT is illegal.

Product name must be accurate

So, the first mistake: an error that prevents tax officials from identifying the name of a product (work, service, property right). If the invoice contains the wrong name, then the company is threatened with a "withdrawal" of the deduction. The Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation in the Letter dated 14.08.15 No. 03-03-06 / 1/47252 confirms that in such a situation, the refusal to deduct is legitimate.

Also, check that the name on the invoice matches the name on the primary document (consignment note, certificate of completion, etc.). Even if the wording is different, even the court may not help here. For example, in the Resolution of the Twentieth Arbitration Court of Appeal dated 28.11.11 No. 20AP-4364/11, the dispute was resolved in favor of the IFTS. The judges considered the situation when the invoice indicated "work on repairing a garage", and in the act of work performed - "repair of the railway". The arbitrators considered that the contractor should have properly corrected the invoice, otherwise the right to deduction would be lost.

It happens that a specific name is not indicated on the invoice, but only a reference to the contract is given (for example, services under the contract to such and such). We want to warn you right away that it is better not to allow such formulations. In practice, tax authorities often do not accept such invoices, believing that such registration does not allow understanding the exact name of goods, works or services. Moreover, even a judicial review of a dispute does not guarantee a decision in your favor. For example, in the Resolution of the Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal dated January 17, 2013 No. 09AP-38028/2012 in case No. A40-80881 / 12-91-445, it was important for the court (along with other circumstances) that the invoices in the column “ name of goods ”did not disclose the types of services rendered, but contained the general wording“ services under a contract ”. As a result, the dispute was resolved in favor of the inspection.

Although in arbitration practice you can also find decisions made in favor of companies (Resolutions of the Tenth Arbitration Court of Appeal dated 09.04.12 No. 10AP-301/12 and FAS of the Moscow District dated 24.08.11 No. F05-8167 / 11). One of the main arguments is as follows: since the details of the contract are indicated in the invoice, nothing prevents the auditors from opening the contract and finding out the exact name.

And if information about goods (works, services) is given in the invoice, but it is incomplete? This issue was considered by the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation in the Letter dated 05/10/11 No. 03-07-09 / 10. The department explained that if the invoice contains incomplete information about the goods, but the invoice does not prevent the tax authorities from identifying the above information, then such a document is not a reason for refusing to accept VAT amounts for deduction.

Name and TIN of the seller and the buyer

It happens that when issuing an invoice, the company made an inaccuracy in the name of the buyer. For example, uppercase letters are replaced with lowercase letters and vice versa, or extra characters (dashes, commas) are added. If other mandatory details are correct and do not prevent the tax authorities from identifying the counterparty, then the deduction on such an invoice is legal (letters of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated 02.05.12 No. 03-07-11 / 130 and dated 15.08.12 No. 03-07-09 / 117, Resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Moscow District dated 01.16.06 No. KA-A40 / 13545-05).

There will not be an obstacle to deducting VAT and an invoice in which the counterparty mistakenly indicated the letter "e" instead of "e" and vice versa. Such conclusions can be made, guided by the letter of the Federal Tax Service of Russia for Moscow dated 06/08/11 No. 16-15 / 55909.

Is the absence or incorrect indication of the TIN of the seller (or buyer) a sufficient reason for the "withdrawal" of the deduction? Practice shows that for auditors this may be a reason for refusing a deduction.

However, if the supplier made a mistake in specifying the buyer's TIN, or did not indicate its number at all, then such an error does not prevent the tax authorities from identifying the buyer, because it is they who are checking (Resolutions of the Arbitration Court of the North Caucasian District of 08.27.2014 on case No. A32-11444 / 2012, FAS of the Moscow District dated 04/27/2011 No. KA-A40 / 2549-11 in case No. A40-160091 / 09-142-1315).

The same is the case if the counterparty made a mistake in writing his TIN, and the error is in the nature of a clerical or misprint (for example, an extra zero is put, or one number is "doubled"). The Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Central District in its Resolution of 08.04.2013 on case No. А14-7612 / 2011 noted that such a typo does not interfere with the identification of the seller. In the Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the North Caucasus District of 12/30/2014 No. F08-9625 / 2014 in case No. A32-26444 / 2012, the court considered that a slip of the tongue in the writing of the TIN should not prevent the taxpayer from deducting VAT.

In other cases, the position of the courts is inconsistent. For example, in the Resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the North-West District of 23.07.2012 on case No. А42-2345 / 2010, the court did not accept the indication of the wrong TIN of the seller in the invoice as an argument for "withdrawing" the deduction. The arbitrators noted that the company could not have known about the unreliability of the TIN. In favor of the companies were also issued the Resolution of the Eighteenth Arbitration Court of Appeal dated January 22, 2015 No. 18AP-15113/2014 in case No. A47-7539 / 2013. But there are also decisions with the conclusions of the courts that the incorrect indication of the TIN in the invoice deprives the buyer of the VAT deduction (Resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Central District of 05.04.2012 No. A68-2733 / 11).

If arithmetic "suffers"

When can we talk about an arithmetic error? In particular, when the quantity of goods (works, services) multiplied by the price is not equal to the cost of goods (works, services) excluding VAT. Another example is the value without VAT multiplied by the rate does not equal the amount of tax. Moreover, even in the case when an inaccuracy was committed in one or two lines, the inspectors cancel the deduction for the entire invoice.

However, it should be borne in mind that arithmetic errors may be associated with the specifics of the supplier's accounting program. For example, in a dispute considered by the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the North-Western District in Resolution No. A56-17988 / 2011 dated January 19, 2012, the program was configured in such a way that when filling out an invoice, the total value of the entire delivery, excluding VAT, was divided by the quantity, and the result obtained was multiplied per bet. Since the unit cost was very small, this algorithm led to rounding errors. The judges considered that minor inaccuracies did not deprive the buyer of the right to deduction.

Invalid currency code

The Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation in a Letter dated March 11, 2012 No. 03-07-08 / 68 explains that the incorrect indication of the currency code or its absence may impede the identification of the value of goods (works, services) and the amount of VAT indicated in this invoice. In this regard, invoices with such errors, according to officials, are not registered in the purchase book. Therefore, the department adds, they need to be corrected in the manner prescribed by paragraph 7 of the Rules for filling out an invoice, approved by the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of December 26, 2011 No. 1137.

About signature

Obviously, the failure to indicate the signature of the chief accountant in the invoice due to the absence of such a position in the staffing table does not prevent the tax authorities from identifying the seller and buyer of the transaction, the cost of goods, works, services, the rate and amount of tax (paragraph 2, paragraph 2 of Art. 169 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation). Consequently, the absence of the signature of the chief accountant in such a situation should not be a reason for refusing to deduct VAT. A similar conclusion can be drawn from the Letter of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated 02.07.2013 No. 03-07-09 / 25296. Judicial practice confirms the legality of deducting VAT on an invoice, in which there is no signature of the chief accountant, in the absence of such a position in the supplier's staff (Resolutions of the FAS of the East Siberian District of 12.04.11 No. A19-11133 / 08, FAS of the Moscow District of 20.01.12 No. A40-144847 / 10-98-1227).

To minimize tax risks, the buyer can ask the seller to make an entry in the invoice that she does not have the position of chief accountant.

Instead of the director and the chief accountant, the invoice can be signed by a person authorized to do so by an order (other administrative document) of the organization or by a power of attorney on behalf of the organization. Please note that the law does not provide for the supplier's obligation to provide the buyer with a copy of an administrative document or a power of attorney for the right to sign invoices by authorized persons. Therefore, the tax authority has no right to demand from the taxpayer-buyer a certified copy of these seller's documents. Similar explanations are given by the Federal Tax Service in the Letter dated 09.08.2010 No. ShS-37-3 / 8664.

And finally, we would like to draw your attention to the fact that in order to avoid tax risks, the signature on the invoice must be affixed with one's own hand. That is, it is not desirable for the supplier to sign by using a facsimile (Letter of the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation of 06/01/2010 No. 03-07-09 / 33, Resolution of the FAS of the North Caucasus District of 05/30/14 No. A32-2968 / 2012, the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of September 27 .2011 No. 4134/11). True, in jurisprudence there are decisions in favor of the legality of the deduction of VAT on the basis of invoices signed by facsimiles. But most of disputes were resolved in favor of the IFTS.