Another notable relief for small businesses is shortened reporting forms. Here the Ministry of Finance did this work for small enterprises, longing for lightweight forms: in August 2012, they finally got examples of how the balance sheet items might look . And also they were able to see firsthand the profit and loss statement of the "kids".
The balance sheet items for managerial and commercial expenses are deleted, more precisely, they, together with the cost price, are included in the general line “Expenses for ordinary activities”. As expected, everything related to PBU 18/02 has disappeared, since small enterprises still do not use it. The reference section of form No. 2 is completely removed.
This “sequestration” to small enterprises that needed it could be done on their own before, but since there were patterns, it was a sin not to use them.
By the way, special regimes indicate the amount of the Unified Social Tax, the tax at the STS or UTII in the line “Income taxes - incomes" of the simplified statement of financial results. If they use the usual form, then these taxes are reflected in the line “Other”.
On the other hand, what prevents the two versions of reporting? Simplified forms should be submitted to the Federal Tax Service Inspectorate and statistics, and the usual forms to participants. It may seem that this is a double job, but reporting to the tax authorities will get as large as possible. Consequently, they will have less opportunity to cling to any imaginary inconsistency with tax reporting by analyzing the balance sheet of the enterprise.
Take at least the line “Material non-current assets” of the balance sheet for small enterprises. Go figure it out what the total amount indicated on the line was formed for the amounts, and how much of it falls on fixed assets. And if the inspector does not know the accounting data on the OS and the necessary data to decrypt the balance sheet item, he will have less reason to doubt the correctness of the calculation of the property tax base specified in the declaration. More precisely, it’s not so - he can doubt as much as he wants, but he has nothing to justify his doubts, and somehow he will not be able to scribble you requests.
True, one can argue here: in response, the inspection will send a demand to provide a transcript of any balance sheet item, then run, take it or send it by mail! It’s better to immediately show the cost of the OS in the balance.
I agree, this approach also has the right to life. But, strictly speaking, according to the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, if the testers did not find errors in the declaration, they can’t demand anything from you on a cameral. This is the first. Second: the inspection is also not entitled to request any transcripts, analytical reports, or other documents, the drafting of which is not provided for by law. This in September 2012 was confirmed by the Federal Tax Service itself.
One may also ask: “Isn't the existence of two versions of reporting an accounting violation?” You can answer it with a counter-question: "And where does it say that the organization is forbidden to develop forms in the context of user reporting groups?" Nowhere. All normative acts, including Law N 402-, speak about reporting in general, abstractly. There is nothing stopping us from presenting simplified forms to the IFTS, and to participants or investors - traditional ones, where all balance sheet items are explained in detail.