Taxpayers are required to pay VAT tax payment amounts contributed by customers for future delivery of goods or services. This position has repeatedly been announced by the Ministry of Finance, supported by the courts, including constitutional and supreme arbitration. To complete the validity of this statement the law has decided to recognize the deduction, the VAT refund, with the advance paid.
And what if the shipment of goods and the advance occurred in the same quarter. The position of tax authorities is simple, all advances received should be reflected in the declaration, and therefore need to charge him with tax, which would later be reflected in the residue. This situation is encountered in the practice of accountancy pretty often, so much of it formed judicial practice. So the courts side with taxpayers: an advance received in the same quarter as the shipment of goods or services shall cease to be re-classified in advance, and revenue from the sale. This position is also supported by the supreme court of arbitration.
Another situation that occurs less frequently: termination of the agreement by which an advance has been received. Tax, as expected, according to the need for payment of advance VAT, although its return taxpayers can put it in the deduction for this tax. The courts take the taxpayers on this issue. Because of the decision of the arbitrators that the advances on contracts that were terminated in the same quarter, do not fall within the VAT base, as they essentially cease to be, including the item will be considered and payment of tax, which is not was returned to the buyer.
In the following situation I want to talk about the deposit. The Civil Code distinguishes this concept from the front. Since the advance is to ensure commitments by the buyer, which is not refundable in the event of breach of contract. In this situation, the tax authorities have found its support in the courts of arbitration, ie, deposit equal to the advances received.
As a result, the article should point out that taxpayers themselves must choose how they will act in a given situation. Indeed, contrary to the positions in the positions of the fiscal authorities have to seek protection from the courts.
And what if the shipment of goods and the advance occurred in the same quarter. The position of tax authorities is simple, all advances received should be reflected in the declaration, and therefore need to charge him with tax, which would later be reflected in the residue. This situation is encountered in the practice of accountancy pretty often, so much of it formed judicial practice. So the courts side with taxpayers: an advance received in the same quarter as the shipment of goods or services shall cease to be re-classified in advance, and revenue from the sale. This position is also supported by the supreme court of arbitration.
Another situation that occurs less frequently: termination of the agreement by which an advance has been received. Tax, as expected, according to the need for payment of advance VAT, although its return taxpayers can put it in the deduction for this tax. The courts take the taxpayers on this issue. Because of the decision of the arbitrators that the advances on contracts that were terminated in the same quarter, do not fall within the VAT base, as they essentially cease to be, including the item will be considered and payment of tax, which is not was returned to the buyer.
In the following situation I want to talk about the deposit. The Civil Code distinguishes this concept from the front. Since the advance is to ensure commitments by the buyer, which is not refundable in the event of breach of contract. In this situation, the tax authorities have found its support in the courts of arbitration, ie, deposit equal to the advances received.
As a result, the article should point out that taxpayers themselves must choose how they will act in a given situation. Indeed, contrary to the positions in the positions of the fiscal authorities have to seek protection from the courts.
No comments:
Post a Comment