To answer the question of what types of work these or those performed works belong to, let's turn to the current regulations.

So, according to paragraph 2 of Art. 257 tax code RF (hereinafter referred to as the RF Tax Code):

• works on completion, additional equipment, modernization include works caused by a change in the technological or service purpose of equipment, a building, structure or other object of depreciable fixed assets, increased loads and (or) other new qualities;
• reconstruction includes the reorganization of existing fixed assets associated with the improvement of production and an increase in its technical and economic indicators and carried out under the project for the reconstruction of fixed assets in order to increase production capacity, improve quality and change the range of products;
• technical re-equipment includes a set of measures to improve the technical and economic performance of fixed assets or their individual parts based on the introduction of advanced equipment and technology, mechanization and automation of production, modernization and replacement of obsolete and worn-out equipment with new, more productive equipment.

14.1) reconstruction of linear facilities - a change in the parameters of linear facilities or their sections (parts), which entails a change in the class, category and (or) initially established indicators of the functioning of such facilities (capacity, carrying capacity, etc.) or in which a change in the boundaries of the right of way is required and (or) security zones of such objects;

14.2) overhaul of capital construction objects (with the exception of linear objects) - replacement and (or) restoration of building structures of capital construction objects or elements of such structures, with the exception of load-bearing building structures, replacement and (or) restoration of engineering and technical support systems and engineering networks - technical support of capital construction facilities or their elements, as well as replacement of individual elements of load-bearing building structures with similar or other elements that improve the performance of such structures and (or) restoration of these elements;

14.3) overhaul of linear facilities - a change in the parameters of linear facilities or their sections (parts), which does not entail a change in the class, category and (or) initially established indicators of the functioning of such facilities and which does not require a change in the boundaries of the right of way and (or) protection zones of such objects.

Based on the definitions listed in normative documents when qualifying costs as repairs or reconstruction, the purpose of the work is of decisive importance.

Works related to a change in the purpose of an object, the appearance of other new qualities in an object are recognized as modernization, completion or additional equipment. Reconstruction involves work on a specific project, the purpose of which is to increase production capacity, improve the quality and change the range of products, the parameters of capital construction objects, their parts (height, number of floors, area, production capacity indicators, volume) and the quality of engineering and technical support.

From the point of view of tax legislation, the costs of reconstruction increase the initial cost of the fixed asset and are written off as expenses through depreciation (clause 2, article 257, articles 258, 259 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation), and the costs of repairing the fixed asset are current and lump sum the full amount of actual costs are taken into account in other expenses when calculating income tax in the reporting (tax) period in which (clause 1 of article 260, clauses 2, 5 of article 272 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation):

• an act of completed work was signed if the work was performed by a contractor;
• the works were completed if they were carried out by the organization itself.

By general rule, repair contributes to the maintenance of objects in working condition during their useful life and does not lead to an improvement in the original standard performance indicators. Current and medium repairs are carried out, as a rule, with a frequency of less than one year to maintain facilities in working order.

According to Art. 11 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation institutions, concepts and terms of civil, family and other branches of legislation Russian Federation, used in the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, are applied in the meaning in which they are used in these branches of legislation, unless otherwise provided by the Tax Code of the Russian Federation.

Since the concepts of reconstruction (modernization, technical re-equipment, etc.) are given in the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, then, taking into account the explanations of the Ministry of Finance of Russia, for the purposes of taxing profits in the course of these works, one should be guided by the definitions contained in the Tax Code of the Russian Federation (letter of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated February 15, 2012 N 03 -03-06/1/87).

In paragraph 1 of Art. 4 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, it is established that during the overhaul, structural and other characteristics of the reliability and safety of capital construction facilities are affected.

In accordance with clause 3.11 of the Regulations on the scheduled preventive maintenance of industrial buildings and structures, approved by the Decree of the USSR Gosstroy of December 29, 1973 N 279 and clause 5.1 of departmental building standards (VSN) N 58-88 (p) "Regulation on the organization and reconstruction, repair and Maintenance buildings, communal and socio-cultural facilities "(hereinafter referred to as VSN), the repair is aimed at eliminating malfunctions of the object and maintaining it in good condition. As a result of the overhaul, worn-out structures and parts can be replaced, they can be replaced with more durable and economical, improving the operational capabilities of the repaired objects, with the exception of the complete replacement of the main structures, the service life of which in this object is the longest (stone and concrete foundations, pipes of underground networks, etc.) That is, a major overhaul does not lead to a change in the technical and economic indicators of the building .

The Decree of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the West Siberian District of January 29, 2014 in case N A27-4676 / 2013 says:
“Reconstruction of buildings and structures is the production of such works that improve the previously accepted normative performance indicators, as a result of which the object has new qualitative or quantitative parameters and characteristics, that is, the essence of the object changes. This definition given in a joint letter of the State Planning Committee of the USSR, Gosstroy of the USSR, Stroybank of the USSR, CSFU of the USSR dated 05/08/1984 N NB-36-D / 23-D / 144 / 6-14, letter of the USSR Ministry of Finance dated 05/29/1984 N 80, letter of the Gosstroy of Russia dated 04/28/1984 No. 16-14/63. Capital repairs should include troubleshooting of all worn-out elements, restoration or replacement (except for the complete replacement of stone and concrete foundations, load-bearing walls and frames) for more durable and economical ones that improve the performance of the buildings being repaired. At the same time, an economically feasible modernization of a building or object, its redevelopment, which do not cause changes in the main technical and economic indicators of the building, can be carried out.

It follows from the above definitions that the difference between a major overhaul and a reconstruction lies in the fact that during a major overhaul the main technical and economic indicators of a structure remain unchanged, and during a reconstruction they change, while during a major overhaul structural elements may also be affected.

Note! The technical and economic indicators of a building are its qualitative and quantitative characteristics, such as the number of storeys, area, capacity and throughput.

Therefore, in order to find out whether the work performed relates to repair or reconstruction, it is necessary to correctly qualify not the work itself, but their consequences for the fixed asset object (letter of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated December 29, 2009 N 03-03-06 / 1/830, Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court RF of 01.02.2011 N 11495/10, Decree of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the West Siberian District of 01.29.2014 in case N A27-4676/2013).

According to the regulatory authorities, when distinguishing between reconstruction (modernization, etc.) and repair of fixed assets, a change in the technological or service purpose of equipment, or the acquisition of other new qualities by it, is of decisive importance. At the same time, the cost of work, in accordance with Chapter 25 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, is not a criterion for such a distinction (letters of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated 04/22/2010 N 03-03-06/1/289 and 03/24/2010 N 03-03-06/4 /29).

Thus, the main difference between repair and reconstruction or modernization is that as a result of any repair, the purpose of the object, its technical and economic indicators, technological or service purpose does not change, it is still operated with the same original characteristics. In addition, the quality of the facility does not improve and production areas do not increase.

In order for the tax authorities to avoid claims for repair costs, it is advisable to draw up the following documents (and regardless of whether fixed assets are repaired on their own or outsourced for this):

• a memo addressed to the head of the department or organization about the breakdown of equipment or the identification of certain defects. It is usually drawn up in free form;
• an act of acceptance and delivery of the repaired facility, which contains a list and cost of repairs performed, replaced parts and spare parts.

• Regulations on the scheduled preventive maintenance of industrial buildings and structures MDS 13-14.2000, approved by the Decree of the USSR State Construction Committee of December 29, 1973 N 279. Appendix 3 to this document contains a list of works that relate to current repairs, and Appendix 8 - a list of works , which are related to overhaul;
• Departmental building codes(VSN) N 58-88 (p) "Regulations on the organization and implementation of the reconstruction, repair and maintenance of buildings, communal and socio-cultural facilities", approved by the Order of the State Committee for Architecture under the USSR State Construction Committee of November 23, 1988 N 312;
• Letter of the Ministry of Finance of the USSR dated May 29, 1984 N 80 "On the definition of the concepts of new construction, expansion, reconstruction and technical re-equipment of existing enterprises."

• Methodology for determining the cost of construction products on the territory of the Russian Federation MDS 81-35.2004, approved by the Decree of the Gosstroy of Russia dated 05.03.2004 N 15/1;
• joint Letter of the State Planning Committee of the USSR N NB-36-D, Gosstroy of the USSR N 23-D, Stroybank of the USSR N 144, Central Statistical Bureau of the USSR N 6-14 of 05/08/1984 "On the definition of the concepts of new construction, expansion, reconstruction and technical re-equipment of existing enterprises";
• GRK RF;
• conclusions of specialists, experts on the condition of the fixed asset before and after repair;
• an order (decision) of a state body issued to an organization on the mandatory repair of a fixed asset (usually buildings).

The material presented in this article is provided for informational purposes only and may not be applicable in a particular situation, and should not be taken as a guarantee of future results. For specific questions, we recommend contacting our specialists.
We draw attention to the need to take into account changes in legislation that have occurred since the date of preparation of the material.

E.O. Kalinchenko, economist-accountant

Repair or upgrade?

Criteria for classifying OS restoration work as repair or upgrade

There is no doubt about the repair nature of the work, when it comes simply to replacing a broken part with the same new one. But if instead of exactly the same you install a part with better characteristics, questions already arise. What can we say about scheduled repairs, the task of which is not to eliminate, but to prevent malfunctions. But for many industrial and transport enterprises, a breakdown is an emergency. And during the repair, they, as a rule, change not already broken, but also heavily worn parts. Well, let alone the line between overhaul and modernization is often illusory.

Therefore, the question of the difference between repair and modernization (speaking of modernization, we will also mean reconstruction, completion, additional equipment, technical re-equipment) arises quite often. And he is very principled.

What is the difference between renovation and modernization

Of course, it is more profitable for you to qualify the work on restoring the OS as a repair. After all, the cost of it can be written off at a time about p. 27 PBU 6/01 "Accounting for fixed assets", approved. Order of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated March 30, 2001 No. 26n; paragraph 1 of Art. 260 Tax Code of the Russian Federation. Whereas during modernization they will have to be written off over a certain period through depreciation, having previously increased the initial cost of O FROM clause 27 PBU 6/01; paragraph 2 of Art. 257 Tax Code of the Russian Federation. And for the same reason, on the contrary, the tax authorities tend to see signs of modernization in the repair work.

Unfortunately, minimizing the risk of disputes is not so easy. The same work can be performed as part of both repair and modernization. On what does the qualification of such work depend? From the purpose of their implementation. And from the resulting consequences for the OS.

Modernization- it is always an improvement, improvement of the initial (creation of new) technical and economic characteristics of the operating system. And if we focus on the definition of modernization (reconstruction, completion, retrofitting, technical re-equipment), which is given by the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, then as the characteristic consequences of modernization, in addition to the actual improvement in the characteristics of the OS, we can designate, for example R paragraph 2 of Art. 257 Tax Code of the Russian Federation:

• <или>change in the technological or service purpose of the OS;
• <или>increasing the load characteristics of the OS;
• <или>increase in OS performance;
• <или>changing the nomenclature, improving the quality of products manufactured using this OS.

Target repair work- restoration and maintenance of the operating system, its performance, the original technical and economic characteristics of the operating system. However, their implementation may also have side effects in the form of improving the characteristics of the OS. How to qualify the work in this case, we will talk further separately. Also, the question of confirming the repair goal deserves special attention, when obsolescence is added to the physical wear of the part.

But first, we note that the cost of carrying out work is not a criterion for classifying them as repair or carried out as part of modernization. The Ministry of Finance pointed this out more than once in its explanations. n Letters of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated April 22, 2010 No. 03-03-06 / 1/289, dated March 24, 2010 No. 03-03-06 / 4/29. Therefore, you have the right to take into account as repair costs the costs even in an amount comparable to the initial cost of the repaired fixed assets. And moreover - exceeding the last Yu Letter of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated October 28, 2008 No. 03-03-06/1/609.

We confirm the repair purpose of the work

Details (designs, parts, mechanisms) of the OS often turn out to be not only physically worn out, but also morally obsolete. Replacing them solely because of obsolescence will not be considered a repair. Therefore, so that the inspectors do not have doubts about the repair nature of the work, before carrying it out, you need to draw up a defective statement. This document will confirm that your costs are aimed specifically at restoring (maintaining) the health of the OS.

To draw up a defective statement, you need to create a commission. It should include:

• accounting staff;
• employees of the operating unit;
• a repair shop specialist or a representative of the contractor who will repair the OS.

There is no unified form of the defective statement. You can develop it yourself. What should be included in it?

First, information about the repaired OS itself. Its inventory number, technical documentation data.

Secondly, the reasons for the repair. It is necessary to indicate what the OS malfunction is or what problems are possible if the worn part is not replaced in time. Such information must be provided by an employee of the unit that operates the operating system that requires repair. Make sure that the defective list (as well as all other documents related to the repair) does not even mention the obsolescence of the replaced part as a concomitant reason for the repair.

Third, the list restoration work. That is, what parts you need to buy, what work to do. To obtain this information, we just need a repair specialist as part of the commission.

They just wanted to fix it, but it turned out to be better

If, when repairing an OS, you replace a broken (or working, but physically worn out) part, not the same, but an improved one (especially often this happens in the case of repairing fully depreciated OS), then there is a risk that the tax authorities will consider your repair costs as modernization costs. However, the very fact of such a replacement, which did not entail the consequences characteristic of modernization, does not at all indicate its implementation. The Court has come to this conclusion more than once. s Decrees of the FAS MO dated 04/05/2011 No. KA-A40 / 1652-11; FAS ZSO dated 11/17/2010 No. A27-3324 / 2010; FAS VVO dated 12.08.2010 No. А43-1785/2006; FAS CO dated 09.02.2010 No. А14-14803/2008/500/24; FAS VSO dated 05.11.2008 No. А19-19415/06-20-Ф02-5295/08; FAS SKO dated February 18, 2008 No. F08-402 / 2008-127A.

A similar point of view (in relation to computers) was repeatedly expressed by financiers. They noted that in a computer, the replacement of any part can lead to a change in its performance. But if the replacement is caused by the need to maintain the computer in working condition and as a result of the work carried out, its functional purpose does not change, we can talk about repairs. a Letters of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated November 14, 2008 No. 03-11-04 / 2/169, dated May 27, 2005 No. 03-03-01-04 / 4/67, dated April 1, 2005 No. 03-03-01-04 / 2 / 54.

True, it is impossible not to mention that the financiers also gave directly opposite explanations. Thus, the Ministry of Finance attributed the costs of replacing broken aircraft parts with new ones with improved technical characteristics to the costs of technical re-equipment of fixed assets a Letter of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated April 18, 2006 No. 03-03-04/1/358.

Given the ambiguity of the explanations, we decided to clarify with the Ministry of Finance whether the replacement of a worn part with a more modern one can be considered a repair, since exactly the same part:

• <или>it is impossible to buy (out of production);
• <или>it is not economically feasible to install (wears out quickly, while not significantly cheaper than modern ones),

provided that as a result of the replacement (although this was not the goal), the performance of the OS is increased. And here's the answer we got.

From reputable sources

Chief Specialist-Expert of the Department of Tax and Customs Tariff Policy of the Ministry of Finance of Russia

“ In order to determine exactly whether the replacement of broken parts with more modern ones is a repair or an upgrade, you need to get the opinion of a specialist servicing such equipment.
In my opinion, this situation is fully consistent with the provision of paragraph 2 of Art. 257 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation on technical re-equipment. After all, it, in particular, includes “a set of measures to improve the technical and economic indicators of fixed assets or their individual parts based on ... substitutions obsolete and physically worn out equipment with new...».
I believe that due to the replacement of old worn parts with more modern ones, the productivity of equipment will increase, and therefore, the replacement will be considered as a technical re-equipment and will entail a change in the initial cost of the OS object.

If you think that you have carried out the repair after all, and are ready to defend your position, stock up, as experts from the Ministry of Finance advise, with the conclusion of a technical specialist that the replacement of parts is just a repair. A document (for example, a memo) with justification why you do not use the same part for repairs will not be superfluous. If these papers don't convince tax inspector, then at least they will become an extra argument in your favor in court.

Each situation is individual, and unfortunately it is impossible to give universal advice on how to distinguish repair from modernization. One thing is clear: even if you have doubts about the repair nature of the work, you should not hope that the tax authorities will not have them. And if you are not ready to prove that it was the repair that was carried out, consider the costs as the cost of modernization.

The correct qualification of various types of work on the restoration of fixed assets: current and major repairs, on the one hand, and reconstruction, modernization, retrofitting, on the other, is a necessary condition for high-quality financial planning in an institution. Ultimately, acceptance and implementation depend on it. budget commitments, reflection of operations in budgetary accounting and reporting, calculation of taxes.

It is no secret that in cases of all types of repairs, the costs are charged to current expenses institutions, and when carrying out reconstruction, modernization and additional equipment - are attributed to an increase in the initial cost of fixed assets. However, it is often very difficult to distinguish between these concepts in practice. Consider the main approaches to the definition of these types of work.

Terminology

• modernization -
• retrofitting -

• trouble-shooting;
• Finishing work.

Table 1
Functional purpose of the fixed asset

Repair

traditionally differ different levels average

The term "reconstruction"

The term "modernization"

The term "equipment"

Work planning

Goal definition

APPLICATION FOR REPAIR, RECONSTRUCTION, MODERNIZATION, ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT

and finishing works

table 2
Reflection in the budget accounting of works on repair, reconstruction, modernization, additional equipment

The correct qualification of various types of work on the restoration of fixed assets: current and major repairs, on the one hand, and reconstruction, modernization, retrofitting, on the other, is a necessary condition for high-quality financial planning in an institution. Ultimately, the acceptance and fulfillment of budget obligations, the reflection of operations in budget accounting and reporting, and the calculation of taxes depend on this. It is no secret that in cases of all types of repairs, the costs are written off to the current expenses of the institution, and in the case of reconstruction, modernization and additional equipment, they are attributed to an increase in the initial cost of fixed assets. However, it is often very difficult to distinguish between these concepts in practice. Consider the main approaches to the definition of these types of work.

Terminology

Many normative legal acts begin with definitions of concepts and terms used in the document. For example, Art. 6 BC RF, art. 8 and 11 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, Art. 15 and 20 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation. In cases where there is no clear and unambiguous definition for key terms, the application of legislative norms in practice raises a lot of questions and controversial situations.

This was the case until recently with regard to the issue of delimitation by a budgetary institution of work on repair, reconstruction, modernization, and additional equipment. Until 2009, neither the Instruction on Budget Accounting, nor the legislation on accounting in general, nor the legislation on budget classification did not contain these concepts.

In 2009, the Ministry of Finance of Russia for budget institutions Methodological recommendations were developed for the use of KOSGU (system letter of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated July 21, 2009 No. 02-05-10 / 2931), which contained, in particular, clear definitions of the terms "reconstruction", "modernization", expenses for articles (sub-articles) of KOSGU. In the same letter, the distinctive characteristics of the repair work were given.

In the system letter on the procedure for applying KOSGU in 2010 (letter of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated February 05, 2010 No. 02-05-10 / 383), similar definitions are given for operations that increase the value of an item of fixed assets:

• reconstruction is a change in the parameters of capital construction objects, their parts (height, number of floors, area, production capacity indicators, volume) and the quality of engineering and technical support. This definition completely coincides with the one given in paragraph 14 of Art. 1 of the Town Planning Code of the Russian Federation;
• modernization - a set of works to improve the object of fixed assets, leading to an increase in the technical level and economic characteristics of the object, carried out by replacing its structural elements and systems with more efficient ones;
• retrofitting - addition of fixed assets with new parts, parts and other mechanisms that will form a single whole with this equipment, give it new additional functions or change performance indicators, and their separate use will be impossible.

• trouble-shooting;
• maintenance of technical, economic and operational indicators at the initially envisaged level;
• carrying out non-capital redevelopment of premises;
• Finishing work.

Further, when considering the principles that make it possible to draw a line between different types of work, the concept of “functional purpose of a fixed asset” will be repeatedly used. Before qualifying the type of work, it is necessary to clearly articulate what the main asset is intended for, and then determine how the performance of these functions will change as a result of the work. At first glance, it seems that it is not difficult to give such a definition (see Table 1).

Table 1
Functional purpose of the fixed asset

The following sections will show how defining the functionality of a fixed asset becomes the key to distinguish between different types of work.

Repair

The concept of "repair" includes not only troubleshooting, but also maintaining the performance of the facility. In other words, repair work aimed at restoring the full performance of the object of its functions.

Even if as a result of the repair there was an improvement in the characteristics of the object, its value does not increase. This provision is especially relevant in relation to computer technology, the generations of which are changing very quickly.

traditionally differ different levels repairs: current, average and capital. At the same time, there is no unambiguous distinction between these concepts in the legislation. For example, in the Town Planning Code of the Russian Federation, the term "overhaul" occurs repeatedly, but its definition is not given. Since there are no differences between current and major repairs in terms of the application of budget classification and the procedure for maintaining budget accounting, the accountant does not need to distinguish between such expenses.

At the same time, it is necessary to take into account the fact that in practice construction organizations capital repairs often mean a set of works to improve capital construction facilities, which does not correspond to the terminology defined by budget legislation.

Finishing work can be distinguished as a separate type of repair. There is no definition of this term in the system letters of the Ministry of Finance of Russia, but its meaning can be understood from the above list of works. Finishing works are works that are not caused by the restoration of the object, but do not lead to an improvement in its main characteristics, for example, painting in a different color.

Basically, the term “finishing work” is applied to capital construction objects, but by analogy it can also be attributed to vehicles (a car can also be painted in a different color without the purpose of restoration) and to any other property when the work concerns only changing the appearance of the object.

It is precisely the definition of the functional purpose of the fixed asset that will help to distinguish between finishing work and work leading to the improvement of the fixed asset. If the work does not affect the quality of the performance of the main functions and does not add new functions, then such work can be classified as finishing.

Reconstruction, modernization, additional equipment

The term "reconstruction" applies exclusively to capital construction projects. Therefore, it is not possible to reconstruct a car or a personal computer. Only a building or structure can be reconstructed. Reconstruction involves changing the parameters of an object. Reconstruction also includes improving the quality of engineering and technical support, but the content of these works is not explained in the regulatory documents.

The term "modernization" involves the replacement of nodes, and these nodes must be in good condition. If a faulty unit is replaced, then such work is not an upgrade, but a repair. If no nodes are replaced, then such work is retrofitting.

Thus, for the correct use of the term "modernization", it should be clearly understood what it means to replace a good part: the part must be good before replacement, but does not have to remain so after dismantling.

The term "equipment" involves an inherent improvement in an item of property, plant and equipment. It follows from this that new parts added to the object must, firstly, be difficult to separate, and secondly, give the object new properties.

Work planning

An important task at the stage of work planning is setting goals and determining the scope of work.

Goal definition

In order to correctly determine which category of work, repair or reconstruction (modernization, retrofitting), the operation that the institution plans to carry out belongs to, first of all, it is necessary to determine the goal.

If the initial goal of the work is to restore working capacity or technical characteristics, or external changes that do not affect the quality of the object's performance of its functions, then repairs are being carried out.

If the purpose of the work is to improve the main characteristics of a serviceable object or adding new features, this means that they can be classified as reconstruction, modernization or retrofitting. In this case, further it is necessary to decide on the choice of one of the three types of operations. If the operation involves the replacement of components or parts, then this is a modernization (or reconstruction). If the operation involves the addition of nodes and parts, then this is additional equipment (or completion).

Justification of the need for expenses for the work

In order to exclude unnecessary questions about the feasibility of carrying out repair and other work during control and auditing activities, as well as to streamline all operations with property, including the restoration of fixed assets, it is recommended that the institution establish the following procedure at the accounting policy level:

• To appoint by a separate order (instruction), without including in the text of the accounting policy itself, persons responsible for the operation of various types of property under operational management, use, lease, etc. However, such persons do not have to be financially responsible. For example, the person who owns the computer may be the person in charge of the computer, and a specially designated qualified person may be responsible for the operation of all computers in the institution.
• To oblige persons responsible for the operation of property objects to monitor their technical condition, as well as to draw up applications for repairs, reconstruction, modernization, and additional equipment. Determine that the specified work is not performed without a corresponding request approved by the manager.
• Set up an application form. A sample of filling out the tabular part of the application is given below (the header should contain the details of the institution, date and number, the signature of the head, and the basement - the signature of the person responsible for the operation of the property).

The person responsible for the operation of the property must draw up applications, whether or not funds are available to carry out the proposed activities. The introduction into practice of the institution of such a procedure for planning repair and other work will solve not only the problems of substantiating expenses during control and audit activities, but also systematizes all the activities of the institution for the maintenance and maintenance of property. Also, when developing an accounting policy, it is advisable to make a decision regarding requests for the replacement of consumables (toner, cartridges) and routine maintenance.

At the stage of planning work on reconstruction, modernization, additional equipment, it is necessary to take into account the requirements of Art. 34 of the RF BC, which establishes the principle of effectiveness and efficiency in the use of budgetary funds. And local governments receiving interbudgetary transfers (with the exception of subventions) should also take into account the requirements of Art. 136 BK RF. In other words, it is necessary to be ready to justify the feasibility of the improvements made to the property and finishing works as well as the fact that the ongoing improvements are aimed specifically at better implementation of the main activities of the institution. For example, what institution could indicate the reason when drawing up an application for work on installing a car radio in a car (if it was not in the factory supply)?

Features of concluding contracts for the performance of work

When planning repair and other work, making cash expenses, as well as during control and auditing activities, various conflict situations often arise. Many of these situations can be avoided if we follow a simple principle: the KOSGU item, to which the costs of the contract will be charged, is determined by what is the result of the execution of the contract.

This principle implies that the KOSGU article is determined depending on what has changed in the institution itself as a result of the implementation of the contract. This principle is very simple, but, unfortunately, in practice there are situations of its deep misunderstanding. Typical mistakes are:

• mistake number 1 - the definition of the article of KOSGU, depending on what happened to the performer;
• mistake number 2 - determining the article of KOSGU, depending on what happens in the institution later.

If it is necessary to allocate different types of work within the framework of one contract, then this should be done in the “Subject of the contract” section, clearly indicating two (or more) types of work, as well as in the “Amount of the contract” section, indicating the cost of the corresponding types of work. Consequently, the performer will report for the work performed with different documents: one act for repair work and another for improvement work.

The same situations may arise during large-scale reconstruction of buildings or restoration of monuments. When analyzing specific cases, some of the entire complex of reconstruction works can be qualified as repair and restoration work, will be partially paid for by sub-article 225 of KOSGU and will not lead to an increase in the cost of the building for the entire amount of work performed under the contract. And during the restoration of the monument, a significant improvement can also be made, requiring the application of Article 310 of KOSGU in some part of the contract amount and leading to an increase in the cost of the monument.

Reflection in the budget accounting of works on repair, reconstruction, modernization, additional equipment

table 2
Reflection in the budget accounting of works on repair, reconstruction, modernization, additional equipment

2 In digits 18, 22, 23 of the budget accounting account number, the corresponding codes for the type of activity and analytical account are indicated.

3 The application is made separately for each item of fixed assets. The table shows examples of filling out an application for different types of work.

4 In digits 18, 22, 23 of the budget accounting account number, the corresponding codes for the type of activity and analytical account are indicated.

The modernization of industrial enterprises, houses and structures is often confused with their reconstruction. Various objects with any purpose can be subjected to such a procedure, and a change in qualitative characteristics does not always define the concept. Let's try to figure out what is the difference between these categories and how significant it is.

Definition

Modernization- this is an update of the object to bring it into line with modern standards, criteria, requirements. You can upgrade the education system, production, equipment or car.

Reconstruction is a purposeful activity to change the parameters of buildings and structures, individual elements of objects (height, number of storeys, etc.), implementation and updating engineering networks.

Comparison

Thus, reconstruction is either the restoration of the original state of the object, or its radical reorganization. This set of measures can be implemented only in construction and architecture. With regard to this industry, the reconstruction is aimed at changing technical indications (improving the layout of the building, increasing the total area, restoring the original appearance).

Modernization is the renewal of a structure due to its obsolescence. Immediately before these events, it no longer complies with the rules and regulations: engineering communications, the level of thermal insulation, and safety are outdated. In the field of industry, reconstruction is the restoration of production complexes that have not performed their functions for a long time. Modernization is a change in existing facilities in order to establish the production of modern products and increase the competitiveness of a particular plant or factory.

Findings site

1. Primary goal. The purpose of modernization is a radical reorganization of the facility, the introduction of new systems and networks that will make it modern. The purpose of the reconstruction is to change the characteristics of the building, the production complex, and improve its qualities.
2. Reason for holding. Modernization is carried out due to the fact that the object is outdated, and reconstruction is carried out due to general wear and tear.
3. The state of the object. After reconstruction, the quality of the object is improved, economic and technical characteristics are increased, or the original state is completely restored. After modernization, the functions of an object may change radically.

Repair and modernization (reconstruction, completion, retrofitting) are taken into account in different ways. The cost of repairs is written off to current expenses, and the costs of modernization and reconstruction increase the initial cost of the object and are included in expenses through depreciation. Therefore, before taking into account certain works, the accountant must qualify them. However, sometimes it is not easy to do this, because the accountant, as a rule, does not have technical knowledge.

Regulatory regulation

Modernization and reconstruction

The concepts of "modernization", "reconstruction" and "technical re-equipment" are given in paragraph 2 of Art. 257 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation.

Work on modernization (completion, additional equipment) includes work caused by a change in the technological or service purpose of equipment, a building, structure or other object of depreciable fixed assets, increased loads and (or) other new qualities.

Reconstruction is the reorganization of existing fixed assets, carried out according to the reconstruction project. As a result, the technical and economic indicators of the object increase. The purpose of the reconstruction is to increase production capacity, improve quality and change the range of products.

The concepts of reconstruction and modernization are also given in other regulatory legal acts.

According to paragraph 27 of PBU 6/01 “Accounting for fixed assets”, the modernization (reconstruction) of a fixed asset is associated with an improvement in its characteristics:

Increases the useful life of the object;

Increasing power;

Improving the quality of application;

Other indicators are being improved.

In accordance with paragraph 14 of Art. 1 of the Town Planning Code of the Russian Federation (CC RF) reconstruction is:

Changing the parameters of the capital construction object, its parts (height, number of floors, area, volume), including:

Superstructure, restructuring, expansion of the capital construction object;

Replacement and (or) restoration of load-bearing building structures of a capital construction object, with the exception of the replacement of individual elements of such structures with similar or other elements that improve the performance of such structures and (or) restoration of these elements.

Attention!
The Ministry of Finance emphasizes that, since the Tax Code of the Russian Federation contains a definition of the concept of "reconstruction", companies for tax purposes should be guided by it, and for a more detailed specification of the concept, contact the Ministry of Regional Development (letter of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated February 15, 2012 No. 03-03-06 / 1 / 87).

Repair

The concept of repair is not provided for in tax legislation, so we will take the meaning of this term from other branches of legislation (clause 1, article 11 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation).

The general concept of repair (for various property and types of repairs - current, medium and capital) in regulations is rare. In particular, it is given in paragraph 16 of the letter of the Goskomstat of Russia dated April 9, 2001 No. MS-1-23/1480 (hereinafter referred to as the letter of the Goskomstat). According to this document, repair means work to maintain fixed assets in working condition during their useful life, which does not lead to an improvement in the original standard performance indicators.

As a rule, problems with the qualification of work arise during the overhaul, it is the tax authorities who try to present it with modernization and reconstruction.

The definition of a major overhaul can be found in the legal documents governing construction.

According to paragraph 14.2 of Art. 1 of the Town Planning Code of the Russian Federation (CC RF), overhaul of capital construction facilities (with the exception of linear facilities) includes such works as:

Replacement and (or) restoration of building structures of capital construction objects or elements of such structures, with the exception of load-bearing building structures;

Replacement and (or) restoration of engineering and technical support systems and engineering and technical support networks for capital construction projects or their elements;

Replacement of individual elements of load-bearing building structures with similar or other elements that improve the performance of such structures and (or) restoration of these elements.

Note
A capital construction object is buildings, structures, structures, objects whose construction has not been completed, with the exception of temporary buildings, kiosks, sheds and other similar structures (clause 10, article 1 of the Town Planning Code of the Russian Federation).

Similar characteristics of the overhaul are contained in other documents. So, in accordance with clause 5.1 of the Regulations on the scheduled preventive maintenance of industrial buildings and structures MDS 13-14.2000, approved. Decree of the USSR Gosstroy No. 279 dated December 29, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Regulation No. 279), overhaul should include:

Troubleshooting of all worn out elements;

Restoration or replacement (except for the complete replacement of stone and concrete foundations, load-bearing walls and frames) for more durable and economical ones that improve the performance of buildings under repair.

Appendix 8 to Regulation No. 279 lists the types of work that are performed during the overhaul.

Paragraph 16 of the letter from the State Statistics Committee clarifies that the overhaul does not include the replacement of the main structures, the service life of which in this facility is the longest (stone and concrete foundations of buildings, pipes of underground networks, etc.).

Note
When determining the nature of the work, the Ministry of Finance proposes to be guided by Regulation No. 279 and Departmental Building Regulations (VSN) No. 58-88 (R), approved by order of the State Committee for Architecture under the Gosstroy of the USSR dated November 23, 1998 No. 312, hereinafter - Norms No. 312) (letter of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated March 24 .2010 No. 03-11-06/2/41).

Definitions of Supervisory Bodies

The Ministry of Finance believes that when distinguishing between modernization and repair of fixed assets, a change in the technological or service purpose of a fixed asset or the acquisition of other new qualities by it is of decisive importance. At the same time, the cost of the work is not a criterion for such a distinction (letter of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated 04.22.2010 No. 03-03-06/1/289). The replacement of individual failed OS elements, not related to a change in its technological, official purpose or technical and economic indicators, is a repair (letter of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated 03.08.2010 No. 03-03-06 / 1/518). Repair costs include the cost of work that is carried out to maintain fixed assets in working order (letter of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated 22.04.2010 No. 03-03-06/1/289).

So, the general conclusion that follows from the explanations of the regulatory authorities is that the reconstruction (modernization) is the work, after which there is a change in the technological or service purpose of the object. And if worn parts are replaced and other work is done to maintain the operating system in good condition, this is a repair.

Note
There are also "point" explanations of the regulatory authorities, dedicated to any specific situation. For example, the Ministry of Finance recognized the replacement of an elevator as modernization due to the expiration of its service life (letter of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated August 10, 2012 No. 03-03-06 / 1/392). The Moscow tax authorities noted that the cost of replacing aircraft units due to their breakdown with new ones with improved technical characteristics should be considered as technical re-equipment (modernization) of the aircraft (letter of the Federal Tax Service of Russia for Moscow dated September 27, 2011 No. 16-12 / [email protected]).

Unfortunately, neither the findings of the Ministry of Finance, nor the provisions of regulations guarantee the company trouble-free accounting of repair costs. As practice shows, tax officials try to present any work as modernization (reconstruction) and force the company to write off expenses through depreciation.

Let's take a look at a few situations that come to the attention of arbitrators.

Arbitration practice

Installed new wire on the fence

The company on the territory of the electrical substation installed the supporting structures for fastening the Egoza wire, as well as the installation of the wire itself. The company took into account the cost of the work as a repair.

The inspection considered that such works are modernization. According to the Federal Tax Service Inspectorate, the installation of wire on the fence changed its qualitative characteristics, which made it possible to reduce the penetration of unauthorized persons into the territory of the enterprise.

The court took the side of the company, indicating that in fact the company had repaired the existing fence and restored its worn-out elements. The arguments are as follows (Decree of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Urals District dated March 19, 2008 No. F09-11380 / 07-S3, Determination of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation of June 4, 2008 No. 6793/08 refused to transfer the case to the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation):

Primary accounting documents confirm that all expenses incurred by the company were in the nature of capital repairs;

The work did not cause changes in the technological or service purpose of the objects, did not give them new qualities, did not increase their technical and economic indicators.

Replaced the alarm

The building's failed fire alarm system was replaced. The company accounted for the cost of the work as a repair. The inspection decided that modernization was carried out under the guise of repair work.

The court indicated that these works cannot be regarded as modernization or reconstruction of fixed assets and are repairs (Decree of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the West Siberian District dated March 15, 2013 No. A27-11302 / 2012). The arguments are as follows:

The object of accounting as a fixed asset for the company was a building, and not a fire alarm;

Prior to the overhaul of the building, it already had a fire and security alarm. This is confirmed by the operational logs of the fire automatics system and the defective list;

The reason for the overhaul was the need to replace worn-out elements of the object, and the goal was to restore the properties of the repaired object to close to the original ones;

In the course of the signaling work, there was no change in the technological or service purpose of the building. The security of the building has improved, but not the building itself.

The warehouse was dismantled and then reassembled

Works were carried out, as a result of which the warehouse was completely dismantled, the foundation of the hangar, load-bearing walls, arches, and sheet structures were dismantled. After dismantling, the hangar was assembled using both old materials and newly acquired ones.

The court recognized that the works are repair. The inspection did not provide evidence that the work carried out was caused by a change in the technological or service purpose of the equipment of the facility, increased loads and (or) other new qualities, carried out in order to increase production capacity, improve quality and change the range of products, including no evidence that that the warehouse after repair is used by the company for new purposes and for these purposes could not be used in the state before repair or could be used, but with a significant decrease in efficiency.

The judges pointed out the following differences between a major overhaul and a reconstruction:

During reconstruction, the essence of the object changes (new qualitative and quantitative characteristics appear), and during a major overhaul, the essence of the object does not change, the replacement or restoration of faulty elements with stronger and more durable ones is carried out;

The repair of fixed assets is aimed at preserving the original characteristics of fixed assets, and the reconstruction is aimed at increasing (improving) them or creating new ones.

It was established that in this case, after the work, the area of ​​the warehouse, its height remained unchanged. The main technical and economic indicators of the warehouse were preserved, it did not have new qualitative or quantitative characteristics, its parameters did not change (Decree of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Central District of December 23, 2013 No. A48-1849 / 2013).

Works on different floors

The building owned by the company was undergoing renovation and reconstruction works. On the first two floors of the building, the work was carried out by the tenant. As a result of these works, the facility has turned from an administrative and industrial building into a cultural and entertainment center. On the third floor, the work was carried out by the company - the owner of the building. These works did not lead to any special changes in the characteristics of the building. The company accounted for their cost as a repair. The work was carried out on the basis of different projects, not united by a single reconstruction project.

The inspection pointed out that in this case, the entire building was reconstructed, and the work must be considered comprehensively, without distinguishing between works carried out on different floors. As a result, the owner company was charged additional taxes on the cost of work on the third floor.

The court found that the work performed on the third floor of the building did not result in an increase in the total area, number of storeys and volume of the building, that is, a change in the main technical and economic indicators of the building as a whole; load-bearing (main) structures of the building were not affected. Therefore, the work is regarded as a major overhaul.

During the overhaul, worn-out elements can be replaced with more durable and economical ones that improve the performance of the buildings being repaired. At the same time, an economically feasible modernization of a building or facility can be carried out: improving the layout, increasing the number and quality of services, equipping the missing types of engineering equipment, landscaping the surrounding area (Resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Volga-Vyatka District dated 02.11.2010 No. A82-4702 / 2009).

The purpose of one of the premises has changed

The following work was carried out in a separate room in the attic corridor of the building: three partitions were erected, metal doors were installed, and a heating radiator was moved.

After carrying out the work in the room of the attic corridor, an archive was equipped. According to the inspection, the company has upgraded the fixed asset (the official purpose of the attic corridor has been changed).

The court pointed out that neither from the lists of works reflected in the contract, the act of acceptance of work performed, nor from the materials of the field tax audit it does not follow that the work on changing the functional purpose of a separate room of the attic corridor is associated with a change in the technological or service purpose of the entire administrative building as an object of fixed assets.

The tax authority did not provide evidence that the conclusion of the contract for the performance of the disputed work was due to increased loads or the emergence of new qualities of the administrative building, which could lead to the need for modernization work. The inspectorate did not provide evidence that the work performed resulted in an increase in the technical and economic indicators of the administrative building as an object of fixed assets.

Conclusion: a change in the purpose of a separate room in itself does not indicate the modernization of the fixed asset as a whole (Resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the North-Western District of June 14, 2013 No. A21-7542 / 2012).

Two buildings of one OS facility

In two buildings redevelopment with the erection of partitions was made. At the same time, the area of ​​the building with the letter B has changed slightly due to the use of more modern materials with construction work. And the area of ​​the building with the letter D increased due to the erected extension. In addition, the communications have been replaced. At the same time, work in these buildings was carried out at different times and on the basis of various contracts. As a result of the work, the purpose of the objects has not changed (the premises remained non-residential). The room with the letter D was used as a warehouse, the room with the letter B was used as an office, warehouse and retail space.

The Inspectorate indicated that the works carried out relate to the object of one fixed asset and therefore should be considered as a whole. According to the IFTS, such work is a reconstruction, since they led to an increase in the area of ​​\u200b\u200bthe entire facility.

The court noted that the work was carried out under separate contracts, at different times, in different periods, so they cannot be considered as a whole. The court found that the building with the letter D had indeed been reconstructed. And work in a building with the letter B can be considered a repair.

The logic of reasoning of arbitrators is as follows. For the purpose of calculating income tax capital investment that increase the cost of fixed assets include the costs of:

To change the technological or service purpose of the object;

Reconstruction of the facility and improvement of its technical and economic indicators in order to increase capacity, improve quality and change the range of products;

Replacement of morally obsolete and physically worn-out equipment with more productive one.

However, not any change (increase) in the technical and economic indicators of an object allows us to talk about its reconstruction, modernization or technical re-equipment. For taxation purposes, in order to recognize works as capital costs, such a change (increase) in technical and economic indicators should result in either a change in the purpose of the object, or an increase in its productivity, or an improvement in the quality of products, or a change in its range. At the same time, all work that does not satisfy the concepts of completion, additional equipment, reconstruction, modernization, technical re-equipment, defined in the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, should not increase the initial cost of fixed assets.

In the case under consideration, the repair work actually had the character of a major overhaul, since in the course of the work, worn-out structures were replaced with newer and more durable ones, the replacement of communications led to an improvement in the operational capabilities of the facility.

The redistribution of the area of ​​premises inside the building is not a basis for recognizing the works as reconstruction. In addition, in Appendix 8 of Regulation No. 279, during major repairs, partial redevelopment is allowed with an increase in the total area of ​​​​partitions of no more than 20%.

At the same time, the redevelopment of a floor with the construction of partitions can be an element of both reconstruction and overhaul; it does not in itself determine the nature of the work performed.

In addition, the tax authority did not provide evidence of an increase in the technical and economic indicators of real estate objects due to new qualities that correspond to the concept of "reconstruction" after the repair work (Resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Central District dated 05.11.2013 No. A54-7269 / 2012).

Neutralization station turned into a shop

The sublessee took over the building of the neutralization station for the purpose of placing a shop in it. In order to prepare the building for its new purpose, the subtenant performed the following works: laying walls of lightweight concrete blocks, changing sections of water pipes and installing heating registers, installing cables and installing power supply devices, changing floors, changing wooden structures, installing stairs and landings, metal structures, laying of individual sections of walls, installation of base plates, installation of arches, installation of a canopy made of polycarbonate, installation of suspended ceilings, installation of window sill boards, change of sheathing of solid flooring from boards, etc.

The court noted that as a result of the work carried out, the premises were re-planned, extensions were erected, an addition to the second floor, the area of ​​​​the second floor increased, the official purpose of the premises changed: the station building began to be used as a store. The type of space in the building has changed - from industrial to retail. Therefore, these types of work do not apply to major repairs (Resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Central District dated July 29, 2011 No. A36-3814 / 2010).

conclusions

As you can see, the decision of the court depends on the situation. Still, let's try to make some generalizations:

If the work was carried out on the basis of a single reconstruction project and after these works the purpose of the fixed asset changed dramatically, this is reconstruction;

Changing the purpose of a separate room does not in itself indicate the modernization of the fixed asset as a whole;

If a redevelopment was made inside the building, while its area did not increase and its purpose did not change, this is a repair. It doesn't matter what kind of work was done and how much they cost;

If the tenant performed work on the leased space of the building, as a result of which the purpose of the entire building changed, and the owner repaired the part that he did not lease (and they did not affect the characteristics of the building), then the work performed by the owner is qualified as repair;

The replacement of any structure or device in a building with a newer and more modern one is not a modernization if this replacement did not affect the purpose of the entire building;

Works that were carried out at different times, under different contracts, cannot be considered as a whole, they must be qualified separately;

The inspection must prove its conclusions that the work performed is a reconstruction (modernization) by presenting the opinion of specialists.

Most litigation relates to real estate, cases relating to equipment and transport are rare. However, some of the above conclusions, in our opinion, can be extended to equipment.

As already noted, accounting for the cost of work depends on how the work was qualified - as a repair or as a reconstruction (modernization).

Repair accounting

Repair costs are current and are recognized in accounting and tax accounting as expenses in the reporting (tax) period in which they were carried out, in the amount of actual costs (clause 5 of article 272 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, clauses 4, 5, 11 PBU 10/99 "Expenses of the organization", paragraph 1 of article 260, subparagraph 1 of paragraph 1 of article 265 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, letter of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated 05.12.2012 No. 03-03-06/1/628).

The lines will be like this:

Debit 20, 25, 26, 44 Credit 60, 70, 69

Reflected the cost of repairing fixed assets.

Accounting for reconstruction (modernization)

In accounting, the costs of reconstruction (modernization) of fixed assets increase the initial cost of fixed assets (clauses 26, 27 of PBU 6/01 “Accounting for fixed assets”). The useful life of the OS can be changed if, as a result of the reconstruction or modernization, the characteristics of this object have improved, including its service life has increased (clause 20 PBU 6/01, clause 60 of the Guidelines on accounting fixed assets, approved. Order of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated October 13, 2003 No. 91n).

In tax accounting, the costs of reconstruction increase the initial cost of the fixed asset and are written off through depreciation (clause 2, article 257 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation). Just as in accounting, after the reconstruction of the fixed assets, the taxpayer has the right to increase the useful life (paragraph 2, clause 1, article 258 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation). The increase in the SPI is carried out within the time limits established for the depreciation group in which such a fixed asset was previously included (paragraph 2, clause 1, article 258 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation).

The monthly depreciation calculation depends on whether the useful life has changed.

Situation 1. After the reconstruction, the SPI increased. In this case, from the month following the month of putting the reconstructed fixed asset into operation, depreciation on it is charged according to the formula (clause 1 of article 258 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation):

Monthly depreciation = (residual value of fixed assets at the end of the upgrade + upgrade costs): (remaining useful life + the period by which the STI increased).

Example 1

Omega LLC on February 28, 2014 modernized a fixed asset, the initial cost of which was 120,000,000 rubles.

Depreciation is accrued on a straight-line basis, the monthly amount of depreciation deductions is 1,000,000 rubles.

The initial useful life is ten years, of which two years have elapsed.

The cost of modernization amounted to 1,200,000 rubles.

The SPI has increased by ten years.

The residual value of the fixed asset as of February 28, 2014 is 96,000,000 rubles. (120,000,000 rubles - 1,000,000 rubles x 2 x 12). The new useful life of the facility after modernization will be 18 years (10 years - 2 years + 10 years).

The new depreciation amount of Omega LLC for the month, starting from March, will be 450,000 rubles. [(96,000,000 rubles + + 1,200,000 rubles): (18 years x 12 months)].

Situation 2. After the modernization of the fixed asset, the IPV did not increase. In this situation, at the end of this period, the object will not be fully depreciated. After all, the depreciation rate will not change, and the initial cost will increase by the cost of modernization. The Ministry of Finance believes that in this case it is necessary to charge depreciation at the previous rate until the cost of fixed assets is fully written off. In this case, the write-off continues even after the end of the JTI (letters of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated February 11, 2014 No. 03-03-06 / 1/5446, dated June 9, 2012 No. 03-03-10 / 66). The courts have a different point of view on this issue: the taxpayer has the right to charge depreciation based on residual value Fixed assets increased by the amount of costs for modernization, and the remaining useful life (resolutions of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Moscow District dated 04/06/2011 No. КА-А40/2125-11, dated 06/03/2009 No. КА-А40/4667-09 - upheld by the Determination of the SAC RF dated December 29, 2009 No. VAS-12685/09). In this case, the amount of monthly deductions after the upgrade is increased, and the entire cost is written off during the FTI.

Situation 3: A fully depreciated operating system has been reverse engineered. In this case, the cost of the modernization will be depreciated according to the rates that were determined when this fixed asset was put into operation (letters of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated 05.02.2013 No. 03-03-06/4/2438, dated 09.06.2012 No. 03-03- 10/66, dated 04/05/2012 No. 03-03-06/1/181).

Example 2

On the balance sheet of Torzhok LLC is a fully depreciated fixed asset with an initial cost of 200,000 rubles. The useful life was set at 51 months, i.e. the monthly depreciation rate was 1.96% (100%: 51 months). In the current period, this fixed asset was modernized in the amount of 85,000 rubles. The useful life has not changed.

The monthly amount of depreciation deductions for fixed assets after modernization will be 5586 rubles. [(200,000 rubles + + 85,000 rubles) x 1.96%].

Depreciation will be accrued for another 16 months (85,000 rubles : : 5586 rubles), starting from the 1st day of the month following the month in which the modernization was completed (paragraph 3, clause 2, article 322 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation), until when the full write-off of modernization costs occurs, or until the disposal of this fixed asset from the depreciable property (letter of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated September 23, 2011 No. 03-03-06 / 2/146).

Note that during the reconstruction of a fixed asset, which lasts more than 12 months, depreciation is terminated from the 1st day of the month following the month in which work began (clause 3, article 256 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation). If a building is reconstructed, which is accounted for as a single inventory object, depreciation is no longer charged from the cost of the entire object, even if in fact part of the building continues to be used (letter of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated 16.01.2008 No. 03-03-06/1/8).

Documenting

The main document confirming that the work performed is the repair of the OS, and not its reconstruction (modernization), is a defective statement. Data on the repair performed must be reflected in section 5 inventory card(you can use form No. OS-6).

Sample

OOO "Omega"
(name of company)

APPROVE

Head of the organization
Ivanov I.I.
(signature) (signature transcript)

accounting
(structural subdivision)

Defective statement No. 1

Place of compilation General Cabinet

Based on an order for Omega LLC No. 2 dated 01/01/2014
(name of company)

Commission
composed of:

Chairman of the Commission Chief engineer Petrov P.P.

Commission members: Head of household Sidorova S.S., accountant Stepanova S.S.
(name, position, place of work)

Made an inspection Stitching machine "Vityaz-M", inv. No. 00123
(name of fixed assets, brand, model, inventory number, etc.)

and established the presence of the following defects (damages, malfunctions, etc.):

Conclusion of the commission: Due to the impossibility of using the device for functional purpose and the need to replace parts, repairs are needed. Repairs can be carried out on their own. The estimated cost of spare parts for repairs is 150,000 rubles.

Commission Chairman

Chief engineer Petrov P.P.

Commission members:

Head of household Sidorova S.S.
(position) (signature) (signature transcript)

Accountant Stepanova S.S.
(position) (signature) (signature transcript)