It is not enough to sell the goods, it still needs to be delivered to the buyer. However, the delivery process is fraught with many tax risks that every organization needs to be aware of. On the basis of arbitration practice, we have considered controversial issues that arise during the delivery of goods by the seller and the buyer.

All delivery options can be divided into two groups: delivery by the seller (buyer) on their own and delivery with the involvement of third-party organizations providing cargo transportation services. Practice shows that no matter which delivery option is chosen, neither the buyer nor the seller is immune from claims from the tax authorities.

Delivery by a third party

In order to increase sales volumes, many suppliers incur the costs of shipping the goods sold. At the same time, the contract stipulates that the buyer must reimburse the seller for the corresponding costs. But providers do not always have their own transport to perform such a service. Solution: conclude a contract of carriage with a specialized company. And then there is a problem with VAT, both for the supplier and the buyer.

Will the seller have VAT ...

If, for the carriage of goods to the buyer, the supplier enters into a contract with transport company, then it is he (as the customer) who receives the corresponding services. Upon their implementation, the transport company issues an invoice and an act to the supplier. The buyer of the goods acts only as a consignee and simply compensates the supplier for his costs associated with the delivery of the goods. That is, there is no implementation of transport services between the buyer and the supplier. And if so, then the compensation of the supplier's expenses for the delivery of goods, highlighted in the shipping documents as a separate line, should not be subject to VAT. However, practice shows that the tax authorities think otherwise. They insist that the supplier sells transport services to the buyer and must tax such sales with VAT. But the majority of courts do not share this opinion.

Thus, the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the North-Western District, in its resolution No. A66-7801/2009 dated May 26, 2010, came to the conclusion that the cost of compensation for the delivery of goods, allocated in a separate line in the supplier's documents, does not need to be subject to VAT. In this case, the organization carried out the supply of manufactured products to customers with the involvement of a transport company. For the shipped products and their delivery, the supplier issued invoices to buyers, in which, in the column “name of goods (description of work performed, services rendered)”, the delivery cost was separately indicated as “reimbursement of transportation costs”.

The tax authorities considered that the supplier, by carrying out the implementation of transport services, in violation of Art. 146 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation did not calculate VAT on the proceeds from their sale. Therefore, he was held liable (adding tax, penalties and fines). The court of first instance upheld the tax authorities. The logic of his reasoning was as follows. The terms of supply contracts in terms of reimbursement by the buyer of transportation costs cannot be considered as providing intermediary services, as they do not contain provisions for supplier remuneration. The sale of services is recognized as an object of VAT (clause 1, article 146 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation). At the same time, in addition to the price of services, the taxpayer is obliged to present to their buyer the corresponding amount of VAT (clause 1, article 168 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation).

However, both the appellate and cassation courts supported the organization. They pointed out that the reimbursement of transport costs did not create additional income for the supplier, since the amounts received by him from the buyers did not exceed the amounts paid to the carriers. Therefore, the transport costs reimbursed by the buyers by virtue of Art. 39 and 146 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation do not apply to the sale of services, and therefore cannot be recognized as an object of VAT. The Federal Arbitration Court of the Urals District came to similar conclusions in its decision No. Ф09-4806/09-С3 dated 14.07.2009 (Determination of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated 08.09.2009 No. VAS-11613/09 refused to transfer this case to the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation).

So, the reimbursement of transportation costs should not be subject to VAT by the supplier. Accordingly, they must be indicated on the invoices without VAT and not reflected in the invoice (since there is no sale). Note that the Ministry of Finance of Russia agrees that if, under the terms of the supply agreement, the buyer undertakes to reimburse the transport costs incurred by the seller, then the invoice issued by the seller for the shipped goods does not indicate the services for transporting goods sold by the carrier (letter dated 15.08. 2012 No. 03-07-11/299).

In order not to bring the case to court, we offer the following options for getting out of this situation. The first option is to conclude a separate agency agreement for the delivery of goods, under the terms of which the supplier undertakes, on behalf of the buyer, to organize the delivery of goods, and establish a minimum remuneration in it. In this case, VAT will be charged only on the agency fee. The second option is to include the cost of delivery in the price of goods and do not highlight it separately in the documents.

...and a deduction from the buyer

If the supplier, under pressure from the tax authorities, nevertheless presents the buyer with the cost of compensation for transportation costs with VAT, the buyer will have problems. The tax authorities will most likely refuse to deduct such VAT. Thus, in a case considered by the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the North Caucasus District (Decree No. А53-10110/2008-С5-46 dated May 19, 2009), the tax authority refused to deduct VAT on the transport costs allocated to the buyer in the documents of the supplier of goods as a separate line. He justified his position by the fact that the supplier does not independently provide transport services to the buyer (in this case, the delivery of goods was carried out by a transport company under a transportation agreement concluded with the supplier). Therefore, he is not entitled on his own behalf to draw up documents for the provision of these services, including invoices. Services for the delivery of goods are actually provided by the transport company. The cost of delivery is not included in the price of the goods, and the company's suppliers are intermediaries in the provision of these services. Tax deductions for transport services can only be applied by their original purchaser, that is, the supplier. Therefore, the buyer is not entitled to a VAT deduction.

The court rejected the arguments of the tax authorities and cited the following arguments. The obligation to pay the cost of delivery arises from the obligation to supply the goods, the participants of which are the company and its supplier, and not the transport company that actually carried out the delivery. The supply contract concluded by the parties does not impose on the supplier the obligations of an intermediary nature inherent in contracts of agency, commission or agency. Tax office did not provide evidence of the fictitiousness of business transactions for which VAT is claimed to be deductible. As a result, the court came to the conclusion that the buyer reasonably accepted the amount of VAT on delivery for deduction.

In a similar situation, the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Urals District (Resolution No. Ф09-3324/09-С3 dated May 25, 2009) also supported the buyer in his right to deduct VAT. He pointed out that in itself re-invoicing to a buyer who is a VAT payer, in the presence of the fact of consumption of the relevant services, is not a basis for refusing the right to apply VAT tax deductions. It should be noted that by the Determination of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated September 11, 2009 No. VAC-12036/09, the revision of this case was denied.

So, the buyer has a chance to defend his right to accept VAT for deduction in court. But to avoid such problems, it is better for the supplier to follow our recommendations given in the previous section.

Delivery outsourced to others

A disputable situation may also arise with the supplier if the actual delivery of goods to buyers is carried out not by the transport company with which he has concluded an agreement, but by its counterparties. Here, the supplier has a risk that the tax authorities may refuse to deduct VAT on invoices presented by the transport company for transportation.

This situation is considered in the resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Central District dated July 1, 2009 No. А54-3828/2008С8. In order to ensure the delivery of goods to buyers, an agreement was concluded between the plant and the transport company transport expedition. Under its terms, the transport company assumed obligations to organize the delivery of the plant's products to customers. In some cases, the delivery of goods was carried out by railway by Russian Railways OJSC, with which the transport company signed an agreement. For such transportation, invoices were issued to the plant, where the transport company was listed as the seller of transport services. The tax authorities denied the plant a VAT deduction on these invoices, since the transport services were actually provided by Russian Railways, and not by the transport company. However, the court pointed out that for the purposes of the VAT refund, it does not matter whether the transportation services were provided by the transport company personally, or were entrusted to it and actually performed by a third party. The supplier has the full right to accept such VAT for deduction.

In our opinion, the arguments of the tax authorities are absolutely unfounded. Article 805 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation expressly provides that the freight forwarder has the right to involve other persons in the performance of his duties, unless this is prohibited by the contract. Under the freight forwarding agreement, the freight forwarder undertakes, for a fee and at the expense of the other party (the client - the consignor or consignee), to perform or organize the performance defined by the agreement forwarding services related to the carriage of goods (clause 1, article 801 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). That is, in fact, the forwarder provides the customer with intermediary services. The Ministry of Finance of Russia agrees with this. Thus, in a letter dated 01.11.2012 No. 03-07-09/148, the specialists of the financial department indicated that freight forwarders can issue invoices for third-party services to the customer in the manner prescribed for commission agents (agents). Yes, no later than five calendar days, counting from the day the forwarder rendered the service, he must issue an invoice to the client, in which it is necessary to separate into independent positions the types of services purchased by the forwarder from third parties on the basis of their invoices. Copies of invoices received by the freight forwarder from organizations providing services to the freight forwarder, as well as copies of the relevant primary documents, should be attached to such an invoice.

So, in order to reduce the risk of tax claims, with the transport company that will organize the delivery of goods to buyers, the supplier needs to conclude a freight forwarding agreement and directly indicate in it that the forwarder has the right to involve other persons in the performance of his duties.

Delivery by own forces

If the supplier has his own or rented transport, he can organize the delivery of goods to buyers on his own. In addition, the purchased goods can be picked up from the warehouse of the supplier by the buyer himself. However, there may be problems with self-delivery.

Is delivery a separate activity?

When a supplier organizes the delivery of goods to buyers on his own, and UTII has been introduced in the region where he works, the following problem may lie in wait for him: should delivery be considered as an independent type of activity (provision of motor transport services) and apply UTII for it? Recall that activities for the provision of motor transport services can be transferred to UTII, provided that the organization ( individual entrepreneur) owns no more than 20 vehicles (subclause 5, clause 2, article 346.26 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation).

The Ministry of Finance of Russia considers that delivery is not a separate type of activity when the following conditions are simultaneously met:

• the supply contract provides for the seller's obligation to deliver the goods to the buyer;
• Shipping costs are included in the price of the item being sold.

If they are observed, the delivery of the sold goods to the buyer (by own or rented transport) is integral part activities of the seller in the sale of goods (letters of the Ministry of Finance of Russia No. 03-11-11/76 dated March 7, 2012, No. 03-11-06/3/45 dated April 13, 2011 and No. 03-11-09/13 dated January 22, 2009) . If, in the supply contracts, the cost of delivery is allocated separately and is not included in the cost goods sold or if delivery is carried out under a separate agreement, it can be recognized as an independent type entrepreneurial activity(Letters of the Ministry of Finance of Russia No. 03-11-11/76 dated March 7, 2012 and No. 03-11-04/3/33 dated January 31, 2008).

An analysis of arbitration practice shows that local tax authorities do not share the position of financiers. They believe that if the delivery is carried out by the supplier within the framework of the supply contract, it cannot be considered as a separate activity, regardless of whether the cost of delivery is allocated separately or not.

The courts are not unanimous on this point. Thus, the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the East Siberian District, in its Resolution No. A78-4149/2012 dated August 21, 2012, came to the conclusion that the execution of separate documents (invoices and acts) for delivery and separate indication in the supply contract of the cost of goods and delivery is a sufficient basis for separation of transportation into a separate type of activity. A similar position is contained in the resolutions of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the East Siberian District dated March 05, 2012 No. A78-5193 / 2011 and the North-Western District dated January 12, 2011 No. A44-1665 / 2010.

At the same time, the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the North Caucasus District, in its resolution dated February 12, 2010 No. A32-18385 / 2008-19 / 278, noted that the organization's activities for the delivery of finished products to the customer may be subject to UTII only if these services are carried out separately drawn up contract for the carriage of goods.

In our opinion, the delivery of goods, due to the obligations of the supplier under the supply contract, is an integral part of trade and should not be singled out as a separate type of activity, regardless of the definition of its value (separately or in the price of the goods). To avoid such controversial situation, we recommend not to allocate the cost of delivery in the documents as a separate line, but to include it in the cost of goods.

Pickup problems

If the goods are taken from the warehouse by the buyer himself, the supplier issues their release with an invoice in the form of TORG-12 and does not issue any transport documents. But the buyer may have problems with this. The fact is that in order to take into account expenses when calculating income tax, they must be documented.

In practice, there are cases when the tax authorities require confirmation of the costs of delivery of goods upon self-delivery of the consignment note (form No. 1-T, approved by the Decree of the State Statistics Committee of Russia dated November 28, 97 No. However, the courts do not share this opinion (decisions of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Urals District dated 04.23.2012 No. F09-2412 / 12, the East Siberian District dated 13.01.2011 No. A19-3787 / 2010, the Central District dated 02.11.2011 No. A68-4748 / 08- 108/13 and the North Caucasus District dated 03/02/2010 No. A53-2634 / 2009). Thus, the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Volga District, in its resolution No. A55-14780/2008 dated 05.13.2010, indicated that the obligation to issue consignment notes arises from the consignor only if goods are transported by auto transport organization under a contract for the carriage of goods. If the delivery of goods is carried out by the buyer's transport (self-delivery) without the involvement of a transport organization, the preparation of waybills is not required.

The Ministry of Finance of Russia also believes that neither a waybill nor a consignment note is needed for self-pickup. After all, transportation services are not provided to the buyer. Shipping costs for self-delivery and the fact of its transportation are confirmed waybill(Letters No. 03-03-10/123 of 22.12.2011, No. 03-03-06/1/540 of 02.09.2011 and No. 03-03-06/1/500 of 17.08.2011). Note that the absence of a consignment note in such a situation cannot serve as a basis for refusing to deduct VAT amounts on purchased goods (letter of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated October 30, 2012 No. 03-07-11 / 461).

We fully agree that there is no need to issue a consignment note for self-delivery. After all, from the instructions for filling out the form No. 1-T, it follows that the waybill is intended to account for the movement of inventory items and payments for their transportation by car. It is compiled by the consignor for each consignee and defines the relationship of consignors, carriers and consignees. In the case of self-collection of goods, the buyer transports his own goods. That is, he himself is the consignor, and the carrier, and the consignee. Therefore, drawing up a consignment note does not make any sense. And even if the tax authorities insist on the opposite, there is every chance to defend their position in court.

Under the cash method, take into account the costs of shipping finished products as they are paid (with the exception of depreciation on fixed assets used for delivery, which will be taken into account in the accrual period) (clause 3 of article 273 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation). For example, the cost of the salary of a driver delivering products, take into account at the time of its payment. The dates of recognition of certain types of expenses under the cash basis are given in table.

Trade organizations take into account the costs of delivery of goods in the following order. With the accrual method, delivery costs reduce income tax in the period in which they were made (regardless of the date of their payment) (Article 320 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation).

Under the cash method, take into account the costs of delivering goods as they are paid (with the exception of depreciation on fixed assets used for delivery, which will be taken into account in the accrual period). For example, the cost of the salary of the driver involved in the delivery, take into account at the time of its payment. Such rules are established by paragraph 3 of Article 273 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation.

“Input” VAT on delivery-related expenses (for example, on payment for services of a third-party transport company) can be deducted subject to the general conditions for applying the deduction (Art. 171, 172 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation).

An example of reflection in accounting and taxation of delivery costs included in the price of finished products. The organization applies the general system of taxation

OJSC "Production Company "Master"" is engaged in the manufacture of bricks. According to the sale and purchase agreement, the ownership of the shipped products passes to the buyer at the time of its receipt. "Master" delivers products to the buyer at his own expense. In March, for delivery to the buyer of a batch of 10,000 pieces worth 118,000 rubles. (including VAT - 18,000 rubles) a transport company was involved. The cost of transportation services amounted to 23,600 rubles. (including VAT - 3600 rubles). The buyer does not pay for shipping separately. The organization approved the same list of direct costs in both accounting and tax accounting, so the cost of finished products is the same and amounts to 40,000 rubles. The costs of delivering finished products to the buyer are not included in the list of direct costs in either accounting or tax accounting. The organization calculates income tax on a monthly basis on an accrual basis.

The sales of finished products in March, the accountant reflected the following entries:

Debit 44 Credit 60
- 20,000 rubles. (23,600 rubles - 3,600 rubles) - the cost of services for the delivery of finished products is taken into account;

Debit 19 Credit 60
- 3600 rub. - allocated VAT on delivery services;

Debit 68 subaccount "VAT settlements" Credit 19
- 3600 rub. - Accepted for deduction of VAT on delivery services;

Debit 62 Credit 90-1
- 118,000 rubles. - shipped finished products to the buyer;

Debit 90-3 Credit 68 sub-account "VAT calculations"
- 18,000 rubles. - VAT is charged on sold finished products;

Debit 90-2 Credit 43
- 40,000 rubles. - written off the cost of sold finished products;

Debit 90-2 Credit 44
- 20,000 rubles. - expenses for the delivery of finished products are written off.

When calculating income tax, the dates of recognition of delivery costs and write-offs of the cost of goods sold coincided. This is explained by the fact that income from the sale of finished products was recognized in the same month in which it was delivered. When calculating income tax in March, income in the amount of 100,000 rubles was recognized. (118,000 rubles - 18,000 rubles) and expenses in the amount of 60,000 rubles. (20,000 rubles + 40,000 rubles).

USN

The tax base of simplified organizations that pay a single income tax does not reduce the cost of delivering finished products (goods) (clause 1, article 346.14 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation).

The costs of delivering finished products (goods) to the buyer can be taken into account by organizations that pay a single tax on the difference between income and expenses. When calculating the tax base, recognize only those costs that are listed in paragraph 1 of Article 346.16 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation (for example, payment for the services of third-party transport companies, the salary of a driver when delivered by their own transport, etc.). For more information on the procedure for accounting for expenses by an organization on a simplified system, see. What expenses to take into account when calculating the single tax on the simplified tax system .

The date of recognition of expenses is the date of their payment, unless a special recognition procedure is established for them (clause 2 of article 346.17 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation). For the recognition of separate expenses, see table.

Buyers do not need to pay UTII upon delivery of finished products (goods). See more on this. .

UTII

If the sale of finished products (goods) falls under UTII, then the cost of their delivery does not affect the calculation of the single tax, since when determining the single tax, only the imputed income of the organization is taken into account (Article 346.29 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation).

Calculate UTII according to separate species activity - transportation of goods - is not necessary. See more on this.What road transport services are subject to UTII .

OSNO and UTII

If the costs of delivering goods to customers are simultaneously related to the activities of an organization subject to UTII and activities on common system taxation, then their amount should be distributed (Clause 9, Article 274 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation). The cost of shipping goods related to the same type of activity of the organization does not need to be allocated.

The amount of VAT allocated in the invoice of the transport company involved in the delivery, distribute according to the methodology defined in paragraph 4.1 of Article 170 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation.

To the received share of expenses on the activities of the organization subject to UTII, add the amount of VAT that cannot be deducted (subclause 3, clause 2, article 170 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation).

Increasingly, we began to receive calls to the office with questions: “Can you buy my supplier’s goods by courier or redeem an order with your own money and deliver it to me?”

For this reason, the company "TIME POST" decided to expand its range of services in the form of "Repurchase of goods" in Moscow and the Moscow region. Now you do not need to stand in traffic jams and waste your time, you just need to order the service of buying goods by courier and everything will be delivered to you on a predetermined date. Orders are accepted by e-mail and phone.

We understand how important it is to redeem the goods on time, therefore Courier service"TIME POST" will come to the rescue if you simply do not have time to buy the order and pick it up on your own. Our couriers are responsible for the safety of your goods and timely delivery to the destination.

What is the service "Repurchase of goods"?

• The courier arrives at the address of the purchase order and pays for it (in the amount of the cost of the goods) for the funds transferred in advance by the Customer, and upon delivery to the final recipient, reimburses this amount from the customer. Payment for direct delivery of the order is not included in this amount and is carried out separately.

What are the advantages of the service "Repurchase of goods"?

• responsibility for the safety of the goods
• saving you time
• no need to sign up

How much does the service "Repurchase of goods" for legal entities (under the contract) cost?

• The cost of redemption by courier is free.
• The service is available without prepayment.

How much does the service “Repurchase of goods” cost for individuals?

• Shipping cost depends on distance, weight and time constraints.
• The cost of redemption by courier is 3% of the amount of the redeemed goods.
• The service is available only with 100% prepayment.

Courier service with the service of redemption of goods in Moscow

Recently, the service of courier services with the purchase of goods in Moscow and the Moscow region has become more and more in demand.

What does the service "Repurchase of goods" include? The courier arrives at the address you specified and redeems the order (in the amount of the cost of the goods) at his own expense. Upon delivery to the final recipient, the customer reimburses this amount to the courier. Payment for direct delivery of the order is not included in this amount and is carried out separately. What is the advantage of the service "Repurchase of goods"? Firstly, the TIME POST courier service is responsible for the safety of your goods. Secondly, you save your time. Thirdly, you do not need to issue a receipt and worry about your money, as we are responsible for the safety of funds.

The service can be used by both individuals and individuals who do not have their own regular couriers. Our friendly and polite staff, who have completed training and are well aware of the intricacies of the courier profession, will deliver your order on time to the specified address. Order through our website, if you need a courier today, we will contact you as soon as possible. It is also possible urgent purchase of goods and delivery in Moscow, on the day of treatment.

1. If shipping is included in the price of the item

A lot has been said and written about the problems of goods delivery - for example, in the article). However, it will not be superfluous to talk about them again.

And we will start with the simplest situation - when, under the terms of the contract, the supplier is obliged to deliver the goods to the buyer, and the cost of delivery is included in the sale price of the goods.

In this case, the waybill and invoice presented to the buyer will indicate only the goods sold, there will be no mention of delivery services in these documents.

The supplier will include the costs of delivering the goods as part of the sales costs, that is, regardless of whether he engages a third-party transport organization or provides delivery on his own, using his own or rented vehicles and full-time drivers, all actual expenses will be debited to account 44 “Sales expenses”.

Example 1

The retail trading company Kopeechka acquires from the wholesaler trading company"Mercury" a consignment of goods worth 590,000 rubles, incl. VAT 90,000 rubles. The purchase price of this product in the accounting of the company "Mercury" is 370,000 rubles.

In accordance with the terms of the contract, the supplier ensures the delivery of the goods to the buyer's warehouse at his own expense, that is, the cost of delivery is included in the price of the goods.

Let us assume that in order to fulfill its delivery obligations, the Mercury company entered into an agreement with a transport company. The services of which cost 11,800 rubles, incl. VAT RUB 1,800

The Mercury accountant will record transactions with the following entries:

DEBIT 62 CREDIT 90-1

DEBIT 90-3 CREDIT 68

DEBIT 90-2 CREDIT 41-1

DEBIT 44 CREDIT 60
- 10,000 rubles. - reflected the cost of delivery of goods;
DEBIT 19 CREDIT 60
- 1800 rub. - reflected VAT on delivery costs;
DEBIT 68 CREDIT 19
- 11800 rubles. - presented for deduction of VAT on transportation costs;
DEBIT 60 CREDIT 51
- 11800 rubles. - paid transportation costs;
DEBIT 90, sub-account "Business expenses" CREDIT 44
- 10,000 rubles. - expenses for the delivery of goods are written off as part of the sale expenses (at the end of the month);
DEBIT 51 CREDIT 62

And the accountant of the Kopeechka company (provided that retail does not fall under UTII) will reflect the purchase of goods with the following entries:
DEBIT 41-2 CREDIT 60

DEBIT 19 CREDIT 60
- 90,000 rubles. - reflected VAT on these goods;
DEBIT 68 CREDIT 19

DEBIT 60 CREDIT 51
- 590,000 rubles. - paid goods.

Since with such a formalization of relations - when delivery is included in the price of goods - the activity related to the delivery of goods to the buyer is not an independent type of business activity of the organization, but a way of fulfilling the seller's obligation to transfer goods in accordance with the norms of paragraph 1 of Art. 458 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the delivery of goods is considered as an accompanying service, inextricably linked with trade - and therefore the services for the delivery of goods in such a situation are not subject to the taxation system in the form of UTII. This interpretation was confirmed by specialists of the Ministry of Finance of Russia in a letter dated October 4, 2007 No. 03-11-04/3/389.

2. If delivery services are separated from the cost of goods

In practice, there are cases when the supplier in waybills and invoices indicates separately the cost of goods, and separately - the cost of transport services.

In this case, both the buyer and the seller face a number of problems.

Firstly, as specialists of the Ministry of Finance of Russia explained in a letter dated February 27, 2007 No. 03-03-06 / 1/135, if, in addition to the invoice and invoice, the buyer does not have other documents confirming the fact of the provision of transport services - for example, an act signed by both parties - the buyer will not be able to recognize the amount of expenses for the delivery of goods in tax accounting.

Secondly, by highlighting services as a separate line, the supplier shows that he actually carries out two types of activities - not only trading, but also activities in the provision of transport services. If the delivery is carried out by the supplier on his own, he needs to recognize revenue and form financial results from the implementation of two types of activities, opening for these purposes different sub-accounts to account 90 "Sales", as well as to ensure the formation of the cost of transport services - for example, on account 20 "Main production".

Example 2

Let's change the conditions of example 1.

First, let's assume that the company "Mercury" delivers goods to customers on its own - it has its own or rented vehicles, hires drivers, purchases fuel, etc. The actual costs for the delivery of goods under the deal with Kopeechka amounted to 8,000 rubles.

Secondly, suppose that the cost of delivery is not included in the price of the goods, but nevertheless the obligation to arrange delivery is assigned to the supplier. Accordingly, by issuing an invoice for the goods, wholesale company"Mercury" registered its delivery services as a separate line, that is, the invoice says:
- cost of goods - 590,000 rubles, incl. VAT 90,000 rubles;
- the cost of services for the delivery of goods - 11,800 rubles, incl. VAT 1800 rub.

- 590,000 rubles. - reflected the proceeds from the sale of goods;
DEBIT 90-3 CREDIT 68
- 90,000 rubles. - VAT charged;
DEBIT 90-2 CREDIT 41-1
- 370,000 rubles. - written off the purchase price of goods sold;
DEBIT 62 CREDIT 90, sub-account "Implementation of transport services"
- 11 800 rubles. - reflected the proceeds from the sale of goods;
DEBIT 90, sub-account "Implementation of transport services" CREDIT 68
- 1800 rub. - VAT charged;
DEBIT 20 CREDIT 02, 10, 70, 69 p.m.
- 8000 rub. - reflected the actual costs for the provision of transport services;
DEBIT 90, sub-account "Implementation of transport services" CREDIT 20
- 8000 rub. - written off the actual cost of transport services;
DEBIT 51 CREDIT 62
- 601 800 rubles. - received payment from the buyer.

DEBIT 41-2 CREDIT 60
- 500,000 rubles. – goods are accepted for accounting (excluding VAT);
DEBIT 41-2 or 44 CREDIT 60
- 10,000 rubles. - reflects the cost of transport services without VAT (these costs, depending on the accounting policy, may be included either directly in the cost of goods, or as part of the sale costs);
DEBIT 19 CREDIT 60
- 91 800 rubles. - reflected VAT on these goods and transport services;
DEBIT 68 CREDIT 19
- 91 800 rubles. – submitted for VAT deduction on purchased goods and transport services;
DEBIT 60 CREDIT 51
- 601 800 rubles. - paid for goods and transport services.

Thirdly, if no more than 20 vehicles are used for the delivery of goods, it must be taken into account that the activities for the provision of motor transport services for the transportation of goods can be transferred to UTII. Therefore, you need to carefully study the local legislation and do not forget to submit UTII declarations on a quarterly basis in a timely manner, if nevertheless this activity will be in this mode.

In practice, there are also cases when the supplier organizes the delivery of goods by a third-party transport organization and charges the corresponding shipping cost from the buyer - that is, in fact, “re-bills” the transport company to the buyer. In such a situation, it is important to correctly formulate the terms of the contract - to prescribe that the supplier undertakes to organize the delivery of the goods, and not to deliver the goods. The difference is significant, because:

If under the contract the supplier is obliged to deliver the goods, formally it is he who is the person carrying out the activities of delivering the goods, which means not only that he must recognize the revenue from the provision of such services, even if in fact he turns to a specialized transport organization to provide them, but and that he must, in cases prescribed by law, have the appropriate licenses;
- if, under the contract, the supplier is only obliged to arrange delivery, in fact he acts as an intermediary between the buyer and the transport organization, and then not the entire amount charged from the buyer for delivery, but only the agreed remuneration, is considered his revenue.

Example 3

Let's change the conditions of example 1 again.

Suppose that the contract provides for the obligation of the Mercury company to organize the delivery of goods to the warehouse of the Kopeechka company, while the intermediary fee for these services is 118 rubles, incl. VAT 18 rub.

As a result, the buyer is charged RUB 601,918, including:
- cost of goods - 590,000 rubles, incl. VAT 90,000 rubles;
- the cost of delivery of goods by a third-party transport organization - 11,800 rubles, incl. VAT 1800 rubles;
- remuneration for transportation organization services in the amount of 118 rubles, incl. VAT 18 rub.

In this case, the accountant of the company "Mercury" will reflect the transactions with the following entries:

DEBIT 62 CREDIT 90, sub-account "Sale of goods"
- 590,000 rubles. - reflected the proceeds from the sale of goods;
DEBIT 90, sub-account "Sale of goods" CREDIT 68
- 90,000 rubles. - VAT charged;
DEBIT 90, sub-account "Sale of goods" CREDIT 41-1
- 370,000 rubles. - written off the purchase price of goods sold;
DEBIT 76 CREDIT 51
- 11 800 rubles. - transferred to the transport organization;
DEBIT 62 CREDIT 76
- 11 800 rubles. - reflects the buyer's debt to pay (reimburse) the cost of transport services;
DEBIT 62 CREDIT 90, sub-account "Provision of intermediary services"
- 118 rubles. - reflected the proceeds from the provision of intermediary services;
DEBIT 90, sub-account "Provision of intermediary services" CREDIT 68
- 18 rubles. - VAT charged on intermediary services;
DEBIT 51 CREDIT 62
- 601,918 rubles. - received payment from the buyer.

And the accountant of the Kopeechka company will reflect the purchase of goods with such entries (assume that all expenses associated with the purchase of goods, according to the accounting policy, are included in the purchase price of these goods):
DEBIT 41-2 CREDIT 60
- 500,000 rubles. – goods are accepted for accounting (excluding VAT);
DEBIT 41-2 CREDIT 60
- 10,000 rubles. - reflects the cost of transport services (excluding VAT);
DEBIT 41-2 CREDIT 60
- 100 rubles - reflects the cost of intermediary services related to the purchase of goods (excluding VAT);
DEBIT 19 CREDIT 60
- 91 818 rubles. - reflects VAT on goods, transport services and intermediary services;
DEBIT 68 CREDIT 19
- 91 818 rubles. - presented for VAT deduction;
- 601,918 rubles. - paid for goods and services.

3. Pickup

In all the cases discussed above, the supplier took care of the organization of delivery.

In practice, the buyer himself often deals with the problem of exporting goods from the supplier's warehouse. Moreover, he can either take the goods out with his own transport, or conclude an appropriate agreement with the carrier (transport company), so that the carrier’s representative picks up the goods from the supplier and delivers them to the buyer’s warehouse or to another agreed place.

In this case, the supplier's accounting reflects only operations for the sale of goods: revenue recognition, VAT accrual, write-off of prime cost (purchase value).

The buyer must ensure that his actual shipping costs are taken into account.

Example 4

AT last time let's change the conditions of example 1 - now suppose that the contract value of the goods in the amount of 590,000 rubles. delivery costs are not included and, in accordance with the terms of the contract, the Kopeechka company must organize self-delivery of the goods from the warehouse of the Mercury company.

Let us also assume that the Kopeechka company carried out the export of goods by its own transport, and its expenses for the transportation of goods amounted to 6,700 rubles. Let also the accounting policy of the Kopeechka company provide for the use of accounts 15 and 16 to reflect transactions for the purchase of goods, while the accounting value of the purchased batch of goods amounted to 505,000 rubles.

In this situation, the accountant of the company "Mercury" will reflect the transactions with the following entries:
DEBIT 62 CREDIT 90-1
- 590,000 rubles. - reflected the proceeds from the sale of goods;
DEBIT 90-3 CREDIT 68
- 90,000 rubles. - VAT charged;
DEBIT 90-2 CREDIT 41-1
- 370,000 rubles. - written off the purchase price of goods sold;
DEBIT 51 CREDIT 62
- 590,000 rubles. - received payment from the buyer.

And the accountant of the Kopeechka company will reflect the purchase of goods with the following entries:
DEBIT 41-2 CREDIT 15
- 505,000 rubles. - goods are credited at book value;
DEBIT 15 CREDIT 60
- 500,000 rubles. - reflects the purchase price of the goods (excluding VAT);
DEBIT 19 CREDIT 60
- 90,000 rubles. - reflected VAT on goods;
DEBIT 68 CREDIT 19
- 90,000 rubles. - submitted for VAT deduction on purchased goods;
DEBIT 60 CREDIT 51
- 590,000 rubles. - paid for goods;
DEBIT 15 CREDIT 02, 10, 70, 69 etc.
- 6700 rubles. - reflects the actual costs for the delivery of goods on their own;
DEBIT 16 CREDIT 15
- 1700 rub. (500,000 + 6,700 - 505,000) - the deviation in the cost of goods was written off (at the end of the month).