According to paragraph 26 of Art. 270 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation when calculating income tax as part of expenses, according to general rule, the following costs are not taken into account: - to pay for travel to the place of work by transport common use, special routes, departmental transport; - to pay for travel back from work by public transport, special routes, departmental transport. At the same time, these costs can be taken into account when calculating income tax in two cases: - if they are subject to inclusion in the costs of production and sale of goods (work, services) by virtue of technological features production - if they are provided for in employment agreements (contracts) and (or) collective agreements. Thus, in a situation where there are no public routes and an organization enters into an agreement with a third-party organization for the delivery of employees to their place of work, but delivery is not provided for by a collective or labor agreement, the costs of transporting employees to work and back are not taken into account when calculating income tax (Letter Ministry of Finance of Russia dated May 11, 2006 N 03-03-04/1/434, Letter of the Department of Tax Administration for Moscow dated March 23, 2005 N 21-18/98). The costs of a security organization for the delivery of armed guards by rented transport to the weapons room and back can also be taken into account when calculating income tax only if the delivery of guards from the place where weapons are stored and back is provided for by an employment or collective agreement (Letter of the Department of Tax Administration for Moscow dated 25.04. 2003 N 26-12/22712). In practice, situations arise when workers are transported to their place of work and back by the personal transport of the workers themselves. Moreover, the employment contract contains a corresponding clause providing for such delivery. In this case, does the organization have the right to include in expenses that reduce taxable profit the costs of such delivery of employees? The Letter of the Department of Tax Administration for Moscow dated January 4, 2003 N 26-12/821 states that if regulations, defining job responsibilities employee, there is no obligation to deliver the employee by his personal transport to the place of work and back, and the employee - the owner of a personal car is not individual entrepreneur and does not have the right to provide transport services to third parties, then the organization’s delivery costs cannot be taken into account when determining the tax base for income tax, because they do not meet the criteria specified in Art. 252 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation. It is controversial whether all organizations have the right to take into account the costs of transporting employees to their place of work and back when calculating income tax, or only those that operate on a rotational basis or in the field. Tax authorities are of the opinion that only organizations that carry out their activities on a rotational basis or in field expeditionary conditions have the right to reduce the taxable base for income tax by the amount of expenses for transporting their employees to the place of work and back (clause 12.1, clause 1, art. 264 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation). However, FAS PO in Resolution No. A65-6046/2005-SA2-9 dated February 27, 2006 recognized that the company (CHP), which has a separate division located in an industrial zone, rightfully included in expenses the costs of transporting its employees to the place of work and back. At the same time, the court took into account the round-the-clock operating hours at the enterprise, the lack of routes public transport before separate division, as well as the presence in employment contracts with employees of a provision for their delivery to the place of work and back. FAS NWO, in Resolution No. A05-5406/05-22 dated January 23, 2006, concluded that the company rightfully included as expenses when calculating income tax the costs of transporting its employees to and from lunch by official transport. At the same time, the court took into account that the facilities where the company’s employees work are located at a distance of more than one kilometer from public route bus stops and the enterprise does not organize collective meals. The Ministry of Finance of Russia in Letter dated 08/02/2005 N 03-03-02/43 also concluded that the cost of travel to and from work can be considered economically justifiable costs due to the technological features of production, especially in cases where other transport ( except for official work) it is impossible to get to the enterprise, and they cannot be taken into account as part of labor costs if this is reflected in the labor (collective) agreement. A similar conclusion follows from Letter of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated 07/05/2005 N 03-03-04/1/54. Arbitration practice 1. Costs of transporting employees to the place of work and back are taken into account as expenses when calculating income tax if delivery is provided for by a collective agreement (Resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service ZSO dated December 8, 2004 N F04-8759/2004(7029-A27-31)) . The company appealed to the court the decision of the tax authority to prosecute under paragraph 1 of Art. 122 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation for incomplete payment of income tax due to the unlawful inclusion in expenses of the costs of transporting enterprise employees to their place of work and back. By the decision of the court of first and appellate instances, the stated requirements were satisfied in full. The cassation court left the decisions of the lower courts unchanged. At the same time, he indicated that the tax inspectorate’s argument regarding the taxpayer’s expenses for transporting workers to their place of work and back is untenable. The tax authority did not take into account the fact that the collective agreement of OJSC "Fizkulturnik" for 2001 - 2004. provision is made for the delivery of workers to work and back; accordingly, these costs are included in the costs in accordance with clause 26 of Art. 270 Tax Code of the Russian Federation. Tax office link to Art. 264 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation is untenable, since this article regulates other legal relations that did not take place and were not established during the tax audit. 4.27. Expenses for paying price differences when selling at preferential prices (tariffs) (below market prices) goods (work, services) to employees Some enterprises practice selling goods (work, services) to their employees below market prices. If losses arise in connection with this, these losses in the amount of the price difference are not taken into account for tax purposes. At the same time, similar losses arising from the sale of goods to non-own employees can be taken into account when taxing profits by virtue of Art. 268 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation.

More on topic 4.26. Payment for travel to and from the place of work, except for cases where the costs of travel to the place of work and back are provided for in labor agreements (contracts) and (or) collective agreements:

1. 2.2.13. Expenses for remuneration, maintained in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation during study holidays, expenses for travel to the place of study and back
2. 2.2.7.2. Expenses for travel of employees and persons dependent on these employees to the place of use of vacation in the territory of the Russian Federation and back in the manner prescribed by the legislation of the Russian Federation
3. 2.2.19. Accruals at the main place of work during off-the-job training of employees in the system of advanced training or retraining of personnel
4. 2.2.25. Other types of expenses incurred in favor of the employee, provided for by the employment contract and (or) collective agreement
5. Termination of an employment contract in connection with the employee’s transfer to work for another employer or to an elective job (position)

The employer often pays employees for travel to and from work or arranges for such travel. It is also possible to pay for travel as part of the direct performance of work duties by employees. In these cases, the accountant faces the question: is it necessary to accrue on these amounts? insurance premiums? To answer this question, we selected the most common situations related to payment of travel, and then studied the latest clarifications from regulatory authorities and judicial practice about this question.

When travel insurance premiums may not be charged

Payment for travel to the place of work

The employer can participate in the delivery of employees to and from work different ways, For example:

• organize the delivery of workers using your own transport or engage a transport company for this;
• pay employees monetary compensation for travel expenses.

Delivery by transport

Situation. The employer entered into an agreement with a transport company, which set time delivers any employee from the metro to the office (and back) by bus. There is no record of workers who used the bus.

Solution. Insurance contributions are levied on payments and remunerations that the employer accrues to employees within the framework of labor relations (Part 1, Article 7 Federal Law dated July 24, 2009 No. 212-FZ). When determining the calculation base for insurance premiums, payments both in cash and in kind must be taken into account. Payments in kind in the form of goods, works and services are accepted as the cost of these goods (works, services) (Part 6, Article 8 of Law No. 212-FZ). This means that the cost of delivery, in principle, can be regarded as remuneration in favor of employees in kind (despite the fact that the employees themselves do not receive cash).

However, every employee can use the bus. This means that travel is paid regardless of the employee’s contribution to the work of the organization and the results of this work. Under such circumstances, the object of taxation of contributions, in the opinion of the judges, does not arise (Determination of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated January 10, 2013 No. VAS-17525/12).

Moreover, if personalized records of employees who used the bus are not kept, then it is impossible to determine the basis for calculating insurance premiums for each employee. Therefore, insurance premiums may not be charged (see, for example, the resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the North-Western District dated January 18, 2013 in case No. A26-2680/2012).

Note that insurance premiums, unlike personal income tax, are not calculated regardless of whether employees have the opportunity to get to the office by public transport or not. We show in the table how the availability of public transport affects the calculation of contributions and personal income tax.

Travel reimbursement

Situation. The organization is located in Moscow. The collective agreement stipulates that employees from other cities are entitled to monthly monetary compensation for the cost of travel to Moscow and back.

Solution. The list of amounts not subject to insurance premiums is contained in Article 9 of Law No. 212-FZ. Compensation for travel costs from your place of residence to your place of work and back is not included in this list. Therefore, these payments are subject to insurance premiums. Such clarifications were recently given in a letter from the Ministry of Labor of Russia dated May 13, 2014 No. 17-4/OOG-367.

Obviously, many insurers may disagree with this approach, stating that travel compensation is not an element of remuneration. However, the official authorities object to this: contributions are subject to all payments made by the employer in favor of employees due to the existence of labor relations between them, and not just payments that are direct payment for labor (letter of the Ministry of Labor of Russia dated April 17, 2014 No. 17-4/ B-158).

Situation. The employee gets to the office (and back) by his own car. The employer pays him monthly monetary compensation to cover the cost of gasoline. In addition, the owner of the business center rents a parking space for the employee. The compensated employee's job is not a traveling job.

Solution. Compensation for the cost of travel from the place of residence to the place of work and back is not mentioned in Article 9 of Law No. 212-FZ, therefore it is subject to insurance contributions (letter of the Ministry of Labor of Russia dated May 13, 2014 No. 17-4 / OOG-367). Therefore, it is better to pay insurance premiums to compensate for the cost of gasoline.

Payment for the cost of parking an employee’s personal vehicle is also not specified in Article 9 of Law No. 212-FZ, therefore these amounts are subject to insurance premiums (letter of the Ministry of Labor of Russia dated April 17, 2014 No. 17–4/B-158). In our opinion, this position is not controversial. The fact is that, by virtue of Part 1 of Article 7 of Law No. 212-FZ, payments and rewards must be made specifically in favor of the employee (Part 1 of Article 7 of Law No. 212-FZ). In this case, payment for parking is sent to the owner of the business center. Therefore, in our opinion, the object of taxation of contributions does not arise. In arbitration practice, there are court decisions that confirm: if payment for services is made by bank transfer between two legal entities within the framework of civil law relations, the cost of paid services is not included in the base for calculating insurance premiums (see, for example, resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Ural District dated November 19, 2013 No. F09-10055/13).

Payment for work trips

Compensation to the courier

Situation. The employee has a traveling nature of work (courier). The employer compensates him monthly for the cost of public transport tickets (this is stipulated in the collective agreement).

Solution. Employees with a traveling nature of work must be reimbursed for expenses associated with business trips, including travel expenses (Article 168.1 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation). Insurance premiums are not subject to all types of compensation payments established by the legislation of the Russian Federation (within the limits of the norms determined in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation), which are related to the performance of labor duties by an individual (clause “and” clause 2, part 1, article 9 of Law No. 212 -FZ). Therefore, compensation for the cost of a travel ticket, provided for by the collective agreement, is exempt from insurance premiums. The regulatory authorities do not argue with this approach (letter from the Ministry of Health and Social Development of Russia dated February 27, 2010 No. 406-19). We would like to add that the compensation should cover the actual costs incurred by the courier. If you compensate a fixed amount monthly, disputes with inspectors are possible (see resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the West Siberian District dated November 1, 2013 No. A45-29823/2012).

Let us note that the legislation of the Russian Federation does not directly state what kind of work is recognized as traveling. However, work related to traveling must be permanent (letter of Rostrud dated December 12, 2013 No. 4209-TZ).

Taxi payment

Situation. Non-travelling employees are required to travel around town during the workday to meet with clients. The employer entered into an agreement with transport companies. Now workers can use taxi services to travel. The employer keeps records of trips made by employees.

Solution. The legislation of the Russian Federation does not oblige the employer to pay travel expenses for employees whose work is not of a traveling nature. However, in the described situation, the trips of employees are made for the purpose of performing work duties and are made in the interests of the employer. Under such circumstances, taxi payments should not be subject to contributions on the basis of subparagraph “and” of paragraph 2 of part 1 of Article 9 of Law No. 212-FZ (even if the employer keeps personalized records of trips).

Note that the judges share this approach. However, in the event of a dispute, the company must be ready to prove that the employees used the taxi specifically for the purpose of fulfilling their job duties (determination of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated March 19, 2014 No. VAS-2662/14).

Often, an organization pays for travel to an individual who cooperates with it on the basis of a civil law agreement. In this situation, insurance premiums for compensation of travel costs may not be charged. But only on the condition that the payment for travel is provided for in the contract and is confirmed by documents (letter of the Ministry of Labor of Russia dated February 26, 2014 No. 17–3/B-80).

In the internal labor regulations of our organization there is a clause stating that the employee has the right to delivery from the place of assembly of workers to the place of work established by order (instruction) and back by the forces and means of the employer or compensation for the cost of travel to the place of work and back if available technological features of production (remoteness of the workplace and lack of alternative public transport. There is a feasibility study and certificates that there are no public transport routes to the organization’s production facility. One of the employees gets to the place of work in his own car. Based on the above, can the organization documents to compensate the employee for the costs of travel to and from work by personal car, and what documents are needed to confirm the costs?

Maybe, but these expenses will not be taken into account in the tax base for income tax due to the norms of paragraph 26 of Article 270 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation. To take into account such costs, the condition of compensation must be spelled out, among other things, in the employment (collective) agreement. And since such conditions are specified only in the PVTR, it will not be possible to take into account the costs.

However, even in this case there is a way out. It is enough to enter into a lease agreement with such an employee for a vehicle without a crew, paying a symbolic rent and reflecting the costs of fuel and lubricants (based on waybills). Read more about this in the recommendations: How to pay for and reflect in accounting the rental of an employee’s personal car, How to take into account the costs of renting an employee’s personal car for tax purposes. The organization applies a general taxation system.

In addition, you can agree with the employee and pay him compensation for the use of personal property. How to do this is discussed in the recommendations: How to pay and reflect in accounting compensation for the use of an employee’s personal car, How to take into account when taxing the costs of paying compensation for the use of an employee’s personal car. The organization applies a general taxation system

The rationale for this position is given below in the materials of the Glavbukh System vip version

Recommendation: How to reflect in accounting and taxation the costs of transporting employees to their place of work and back (to their place of residence or place of assembly)

Employee delivery methods

Some organizations transport their employees from their place of residence (collection) to their place of work and back.

To transport employees to and from work, an organization can use:

• own cars;
• rented cars.*

In addition, the organization can use the services of transport companies.

Delivery on a rotational basis

The Ministry of Finance of Russia confirms this position in letters dated June 30, 2011 No. 03-03-06/1/384, dated February 2, 2010 No. 03-04-06/68, dated August 20, 2009 No. 03-04- 06-02/60, dated April 24, 2008 No. 03-04-06-02/41.

The chief accountant advises: there are arguments that allow an organization not to withhold personal income tax from the cost of transporting employees from their place of residence to the collection point and back. They are as follows.

The rotation method involves working outside the location permanent residence employees (Part 1 of Article 297 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation). In this case, the employer is obliged to deliver employees to the shift site by any economically feasible transport (clause 2.5 of the Regulations approved by the Decree of the USSR State Committee for Labor, the Secretariat of the All-Union Central Council of Trade Unions and the USSR Ministry of Health dated December 31, 1987 No. 794/33-82). This obligation does not limit the right of the organization to independently determine the methods and methods of delivery, including from the place of residence to the collection point. Therefore, the cost of transporting employees from their place of residence to the place of assembly is not their income. Such payments can be considered as legally established compensation related to the employee’s performance of his job duties. This means that there is no need to withhold personal income tax from compensation for the cost of travel from the employees’ place of residence to the place of assembly (and back) (clause 3 of Article 217 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation).

To confirm the validity of compensation for travel expenses from the place of residence to the collection point (and back) and the lack of income for employees when receiving it:

• record the payment of such compensation in the internal documents of the organization (for example, in a collective agreement);
• arrange for employees to travel by economical transport (when using public transport it is necessary that travel document was one-time and individual - this will confirm its use only for official purposes and not for personal needs).

In arbitration practice, there are examples of court decisions in which the courts recognized as lawful the actions of organizations that did not withhold personal income tax from compensation for travel expenses of employees from their place of residence to the place of assembly and back (see, for example, the resolutions of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the West Siberian District dated February 13, 2009. No. F04-482/2009(20348-A81-14), dated November 22, 2007 No. F04-7996/2007(40258-A75-7), dated February 28, 2007 No. F04-892/2007(31914-A81 -42), Northwestern District dated April 12, 2006 No. A05-17066/05-22).

Personal income tax and insurance premiums: non-shift method

Situation: is it necessary to withhold personal income tax from the cost of transporting employees to their place of work and back. The organization does not use a rotation method, but organizes the delivery of personnel at its own expense

The answer to this question depends on whether employees can independently get to their place of work and back by public transport or not.

If this is not possible, do not withhold personal income tax from the fare amount. This is due to the fact that in the absence of public transport, the cost of travel for employees to their place of work and back is not an economic benefit (income) of the employee (Article 41 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation). The Russian Ministry of Finance also shares this opinion (letters dated March 6, 2013 No. 03-04-06/6715, ,). The courts adhere to a similar point of view (see, for example, decisions of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the East Siberian District dated July 15, 2008 No. A19-13528/07-30-F02-3200/2008, Northwestern District dated February 18, 2008 No. A21 -3559/2007, Ural District dated January 29, 2008 No. Ф09-9195/07-С2).*

If employees can independently get to their place of work and back by public transport, personal income tax must be withheld from the cost of transporting employees. According to regulatory agencies, the cost free shipping employees at the initiative of the organization is their income received in kind (letters of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated October 12, 2011 No. 03-04-05/6-728, dated July 17, 2007 No. 03-04-06-01/247 and Federal Tax Service of Russia dated September 24, 2010 No. ШС-37-3/11928). It must be included in the tax base for personal income tax (clause 1 of article 210, clause 2 of article 211 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation). The occurrence of income for employees does not depend on whether their delivery is provided for by the labor (collective) agreement or not. The organization is obliged to withhold tax at the expense of any cash payments in favor of the employee (clause 4 of article 226 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation).

However, the obligation to calculate, withhold and transfer personal income tax to the budget arises for the organization only if it can determine the amount of income received by each employee (clause 8 of the information letter of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated June 21, 1999 No. 42). Thus, in order to withhold personal income tax, the organization must take into account its costs for the delivery of personnel on a daily basis and distribute them among each employee brought to work on a given day. In letter dated July 17, 2007 No. 03-04-06-01/247, the Russian Ministry of Finance recommends determining the amount of such income based on the total cost of travel and data from the work time sheet (other similar documents).

An exception to this general case is the following situation. If an organization provides free transportation to work and back for disabled people who are unable to get to work and back on their own, such services can be classified as measures for the rehabilitation of disabled people (Article 9 of Law No. 181-FZ of November 24, 1995). At the same time, the cost of services for the rehabilitation of disabled people paid for by organizations is not subject to personal income tax (clause 22 of article 217 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation). Thus, the organization does not have the obligation to withhold personal income tax when paying for transportation of disabled people to their place of work and back. A similar conclusion is contained in the letter of the Federal Tax Service of Russia for Moscow dated November 16, 2007 No. 28-11/109498.

Situation: is it necessary to charge insurance premiums for the cost of transporting employees to their place of work and back at the expense of the organization. The organization does not use a rotation method

The answer to this question depends on whether or not the delivery of employees to their place of work and back is determined by the technological features of production.

If the need for delivery is due to technological features of production (i.e. employees have no other way to get to their place of work and back), it cannot be considered as free service provided in the interests of employees. It does not matter whether the organization’s obligation to transport employees to the place of work and back is stipulated in the labor (collective) agreement or not. In this case, the cost of transportation does not fall under the criteria of the amounts taken into account in the calculation base for insurance premiums (Part 1, Article 7 of the Law of July 24, 2009 No. 212-FZ, Part 1 of Article 20.1 of the Law of July 24, 1998 No. 125-FZ). Consequently, the object of taxation by insurance premiums does not arise in this situation.*

If an organization delivers employees to their place of work on its own initiative in the absence of technological production features, then include the cost of delivery in the calculation base for insurance premiums and contributions for insurance against accidents and occupational diseases. Calculate contributions even if the organization’s obligation to transport employees to their place of work is not specified in the labor (collective) agreement. This is explained by the fact that the cost of delivery services provided solely in the interests of employees is not included in the list of amounts not subject to insurance premiums. In addition, the organization makes deliveries as part of an employment relationship with an employee. This conclusion follows from Part 1 of Article 7 and Article 9 of the Law of July 24, 2009 No. 212-FZ, Part 1 of Article 20.1 and Article 20.2 of the Law of July 24, 1998 No. 125-FZ. The legality of this approach is confirmed by arbitration practice (see Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated May 10, 2011 No. 17950/10). For more information about calculating contributions to compulsory pension (social, medical) insurance from the cost of services provided to an employee, but not specified in employment contracts, see What payments should be charged to contributions to compulsory pension (social, medical) insurance.

BASIC: shift method

At shift method the costs of transporting employees from their place of residence or collection point to their place of work and back can be included in other expenses associated with production and sales (clause 26 of Article 270 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation).

There is an exception to this rule. Thus, the costs of delivering employees can be included as expenses when taxing profits if they:

• due to technological features of production;
• provided for by labor (collective) agreements.

Situation: how to justify for profit tax purposes that the costs of transporting employees to their place of work and back are determined by the technological features of production

Such justification could be, for example:

• the organization's distance from settlements;
• use by the organization of a multi-shift (continuous, night) operating mode.

The organization (in particular, due to the hazardous nature of production) may be located far beyond populated areas. The consequence of this may be the lack of public transport routes between the places of permanent residence of employees and the location of the organization. Accordingly, in such a situation, employees simply will not be able to come to work by public transport.

In a multi-shift mode, the operating hours of public transport may not coincide with the time by which a number of employees should report to work. And, if a person works at night or early in the morning, he will also not be able to get there by public transport.

Therefore, if an organization, due to technological features, operates in a continuous (night) mode or is located outside populated areas, the costs of transporting employees to and from work can be taken into account when taxing profits.

It should also be noted that the condition for paying employees for travel must be provided for in an employment (collective) agreement.

Similar conclusions follow from letters of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated August 31, 2012 No. 03-03-06/1/449, dated November 24, 2011 No. 03-03-06/1/778, dated October 20, 2011 No. 03- 03-06/1/680, dated November 13, 2007 No. 03-03-06/1/809, dated May 11, 2006 No. 03-03-04/1/435.

Sergey Razgulin,

Actual State Councilor of the Russian Federation, 3rd class

Sincerely,

Pavel Zaikin

Glavbukh System expert

Answer approved:

Natalia Kolosova

Leading expert of the BSS System Glavbukh

How to take into account in accounting and tax accounting the payment for air travel of a future employee to the place of work? Is it possible to give an already working employee money on account for the purchase of an air ticket, and then accept an advance report with the tickets of the future employee? Is it possible to pay for a flight by stipulating it in the employment contract, and if so, will this be the employee’s income and will this income be subject to personal income tax and contributions?

The cost of travel must be included in the taxable income of the future employee; insurance premiums may not be charged.

From the clarification of the question received, it follows that the organization is not required by law to pay for the relocation of a new employee to the place of work.

Since payment of transport costs individual happens before the conclusion with him employment contract, then it will be difficult to provide for the payment of compensation in it.

The organization has the right to reimburse a non-resident employee for the costs of moving to another location before concluding an employment contract (Article 41 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation). However, such payment is not considered as compensation for expenses in accordance with the provisions of Article 169 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, since it occurs before the signing of the employment contract. Personal income tax must be withheld from the payment amount. Contributions for compulsory insurance are not charged, since there is no employment relationship with the employee.

The organization has the right to choose the method of paying for air tickets for a future employee. They can be paid by an accountable person, the organization has the right to transfer payment directly to the carrier, etc. The chosen payment method does not change the rules for accounting and taxation of such expenses.

The organization can determine the procedure for accounting for relocation expenses for a future employee on its own. For example, they can be reflected like this:

Debit 91-2 Credit 76

The relocation costs of the future employee are taken into account.

According to private explanations from specialists of the Federal Tax Service of the Russian Federation, such costs do not relate to labor costs - they cannot be recognized in the tax accounting of the organization.

Representatives of the Russian Ministry of Finance take a different position and do not object to the inclusion of employee relocation expenses as part of labor costs if the payment of such compensation is provided for in an employment (collective) agreement. However, in this case, mandatory insurance premiums must be calculated in accordance with the general procedure.

How to account for employee compensation for expenses when moving to work in another area

Accounting

In accounting, accrual of compensation to an employee for his move to work in another area should be reflected in the credit of account 73 “Settlements with personnel for other operations.”

Depending on what department the employee works in and what functions he performs, when calculating compensation, make an entry:

Debit 20 (23, 25, 26, 29, 44...) Credit 73
– in connection with the transfer of an employee to work in another area, compensation is accrued to reimburse expenses for relocation, transportation of luggage, provision of housing and other expenses.

Relocation compensation for a non-resident employee

Situation: Is it possible to pay for the relocation to a new place of residence for a non-resident employee with whom an employment contract has been concluded? By prior agreement, an employee moves to work from another city to the location of the organization

Yes, you can.

When transferring an employee to another location by prior agreement, the employing organization is obliged to reimburse him for expenses related to:

However, this does not mean that the organization does not have the right to establish additional compensation for employees. There is no prohibition in labor legislation to improve the situation of employees. Therefore, the organization has the right to reimburse a non-resident employee for the costs of his relocation to another area ().

Payment for relocation of a foreign employee

Situation: Is it possible to pay for moving to a new place of residence for a foreign employee with whom an employment contract has been concluded? By prior agreement, an employee moves to work from abroad to the location of the organization

Yes, you can.

On the territory of Russia, labor legislation also applies to labor relations with the participation of foreign citizens ().

When transferring a foreign employee to work in another location by prior agreement, the employing organization is obliged to reimburse him for expenses related to:

• with the relocation of the employee himself, his family members, as well as the transportation of property (except for those cases when the organization provides the employee with transport);
• with settling into a new place of residence.

This procedure is provided Labor Code RF.

However, this does not mean that the organization does not have the right to establish additional compensation for employees. There is no prohibition in labor legislation to improve the situation of employees. Therefore, the organization has the right to reimburse a foreign employee for the costs of his relocation to another location ().

The taxation procedure for the payment made depends on the basis on which the employee’s moving expenses are reimbursed.

Personal income tax and insurance premiums

Compensation for actually incurred and documented expenses associated with an employee moving to work in another area (including abroad and in the Far North and equivalent areas), provided for by internal documents of the organization (for example, an employment contract), is not subject to :

• Personal income tax (paragraph 9, paragraph 3, article 217 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, letter of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated February 10, 2016 No. 03-03-06/3/6878);
• contributions for compulsory pension (social, medical) insurance (subparagraph “and” paragraph 2, part 1, article 9 of the Law of July 24, 2009 No. 212-FZ);
• contributions for insurance against accidents and occupational diseases (subclause 2, clause 1, article 20.2 of the Law of July 24, 1998 No. 125-FZ, letter of the FSS of Russia dated December 18, 2012 No. 15-03-11/08-16893) .

If an employee is sent to work abroad, the cost of a visa is also included in the personal income tax-free moving expenses ().

The condition for the exemption of compensation from personal income tax and insurance contributions is the existence at the time of the move of an employment relationship between the employee and the employer, by agreement with whom he is moving (). When hiring a new employee, payment for his travel to the place of work specified in the employment contract is not recognized as compensation. Until the conclusion of an employment contract, the norms of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation do not apply. Therefore, if an organization nevertheless compensates a future employee for moving expenses, personal income tax must be withheld from the amount of payments (clause and article 226 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation). Do not pay contributions to compulsory pension (social, medical) insurance in this case either, since there is no labor relationship with the employee. And such payments do not correspond to the definition of the object of taxation with insurance premiums, which is given in Part 1 of Article 7 of the Law of July 24, 2009 No. 212-FZ. There are no grounds for charging contributions for insurance against accidents and occupational diseases (Clause 1, Article 20.1 of the Law of July 24, 1998 No. 125-FZ).

Situation: How to take into account, when calculating personal income tax and insurance premiums, compensation for rental housing expenses for employees who have moved to work in another area

Do not withhold personal income tax from compensation for rental housing expenses for employees who moved to work in another area (including with the organization). Charge insurance premiums to the amount of compensation for such expenses.

Personal income tax

These payments are directly related to the performance of job duties by employees and are of a compensatory nature (clause 3 of Article 217 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation). Therefore, they cannot be included in employee income subject to personal income tax. Judges think so (see, for example, paragraph 3 of the Review approved by the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on October 21, 2015, resolution of the Arbitration Court of the North-Western District dated August 28, 2014 No. A56-50900/2013).

Situation: is it necessary to withhold personal income tax from the daily allowance paid to an employee when moving to work in another area, for each day of travel

No no need.

All types of compensation payments established by law, related, in particular, to a person’s performance of work duties (including moving to work in another area) are exempt from personal income tax. This is established by paragraph 3 of Article 217 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation.

When transferring an employee to another location by prior agreement, the employing organization is obliged to reimburse him for the following expenses:
– for the relocation of the employee himself, his family members, as well as the transportation of property (except for those cases when the organization provides the employee with transport);
- settling into a new place of residence.

Expenses are reimbursed in the amounts determined by agreement of the parties to the employment contract.

BASIC: income tax

When calculating income tax, compensation for expenses associated with moving to another area (including abroad) can be taken into account as reimbursement (subclause 5, clause 1, article 264 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, letter of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated February 13, 2012 No. 03-04-06/6-35). To do this, two conditions must be met:

• the amount of the allowance must actually be paid (regardless of the method by which the organization determines income and expenses) (subclause 4, clause 7, article 272, clause 3, article 273 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation);
• the amount of lifting should not exceed the norm established in accordance with current legislation. Excessive payments do not reduce taxable profit (Clause 37, Article 270 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation).

Such rules apply to those cases when allowances are paid to an employee of an organization with whom an employment contract has already been concluded and who, at the time of moving to a new place of work, was already fulfilling his labor duties for the same employer at the old place of work (letters from the Ministry of Finance of Russia, , Federal Tax Service for the city Moscow dated February 18, 2008 No. 20-12/015139).

New employee relocation costs

Situation: how to take into account when calculating income tax the costs of moving a new employee to his place of residence new job(if the employment contract already indicates the address of the organization’s location or the employment contract has not yet been concluded with it)

In the case of hiring a new employee and paying for travel to his place of work specified in the employment contract, the application of the provisions of Article 169 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation is unreasonable. A similar procedure applies to paying relocation expenses for a new employee with whom an employment contract has not yet been concluded. Consequently, when calculating income tax, such costs cannot be taken into account on the basis of subparagraph 5 of paragraph 1 of Article 264 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation.

At the time of relocation, an employment contract must be drawn up with the employee, which provides for the payment of compensation for relocation and settlement expenses. When calculating income tax, the amount of this compensation can be taken into account as a tax allowance (subclause 5, clause 1, article 264 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation). That is, the provisions of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation apply in the case when an employee, in agreement with the organization, moves from one place of work where he performed his job duties to a new place of work.

The Ministry of Finance of Russia adheres to a similar point of view in letters dated July 23, 2009 No. 03-03-05/138, dated July 14, 2009 No. 03-03-06/2/140.

At the same time, if an employment contract is concluded with a new employee, which indicates the new address of the organization, the costs associated with his relocation can be taken into account when calculating income tax based on another cost item - as part of labor costs ( clause 25 of article 255 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation). The main condition is that the payment of such compensation must be provided for in an employment (collective) agreement.

Similar conclusions follow from letters of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated November 23, 2011 No. 03-03-06/1/773 and dated July 23, 2009 No. 03-03-05/138. Despite the fact that these clarifications are addressed to organizations that compensate relocation expenses for foreign employees, they can also be applied in the case of relocation of Russian citizens.

It should be noted that in private explanations, specialists of the Federal Tax Service of Russia take a different position. They point out that compensation amounts for relocation costs for new employees cannot be included in labor costs, since they are not remuneration for labor (despite the fact that such payments are provided for in the employment contract). Consequently, they are not taken into account when taxing profits. Thus, the inclusion of relocation costs for new employees with whom employment contracts have been concluded as part of tax expenses may raise objections from inspectors.

The chief accountant advises: There are arguments that allow organizations to take into account, when calculating income tax, the costs of relocating a new employee before concluding an employment contract with him. They are as follows.

When calculating income tax, expenses that are economically justified and documented are taken into account (clause 1 of Article 252 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation). If an organization can prove that paying the costs of moving to the place of work of a new employee (before concluding an employment contract with him) is economically justified, it can take them into account in accordance with subparagraph 49 of paragraph 1 of Article 264 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation. For example, the payment of compensation can be justified by the fact that the new employee is highly qualified and his hiring is crucial for the organization's activities. Therefore, paying for his moving expenses as a condition of going to work will have a high economic return.

Limitations when taking into account lifting

Situation: what amount of allowance can be taken into account when calculating income tax

An organization can take into account when calculating income tax the amount of allowances within the limits established by law (subclause 5, clause 1, article 264 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation). Excessive payments do not reduce taxable profit (Clause 37, Article 270 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation).

The current legislation should be understood as:

• provisions of Article 169, Labor Code of the Russian Federation, Part 5 of Art. 35 of the Law of February 19, 1993 No. 4520-1).

  The Ministry of Finance of Russia adheres to a similar position in letters dated February 13, 2012 No. 03-04-06/6-35, dated July 23, 2009 No. 03-03-05/138, dated July 14, 2009 No. 03-03- 06/2/140. In arbitration practice there are examples of court decisions confirming this point of view (see, for example, the resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Moscow District dated June 3, 2009 No. KA-A40/4697-09-2).

  • Download forms