VAT on reimbursement of transportation costs. Reimbursement of transportation costs under a supply agreement Court decision on reimbursement of transportation costs

Reimbursement of transportation costs under a supply agreement represents the return of funds from the buyer to the supplier. This procedure has certain design features depending on the selected option for refunding supply costs. Particular importance is attached to re-invoicing in the name of the buyer.

Dear readers! The article talks about typical ways to resolve legal issues, but each case is individual. If you want to know how solve exactly your problem- contact a consultant:

APPLICATIONS AND CALLS ARE ACCEPTED 24/7 and 7 days a week.

It's fast and FOR FREE!

Options

The buyer can reimburse transportation costs by choosing one of several methods. When the buyer transports the goods independently, all questions automatically disappear.

The procedure for compensation of costs incurred by the supplier depends on the delivery option:

delivery of goods is organized by the supplier with his own resources;
The delivery of goods is organized by the supplier using a third party as a carrier.

For a more understandable perception of the information, options for reimbursement of transport costs are presented in the form of a table.

Each of the methods involves certain actions to be reflected in the accounting and tax records of the organization.

Own costs

Before making a delivery, you must choose how it will be reflected.

There are two ways to account for supply costs:

by written agreement, including in the price of the product;
by written agreement (counted separately).

Transport services included in the price of the product must be reflected in the sales contract as a separate line. It is necessary to make a note about the amount for transportation services.

In this case, the cost of the goods including VAT is indicated, the total amount payable from the buyer is calculated and the amount of transportation is indicated. You can also make a note for the buyer that if the product is returned, shipping costs will not be refunded.

Failure to allocate the amount of transport services in a separate line can result in the following troubles:

if the buyer returns the products, he will have to return the entire amount back, including delivery costs;
The tax office will not count this amount as a deduction when calculating income tax.

The best option would be to conclude a separate contract/agreement for the transportation of sold goods.

It specifies all the supplier's costs and the buyer's obligation to reimburse. In this case, the accounting for sales and transportation expenses will be separated.

Documentation

In case of organization of accounting of transport services included in the price of products, the document accompanying the cargo will be the consignment note.

It is impossible to distinguish between transport services and the cost of goods, since this paper is intended to reflect the movement of material assets, not services. To confirm expenses to the tax office, you must additionally issue a waybill.

When organizing accounting for transport services using an additional contract/agreement, primary documentation can be prepared in three ways:
filling out the consignment note;
filling out separately the goods and transport invoices;

filling out the consignment note and the act, which will reflect transport services.

Each of the above documents must be recorded in the sales book.

Reissue of transport invoices to the buyer

If the transportation of sold goods is carried out by a third-party organization, which acts as a carrier in the seller-buyer relationship, reimbursement of costs for transportation services occurs according to the scheme of re-billing for services provided.

Re-issuance of transport invoices without tax risks for both parties can be done in two ways:
intermediary services;

change in price for goods.

Each of them requires special attention.

Intermediary services

When concluding an agreement with the buyer, it is necessary to add a provision that the supplier undertakes the responsibility to find a carrier company and pay for their services. That is, he poses as a mediator.

In this case, the amount of the supplier's remuneration must be indicated. The Civil Code of the Russian Federation indicates that the services of an intermediary cannot be free of charge.

The following primary documents are transferred to the buyer:
consignment note from the supplier for the provision of transport services;
a copy of the consignment note received from the carrier;

intermediary's report on fulfilled obligations. Important:

When issuing an invoice to the buyer from the seller, the date must be indicated the same as the documents received from the carrier.

Change in price for an item This option is used less frequently than intermediary services, but it requires less paperwork.

The Civil Code allows changes to be made to the purchase and sale agreement regarding the price of products in exceptional situations.

You can simply add a clause that as a result of delivery by the supplier, payment for the product automatically becomes greater by the amount spent on transport.

At the moment the goods are transferred to the buyer, the amount of the supplier’s costs will already be known. It is distributed equally to each type of goods and included in the consignment note.

Changes can be made in two ways:

correct the information and issue a new document;
make changes to the previously issued document by the supplier (in copies of both parties).

The main thing is not to reflect transport costs on the invoice as a separate line. Then an invoice is issued to the buyer for payment, which is noted in the sales journal. A note regarding receipt of an invoice from the carrier is made in the purchase journal.

Reimbursement of transportation costs under the supply agreement

The procedure and conditions for reimbursement of supply costs are also prescribed in the law protecting consumer rights.

Situations will differ depending on:

from the place of purchase (remotely or at the seller’s premises);
conditions for the return/exchange of goods (with or without quality claims).

Legislation that protects consumer rights indicates the obligation to reimburse payment for delivery of products to the buyer and/or seller. If there is a buyer's refusal of the purchased product.

For a quality product when purchased at a distance

The Federal Law for the Protection of Buyers' Rights determines that if the purchase was not made on the seller's territory (for example, via the Internet), the consumer has the right to return it.

Provided that the product does not have any deviations in quality standards, the money spent by the consumer on delivery fees will not be returned to him. In such situations, only the amount paid for the product itself is returned, provided that the packaging, configuration and presentation of the product are preserved.

For goods of inadequate quality when ordering remotely

According to the law of consumer rights, if a product was purchased remotely (for example, through an online store), the consumer can return it.

If there are complaints about the quality of the goods, reimbursement of transportation costs in favor of the buyer is made in full. If, by agreement, the delivery of goods was made at the expense of the buyer.

Reimbursement of transportation costs for defective goods

The buyer pays transportation costs if he purchased goods of large weight and size (heavier than 5 kg).

In this case, situations of moving a purchase are considered for:

repair;
replacements;
markdowns;
return to the consumer.

Initially, the consumer can independently pay for the transportation of low-quality purchases. As a result, he has the right to demand compensation for expenses incurred from the seller (together with compensation for moral damage).

For goods of proper/inadequate quality when purchased in a store (buyer from another city)

If the buyer went to buy a specific product from another city to a store, and then decided to return it back, he cannot demand reimbursement of transportation costs (for moving from one locality to another).

The quality of the product does not matter at all.

Distribution of transport costs

Shipping costs may be shared between the parties. Most often, this method is used when involving third-party organizations in the transportation of goods.

26.12.2013

Generalization of judicial practice on consideration of issues
distribution of legal costs

Pursuant to paragraph 5.05 of the work plan of the Arbitration Court of the Kostroma Region for the second half of 2013, a generalization of the practice of considering issues of reimbursement of legal expenses was carried out.

The subject of the analysis was the practice of resolving these issues by the Arbitration Court of the Kostroma Region in the period from January 1, 2013 to October 30, 2013.

In total, the above issues were considered by the court in 179 cases: in 88 cases - when issuing a final judicial act (decision), in 88 - in a determination based on the results of consideration of an application submitted after the completion of the consideration of the case, in 3 cases - in the form of an additional decision.

18 judicial acts were appealed to higher courts, 4 judicial acts were canceled (changed).

The results of the analysis of judicial practice are as follows.

Issues of reimbursement of expenses for payment of representative services.

The costs of paying for the services of a representative incurred by the person in whose favor the judicial act was adopted are recovered by the arbitration court from another person participating in the case, within reasonable limits (Part 2 of Article 110 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation).

Clause 3 of the information letter of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated December 5, 2007 No. 121 explains that a person demanding reimbursement of expenses for the services of a representative proves their amount and the fact of payment, the other party has the right to prove their excessiveness.

Further, the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation indicated that, when making a reasoned decision to change the amount of amounts collected to reimburse the relevant expenses, the court does not have the right to reduce them arbitrarily, especially if the other party does not object and does not

provides evidence of the excessiveness of the costs collected from her. Moreover, if the amount of the stated claim clearly exceeds reasonable limits, and the other party does not object to their excessiveness, the court, in the absence of evidence of the reasonableness of the costs presented by the applicant, in accordance with Part 2 of Article 110 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, reimburses such costs within what is reasonable, in its opinion, limits.

In paragraph 20 of the information letter of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated August 13, 2004 No. 82 “On some issues of application of the Arbitration Procedural Code of the Russian Federation” it is stated that when determining reasonable limits for the costs of paying for the services of a representative, in particular, the time that a qualified specialist could spend on preparing the materials; the prevailing cost of paying lawyers in the region; available information from statistical authorities on prices on the legal services market; duration of consideration and complexity of the case.

Based on the results of generalizing the practice of considering these cases, it should be noted that a uniform practice has developed in court, according to which the court does not directly link the amount of expenses for paying for the services of a representative with the size of the claim. Thus, in some cases, the amount of expenses presented for compensation and collected by the court for the services of a representative was several times higher than the amount of the main claim (cases No. A31-2501/2012, A31-12957/12, A31-12955/11).

The practice of the Arbitration Court of the Kostroma Region shows that the number of cases where the court reduces the amount of reimbursable expenses for the services of a representative does not exceed 14% of all claims considered.

At the same time, the analysis shows that the party claiming that the costs claimed for reimbursement are excessive, as a rule, does not provide evidence to substantiate its objections.

An analysis of cases where the court of first instance reduced the amount of reimbursement for the services of a representative made it possible to identify circumstances that, in the absence of objections from the losing party or failure to provide evidence of excessive expenses, the court most often took into account when determining the reasonable amount of compensation: the degree of complexity of the dispute and the amount of work performed by the representatives, incl. the number of court hearings in which the party’s representative took part.

Thus, taking into account the insignificant degree of complexity of the dispute in case No. A31-2200/2013, the presence of extensive judicial practice in the category under consideration, the absence of disagreements between the parties regarding the circumstances of the case, the duration and number of court hearings (2), of which the plaintiff’s representative participated only in In one case, the court reimbursed the costs of the representative's services in part.

In reducing the amount of expenses to be reimbursed in case No. A31-1467/2013, the court took into account the fact that the defendant admitted the claim at the very first court hearing, as well as the fact that the acceptance certificate for the work performed was signed by the defendant without comments.

Reducing the amount of reimbursement for the services of a representative in case No. A31-2411/13, the court proceeded from the consideration of the case in summary proceedings and the preparation by the representative only of a statement of claim, despite the fact that the scope of services performed by the representative under the contract, in addition to preparing a claim, included representation of interests in a court.

The simplified procedure for resolving a dispute by the court was also taken into account when determining the reasonableness of the amount of expenses incurred in cases No. A31-3760/13, A31-1430/2012 and A31-13430/12.

Recognizing the excessively high amount of expenses declared in case No. A31-5483/2011 for paying for the services of a representative, the court took into account the fact that when considering the case, only expert opinions were accepted as evidence by the court, and other evidence provided by the plaintiff’s representatives was rejected by the court.

At the same time, in the practice of considering this issue, there is a case of the court unjustifiably rejecting a party’s objections regarding the unreasonably high amount of expenses incurred to pay for the services of a representative (case No. A31-7773/13). Changing the decision of the court of first instance, the appellate court came to the conclusion that there was no certain complexity of the dispute and the failure of the representative to perform the full scope of services under the contract, as well as the consideration of the case through summary proceedings. As a result, the appeal court reduced the amount of recoverable expenses from 30,000 rubles to 11,000 rubles.

It should be noted that when considering the issue of reimbursement of legal expenses, the judges of the court of first instance are unanimous in their position on the inadmissibility of reimbursement of pre-trial expenses of the party, associated, in particular, with payment for the consulting services of a representative.

Thus, in case No. A31-1811/2013, the court partially satisfied the plaintiff’s request for reimbursement of expenses for the representative’s services, excluding from the expenses the amounts provided for in the contract for services for a preliminary conclusion on the judicial prospects of the case and for conducting negotiations with the defendant.

When considering cases No. A31-10067/2012, A31-10066/12, the court excluded from the costs the plaintiff’s payment for consultation on the issue of debt collection from the defendant, the study of documents and monitoring the progress of the case in court, pointing out the optional nature of such actions.

This approach corresponds to the legal position of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation, set out in Resolution No. 9131/08 dated December 9, 2008: the determining criterion for compensation of legal expenses is the connection of expenses with the consideration of the case in court.

When resolving the issue of reimbursement of expenses for payment for the services of a representative in enforcement proceedings, the court of first instance follows the instructions of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation, set out in resolutions dated November 29, 2005 No. 8964/05, dated July 15, 2010 No. 4735/09: expenses for payment for the services of a representative in enforcement proceedings within the meaning of Article 106 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, they are legal costs associated with the consideration of the case in an arbitration court, and are subject to recovery in accordance with Article 110 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.

For example, the arbitration court granted a person’s application to recover the costs of paying for a representative’s services incurred in connection with the consideration of an application for an installment plan for the execution of a judicial act in case No. A31-3196/11.

Difficulties that arose in considering the issue of reimbursement of legal costs when the court assessed the evidence of the fact of incurring costs.

In case No. A31-9500/2011, the appellate court, disagreeing with the position of the trial court that the applicant did not prove the fact of incurring expenses due to the lack of original documents, indicated the following. By virtue of Part 9 of Article 75 and Part 6 of Article 71 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the impossibility of establishing a fact on the basis of a copy of a document is due to the presence of a combination of the following conditions: loss of the original document or failure to submit the original to the court; discrepancies in the contents of the copies of this document presented by the persons participating in the case; the impossibility of establishing the true content of the original source using other evidence. In the court of first instance, the defendant did not claim that there were copies of documents that differed in content from the copies of documents presented by the plaintiff, nor did they claim that they were falsified. In this regard, the court of second instance indicated that it had no doubts about the need to bear the costs associated with the appearance of the plaintiff’s representative at the court hearing, as well as about the reliability of the documents that were presented in support of the stated claims. Under these circumstances, the claim for reimbursement of legal costs was considered proven by the court of appeal.

A similar situation arose in case No. A31-4418/2011: the applicant, in support of expenses, presented copies of the contract, the acceptance certificate for services provided, as well as receipts for cash receipts. The court of first instance, with reference to Articles 68 and 75 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, concluded that these documents cannot be recognized as admissible evidence of the incurrence of disputed expenses. The Court of Appeal did not agree with this conclusion and recognized the refusal of the first instance court to reimburse legal costs as unlawful, canceling the judicial act. Since the package of written evidence in support of the application for reimbursement of legal costs was bound, numbered and certified by the applicant’s representative, the court of second instance recognized the copies of documents submitted by the plaintiff as properly executed in accordance with Article 75 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.

In case No. A31-2501/2012, the appellate court did not agree with the position of the trial court on reimbursement of expenses for the services of a representative when considering the complaint in the cassation court. The Court of Appeal noted that the terms of the contract for the provision of legal services provided for the participation of a representative in the court of first and appellate instances; a new contract was not concluded by the parties in connection with the consideration of the cassation appeal by the district court; a copy of the receipt submitted to confirm the incurrence of expenses in connection with the participation of a representative in the cassation court did not have a reference to the case number; the response to the complaint was signed by the entrepreneur himself; evidence of its preparation by the representative was not provided. In this regard, the court of second instance considered the claim for reimbursement of expenses incurred for the representative’s services to be unfounded.

Often the court has doubts about the relevance of the documents provided to the issue of spending funds to pay for the services of a representative.

In case No. A31-7142/2013, the court of first instance found the fact of incurring expenses for the services of a representative in connection with the following unproven. The payment order submitted to the case file contained an indication of the transfer of funds to the NGO “Regional Bar Association of the Kostroma Region Bar Association”, but there was no information that this payment was made for legal services related to the consideration of the said case. The court's proposal to the plaintiff to provide additional evidence of the costs of paying for the services of a representative associated with the consideration of the case was ignored by the plaintiff.

In case No. A31-9700/2012, having examined the payment order submitted by the applicant to confirm the costs of paying for the representative’s services, the court of first instance came to the conclusion that it does not allow the payment to be included in the applicant’s settlements with the representative under the contract, since as a recipient of this payment, in the corresponding field of the payment order it was indicated “UFK MF RF KO (Inspectorate of the Federal Tax Service for the city of Kostroma)”, and in the field “purpose of payment” it was indicated “Personal income tax for December 2012”. No other evidence confirming that this tax payment was calculated and paid from the representative’s remuneration provided for in the agreement was not presented in the case materials.

In case No. A31-10147/11, the court rejected the plaintiff’s request for reimbursement at the defendant’s expense for the costs of paying for the representative’s services, since the documents provided to the court indicated that the representation of the applicant’s interests was carried out in the framework of a case that was being processed by the Arbitration Court of the Sverdlovsk Region, some or objective evidence that the costs of paying for services were incurred specifically in connection with the consideration of case A31-10147/11 was not presented.

Resolving the issue of reimbursement of expenses in case No. A31-6221/2013, the court found that the subject of the contract for the provision of legal services provided by the applicant was the provision of legal assistance in the case of debt collection arising from obligations under the purchase and sale agreement; the specified debt was collected from the defendant in favor of the plaintiff in the framework of another arbitration case. Thus, the court came to the conclusion that the demand for the collection of legal costs was unlawfully stated within the framework of the consideration of case No. A31-6221/2013 on the collection of interest for the use of someone else’s money.

The following issues that arise when resolving claims for reimbursement of transportation and travel expenses deserve attention.

The Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation in information letter dated December 5, 2007 No. 121 “Review of judicial practice on issues related to the distribution between the parties of legal costs for the services of lawyers and other persons acting as representatives in arbitration courts” explained that the payment of wages to full-time employees , as well as bonuses and other incentive payments in connection with the performance of their labor duties, are not classified by the provisions of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation as legal expenses. At the same time, expenses for travel and hotel accommodation of representatives in connection with the trial are subject to reimbursement as legal expenses of the party associated with the consideration of the case. The obligation to reimburse legal costs associated with travel to the place of consideration of the case and hotel accommodation of representatives (whether on staff or not) does not depend on the status of the person performing representative functions.

Subclause 12 of clause 1 of Article 254 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation refers to business travel expenses, in particular, the costs of an employee’s travel to the place of business trip and back to the place of permanent work. At the same time, the price of a train ticket includes additional services (service fees, fees for the use of bedding) (letter of the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation dated November 21, 2007 No. 03-03-06/1/823).

In the practice of the Arbitration Court of the Kostroma Region, an approach has been formed regarding the possibility of including service fees for issuing travel tickets, as well as the cost of taxi fares, in court costs.

In case No. A31-7927/2012, the court satisfied in full the plaintiff’s demands for the recovery of legal costs, including the agency’s tariff for the provision of information and service services (issuing an airline ticket), the cost of travel on railway transport, the agency’s fee for the provision of individual service services (issuing a travel document), taxi fares and daily allowances. At the same time, the court rejected the objections of the defendant, who presented, in support of overestimation of hotel accommodation services, only a list of proposals for hotels in the city indicating the minimum prices for accommodation, and did not confirm the availability of vacancies in hotels with lower fees during the period of residence of the plaintiff’s representative. With regard to the plaintiff’s representative’s choice of a taxi for a trip to the airport, the court indicated that the choice of a specific transport is the right of the person involved in the case and can be justified by various reasons: saving time (efficiency), convenience of the location of stations (airport) and further transport links between a specific station ( airport) and destination, as well as other circumstances. The defendant did not provide evidence of the possibility of using another type of transport.

In case No. A31-32/12, the court considered the claim for reimbursement of travel expenses for a representative to the place of the hearing. To confirm the fact of incurring expenses, the applicant presented a cash receipt for the purchase of gasoline. The court found that in violation of the requirements of the instructions of the Ministry of Finance of the USSR, the State Committee for Labor of the USSR and the All-Russian Central Council of Trade Unions dated 04/07/88 N 62 “On official business trips within the USSR”, the Procedure for filling out waybills approved by order of the Ministry of Transport of Russia dated 09/18/2008 N 152, the applicant did not submit a journal registration of waybills, the waybills themselves and a report on the consumption of fuel and lubricants. There was also no certificate of control measurement of fuel for the car, documents confirming the applicant’s possession (use, disposal) of the vehicle used for travel to the Arbitration Court of the Kostroma Region. Having assessed the presented document, the court found that from an analysis of the text of the receipt it was impossible to establish which car was being refueled, whether this car was the applicant’s car, and whether it was used for travel to the Arbitration Court of the Kostroma Region. In such circumstances, the court came to the conclusion that there was no evidence confirming that the applicant spent the required amount on travel of the representative to the place of the court hearings, and therefore refused to satisfy the claim for reimbursement of these expenses.

Assessing the presented evidence of the presence of transportation costs for the payment of fuel and lubricants in case No. A31-2501/12, the court of appeal pointed out that documentary evidence of the costs incurred for the purchase of fuel and lubricants is precisely the waybill of the vehicle, confirming the route traveled (in kilometers), points of departure and destination, information about the presence of gasoline remaining in the gas tank at the start of driving and when returning the car to the garage. Gas station cash receipts themselves, without the presence of waybills with the above information and in the absence of evidence in the case of their payment by the applicant (cash receipts confirming the issuance of funds from the applicant’s cash register for the purchase of gasoline for the driver’s report) are not adequate evidence of the defendant’s fulfillment of the stated claims. collection of transportation costs.

In the practice of considering cases, there are cases of refusal to reimburse court costs due to the applicant missing the six-month period provided for by the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation for applying to the arbitration court and the court recognizing the reasons for such omission as disrespectful.

Thus, in refusing to restore the missed deadline due to the applicant being on maternity leave and child care leave, the court proceeded from the fact that there were no adequate explanations of how these circumstances prevented the timely filing of an application for recovery of legal costs with the arbitration court not included in the case file. Since there was also no evidence of the impossibility of inviting an outside representative (specialist) to draw up and submit an application for reimbursement of legal expenses by the applicant in the case materials, the court considered that the applicant had not proven the presence of valid reasons why the deadline for filing an application for reimbursement of legal expenses was missed (case No. A31-1103/2010).

In case No. A31-2480/2012, the applicant motivated the missed procedural deadline by delaying the transfer of funds to pay for legal services. The court considered the reasons for missing the deadline unproven, since payment for legal services could have been made by the plaintiff earlier in order to timely apply for reimbursement of legal expenses (including by amending the contract for the provision of services).

Conclusion.

In general, the practice of considering the issue of reimbursement of legal costs that has developed in court is uniform and justified.

The review was prepared by the judge of the Arbitration Court of the Kostroma Region V.D. Mofa. and the head of the department of information and analytical work and records management Mokina E.S., approved by the Resolution of the Presidium of the Arbitration Court of the Kostroma Region dated December 25, 2013 No. 6.

Reimbursement of transport costs by the buyer involves covering the costs of transporting goods at the expense of the buyer. The procedure for documenting and accounting for reimbursable transportation costs depends on several factors, which we will discuss in our article.

Methods for reimbursement of transportation costs under a supply agreement

The supply contract may provide for several options reimbursement of transportation costs by the buyer. For clarity, we presented them in the form of a diagram:

When reimbursement of transportation costs using method No. 1, the supplier does not participate in the transportation of goods. He simply gives the goods to the buyer or the carrier hired by him. This is where his obligations end. Therefore, this method of reimbursement of transportation costs is not taken into account in any way in the accounting and tax accounting of the seller.

But the options for reimbursement of transportation costs provided for in method No. 2 require their reflection in the supplier’s accounting. Let's look at each of them in detail.

Reimbursement of expenses for own transport services

Agreement

Before delivering the goods, the seller needs to decide on the method of accounting for transport services:

in the cost of goods - in the supply contract;
a separate amount - in the contract for transport services.

When taking into account the costs of transporting goods in the cost of goods, fix the amount of transport costs in the supply agreement. In particular, you enter the cost of the goods including VAT and indicate below that it includes the costs of transporting the goods to the buyer in the amount of NNNNN,NN rubles. If you wish, please note that when returning the goods, payment received from the buyer in relation to shipping costs incurred will not be refunded.

If the seller does not highlight the conditions and amount of reimbursement for the transportation of goods, but simply indicates the cost of the goods, then he may encounter troubles:

firstly, when returning the goods, the buyer will have to return the entire cost specified in the contract, including the cost of delivery added to it;
secondly, tax authorities can exclude the costs of transporting goods from the calculation of income tax on the principle “there are no conditions in the contract for the delivery of goods, i.e. the seller does not have to make it, and therefore the costs of transporting goods are not justified in any way” .

The best option for reimbursement and confirmation of transport services provided would be to form a separate contract (or additional agreement) for the transportation of goods. It will clearly indicate that the buyer is provided with services for the delivery of goods to the address specified by him. And he must pay them within a certain period. With this option, the seller maintains separate records for the sale of goods and the provision of transport services.

Source documents

When taking into account the services for transporting goods in its cost, the supplier issues a consignment note. The cost of transport services should not be indicated separately from the cost of the goods. This is due to the fact that the delivery note is intended to confirm the sale of goods and materials. And services do not belong to inventory items.

You can familiarize yourself with filling out the delivery note in our article.

To confirm to the tax authorities that the goods have been transported, the supplier must issue a waybill. Details about the rules for filling it out are set out in our article. .

If the seller highlights the cost of transportation in a separate agreement (additional agreement), then the paperwork can be completed in 3 options:

waybill;
waybill and transport bill of lading;
consignment note and certificate of provision of transport services.

Invoice

If the cost of transporting the goods is already taken into account in its cost, then the seller draws up 1 invoice for the entire amount intended to be paid by the buyer. There is no need to issue a separate invoice for transportation services.

But if the cost of transport services is taken into account in a separate agreement (additional agreement), then in this case you need to generate 2 invoices:

by goods sold;
for transport services provided.

All invoices issued by the supplier must be noted in the sales ledger. Invoices for materials and services received by the seller (fuels and lubricants, accompanying services, loading and unloading services, etc.) are recorded in the purchase book.

Read our article about the specifics of calculating VAT on transport services. .

Reimbursement of expenses for transport services of third parties

When the buyer reimburses expenses for transport services that are provided not by the seller, but by a third party in the form of a carrier, in essence, transport services are rebilled to the buyer through the seller according to the following scheme:

Postings reflecting reimbursement of transportation costs by the buyer

We have already written about the preparation of entries for reimbursement of transport services provided by specialized carriers in the article .

Therefore, now we will use a simple example to look at postings that reflect the procedure for reimbursement of only our own transport services.

Example

During August the following operations were performed:

Products sold:

for method 1 - in the amount of 96,740 rubles. (including VAT 14,756.95 rubles), of which the cost of transporting goods including VAT is 19,965.60 rubles;
for method 2 - in the amount of 76,774.40 rubles. (including VAT RUB 11,711.35).

The purchase price of the goods sold was written off - RUB 56,420.
An invoice was issued for payment of transport services in the amount of RUB 19,965.60. (including VAT RUB 3,045.60). Note: This is the condition for method 2.
The cost of transporting the goods amounted to 17,740 rubles. (including VAT on loading work provided by a third party - 820 rubles).

Operation	Method 1 The cost of transportation is included in the price of the goods under the supply agreement			Method 2 The cost of transportation is allocated to a separate agreement (additional agreement)
Operation			Sum			Sum
Product sold						76 774,40
Product sold			14 756,95			11 711,35
The purchase price of the goods has been written off
Transport services provided						19 965,60
Transport services provided						3 045,60
Costs associated with the provision of transport services are taken into account		02, 10, 60, 69, 70, 76	= 17 740 – 820		02, 10, 60, 69, 70, 76	= 17 740 – 820
VAT on loading services of a third party has been allocated and accepted for deduction

Transportation costs written off

Results

Reimbursement of shipping costs by the buyer can be made in two ways. First: the buyer himself organizes and pays for the delivery of the purchased goods. Second: the buyer only pays for delivery, and the seller organizes it. In the first method, the seller does not record reimbursable costs at all. When using the second method, accounting for reimbursable transportation costs depends on how the seller transports the goods: himself or through a specialized carrier.

If your company gets involved in a legal dispute (for example, with a counterparty, employee, tax inspectorate, or other government agency) and loses it, then such a loss may not be the only trouble. After all, the winner may demand reimbursement of expenses for the participation of his representative in the case. Moreover, such expenses sometimes exceed the amount of the claim itself. If your company is small and the manager is used to discussing all financial issues with the chief accountant, then he may come to you for advice on how to reduce the expenses incurred. If you want to help him with this, then together with him carefully study the received application (petition) of the other party for reimbursement of “representational” expenses and the copies of supporting documents attached to it. Here's what you need to pay attention to.

Fighting off some expenses

There are a number of expenses that in most cases the courts do not collect. Therefore, if you see them, then ask the court to exclude them from the amounts reimbursed to the winner. Here are examples of such expenses.

Expenses for the services of a representative who did not have the right to provide them for a fee.

Main types representative expenses are payment for his services, travel to and from court, accommodation at the location of the court and daily allowance Art. 106 Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation; Art. 94 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation.

Thus, the losing party should not reimburse the cost of the representative’s services when he was represented by:

<или>in cases of a dispute with an organization or entrepreneur, a manager, lawyer or other employee of the organization or entrepreneur Resolution 9 of the AAS dated June 25, 2013 No. 09AP-16469/2013-GK; 6 AAS dated 08.11.2012 No. 06AP-4951/2012. After all, they perform representative functions for a salary that they receive regardless of their participation in the process. By the way, you should not reimburse your salary, as well as a bonus, other bonus for participation in court, additional payment in the form of the difference between salary and average earnings during business trips and other similar payments within the framework of labor relations clause 11 of the Information Letter of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court dated December 5, 2007 No. 121 (hereinafter referred to as Information Letter No. 121); Resolution 7 AAS dated December 22, 2010 No. 07AP-9918/10; FAS VSO dated 07/08/2004 No. A58-3321/03-F02-2527/04-S1; Appeal ruling of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Buryatia dated December 10, 2012 No. 33-3264.

It is not difficult to find out who the head of the organization is. It is enough to look at the extract from the Unified State Register of Legal Entities (you received it at the very beginning of the trial);

<или>in cases of dispute with a citizen:

this citizen himself. Because you cannot provide services to yourself Resolution 19 of the AAS dated February 26, 2013 No. A14-13736/2011;
his spouse Resolution of the FAS VSO dated May 17, 2012 No. A19-1676/10. An exception is cases when the spouse provided representation services as an entrepreneur and when a marriage contract was concluded between the spouses with the condition that their income is separate and not joint property.

Here’s what won’t prevent your organization from collecting the costs of a representative:

the representative-citizen lacks legal education, and the representative-organization lacks legal services among the types of its activities listed in the charter and the Unified State Register of Legal Entities clause 10 of the Information Letter of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court dated August 13, 2004 No. 82 (hereinafter referred to as Information Letter No. 82); Resolution 4 of the AAS dated 01/09/2013 No. A19-12291/2012;
representative of an individual - his relatives Resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of North Kazakhstan Region dated June 20, 2012 No. A32-13597/2011; FAS VSO dated April 23, 2009 No. A33-3061/08-F02-1645/09;
representative of the organization - its participants Resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the North-West District dated August 31, 2010 No. A56-92322/2009;
hiring a representative if the other party has: a legal education (from a citizen) or their own lawyer or legal service (from an organization or entrepreneur) paragraph 10 of Information Letter No. 121; Resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Moscow Region dated June 15, 2004 No. KA-A40/4746-04.

Expenses not related to the consideration of the case in court, including when such a connection is not visible from supporting documents. This is for example:

pre-trial expenses (for payment of services for providing an opinion on the prospects of litigation, drawing up a pre-trial claim, etc.), if they are allocated among the services provided by the representative paragraph 8 of Information Letter No. 121; Resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the North-West District dated June 10, 2013 No. A56-55391/2012; FAS VSO dated November 27, 2012 No. A33-21086/2011; FAS UO dated October 31, 2012 No. F09-9408/12; 9 AAS dated November 22, 2012 No. 09AP-34701/2012-GK;
expenses for the representative's travel to court by taxi or public transport, if neither the travel time nor the destination is visible from the travel documents Determination of the Leningrad Regional Court dated May 23, 2013 No. 33-2367/2013.

Expenses, the fact of payment of which the other party cannot document pp. 4, 5 Information Letter No. 121; Resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Northern Territory of March 23, 2011 No. A21-5650/2009. This includes expenses the reimbursement of which is not provided for in the contract with the representative (for example, for his travel and accommodation).

Sometimes expenses can be disputed even if payment documents are available. For example, in one case, “representation” expenses were claimed for reimbursement by an organization that had not conducted any activity for several years. The court refused her, since she presented only cash receipts, and could not provide other documents confirming that these amounts were passed through the accounting department. Resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Moscow Region dated March 11, 2010 No. KG-A40/762-10.

VAT included in expenses. Since if the other party applies the general regime, then it can take this amount as a deduction from Resolutions of the Federal Antimonopoly Service No. F09-8988/08 dated October 7, 2011, No. F09-5890/11 dated September 23, 2011; 13 AAS dated December 1, 2011 No. A56-73448/2010; 18 AAS dated February 28, 2008 No. 18AP-841/2008.

We strive to reduce costs due to their unreasonableness

Whether the costs of a representative are reasonable or not is decided by the court at its discretion, taking into account the specific circumstances of the cases. Part 2 Art. 110 Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation; Part 1 Art. 100 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation; clause 3 of Information Letter No. 121. Therefore, there is no ironclad evidence of excessive costs for a representative for the court.

The requirement of reasonableness must be met not only by the cost of the representative’s services, but also by the expenses associated with the representation (travel, accommodation, daily allowance). And you need to prepare evidence that the other party either could have avoided some expenses, or could have been more practical and spent much less. That is, that the costs are inappropriate and excessive.

We present our arguments to the court about the unreasonableness of the expenses.

The court may not take into account your arguments that the other party’s expenses for a representative are not economically feasible. But you still need to try to declare them. Here are some examples of arguments with which the courts have agreed.

For travel, hotel and per diem expenses:

travel expenses of the other party in connection with filing a claim in court should not be reimbursed, since it is not necessary to personally file a claim in court Resolution of the FAS VSO dated July 6, 2011 No. A10-3255/2010;
Living expenses and daily allowances should be reimbursed only for the days of court hearings (taking into account travel time). Therefore, if the representative was on a business trip for 2 days or more, and the meeting took place on one day, then living expenses and daily allowance must be reimbursed for only one day Resolution 13 AAS dated April 13, 2010 No. A21-4196/2009;
if a representative on one day and in one court on behalf of the other party participated in several court hearings at once, including yours, then the costs of his travel, accommodation and daily allowance should be reduced (for example, if there were three cases together with yours, you must reimburse only 1/3 of such expenses) Resolution of the FAS ZSO dated July 22, 2011 No. A81-1372/2010. Similarly, if the employee representative was sent not only to court, but also on other matters (for example, to a meeting with a supplier), which can be found out from the official assignment Resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Moscow Region dated January 24, 2011 No. KA-A40/16885-10.

Whether the other party is participating in other legal proceedings can be checked from the file of arbitration cases on the website of the Supreme Arbitration Court or the arbitration court of the corresponding region by typing the name of the organization (its TIN or OGRN) into a search engine. There, in the file cabinet, all the court documents in the case are placed, from which you can find out who acted as the representative of the other party;

daily allowances are due only to employees, therefore they should not be paid to a representative under a civil law contract Resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the North-West District dated November 26, 2012 No. A05-4339/2011; FAS DVO dated February 21, 2012 No. F03-53/2012;
daily allowances, if their amount is not established by the employment contract or local regulations of the party to the lawsuit, must be reimbursed at the rate provided for by law - 100 rubles. in a day subp. “b” clause 1 of Government Decree No. 729 dated 02.10.2002; Resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service No. F03-2147/2011 dated June 28, 2011.

For expenses for representative services:

the amount of expenses is significant in relation to the amount of the claim itself (the amount of the fine being appealed) or exceeds it (this argument usually works only in courts of general jurisdiction) clause 3 of Rospotrebnadzor Letter dated May 28, 2010 No. 01/8017-10-32; Appeal ruling of the Astrakhan Regional Court dated June 19, 2013 No. 33-1805/2013;
the representative artificially split up the documents he compiled (in particular, he drew up three petitions, while it was possible to get by with one general one) or the services provided (for example, he was paid separately for the services of familiarizing himself with the case materials and the services of judicial representation, although, according to in fact, the latter include the former) Resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service ZSO dated October 7, 2011 No. A03-18191/2009;
the representative was paid for drawing up documents that were not accepted by the court or that were withdrawn by the representative himself;
the representative was paid for several court hearings, which took place because he also filed a petition to postpone the consideration of cases and Resolution 13 of the AAS dated 02/01/2011 No. A56-22504/2008; Determination of the St. Petersburg City Court dated April 16, 2013 No. 33-5097/2013;
the agreement stipulates that the representative receives a fixed amount of remuneration for representation in all courts, but the case has not passed all instances Resolution 4 of the AAS dated February 11, 2013 No. A58-711/2011;
The representative, in parallel with your case, also participated in other cases, and at the same time, the agreement with him (acts, payment documents) does not indicate the case number or the nature of the dispute. In this case, it is not clear for which legal process the representative received money, or to which case his overhead expenses relate. Therefore, there is a possibility that the court will either not recover such expenses from your company, or will still recover them, but within reasonable limits. Resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the North-West District dated July 4, 2011 No. A56-36407/2008; 8 AAS dated January 15, 2010 No. 08AP-7682/2009, No. 08AP-7681/2009, No. 08AP-7678/2009;
the representative worked carelessly, for example Resolution 14 AAS dated June 20, 2012 No. A13-2668/2011; 13 AAS dated January 19, 2011 No. A56-37464/2009: his participation in court was limited to presence; he was only at one meeting, although according to the terms of the agreement he was supposed to participate in all; his side’s demands were satisfied only in part; the documents compiled by him do not contain references to legal norms; his complaint repeats the arguments of the statement of claim or another complaint; they have not responded to your claim or complaint; the documents he prepared were not sent to you in advance for review, but were presented only at the meeting, etc.;
The representative spent little time on your case because it was not complicated. The following may indicate the simplicity of the case: your company admitted the claim; the case was resolved in one meeting; the representative did not have to draw up a lot of documents or collect a lot of evidence; the dispute was about collecting a debt from your company, despite the fact that the other party had documents confirming the debt Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of July 24, 2012 No. 2544/12,;
the other side hired two representatives, although the dispute was not complicated, or their own lawyers also participated in the case, so they could get by with one representative Resolution 11 AAS dated April 28, 2011 No. A65-26171/2007.

We present written evidence to the court

Keep in mind that collecting them will take some time. You will need documents that show the following:

prices for representative services exceed market prices for similar services and clause 20 of Information Letter No. 82. This is for example:

The decision of the regional chamber of lawyers to approve the minimum rates of remuneration for legal assistance Resolution 3 AAS dated May 20, 2013 No. A33-8384/2012;

Certificate from the Chamber of Commerce and Industry on the average prices of legal services in the region;

It is pointless to present to the court documents on the average salary of in-house lawyers to confirm the unreasonableness of expenses for a representative. The services of third-party specialists are important. Moreover, for comparison, you need to select prices from companies of exactly the same rating level according to the criteria of fame, as well as quality of service. Resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of Ukraine dated February 25, 2013 No. F09-3637/11;

the representative could stay: in a cheaper hotel; in a standard room, not a suite; in a single room, not a double room. This can be confirmed by printouts of price lists from the websites of the same and other hotels. Resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of Ukraine dated February 22, 2013 No. F09-2474/12;
the representative had the opportunity to get there by a cheaper means of transport (for example, it was unreasonable to take a taxi or a luxury compartment instead of a regular train compartment) Resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Moscow Region dated 02/08/2013 No. A40-14577/12-35-130; FAS PO dated May 30, 2011 No. A12-23137/2009. This can be confirmed by:

Certificates from carriers regarding the availability of air tickets for a direct flight, tickets for cheaper train compartments, etc. on the required date;

Certificates about the cost of services from other carriers, including alternative modes of transport;

Printouts from websites of public and other transport schedules and fares.

Courts often disagree with arguments about the obligation of the other party to choose the cheapest transport and hotel and recognize the right to independently determine the most suitable place of residence, type of transport and level of comfort (for example, flying in business class rather than economy class) Resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Moscow Region dated October 19, 2012 No. A40-63775/07-80-266.

As you can see, in order to reduce the legal costs of a representative you are required to recover, sometimes you need to play detective - pay attention to the little things, look for additional information, etc.

Document all information found in your favor in writing (for example, in the form of an objection to a statement or petition) and present it to the court and the other party.

By the way, all our recommendations apply to ordinary citizens. Therefore, they may also be useful to you if you are suing someone and do not win the dispute. But remember: if a dispute arises from an employment relationship, then no legal costs can be recovered from you as an employee under any circumstances. Art. 393 Labor Code of the Russian Federation.

To the Perovsky District Court of Moscow

defendant N.V.,
Moscow, ..., ... apt. ...

Plaintiff: CB "UNIASTRUM BANK" (LLC),
Moscow, Suvorovskaya sq., 1

Defendant 2: I.A.,
Moscow, st. ...., d. ..., apt. ...

Petition for recovery of legal costs
to pay for the services of a representative, his transportation expenses
(airfare), daily allowance

CB "UNIASTRUM BANK" filed a claim against the defendants for compensation for material damage caused during the performance of the defendants' work duties.

The plaintiff asked the court to collect jointly and severally from the defendants the material damage caused upon discovery of a shortage in the amount of 10,000 US dollars, in the ruble equivalent of 296,904 rubles.

By the decision of the Perovsky District Court of Moscow dated March 30, 2012 in satisfying the claims of CB Uniastrumbank against the defendant N.V. denied in full. From the defendant I.A. in favor of the plaintiff, 296,904 rubles were recovered for damages, and 6,169.04 rubles were recovered for the return of state duty.

By ruling of the Moscow City Court dated July 18, 2012. the decision of the Perovsky District Court of Moscow was left unchanged, the appeal of I.A. - without satisfaction.

In accordance with Part 1 of Art. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the party in whose favor the court decision was made, at its written request, the court awards, on the other hand, the costs of paying for the services of a representative within reasonable limits.

In October 2011, an agreement on the provision of legal services was concluded between N.V. and Legal Center Logos LLC, the subject of which was the provision of the following services:

1.1 representing the interests of the Customer in the court of first instance as a defendant in the claim of CB Uniastrum Bank LLC for compensation for material damage caused during the performance of labor duties.

In accordance with clause 2.1. Agreement, the amount of the agreement is 35,000 (Thirty-five thousand) rubles.

In accordance with clause 2.6 of the Agreement, transport and travel expenses are borne by the Customer based on the following: The Contractor is provided with paid air tickets to the place of the court hearing and back, as well as payment of daily expenses in the amount of 2,000 rubles per day.

As follows from the act of provision of services dated...04.2012, the Contractor provided and the Customer received the following services provided under the contract for the provision of legal services dated...10.2011:

representation of interests in the court of first instance on the claim of CB Uniastrum Bank LLC.

For the services provided, the Customer paid the Contractor 35,000 rubles under clause 2.1 of the Agreement, 14,000 rubles per diem under clause 2.6 of the Agreement.

On July 2012, an agreement for the provision of legal services was concluded between N.V. and Legal Center Logos LLC, the subject of which was the provision of the following services:

1.1. representing the interests of the Customer in the court of appeal on the appeal of I.A. in case No. 2-781/2012

In accordance with clause 2.1. Agreement, the amount of the agreement is 20,000 (Twenty thousand) rubles.

As follows from the act of provision of services dated...07.2012, the Contractor provided, and the Customer received, the following services provided under the contract for the provision of legal services dated...07.2012:

drawing up a response to the appeal (case number 2-781/2012);

representation of interests in the appellate court.

For the services provided, the Customer paid the Contractor 20,000 rubles under clause 2.1 of the Agreement, 2000 rubles per diem under clause 2.6 of the Agreement.

The specified legal services were provided in full; the parties have no complaints about the quality or timing of fulfillment of obligations to each other.

In addition, expenses for air tickets amounted to 66,167.62 (Sixty-six thousand one hundred sixty-seven rubles 62 kopecks), a statement of account transactions is attached.

Thus, the costs of paying for the services of a representative in the court of first instance amounted to 93,731.62 (Ninety-three thousand seven hundred thirty-one rubles. 62 kopecks), in the court of appeal - 43,436 (Forty-three thousand four hundred thirty-six) rubles.

Taking into account the complexity and duration of the legal proceedings in this case, I consider the declared legal costs to be reasonable and justified. The cost of air tickets in the amount of 66,167.62 arose due to the large number of court hearings, while the cost of legal services in the region is significantly lower than in Moscow.

Based on the above, I ask the court:

1. recover in favor of N.V. 93,731.62 representing legal costs in the court of first instance, 43,436 representing legal costs in the court of appeal.

Application:
1. copy of the contract for the provision of legal services dated...10.2011;
2. copy of the act on the provision of services dated...04.2012;
3. copy of the contract for the provision of legal services dated...07.2012;
4. copy of the act on the provision of services dated...07.2012;
5. statement of account transactions;
6. copies of boarding passes;
7. copies of cash receipt orders.

N.V. ______________________

See all documents related to this case:

Objections to the claim bank for damages;

Decision of the Perovsky District Court of Moscow from 30.03.2012 in which material damage was recovered from one of the employees - cashiers, the bank's claims to another cashier were left unsatisfied;

Objections of the defendant in the case to the appeal the second defendant;

The defendant's petition for the recovery of legal costs- payment for the representative’s services, his travel expenses for the flight (airfare), daily expenses