Unreasonable and unjustified expenses: we identify and get rid of them. Is unreasonable salary accrual a misuse? For the purpose of the bonus, are they made for payments?

The director of the company paid an additional bonus to employees. The employer tried to recover the bonus amount from the director, since the payment was not specified in the salary regulations, but the court sided with the defendant.

According to the employer, the additional bonus was an unreasonable payment, since the salary regulations did not mention it, and the director did not agree on the payment with the employer. However, the company’s local regulations did not prohibit the payment of other types of bonuses that do not require approval. The director's representative in court, lawyer Kirill Stennikov, told what arguments helped him win the case and what mistakes the employer made in preparing the documentation.

Unreasonable bonus or allowable payment

Quite often, an employer tries to limit the head of an organization’s right to pay bonuses to employees. And in order to avoid the director’s abuse of his powers, local regulations prescribe the procedure for approving such payments. But if internal documents Only the procedure for paying certain types of bonuses is regulated; a situation may arise when the director independently awards bonuses to employees, simply by virtue of Art. 191. And if the employer was against such a decision, it will be extremely difficult for him to prove that he is right.

A similar story happened at one of the large state-owned enterprises of the Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug - Yugra. After a year and a half of work, the head of the organization found a new job and quit in April 2014. But shortly before this, she paid all employees a bonus, the total amount of which amounted to more than 5.6 million rubles. This fact was revealed after an audit of the financial and economic activities of the organization over the past 2 years. Moreover, the management considered that the director did not have the right to pay a bonus to employees, since such a bonus was not provided for by the local acts of the enterprise. The employer considered this amount to be direct damage and demanded compensation.

“In fact, such an amount was quite affordable for the organization, and the practice of paying bonuses to employees to encourage them to do better work has always been used. At the core similar claims“, in the opinion of my trustee, there was a purely personal conflict,” says Kirill Stennikov about the circumstances of this case.

But it was obvious that the argument about the conflict between the employee and the employer in this case was not of fundamental importance for the court. Therefore, the lawyer had the task of preparing legal basis, why the payment of this bonus was within the competence former director and did not require approval from senior management.

Abuse of power

The department representative based his position on the following arguments. The bonus paid by the former director is quarterly. This followed from the order assigning this payment. It stated that employees were awarded bonuses for the time actually worked from January to March 2014, the size of the bonus was determined as a percentage of the size of the quarterly wage fund.

At the same time, the regulations on remuneration stipulate that the director can pay bonuses to employees for the quarter only if the enterprise meets economic indicators from the beginning of the year. If there is no net profit, the bonus is not paid. A representative of the department explained that based on the results of work for the first quarter of 2014, the company’s losses amounted to more than 18 million rubles. Therefore, there were no grounds for paying the bonus.

“In fact, these losses were “planned”. The employee, on instructions from the department management, spent large sums on the implementation of projects and the purchase of goods. Six months later, the enterprise had already recouped all costs and began to make a profit,” Kirill Stennikov comments on the department’s position.

In addition, the employer’s representative asked to take into account that, according to the order, the director gave bonuses to workers in order to stimulate their work at the enterprise. However, there was no such basis for paying bonuses in the wage regulations. Incentives for workers could only be based on work results. It follows from this that the director paid the bonus in violation of the company’s internal documents, thereby exceeding her authority.

He then referred to Art. 53 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, which obliges the manager to act in the interests of the company he heads in good faith and wisely. In case of violation of this obligation, the director, at the request of the founders (participants), must compensate for all losses caused to the company. Payment of a bonus in the absence of profit from the enterprise was unreasonable and unfounded. By illegally bonusing workers, the director caused losses to the company. Therefore, she must reimburse them in full. On this basis, a representative of the department asked the court to recover from the former director the amount of bonus paid to employees.

Payment is permissible unless prohibited

In court, Kirill Stennikov insisted that the representative of the department did not prove the fact of causing losses to the company and the illegality of the actions of the former director. In his opinion, this was confirmed by a number of the following circumstances. The bonus paid to the employees was not a quarterly bonus, since the order did not indicate the payment of just such a bonus. In addition, there were indeed no conditions for paying a quarterly bonus due to the company's losses. But due to the fact that the employees worked well during the first three months of the year, the director of the enterprise decided to stimulate them. Therefore, she paid them a bonus from the wage fund, which is formed, among other things, for bonuses.

When assigning this bonus, the director did not exceed her powers, acting in accordance with Art. 191 Labor Code of the Russian Federation. This provision allows the employer to award bonuses to employees who conscientiously perform job responsibilities. Neither the company's charter nor the regulations on remuneration establish a ban on such actions and do not oblige the bonuses to be agreed upon with the management of the state property department. The payment of bonuses to employees of the enterprise is entirely within the competence of the director.

“The integrity of my trustee was confirmed by the fact that she did not pay the bonus to herself. Due to the provisions of the internal documents of the enterprise, any bonuses to the director must be agreed upon with the management of the department. This strengthened my argument that the director did not violate the law,” adds the lawyer.

Then Kirill Stennikov drew the court’s attention to the fact that the regulations on remuneration do not establish a specific list of types of bonuses that the director has the right to pay to employees. Wherein this document is not a local act, but an annex to the collective agreement. Such an agreement is concluded directly between employees and the employer and is intended to regulate social and labor relations. It does not limit, but expands the powers of the company director to ensure employer guarantees to employees. Therefore, the absence of a bonus in the wage regulations in order to stimulate the work of employees is not grounds for recognizing this payment as illegal. With this argument, the lawyer asked the court to reject the department’s claim.

The bonus was paid legally

In this case, the court sided with the employee and denied the department’s claim. He confirmed that the bonus paid to employees was not quarterly. This followed from the wording of the order on her appointment. The court also agreed with Kirill Stennikov’s argument that the company’s internal documents did not prohibit the director from awarding bonuses to employees at his own discretion.

“The main mistake of the department’s management was that in the charter or employment contract the approval rules were not spelled out with the director bonus payments in favor of workers. Whereas it was enough to indicate that not only bonuses to the director, but also to other employees are assigned in agreement with the department. Or approve a separate local act, in which to fix the list of types of bonus payments,” says the lawyer.

The court also confirmed that the provisions of the collective agreement expand, and do not limit, the powers of the director. The list of bonus types established by this document cannot be closed. Therefore, the director could pay employees other provided by law, award. In particular, Art. 191 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation allows for bonuses for successful employees. As a result, the court came to the conclusion that the director, when appointing and paying the bonus, acted within the law and did not violate any rights of the enterprise (decision Arbitration Court Khanty-Mansiysk Autonomous Okrug- Ugra dated May 18, 2015 in case No. A75-13391/2014).

“It’s interesting that the department did not submit appeal to this decision. In my opinion, this once again indicates that the real reason the reason for going to court was precisely the persecution of my trustee by certain officials department. They were not particularly interested in the money itself in the form of bonuses paid to employees. From this story we can draw the following conclusion: if the employer is interested in detailed control over the expenditure of funds on wages, he should not leave such gaps in the documents. Although in the end this may also work against him, because the manager’s independence in making personnel decisions will be in question,” summarizes Kirill Stennikov.

Unreasonable payment of bonus– this is a subject that tax authorities look closely at, since most of these charges are associated with attribution to costs that reduce the profit base. And therefore, when the bonus is awarded it is necessary to take full responsibility to justify its purpose and size.

The role of bonuses in remuneration

The bonus is considered one of the types of incentive payments, which include integral part into the employee's salary. Such a component in remuneration for a specific employer is not mandatory . But in ordinary cases, both sides find themselves in it labor relations interested:

An employee, because receiving a bonus increases his income;
The employer, since bonuses allow you to influence the employee’s interest, and deprivation of a bonus is a measure of influence on the person who committed the offense.

Incentive payments in wages are not regulated by law and may constitute a large part of wages.

Prizes can be:

According to the purpose of the award, payments are made to:

Bonus rules

An employer has the right to independently develop a bonus system, and it may be unique for each employer. But it is necessary to clearly define:

Type and frequency of the award;
The result of the employer’s work for the period giving the right to bonuses and allowing to determine the size of the bonus fund;
The circle of persons to whom the award belongs;
Assessments of the labor contribution of each employee, on which the size of their bonuses will depend;
Rules for calculating bonus amounts;
Conditions of depreciation.

All these rules are fixed in an internal regulatory act, such acts may be:

Regulations on the remuneration system;
Agreement (collective);
Regulations on bonuses (or incentives).

Individual bonus conditions can be written down in the employment contract. The employee must be familiarized with this act against receipt. If the manager does not have an internal regulatory act on bonuses, then the entry must be made in the employment contract. It is possible to accrue bonuses at the discretion of the employer, indicating for what achievements this bonus can be paid.

Distribute the bonus, the employer must strictly adhere to special rules established by him in the bonus act. The distribution of a systematic bonus ends with the issuance of an order from the manager on its accrual and payment. The order must indicate the basis for calculating bonuses, the name of the recipient and the amount.

The payment of one-time bonuses, if there is no bonus act, can be justified by a written order from the manager. The decision to pay a bonus to the head of the company depending on what is stated in the charter legal entity, can be accepted:

Head;
Owner or authority.

Grounds for unreasonable premiums

The payment of bonuses may be considered unjustified if:

There are no documents containing instructions:

Periodicity;
Reason for accrual;
Distribution order;
Calculation of the premium amount;
- The manager has internal documents regarding the bonus, but they do not disclose any provisions that are essential for the emergence of the right to a bonus or the accrual of bonuses;
- Bonus periods on the same basis are duplicated; consider an example: a quarterly bonus is established for successful work and such a bonus exists at the end of the year;
- The employer's performance indicators, the fulfillment of which serves as the basis for paying a bonus, are not met. Unreasonable data adjustments made in order to achieve the required indicators can be identified. financial statements;
- The bonus was accrued at the expense of net profit when there was an actual accounting loss;
- The grounds for payment of bonuses specified in the bonus order do not correspond to those listed in the normative act on the bonus;
- The order does not contain a period for which bonuses are calculated;
- The frequency or procedure for distribution of bonuses established by the employer’s regulations is not observed;
- The order does not contain a list of employees who received a bonus, or the amounts to be paid are not distributed by last name;
- The amount of bonuses is distorted in comparison with the calculation made according to the rules established by the employer;
- The limit on the amount within which the director has the right to decide to pay a bonus to an employee is exceeded.

The result of the bonus will be unjustified if it is excluded from expenses that reduce the income tax base, and the employer will have to pay this tax or the simplified tax system tax, calculated from the object “income minus expenses.”

Revealing the fact of unjustified accrual of bonuses does not oblige the employee to return the amount of the bonus if the employer has already paid it. Because he is not at fault in this circumstance. Therefore, bonuses, even if they are recognized as paid unreasonably, remain the employee’s income and participate in the calculation of his average earnings.

What makes a premium unreasonable?

When conducting an audit, the tax inspectorate is vigilant about the accrual of bonuses, since this is an important part of reducing the tax burden.

What factors indicate in favor of unreasonable profit:

Lack of reinforcement	The director did not draw up the document, did not issue a separate regulatory act, did not include information in the employment contract, in the regulations on remuneration, and did not issue an order.
Documentary insufficiency	The act has been drawn up, but the key point of the award is not stated in it: Periodicity; Reasons for payment; Distribution algorithm; Methods of calculation.
Duplication	You cannot award bonuses that repeat each other;
Did not deserve	The indicator does not correspond
Source is empty	The bonus is calculated from the company's profit; it cannot be assigned when losses are recorded in accounting.
Not allowed	Persons who received the bonus are reflected in the documents regarding those entitled to it.
Order without period	The text of the order assigning a bonus does not contain information for what period this is done.
Not according to protocol	Deviations from the distribution order recorded in accounting policy.
Cunning calculations	The paid amount does not match the algorithm
More than the minimum	The manager cannot pay a bonus more than the specified limit.

Illegal awarding of bonuses and liability for this

Illegal bonuses include bonuses that a manager awards to himself, while violating:

A statutory requirement for the formation of fiduciary financial statements by encouraging misrepresentation of data in order to obtain evidence entitling the payment of a bonus;
The conditions for calculating bonuses established in relation to him in a local regulatory act or reflected in his employment contract;
Restrictions on the amount of bonuses, specifically for the owner in terms of making an independent decision on bonuses;
A (direct) ban on such accrual, if there is an opportunity to make a decision on the bonus for oneself, is not presented to him.

An illegal bonus, if there is one, the manager’s ability to accrue it is not limited.

Illegal premium causes direct material value, and clearly to the detriment of the manager’s intent. Therefore, for the leader there will be Negative consequences. For a leader in a relationship, it becomes possible to:

Claims for compensation for damage caused;
Dismissal at the initiative of the owner;
Criminal liability related to trust.

Moreover, these several types of responsibility can be applied simultaneously.

Unjust enrichment is currently one of the most current problems. Litigation are initiated as ordinary citizens, and various organizations. There are more and more situations like this every year, and ordinary people suffer from this. What is important to know about unjust enrichment? What rights and responsibilities arise from this concept?

The concept of unjust enrichment

Let's start with the definition of the concept. So, unjust enrichment refers to property that was acquired at the expense of other persons through legally unjustified transactions. In legal disputes, the parties to this type of legal relationship are usually called the acquirer and the victim. Statements of claim are considered by arbitration courts.

Conditions for unjust enrichment

For the court to recognize unjust enrichment, three conditions must be simultaneously met:

The presence of the very fact of enrichment (according to Article 8 Civil legislation), that is, when the acquirer receives benefits and increases the property, but does not incur expenses that could occur in the normal course of business.
The acquisition is not the result of business activities.
Enrichment has no basis legal basis, that is, the transaction was not accompanied by an agreement or is not based on current legislative norms.

Typically, unjust enrichment results from situations where:

payment was made by mistake sum of money to the acquirer or transfer of an item, provision of a service, performance of work, release from property obligations;
committed by the acquirer misconduct in relation to property objects;
natural disasters occurred;
there were erroneous actions of a third party.

However, sometimes there are disputes regarding the definition of the term “property”. Civil legislation states that property includes both movable and immovable property, as well as money, other securities, things, in other words, all items that can be transferred to individuals and legal entities.

When do civil rights and responsibilities arise?

Reception by the acquirer of property objects without legal grounds constitutes unjust enrichment. What causes the occurrence civil rights and responsibilities? Civil legislation gives an unambiguous answer to this question - they arise under the following circumstances:

conclusion of transactions, contracts;
approval of acts by state and local government bodies;
the court's decision;
acquisition of property in accordance with the law;
creation of a work of music or art, as well as any result of intellectual activity;
accidental or intentional harm to citizens;
the occurrence of events that give rise to the relationship;
illegal enrichment at the expense of other citizens.

Collection mechanism

If the fact of unjust enrichment is revealed, the acquirer, according to Article 1102 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, must return the property to the victim. If, as a result of unjust enrichment, the acquirer received income, he must compensate this amount to the victim (Article 1107). The return period is counted from the moment the acquirer learns that there are no legal grounds for enrichment. The same rule applies in cases where the acquirer planned to receive income from the property.

What can the acquirer require?

If unjust enrichment occurs, the Civil Code of the Russian Federation gives the acquirer the right to reimbursement of costs for property items that are subject to return. This is stated in Article 1108 of this Code. Costs are reimbursed to victims. The amount of compensation is determined by the cost of maintaining and storing the property from the moment when unjust enrichment was recognized. However, this right may be lost if the property was retained by the acquirer intentionally.

Methods of returning property

The return of property that was obtained as a result of unjust enrichment is the direct and primary responsibility of the acquirer. Return of property in kind and compensation for their value and losses incurred by the victim are ways in which unjust enrichment can be recovered (Civil Code of the Russian Federation, Articles 1104 and 1105). Interest is charged on the amount of enrichment in accordance with Article 395 of the Civil Law.

What is non-refundable

Property cannot always be returned to the victim due to the unjust enrichment of the acquirer. Civil legislation in Article 1109 establishes cases in which a refund is impossible. These include situations when:

the property was transferred by the acquirer to the victim before obligations to compensate them arose, including accrued interest (for example, salaries are paid to employees of the organization until certain services are provided);
property was transferred to third parties as part of another transaction if the period has already expired limitation period regardless of whether the victim knew about the beginning of this period or not;
the object of the property is wages or other payments, for example alimony, pension, since they are recognized as means of subsistence if the acquirer proves that there were no accounting errors or dishonesty on his part;
objects of property are transferred for charitable purposes or to fulfill non-existent obligations, the acquirer must prove that the victim knew about these conditions.

The above list of exceptional situations is recognized by law as unambiguous and exhaustive.

Unreasonable transfer of claims

Situations where the acquirer transferred property to third parties by assigning rights of claim or other similar means are regarded as unjust enrichment, in accordance with Article 1106 of the Civil Legislation. IN in this case the victim must regain possession of the property. The purchaser must also return all documents that certify ownership.

Unjust enrichment: judicial practice

Most often in judicial procedure Two types of disputes are considered:

When citizens accidentally list cash organizations and persons with whom an agreement was not concluded (error in one digit of the current account).
When citizens file a claim for the return of funds, when they have been credited to the account of third parties and organizations, also without pre-trial detention agreement.

In the first case, when the acquirer refuses to pay the funds received, the court requests all checks and receipts from him. If no other funds are transferred to the buyer’s account in the coming days, the victim will be reimbursed the entire amount. In the second case, the court will most likely refuse to return the money to the victim, since he knew in advance that he had no obligations to the organization, but did so at his own discretion. The court does not recognize unjust enrichment.

Judicial practice on such claims shows that these legislative provisions can be interpreted in different ways. Each specific case requires a thorough approach and good knowledge of civil law.

By doing certain type works or provision of services without drawing up a contract, the court may refuse to satisfy the request to collect a fee from the customer. However, referring to Article 1102, the victim can prove the fact of unjust enrichment. By the way, borrowers have the right to charge the bank a commission for imposed services. Loan agreement remains valid, and the clause on additional commissions is declared illegal.

In our lives, situations often arise when unjust enrichment occurs. The Civil Code unambiguously and comprehensively defines the rights and obligations of the parties to such transactions in Articles 1102-1109 in Chapter No. 60. In order to protect yourself from litigation to recover lost property, it is important to exercise caution and vigilance when carrying out commodity-money transactions and save all documents, confirming them. If such a situation occurs, consultation with a qualified lawyer will not be superfluous.

It’s always nice to receive bonuses, and if they are fixed in regulations As part of the salary, this pleasure is also the responsibility of the employer. Not uncommon lawsuits about the requirement to accrue the due bonus. But there are also disputes that bonus funds were paid illegally: deliberately or by mistake.

Does an employee who unexpectedly receives such a payment need to do something: does something need to be done or is it enough to just quietly rejoice? How should an accountant handle these situations? What will happen as a result with tax payments? Let's look at these questions in the article.

Why are illegal bonuses tracked?

Payment of bonuses, if they are provided for in the organization, is, as a rule, beneficial in its own way to both parties to the employment contract:

the employee receives additional money, as well as a positive assessment of his work;
The employer has another lever in his hands to influence staff motivation.

But bonuses cannot be assigned and withdrawn without control. The procedure for their accrual and deduction must be strictly established in the accounting policy. No one can violate it, both in the “minus” direction, that is, depriving the employee of a well-deserved bonus, and in the “plus” direction – paying money without reason.

The issue of illegally accrued bonuses worries the inspection authorities for good reason. There are several reasons for interest in such expenditures:

Assessing the legality of the actions of management who signed the unlawful order to assign this payment.
Possibility of arrears, since the lion's share of premiums reduces its base.

What the regulations say

If bonuses are included in remuneration for work, there cannot be two interpretations - they are accrued in all cases, regardless of work results, simultaneously with the salary, and this is reflected in the employment contract, in the part where the employee’s salary is negotiated. But the law allows the employer to develop and approve the procedure for bonuses for his staff (Article 191 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation), so there may be various options, which, of course, do not contradict labor law.

No matter how original the employer strives to be when thinking through the reward system, the internal regulatory act reflecting bonuses must clearly provide answers to the following questions:

what types of bonuses are available in the company;
how often and regularly can they be prescribed;
source of payments;
who can be rewarded;
what determines the fact and size of the bonus;
how exactly should you calculate the due amount;
Is it possible to deprive and how exactly?

Such a document may be part of the text of a collective agreement or regulations on wages; sometimes employers issue separate Regulation about bonuses.

IMPORTANT! The document must indicate not only the conditions for accrual or cancellation of bonuses, but also justify their legality and the legality of reducing the tax base for profits at their expense (Articles 252, 255 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation).

If a manager does not want to encourage his employees to permanent basis, and plans to do this only in special cases, the justification will be his order.

What makes a premium unreasonable?

Tax authorities, when conducting audits, are vigilant about the eligibility of charging bonuses, since this is an important part of reducing the tax burden (as a share of income tax). If the accrual is proven to be unjustified, management will face troubles and additional cash expenses.

What factors testify to the unreasonableness of profits:

Lack of reinforcement. The manager did not draw up paperwork justifying the fact of the bonus: he did not issue a separate regulatory act, did not include information in the employment or collective agreement, in the regulations on remuneration, and did not issue an individual order.
Documentary insufficiency. The corresponding act has been drawn up, but it does not specify the key points of the bonus that make it legal, regarding:
- periodicity;
- reasons for payment;
- distribution algorithm;
- calculation methods.
Duplication. You cannot award bonuses that repeat each other, for example, for the same thing at the end of the quarter and the end of the year.
"They didn't deserve it." The indicators do not correspond to the declared reasons. For example, bonuses must be issued for exceeding certain figures, and accounting a different result is obtained or the data is corrected.
"The source is empty." If the bonus is usually calculated from the organization’s profit, it cannot be assigned when accounting losses are recorded.
"You're not supposed to." Persons who received the award do not meet the parameters reflected in regulatory documents, relative to those entitled to it.
Order without period. The text of the order assigning a bonus does not contain information about the period for which this is done.
"Not according to protocol." There are deviations from the order of distribution or frequency of accrual of bonuses recorded in the accounting policy.
"Cunning calculations." The amount paid does not correspond to the accepted algorithm for calculating bonuses.
More than the minimum. The manager cannot pay bonuses in excess of a certain limit.

Illegal bonuses to management

If the manager is not at the same time the owner of the organization, his desire to write out the maximum bonus for himself will become understandable. If the owner did not restrict his representative at the company in any way, from the point of view of the law there will be no violations in this. But usually the manager in relation to bonuses is subject to the same standards as the staff. In this case, the bonus to management will be unjustified if:

for her appointment, the accounting reports were “cleaned up” in order to achieve the required indicators;
the order was issued in violation of the conditions reflected in the bonus regulations (or other relevant document);
the amount of the premium exceeds that set by the owner;
There is a ban on self-rewarding.

What are the dangers of an illegal bonus?

For the manager

The person whose guilt and intent in this action is proven must be held accountable for violating the law and regulations. In the case of bonuses, this is the manager who signs the order to pay bonuses to himself or another employee. If the bonus turned out to be illegal, it turns out that the manager’s actions harmed the owner material damage. In this case, he may face various responsibilities:

compensation to the owner for material loss caused to him (Article 277 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation);
dismissal from office at the initiative of the owner (clause 9 of article 81 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation);
criminal liability (Articles 159 and 201 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) for abuse of trust or abuse of official authority.

For employee

As for the employee who received bonus funds without sufficient grounds, this is not and cannot be his fault, since the staff is deprived of influence on the levers of labor incentives. This means that the employee not only cannot be punished, but also the bonus paid will not be taken away from him (Article 1109 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). If the management tries to withhold this amount from the salary, such actions can be challenged, because they are also illegal (Article 137 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). The employee should not be responsible for management’s mistakes: there is an order, which means the money must be paid and cannot be recovered because it does not meet the criteria for unjust enrichment.

FOR YOUR INFORMATION! In confirmation of this, there is a judicial precedent in the Supreme Court - Determination No. 18-B10-16 was issued, published in the Review of Legislation and judicial practice Supreme Court RF for the second quarter of 2010."

One of the types of employee incentives to improve the quality of his work and productivity is considered. But on the other hand, the premium acts as, that is, its accrual.

Therefore, an unreasonable bonus is a problem not only for the company’s management, but also tax authorities. And the task of collecting it only becomes more urgent.

Regulatory consolidation

Everything related to the bonus, the legality of its accrual and the possibility of deduction is reflected in the following documents:

Article 129 of the Labor Code, about .
Article 191, on the procedure for bonuses and internal documents on bonuses in the company.
Article 137, about the possibility of retention unreasonable premium.
Article 1109 of the Civil Code, about the possibility of returning an illegal bonus.

Based on federal standards, each company develops and accepts for execution. It must reflect:

All types of bonuses valid in the company.
Their regularity.
Sources of funds for their payments.
Conditions and subjects of bonuses.

Failure to comply with one of the points enshrined in internal or state regulations when paying a bonus makes this bonus unjustified. Namely, it could be:

Lack of documentary evidence of this award. That is, in local documents such a company is not registered.
Insufficient degree of documentary elaboration. The regulations indicate the bonus, but there is nothing there about the frequency of payments, grounds, or indicators for bonuses.
Duplication of awards. That is, the bonus is monthly, or for certain indicators.
The bonus is paid if targets are not met.
The bonus was paid to employees who were not entitled to it according to their regulations.
Violation documentation bonus, for example, there was an error in the order.
The distribution of the bonus was made in violation of the procedure established by internal documents.
Errors or inaccuracies were made when calculating the amount of the premium.
The source of the bonus is not respected. For example, a bonus paid from profit in the absence of it.
The total bonus amount exceeds the established upper limit.
A bonus assigned by a manager to himself, bypassing existing company rules.

When might such a need arise?

A bonus, as one of the types of incentives for the work of company employees, can be beneficial both to the employee receiving it and to the employer, who has received additional leverage over subordinates. But the premium must be legal and justified.

It is unacceptable to violate the established rules, either negative or positive. But the need to return the overpaid premium arises if:

The unreasonable premium was the result of an error (counting or non-counting).
This overpayment was made intentionally to reduce income tax, or to withdraw money from the company without the knowledge of the owners.

What threatens unreasonable payment of bonus

For such an act, responsibility mainly lies with the management of the company. The consequences for them could be:

Compensation for damage to owners.
Judicial liability if there were systematic abuses.

For someone who has received an unreasonable bonus, everything is different. If this is not his intention and guilt, then the law is on his side. In this case, the employee:

Cannot be punished.
Has the right not to return the premium, even if it is unreasonable.
It is possible to recover this premium from him only if this is the result of a counting error.

There are only two ways to return an erroneous bonus:

Collect.
Offer the employee the option of voluntary return.

Moreover, in case of refusal, the overpayment can be withheld only if there are only a few reasons for this. This can be done when:

Unreasonable payment of bonuses is the result of a calculation error.
The court () found that the employee did not comply with the requirements for calculating the bonus, and was himself to blame for concealing this.
The illegality of the bonus is the result of the employee’s unlawful actions, and this has been proven in court.

Counting error

Only errors made during calculation can be counted. And associated with arithmetic operations when calculating manually, or a technical failure accounting programs. Overpayment based on:

Incorrect data entry.
Random doubling of the payout amount.

How counting is not determined.

Collection procedure

The sequence is:

Determining the reason for paying an unreasonable bonus. And if it allows you to start the collection procedure, then proceed to it.
First, an act is drawn up, recording the amount of overpayment and its reason.
The employee(s) are then notified in writing. The letter should contain an offer to return the money voluntarily within the agreed time frame.
If the employee does not object, he must confirm this in writing.
After receiving consent, the head of the company signs a deduction order, indicating the amount and timing. No more than a month should pass from drawing up the act to the order. If the amount is large, then it can be withheld in parts, by agreement.
If the employee does not agree, or the month deadline has been missed, there is only one way out - going to court, which will then make a decision.