Let's start by considering a simple partnership agreement. Article 337 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation determines that the tax on the property of enterprises on assets acting as deposits under simple partnership agreements, as well as acquired or created in the process of joint work, is charged and paid by each of the partners in accordance with the value of their contribution. Accordingly, in this case we are talking about reducing payments, and not about completely avoiding their transfer.
The essence of the scheme is as follows: two enterprises, one of which applies the general tax regime, and the other - simplified or UTII, organize a simple partnership, which is accompanied by the pooling of deposits in order to carry out any activity. Thus, the agreement may provide for the transfer to a partner conducting general affairs and located on the simplified tax system of funds for the purchase of the necessary assets in his name, followed by payment of compensation to the company that provided the money, the amount of which is calculated in a certain share of the value of the acquired property. For example, 2/3 of the price of a purchased building. This compensation will be the contribution of a comrade - "simplist". The acquisition of an asset must be accompanied by an agreement on the distribution of shares. In the case of the purchase of real estate, this document is subject to registration with the Fed. In addition, it is advisable to conclude a pledge agreement on the share of the company applying the simplified tax system, until it fulfills its obligation to pay compensation (real estate pledge is also registered with the Fed). During the existence of the partnership, the company, which is in the general regime, pays tax on the property of enterprises in proportion to the share of its contribution (in accordance with example 1/3 of the amount accrued for the building), and the “simplified” company is not a payer of this tax.
Risks of implementing the scheme.
The use of this scheme has some risks. In the absence of real joint activity, tax authorities may try to invalidate the contract through the court and charge additional tax on property of enterprises. But to prove the pretense of the transaction is quite difficult, because the work could not work out due to objective economic reasons. In addition, enterprises should not be interconnected.
Companion evades compensation. In this case, the company can defend its rights through the courts and collect the debt from the contribution of the second firm. In order to guarantee the return of property, it is necessary to conclude a pledge agreement when creating a partnership.
Return leasing.
Leasing is widely used in order to optimize almost all types of enterprise taxes and property tax is no exception. Traditional leasing agreements link the supplier of the goods, the lessor and the lessee. There are also transactions concluded only between two parties, while the seller and the lessee are one person.
The implementation of the scheme is as follows: the company, which is in general mode, enters into a leasing agreement with a company that uses the simplified tax system or UTII. In accordance with its terms, the “simplist” acquires assets from an organization that pays corporate property tax with deferred payment, and then leases them to him with the subsequent transfer of ownership. In this case, before the expiration of the contract, objects are recorded on the lessor's balance sheet.
In order for this transaction not to cause claims of regulatory authorities, it is necessary to justify economic feasibility for both parties. Otherwise, the leaseback agreement may be declared null and void in court, and taxes paid by the company are additionally charged. The lessee may justify the conclusion of the transaction by the need to attract investment and the need for further use of assets. In addition, the lessor and the lessee should not be legally interconnected: have common founders, directors, etc.