Russian Finance Ministry

258 of the Code, according to the Ministry of Finance (letter of 02/09/2009, the 03-03-06/2/18), rules of depreciation of 10% of the tenant not distributed. Speaking of work to restore the leased premises, you must pay attention to the position of the Russian Finance Ministry, which appeared late last year, which deals with repairs of premises leased from individuals and entrepreneurs. According to Russian Ministry of Finance (letter dated August 12, 2008 03-03-06/1/462) the cost of repair of non-residential premises rented by a private entrepreneur may not take into account the costs for tax purposes, income organizations, due to the fact that the fixed assets owned by individual entrepreneurs, not related to depreciable fixed assets. This position is quite controversial, since the adoption of costs in order to calculate the income tax is necessary, first of all economic justification (ie, the fact of using the premises for business purposes) and the documentary evidence (ie, a contract (Registered in the prescribed manner, if necessary), the act of reception and transmission facilities, acts, or other original documents on which the expenses are accounted for). In this case the Tax Code status of the counterparty does not set as a criterion for the recognition of expenses for tax accounting.

However, because this position is the case, organizations need to be prepared for disputes with tax authorities during the tax control measures. Speaking on the costs of restoration, plant and equipment, we can not dwell on documenting expenses. The need for paperwork proving the conduct of repair work and, above all, the punch list indicated in paragraph 69 of the Guidelines for Accounting of fixed assets, approved by Order of the Ministry of Finance from 13.10.2003 91n (as amended on 27.11.2006).


The article says the ambiguity of the wording to exclude persons from membership in the SRO in the building. Of greatest interest is the order of involuntary termination of membership in the SRO in the building, ie exclude a person from SRO. From the perspective of the author of this article, in Part 2 of Art. 55.7 GRK Russian lawmaker has applied unsuccessfully language, writing that "self-regulatory organization decides on the expulsion of members in case … ' There are just two questions: first, whether existing in Part 2 of Art. 55.7 GDC Russia list of grounds for exclusion of members of the SRO in the construction of a comprehensive, secondly, the exclusion of individuals from member organizations in these cases – it's right or SRO duty? Answering the first question we must turn to the norms of paragraph 4 of Art. 8 of the non-profit organizations, according to which a member of the nonprofit partnership may be expelled by a decision of the remaining members in cases and in the manner prescribed by the constituent documents of the nonprofit partnership, except when the non-profit partnership has acquired the status of SRO in the building. If the non-profit Partnership acquired the status of SRO, then, according to the legislator, the grounds and procedure for exclusion of members of the partnership can not be established by the constituent documents, and must be prescribed by law. Thus, in accordance with Art. 10 of the self-regulatory organizations face exclusion from the members of SRO can be used solely as a disciplinary measure in cases where it is recommended that a disciplinary body and CPO confirmed decision of a permanent collegial body.