A contract of equity construction was concluded, according to which the developer has crushed the timing (for 9 months). No notifications, as described in the contract, did not have a personal sentence for the entire period of construction. Finally, they called on the phone and agreed to a meeting for a preliminary inspection of the apartment. At the inspection, 2 more people were present with me, the representative of the developer did not expect that we would start pointing to defects so intensely and sharply changed their attitude, and defects in the apartment really had enough. Naturally, all defects, the representative of the developer did not record and even first refused to give us a copy of the list of defects with his painting.

As a result, there was some kind of paper where there is a list of defects and the painting of the representative, but the defects are written on the turnover, therefore it is not clear and what defects have accepted the developer. In this regard, we decided to send a letter to the developer with the description and notification (the OPEM was framed by its own blank, which contains all the contents of the letter) officially with the description of all defects, persons who were present at the inspection (indicating passport data), as well as the requirements for their gratuitous elimination and for a period of 2nd weeks, references to federal laws also have. In the letter, we wrote that we assume the next meeting to sign the act-reception of the transfer, and the following proposal was written that in case of unusted all defects, we reserve the right to apply to the court. Questions as follows:

1) How to sign acts of transmission correctly, even if defects are not eliminated (should I write in the act of receiving transmission, for example, what is the apartment taken with defects)? Or you can simply sign an act of acceptance and transmission, because On the hands there is an inventory of the registered letter with all the defects and then execute paragraph 2?

2) Is it possible after signing an act of receiving an acceptance an assessment expert to eliminate defects and after performing independent repair work, recover from the developer this amount (according to checks). The order is not understood: the act-reception of the transfer; challenge expert; repair at your own expense; Claim to developer on compensation according to checks; Appeal to the court?

Consultation of the lawyer of the site "Rasschik":

In the meaning of Art. 7 of the Federal Law of December 30, 2004 No. 214-FZ "On participation in the share of building of apartment buildings and other real estate objects and on amending some legislative acts Russian Federation"The developer is obliged to convey the participant of equity construction object of shared construction, the quality of which meets the terms of the contract, the requirements of technical regulations, project documentation and urban planning regulations, as well as other mandatory requirements.

In the event that the object of shared construction is built (created) by the developer with deviations from the terms of the contract and (or) of the obligatory requirements specified in the law, which lead to the deterioration of the quality of such an object, or other disadvantages that make it unsuitable for the use of the use agreement, the share party Construction, unless otherwise established by the contract, in its choice it is entitled to demand from the developer:

1) gratuitous elimination of deficiencies in a reasonable time;

2) a commensurate decrease in the price of the contract;

3) compensation for its expenditures to eliminate deficiencies.

By virtue of Art. 8 of the law, the participant in the share of shared construction before the signing of the transfer act or another document on the transfer of the object of shared construction is entitled to demand from the developer of drawing up an act, which indicates the inconsistency of the object of equity construction with the requirements specified in paragraph 1 of Article 7 of the Law and refuse to sign a gear ratio or other document On the transfer of the object of shared construction to the execution of its duties by the developer.

With this situation, the developer will be deprived of the ability to sign a one-sided act of acceptance - transmission. Thus, for the entire period, during which the apartment will not be transferred to the builder, you have the right to demand the payment of a penalty and damages caused to you. We recommend that the developer in the relevant claim is recommended about such sanctions. This usually stimulates the developer to eliminate defects and signing the act.

In other words, the chief advice is not to take an apartment until it contains the terms of the contract and project documentation, periodically demanding the elimination of defects and reminding the increase in the size of the penalty.

If you are really forced to sign an acceptance of an apartment, for example, if you need a mortgage loan, the availability of instructions in the act on defects may interfere with the state registration of your property right. This can be clarified in the management of Rosreestra. In any case, regardless of the instructions in the act of deficiencies, it is obligatory both before and after signing such an act, we recommend that you direct contacts to the developer with the transfer of the list of disadvantages and the indication of their elimination. In addition, until the moment of signing the act, we recommend that you find a specialist about the non-compliance of your apartment to the terms of the contract, the requirements of technical regulations, project documentation and urban regulations, as well as other mandatory requirements. This will save you from the need or facilitates the subsequent time for the moment, the reasons for the occurrence of deficiencies, as well as their volume.

Almost all lawyers of the city of Ulyanovsk say that in no case cannot sign an act of receiving the transfer of an apartment if you have discovered shortcomings when accepting an apartment, motivating that after signing the act it is impossible to oblige the developer to eliminate the identified disadvantages. In fact, this position is incorrect and not based on the law.

In accordance with the Federal Law "On Participation in the Share Construction of apartment buildings and other real estate objects and on amending some legislative acts of the Russian Federation", the shareholder before signing the transfer act has the right to refuse to sign an act of receiving an object transmission only if the existing flaws led to a deterioration The qualities of such an object, which is why the object is applied unsuitable for use.

In other words, if when accepting an apartment, you have discovered uneven walls, a poor-quality tie of the floor, blossomed window blocks, etc. You do not have the right to not sign an act of receiving the object transmission, since all disadvantages are eliminated and do not affect the consumer properties of the object's use. Moreover, due to the signing of an act of receiving the transfer, the shareholder believes that he implies a penalty for the delay in the delivery of the object of equity participation. This is fundamentally not true, at the moment the courts of the Ulyanovsk region find out the reasons why the prolonger does not sign an act of receiving the transfer of the object of equity participation. If the disadvantages specified in the claim or defective statement do not affect the consumer properties of the object, the courts are applied with. 10 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation on the abuse of the right and thus, the shareholder refuses to recover a penalty.

It is also worth saying that when signing an act of receiving the transfer, a participant in shared construction has the right to specify all the flaws that in his opinion are available in the apartment being taken.

Moreover, the Federal Law "On participation in the share construction of apartment buildings and other real estate facilities and on amending some legislative acts of the Russian Federation" is indicated that the warranty period for the object of equity construction, with the exception of technological and engineering equipment, which is part of such an object Share construction is established by the Treaty and cannot be less than five years, and the warranty period for technological and engineering equipment, which is part of the share-construction facilities transferred to the participants in the share of shared construction, is established by the Treaty and cannot be less than three years.

Thus, the law enshrines that the object of equity participation is under warranty, therefore, in the warranty period, the shareholder can at any time turn to the developer on compensation for damages to eliminate deficiencies, or demand to eliminate the deficiencies of the developer.

Many developers in the territory of Ulyanovsk and the region include in the act of receiving the transfer item, according to which, in the case of signing an act of reception of gears, the participant of shared construction deprives the right to declare the shortcomings identified after the signing of the act. This clause contained in the act of reception is illegal and contradicts Art. 16 of the Law "On Consumer Protection".

An act of receiving gear The shareholder signs not in order to agree with all the shortcomings, but in order to accept the object to become its owner.

It is necessary to consider the case when, at the acceptance of the apartment, there were deficiencies that make not suitable for using this object. As a rule, there is not a working exhaust to such disadvantages, not fixed walls in the apartment. In the event that these defects have been identified, the participant of shared construction has the right not to sign an act of receiving the transfer and demand from developer to eliminate defects.

Thus a way, to refuse the adoption of the apartment, there should be really serious grounds, in the form of unreasonable shortcomings of the transferred housing. In all other cases, the apartment needs to accept and demand the elimination of minor flaws after the adoption of the apartment.

7913 Lawyers are waiting for you

How long can you not sign an act of acceptance and transfer to a new housing?

Hello. Under the agreement of the assignment in the fall of 2014, the apartment was bought on credit, the term of delivery was 1 square. 2015. The house did not pass on time, but in May urgently asked to pay the boiler and sign additional. Agreement, consent of changes in project documentation (removed the attic. And the apartment on the 8th floor 9 at home). They took 60 thousand on the boiler and promised that the surrender would be until January 1, 2016 (according to the deliver). Now March 2016 calls from building. firms and urgently ask to conclude a gas maintenance contract in otherwise I would not be able to connect the whole house and put the plugs in the apartment. I now put an apartment for sale under the agreement of the assignment, as the legislation has changed and to sell it to me if there is an inexpensive property. But I hurry and make everyone take and sign everything urgently.

Questions: Do they have the right to force me to sign an agreement on those. Maintenance of the boiler and put the plug before I receive a registration certificate.

How much I can pull with the signing of the purchase and sale act, and that I may be for it;

I am full of losses on this apartment and if I do not sell it. Losing even more. Does it make sense to sue, because I signed extra. agreement. It was necessary to buy dollars for this money. Thanks for the answer.

Answers lawyers

Anatoly Igorievich (02/27/2016 at 09:01:58)

Hello. Under the contract, the transfer of the apartment should occur within two months from the date of commissioning. The house has already been introduced. Message about the completion of construction apartment house And about the readiness of the object of shared construction to transfer received under the contract on time. When inspecting the apartment, I found defects that the developer began to eliminate.

In the inspection certificate there is no mark on the deadline for the fulfillment of obligations. Works are completed. In the inspection certificate there are signatures and troubleshooting date. The act of reception and transmission has not signed. At the time of elimination of defects, the proceedings under the contract and the date in the inspection act amounted to 22 days. I am writing a claim, I give a voluntary period of 2 weeks. In this regard, a number of questions arose:

1) Does print in an inspection certificate need?

2) Can I not sign an act of receiving and transmission to the day of payment of a penalty? Or for what time?

3) Do I have legitimate grounds for compensation? Do I have additional benefits with an unsigned acceptance act? And what?

4) Is it possible to include in a penalty for a period of 2 weeks, when ignoring the developer of the claim?

Without an act signed by the customer, the performer, most likely, will not receive money and will not be able to recognize part of the costs of tax accounting. In addition, the question arises: to reflect or not reflect the revenue? As a result, most often the Contractor has to be unilaterally confirming that he fulfilled his obligations.

Often the period of payment under the contract depends on the date of signing the act of work performed or services rendered. For example, the contract may indicate: "The Customer undertakes to pay for the work within 15 calendar days after the signing of the Act." If the customer evades the signing of the act (just to not pay under the contract), then the Contractor will have to prove through the court that he fulfilled the work and has the right to receive payment. In addition, a period of reflection of revenue on a contract, as well as part of the costs incurred on the contract, and part of the costs incurred by its services are depended from the receipt of work.

Note that the legislatively unified form of the act is not established. Therefore, the company has the right to compile it in arbitrary form. The main thing is that it contains all the obligatory details of the primary document listed in Art. nine Federal Law from 11/21/1996 N 129-FZ "On Accounting".

Note. Companies have the right to compile acts of completed work or services rendered in arbitrary form, the main thing is that they contain all the obligatory details.

If the contract does not spend the compilation of the act, then neither judge nor tax inspectors require such a document

The Ministry of Finance of Russia indicates that the act of work performed or services rendered is mandatory, only if this is provided for by civil law or the contract (letters of 13.11.2009 No. 03-03-06 / 1/750 and from 30.04.2004 No. 04-02-05 / 1/33). As for civil legislation, in the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, it is not directly the obligation to draw up such acts. The mention of their possible design is only in the chapters on the contract of the contract (paragraph 2 of Art. 720 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation) and the compensated provision of services (Article 783 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). It turns out that in general, the legislation does not provide for the mandatory compilation of such an act (see the insertion below).

Note. Officials agree that when providing rental services, monthly acts are not needed.

A few years ago, the question of whether a monthly preparation of the rental services provided was obligatory. Officials expressed the opinion that in order to confirm the costs of rent, it is necessary to have in stock acts (letters of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated 07.06.2006 No. 03-03-04 / 1/505 and the UFNS of Russia in Moscow of August 30, 2006 N 20-12 / 77792). However, the courts took the side of taxpayers, indicating that the monthly compilation of acts is not necessarily, since it is not provided for by law (the resolutions of the FAS Moscow dated 18.08.2009 N A40-81175 / 08-75-403 and the North-West dated 09.07.2008 N A13-6245 / 2007 counties).

As a result of the disputes, this issue was resolved in favor of taxpayers. The official bodies indicate that the monthly report on the rental services rendered is optional. The basis - rent does not have such results that were implemented or consumed during the lease. Thus, the rent is not a fee for the service, and the preparation of monthly acts for the provision of services contradicts the requirements of the legislation (the letter of the Ministry of Finance of Russia of October 13, 2011 No. 03-03-06 / 4/118).

For example, in a letter of the Ministry of Finance of Russia from 06.10.2008 No. 03-03-06 / 1/559, it is indicated that for documentary evidence of expenses, a prisoner lease or sublease agreement is needed, documents confirming the payment of rental payments, as well as an act of acceptance and transfer of the leased Property.

Courts support this opinion (definitions of you of the Russian Federation dated August 1, 2011 N you-9253/11 and from 02.22.2011 N you-1520/11). If the contract is not directly spelled out the requirement to draw up an act, then the courts recognize the work done, and services rendered and without such a document (the resolution of the FAS Moscow dated January 20, 2009 N A40-11299 / 08-35-49 and the North-West dated September 13, 2007 N A56-12751 / 2006 Districts). The basis of the decisions made - tax legislation does not contain a closed list of documents with which you can confirm the costs incurred.

Thus, the taxpayer can take into account the cost of purchased services in income tax costs and in the absence of acts, but if there are other evidence of the fact of the work performed by him or the services rendered. For example, such as invoice, commodity invoice, etc. (See Table).What documents will help the Contractor to prove the fact of work performed

Document	Position for	Position counter
Act reconciliation of mutual calculations	Services rendered can be confirmed by the act of reconciliation of mutual settlements (Resolution of the FAS of the Moscow District from 10/28/2010 N A41-18476 / 09)	The act of reconciliation of mutual settlements, which is not compiled on the basis of primary documents, can not prove the fact of provision of services (Resolution of the FAS North Caucasus dated 02.02.2012 N A53-5624 / 2011 and Urals from 12/13/2010 N A47-2857 / 2010 counties)
Invoice and contract with special Condition	The invoice for a contract in which the parties did not provide for the mandatory compilation of acceptance of the acceptance of the services rendered, indicates the fact of the provision of services (Resolution of the FAS Volgo-Vyatsky dated 04.03.2011 N A43-9748 / 2010 and the North-West dated September 13, 2007 N A56-12751 / 2006 Districts)	The invoice is a financial document and cannot independently confirm the actual service provision (Resolution of the Volga District of 15.04.2009 No. A49-1175 / 2008)
Packing list	Commodity invoice indicating the name, quantities and cost of services rendered indicates the adoption by the customer of the work, and also determines the occurrence of the obligations on their payment (definition of you of the Russian Federation of September 30, 2010 / No. A32-44893 / 2009-57 / 533)	Commodity invoice is provided for registration of the sale of goods, and not to confirm the fact of making results or services
Expert conclusion	The presence of an examination confirming the quality of the work performed is a weighty argument in favor of the Contractor (Resolution of the FAS of the North Caucasus District from 04/03/2012 No. A53-25708 / 2010)	-
Act of technical readiness	-	Acts of technical readiness are not appropriate evidence, since they do not confirm the volume of work performed (Resolution of the FAS of the North Caucasus District from 06.12.2011 N A53-20880 / 2010)
Act-advertising	-	The act-advertising compiled by the Contractor to fulfill the obligation, which is provided for by the contract, does not prove the fulfillment of the obligation to conduct work and the delivery of their results to the Customer (Resolution of the FAS of the Moscow District of 09.08.2007 N kg-A40 / 7520-07)

However, most often in practice, the parties agree to make an act, which confirms the performance of work or the provision of services. In this case, without such a document, the Customer will not be able to confirm the costs of work or services, and the Contractor will not be able to take into account the costs that it suffered into account.

Before signing the act or other confirmation of fulfillment of obligations, the Contractor may not reflect the revenue and not accrue taxes

Since in most contracts, the parties prescribe that work is considered fulfilled, and services rendered after signing the act, then up to this point the Contractor has the right to not reflect the revenue and, accordingly, not to accrue VAT and income tax from it.

However, according to Maria Kuznetsova, Auditor LLC "Audit Company" Ravel ", this rule is not always fulfilled." In my opinion, the lack of a customer's signature on the act is not an indisputable basis in order not to reflect income in tax accounting. After all, according to paragraph 5 of Art. 38 and paragraph 1 of Art. 39 NK RF The service is implemented at the time of its consumption by the customer. And in addition to the signed act, there are almost always evidence confirming the real provision of services or consumption by its customer. It means that the Contractor has reason to reflect revenue and for income tax purposes, and for VAT purposes. "Note that in this case the Contractor will have to reflect taxes to pay to the budget. However, he will not have any problems with the recognition of expenses incurred in the contract .
"Therefore, the easiest way to avoid a dispute with tax authorities regarding the legality of recognizing costs - to reflect the income in tax accounting in the period of the actual provision of the service, even if the act is not signed by the customer. Of course, provided that the service is properly appropriate and the customer is satisfied," Maria Kuznetsova.

If the performer decided not to reflect the revenue, then it forms unfinished projects. In addition to the income of the accounting, the presence of "incompleteness" will prevent the taxpayer to write off direct expenses in tax accounting (Art. 319 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation). Typically, these are material expenses, the salary of production personnel, taking into account deductions to the funds and depreciation of production fixed assets (paragraph 1 of Article 318 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation).

The exception to this rule is done only when the company's entrepreneurial activity is directly related to the provision of services. After all, according to para. 3 p. 2 art. 318 Tax Code of the Russian Federation Such taxpayers are entitled to the entire amount of direct costs to take into account in the period of their implementation without distribution to "incomplete". Control bodies agree with this (letters of the Ministry of Finance of Russia of June 15, 2011 No. 03-03-06 / 1/48, from 08/31/2009 No. 03-03-06 / 1/557, from 11.02.2009 No. 03-03-06 / 1/50, from 15.07.2008 No. 03-03-06 / 1/404 and the UFNS of Russia in Moscow of 02.12.2009 No. 16-15 / 127111).

We emphasize that difficulties may occur not only with direct expenses. If the contracting company for a long time will not recognize the work performed, and services rendered, then inspectors may have doubts about validity and indirect costs. Thus, the court considered the case where the inspectors refused the contractor in recognizing the costs of subcontract and in the deduction of VAT on them, including due to the work of the work performed was not signed by the customer. At the same time, the tax authorities indicated that the taxpayer did not show due diligence when choosing a counterparty, that is, the customer. Arbitrators FAS North-Western District in the decision of 09.26.2011 N A13-5629 / 2010 adopted such tax authority arguments and detached taxes.

As Tatiana Geraskina, the leading lawyer of the audit-consulting group "Gradient Alfa", recently, the courts have not yet in favor of taxpayers, imputing them at odds when choosing customer counterparties. As a result, detach VAT, income tax and penalties. Therefore, in some cases it makes sense not to delay and contact the court with a claim for the recovery of debt, which will serve as indirect evidence of the blesshood of the taxpayer.

What arguments will help to prove to the Contractor that the work is made, and services rendered

To receive payment, to recognize without problems costs and in order to account, the Contractor may try to prove the performance of work or provision of services in other ways.

The lack of claims from the customer can confirm the fact of proper provision of services. Negative consequences can be avoided if the contract is to make the following reservation: "If the Customer did not prevent the Contractor of objections to the quality of the services during so many working days from the date of the directions of the acts of acts, then services are considered to be accepted by the customer."

Note. The provision of the Treaty that services are considered rendered in the absence of objections of the Customer, does not exclude the obligations of the Contractor to confirm the fact of providing these services with other evidence.

As Denis Shaklein, the manager of Ernst & Young, is indicated, in this case the courts qualify the customer's evasion from the signing of the act as a non-fulfillment provided by the duty agreement. This is a violation of the provisions of Art. Art. 309 and 310 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (Resolution of the FAS of the Moscow District of 05/23/2012 N A41-33154 / 11).

For example, the arbitrators of the FAS of the Volga-Vyatka district indicated that the lack of claims from the Customer could confirm the fact of proper provision of services, if such a condition is contained in the contract (the decision of 03/30/2010 No. A28-10151 / 2009-305 / 13).

"However, in the presence of this wording in the contract, the Contractor may reasonably consider such an act agreed only in the absence of a dispute with the customer regarding the results of the services rendered," Denis Shaklein emphasized. - Otherwise, on the fact of the lack of motivated objections to build protection is problematic. "

After all, it is definitely formed by the positions of the position today is not. At the same time, in some cases, the courts refer to paragraph 2 of Art. 438 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, according to which silence cannot be considered an acceptance, except in cases directly provided by law, customs of business turnover or previously established relations between the parties. Such conclusions are contained in the resolutions of the FAS Volga dated 05/31/2011 N A55-9107 / 2008 and Moscow dated 29.07.2009 No. A40-7351 / 08-100-38 districts.

The provision of services or work can be confirmed by a one-way act. In paragraph 4 of Art. The 753 Civil Code of the Russian Federation states that the delivery of the results of the work of the contractor and the acceptance of their customer is issued by the act signed by both parties. However, if one of the parties refuses to sign, then the act of the corresponding mark is made and the other side is signed unilaterally. In the case when the contractor is trying to prove the fact of work performed using a one-way act, the courts usually support it (Resolution of the FAS Uralsky dated 18.05.2011 N F09-1885 / 11-C4 and Moscow dated 19.05.2011 N kg-A40 / 3985-11) .

Denis Shaklein noted that under such circumstances, the Contractor may establish its defense on judicial practicewhich was formed in relation to similar contractual legal relations. According to this position, an act of unilaterally, the act is proof of the fulfillment of the obligation under the contract (paragraph 14 of the information letter dated 24.01.2000 N 51 "Overview of the Practice of Dispute Resolution under the Construction Contract Agreement").

Note that the legislation does not establish a form for compiling one-way act. It must comply with the criteria of the primary document (Art. 9 of the Law N 129-FZ).

According to the author, for the execution of a unilateral act, the Contractor must record the customer's refusal from its signing. This can make representatives of the contracting organization on their own and in arbitrary form. In addition, the Contractor is desirable to enlist additional evidence, such as written notice of the work and the date of their acceptance, evidence of the direction of the act to the customer.

Sending an act in any case must be confirmed. In both cases considered, the Contractor needs to document the direction of acts to the Customer. To do this, it is most often used to send documents by mail by registered letter with the description of the investment.

Note. If the customer receives a letter sent with the description of the attachment, which will be an act of work performed or services rendered, the contractor will have an additional argument proving in court to evade the customer from signing the necessary documents.

Note that based on the customs of business turnover and similar tax legislation (for example, paragraph 3 of Art. 46 of the Russian Federation), the document is considered to be obtained after the six working days after its dispatch.

Even if the letter describe returns to the Contractor, it can also serve as evidence of the customer's evasion from signing the acts of work performed or services rendered (Resolution of the FAS Moscow dated 03.22.2012 N A40-73425 / 11-62-653 and Urals from 05.10.2010 N A76 -44514 / 2009-25-164 districts).

Witnesses will help the company to confirm the fact of the provision of services. If the case is still reached the trial, the more evidence the contractor will present in the arbitration court, the higher his chances will defend its position.

Note that sometimes, the truth is very rare, the arbitrators take into account testimony, confirming the provision of services (resolutions of the FAS Moscow dated September 7, 2010 and the Far Eastern dated September 10, 2009 No. A59-304 / 2009 districts).

As Tatyana Heraskin specified, the courts analyzed the actions of each Party to solve such disputes, proving that the counterparties have taken all possible measures to properly fulfill the obligations under the contract, evaluate the documentary confirmation of the fact of the direction of acts and other documents on the volume, quality and cost of services or work, Lack of claim or other motivated refusal to sign an act, the existence of an expert and others. An example of this is the resolution of the FAS of West-Siberian dated August 22, 2011 No. A81-3018 / 2010 (left in force of the definition of the West RF of 28.11.2011 N you-14809 / 11) and the north-western dated 13.03.2012 N A21-1576 / 2011 of the districts.

To prove the performance of work or the provision of services makes sense if the Contractor himself did not violate the terms of the contract. In particular, this concerns the deadlines for the fulfillment of obligations. Anastasia Weinberg, Chief Legal Counsel LLC "Avuckiko", noted the following: "The courts believe that the Customer has the right to refuse to accept work or services, if, as a result of passing the term of their implementation, he has lost interest in the execution of the contract. Such an opportunity is established by Art. 405 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation . For example, this conclusion is contained in the Resolution of the FAS of the Ural District of November 14, 2007 No. F09-9397 / 07-C4.

However, such a refusal is recognized as motivated if the customer proves that the result of the work does not represent interest for him, as well as economic necessity. For example, in the Resolution of the FAS of the Central District of February 22, 2007 No. A08-1213 / 06-10, the Customer referred to the rationale for the acceptance of the work performed on the disorder of the deadlines. However, the arbitrators legally pointed out that the contractor's violation of the term did not affect the customer of the loss of interest and economic need for the result of the work performed. "

When from the point of view of taxes is rational to confirm the performance of work or the provision of services unilaterally

If the performer in general will be decided to unilaterally recognize the work or provision of services, it will have to calculate VAT from revenue, as well as include its amount to the income tax base. However, it is unlikely to affect the customer's fee.

Thus, the Contractor must independently assess the option of further actions:

1. either pay VAT and try to recover debt from the customer in court;
2. or do not collect debt from the customer (not to make a one-way act), but also not to pay VAT.

The last option can be beneficial, for example, when the customer has stopped its activities. Accordingly, there is no chance to get a board.