Our cities are big, to keep track of everything and the whole administration is difficult, which is why the city is divided in the territory. Each territory is fixed for a separate balance holder. Balancer - the owner or legal person who under the contract with the owner contains the appropriate property on the balance sheet, and accounting, statistical and other statements provided for by law, performs calculations of the funds necessary for the timely overhaul of capital and current repairs and content, and also ensures Property and is responsible for its operation in accordance with the law.
In other words, the owner is the city, and manages and contains the property of a certain GUP or MUE.
But now let's turn to the problem. I think it should not be especially stopped on how these enterprises manage property: most often everything is very bad (broken sidewalks, dirt instead of lawn and the type of the most frequent problems).
Another problem is that sometimes urban property is divided very strange. For example, I know in Moscow that sometimes two neighboring houses and their house territory are divided between the goats of the prefecture and the Board of Housing and Communal Services, that is, such houses may have even one courtyard, in fact, but according to the norms, they require at least some separate wipers for them, And as a maximum, fully separate documentation.
Often, precisely because of such situations, common, it seems, the courtyards are divided by a fence: 
i apologize for the quality
In general, in terms of efficiency, everything is bad. How can this be changed?
As they say, everything is genimate, simple. It is just necessary to choose the balance holders in contests among private firms. Why? And because, unlike state employees, who are not working on bureaucracy, every restrictions and banal desire do not work (for they will not be anything), private traders will have more freedom in actions and fear of loss of contract.
That is, from the pros, by private owners:
- there are no hard legislative restrictions, there are only contractual obligations;
- flexible economy and smaller brews with a budget;
- stimulus to reduce costs and increase efficiency, for example, instead of containing 10 janitors with meters for 5 yard, they are better than five hire, but they will issue everyone along the street mobile vacuum cleaner;
- fear before the rupture of the contract. If we correctly register a contract, as well as to establish a controller, then a private owner will be difficult to relax, and the elevation on the roads will be less;
- the city get rid of non-core assets. Roughly speaking, instead of holding 1000 employees on the budget, you can leave a person 100, which will be coordinated.
- how the competition will be organized if its goal will increase the efficiency and choose a good balance holder, then it will be chosen, and if not, then such a partner will not reach the hub / mupe;
- how control will be established. The best control is public (for example, through the application on the phone), for a resident like no other is interested in normal service.
Well, in confirmation of my words, in the countries of the First World, as a rule, it is such a system of urban property management. The most vivid example (and the first one comes to mind), these are managers of transport companies, in whose hands are the rolling stock, ticket menu, maintenance, routes, and so on, and the city is monitored by compliance with the requirements of security, schedules and other contract conditions. 
Singapore bus routes serve 2 transport companies
I hope sometime in Russia will begin to implement similar management systems.
The situation is as follows: the house where the relative lives, he was registered there, before the node of the connection was prenored, two years ago the bonded knot was eliminated, now it was OJSC CenterTelecom - he did not take this house to the property, but is a balancer, i.e. it turns out that it turns out that it turns out that House between heaven and land and the owner does not have anything? Nobody serves the house, utility payments are not paid, they simply have no one to pay. Who to attract the house to take advantage of the city settlement? After all, it is impossible, if necessary, even an extract from the house book, it is simply no one to write! Although the house book is located in the branch of OJSC CenterTelecom.
Elena Alexandrovna, it is very possible that you are misleading.
In this case, most likely the Balancer already are municipal authorities.
In the liquidation of the owner, its residential fund is obliged to switch to the municipal residential foundation. Very often, with such situations with owners, utilities are misleading, apartment owners, so that they did not privatized housing. Try it all time to check the status of a residential foundation in the municipality.
Comments
I quote: "Balancers are managers who are entrusted to manage property owner ... Balancers are called enterprises or institutions to whom the owner transferred their property to management, as well as joint-stock companies in which the owner's capital participation. The word" Balancer "comes from accounting The term "put property on the balance", i.e. the balance holder is the organization that has put on the balance of property owner. The term Balancer is now outdated and decisions of the Government of the Russian Federation of July 16, 2007 N 447 replaces the right holder. Who can be the owner of the property ? The owner of the property provides for the Russian Federation, the subject of the Federation (Republic, the Region, region), the municipality (district in the region, the city of regional subordination, the settlement, the village council, etc.). "So, if you are sure that JSC CenterTelecom is a balancing holder, the owner is someone out listed. To begin with, refer to the chapter of your municipality or to the Committee (Department, etc.) for property. If this does not help, you will have to obviously search through the federal authorities, starting pressing the press and information from the Ministry of the Russian Federation.
★★★★★★★★★★
For a start, contact the Office of the Federal Registration Service at the address: Alley Orliki, House 3 (st .metro "Red Gate").
Just there are offices engaged in departmental housing (min. Defense, min. Atom and so on.). If you do not help, then at least clarify the situation.
A similar situation in the capital with minatom houses - difficulties with privatization, difficulty connecting to an Internet (while disputes are going around around houses, no provider can put equipment in the attic, because simply not to enter into an agreement ...)
Following the bankruptcy of the management company Holding "Motovilikhinsky plants" (MD), similar procedures begin in other of its key units: observation was introduced at the Kamastal Metallurgical Plant. After all the procedures of financial recovery on the Platage of the Ministry of Health, two enterprises will remain - the defense special design bureau and civilian "Motovilich - Civil Engineering". At the same time, the PJSC MH itself can be maintained in the form of a balance holder of shares of the Holding companies.
The Arbitration Court of the Perm Territory in late March introduced the procedure for observing the Metallurgical Plant LLC "Kamastal" ". The procedure has begun at the request of the transport company R Line Transport Systems (St. Petersburg). In 2014, the plaintiff put the production plant of $ 310 thousand (22 million rubles), but did not receive the payment. In the case, the Swiss Metal Supplier TRASTEEL INTERNATIONAL SA appeared as a third party. On June 9, 2017, the transport company filed a lawsuit on the bankruptcy of the Metzavod, but in October, the parties signed a settlement agreement.
However, on March 22, in court, the parties unexpectedly decided to resume the bankruptcy procedure. At the trial, representatives of the "Kamastali" did not object to the introduction of the observation procedure due to the lack of the absence of obligations. According to the "Kamastali", the metallurgical plant is now there is no possibility to pay on debts: transactions for settlement accounts are blocked by the invalid orders. Maxim Kibashev was appointed external observer. The most largest bankruptcy procedures in the Tyumen LLC Mostostroy-12, during the Governorship of Viktor Basargin approximate to the regional government the contractor.
Metallurgical Plant LLC "Kamastal" "- the second largest and volume of production of the legal entity of the Motovilikhinsky Plants Group. The head company of the PJSC PJSC "Motovilikhinsky Plants" March 26 was recognized as bankrupt. Kamastal supplies the holding enterprises with metal, revenue in 2016 - 3.8 billion rubles, net loss - 40 million rubles. The only founder is PJSC MW.
The MZ group itself is controlled by Rosteh (share in PJSC over 50%). Another 35% of the MH shares were controlled by minority from among the former top managers. Payable debt of the group - 15 billion rubles, the largest lender - AKB "Russia" (over 8 billion rubles) Bankruptcy of PJSC began with the claim of the "Rosteh" Institute "Signal" (Vladimir), and at the end of March the state corporation supported the plan of the group " Through the competitive production of its main persons. " This decision was not supported by minority, considering that in external management there is a chance to pay off with all creditors. But as a result, the court rose to the side of Rostech: as reported to "Kommersant", the property of the Ministry of Health is planning to group into a single lot for sale in a closed contest.
Relations of LLC R-Line Transport Systems and Mr. Kibicheva did not manage to find any of the groups of shareholders "Kommersant". The interlocutor among Minoritarians MH says that they are not involved in the bankruptcy of "Kamastali". Obviously, the bankruptcy of the "Kamastali" does not bear any serious risks and for Rostech: the metallurgical complex is owned by PJSC and is only rented by the plant. According to Balance, LLC for 2016, the fixed assets "Kamastali" were only 177 million rubles, and on its balance was only the old Stan. The company's accounts debt for 2016 amounted to 4.5 billion rubles, and over 4 billion rubles. From this amount falls on PJSC "Motovilikhinsky plants", which will, apparently, manage bankruptcy LLC. In the "Motovilikhinsky factories", the situation with "Kamastali" does not comment.
According to "Kommersant", after the bankruptcy of the group on the Platage of the Ministry of Health, two enterprises will remain (PJSC subsidiaries). Defense production (the release of artillery and the RZSO, repair of weapons) will be concentrated in CJSC "Special Design Bureau". The new defense state contracts of 2018 are already decorated for CJSC SKB. It is assumed that this society will become the balance holder of the property complex of the Ministry of Health.
All civilian production, including metallurgical, will go to Motovilich - Civil Engineering LLC (MGM). In favor of this version, it is the fact that on March 21, the West Ural Rostekhnadzor was issued LLC MGM license "to operate explosion hazardous and chemically hazardous production facilities I, II and III hazard classes." A source close to the department explained "Kommersant", which is a fundamental license that allows you to organize almost any production (including metallurgical and defense).
In Rostech, confirm the upcoming actual separation of Mashholding into two parts. "The main idea of \u200b\u200bthe program (the restructuring of the holding. "Kommersant") It is the preservation of competencies in the field of production of RSZO and artillery, as well as the allocation of civil production to a separate division, "said the agency" Federal Press "in the state corporation. According to the "Kommersant", during the bankruptcy, the PJSC MZ itself can be saved, its only function can be the ownership of OOO MGM and CJSC CJSC, which preserves a joint status quo.
Vyacheslav Sukhanov, Perm
The law on leasing allows the parties to the leasing deal to choose which of them will take into account the leasest property - the leasing company or the lessee. The author of the article analyzes the tax consequences of both options, and the representative of the tax service and an independent lawyer express their opinions on the issues under consideration.
Accounting
In order to understand how the taxation of the participants of the leasing deal depends on the choice of the balance holder of the property, consider which operations in each case arise from the leasing company and the lessee.
If the leased object is taken into account on the balance sheet of the leasing company, it comes to the property on the balance sheet, charges the depreciation, pays for property tax, and the received payments takes into account the revenue from the sale of goods (works, services).
The lessee refers the entire cost of leasing services at the cost of production (works, services) and reflects the leased on the off-balance account.
If the leased object is taken into account on the lessee balance sheet, the leasing company reflects the cost of the transferred property as the receivables of the lessee, which is gradually debited upon receipt of payments. The difference between the lease value of the property and the cost of its acquisition is taken into account in the leasing company as income of future periods. From each received leasing payment, the company's remuneration is highlighted, that is, the amount of payment over the value of the reimbursement of investment costs for property, which is taken into account as a revenue.
The lessee comes the leased on the balance of payments 2, that is, according to the value of the lease agreement, which includes the investment costs and the company's remuneration and at the same time reflects payables on the same amount. The lessee pays for property tax and charges depreciation for leasing, but at the same time payments do not belong to the cost of goods (works, services), and reduce payables in front of the leasing company.
Taxation of the Parties to the Leasing Transaction
Consider issues directly related to taxation and possible risks for the parties.
Immediately, we note that the procedure for paying VAT participants of leasing does not depend on who takes into account the property. The sum of the "entrance" VAT on it takes to a deduction of a leasing company, which then charges VAT from the payments received, and the lessee takes these taxes to deduct.
The choice of the balancing holder affects the payment of taxes on property and profit.
Balancer - leasing company
In Russian legislation, the procedure for the taxation of the participants of the leasing transaction is quite clearly defined in the event that the balance holder - this is a leasing company.
For the lessee, everything is simple: since the accounting of the property is carried out on the off-balance account, the tax on it is not paying the lessee and the depreciation does not charge. Payments, transferred companies, reduce its taxable profits.
The company has the order of taxation more difficult, but it is also clear. The lessor pays tax on property and charges depreciation, which is taken into account in tax accounting in the cost of expenses. In the tax income of the lessor, the amounts of leasing payments are reflected.
Perhaps the main disadvantage of leasing property is manifested in the event that the lessee has a tax benefit. Since the company is a payer of property tax, it takes into account the costs of this tax in its remuneration and reimburses them at the expense of the lessee payments. Thus, the lessee fully pays for the property tax to the state and deprives its legitimate benefits.
Balancer - lessee
In contrast to the previous version, the taxation in a situation where the leased object is taken into account in the lessee, not practically not regulated. In this regard, many controversial issues arise. Consider the main of them.
Property tax. The lessee in this case takes into account the subject of leasing on the balance sheet for the total amount of leasing payments, that is, in addition to the value of the property itself, the margin (income) of the organization is also amortized. Since the tax pays exactly the lessee, its amount in this case is greater than the one that the company would have paid if the property was taken into account in her balance (of course, provided that the lessee had no tax benefits). Consequently, with the same amount of the company's remuneration, the costs of the lessee, as a rule, more if the property is taken into account on its balance sheet.
In addition, there is another problem. It turns out that the same leased object has two "initial costs". One forms the leasing company, the other - the lessee (it differs from the first margin of the lessor). If the lease agreement is successfully completed, then this circumstance does not cause any difficulties. But if the contract is terminated early and the property is returned to the company, then the question arises about the correct determination of the residual value of the leased object, according to which the company should postpone property on the balance sheet. Today, this question is not clearly resolved in any regulatory document. And since the residual value of the property is a taxable tax base, then for the leasing company, the likelihood of additional tax risks is high.
Profit tax. The Tax Code of the Russian Federation does not provide for a special procedure for the formation of tax revenues of the leasing company in the event that the subject of leasing is taken into account on the balance sheet of the lessee. In other words, the company's incomes are full amounts of payments. At the same time sub. 5 p. 1 Art. 270 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation in this case prohibits it to accrue depreciation on leasing property. It turns out that the company cannot reduce the revenue to compensation for the value of the leased object and, if we follow the norms of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, literally, the lessor must pay the income tax both from its remuneration and the amount of the compensation for the value of the leased object.
In practice, leasing companies at their own peril and risk or recognize income only in terms of their remuneration, or reflect the investment costs for the acquisition of leased on their own established rules in expenditures. However, it is possible that there may be claims from tax authorities in such situations.
What version of the balance holder choose
From the analysis, it follows that when choosing the option "Balancer - Lessee", the leasing company carries substantial tax risks due to the imperfection of tax legislation. The lessee also increases certain risks, but they are bound primarily with a more complex compared to another version of the accounting scheme and, accordingly, a higher probability of making errors. In addition, when using this scheme, the expenses of the lessee may be greater than when taking into account the company's balance sheet with the same remuneration due to an increase in tax.
- Example
Suppose that the value of the property is 6000 thousand rubles. excluding VAT. The term of the lease agreement is 12 months.
The remuneration of the leasing company is 600 thousand rubles. excluding VAT.
Consider changing the expenditures of the lessee depending on the choice of the balance holder.
I. Balancer - Company.
The property tax will be calculated based on its initial cost of 6000 thousand rubles. and monthly depreciation - 500 thousand rubles. The amount of tax at a rate of 2.2% will be 66 thousand rubles.
The amount of leasing payments for the year will be equal to 6666 thousand rubles. (6000 thousand + 600 thousand + 66 thousand). This will be the expenses of the lessee.
II. Balancer - lessee.
In this case, the amount of payments will be 6600 thousand rubles. (6000 thousand + 600 thousand). In addition, the lessee will independently pay tax, which will be determined from the initial cost of 6600 thousand rubles. and monthly depreciation in the amount of 550 thousand rubles. (6600 thousand rubles: 12 months). The amount of tax at a rate of 2.2% will be 72.6 thousand rubles.
Consequently, the expenditures of the lessee will be equal to 6672.6 thousand rubles. (6600 thousand + 72.6 thousand).
Nevertheless, the lessee should not be made of unambiguous conclusions about which of the methods of accounting for leasing on the balance sheet is more profitable. It is necessary to carefully study the terms offered by the companies (payment schedule, etc.), carefully calculate the financial effect from the leasing transaction and the risks associated with it.
The subject of leasing is more profitable to take into account on the balance sheet of the leasing company
Marina Romanova, advisor to the Tax Service of the Russian Federation III rank
According to the current edition of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, the subject of leasing is more profitable to take into account the company's balance sheet. This is due to the fact that, when taking into account the leasing property on the lessee balance sheet, the lessor cannot reduce income in the form of payments on the cost of acquiring this property, with the exception of interest on the loan and insurance payments on it.
The author completely drew attention to this circumstance. All costs for purchasing depreciable property may be included in the costs accounted for for tax purposes only in the form of depreciation deductions. Since, when taking into account the property on the balance sheet of the lessee, the company deprives the right to accrual depreciation, then its costs in the form of reimbursement of its cost cannot be attributed to a decrease in the tax base for income tax.
In the Russian MCS, the approach to this issue is formal: the Tax Code of the Russian Federation directly does not provide such expenses from the leasing company if the property is taken into account on the balance sheet of the lessee, therefore, the Company will have to pay the company from all over the amount of payments (minus interest on the loan, insurance payments and other expenses recognized for tax purposes by chapter 25 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation).
This circumstance should be taken into account and leasers, and lessee, since the increased tax expenses and the risks of the organization, no doubt, will affect the increasing amount of the transaction.
"The norms of chapter 25 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation must seriously refine"
Rustem Akhmetshin, partner of the law firm "Pepliaev, Golzblat and Partners"
The rules of chapter 25 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation concerning the tax accounting of income and expenses of the leasing company, in my opinion, it is necessary to seriously refine. From the point of view of civil law, the choice of the balance holder of the leased object does not affect the relationship between the lessor and the lessee. However, despite the fact that the balance holder of property is determined by agreement of the parties and its choice does not entail additional rights or duties for the participants of the transaction, in the tax legislation for incomprehensible reasons such a choice attracts fundamental importance. The magnitude of the company's income in tax accounting does not depend on whether leasing property is listed on whose balance. But the lessor has the right to accrue depreciation only if it is its balance holder.
Taxes should have an economic rationale, that is, to be charged with those who are able to pay them. In the case under consideration, the fact of the accounting of property on the balance sheet of the lessee does not affect the economic benefits and losses of the parties. Therefore, differences in the order of taxation of the company, depending on the choice of the Balancer should not be. Moreover, the expenses of the lessee associated with a leasing transaction, in both cases the same and equal to the amount of payments. I believe that it would be more correct to envisage in chapter 25 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, the right of the lessor in both cases accrue depreciation on property in tax accounting.
______________________________________________
1 Article 31 of the Federal Law of 29.10.98 No. 164-FZ "On Financial Rental (Leasing)".
2 This statement is not directly spelled out in the order of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated 17.02.97 No. 15 "On reflected in the accounting records of operations under the lease agreement", regulating the procedure for accounting for a leasing transaction, but, according to many specialists, this conclusion is indirectly follows from the provisions of this order.
