The situation is as follows: the house in which the relative lives, it is registered there, previously belonged to the Communication Center, two years ago the Communication Center was liquidated, now it is CenterTelecom OJSC - he did not take ownership of this house, but is a balance holder, that is, it turns out that a house between heaven and earth and has no owner at all? Nobody serves the house, utility bills are not paid, there is simply no one to pay them. Whom to attract to take ownership of the house, urban settlement? After all, it is impossible, if necessary, even to take an extract from the house book, there is simply no one to write it! Although the house book is located in the branch of CenterTelecom OJSC.
Elena Alexandrovna, it is very possible that you are being misled.
IN in this casemost likely, the balance holder is already the municipal authorities.
When the legal entity of the owner is liquidated, his housing stock must be transferred to the municipal housing stock. Very often, in such situations with owners, utilities mislead apartment owners so that they do not privatize housing. Try it, after all, check the status of the housing stock in the municipality again.
Comments
I quote: "Balance holders are managing organizations entrusted with managing the owner's property ... Balance holders are companies or institutions to which the owner transferred his property for management, and joint stock companies, in which with the participation of the owner's capital. The word "balance holder" comes from the accounting term "put property on the balance sheet", i.e. Asset holder is an organization that has put the owner's property on its balance sheet. The term “asset holder” is now outdated and by the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of July 16, 2007 N 447 will replace the term “copyright holder”. Who can own the property? As the owner of the property, the Russian Federation, the subject of the Federation (republic, territory, region), the municipality (district in the region, the city of regional subordination, settlement, village council, etc.) are provided. "Thus, if you are sure that OJSC CenterTelecom is the asset holder, then the owner is one of the above. First, contact the head of your municipality or the Committee (department, etc.) on property. If this does not help, we will obviously have to look through the federal authorities, starting with the RF Ministry of Press and Information.
★★★★★★★★★★
To get started, contact the Office of the Federal Registration Service at the address: Orlikov lane, 3 (metro station "Krasnye Vorota").
It is there that the offices dealing with departmental housing are located (Ministry of Defense, Ministry of Atom, etc.). If they do not help, then by at least clarify the situation.
A similar situation in the capital with the houses of Minatom - difficulties with privatization, difficulties with connecting to the Internet (while there are disputes around the houses, no provider can put equipment in the attic, because there is simply no one to conclude an agreement with ...)
Our cities are large, it is difficult to keep track of everything and all of one administration, which is why the city is divided into territories. Each territory is assigned to a separate asset holder. The balance holder is the owner or entity, which, under an agreement with the owner, contains the corresponding property on the balance sheet, and also maintains accounting, statistical and other reporting provided by law, calculates the funds necessary for the timely implementation of capital and current repairs and maintenance, and also ensures the management of this property and is responsible for its operation in accordance with the law.
In other words, the owner is the city, and a certain state unitary enterprise or municipal unitary enterprise manages and maintains the property.
Now let's move on to the problem. I don't think it's worth dwelling on how these companies manage their property: more often than not, everything is very bad (broken sidewalks, dirt instead of a lawn, and so on are the most common problems).
Another problem is that sometimes city property is divided in a very strange way. For example, in Moscow I know that sometimes two neighboring houses and their adjacent territory are divided between the state unitary enterprises of the prefecture and the department of housing and communal services, that is, such houses may even have one yard, in fact, but according to the norms, they require at least separate wipers. but as a maximum, completely separate documentation.
Often, precisely because of such situations, common, seemingly, yards are separated by a fence: 
sorry for the quality
In general, in terms of efficiency, everything is bad. How can this be changed?
As they say, all ingenious is simple. You just need to choose the balance holders by competitions among private firms. Why? And because, unlike state employees, who are shackled by bureaucracy, all sorts of restrictions and a banal desire not to work (because they will have nothing for it), private owners will have more freedom of action and fear of losing the contract.
That is, from the pros, private traders:
- there are no strict legal restrictions, there are only contractual obligations;
- flexible economy and less trouble with the budget;
- an incentive to reduce costs and increase efficiency, for example, instead of keeping 10 janitors with brooms for 5 yards, they would rather hire five, but give each one a street mobile vacuum cleaner;
- fear of termination of the contract. If you correctly prescribe a contract, as well as establish a control mechanism, it will be difficult for a private trader to relax, and there will be fewer potholes on the roads;
- the city to get rid of non-core assets. Roughly speaking, instead of keeping 1000 employees on a budget, it will be possible to leave 100 people who will be involved in coordination.
- how the competition will be organized, if its goal is to increase efficiency and choose a good balance sheet holder, then he will be chosen, and if not, then such a private trader will not go far from the SUE / MUP;
- how control will be established. The best control is public control (for example, through an application on the phone), because a resident is more interested in normal service than anyone else.
Well, in confirmation of my words, in the countries of the first world, as a rule, just such a system of city property management operates. Most vivid example (and the first one that comes to mind) is the managers transport companies, in whose hands are the rolling stock, ticket menu, service, routes and so on, while the city monitors compliance with safety requirements, timetables and other terms of the contract. 
In Singapore, bus routes are served by 2 transport companies
I hope that someday Russia will begin to massively introduce such control systems.
The term "asset holder" is usually used in relation to a person (usually a legal entity), which, not being the owner, records on its balance sheet property. That is, such property is reflected in the balance sheet in the Assets section in the amount determined according to accounting rules.
Sometimes the asset holder is understood as any person who records the property on his balance sheet (including its owner).
The term "asset holder" is not defined in the legislation.
Cases when the owner of the property is one person, and it is recorded on the balance sheet of another, are determined by law.
If the leasing agreement stipulates that the leased asset is accounted for on the lessee's balance sheet - the Lessor will be the Owner of the property (leased asset), and the Lessee will be the Balance holder.
So, until the end of 2014, Article 31 Federal law dated October 29, 1998 N 164-FZ "On financial lease (leasing)" determined that the leased asset transferred to the lessee under the lease agreement is recorded on the balance sheet of the lessor or lessee by mutual agreement. Since November 16, 2014, Article 31 has ceased to be in force (Federal Law of November 4, 2014 N 344-FZ), but in practice, it is not uncommon for the leased item to be recorded under the agreement on the balance sheet of the lessee.
If under the agreement the property is recorded on the balance sheet of the lessor, then the lessor will be both the owner and the balance holder of the leased asset.
Property on the right of operational management or economic management
Another case is organizations that own property on or on.
A state or municipal unitary enterprise owns property on the basis of the right of economic management (Articles 294, 295 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation), but the state remains the owner of the property or municipality... In this case, such enterprises act as a balance holder.
Institutions and state-owned enterprises own property on, while the owner of such property is another person (owner) (Article 296 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).
Example
Federal state-financed organization owns the building on the basis of operational management.
A budgetary institution is a balance holder.
The Russian Federation (state) is the owner.
27.12.2019
Durable labor (over 12 months). Fixed assets include buildings, machinery and equipment, structures and transmission devices, vehicles.
The property right that an institution or a state enterprise has to the property assigned to them. An institution or a state-owned enterprise own and use this property within the limits established by law, in accordance with the goals of its activities, the purpose of this property. An institution or a state enterprise disposes of this property with the consent of the owner of this property.
The Leasing Law allows the parties to a leasing transaction to choose which of them will account for the leased property - the leasing company or the lessee. The author of the article analyzes the tax implications of both options, and a representative tax service and an independent lawyer express their opinions on the issues under consideration.
Accounting
In order to understand how the taxation of participants in a leasing transaction depends on the choice of the asset holder, let us consider what operations in each case arise for the leasing company and the lessee.
If the leased asset is accounted for on the balance sheet of the leasing company, then the property is credited to the balance sheet, depreciates, pays property tax, and the received payments are included in the proceeds from the sale of goods (works, services).
The lessee attributes the entire cost of leasing services to the prime cost of products (works, services) and reflects the leased asset on the off-balance sheet account.
If the leased asset is recorded on the balance sheet of the lessee, the leasing company reflects the value of the transferred property as accounts receivable the lessee, which is gradually written off upon receipt of payments. The difference between the leased value of the property and the cost of acquiring it is recognized by the leasing company as deferred income. From each received lease payment, the company's remuneration is allocated, that is, the amount of the excess of the payment over the amount of reimbursement of investment costs for the property, which is recorded as revenue.
The lessee receives the leased asset on the balance sheet at the amount of payments 2, that is, at the cost of the lease agreement, which includes investment costs and company remuneration and at the same time reflects accounts payable for the same amount. The lessee pays property tax and depreciates the leased asset, but the payments are not included in the cost of goods (works, services), but reduce the accounts payable to the leasing company.
Taxation of parties to a leasing transaction
Consider issues directly related to taxation and possible risks for the parties.
We note right away that the procedure for paying VAT by leasing participants does not depend on who records the property. The leasing company deducts the amount of "input" VAT on it, which then calculates VAT on the payments received, and the lessee accepts these tax amounts for deduction.
The choice of the balance holder affects primarily the payment of taxes on property and income.
Balance sheet holder - leasing company
IN russian legislation the procedure for taxation of participants in a leasing transaction is quite clearly defined if the asset holder - it is a leasing company.
For the lessee, everything is simple: since the property is recorded on an off-balance sheet account, the lessee does not pay tax on it and does not charge amortization. The payments made to the company reduce its taxable profit.
The company's taxation procedure is more complicated, but it is also understandable. The lessor pays property tax and calculates depreciation, which is accounted for in tax accounting as an expense. The tax income of the lessor reflects the amount of lease payments.
Perhaps the main drawback of accounting for leased property in a company is manifested in the event that the lessee has a tax benefit. Since the company is a property tax payer, it takes into account the costs of this tax in its remuneration and reimburses them from the payments of the lessee. Thus, the lessee pays the property tax in full to the state and loses his legal benefit.
Balance sheet holder - lessee
In contrast to the previous option, taxation in a situation where the leased asset is accounted for by the lessee is practically not regulated. In this regard, many controversial issues arise. Let's consider the main ones.
Property tax. The lessee in this case takes into account the leased asset on the balance sheet according to the total amount of lease payments, that is, in addition to the cost of the property itself, the organization's margin (income) is also amortized. Since it is the lessee who pays the tax, its amount in this case is greater than that which the company would have paid if the property was recorded on its balance sheet (of course, provided that the lessee does not have tax benefits). Consequently, for the same amount of remuneration to the company, the costs of the lessee are usually higher if the property is recorded on his balance sheet.
Besides, there is another problem. It turns out that one and the same leased asset has two “initial values”. One is formed by the leasing company, the other - by the lessee (it differs from the first by the amount of the lessor's margin). If the leasing agreement is successfully completed, then this circumstance does not cause any particular difficulties. But if the contract is terminated ahead of schedule and the property is returned to the company, then the question arises about the correct determination of the residual value of the leased asset, according to which the company must post the property to the balance sheet. Today this issue is not clearly resolved in any normative document... And since the residual value of the property is the taxable base for tax, the leasing company is highly likely to have additional tax risks.
Income tax. The Tax Code of the Russian Federation does not provide for a special procedure for the formation tax revenues leasing company if the leased asset is recorded on the lessee's balance sheet. In other words, the company's revenues are the full amounts of the payments. At the same time signed. 5 p. 1 of Art. 270 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation in this case prohibits it from charging depreciation on leased property. It turns out that the company cannot reduce the proceeds received by the amount of reimbursement of the cost of the leased item and, if you literally follow the norms of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, the lessor must pay income tax both from his remuneration and from the amount of reimbursement of the cost of the leased item.
In practice, leasing companies, at their own peril and risk, either recognize income only in part of their remuneration, or reflect in expenses the investment costs of acquiring the leased asset according to independently established rules. However, it is possible that in such situations, tax authorities may bring claims against companies.
Which version of the balance holder to choose
From the analysis it follows that when choosing the option "balance holder - lessee", the leasing company bears significant tax risks due to imperfect tax legislation. The lessee also increases certain risks, but they are primarily associated with a more complex accounting scheme compared to the other option and, accordingly, a higher probability of making mistakes. In addition, when using this scheme, the lessee's expenses may be greater than when accounting for property on the company's balance sheet with the same remuneration due to an increase in tax.
- Example
Suppose the property is worth 6,000 thousand rubles. excluding VAT. The term of the lease agreement is 12 months.
The leasing company's remuneration is 600 thousand rubles. excluding VAT.
Consider the change in the costs of the lessee, depending on the choice of the asset holder.
I. The balance holder is a company.
Property tax will be calculated based on its original cost of RUB 6,000,000. and monthly depreciation - 500 thousand rubles. The amount of tax at a rate of 2.2% will be 66 thousand rubles.
The amount of lease payments for the year will be equal to 6666 thousand rubles. (6000 thousand + 600 thousand + 66 thousand). These will be the expenses of the lessee.
II. The balance holder is the lessee.
In this case, the amount of payments will be 6,600 thousand rubles. (6000 thousand + 600 thousand). In addition, the lessee will independently pay tax, which will be determined from the initial cost of 6,600 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 lessee's expenses will be equal to 6672.6 thousand rubles. (6600 thousand + 72.6 thousand).
Nevertheless, the lessee should not make unambiguous conclusions about which of the methods of accounting for the leased asset on the balance sheet is more profitable. It is necessary to carefully study the terms of the contract offered by the companies (payment schedule, etc.), carefully calculate the financial effect of the leasing transaction and the associated risks.
It is more profitable to record the subject of leasing on the balance sheet of the leasing company
Marina Romanova, tax Service Adviser of the Russian Federation, III rank
According to current edition Of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, it is more profitable to record the leased asset on the company's balance sheet. This is due to the fact that when accounting for leased property on the lessee's balance sheet, the lessor cannot reduce income in the form of payments for the acquisition costs of this property, with the exception of interest on the loan and insurance payments on it.
The author correctly drew attention to this circumstance. All expenses for the acquisition of depreciable property can be included in expenses accounted for for tax purposes only in the form depreciation charges... Since, when accounting for property on the lessee's balance sheet, the company is deprived of the right to charge depreciation, its expenses in the form of compensation for its value cannot be attributed to a decrease tax base for income tax.
The Ministry of Taxes and Duties of Russia has a formal approach to this issue: tax code The Russian Federation does not directly provide for such expenses from a leasing company if the property is recorded on the lessee's balance sheet, therefore, the company will have to pay income tax on the entire amount of payments (less interest on a loan, insurance payments and other expenses recognized for tax purposes by Chapter 25 of the Tax Code RF).
This circumstance should be taken into account by both lessors and lessees, since the increased tax expenses and the risks of the organization will no doubt be reflected in the increase in the transaction amount.
"The norms of chapter 25 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation need to be seriously improved"
Rustem Akhmetshin, partner law firm Pepeliaev, Goltsblat & Partners
The norms of Chapter 25 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation concerning tax accounting income and expenses of the leasing company, in my opinion, need to be seriously improved. From the point of view of civil law, the choice of the asset holder of the leased asset does not affect the relationship between the lessor and the lessee. However, despite the fact that the asset holder is determined by agreement of the parties and his choice does not entail additional rights or obligations for the parties to the transaction, in tax legislation for some unknown reason, this choice is of fundamental importance. The amount of the company's income in tax accounting does not depend on whose balance sheet the leased property is registered. But the lessor has the right to charge depreciation only if he is its balance holder.
Taxes must have economic justification, that is, levied on those who are able to pay them. In the case under consideration, the fact that the property is recorded on the lessee's balance sheet does not affect the economic benefits and losses of the parties. Therefore, there should be no differences in the taxation of the company, depending on the choice of the asset holder. Moreover, the expenses of the lessee associated with the leasing transaction are the same in both cases 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 to charge depreciation on property in tax accounting.
______________________________________________
1 Article 31 of the Federal Law of October 29, 1998 No. 164-FZ "On Financial Lease (Leasing)".
2 This statement is not directly spelled out in the order of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated February 17, 1997 No. 15 "On the reflection in the accounting of transactions under a lease agreement", which regulates the accounting for a leasing transaction, but, according to many experts, such a conclusion follows indirectly from the provisions of this order.
Car loan in aymanibank
How to connect a personal account ot bank
Pros and cons of gray salary
Otp bank online personal account
Revolving and non revolving credit line for legal entities or individuals - offers from banks