Translated material
: Disabled people without work
Tax officials proposed canceling tax benefits for companies using the work of disabled people. The logic of tax authorities is that companies use “dead souls” to avoid taxes. However, it is better to learn how to suppress the work of tax defaults than to destroy the employment of people with disabilities.
In 2010, a business in Russia received about trillion rubles of incentive tax benefits, the newspaper Vedomosti wrote. This follows from the report prepared by the Ministry of Economic Development, the Ministry of Finance and the Federal Tax Service for the Government, which instructed to check whether these benefits are obtained correctly.
Benefits are a little space where a state that has promised not to increase the tax burden can reduce its own expenses. The tax authorities have already made proposals: a proposal to cancel VAT benefits for organizations using the work of disabled people providing services at airports, as well as when selling coins from precious metals, for the services of rest organizations - with the exception of sanatoriums.
The tax believes that instead of disabled people, the company simply hire “dead souls” and receive VAT benefits. And even gives examples of fraud with “wheelchair” benefits. Experts say that in case of cancellation of the benefits of disabled people, they will completely stop hired - because motivation will disappear.
As of October 1, 2010 in Russia there are 13.15 million disabled people, about half of them are citizens of working age. In other words: a huge social stratum and the attention of the state to it is inevitability. And according to the head of the All-Russian Society of Persons with Disabilities Alexander Lomakin-Rumyantsev, only 9 percent of the disabled work. Thus, a huge mass of people who do not engage in anything, but at the same time potentially able -bodied are created. It is only necessary to attach them. Why the state stimulates the business.
According to the law “On the Social Protection of Persons with Disabilities in the Russian Federation” adopted in 1995, at enterprises whose employees exceeds 100 people, a quota of disabled people is introduced - at least two, but no more than four percent of the number of employees.
According to the Tax Code of Russia. The goods and services produced by companies in which are more than 50 percent of the average, and in the wage fund at least 25 percent are not subject to taxation. In addition: excisable goods, minerals and other goods do not fall here, the list of which is established by the government. To make vodka and gasoline, thus, under the "roof" of the society of disabled people will not work. You will also have to pay taxes to “disabled” company, try to engage in brokerage activities or intermediary services.
Entrepreneurs, as before, reluctantly took citizens with health restrictions on work, will not do this, in addition to the quota agreed by the law. But it will become impossible to get away from taxes using a wheelchair quota.
However, there is some ugly circumstance.
In this, if desired, you can even see some encroachment on the Russian Constitution. The 37th article says "everyone has the right to work in conditions that meet the requirements of safety and hygiene, to a reward for labor without any discrimination." And in the seventh article it is completely stated that Russia is a social state that ensures state support, including disabled people. Support mechanisms, however, are basically not spelled out.
The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, adopted by the UN in 2006 and signed (but non -unified) Russia also suggests
The nasty logic, which is guided by the Federal Tax Service, consists in the fact that stimulation measures are used not at all those who are laid. However, the proposal to cancel the measures themselves only gives out the weakness of the state apparatus in the administration of certain benefits and taxes in principle. The abolition of benefits to tax authorities seems to be the best way out in this context. What is debatable, at least from a moral point of view.