First of all, let’s define: deciphering what KOSGU is in the budget sounds like this: classification of operations of the public administration sector. The numeric code allows you to accurately classify the transaction performed according to its content.

The determination of KOSGU in 2019 for budgetary institutions, as well as autonomous and state-owned ones, should be carried out in accordance with the new procedure. The rules are enshrined in Order of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated November 29, 2017 No. 209n (as amended on November 30, 2018). The new provisions apply from 01/01/2019.

There are the following budget classification groups:

• “100” - income, including profit;
• “200” - expenses;
• “300”—receipt of the NFA;
• “400” - retirement of the NFA;
• “500” – FA receipt;
• “600”—FA retirement;
• “700”—increase in liabilities;
• “800”—reduction of obligations.

Until January 2016, all operations of budgetary, government and autonomous institutions were classified according to KOSGU. Then this rule was canceled. Now, in 18-20 categories of accounting accounts, all public sector institutions are required to apply CVR.

The full list of current codes is contained in the Appendix to the Order of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated November 29, 2017 No. 209n (as amended on November 30, 2018).

KOSGU: application in work

The exclusion of the code from the KBK structure does not mean that the codes in the budget have become irrelevant. Codifiers still need to be used. For example, government institutions are required to plan and receive expenses exclusively in terms of classifiers of the public administration sector. It is impossible to prepare a budget list, estimates, as well as justification for budget allocations without the KOSGU codifier.

Budget reporting should be formed in the context of transaction codes of the general government sector. For example, reporting forms such as a statement of financial results, 0503121 - for corporate accounting and 0503721 - accounting. And also a cash flow statement: 0503123 - for CU and 0503723 - BU.

KOSGU in procurement

Planning of expenses of the organization of the public sector is also compiled in the context of OSGU codes. After drawing up the cost plan, the institution prepares a procurement plan and schedule for the corresponding financial period. These procurement documents are also prepared on the basis of the OSSU code classifiers.

Until 2016, decoding of schedules and procurement plans was compiled in the context of KOSGU. But at present, the old codifier has been replaced by new ciphers - KVR. It is a mistake to believe that now KOSGU are not involved in procurement activities. This is fundamentally wrong.

To plan any purchase, an institution needs to correctly determine the CWR and only then reflect the operation in planning documentation. But it is impossible to choose the correct KVR without first determining the KOSGU. This is the key principle of using codifiers and their direct relationship.

Transcript of KVR

Beginners may be unfamiliar with what CWR is in the budget. Special codifiers should be used in accounting and planning the expenses of a public sector institution. The cipher is not used separately, since it is a structural part of the whole - the budget classification code.

If you are trying to figure out what is in the budget with the CWR, then here is the answer. The expense type code is a special numeric code that allows you to group homogeneous types of expense transactions according to their content in order to manage the budget process in terms of spending funds, as well as control over its execution in accordance with the current requirements of budget legislation.

From 01/01/2019 we work according to new rules! CVR for budgetary institutions in 2019 should be determined in accordance with Appendix No. 7 to Order of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated 06/08/2018 No. 132n (as amended on 03/06/2019).

The legislation provides for the following grouping of codes:

Capital investments in state (municipal) property

Interbudgetary transfers

Providing subsidies to budgetary, autonomous institutions and other non-profit organizations

Service of state (municipal) debt

Other budget allocations

The procedure for determining KVR and KOSGU

Detailing each expenditure transaction of an economic entity in the budgetary sphere is the basis for budget planning and execution. Effective and transparent planning, ensuring the intended use of allocated funds and the reliability of financial statements depend on the correctness of the chosen code for the type of expense and the classification of operations of the public administration sector.

To accurately link CVR and KOSGU, officials recommend using a table of correspondence between codes of types of expenses and classification of the public administration sector.

Example. Expense operation: car repair. KOSGU - Article 225 "". But the CVR depends on the type of repair. For the current one there will be 244 “Other procurement of goods, works and services to meet state (municipal) needs.” And for major repairs, the solution to the issue will be KVR 243 “Purchase of goods, works, services for the purpose of major repairs of state (municipal) property.”

Separately, we will designate the new links between CVR and KOSGU for 2019 for budgetary institutions in the form of a table.

Compliance table between KVR and KOSGU for 2019 for procurement

The table includes only the KVR 200 group, which is most often used in procurement activities. The full version with all codes is attached in the file.

Download the full text of the KVR and KOSGU correspondence table for 2019

Plan differently for 2019

Specialists from the Ministry of Finance published Letter No. 02-05-11/56735 dated August 10, 2018, in which they provided explanations on how to apply the new BP codes in 2019. Now the list of codes has been supplemented with new types of expenses, some group names have been changed. Let's consider the changes in the CVR and KOSGU for 2019 for budgetary institutions in the form of a table.

Main mistakes in using CVR

An incorrectly defined type of expense for the operations of public sector institutions is recognized as an inappropriate use of budget funds. This violation is subject to significant fines and administrative penalties. Let's determine which violations occur most often and how to avoid them.

Let's consider what expenses are included in KVR 243 “Purchase of goods, works, services for the purpose of major repairs of state (municipal) property” and what article of KOSGU they correspond to.

CVR - codes for types of expenses must be used by all government bodies, extra-budgetary funds, local governments and state (municipal) institutions. The use of CVR by budgetary and autonomous organizations has been carried out since January 1, 2016. The expense type code is one of the components of the systematization of budget expenses. In 2019, the reflection of some expenses of budgetary institutions within the framework of the use of KOSGU and CVR underwent slight changes.

Download the current correspondence table between KVR and KOSGU in 2019 in the article below

Application of KVR 243 in 2019

According to KVR 243 “Purchase of goods, works, services for the purpose of major repairs of state (municipal) property”, purchases of goods, works and services are carried out for:

• major repairs of municipal property;
• restoration of municipal property.

The exception in this case is expenses associated with budget investments in capital construction of state property. The use of KVR is described in Guidelines 65n.

Download a cheat sheet with the latest changes in the CVR:

Download the cheat sheet

Pay attention! It is important to use the correct CWR codes to avoid errors in accounting and reporting.

KVR 243 in decoding is:

• performing certain types of work related to major repairs or restoration;
• transfer to the government customer of the results of the work performed in accordance with bilateral documents (acceptance certificate for the work performed, certificates of its value and expenses).

Please note that during routine repairs a different KVR is used, let’s look at an example.

Example

The institution is replacing doors. That is, it carries out work that restores the functional and user characteristics, performance indicators of non-financial asset objects. Within the framework of budget legislation, payment for these works must be carried out in accordance with Article 225 of KOSGU (Works and services for property maintenance).

As for the reflection of expenses, here you need to take as a basis the fact of what type of repair these works are carried out: for major repairs, 243 types of expenses are applied, and for current ones - 244 (Other purchases of goods, works and services).

Also, as part of a major overhaul, KVR 243 includes repairs of:

• buildings and premises;
• roofs or roofing;
• pipeline;
• window blocks;
• street lighting, etc.

Service to determine CVR and KOSGU in the State Finance System The KVR and KOSGU service will select codes for your situation. Enter a request and get a quick response. Also see how to apply the new KOSGU codes in 2019 with comments, examples from practice, and how to compare the budget classification codes of 2018 and 2019.

Compliance of KVR 243 with KOSGU codes

The budget classification, consisting of codes for types of expenses, is a group of budget indicators for profits and costs at all levels. In addition, it displays all sources of financing needed to cover deficits. Thanks to this classification, budget indicators are compared. Systematization of codes for types of expenses and income is necessary in order to clearly represent the generation of income and the implementation of budget spending.

We continue to understand what violations in the use of CVR are most often detected during inspections. And at the same time, we will formulate rules, compliance with which will help minimize the risk of disagreements with auditors.

Error No. 8. The institution transfers insurance premiums only according to CVR 119

At the same time, issues of classifying work as major or current repairs do not fall within the competence of the accounting service of the institution and can finally be resolved only by the relevant “technical” specialists.

Providing clarifications on the issues of classifying work as a major overhaul (in terms of repairing real estate) falls within the competence of the Ministry of Construction of Russia, which is assigned the functions of legal regulation in the field of construction, architecture, and urban planning (see Regulations on the Ministry of Construction and Housing and Communal Services Russian Federation, approved). Road repair work is qualified as a major overhaul in accordance with the explanations of the Ministry of Transport of Russia (see Regulations on the Ministry of Transport of the Russian Federation, approved).

The legality of attributing expenses to CWR 243 or 244 for several years is the basis for holding officials of government institutions accountable for misuse of budget funds. At the same time, it is possible that a fine may be imposed on the chief accountant (decision of the Volgograd Regional Court of February 24, 2016 in case No. 07-277/2016).

Courts, when considering such cases, qualify the work as capital or routine repairs based on the provisions, as well as other regulatory legal acts developed in past years, in particular, “Regulations ... MDS 13-14.2000”, approved. , and Regulations on the organization and conduct of reconstruction, repair and maintenance of buildings, communal and socio-cultural facilities", approved) (see, for example, the decision of the Perm Regional Court dated January 25, 2016 in case No. 21-80/ 2016, decision of the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court of June 2, 2016 in case No. 7R-536/2016).

Error No. 10. Without sufficient grounds, the writ of execution was fully paid under CVR 831

A fairly common mistake is the execution of all judicial acts in full according to KVR 831.

For example, accounts payable for purchases on the basis of a judicial act must be paid according to KVR 200, and salary debt - according to KVR 100. And most importantly, do not forget about the new provisions of Instructions 65n on the use of KVR when paying compensation for delayed wages. This compensation must be attributed to KVR 853 “Payment of other payments” both when paid voluntarily and on the basis of a court decision ().

All additional transfers under the writ of execution are attributed to KVR 831. For example, the costs of reimbursement of legal costs to plaintiffs (state fees) are paid according to KVR 831 in conjunction with KOSGU 290.

The court may order the institution to perform certain actions. If the institution makes purchases to carry out these actions, the costs must be attributed to KVR and KOSGU in the general manner. For example, storage of property must be paid according to KVR 244 and KOSGU 226 ().

Attention!
If a penalty is imposed on a government institution by a court, KVR 831 must be applied in conjunction with the section and subsection for which budgetary allocations are provided to ensure the functioning of such an institution ().

Error No. 11. It is not confirmed that expenses paid under CVR 242 belong to ICT costs

Instructions No. 65n do not contain a list of specific types of equipment, materials, works and services that can be purchased at the expense of KVR 242 “Purchase of goods, works, services in the field of information and communication technologies.” Determining whether budget expenditures belong to the field of information and communication technologies (ICT) is not the subject of Directive No. 65n. This affiliation must be determined based on the provisions of industry regulations governing relations in this area (). The use of expense type code 242 can be linked to the corresponding Informatization Plan.

Attention!
The possibility of using CWR in executing the budget of a public legal entity is determined by its financial authority (). Instructions No. 65n establish the procedure for applying KVR 242 at the federal level. At the same time, budgetary and autonomous institutions should reflect the costs of procurement in the field of ICT according to CVR 244 ().

The budget estimate of a government institution may include expenses in the field of ICT under KWR 242. However, the Informatization Plan (document) does not always explicitly indicate that under KWR 242 in the current year it is possible to make certain purchases (purchase specific types of equipment, services etc.).

In this case, please contact GRBS (RBS) for clarification. It was your higher organizations, taking into account your proposals, that prepared the justifications (calculations), according to which KVR 242 () appeared in the institution’s estimate.

If the issue cannot be resolved at the GRBS (RBS) level, the request can be sent to the authorized industry body. At the federal level, such a body is the Ministry of Telecom and Mass Communications of Russia (letter of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated July 25, 2016 No. 02-05-10/43381). It may be necessary to agree with the same body on the increase in LBO under CVR 242 (see the penultimate paragraph of the letter of the Ministry of Finance of Russia and the Federal Treasury dated January 22, 2016 No. 02-03-08/2260, 07-04-05/05-47 ).

The same expenses in the ICT sector, depending on a number of circumstances, can be reflected in accounting under both KVR 242 and KVR 244. Let’s say an organization has decided to purchase a server or a network printer. How to choose a CVR for such expenses? If you follow a few simple rules, you can easily make the right choice.

1. The following are required to apply KVR 242:

2. Expenses in the ICT sector are included in CWR 244:

3. Objects similar to those included in the ICT sector (including installation and commissioning works) can be purchased as part of capital investments in accordance with the consolidated estimate for CWR 410 “Budget Investments”.

Error No. 12. The procedure for using KVR 410 during turnkey construction was violated

Currently, there is a practice of paying for movable property (furniture, household appliances, soft equipment, etc.) at the expense of budget investments, which equips the property during turnkey construction. In some cases, inspectors may consider such actions of institutions as misuse of budget funds. Even the inclusion of the cost of this movable property in the estimate was not always a sufficient basis for releasing officials from liability, since in essence the estimate is not the legal basis for the provision of budget funds.

An argument in favor of an institution in such a situation is the presence of “controversial” areas of expenses directly in the state (municipal) target program, within the framework of which turnkey construction is carried out, regardless of what codes for the classification of expenses of the Russian Federation could be attributed to the expenses associated with acquisition (production) of non-financial assets when spending budget funds outside such a program ().

At the same time, property items received as part of turnkey construction that are inextricably linked with the property itself cannot be taken into account as part of a single inventory item. Form the initial cost of such property in the appropriate accounts 0 106 30 000 “Investments in other movable property of the institution” ().

Attention!
Inspectors can classify as inappropriate use of budget funds the allocation by an institution to the CVR of group 400 of expenses for the protection of a property under construction (Decision of the Khanty-Mansiysk District Court of the Khanty-Mansiysk Autonomous Okrug - Ugra dated February 26, 2016 in case No. 12-57/ 2016).

Error No. 13. KVR 113 or KVR 123 is used when it comes to procurement

Costs associated with attracting individuals to perform certain powers without concluding an employment or civil contract with them, according to Instructions No. 65n, are included in CVR 113 or 123. The list of persons whose payments are reflected in CVR 113 and 123 remains open. At the same time, the possibility of applying CVR 113 or 123 depends on the status of the public sector organization that makes payments in favor of the involved persons. Thus, the specified expenses of a government agency (local government body) are reflected according to KVR 123, and institutions - according to KVR 113 ().

Attention!
It is not always the case that expenses associated with the exercise of certain powers by persons involved for these purposes can be attributed to 113 or 123 CWR. For example, services provided by a “designated” lawyer may be billed by the legal entity. Accordingly, expenses should be reflected according to KVR 244 (see, for example,). In addition, the services of individuals (translators, specialists, experts, lawyers and other specialists), regardless of the existence of an agreement, but based on the intended purpose of the services, are also subject to payment under CVR 244 (clause 5.3.2.2 of Appendix No. 3 to). A typical example of such expenses is expenses incurred in accordance with the Regulations on the reimbursement of procedural costs associated with criminal proceedings, costs in connection with the consideration of a civil case, an administrative case, as well as expenses in connection with the implementation of the requirements of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, approved. .

Error No. 14. Incorrectly selected CWR when listing deposits and security

The transfer of security for an application of a government institution acting as a supplier (contractor, performer) for participation in a competition or auction in accordance with Article 44 of Law No. 44-FZ should be reflected in the relevant section (subsection), target article, within which LBOs are provided for financial support for the performance of functions by the institution, in connection with the CWR 853. An exception to this rule is a deposit for participation in an auction for the sale of real estate in state (municipal) ownership, the transfer of which is reflected in the corresponding CWR of group 410 (clause 5.3.2.4 of the Appendix No. 3 k).

Attention!
Transactions for the transfer of amounts to secure applications for participation in a competition or auction, as well as to ensure the fulfillment of obligations by budgetary and autonomous institutions acting as a supplier (contractor, performer), are not “expenses” and, accordingly, are not reflected in the CWR breakdown .

Vladimir Pimenov, head of the "Budget sector" of the company "Garant"

This page contains brief annotations of court decisions on the topic under consideration and links to files with the full text of the court decision.

Note:

Court decisions in favor of the audited organization are indicated by the index (a);

Court decisions in favor of the regulatory authority are indicated by the index (b).

(b) Conclusion of the FSBN technical specifications: misuse of budget funds allocated for subarticle 110520 “Transport services” was allowed.

The court found the following. According to the Directives, expenses for major repairs of cars and other vehicles are included in subject subarticle 240350 “Other capital repairs” of the economic classification of budget funds, and for current repairs - in subarticle 110520 “Transport services”. The institution paid for the repair of the bus and car, including the replacement of engines, using budget funds allocated under code 110520 “Transport services.” The courts of first and appellate instances made an erroneous decision that the FSBN technical department did not provide an expert opinion. However, the distinction between the terms “major repairs” and “current repairs” is a legal issue, not a technical one, since the corresponding concepts are provided for by the law. Questions of law are not submitted to the resolution of an expert or specialist, but are resolved by the court using well-known methods of interpreting legal norms. In this case, replacing vehicle engines excludes the classification of repairs as current.
P-SZO29

(a) Conclusion of the FSBN Technical Regulations: misuse of budget funds was made, expressed in the expenditure of funds provided for under expenditure item 110520 “Transportation services” on capital repairs of a vehicle, while major repairs should be carried out at the expense of funds in article 240350 “Other major repairs.”
The FSBN technical specifications did not prove the fact of a major overhaul of the vehicle.
P-SZO54

(b) Expenses for replacing windows in an institution’s building at the expense of funds provided for by KEC 111030 “Payment for routine repairs of buildings and structures” are an inappropriate use of budget funds. Such work relates to major repairs and must be paid for at the expense of funds provided for by KEC 240330 “Major repairs of non-production facilities, with the exception of major repairs of housing stock.”
P-VSO83

(a)* The FSBN Technical Directorate made conclusions about the misuse of budget funds based on the fact that the funds allocated for current repairs were actually spent on major repairs.
The court found that in the budget request, the institution erroneously requested funds to pay for work related to major repairs (repairing the garage and installing a vestibule) under expense type 244, KOSGU 225 “Works, services for property maintenance.” GRBS satisfied the application and allocated funds for repairing the garage and installing a vestibule under expense type 244, KOSGU 225. The actual expenditure was made for the repairs specified in the application, under the same type of expense and KOSGU item.
Consequently, the funds were used for purposes that corresponded to the conditions for their receipt, defined in the estimate approved by GRBS.
Incorrect identification of the type of expenditure in the budget request is not a misuse of budget funds.
R-SOYU7

(b) In the budget request, the institution requested allocations to pay for repairs of the heating system according to expense type 244, KOSGU 225 “Work, services for property maintenance” (Appendix 8 to the application).
The requested expenses should have been attributed to major repairs- by type of expenditure 243, KOSGU 225 “Purchase of goods, works, services for the purpose of major repairs of state property.” However, according to type of expenses 243, KOSGU 225, GRBS funds were not provided.
There was misuse of funds allocated by type of expenses 244, KOSGU 225 “Works, services for property maintenance” - without the approval of the State Budgetary Inspectorate, repairs of the heating system related to major repairs were paid for.
R-SOYU11

(a) The institution in its budget request (Appendix No. 8) included the repair of the garage and the installation of a vestibule with an area of ​​sq. m.
According to the budget estimate, the GRBS institution was given limits on budget funds for type of expenditure 244, KOSGU 225 “Works, services for property maintenance.” By type of expenses 243, KOSGU 225 “Purchase of goods, works, services for the purpose of major repairs of state property,” the funds requested by the institution were not provided for by the State Budgetary Institution.
The work on installing the vestibule was paid for by the institution from the funds of expense type 244, KOSGU 225 “Works, services for property maintenance.”
Based on the type and volume of repair work performed (the area of ​​the entrance vestibule according to the work completion certificate was sq. m), their share in the volume of the building, we must agree with the applicant’s arguments that the work paid for by the institution related to routine repairs.
Consequently, budget funds were used by the recipient of budget funds for purposes that correspond to the conditions for their receipt, defined in the budget estimate approved by the State Budgetary Inspectorate.
R-SOYU13

(b) Misuse of funds allocated by type of expenditure 244, KOSGU 225 “Works, services for property maintenance” was allowed - without the approval of the GRBS, work was paid for repairing a toilet, basement, laying a water supply system related to major repairs.
R-SOYU9, R-SOYU10, R-SOYU12

(a) Conclusion of the FSBN technical specifications: admitted misuse of budget funds, expressed in the fact that payment was made for the installation of PVC window and door units for the purpose of routine repairs with type of expenses 244 “Other purchase of goods, works and services for public needs”, KOSGU 225 “Works, services for property maintenance” . The work performed, in accordance, actually related to major repairs, the payment of which should have been paid by the Institution from the funds provided for type of expenses 243 “Purchase of goods, works, services for the purpose of major repairs of state property”, KOSGU 225 “Works, services for property maintenance”.

The court found that the institution’s expenditure of budgetary funds was correct, since based on the type and volume of repair work performed, their share in the total volume of the building, these works could not be classified by the institution as a major overhaul in relation to how this concept is enshrined in the resolution approved by the USSR State Construction Committee 12/29/1973 N 279.
R-SOYU40

(b) Conclusions of the FSBN technical specifications, confirmed by the courts: The institution committed misuse of budget funds. At the expense of funds under type of expenditure 244 “Other purchase of goods, works and services for public needs”, work related to major repairs was carried out, which should have been paid according to type of expenses 243 “Purchase of goods, works, services for the purpose of major repairs of state property.”
P-UO77

(b) Conclusions of the FSBN technical specifications on the misuse of budget funds, confirmed by the courts: expenses for checking estimate documentation for major repairs carried out under KOSGU 244 “Other procurement of goods, works, services for state needs,” whereas they should have been attributed to KOSGU 243 “Purchase of goods, works, services for the purpose of major repairs, state property.”
P-ZSO90

(b) Conclusions of the Technical Regulations of the FS FBN: The institution committed inappropriate use of budget funds, expressed in the use of funds received under Art. Article 244 “Other procurement of goods, works and services for state needs”, for major repairs of the roof of garage boxes, an administrative building and a warehouse building. The specified work had to be carried out from funds under Article 243 “Purchase of goods, works, services for the purpose of major repairs of state property.”
The courts have established that the area of ​​work on roofing buildings is 100%. Under such circumstances, the conclusions of the FS FBN technical specifications are legitimate.
P-PO69

(a) Conclusions of the Technical Regulations of the FS FBN: The institution committed misuse of federal budget funds. Funds received under expense type 244 “Other purchase of goods, works and services for public needs”, KOSGU 225 “Work, services for property maintenance” are aimed at carrying out work related to major repairs, payment for which is carried out from funds under expense type 243 "Purchase of goods, works, services for the purpose of major repairs of state property", KOSGU 225.
The courts have established the following:
- regardless of the type of repair (major or current), the classification assigns these expenses to subarticle KOSGU 225 “Works and services for property maintenance”;
Note - see another court decision given below on this page.
- according to the clarifications of the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation (letter dated February 27, 2012 N 02-07-10/534), a violation cannot be considered as misuse of budget funds in cases where, firstly, the budget estimate (justifications for it), documents on completing the LBO, as well as planning documents and other documents of the GRSB stipulate such expenses using KOSGU data; secondly, it was established that the recipient of budget funds committed erroneous actions unintentionally.
- in itself, incorrect reflection in the budget accounting of expenses of budget funds, despite the fact that they were spent in accordance with the concluded state contract within the meaning of paragraph 1 of Article 306.4 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation, cannot be considered as misuse of budget funds. This conclusion is consistent with the position set forth in paragraph 23 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated June 22, 2006 N 23 “On some issues of application by arbitration courts of the norms of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation.”
P-PO73

(b) Conclusions of the TU FS FBN, confirmed by the courts: federal budget funds allocated to the Office under KBK 244.225 “Work, services for property maintenance” were used for expenses provided for under KBK 243.225 “Purchase of goods, work, services for the purpose of major repairs of state property” , which, in accordance with Article 289 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation, is an inappropriate expenditure of funds.
The courts also established the following. The Department indicates that payment for the work was made in accordance with KOSGU 225 “Work, services for property maintenance”, which, in accordance with the Instructions on the procedure for applying budget classification, includes expenses, including repairs (current and capital), this indicates that payment for the work was made in full according to BP 244 KOSGU 225 and corresponds to the allocated LBO. The court does not agree with this argument because, Although the costs of current and major repairs are included in one subsection of KOSGU 225, current repairs are allocated as type of expenses 244 "Other purchase of goods, works and services to meet state (municipal) needs", and major repairs as type of expenses 243 " “Purchase of goods, works and services for the purpose of major repairs of state (municipal) property.”
P-APS14

(b) The head of the Institution S. was brought to administrative responsibility under Art. 15.14. Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation for misuse of budget funds, expressed in payment for construction materials under type 244 “Other procurement of goods, works and services for public needs”, KOSGU 225 “Works, services for property maintenance”, while work of a capital nature was completed. During the renovation of the building, a canopy was installed over the building on support posts over the entire perimeter of the building with an extension, the facade was faced with profiled sheets and a soft roof was installed in the amount of 100% of the total area.
The court rejected S.’s arguments that there were no grounds for drawing up several protocols on an administrative offense against him, since these administrative offenses were committed in the same region and during the same period under review.
R-SOYU85

(b) Conclusions of Rosfinnadzor TU, confirmed by court decisions: The institution committed misuse of budget funds. Funds received under expense type 244 “Other purchase of goods, works and services for state needs”, KOSGU 225 “Work, services for property maintenance” were allocated for major repairs, payment for which should be made under expense type 243 “Purchase of goods, works, services for the purpose of major repairs of state (municipal property)", KOSGU 225 "Works, services for property maintenance".

Roof repair work in accordance with the norms of the Town Planning Code of the Russian Federation, the Regulations on carrying out planned preventive repairs of industrial buildings and structures, approved by Decree of the USSR State Construction Committee of December 29, 1973 N 279, and the Regulations on the organization and conduct of reconstruction, repair and maintenance of residential buildings, municipal and socio-cultural facilities approved by order of the State Committee for Architecture dated November 23, 1988 N 312, relate to major repair work.

(a) Conclusions of Rosfinnadzor TU: The institution allowed misuse of budget funds, expressed in the use of funds provided for element 244 (“Other purchase of goods, works and services to meet state (municipal) needs”, to pay for major repairs of premises that should have been paid for under element 243 (“Purchase of goods, works, services for the purpose of major repairs of state (municipal) property”).

The technical specifications determined that the work performed on the complete replacement of floor coverings and the continuous leveling and cladding of the internal walls of the building are classified as major repairs.

The courts have established that the work performed relates to routine repairs. The content of the work relates to the main work carried out during routine repairs, the need for which was identified on the basis of a scheduled technical inspection. The work performed was aimed at maintaining the operational qualities of the building and did not entail changes in the area of ​​the building, technical characteristics, or its functional or technological purpose.

No repairs were made to any major structures of the building as a whole. The purpose of the repair was to maintain the proper condition and preserve the operational properties of the premises. At the same time, the areas where materials (coatings) were replaced do not indicate the nature of the repairs performed.

Please tell me what type of expenses 244 or 243 should be used to pay for services for performing design work for the overhaul of the power supply system of an administrative building?

According to the Directives approved by Order of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated July 1, 2013 No. 65n, the assignment of expenses to a particular budget classification code should be carried out primarily based on the economic content of the business transaction determined by the subject of the agreement (contract). In the situation under consideration, the subject of the contract is services for the implementation of design work for the overhaul of the power supply system of an administrative building. It follows from this that the subject of the contract is directly related to the capital repairs of the property. Therefore, payment for services under the contract should be made using the element of expense type 243 “Purchase of goods, works, services for the purpose of major repairs of state (municipal) property.”

It should be noted that when distributing costs by type of expense, it is necessary to be guided by the table of correspondence between codes of types of expenses and KOSGU codes given in Appendix 5 to Instructions No. 65n. The provisions of Instructions No. 65n directly provide for the attribution of costs for the development of design and estimate documentation for the construction, reconstruction and repair of non-financial asset facilities to subarticle KOSGU 226 “Other work, services”. At the same time, the possibility of using subarticle KOSGU 226 with simultaneous linking of the element of type of expenses 243 is also provided in the Table of correspondence of types of expenses to the classification of budget expenses and articles (subarticles) of the classification of operations of the public administration sector (Appendix 5 to Instructions No. 65n).

Thus, payment for services under a contract, the subject of which is services for the implementation of design work for the overhaul of the power supply system of an administrative building, can be carried out using the element of expense type 243 “Purchase of goods, works, services for the purpose of overhaul of state (municipal) property” in connection with subarticle KOSGU 226 “Other work, services”.

The rationale for this position is given below in the materials of the Glavbukh System

The expense type code is an integral part of the classification of budget expenses. The structure of the expense type code consists of the corresponding group, subgroup and element (15-17 digits).

Types of expenditures detail the direction of financial support for expenditures on target budget expenditure items.

The list and rules for using types of expenses are the same for all budgets of the budget system. They are given in paragraph 5.2 of Section III of the instructions approved and in Appendix 3 to this order.

Depending on the direction of financing expenses, the following groups of types of expenses are distinguished:

100 - expenses for payments to personnel in order to ensure the performance of functions by state (municipal) bodies, government institutions, management bodies of state extra-budgetary funds;

200 - purchase of goods, works, services for state (municipal) needs;*

300 - social security and other payments to the population;

400 - capital investments in state (municipal) property;

500 - interbudgetary transfers;

600 - provision of subsidies to budgetary, autonomous institutions and other non-profit organizations;

700 - servicing state (municipal) debt;

800 - other budget allocations.

Attention: when distributing costs by type of expense, you must be guided by the table of correspondence between codes of expense types and KOSGU codes.*

Attention: carrying out cash expenses according to codes of types of expenses that do not correspond to the detail provided for by the departmental structure of expenses in the law (decision) on the relevant budget or the consolidated budget list of the corresponding budget can be qualified as misuse of budget funds (clause 1 of Article 306.4 Budget Code of the Russian Federation).

Igor Kuzmin,

Advisor to the State Civil Service of the Russian Federation, 3rd class (Department of Budget Policy and Methodology of the Ministry of Finance of Russia)

2. Directory:Assignment of costs to the corresponding type of expenditure of the budget classification

3. Directory:Attribution of expenses to the relevant articles (subarticles) of KOSGU

4. ORDER OF THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE OF THE RUSSIAN DATED 07/01/2013 No. 65N

On approval of the Instructions on the procedure for applying the budget classification of the Russian Federation (does not require state registration) (as amended as of November 21, 2014)

Appendix 5
to Instructions for use
budget classification
Russian Federation
(As amended as put into effect
by order of the Russian Ministry of Finance
dated December 16, 2013 No. 121n. -
See previous edition)

Table of correspondence between types of expenses, classification of budget expenses and articles (sub-items) of classification of operations of the general government sector