Wonders of accounting methodology: depreciation fund
I love programming - it works wonders. But you know much more about programming than I do.
However, miracles are found not only in programming, but even in such a musty and hardened field, like accounting. Yes, yes, in herself, in accounting, for which I have ambivalent feelings: sincere and ardent sympathy (after all, this is my original profession) and equally long-standing and passionate hatred (I know about bookkeeping ).
At this time, focus on the positive. Let me tell you about one wonderful invention in the field of accounting methodology called “depreciation fund”.
')
I suspect that you have not heard about the depreciation fund, and even if you have heard something like that, you have no idea what it was used for. And you are not alone. It is unlikely that modern accountants have an idea about him - unless those dinosaurs, whose work experience has passed for thirty. Because the concept of a depreciation fund disappeared from accounting practice in the distant 1992, and even earlier its economic meaning was understood mostly in the higher accounting and management echelons, that is, not all ordinary accountants. Therefore, the withdrawal of the depreciation fund from the Chart of Accounts did not cause a public outcry. I understand it was not so: the social structure of a huge state was changing, the entire legal framework was revised ...
But will not get ahead of the bat in hell. Let's get started
These were the accounting entries for the accounting of fixed assets according to the Chart of Accounts from 1985:
The stump is clear, IT accounting entries will not say anything. Therefore I will not dwell on them, but I will explain the essence of the matter.
Earlier, in the days of a planned economy, state-owned enterprises received fixed assets (that is, the means of production, if we use economic terminology) from ministries. Ministries could allocate money for the purchase of fixed assets, but this did not change the essence of the matter.
In the process of work, the fixed assets gradually wore out and became useless, then the enterprises re-purchased them, as needed.
So, the depreciation fund allowed controlling the use of fixed assets, in the sense that it restricted the purchase of fixed assets within the scope initially received from the ministry.
In accordance with the correspondence of the above accounts of the balance of accounts involved means the following:
Everything that is taken into account now (the top lines), plus the amount by which fixed assets can be purchased (the bottom line) was taken into account. Hence the “depreciation” in the name of the account: arithmetically it is just the sum of the accrued depreciation, changing in this order:
Not moved? I explain.
The state enterprise had the right to purchase the fixed assets in the amount of a depreciation fund, not more.
For example, an enterprise received from the ministry equipment worth 2 million rubles. The depreciation fund is zero, additional purchase of equipment is impossible.
Time passed, and the equipment was depreciated at 300 thousand rubles. Accordingly, the depreciation fund increased by 300 thousand rubles: it became possible to purchase equipment by this amount.
Purchased that the equipment for 200 thousand rubles. The depreciation fund decreased by 200 thousand rubles, respectively, there remained 100 thousand rubles, for which it is still possible to additionally purchase equipment.
And so on, as needed.
As a result, the cost of equipment at such a state enterprise could not exceed 2 million rubles. - the amount originally allocated by the ministry. There was a formal opportunity to purchase additional equipment (subject to the availability of cash, of course), but such a purchase could not be made out in the accounting entries: the correspondence of the accounts did not provide for such. With a lack of a depreciation fund, no chief accountant would sign a payment, especially a receipt document. Speaking in accounting terms, fixed assets were purchased at the expense of a depreciation fund, and not otherwise. Therefore, the idea of ​​illegal procurement of fixed assets in the heads of directors did not even originate, it was too dangerous. It is clear, and kosyachili, and khimichili - but more clever and secretive ways.
Pay attention to how beautifully the desired effect is achieved: not by a regulatory ban or by the need to submit a report to the tax authority, which they would not fail to do now, with trivial accounting entries! A real miracle, in my opinion. It is for such methodological features that I love accounting.
Now we turn to modernity.
Does a modern director have the opportunity to purchase fixed assets as much as he wishes? Oh yes, if there is an amount in the company's bank account. Does the director have the opportunity to transfer all the money at the disposal of the enterprise to Dandelion LLC? And so it happens, very often. Are there any restrictions on the use of funds received from the founders? There are some legal restrictions, but there are no methodological limitations, and this is a determining factor. After receiving the money from the founders, the director has the unhindered opportunity to drive them offshore, then bankrupt the enterprise. (Please do not upset me - do not say that for these purposes there is an account of the authorized capital: this account only shows the amounts stated in the constituent documents, nothing more).
Even in the framework of the current capitalist logic, this is blatant outrage. The founders invest in the development of the enterprise, which implies: fixed assets must be purchased for a certain amount, working capital for a certain amount, the remaining part of the share capital must make up the wage fund and reserves in case of force majeure. The established proportions must be observed in the production process, that is, in the process of constant replacement of fixed and current assets. These proportions can be controlled through the correspondence of accounting accounts, because the need for control — whether from the ministries, or from private investors — has not gone away. Alas, accounting control is deliberately, in favor of the capitalist directorate, destroyed.
I am not going to whitewash the Soviet-era accounting — it lacked historically introduced eclecticism and rubbish — but there were also amazing insights and finds in Soviet accounting, like the same amortization and other similar funds. Miracles, otherwise you will not tell.
However, miracles are found not only in programming, but even in such a musty and hardened field, like accounting. Yes, yes, in herself, in accounting, for which I have ambivalent feelings: sincere and ardent sympathy (after all, this is my original profession) and equally long-standing and passionate hatred (I know about bookkeeping ).
At this time, focus on the positive. Let me tell you about one wonderful invention in the field of accounting methodology called “depreciation fund”.
')
I suspect that you have not heard about the depreciation fund, and even if you have heard something like that, you have no idea what it was used for. And you are not alone. It is unlikely that modern accountants have an idea about him - unless those dinosaurs, whose work experience has passed for thirty. Because the concept of a depreciation fund disappeared from accounting practice in the distant 1992, and even earlier its economic meaning was understood mostly in the higher accounting and management echelons, that is, not all ordinary accountants. Therefore, the withdrawal of the depreciation fund from the Chart of Accounts did not cause a public outcry. I understand it was not so: the social structure of a huge state was changing, the entire legal framework was revised ...
But will not get ahead of the bat in hell. Let's get started
These were the accounting entries for the accounting of fixed assets according to the Chart of Accounts from 1985:
The stump is clear, IT accounting entries will not say anything. Therefore I will not dwell on them, but I will explain the essence of the matter.
Earlier, in the days of a planned economy, state-owned enterprises received fixed assets (that is, the means of production, if we use economic terminology) from ministries. Ministries could allocate money for the purchase of fixed assets, but this did not change the essence of the matter.
In the process of work, the fixed assets gradually wore out and became useless, then the enterprises re-purchased them, as needed.
So, the depreciation fund allowed controlling the use of fixed assets, in the sense that it restricted the purchase of fixed assets within the scope initially received from the ministry.
In accordance with the correspondence of the above accounts of the balance of accounts involved means the following:
Everything that is taken into account now (the top lines), plus the amount by which fixed assets can be purchased (the bottom line) was taken into account. Hence the “depreciation” in the name of the account: arithmetically it is just the sum of the accrued depreciation, changing in this order:
- increases by the amount of accrued depreciation
- reduced by the amount of purchased fixed assets.
Not moved? I explain.
The state enterprise had the right to purchase the fixed assets in the amount of a depreciation fund, not more.
For example, an enterprise received from the ministry equipment worth 2 million rubles. The depreciation fund is zero, additional purchase of equipment is impossible.
Time passed, and the equipment was depreciated at 300 thousand rubles. Accordingly, the depreciation fund increased by 300 thousand rubles: it became possible to purchase equipment by this amount.
Purchased that the equipment for 200 thousand rubles. The depreciation fund decreased by 200 thousand rubles, respectively, there remained 100 thousand rubles, for which it is still possible to additionally purchase equipment.
And so on, as needed.
As a result, the cost of equipment at such a state enterprise could not exceed 2 million rubles. - the amount originally allocated by the ministry. There was a formal opportunity to purchase additional equipment (subject to the availability of cash, of course), but such a purchase could not be made out in the accounting entries: the correspondence of the accounts did not provide for such. With a lack of a depreciation fund, no chief accountant would sign a payment, especially a receipt document. Speaking in accounting terms, fixed assets were purchased at the expense of a depreciation fund, and not otherwise. Therefore, the idea of ​​illegal procurement of fixed assets in the heads of directors did not even originate, it was too dangerous. It is clear, and kosyachili, and khimichili - but more clever and secretive ways.
Pay attention to how beautifully the desired effect is achieved: not by a regulatory ban or by the need to submit a report to the tax authority, which they would not fail to do now, with trivial accounting entries! A real miracle, in my opinion. It is for such methodological features that I love accounting.
Now we turn to modernity.
Does a modern director have the opportunity to purchase fixed assets as much as he wishes? Oh yes, if there is an amount in the company's bank account. Does the director have the opportunity to transfer all the money at the disposal of the enterprise to Dandelion LLC? And so it happens, very often. Are there any restrictions on the use of funds received from the founders? There are some legal restrictions, but there are no methodological limitations, and this is a determining factor. After receiving the money from the founders, the director has the unhindered opportunity to drive them offshore, then bankrupt the enterprise. (Please do not upset me - do not say that for these purposes there is an account of the authorized capital: this account only shows the amounts stated in the constituent documents, nothing more).
Even in the framework of the current capitalist logic, this is blatant outrage. The founders invest in the development of the enterprise, which implies: fixed assets must be purchased for a certain amount, working capital for a certain amount, the remaining part of the share capital must make up the wage fund and reserves in case of force majeure. The established proportions must be observed in the production process, that is, in the process of constant replacement of fixed and current assets. These proportions can be controlled through the correspondence of accounting accounts, because the need for control — whether from the ministries, or from private investors — has not gone away. Alas, accounting control is deliberately, in favor of the capitalist directorate, destroyed.
I am not going to whitewash the Soviet-era accounting — it lacked historically introduced eclecticism and rubbish — but there were also amazing insights and finds in Soviet accounting, like the same amortization and other similar funds. Miracles, otherwise you will not tell.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/455158/
All Articles