General issues of extrabudgetary financing. Extrabudgetary funding

When forming resources for extrabudgetary financing of innovations, the following primary sources are used:

means of depreciation of intangible assets included in the cost of production, which reflect the transfer of the cost of R & D and scientific and
technical innovations on the cost of products;

means of depreciation deductions for renovation in the part in which the cost of the main production assets implicitly
pre-production costs are taken into account, including the costs of R&D and innovation;

income from the sale (transfer) of scientific and technical products, property rights to objects of intellectual and industrial property, as well as income from the sale of objects of the material and technical infrastructure of science and the rights to use them;

income from direct and portfolio investment in R&D and technological development, received in the form of dividends and deductions from profits
whether (royalties);

funds for the purchase of objects of privatization of the scientific and technical sphere and share premium received as a result of institutional transformations in order to return to the state the capital invested by it in R&D and technological development;

Compensation for unauthorized (unlicensed) use of scientific and technical innovations as objects of intellectual and industrial property.

These funds can be used to upgrade and expand production, implement research, development and technological projects and programs for the development of new types of competitive products, increase own working capital.

An important role in the financing of innovation activity is played by measures of indirect incentives, which are primarily understood as the legal regulation of the participation of various institutions in the innovation process, the distribution of rights to the created intellectual property, as well as tax regulation.

In Japan, for example, the most significant and effective were individual taxation for promising industries and financial support for small and medium-sized businesses, which played a very large role in the dynamics of innovation.

Comparison of tax rates in different countries is very difficult, since each country establishes different types of tax incentives for certain types of activities.

In 1975, the OECD conducted a comparative analysis of tax incentive policies in 22 countries. The purpose of the analysis was a comparative assessment of taxes on various types of capital investments. Japan in these years had the lowest rate.

Economic studies have called into question the real impact of tax incentives on the efficiency of innovation processes in the absence of other elements of public policy (for example, easier loans). Studies by Japanese scientists have shown that in addition to tax measures, the free access of growing firms to borrowed capital through the banking system is just as fruitful.

Japanese innovators benefited from lower interest rates when they received loans. A mechanism was created to compensate banks for the provision of cheap credit. It consisted in reducing the interest on personal deposits, issuing securities and other activities. A similar mechanism that promotes innovation is still operating in the US, Germany and other countries.

The interest rate in developed market countries is influenced by entrepreneurial income and investment returns, the share of financing, tax policy, demand for borrowed funds, changes in GNP, inflation, loan maturity, risk level, the country's budget, the share of foreign capital, etc. In the USA, for example, 11 indicators of this kind were used.

In the world capital market, loan capital is regarded as a self-increasing value. Hence, the investment process is primarily determined by the expected rate of return on investments made.

In turn, the expected profitability of investments in the real sector of the economy determines the size of investment demand at each level of loan interest. For both the lender and the borrower, the main motivation is to maximize income in the form of loan interest or entrepreneurial profit. At the same time, the upper limit of the loan interest is set in some cases at the level of the average rate of profit, the lower limit - at the level of zero.

In many Western countries, the size of the interest rate plays a key role in adjusting the market to inflation. In calculations of this kind, the approach within the framework of the Fisher model is used. It considers the mechanism of increasing the level of the interest rate, which compensates for the provision
means of payment used in credit calculations. Rising prices lead to
decrease in the purchasing power of money and interest
payments. In turn, this distinguishes the level of interest rates on loans.
ladies on the amount of real income on capital. However, the dynamics of this process is extremely complex. In the United States, for example, in the early 1980s, the state prevented an increase in interest rates by imposing interest restrictions on a number of credit transactions.

The share of self-financing of investments shows what part of the financing of corporations for the specified purposes is carried out at the expense of internal sources. With its increase, the demand for loans decreases and, accordingly, the amount of loan interest decreases. This trend is characteristic of the global economy. For example, in the United States in the 1980s, the share of self-financing exceeded 75%.

Japan in the 50s and 70s. 20th century the share of bank loans amounted to 92% of the total funding, and in 1989 already 59.9% of investments in the innovation sphere were carried out through self-financing.

As for European firms, here the main sources of financing are traditionally profits and borrowed funds. During the 80s and the first half of the 90s, their profits grew faster than stock prices: in France - an average of 1.12 times; In Switzerland - at 1.26; in Spain - 1.4; in Germany - 1.76 times.

A significant source of financing innovations in the Western economy in the last decades of the last century was the personal savings of the population. Thus, Japan was able to significantly increase the financing of innovations through a well-thought-out policy of influencing personal savings through a bank loan. She had in those years the highest personal savings in the world, which were twice as high as in the US and the UK. In the Japanese banking system of the 70s, according to the current legislation, deposits of individuals up to 3 million yen were not taxed, the very number of such deposits was not specified. As a result, the Postal Savings Bank alone contained 1/5 of national savings - $400 billion.

Various explanations have been given for this phenomenon. It was believed that this was the existence of a system of bonuses for each six months, and the limited development of consumer credit, and the existence of a rural population with low incomes, and thrift as a feature of the Japanese, etc. But, most likely, this is due to the growth of real incomes of the population due to wage growth and stable, and in some places even falling prices for consumer goods. From an economic point of view, the high level of savings of the Japanese in the 70-80s. is quite consistent with rapid economic growth and a positive trend in innovation financing.

Financial flows have changed significantly in the last decades of the 20th century. International integration contributed to the increase in international transactions within national credit systems. For example, in the USA in 1983-1984. 14.8% of the need for financial resources was provided by foreign capital.

In the US, most of the manufacturing investment that Hill famously defines is in industries where US companies tend to have some technological advantage. The US is known for its firms' ability to pioneer in a growing domestic market and then use monopoly advantages to expand into protected overseas markets. Japanese firms preferred the way to the foreign market through high technology products, rather than through the export of capital.

In the last decades of the 20th century, international scientific and technical cooperation in science-intensive industries began to actively form. In the field of space technology in Western Europe, the Arianspace consortium was organized, in which 60% of the participation was accounted for by state institutions and private firms.

Scientific and technical cooperation existed not only between industrial enterprises of different countries, large corporations financed the research of foreign universities. Toshiba Corporation has invested $5 million in the work of the University of Arizona, aimed at developing special medical technology, and thereby received the right to use any technology that was obtained. Not only the largest, but also small firms were involved in scientific, technical and industrial cooperation.

In the 1980s, small business and similar forms became an increasingly active component of the innovation mechanism and the object of state regulation. Initially, small innovative business won a strong place for itself in the final final stages of R&D and market entry. Over time, its ability to quickly respond to market requirements, mobility and efficiency, as well as cost-effectiveness began to be used by large corporations.

The scientific literature continues to argue about where the innovation process is more effective: in large corporations that combine research, production and marketing under one roof, or in small innovation structures. So far, unfortunately, I haven't found a definitive solution to this problem.

The first group of scientists believes that the effectiveness of innovations directly depends on the size of the firm. For the first time, the outstanding economist J. Schumpeter spoke about the innovative function of an entrepreneur in the economy at the beginning of the century, who believed that entrepreneurship is directly related to the development of technology, innovation and economic growth. In his early works, he paid great attention to the individual entrepreneur-innovator, but later put forward the position that only a large firm with its professional management and the desire for monopoly can better adapt to scientific and technological progress, ensure the effectiveness of scientific developments, economies of scale, recoup costs and maintain a strong reputation for the new product.

Of modern economists, J. Galbraith adheres to the point of view about the advantages of big business in this area. He believes that only large firms can successfully promote technical innovations. Galbraith classifies them as part of the planning system, believing that corporations are still the main actors in the field of R&D, organizational and technological innovations: "Since capital is required for technical innovations, as well as an appropriate organization, their implementation is mainly limited to the planning system."

Compared to small and medium large enterprises in financial support for the development of innovations have significant advantages. Usually, significant discoveries also require significant costs, the costs of mastering innovations can unexpectedly increase several times, and only large business structures are able to bring such developments to the final result.

A feature and advantage of scientific research in large organizations (associations, holdings) is also the implementation of multi-purpose research. The scientific and technological divisions of such organizations have the opportunity to unite researchers and scientists in many fields of knowledge. This allows, in case of inefficiency of one direction, to switch to another, as well as to conduct parallel development and financing of several innovations. All this significantly increases the efficiency of innovation activity.

Some scientists (F. Scherer, R. Stillerman and others), on the contrary, believe that the large size of enterprises has a negative effect on the development of scientific research. They give numerous examples in favor of small and medium-sized firms, referring to the book of American economists J. Jukes, F. Sauers and R. Stillerman "Research Sources", which analyzes in detail the origin of 61 inventions of the first half of the 20th century. The authors found that large enterprises accounted for 12 inventions, small and medium - 16 and independent inventors - 33 inventions. On this basis, they conclude that the size of the enterprise does not directly affect the efficiency and number of inventions.

British economists C. Norris and J. Weizea urge not to oppose large and small business in the field of R&D, but to consider them as complementary structures. They believe that at the stage of accumulation of technical knowledge "small firms should play the main role, and at the stage of development and marketing, when the scale of operations, large firms should enter, which have more advantages in this regard compared to small firms."

Therefore, the question of the impact of the size of the enterprise on efficiency or simply on the ability to scientific research cannot be answered unambiguously. One thing is clear, that in order to solve large scientific and production programs, significant amounts of funding are needed, which is sometimes beyond the power of small business structures. However, if the total expenditure on R&D in large and small businesses is not comparable, then, as modern research shows, small businesses spend their money more efficiently and use their scientific and technical potential more rationally.

It should be remembered that expenditure indicators are not an exhaustive characteristic of scientific and technical activities, since they do not take into account many factors: the intensity of scientific research, the enthusiasm and dedication of staff, etc. According to the OECD, small and medium-sized firms account for 10-20% of all new products, although their share in the cost of innovation is only 4-5%, and today no one doubts the fact that small businesses work more efficiently in the field of research and development. Studies conducted in the United States have shown that small innovative firms with up to 300 employees and specializing in innovation produce 24 times more innovation per dollar invested in R&D than large corporations (with more than 10,000 employees).

The basis for the success of small high-tech firms is the narrow specialization of scientific research, the development of a small circle of technical ideas. Large corporations and their laboratories are developing several tens and even hundreds of projects, which often leads to the dispersion of material and labor resources.

Small firms are developing mainly at the first stages (generation of an idea, the birth of an invention), when significant material, personnel and organizational costs are not yet required. The reason for the efficiency of R&D costs in small and medium innovative enterprises is the greater interest in innovation compared to large corporations, which use only half of their inventions, while small businesses use more than 70%

Most often, large corporations, having conquered markets, may for some time resist significant technical innovations. Control over prices, combined with the huge size of production and sales, allow large firms to be content with the evolutionary improvement of technology and technology, which brings quite large profits. The development of new products not only leads to great risk, but also worsens the situation in old markets, and can also lead to a fall in prices. Small firms, on the other hand, strive to conquer some part of the industry market, adopting fundamentally new technical solutions; they have no other way out in the face of fierce competition. In addition, access to the markets of traditional goods for new small enterprises is practically closed.

However, R&D firms large and small
and developments, are interested in cooperation with each other. For large
corporations is an opportunity to quickly and relatively cheaply obtain
results requiring only minimal refinement, and reducing the degree of risk for carrying out similar R&D in-house. For small enterprises, this is an occasion to solve many problems associated with the completion of work and entering the market, since large firms in this case act as organizers and sources of financing.

Many small innovative firms are also attracted by risky (venture) financing, when they are, as it were, a link between fundamental and applied research.

The main form of financial support for innovative entrepreneurs, whose activities are associated with increased risk, but also promises high profits, is venture capital investments. This business took a very important place at the turn of the century.

The practice of venture capital financing has become widespread in Silicon Valley. The economic value of venture capital funding is that most technological revolutions have been spearheaded by venture capital (VC) funded firms. Thanks to the support of VK, the most successful companies in recent years have risen to their feet: such as DEK, Apple Computer, Compak, Sun Microsystems, Federal Express, Microsoft, Lotus, Intel and Netscape. In the US, the top 4% of the fastest growing firms, most of which are backed by venture capital, create 70% of all new jobs.

The name venture comes from the English "venture" - a risky venture or undertaking. The term risk itself implies that there is an element of adventurism in the relationship between the investor and the entrepreneur who claims to receive money from him.

Venture capital enterprises can be of two types: risky business and internal risky projects of large corporations. In turn, the actual risky business is represented by two main types of business entities: independent small innovative enterprises (SIL); the financial institutions that provide them with capital.

To finance venture capital, capital is attracted from financial institutions. Some financial institutions have their own venture funds, and in some countries there is an informal market for venture capital (private investors - business angels) and large companies (corporate venture capital).

Venture (risk) capital is money placed in a new enterprise in the form of debt obligations or ordinary shares. This capital is not registered for several years, since debt obligations (ordinary shares) cannot be sold until their issue is registered, i.e. for several years they do not have liquidity. Thus, venture investments are risk capital directed to the development of fast-growing firms that arise in the process of implementing a commercially promising entrepreneurial project. Venture capital does not have a guarantee of income in the form of a fixed percentage, as well as in the form of collateral or guarantees of its return to the investor.

There are many definitions of what venture financing is, but they all somehow boil down to its functional task: to promote the growth of a particular business by providing a certain amount of money in exchange for a share in the authorized capital or a certain block of shares.

Classical venture financing is distinguished by the following characteristics:

it is carried out directly into the share capital of companies;

it implies high risk;

there is a long-term lack of liquidity;

return on investment is carried out through the sale of shares (stakes in
share capital) of companies.

The subjects of venture business are: financial acceptors - venture companies and start-up entrepreneurs; financial donors - individuals, companies and specialized funds; financial and information intermediaries that provide communication between representatives of the first groups.

Funded mainly by companies operating in the field of high technology. Unlike ordinary investments (investment), this type of financing is highly "piece" business. Venture capitalists - private firms and individuals - with the help of hired experts, study in detail how the product proposed for financing and its impact on future market, and the company offering it, its specialists, the outlined field of intellectual property, management, financial condition, history.

Venture capital investments can be analyzed taking into account the stage of development of companies - investment objects according to the industry principle, as well as depending on the volume of capital investments. In Western Europe, venture capital is used mainly for development purposes. However, as individual transaction financing expanded, in most cases yielding lower returns but associated with significantly less risk, venture capital in continental Europe began to focus on this area of investment in the 1990s. In a number of countries, the growth of venture capital entrepreneurship is largely due to the increased interest of management personnel in acquiring the enterprises in which they are employed during the 1980s. Such a structure of venture capital is typical today, primarily for Great Britain and France. The exception for Europe is the Netherlands, where venture capital funding is widespread and organized in much the same way as in North America. In Germany, the structure of venture capital is a cross between its structure in the Netherlands and France.

The IWE countries are still far behind the Western European countries in terms of the level of development of the venture capital market. Risky investments made possible by the liquidation of the Iron Curtain were often undertaken in conjunction with mass privatization. At the initial stages of the transformation of the economy, there were no institutions with the capital and know-how necessary for the implementation of venture capital investments by methods standard for Western countries. While the first investment was made, it was mostly done in the traditional form of credit, often without proper prior analysis.

In general, the penetration of foreign venture capital investors into the CEE market is caused both by external factors (the departure of investors from problematic regions, for example, from South-East Asia, diversification of the investment portfolio), as well as internal reasons related to the attractiveness of this region for venture financing.

Measures of state support for the development of venture capital, which are actively and very successfully used at present in the United States and Western European countries, are divided into direct and indirect.

Direct measures to support venture capital include specific government support mechanisms aimed at increasing the supply of venture capital. These programs have primarily taken the form of financial incentives, but also include riskier public equity investments and government loans. Such instruments can be directed to venture capital funds and/or directly to small and medium-sized enterprises. Direct financing in developed countries that have chosen an innovative model of economic development is about 3% of the country's GNP.

Indirect measures to support venture capital include: development of competitive capital markets for small and growing firms, expansion of the range of products offered by financial institutions, development of long-term sources of capital, simplification of the procedure for the formation of venture capital funds, stimulation of interaction between large and small enterprises and financial institutions, encouragement of entrepreneurship. When developing state support programs, it is important to take into account what stage of the investment process the state policy is aimed at. The experience of foreign countries shows that new small firms especially need support in the early stages of their development, and the supply of financing for these stages from the private sector is usually not enough, especially outside the United States. At the same time, in Japan, the costs for the IMTF in the early stages of development are higher than for other small firms. However, it is obvious that without the normal development of start-up firms, it is pointless to develop support for later stages. Practice also shows that the rate of return in the early stages increases as experience accumulates and the development of the venture capital industry reaches a critical mass. Therefore, it is in this area that state support is especially relevant.

Thus, by the end of the 20th century, the role of elements of state regulation of innovation processes in the financing of the innovation sphere in the developed countries of the world has significantly increased. They undergo changes as they move into different phases of the cycle, as national priorities change, but the regulating and guiding "hand" of the state is always clearly visible.

The concept of strong state programs to support the innovation process is to encourage development by "pushing" industry to self-development, rather than distributing free financial resources. At the same time, the legislative base is being built in such a way as to encourage financial structures to be included in the innovation process. For this purpose, a tax rebate (6-10%) has been established on the total amount of investments in the active part of the fixed capital; a reduction (by 25%) of corporate taxable income from appropriations for research and development; introduced tax incentives for companies providing equipment and financial resources to the higher education system; Patent laws have been amended to ensure that corporations retain ownership of patents obtained in the course of R&D under government contracts. As a result of the implementation of an effective state policy, today Germany, the USA, and Japan possess 48% of the world's latest technologies.

In Russia, budget spending on fundamental science has been steadily declining since the collapse of the USSR, as the table clearly shows.

The scale of investment in the innovation sector is different in different phases of the cycle. The development of basic investments, which require large investments that pay off in the long term, occurs during periods of recovery from the crisis and recovery. Since the propensity to save and innovate during a crisis weakens, the state directly supports innovation activity, contributing to the revival of the economy and strengthening its competitiveness. The scale of state support in the phases of recovery and stable development is reduced, and the innovation process itself is carried out on a competitive basis. During this period, improving innovations predominate, requiring less investment and not associated with such significant risk as in the case of basic innovations. This makes it possible to reduce the scale of state support for innovation. The level of innovation and investment activity is minimal in the crisis phase, when pseudo-innovations are developed that do not require significant improvements.

Analyzing these indicators, we can come to the conclusion that it is more appropriate to talk about financial discrimination in this area compared to other items of budget expenditures. Thus, if in 2001 expenditures under the heading "Basic research and promotion of scientific and technological progress" were indexed 1.3 times, then, for example, on military reform - 3.9 times, international activities - 2.1 times.

In developed countries, the productivity of equipment with the use of production intellectualization systems, CALS-technologies is higher than conventional universal equipment by 20-25 times or more. Contrary to such patterns, economic transformations in Russia are accompanied by a sharp decline in innovation activity. If in the late 80s. Innovatively active enterprises in the industry as a whole accounted for 60-70% (that is, at the level of developed countries), but in recent years their number has decreased to 1.5-2.5%. Fesenko Alexander Gennadievich

If you are interested in using our services, please contact us - we will definitely help you!

Lecture 5

Extrabudgetary funding

Founder's budget

sponsorship funds;

1. Main activity:

2. Other activities:

The main factors determining the effectiveness of extrabudgetary activities

1. Scientific potential

2. Internal regulatory framework

3. General policy towards extrabudgetary activities

4. Availability of a license and its parameters, accreditations, certificates, etc.

5. Region of location

6. Equipment

7. Production capacity

8. Information resources

9. Library fund

10. Premises

11. Frames

12. Earth

13. Methodological base

14. Image and cooperation with graduates of the educational institution

The widest opportunities are provided by the implementation of various types of activities by an educational institution, within the framework of which it is possible to receive income from:

Provision of paid educational services;

Provision of paid additional educational services that are not provided for by the relevant educational programs and state educational standards;

Sale of services and products manufactured by pupils and students during the period of internship, sale of services and other products of structural divisions and territorially separate divisions, endowed in accordance with the provisions on these divisions with the right to maintain accounting records and their own estimate of income and expenses on extra-budgetary funds;

Trade in purchased goods, equipment;

Provision of intermediary services;

Previously acquired shares, bonds and other securities (dividends, interest);

Medical, sanatorium and resort activities;

Sports, physical culture and health-improving activities;

Excursion, tourism activities;

Consulting (consulting) services;

marketing services;

audit activities;

Expert activity;

Activities of libraries, archives;

legal services;

Transport services, including transportation of the population and goods by own transport;

Communication services, including services in the areas of information and telecommunication systems, telematic services, data transmission services, local telephone communication services;

Production and sale of products (services) of public catering;

Activities in the field of metrology, standardization, certification, environmental certification;

Testing, maintenance and repair of devices,

equipment and other technology;

Organization of fairs, auctions, exhibitions, cultural and other events, etc.

The above list is not exhaustive, since specific educational institutions may carry out some of their specific types of extrabudgetary activities.

Extrabudgetary financing of an educational institution

Income from extrabudgetary activities is at independent disposal

educational institution. Therefore, the educational institution can spend them on its own. It is believed that these funds can be used almost "any way" and, first of all, to compensate for the lack of budget financing. Much has been said and written on this subject during the period of the budget deficit. Now the severity of the problem of budget financing has been significantly reduced, but the problem of using extra-budgetary funds remains.

FEDERAL LAW N 273-FZ DATED 29.12.2012 (RED. DATED 07.05.2013 WITH AMENDMENTS IN EFFECT FROM 19.05.2013) "ON EDUCATION IN THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION"

Chapter 13. ECONOMIC ACTIVITY AND FINANCIAL SECURITY IN THE SPHERE OF EDUCATION

Article 103. Creation by educational organizations higher education economic companies and economic partnerships whose activities consist in the practical application (implementation) of the results of intellectual activity

Educational organizations of higher education, which are budgetary institutions, autonomous institutions, have the right, without the consent of the owner of their property, with notification of the federal executive body in charge of developing state policy and legal regulation in the field of scientific and scientific and technical activities, to be founders (in including jointly with other persons) business companies and business partnerships whose activities consist in the practical application (implementation) of the results of intellectual activity (programs for electronic computers, databases, inventions, utility models, industrial designs, breeding achievements, topologies of integrated circuits, secrets of production (know-how), the exclusive rights to which belong to the specified educational organizations (including jointly with other persons). The certificates must be sent by the educational institutions of higher education specified in this part within seven days from the date of making an entry in the unified state register of legal entities on the state registration of a business company or business partnership.
The educational organizations of higher education specified in part 1 of this article, as a contribution to the authorized capital of such economic companies and the share capital of such economic partnerships, contribute the right to use the results of intellectual activity (programs for electronic computers, databases, inventions, utility models, industrial designs, breeding achievements, topologies of integrated circuits, production secrets (know-how), the exclusive rights to which belong to the specified educational organizations (including jointly with other persons). under a license agreement, is approved by the decision of the sole founder (general meeting of founders) of a business company or participants in a business partnership, adopted by all founders of a business company or participants in business partnership unanimously. If the nominal value or increase in the nominal value of the share or shares of a member of a business company in the authorized capital of a business company or the share or shares paid for by a contribution to the share capital of a business partnership is more than five hundred thousand rubles, such a contribution must be assessed by an independent appraiser.
Cash, equipment and other property held in operational management educational institutions of higher education specified in part 1 of this article may be made as a contribution to the authorized capital of business companies and the share capital of business partnerships in the manner prescribed by the civil legislation of the Russian Federation.
The educational organizations of higher education specified in part 1 of this article have the right to involve other persons as founders (participants) of a business company or participants in a business partnership.
Educational organizations of higher education, which are budgetary institutions, have the right to dispose of shares or shares in the authorized capital of economic companies and contributions to the share capital of economic partnerships owned by them, only with the prior consent of the respective owners. Such educational organizations of higher education manage shares or shares in the authorized capital of business companies and contributions to the share capital of business partnerships as participants in the manner prescribed by the civil legislation of the Russian Federation. The rights of participants in economic companies and economic partnerships on behalf of the said educational organizations of higher education are exercised by their heads.
Income from the disposal of shares or shares in the authorized capital of business companies and contributions to the share capital of business partnerships, the founders (participants) of which are the educational organizations of higher education specified in Part 1 of this Article, shall come to their independent disposal.

Lecture 5

Extrabudgetary funding

Classification of extrabudgetary income

1. The concept of extrabudgetary financing.

2. Sources of extrabudgetary funds, the procedure for extrabudgetary funding.

3. Improving extrabudgetary activities in education.

The concept of “extrabudgetary activity” in relation to the field of education has developed quite a long time ago. Its content was determined based on the fact that, along with activities financed from the budget, an educational institution has the opportunity to carry out “additional” activities, which is called “in their free time from their main work” and using their human and material potential.

Financial support for this activity was carried out, as a rule, not from the budget, therefore, the activity was called and is often called “extra-budgetary”. The funds received from the implementation of such activities are usually called extrabudgetary funding, extrabudgetary receipts, income from the independent activities of an educational institution. These terms also developed a long time ago, they are used mainly as synonyms, although they reflect different relationships.

If it is a gratuitous provision of funds from the founding commercial organization (from profit after taxes), then this can also be considered budget financing.

Is it possible in this case to say that extra-budgetary (or non-budgetary) funding is all other receipts of funds to an educational institution? Usually they say so. All funds received by an educational institution not from the budget, of course, are extrabudgetary. In this case, the so-called “negative definition” is used, as a distinguishing feature, their “non-belonging” to a specific source of income - to the budget, is chosen, and it does not matter which budget. Perhaps this is not the most successful classification, but it has become firmly established in everyday life, and the term has a generally accepted character.

Thus, the funds received by the educational institution are divided into budgetary and extrabudgetary. It would be logical to call all funds received by an educational institution income, but in relation to budgetary funds this term is usually not used, but is applied so far only to extrabudgetary receipts.

As shown earlier, budgetary funds received by an educational institution in the financing mode are characterized by two main features:

Aimed at very specific costs (in accordance with the estimate);

They come free of charge, i.e., in return for these funds, the owner does not receive an equivalent from the educational institution in the form of goods and (or) services.

Thus, funding can come from the following sources:

Founder's budget

sponsorship funds;

Own funds at the independent disposal of the institution (organization).

The classification of extrabudgetary income is the basis for determining:

● areas of extrabudgetary activity of educational institutions.

Two main groups can be chosen as the basic elements of the classification, which determine the nature of the activity, the financial result and possible tax consequences. These groups include:

1. Main activity:

● implementation of one or more educational programs;

● carrying out research work;

● activities for the provision and maintenance of the educational and research process.

2. Other activities:

Works (services) performed (rendered) using the resources of an educational institution (territory, premises, equipment, etc.):

Lecture plan

1. The concept of extrabudgetary funding

2. Sources of extrabudgetary funds

3. Order of extrabudgetary financing

4. Improving extrabudgetary activities in education

The funds received from the implementation of such activities are usually called extrabudgetary funding, extrabudgetary receipts, income from the independent activities of an educational institution. These terms also developed a long time ago, they are used mainly as synonyms, although they reflect different relationships.

What is budget financing, obviously, is clear to everyone, at least from the previous lectures. In addition, this concept has entered life so tightly that everyone has their own idea of it. Recall that to consider the economic problems of education, it is convenient to use this term, bearing in mind that this is a gratuitous provision of the activities of educational institutions with the funds of the founder's budget. It is usually understood - state and municipal. It should be added that if this is a gratuitous provision of funds from the founding commercial organization (from profit after taxes), then this can also be considered budget financing.

Is it possible in this case to say that extra-budgetary (or non-budgetary) funding is all other receipts of funds to an educational institution? Usually they say so.

All funds received by an educational institution not from the budget, of course, are extrabudgetary. In this case, the so-called “negative definition” is used, their “non-belonging” is chosen as a distinguishing feature.

to a certain source of income - to the budget, and it does not matter to which budget. Perhaps this is not the most successful classification, but it has become firmly established in everyday life, and the term has a generally accepted character. Thus, the funds received by the educational institution are divided into budgetary and non-budgetary (Fig. 7.1). It would be logical to call all funds received by an educational institution income, but in relation to budgetary funds this term is usually not used, but is applied so far only to extrabudgetary receipts.

Rice. 7.1. Funds received by the institution from various sources

As shown earlier, budgetary funds received by an educational institution in the financing mode are characterized by two main features:

Aimed at very specific costs (in accordance with the estimate);

They come free of charge, i.e., in return for these funds, the owner does not receive an equivalent from the educational institution in the form of goods and (or) services.

Sometimes it is said, however, that the state or municipal budget, on behalf of the society, pays for the education of young people, and the society receives the equivalent of its expenses in the form of educated people. But this is, at the very least, debatable. After all, a person has been taught for several years, the equivalence of the amount of knowledge and skills acquired by him to the costs incurred for this process is not obvious, the return to society from a trained person may not correspond to the costs of training, and it may not exist at all (the person left the country), etc. .

This does not mean at all that budgetary funds cannot go to an educational institution in any other way. They can, of course. The state can, for example, acquire (purchase at market prices) goods and services for its own needs. Therefore, to understand financing, it is necessary to introduce one more important feature: only its founder and owner can finance an organization (according to the definition given in the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, Art. 120). In this way, an educational institution can be financed by the state or a municipality, or even by a private person. It should be noted that the most widespread point of view is that an institution can have only one founder, since an institution can only be financed from the budget of the founder, and not the founders.

Of course, it is possible to discuss about the funds of sponsors, which differ in the targeted nature and are transferred on a gratuitous basis (usually). Therefore, they can also be informally considered funding, although not from the side of the founder. In addition, the concept of “self-financing” is known, i.e. financing by the organization of its own work performed within the organization, at the expense of funds owned (disposed) of this organization. The results of such work can be:

Consumed by the same organization, in this case, self-financing is presented in the form of reimbursement of own costs for the performance of work at its own expense;

Received in the form of some product, intellectual object, etc., which can be further realized (sold, used for the production of goods or services), which will compensate (in full, in part or with a profit) the costs incurred, or put aside "in stock, in advance”, which should increase the assets of the organization.

But since both of these options have as an end result a specific product, in one form or another used by the organization, then, strictly speaking, this financing is not. Rather, this option should be attributed to the acquisition by the organization of goods, works, services (even if it is from itself). Another question is if an organization spends its money on, for example, research work that does not bring tangible results (at least for a certain period of time), then this can probably be considered self-financing.

Thus, funding can come from the following sources:

Founder's budget

sponsorship funds;

Own funds at the independent disposal of the institution (organization).

And to be even more precise, it should be pointed out that those funds of the organization that remain with it after paying off the costs incurred to obtain these funds, i.e. profit, and even after the settlement of relations with the tax system.

Therefore, in order to be self-financing, an educational institution (by definition, a non-profit organization!) must be aimed at making a profit and solve the problems of a commercial organization.

Let's return to extrabudgetary funds and extrabudgetary financing.

The main sources of extra-budgetary funds are income from the independent activities of the educational institution, carried out outside the framework of the activities financed from the budget of the founder, as well as various donations that do not have a target character. The list of main sources is presented in Table. 7.1.

Table 7.1. Extrabudgetary funds and extrabudgetary funding

Therefore, when talking about extrabudgetary funding, it should be understood as spending the profits received as a result of income-generating activities, as well as donations received from “non-founders”, to reimburse expenses for the types of activities necessary for the activities of the organization.

Understanding the main features of extrabudgetary funding, we will still consider that extrabudgetary funding is the receipt and expenditure of funds by an educational institution from extrabudgetary sources. Consideration of the features of this process will be the subject of this lecture.

At present, the conditions for managing both commercial and budgetary institutions are undergoing significant changes. Budgetary organizations, in comparison with commercial enterprises, have a more complex structure for accounting for funds. Unlike commercial organizations, budgetary organizations receive subsidies from the budget. In addition, they can conduct entrepreneurial activities and receive extra-budgetary income from extra-budgetary activities.

In this article, we will take a closer look at extra-budgetary funds from activities that generate income for state, autonomous and state budgetary institutions of education, healthcare, culture, we will analyze how they are taken into account, what extra-budgetary sources of funding for budgetary institutions and what you need to know when providing paid services in a budgetary institution .

First of all, let us turn to the concept of "budgetary institution".

State-financed organization- an organization established by state authorities of the Russian Federation, state authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, local governments for the implementation of managerial, socio-cultural, scientific, technical or other functions of a non-commercial nature, the activities of which are financed from the relevant budget and the budget of the state non-budgetary fund on the basis of estimates of income and expenses. Budget institutions - institutions of the non-productive sphere (socio-cultural, public authorities and public administration, defense, courts, prosecutors) that receive funds for their activities from the state budget.

Budget funds and funds received from extra-budgetary sources

Budgetary funds and funds received from extrabudgetary sources are accounted for by educational institutions in the accounts of the Federal Treasury or, in case of non-treasury services, in the accounts of credit institutions, as well as in cash and other monetary documents.

All funds received by institutions are accounted for separately, for the following groups:

for the intended purpose (subsidies for the implementation of the state municipal task, funds received from entrepreneurial activity, as well as targeted subsidies);
by sources of funding (funds received from the federal budget, the budgets of the constituent entities of the Federation and from local budgets);
at the place of registration (cash can be kept in treasury accounts, in a bank and at the cash desk);
according to the method of investment (non-cash funds, cash, check books, monetary documents, etc.).

Funds in foreign currency and funds in transit are accounted for separately. Accounting for all funds of an institution is regulated by Order of the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation dated December 16, 2010 N 174n "On Approval of the Chart of Accounts for Accounting of Budgetary Institutions and Instructions for its Application".

Extra-budgetary incomes and extra-budgetary sources of financing of budgetary institutions

Let's pay attention in more detail to the first group and talk about the funds received from entrepreneurial activities. When an institution conducts income-generating activities, it is important to understand how to properly manage the funds received. First of all, we will analyze the concept of extrabudgetary funds of a budgetary institution.

Extra-budgetary funds of budgetary institutions are incomes received by budgetary institutions in addition to appropriations allocated from the budget. There are three types of extrabudgetary funds:

special (funds received from the performance of organizations of work or services),
deposit (amounts for temporary storage),
amounts on instructions (amounts for payments for the intended purpose to legal entities or citizens).

Like any other non-profit organization, a budgetary institution can dispose of the funds received from entrepreneurial activity within the framework of certain norms regulated by regulatory legal acts, in particular, these are:

Civil Code of the Russian Federation;
Budget Code of the Russian Federation;
Order of the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation of December 16, 2010 N 174n "On approval of the Chart of Accounts for accounting of budgetary institutions and Instructions for its application";
Law of the Russian Federation of December 29, 2012 N 273-FZ "On Education in the Russian Federation" (for an educational institution);
Charter of a budgetary institution.

Extra-budgetary incomes of budgetary institutions can be formed through various types of activities: through the use of market principles of functioning, through attracting funds from legal entities and individuals engaged in charitable activities. Also, extra-budgetary sources of financing of budgetary institutions can be: funds received from the lease of state or municipal property.

Basically, income from entrepreneurial activity is generated by the provision of paid services in excess of the volume established by the state municipal task.

Features of the functioning of budget organizations receiving extra-budgetary income

Budgetary institutions have the right to provide paid services or conduct other business activities that generate income. Health and education institutions are organizations that are legally allowed to carry out entrepreneurial activities. To carry out certain types of activities, an institution must obtain an appropriate license without fail.

However, it is important to note that such activity takes place only if it contributes to the achievement of the goals for which the institution was created (clause 3, article 298 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). For example, Kindergarten is not authorized to provide building maintenance services or sell products. At the same time, kindergartens charge a fee for the maintenance of the child, and schools can organize paid circles and sections, because. it helps them to conduct the main activity - upbringing or education. The procedure for the introduction of paid services is established in Article 65 of the Law of the Russian Federation of December 29, 2012 N 273-FZ "On Education in the Russian Federation", which determines the conditions for establishing a fee charged from parents (legal representatives) for the supervision and care of children mastering educational programs of preschool education in organizations engaged in educational activities.

A budgetary institution may carry out entrepreneurial activity only if this is reflected in special constituent documents. Consequently, a budgetary institution must obtain permission from a higher organization (founder, owner of its property), after which this permission is fixed in the constituent documents and in the charter of the institution (clause 3 of article 298 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation; clause 2 of article 24 of Law No. 7- FZ).

When the legislation gives the right to conduct business, the institution is obliged to open a personal account. Along with the ability to carry out entrepreneurial activities, legislation in some cases may directly prohibit it. If entrepreneurial activity is harmful to the statutory educational activities of the institution, then the founder has the right to prohibit the provision of paid services.

A budgetary institution can dispose of income from entrepreneurial activity only in accordance with the plan of financial and economic activity, which clearly spells out the expenditure items of a budgetary organization. Income-generating activities of a budgetary institution are taxable activities. The procedure for taxation of budgetary organizations is determined by the Tax Code of the Russian Federation (Tax Code of the Russian Federation dated 08/05/2000 N 117-FZ (as amended on 06/23/2014)).

Expenses for income-generating activities form the cost of providing paid services based on primary documents. All information on accrued expenses should be disclosed in the financial statements, depending on whether these expenses are recognized as a financial result or not.

The financial result of entrepreneurial activity is the difference between income and expenses recognized as financial result. Positive financial results reflected in the financial statements and is subject to income tax. Most often, in budgetary educational institutions, the financial result zero so no income tax is payable.

Based on the foregoing, it can be concluded that the entrepreneurial activity of budgetary institutions is extremely different from commercial organizations. The main difference lies in the purpose of creating paid services, which in a budgetary institution must correspond to the general purpose of the institution (education, healthcare, etc.). In addition, both business income and expenses of a budgetary institution must be agreed with a higher organization.

This article is current as of March 2015.

Elena Shagalova
Education outsourcing specialist
Intercomp CBU