Is the goal to make money from invoicing?

- As for the issue of monetization, they are saying that invoices are free for now. Because invoice preparation services prepared invoices for free and trained people for several years, when all invoices began to be issued electronically, they made them paid. Similarly, transactional invoices are said to be free and tax-free. The invoice itself is a document confirming the sale of products and services. But there is no realization here – it does not make sense to issue an invoice.

As for the intended purpose, I see 2 things in it: in the case of monetization, the so-called free invoices will eventually be priced in the form of 10 soums, 20 soums, 100 soums, 200 soums for each invoice. What does this mean? If there are 1 million transactions per day, 200 soums means 200 million soums per day. Now calculate your monthly income. It’s just a way to get caught up with the transaction.

If the invoice is actually paid in installments, the cost will be borne by the sender. Usually, the money sender is interested in sending money faster.

“Transfers to a person may be blocked, just like a VAT certificate”

- There is a second side and it is very dangerous – no one sees this side. This is a case of blocking funds transferred from an individual to an individual. Now they can send an invoice, tomorrow they will not issue an invoice to such an individual. If I want to transfer money to you, the tax authority will put a block on the invoices for the money transferred to you. This means I won’t be able to transfer money to you.

No one will block your card, but you will be blocked from issuing an invoice. As a result, more people will move to e-management, and they will be interfering in more people’s personal finances. This will lead to more corruption in the future. They block anyone they want.

What can it be compared to? What was the first thing that was said when issuing a certificate on value added tax? In the Tax Code says that a VAT certificate will be issued and the State Tax Committee will manage the account of VAT payers. At that time, when we said that “tomorrow everyone will be tortured with a certificate”, they said: “No, it’s just for keeping accounts, there is no purpose of control here”. But if you look at it now, they will cancel the VAT certificate of the entrepreneur they don’t like. It is causing a lot of corruption. If they want, then they will someone to work, if not – they will be restricted from operating. Tax authorities ignore the court decisions and block the VAT certificates of entrepreneurs.

The same thing is happening with money transfers, they are following the trick that they don’t charge any tax. The danger is that tomorrow they might block transferring money to whoever they want, the platforms will not be able to do anything: “They don’t give the invoice, if they don’t give it, I can’t transfer it”. Now they begin to block the money circulation of individuals.

Before this norm was approved, was its impact on the economy analyzed?

- There is another situation. It is being discussed in the circles of tax authority employees: “Businessmen are asking to transfer to plastic when doing business, we want to prevent that”. Businessmen are making calculations by accepting payment from card to card, not from the terminal, so they say they want to control it. For this thing, the introduction of invoicing to everyone, the transition to management by blocking the transfer of money through invoices is nonsense. First of all, before any norm is issued, it should be analyzed and its impact on the economy should be studied.

How often do you ask for a plastic-to-plastic transfer? How much are plastic to plastic transactions? What is the approximate amount transferred from it for trade? How much was the tax due? Without such an analysis, people are doing such things, fearing that this has happened in 100, 1,000 cases, and this is being pushed into the legal norm. However, this is not a global problem. True, there are such cases, but first we need to study the impact on the economy.

In a normal situation, there are about 300,000 turnover tax payers. People who do P2P in this case are usually people who run small shops for a living. Big stores such as Korzinka and Makro do not say so. About 300,000 turnover tax payers, and the tax paid by all these 300,000 entrepreneurs makes up 2% of the total budget. What percentage of them are now asking to do P2P? It should be analyzed.

Even if we fear that 150,000 of them are asking for P2P, what percentage of their total sales are P2P payments?

“Rather, tax benefits should be removed”

- Without calculating and analyzing how much revenue has not been received in the budget, a norm is being introduced that will cause the discontent of the entire nation. Rather, if the benefits of giant organizations with large tax breaks are removed, instead of 2%, the budget can receive 4, 5, 7% more revenue.

Such big issues are being ignored. They are chasing very small losses and moving towards a system that leads to corruption.