A draft law No. 1192006-8 has been submitted to the State Duma. It is currently at the preliminary review stage, and the wording may still change, but the logic is already clear. And it is much broader than just changes to cash register equipment (CRE).
This is not about the cash register. This is about how business will now look to the tax system.


🔄 How it works now and what changes

‣ Current model: money flows separately, a receipt is generated separately, and the tax authority reconciles them after the fact.
‣ New model: payment, receipt, and tax information are combined into a single chain.

The gap between payment and receipt effectively disappears.

🏦 Banks become part of tax control

Under the draft, banks begin transmitting information about non-cash transactions to the Federal Tax Service (FTS), including identifiers and, in some cases, the taxpayer identification numbers (TIN) of settlement participants.

This means a simple thing: the tax authority sees not only the receipt but also the very fact of money movement. Control begins not with the receipt but with the payment. Previously, one could accept payment without issuing a receipt; now such a gap becomes technically noticeable immediately.

🧾 The receipt is no longer just for the customer

If settlement information is transmitted and confirmed, the receipt does not have to be issued immediately. The customer's right to receive it remains. But the essence is different: the receipt becomes an element of the control system, not a tool for customer interaction. It is needed by the system, not just the buyer.

⚠️ Where the main risk for business arises

‣ Previously, errors looked like this: forgot to issue a receipt, revenue didn't match, payment was allocated incorrectly. And this was often detected later.
‣ Now: the error is recorded at the moment of the transaction. Payment exists, receipt either exists or not, and the system reconciles this automatically.
The risk shifts from audits to daily operational work.


🚫 Register of CRE violators

A register of companies and individual entrepreneurs with systematic violations is introduced. The important thing is not the register itself, but the consequences:
• restrictions on posting information on the internet;
• impact on online sales;
• risks for leasing and working with platforms.


Additionally, this creates a reputational factor that can affect interactions with banks, partners, and counterparties.

🔗 Control extends beyond the FTS

Part of the control is transferred to the market. Trade organizers are required to check the availability of CRE among tenants and respond to violations. In effect, business starts checking business, as risks spread across the entire interaction chain.

In practice, control is no longer limited to the FTS and moves to the infrastructure level, affecting leasing, platforms, and business relationships.

🔍 What is important to check now

Even at the draft law stage, this is already an area of attention. It is worth reviewing:
• whether there are gaps between payment and receipt across all channels;
• whether CRE works correctly for non-cash payments (acquiring, SBP);
• whether there are transactions that fall outside the overall system;
• how the logic is structured for different legal entities and points.


And the main question: how does your business model look from the perspective of the tax system, not from the inside.

📌 Key conclusion

The focus shifts from control to the architecture of the system, in which each transaction becomes part of the overall logic and is reconciled with FTS data. In working with business, the main risk arises here: not in audits, but in daily actions. Any discrepancy is recorded immediately. And the question is no longer about reporting, but about how well the business logic withstands this transparency.