The tax office conducted a tax audit of the company and accrued additional taxes in the total amount of 3 179 559 UAH.
Start of the case - May 30, 2017.
Completion of the case - May 13, 2019.
According to the results of the litigation additional taxes were canceled.
Jusguard's lawyers provided all the necessary documents confirming the incorrect tax calculation by the tax office.
It's necessary to cancel in court the additional taxes assessed on the basis of the tax audit.
The court agreed with the legal position of Jusguard and solved the case in favor of the company.
The tax office conducted a tax audit of the taxpayer. As a result, land tax in the amount of 1 438 071, 44 UAH and a penalty in the amount of 359 517, 86 UAH was charged. According to the tax office, the taxpayer incorrectly paid land tax at a rate of 1% of the valuation of the land, and had to pay 3%.
Start of the case - August 31, 2016.
Completion of the case - February 21, 2019.
As a result of the litigation, the land tax and fine were abolished.
The court of first instance agreed with the tax office. The Appeal Court upheld the position of Jusguards’ lawyers and agreed that there were a lot of mistakes during the audit, that did not allow us to consider the penalty and tax lawful.
It is necessary to cancel the land tax and a penalty totaling more than 1.7 million UAH.
Land tax and the penalty were abolished in the Kyiv Appeal Administrative Court. The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal of the tax office without consideration.
The Tax Inspectorate denied the client of JSC Yusgard to register a tax invoice.
Start of the case - June 19, 2018
Completion of the case - November 6, 2018
As a result of a judicial appeal, it was established that the tax inspectorate did not unreasonably register a tax invoice.
Lawyers successfully proved that the company had taken all the necessary steps to register the tax invoice, but despite this, the Tax Inspectorate unlawfully refused to register the tax invoice.
Get the decision that the refusal to register a tax invoice is illegal.
The decision of the administrative court was made in favor of the taxpayer.
The Tax Inspectorate accrued penalties to the client of Jusguard Legal Services in the amount exceeding UAH 173 million due to the misuse of bioethanol, which is a violation of tax legislation.
Start of the case - March 30, 2015
Completion of the case - October 2, 2018
As a result of a judicial appeal, the unlawful use of penalties was established, since the tax inspectorate could not prove the misuse of bioethanol.
In the statement of claim, the lawyers noted that the fines are illegal, since the Tax Inspectorate did not prove the improper use of bioethanol, and also applied “approximate” penalties, which are not provided for by any regulatory act.
Cancel the tax decision on the application of penalties for the misuse of bioethanol.
The decision of the administrative court was made in favor of the taxpayer.
The Tax Inspectorate fined the client of Jusguard Legal Services for violating the terms of income tax payment.
Start of the case - May 25, 2017
Completion of the case - October 25, 2018
As a result of a judicial appeal, it was established that the company had paid the income tax in a timely manner, and therefore the decision of the tax inspectorate was illegal.
In the statement of claim, the lawyers noted that in accordance with the date of filing of the profit declaration, the company had timely paid tax obligations on income tax, which is confirmed by the relevant payment orders. However, during the same period, the tax authority accrued a fine to the enterprise for the uncoordinated tax notification-decision and improperly charged the accrued cash on the profit tax in order to pay the penalty. And since the tax notice-decision, according to which the tax authority accrued a penalty, was inconsistent, it is illegal to prematurely recover the amount of the penalty on it.
Cancel the tax decision on the application of penalties for late payment of the tax liability for income tax.
The decision of the administrative court was made in favor of the taxpayer.
The Tax Inspectorate fined the client of Jusguard Legal Services due to the fact that the company attributed transportation and procurement costs to the gross expenses.
Start of the case - September 19, 2016.
Completion of the case - September 26, 2018.
As a result of a judicial appeal, it was found that the mistake made did not lead to a decrease in the taxable base, and therefore additional tax liabilities were groundless.
In the statement of claim, lawyers noted that transportation and procurement costs are included in the cost of purchased goods. In the case of the sale of goods, cost, in turn, is included in the taxpayer’s expenses. At the same time, the goods specified in the inspection report were sold in the same tax period. Transportation and procurement costs should have been recognized as expenses of the enterprise as part of the cost of goods sold. Thus, the mistake made by the enterprise did not change the taxable base, since transportation and procurement costs in any case should have been included in the expenses of the enterprise in the audited period.
Cancel the tax decision on the additional charge of corporate income tax.
The decision of the administrative court was made in favor of the taxpayer.
The Tax Inspectorate inspected and fined the client Jusguard Legal Services for more than 66 million UAH due to the fact that the enterprise violated the norms of the Law “About the state regulation of the production and circulation of ethyl alcohol, cognac and fruit alcohol, alcoholic beverages and tobacco products”.
Start of the case - February 24, 2015
Completion of the case - November 16, 2016.
In the process of judicial appeal, it was established that the tax authority wrongfully accrued and applied penalties.
In the statement of claim, the lawyers noticed that the tax authority had unlawfully charged and imposed penalties on the enterprise, which contradicts the norms of the current legislation.
Cancel the decision on the application of financial penalties.
The decision of the administrative court was made in favor of the taxpayer and entered into legal force.
The Tax Inspection has denied registration of treaty on e-documents acknowledgement to the company’s client without legal basis. The formal cause was submission of misinformation by the client regarding his registration place.
In the course of a judicial proceeding the lawyers of Jusguard proved that the tax payer was registered in Pechersk district of Kyiv, entry was made in USR (Uniform State Register) and is relevant. Claims of the Tax Inspection that in USR was misinformation are baseless.
To declare illegal the Tax Inspection deny registration of treaty on e-documents acknowledgement.
The court of the first instance and appeal court reasserted the position of the tax payer. Actions of the Tax Inspection were recognized as illegal. The Tax Inspection was entrusted with the duty to consider the treaty on e-documents acknowledgement over again.
A client of the company contacted us because of increased expenses on payment of land use tax that turned out to be absolutely incomparable to the business revenue, and came upon client’s budget.
According to c. 297.1 of art. 297 of the Tax Code of Ukraine, the single tax payers are excused from tax charge, payment and tax reporting submission, particularly, on property tax as to land use tax.
The company’s client was proposed the business structure optimization plan, whereby the land plot user is switched to simplified tax system (single tax) followed by exemption from the duty to charge that tax and pay it. Details of the plan set out as Memorandum.
To make a plan of land use tax settlement optimization.
Through the business paradigm proposed by the lawyers of the company, we succeeded in absolutely release of the client from the payment of increased land use tax.
Tax Inspection conducted desk audit of the corporation income tax return. As the result of the audit it was found that taxpayer was supposed to exceed the limit of expenses on basic assets improvement. Hence, additional tax liability on income tax was assessed amounting to 112 429 UAH, as well as penalty amounting to 28 107 UAH.
The lawyers of Jusguard prepared a bill of complaint. This complaint clarified in details that reportedly established violation was missing, i.e. due to technical error the asset value was determined incorrectly in the beginning (it was undervalued). If to take into consideration right asset value, the exceeding the limit is absent.
To cancel a tax assessment notice.
The courts considered the case numerous times. A concluding judgment was the judgment of the County Administrative Court of Kyiv dd. 16.05.2016 which sustained the claim, and the tax assessment notice was cancelled. The judgment took legal effect.
A client of the company is a high volume importer of automobile tires who has used bill form in payment procedure with one of the contractors. Then that contractor (a bill holder) was liquidated and the bill was unpaid. The Tax Inspection recognized debt on a bill as uncollectable and assessed additional income tax liabilities.
The company’s lawyers succeeded in proving that liquidation of the bill holder isn’t the reason for debt amortization, as the bill could be alienated in favor of the third person.
To cancel the tax assessment notice in the amount of 2 510 624 UAH
The County Administrative Court of Kyiv has delivered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff and canceled the tax assessment notice. Kyiv Administrative Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment.
The Tax Inspection has made desk audit of refine calculations for the taxpayer VAT declarations. As a result of audit were rendered tax assessment notices which added tax liabilities for VAT to the clients. Decision notices motivating that a range of tax invoices are reportedly shown by the taxpayers in bookkeeping beyond the expiration the deadline for declaration required by law (365 days). As the result, the Tax Inspection has charged tax liability for VAT for all such episodes that amounted to more than 20.
In the course of a judicial proceeding the lawyers of Jusguard mentioned that a taxpayer is a milk processing plant, so according to law it submits two VAT declarations, namely general declaration and processing company declaration. Subsequent to finding mistakes at the bookkeeping by an accountant of the enterprise, a credit against tax represented at the processing company declaration was transferred to the general VAT declaration. Such adjustment can’t be considered as new reporting of credit against tax, so complaints against the Tax Inspection are baseless.
To revoke the tax assessment notices.
The first instance court, appeal court and cassation court as well as the Supreme Court of Ukraine have sustained a claim of the milk processing plant. The tax assessment notices were revoked. Decision took legal effect.