1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the tax assessment notice, by which the Company’s monetary obligation for income tax was increased.
2. The court, upholding the decisions of the courts of previous instances, proceeded from the fact that the Company lawfully formed expenses for business transactions with counterparties, since the transactions are confirmed by proper primary documents, real changes in property status occurred, the transactions caused changes in the structure of assets and liabilities and contributed to the receipt of income. The court also noted that the controlling body did not provide evidence of the absence of actual performance of business transactions or the plaintiff’s awareness of the illegal actions of the counterparties. The court took into account that the existence of criminal proceedings against counterparties is not in itself a basis for recognizing transactions as unreal, unless the taxpayer’s awareness of the illegal activities of the counterparty is proven. The court also referred to the practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court regarding the individual responsibility of the taxpayer and the need for the controlling body to prove the unreasonableness, bad faith or improper due diligence of the payer in choosing a counterparty. The court noted that the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court departed from the conclusion of the Supreme Court of Ukraine, set forth, in particular, in the decision of 01.12.2015 in case No. 826/15034/17 (No. 21-3788a15), that the status of a fictitious, illegal enterprise is incompatible with legal business activity.
3. The court of cassation left the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances – without changes.
