Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed analysis:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Challenging tax assessment notices through which the regulatory authority additionally assessed corporate income tax and VAT liabilities due to the non-recognition of expenses for aquarium maintenance, employee catering, and railway services received from a counterparty.
2. **Main arguments of the court:**
* The court established that expenses for aquarium maintenance and employee catering (in accordance with the collective agreement) were legitimately classified as “other operating expenses” pursuant to the National Accounting Standards (P(S)BO) 16, as they arose in the course of the enterprise’s operations.
* Regarding railway services, the court emphasized that due to the specific geographical location of the plaintiff’s terminal, receiving services from the counterparty (TIS LLC) is technologically inevitable for the conduct of business operations related to cargo transshipment.
* The court critically evaluated the tax authority’s arguments regarding the absence of railway consignment notes, noting that the plaintiff is not a party to the transportation agreement with “Ukrzaliznytsia” and, therefore, is not required to possess these documents.
* The key evidence consisted of the conclusions of forensic expert examinations (economic and comprehensive construction-technical), which confirmed the reality of the business transactions and their economic justification.
* **Legal precedent:** Relying on the position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dated November 22, 2023 (case No. 712/4126/22), the court departed from previous practice regarding the impossibility of reimbursing expenses for expert examinations conducted prior to filing a lawsuit, stating that the main criterion is the connection of the expenses to the case consideration and their impact on the outcome.
* The court noted that the tax authority did not provide proper evidence to refute the reality of the transactions, and its arguments were reduced to a formal interpretation without considering the specifics of the technological process.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances, which satisfied the taxpayer’s claims in full, including the recovery of legal costs for expert examinations.
