{"id":1853,"date":"2024-11-10T09:24:20","date_gmt":"2024-11-10T07:24:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2024\/11\/case-no-560-6814-23-dated-06-11-2024\/"},"modified":"2024-11-10T09:24:20","modified_gmt":"2024-11-10T07:24:20","slug":"case-no-560-6814-23-dated-06-11-2024","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2024\/11\/case-no-560-6814-23-dated-06-11-2024\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 560\/6814\/23 dated 06\/11\/2024"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: An entrepreneur challenging a tax notification-decision on accrual of penalties for violation of settlement terms for foreign economic operations.<\/p>\n<p>The court was guided by the following arguments: 1) The presence of force majeure circumstances (martial law) is confirmed by a Chamber of Commerce and Industry certificate and exempts from liability for breach of terms under one of the contracts; 2) Under the second contract, obligations were terminated by offsetting counterclaims, therefore no violation of terms occurred; 3) For the third contract, force majeure circumstances were not properly confirmed by a certificate, therefore the penalty accrual is legitimate.<\/p>\n<p>The court partially satisfied the claim &#8211; cancelled the tax notification-decision regarding penalties for two contracts (655,000 UAH) and upheld the penalty accrual for one contract (118,000 UAH).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: An entrepreneur challenging a tax notification-decision on accrual of penalties for violation of settlement terms for foreign economic operations. The court was guided by the following arguments: 1) The presence of force majeure circumstances (martial law) is confirmed by a Chamber of Commerce and Industry certificate and exempts from liability for breach&hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"pmpro_default_level":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[57,42],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1853","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-court-practice-ukraine","category-eu-legislation-important","pmpro-has-access"],"acf":{"patreon-level":0},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1853","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1853"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1853\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1853"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1853"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1853"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}