{"id":5460,"date":"2025-02-17T09:18:08","date_gmt":"2025-02-17T07:18:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/02\/case-no-520-24195-21-dated-13-02-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-02-17T09:18:08","modified_gmt":"2025-02-17T07:18:08","slug":"case-no-520-24195-21-dated-13-02-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/02\/case-no-520-24195-21-dated-13-02-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 520\/24195\/21 dated 13\/02\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of the dispute &#8211; challenging a tax notification-decision on additional VAT assessment for the farm enterprise &#8220;Alliance&#8221; for transactions with counterparties.<\/p>\n<p>Main arguments of the court: the controlling authority considers the economic transactions to be fictitious, but the courts of previous instances did not conduct an in-depth analysis of the reality of these transactions. The Supreme Court drew attention that the courts need to verify: whether the goods\/services were actually received, the technical capability of counterparties to perform deliveries, their availability of resources and personnel, the mechanism of conducting economic activity.<\/p>\n<p>The court decided to cancel the previous court decisions and send the case for a new review to clarify all circumstances in detail.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/125146278\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of the dispute &#8211; challenging a tax notification-decision on additional VAT assessment for the farm enterprise &#8220;Alliance&#8221; for transactions with counterparties. Main arguments of the court: the controlling authority considers the economic transactions to be fictitious, but the courts of previous instances did not conduct an in-depth analysis of the reality of these transactions.&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-5460","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\/5460","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=5460"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5460\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5460"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5460"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5460"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}