{"id":6150,"date":"2025-03-02T09:22:43","date_gmt":"2025-03-02T07:22:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/03\/case-no-805-3434-17-a-dated-26-02-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-03-02T09:22:43","modified_gmt":"2025-03-02T07:22:43","slug":"case-no-805-3434-17-a-dated-26-02-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/03\/case-no-805-3434-17-a-dated-26-02-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 805\/3434\/17-a dated 26\/02\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: Challenging the Legitimacy of Penalty Sanctions for Non-Payment of Personal Income Tax at Rates of 25%, 50%, and 75%.<\/p>\n<p>Main Arguments of the Court: The court established that the qualifying characteristic for applying penalty sanctions is the mere fact of committing a violation, not a separate decision by the controlling authority. Each established fact of tax non-payment constitutes a separate offense, and the amount of the fine depends on the number of such violations within 1,095 days, regardless of whether they were identified within a single inspection.<\/p>\n<p>Court Decision: The Supreme Court left the cassation complaint unsatisfied, supporting the decision of the appellate administrative court on the legitimacy of penalty sanctions.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/125447301\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: Challenging the Legitimacy of Penalty Sanctions for Non-Payment of Personal Income Tax at Rates of 25%, 50%, and 75%. Main Arguments of the Court: The court established that the qualifying characteristic for applying penalty sanctions is the mere fact of committing a violation, not a separate decision by the controlling authority. Each&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-6150","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\/6150","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=6150"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6150\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6150"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6150"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6150"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}