{"id":6192,"date":"2025-03-03T09:23:10","date_gmt":"2025-03-03T07:23:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/03\/case-no-620-626-20-dated-26-02-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-03-03T09:23:10","modified_gmt":"2025-03-03T07:23:10","slug":"case-no-620-626-20-dated-26-02-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/03\/case-no-620-626-20-dated-26-02-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 620\/626\/20 dated 26\/02\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: Challenging a Tax Notification-Decision on Additional Accrual of Value Added Tax.<\/p>\n<p>Main Arguments of the Court:<\/p>\n<p>1. The courts of previous instances did not conduct a comprehensive analysis of primary documents and circumstances of economic transactions, focusing only on formal signs (presence of criminal proceedings, lack of labor resources among contractors).<\/p>\n<p>2. The Supreme Court emphasized that the mere fact of criminal proceedings against a contractor cannot automatically indicate the unreality of the taxpayer&#8217;s economic transactions.<\/p>\n<p>3. The courts should have thoroughly examined the nature of the violations, evaluated primary documents, established the economic purpose of the agreements, and considered the arguments of the enterprise.<\/p>\n<p>Court Decision: To cancel the decisions of previous judicial instances and close the proceedings in the case due to the liquidation of the enterprise.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/125483420\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: Challenging a Tax Notification-Decision on Additional Accrual of Value Added Tax. Main Arguments of the Court: 1. The courts of previous instances did not conduct a comprehensive analysis of primary documents and circumstances of economic transactions, focusing only on formal signs (presence of criminal proceedings, lack of labor resources among contractors). 2.&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-6192","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\/6192","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=6192"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6192\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6192"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6192"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6192"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}