{"id":7386,"date":"2025-03-27T10:11:41","date_gmt":"2025-03-27T08:11:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/03\/case-no-520-7034-19-dated-19-03-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-03-27T10:11:41","modified_gmt":"2025-03-27T08:11:41","slug":"case-no-520-7034-19-dated-19-03-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/03\/case-no-520-7034-19-dated-19-03-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 520\/7034\/19 dated 19\/03\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Here is the translation:<\/p>\n<p>Subject of Dispute: Challenging tax notifications-decisions by which the Main Directorate of the State Tax Service increased the monetary obligations of LLC &#8220;RAT&#8221; for income tax and VAT.<\/p>\n<p>Main Arguments of the Court:<br \/>\n1. The plaintiff&#8217;s business transactions with counterparties are real and confirmed by primary documents.<br \/>\n2. The court deviated from previous judicial practice, which considered that transactions of fictitious enterprises cannot be legalized.<br \/>\n3. The controlling authority did not prove that the company acted in bad faith or without due diligence in conducting business transactions.<\/p>\n<p>Court Decision: To leave unchanged the decisions of previous instances and to deny the Main Directorate of the State Tax Service satisfaction of the cassation complaint, that is, to cancel the tax notifications-decisions.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/126003917\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Here is the translation: Subject of Dispute: Challenging tax notifications-decisions by which the Main Directorate of the State Tax Service increased the monetary obligations of LLC &#8220;RAT&#8221; for income tax and VAT. Main Arguments of the Court: 1. The plaintiff&#8217;s business transactions with counterparties are real and confirmed by primary documents. 2. The court deviated&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-7386","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\/7386","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=7386"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7386\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7386"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7386"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7386"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}