{"id":7913,"date":"2025-04-06T10:10:05","date_gmt":"2025-04-06T07:10:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/04\/case-no-520-25012-24-dated-01-04-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-04-06T10:10:05","modified_gmt":"2025-04-06T07:10:05","slug":"case-no-520-25012-24-dated-01-04-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/04\/case-no-520-25012-24-dated-01-04-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 520\/25012\/24 dated 01\/04\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: Challenging Tax Notifications-Decisions Regarding Real Estate Tax Calculation.<\/p>\n<p>Main Arguments of the Court:<br \/>\n1. The Respondent (Main Directorate of State Tax Service) independently cancelled the challenged tax notifications-decisions due to changes in the local tax resolution.<br \/>\n2. The Court drew attention to the ambiguity of the grounds for case closure &#8211; whether under paragraph 2 or paragraph 8 of Article 238 of the Code of Administrative Judicial Procedure of Ukraine.<br \/>\n3. The Cassation Court pointed out the need for a clear substantiation of the grounds for case closure and distribution of court expenses.<\/p>\n<p>Court Decision: To cancel the resolution of the appellate court and refer the case for a new review to clarify the grounds for case closure and distribution of court expenses.<\/p>\n<p>Note: The Court deviated from previous practice of considering similar cases, clearly indicating the necessity of thorough motivation of the grounds for case closure.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/126274348\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: Challenging Tax Notifications-Decisions Regarding Real Estate Tax Calculation. Main Arguments of the Court: 1. The Respondent (Main Directorate of State Tax Service) independently cancelled the challenged tax notifications-decisions due to changes in the local tax resolution. 2. The Court drew attention to the ambiguity of the grounds for case closure &#8211; whether&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-7913","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\/7913","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=7913"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7913\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7913"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7913"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7913"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}