{"id":7973,"date":"2025-04-07T10:23:14","date_gmt":"2025-04-07T07:23:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/04\/case-no-380-6549-24-dated-01-04-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-04-07T10:23:14","modified_gmt":"2025-04-07T07:23:14","slug":"case-no-380-6549-24-dated-01-04-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/04\/case-no-380-6549-24-dated-01-04-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 380\/6549\/24 dated 01\/04\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Here is the translation:<\/p>\n<p>1. Subject of Dispute: Challenging a tax notification-decision on imposing a penalty for late registration of tax invoices.<\/p>\n<p>2. Key Court Arguments:<\/p>\n<p>&#8211; The Supreme Court essentially changed previous practice regarding penalty sanctions for late registration of tax invoices.<\/p>\n<p>&#8211; The period from March 2020 to May 2022 had a moratorium on penalty sanctions due to quarantine<br \/>\n&#8211; Legislation did not create clear conditions for taxpayers regarding invoice registration<br \/>\n&#8211; The rule of law principle requires an equal approach to all taxpayers<br \/>\n&#8211; It is necessary to consider the taxpayer&#8217;s ability to fulfill their obligations<\/p>\n<p>3. Court Decision: Cancel previous court decisions and refer the case for a new review to thoroughly examine the circumstances.<\/p>\n<p>Key Thesis: The court essentially sided with the taxpayer, pointing out the unfairness of the existing penalty mechanism.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/126311530\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Here is the translation: 1. Subject of Dispute: Challenging a tax notification-decision on imposing a penalty for late registration of tax invoices. 2. Key Court Arguments: &#8211; The Supreme Court essentially changed previous practice regarding penalty sanctions for late registration of tax invoices. &#8211; The period from March 2020 to May 2022 had a moratorium&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-7973","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\/7973","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=7973"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7973\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7973"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7973"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7973"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}