{"id":8100,"date":"2025-04-10T10:45:32","date_gmt":"2025-04-10T07:45:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/04\/case-no-160-23553-23-dated-03-04-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-04-10T10:45:32","modified_gmt":"2025-04-10T07:45:32","slug":"case-no-160-23553-23-dated-03-04-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/04\/case-no-160-23553-23-dated-03-04-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 160\/23553\/23 dated 03\/04\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Here is the translation of the legal analysis:<\/p>\n<p>1. Subject of Dispute: Challenging a tax notification-decision on imposing penalties for late registration of tax invoices in 2022.<\/p>\n<p>2. Main Arguments of the Court:<br \/>\n The Supreme Court confirmed the previous legal position that preferential norms on reduced penalties during martial law (introduced by Law No. 2876-IX) do not have retroactive effect. Namely, for tax invoices registered before February 8, 2023, the old, more severe penalty sanctions apply. The court detailed the temporal boundaries of the new norms: before martial law, the old rules were in effect, from 08.02.2023 &#8211; new &#8220;martial law&#8221; rules, and after the end of martial law, the old rules will return again.<\/p>\n<p>3. Court Decision: Reject the taxpayer&#8217;s cassation appeal without satisfaction, thereby confirming the imposition of penalties at the old, higher rates.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/126346509\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Here is the translation of the legal analysis: 1. Subject of Dispute: Challenging a tax notification-decision on imposing penalties for late registration of tax invoices in 2022. 2. Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court confirmed the previous legal position that preferential norms on reduced penalties during martial law (introduced by Law No. 2876-IX)&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-8100","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\/8100","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=8100"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8100\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8100"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8100"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8100"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}