{"id":8102,"date":"2025-04-10T10:45:59","date_gmt":"2025-04-10T07:45:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/04\/case-no-520-6561-19-dated-02-04-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-04-10T10:45:59","modified_gmt":"2025-04-10T07:45:59","slug":"case-no-520-6561-19-dated-02-04-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/04\/case-no-520-6561-19-dated-02-04-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 520\/6561\/19 dated 02\/04\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: Challenging Tax Notifications-Decisions and Actions of the Tax Authority Regarding Personal Income Tax on a Loan Forgiven by a Bank.<\/p>\n<p>Main Arguments of the Court:<\/p>\n<p>1. The tax authority violated the verification procedure, as it did not properly deliver the inspection order to the taxpayer at the actual address.<\/p>\n<p>2. The exchange rate difference on a foreign currency loan, forgiven by the bank as a result of restructuring, is not considered an additional benefit and is not subject to taxation in accordance with the transitional provisions of the Tax Code.<\/p>\n<p>3. In this case, the amount of the forgiven debt is less than the calculated exchange rate difference, therefore there are no grounds to consider it as additional income of an individual.<\/p>\n<p>Court Decision: To uphold the resolution of the appellate administrative court on canceling tax notifications-decisions and recognizing the actions of the tax authority as unlawful.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/126346533\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: Challenging Tax Notifications-Decisions and Actions of the Tax Authority Regarding Personal Income Tax on a Loan Forgiven by a Bank. Main Arguments of the Court: 1. The tax authority violated the verification procedure, as it did not properly deliver the inspection order to the taxpayer at the actual address. 2. The exchange&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-8102","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\/8102","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=8102"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8102\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8102"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8102"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8102"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}