{"id":8118,"date":"2025-04-10T10:54:25","date_gmt":"2025-04-10T07:54:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/04\/case-no-160-337-20-dated-02-04-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-04-10T10:54:25","modified_gmt":"2025-04-10T07:54:25","slug":"case-no-160-337-20-dated-02-04-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/04\/case-no-160-337-20-dated-02-04-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 160\/337\/20 dated 02\/04\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Here is the translation:<\/p>\n<p>1. Subject of Dispute: Challenging tax notifications-decisions issued by the controlling authority regarding allegedly improper formation of expenses and tax credit by the taxpayer.<\/p>\n<p>2. Key Arguments of the Court:<\/p>\n<p>The court deviated from the previous position of the Supreme Court of Ukraine regarding the automatic invalidity of transactions with counterparties recognized as fictitious. In particular, the court noted that:<\/p>\n<p>&#8211; The existence of a verdict on fictitious entrepreneurship does not automatically mean the invalidity of all economic transactions<br \/>\n&#8211; The taxpayer is not responsible for possible unlawful actions of counterparties<br \/>\n&#8211; Primary documents are valid if they reflect the actual movement of assets<br \/>\n&#8211; The controlling authority must prove the taxpayer&#8217;s intent<\/p>\n<p>3. Court Decision: To leave unchanged the decisions of previous instances on cancellation of tax notifications-decisions, since the controlling authority did not prove the unreality of economic transactions.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/126346464\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Here is the translation: 1. Subject of Dispute: Challenging tax notifications-decisions issued by the controlling authority regarding allegedly improper formation of expenses and tax credit by the taxpayer. 2. Key Arguments of the Court: The court deviated from the previous position of the Supreme Court of Ukraine regarding the automatic invalidity of transactions with counterparties&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-8118","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\/8118","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=8118"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8118\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8118"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8118"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8118"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}