{"id":8136,"date":"2025-04-10T10:59:59","date_gmt":"2025-04-10T07:59:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/04\/case-no-808-1099-18-dated-04-04-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-04-10T10:59:59","modified_gmt":"2025-04-10T07:59:59","slug":"case-no-808-1099-18-dated-04-04-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/04\/case-no-808-1099-18-dated-04-04-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 808\/1099\/18 dated 04\/04\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The case concerns challenging a tax audit of a regional council deputy regarding the compliance of declared assets with received income.<\/p>\n<p>Main arguments of the court:<br \/>\n1. The Prosecutor&#8217;s Office does not have the right to instruct tax authorities to conduct an audit of electronic declarations.<br \/>\n2. Declaration checks can be carried out exclusively by the National Agency for Prevention of Corruption (NAPC).<br \/>\n3. The prosecutor&#8217;s letter is not a basis for appointing a documentary verification, as it does not contain signs of &#8220;tax information&#8221;.<\/p>\n<p>The court made a decision entirely in favor of the plaintiff &#8211; canceled the verification order, recognized the tax authority&#8217;s actions as unlawful, and canceled all tax notifications-decisions.<\/p>\n<p>This decision effectively establishes a clear legal position regarding the limits of powers of the Prosecutor&#8217;s Office and tax authorities in matters of electronic declaration verification.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/126377548\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The case concerns challenging a tax audit of a regional council deputy regarding the compliance of declared assets with received income. Main arguments of the court: 1. The Prosecutor&#8217;s Office does not have the right to instruct tax authorities to conduct an audit of electronic declarations. 2. Declaration checks can be carried out exclusively by&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-8136","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\/8136","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=8136"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8136\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8136"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8136"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8136"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}