Rustem Akhmetshin, Senior Partner of the Pepeliaev Group

[tanjimajuha20]

ussian Federation recognized the provisions of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation applied by the court as not complying with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, which served as the basis for reviewing the decision that had entered into legal force based on new circumstances. This does not happen often. According to judicial statistics for 2023, courts of first instance considered 6,824 applications for review of judicial acts that had entered into legal force based on new or newly discovered circumstances. Of these, only 2,107 applications were satisfied, including 939 based on new circumstances, of which only 16 applications were in connection with the legal position of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation."

law firm, who took part austria whatsapp number database in the hearing on April 23, 2024, suggested the possibility of appealing the court's decision: "On the one hand, usually both parties to a tax dispute go all the way. On the other hand, does the cassation instance have grounds to review the appeal ruling? After all, one of the main issues in our case is a dispute about the facts: do the subjects of the two transactions intersect or not. The courts have already assessed the parties' arguments in this regard and made conclusions: the first instance is in favor of the Federal Tax Service, the second is in favor of the company. And the cassation instance, as we know, does not have the authority to review the courts' conclusions on factual circumstances. Then why continue the dispute? But, of course, if the appeal ruling is overturned, the company will move on. It's not the first time."

Andrey Lokis, special tax adviser at Pen & Paper, believes that the Federal Tax Service has a chance of success in this case: "We believe that the Federal Tax Service of Russia will certainly appeal the ruling by filing a cassation appeal with the Arbitration Court of the Moscow District. It should be noted that the tax authorities' chances of going to court remain high. This can be explained by a number of related circumstances, in particular, the fact that the taxpayer "forgot" to reflect the largest transaction for the specified period in the initial notification of controlled transactions for 2017, and reflected (added) this transaction only in the amended notification he submitted. At the same time, the taxpayer "remembered" the transaction and included it in the tax reporting only after an on-site audit was appointed against him by the inspectorate for the largest taxpayers (in which VimpelCom is registered) for 2016-2017."

Pavel Katkov, founder of the law firm Future Legal, is also confident that the likelihood of appealing the ruling is high: "There is increased attention to the budget now, unpopular decisions have been made to raise taxes. In these conditions, it would be strange if the fiscal authority gave up when it could fight."

Representatives of the Federal Tax Service of Russia did not respond to a ComNews correspondent regarding the decision to file an appeal.