Leading rice supplier is no longer a risky taxpayer

Complainee: State Tax Service (STS), Main Department of STS in Kyiv (MD STS)
Complaint in brief: The Council received a complaint from the leading supplier and producer of grain for the supermarket chains. The enterprise complained about the blockage of the tax invoices and its further inclusion to the list of high-risk taxpayers.
The issue emerged when the MD STS started to systemically block the tax invoices of the company. From November 2019 till January 2020 there were around 64 blocked tax invoices. However, there was another unpleasant news ahead – the complainant was included to the list of risky taxpayers. In order to prove the decision was ungrounded the company appealed to the STS, although unsuccessfully. The Council commenced to consider the case.
Actions taken: The Council’s investigator examined the case and concluded that the complaint was reasonable. In the letter to the STS the Council supported the position of the complainant. The investigator highlighted that the enterprise must be excluded from the risky taxpayers` list. The Council assisted the complainant to organize a meeting with the leadership of the tax authority. As a result, MD STS informed the enterprise that it needed to send additional documents to prove operations with the counterparties. The Council recommended the tax authority to objectively and impartially consider the documents of the complainant in order to exclude him from the list of the risky taxpayers and unblock tax invoices.
Result achieved: Having considered the documents provided, the controlling authority decided to exclude the enterprise from the risky taxpayers’ list. The complainant thanked the Council: “On my own behalf and on behalf of the numerous staff, I would like to express my gratitude for the attention paid to consideration of the complaint of our company. I believe that the selected strategy of compromise and mutual respect directly affected the outcome of the work done. I sincerely wish you victories in further protection of business interests”. The case was successfully closed.