The SFS continues interpreting the law in its favor 

Subject of complaint: General Directorate of the SFS in Kyiv (GD SFS)
Complaint in brief:  On April 19, 2018 a Kyiv transport company turned to the Council. The company did not agree with the SFS fine regarding failure to provide reports on the amount of tax privileges with VAT (Reports).
According to the Complainant, under the law, he did not have to submit such Reports. The company’s arguments were as follows. The company acted as a freight forwarder during international transportation of goods for which a preferential VAT 0% rate is applied. Right before the transportation the Complainant engaged a third-party organization. It is the carrier, in this case that bore costs for purchasing fuel, maintenance of cars for providing international transportation services, since it was he who formed the cost of such services and received income from their provision. 
Thus, it is the carrier that may have unpaid taxes and duties to the budget by applying the preferential rate of 0% and should provide such a Report while the freight forwarder should not, because tax relief is not applied to the latter. 
It is worth noting that when the forwarder is also acting as a carrier, the Report should be provided as the cost of international transportation services is generated and revenue from providing them is received. 
The SFS imposed a small fine, about UAH 2000. However, the company was convinced of its being right and firmly determined and, therefore, appealed to the Council for support. 
Actions taken: The investigator carefully analyzed the complaint materials and the legislation governing its subject matter. Indeed, the CMU resolutions and tax regulations require accounting specifically amounts of unpaid funds to the budget, rather than transactions related to preferential tax rates application. Only the fact of performing transactions at a reduced rate of 0% VAT, formation of tax invoices and displaying such transactions in the VAT return, provided absence of unpaid funds to the budget does not oblige the entity to submit a Report.
The Council described its position in a letter to the SFS. With this position, the Council participated in the consideration of the of the Complainant’s case at the SFS. 
Result achieved: The SFS did not satisfy the company’s complaint. The company could have challenged such a decision further in court, however, decided to refuse to do so, as the court costs would be much greater than UAH 2000. The Council closed the case without a successful outcome for the Complainant.