The State tax Service drops fine for Kyivtransbud construction company 

Tax issues: Inspections by state tax and fiscal agencies Kyiv

Complainee: The Main Department of the State Tax Service in Kyiv (STS) 
Complaint in brief: A Kyyivtransbud construction company approached the Council. The Complainant disagreed with the conclusions of the in-house tax audit, according to which he had to pay a fine of about UAH 60 k.
The tax authority stated that the Complainant had violated tax invoices registration deadline in the Unified Register of Tax Invoices (URTI). Despite tax invoices timely submission for registration by the Complainant, the supervisory authority rejected their acceptance due to alleged Complainant’s lack of the necessary VAT registration limit amount. 
Disagreeing with such conclusions, the company appealed them to the STS and also sought help from the Council.
Actions taken: After examining the circumstances of the case, the Council fully upheld the company’s position. 
The Council’s investigator in charge first of all drew the STS attention to the fact that the Complainant had a sufficient VAT registration limit amount to register tax invoices. It was confirmed by a letter from the State Treasury Service of Ukraine on the receipt of funds on the Complainant’s account in the VAT Electronic Administration System (SEA VAT). 
When addressing the STS, the Council also referred to the relevant practice of the Administrative Cassation Court of the Supreme Court and STS explanations in the public information and reference source. Thus, the respective authorities pointed out that a taxpayer could not be held liable for a delay in registration of a tax invoice if the funds were untimely transferred to such taxpayer’s electronic account in SEA VAT. 
Having suggested holding a meeting by teleconference, the Council’s investigator also participated in the administrative consideration of the complaint, where he upheld the company’s position again.
Result achieved: The STS accepted the Council’s arguments regarding illegal application of fines to the Complainant. The case was successfully closed. 

Next case:: Over UAH 2 mn. fines for a leading producer of sauces rescinded