Support in the framework of pre-test analysis

The client sought advice on the preparation of objections to the protocol of the commission on the legalization of the tax base. Based on the results of the pre-inspection analysis, the tax authority found the subcontractors involved to be controlled, as well as risks indicating that the counterparty did not have the resources to perform the work.

• Purpose

  Elimination of tax risks of understatement of the tax base for VAT and income tax

• Employee involved

  Yulia Pavlova

• Process description

  Tax control measures were carried out in relation to the client, the tax authority indicates the need to clarify the tax liabilities of the client on the subcontractor. According to the tax authority, the contractor involved could not perform work for the client. As part of the legal defense and preparation of a response to the protocol of the commission was able to prove the lack of involvement of the client in the regulation of the disputed counterparty, to confirm the economic feasibility of engaging a controversial counterparty.

• Result

  The implementation of the project allowed to save the client's current assets, exclude the possibility of the appointment of a field tax audit.

The client received a requirement to submit documents and explanations for the period of the last three years of activity outside the scope of the audit

• Purpose

  Formation of the client's legal position at the stage of pre-inspection analysis, conducted by the tax authority for the last three years of activity.

• Employees involved

  Alexander Dmitriev, Yulia Pavlova

• Process description

  The company was approached by a client who received a request to provide documents and information for the last three years of activity outside the scope of the audit. In the opinion of the tax authority, a number of counterparties could not confirm the reality of the fulfillment of obligations under the transaction and the client had the intent to minimize the tax base when reflecting transactions in the accounting and tax registers.

• Result

  TC attorneys formed a legal position in the explanations and prepared together with the client a comprehensive package of documents confirming the reality of transactions with counterparties. The attorneys interviewed the general directors of the counterparties and ensured their appearance at the tax authority to confirm their earlier testimony.

The tax authority decided not to conduct an on-site tax audit of the taxpayer

• Employee involved

  Nikita Zharov

• Process description

  As part of the pre-inspection analysis, the tax authority concluded that the taxpayer had accounted for tax purposes for business transactions with a "technical" company. In view of the above, the taxpayer was invited to conduct an independent analysis of tax risks and (if necessary) to adjust its tax liabilities. The team analyzed business transactions with the disputed counterparty for tax risks and subsequently helped the client to prepare a response to the request of the tax authorities and collect the evidence, confirming: (1) the reality of business transactions with the disputed counterparty, (2) the reality of the obligations under transactions directly claimed by the counterparty, (3) the counterparty has no attributes of "technical" company for tax purposes.

• Result

  The tax authority accepted the arguments of the taxpayer, and decided not to conduct an on-site tax audit against him.

The tax authority decided not to conduct an on-site tax audit of the taxpayer

• Employees involved

  Mikhail Begunov, Nikita Zharov

• Process description

  The tax authority, as part of its pre-inspection analysis, concluded that the taxpayer had accounted for tax purposes for business transactions with "technical" companies. In view of the above, the taxpayer was offered to adjust its tax liabilities by more than 17 million rubles. The Tax Compliance team helped the client to elaborate a legal position that confirmed: (1) the reality of business transactions with the disputed counterparties; (2) the client's "commercial" discretion before entering into relations with the disputed counterparties; (3) the reality of obligations fulfillment under transactions directly by the declared counterparties.

• Result

  The tax authority accepted the arguments of the taxpayer, and decided not to conduct an on-site tax audit against him.

• Employees involved

  Mikhail Begunov, Nikita Zharov, Ivan Tsvetkov

• Process description

  The tax authority, as part of its pre-inspection analysis, concluded that the taxpayer used a "split" business scheme. In particular, the tax authority believed that: (1) the inclusion of a retailer who applied the simplified taxation system ("Counterparty") in the chain "producer - end buyer" is due solely to tax motives; (2) the taxpayer and the counterparty are interdependent business entities. In view of the above, the taxpayer was requested to adjust its tax liabilities and submit revised tax returns. The Tax Compliance team helped the client to elaborate a legal position confirming that (1) business transactions with the Counterparty are real; (2) business transactions with the Counterparty have a business purpose; (3) no interdependence exists between the taxpayer and the Counterparty.

• Result

  The tax authority accepted the arguments of the taxpayer.