• Employee involved

  Alexey Stanchin

• Process description

  The tax authority, as part of an on-site tax audit, concluded that there was a "tax optimization scheme. In particular, the tax authority believed the following: (1) the formality of the Company's relations with its counterparties; (2) nominality of the counterparties; (3) the actions of the Company and/or its counterparties led to its bankruptcy (which the inspection recognized as "fictitious"). The Tax Compliance team helped the client to elaborate a legal position supporting the possibility to apply the "tax reconstruction".

• Result

  The tax authority accepted the arguments of the taxpayer

Challenging the acts of prosecution on violating the deadline for CFC filing

• Employee involved

  Alexey Stanchin

• Process description

  Tax authorities imposed a fine for violation of the deadlines for CFC notifications and considered that the fine corresponded to the severity of the act, since 13 episodes were identified for different companies.
  
  In view of the above, a legal position was proposed for the taxpayer to mitigate the penalty.
  
  Tax Compliance team assisted the client in developing a legal position, identified all possible mitigating circumstances and presented arguments to the tax authority in due form.

• Result

  The tax authority accepted the arguments of the taxpayer and the penalty for each episode was reduced by 8 times.
  
  Thus, as a result of the project, tax claims of 6.5 million rubles were reduced to 812 thousand (by 5.7 million rubles or 88% of the initial claim).

• Employee involved

  Alexey Stanchin

• Process description

  The client had the task of reorganizing the legal structure of the business. Significant problems in implementing the project were: (1) restrictions on corporate matters by the founders; (2) a significant amount of accumulated deductions for inseparable improvements; (3) possible tax risks associated with the foreign element of the business. In view of the above, the taxpayer was offered ways to reorganize the existing legal structure. The Tax Compliance team has prepared a guide on how to implement the said project with the least risk of future tax claims.

• Result

  The client received a guide on how to improve the existing legal structure and with step-by-step actions to implement it

• Employee involved

  Alexey Stanchin

• Process description

  A taxpayer approached the Tax Compliance team regarding tax risk minimisation.
  
  Our work on the project included advising the client on:
  
  (1) separate VAT accounting
  (2) VAT treatment of the DDE and the POA
  (3) availability of receivables
  (4) issues related to field tax audit
  (5) Interactions with tax authorities during a PIT
  (6) justification of accounting policy principles used by a taxpayer to a tax authority.
  
  In view of the above, the Tax Compliance team offered the taxpayer an action plan to support the field tax audit and helped develop a legal position confirming:
  
  (1) the validity of applying separate accounting for the use of transactions under the DDE and the ACP
  (2) no additional accruals of non-operating income are required.
  
  In addition, we managed to eliminate the client's risks in terms of separate VAT accounting and identify other risks in taxation.

• Result

  As a result of the project, the claimed claims of the tax authority were reduced by 99%.

• Employee involved

  Alexey Stanchin

• Process description

  The tax authority in the framework of an on-site tax audit came to the conclusion that the taxpayer used technical links for the purposes of obtaining tax profits on VAT and income tax. In particular, the tax authority believed that: (1) in fact the provision of services took place directly from organizations that apply special tax regimes (without VAT); (2) the taxpayer and the counterparty are related business entities. In view of the above, the taxpayer was invited to dispute the technical nature of the disputed counterparties. The Tax Compliance team helped the client to elaborate a legal position which confirmed: (1) lack of controllability between the participants of the contractual relations chain; (2) economic feasibility of the transaction; (3) the reality of financial and economic activities of the disputed counterparties.

• Result

  The tax authority accepted the arguments of the taxpayer

• Employee involved

  Alexey Stanchin

• Process description

  As part of an on-site tax audit, the tax authority concluded that the client, a general contractor for construction work, was affiliated with a counterparty.
  
  In particular, the tax authority believed that:
  (1) the transaction with the counterparty was not real
  (2) The counterparties had no sources of VAT refunds as well as the necessary material and technical resources for performance of the work undertaken.
  
  In view of the above, the Tax Compliance team offered to prepare "defensive" documents and evidence of good faith of the taxpayer.
  
  We helped the client develop a legal position confirming:
  (1) the reality of performing construction and installation works by the disputed companies
  (2) the lack of controllability between the participants of the contractual relations
  (3) the unreasonableness of allocating the VAT gaps to the disputed counterparties.
  
  The claims were appealed to the tax authority and to a higher authority.

• Result

  As part of a pre-trial appeal, the tax authority accepted the taxpayer's arguments and reduced the size of the claim, and then we secured a full reversal from the higher tax authority.

The client was rendered services to draw up an objection to the act of a tax audit, additional materials of tax control, the basis for the collection of taxes was the assumption of the tax authority that the organization has not carried out construction work on the site.

• Purpose

  Confirm the actual performance of works by subcontractors for the construction of the Moscow-St. Petersburg Expressway, confirming the absence of a scheme to obtain an unjustified tax benefit

• Employee involved

  Alexey Stanchin

• Process description

  An on-site audit was carried out in respect of the client, as a result of which additional VAT was charged on the counterparty. According to the tax authority, in fact the specified work was not performed by the disputed counterparty, but was performed by the taxpayer itself or other organizations. In the legal defense developed a legal position, which proved that the performers were part of the same group of companies, consisting of more than 12 legal entities. The taxpayer, when working with the counterparty considered it as a single economic entity and could not know about the corporate structure of the counterparty.

• Result

  According to the results of the developed legal position it was possible to confirm the economic feasibility of the transaction, as well as the reality of the financial and economic activities of the disputed counterparties.

• Employee involved

  Alexey Stanchin

• Process description

  Following an on-site audit, the tax authority concluded that the taxpayer had created a formal document flow to understate the tax base. In particular, the tax authority believed that: (1) the client had methodological violations under VAT; (2) the use of zinc dust in production was overstated; (3) an agency agreement was concluded with a PE for tax saving purposes.
  
  The Tax Compliance team helped the client develop a legal position to challenge the results of an on-site tax audit substantiating:
  
  (1) incorrect application by the tax authority of the methodology for determining import deductions based on the organisation's accounting policy;
  (2) the use of zinc dust in production;
  (3) the existence of a business purpose in concluding the agency agreement.

• Result

  The tax authority partly accepted the taxpayer's arguments and the tax claim was reduced by 46%.

• Employees involved

  Alexander Dmitriev, Alexey Stanchin

• Process description

  A taxpayer turned to the Tax Compliance team as part of a consultation on minimizing tax risks. In particular, work was done on: (1) advising the client on the correctness of tax accounting (2) advising on the field tax audit; (3) interaction with the tax authority during the tax audit; (4) justification before the tax authority of the principles of accounting policy applied by the taxpayer. In connection with the above, the taxpayer was offered an action plan for interaction with the tax authority. The Tax Compliance team helped the client to develop a legal position confirming: (1) the reality of transactions; (2) the validity of the absence of additional income tax charges; (3) justify the need for additional VAT charges on tax "gaps".

• Result

  The tax authority accepted the taxpayer's arguments. The tax claim of 385 million ₽ was reduced to 46 million ₽ as a result of the project. Which is 12% of the original claim of the tax authority.

The client was rendered support services in the frame of on site tax audit, objections to the act of tax audit, additional materials of tax control were prepared, the basis for the recovery of taxes was the assumption of the tax authority of the technical links for the purpose of obtaining deductions for VAT and income tax.

• Purpose

  Confirm the actual provision of transport and freight forwarding services rendered to the client, to apply the reconstruction of transportation services, to confirm the absence of a scheme to obtain an unjustified tax benefit

• Employee involved

  Alexey Stanchin

• Process description

  An on-site inspection was carried out in respect of the client, as a result of which additional VAT and income tax were charged on relations with controlled transit counterparties. According to the tax authority, the purchase of goods was actually carried out directly from organizations that apply special tax regimes (without VAT). As part of the legal defense developed a legal position to challenge the technical nature of the activities of the disputed counterparties, for part of the episodes was applied to the reconstruction of the income tax.

• Result

  According to the results of the developed legal position it was possible to prove the lack of controllability between the participants in the chain of contractual relations, to confirm the economic feasibility of the transaction, as well as the reality of the financial and economic activities of the disputed counterparties.