• 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

  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

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

  The tax authority, as part of an on-site tax audit, came to the conclusion about the existence of affiliation (of the Client) with the first links. In particular, the tax authority asserted that: (1) there was no reality of performance of works; (2) the counterparties had no sources of VAT refunds; (3) they also lacked the necessary material and technical resources for performance of the accepted works. The Tax Compliance team helped the client to elaborate a legal position which confirmed: (1) the reality of performing construction and installation works by disputable organizations; (2) lack of controllability between the participants of the contractual relations chain; (3) unfoundedness of assigning VAT gaps to disputable counterparties.

• Result

  The tax authority accepted the arguments of the taxpayer

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.