A field tax inspection detected some fly-by-night companies among a company’s contractors. The inspectors indicated that the primary documents were signed by an unauthorized person testifying unreality of the operations. The company’s management did not agree with the conclusions of the tax authorities and appealed to us for qualified support. Our lawyers during a joint work with the client managed to install due care and diligence measures. In this case, as well as in most other cases, we managed to challenge the claim of the tax authorities. Our tax lawyers proved existence of appropriate measures for verifying contractors and confirmed the reality of disputed transactions’ effectiveness. A properly developed position in the dispute helped to protect the client against unreasonable tax claims.

An organization, a large owner and developer of Moscow suburban lands, applied the preferential land tax rate on agricultural lands with permitted use for “dacha construction”. However, the field tax inspection denied preferential rate and additionally assessed the land tax, fines and penalties. The tax authority confirmed that the preferential rates cannot be applied to commercial organizations. The situation was complicated by the fact that at the time the case was appointed for consideration there appeared negative arbitration practices for taxpayers in the Moscow region. Unfortunately, the courts of first instance and of appeal did not consider our arguments. But we managed to persuade the cassation court that the preferential land tax rate is fixed on plots of land and not on the land-use entities (individuals, businesses). Therefore, commercial organizations alongside individuals have the right to use the preferential tax treatment.

A large leasing company addressed to us with a problem: an impressive sum was additionally charged for the three years of operation subsequent to the result of a field tax inspection. Taxes, fines and penalties were determined by calculation, as the company had not provided documents for verification. The reason for their failure to provide the documents was the change of state registration address just before the inspection, and the tax authority directed the decision to appoint the field tax inspection to the former registration address.
Defending the interests of the client, our experts proved that the taxpayer did not know and could not know about the beginning of the field tax inspection for objective reasons. However, the basis for winning the case in court was detected serious errors in determining the tax base by calculation. Finally, the decision to impose tax liability was reversed in full.

A field tax inspection detected some fly-by-night companies among a company’s contractors. The inspectors indicated that the primary documents were signed by an unauthorized person testifying unreality of the operations. The company’s management did not agree with the conclusions of the tax authorities and appealed to us for qualified support. Our lawyers during a joint work with the client managed to install due care and diligence measures. In this case, as well as in most other cases, we managed to challenge the claim of the tax authorities. Our tax lawyers proved existence of appropriate measures for verifying contractors and confirmed the reality of disputed transactions’ effectiveness. A properly developed position in the dispute helped to protect the client against unreasonable tax claims.

An organization, a large owner and developer of Moscow suburban lands, applied the preferential land tax rate on agricultural lands with permitted use for “dacha construction”. However, the field tax inspection denied preferential rate and additionally assessed the land tax, fines and penalties. The tax authority confirmed that the preferential rates cannot be applied to commercial organizations. The situation was complicated by the fact that at the time the case was appointed for consideration there appeared negative arbitration practices for taxpayers in the Moscow region. Unfortunately, the courts of first instance and of appeal did not consider our arguments. But we managed to persuade the cassation court that the preferential land tax rate is fixed on plots of land and not on the land-use entities (individuals, businesses). Therefore, commercial organizations alongside individuals have the right to use the preferential tax treatment.

A large leasing company addressed to us with a problem: an impressive sum was additionally charged for the three years of operation subsequent to the result of a field tax inspection. Taxes, fines and penalties were determined by calculation, as the company had not provided documents for verification. The reason for their failure to provide the documents was the change of state registration address just before the inspection, and the tax authority directed the decision to appoint the field tax inspection to the former registration address.
Defending the interests of the client, our experts proved that the taxpayer did not know and could not know about the beginning of the field tax inspection for objective reasons. However, the basis for winning the case in court was detected serious errors in determining the tax base by calculation. Finally, the decision to impose tax liability was reversed in full.

During the audit of our client’s current activities, we have identified controlled transactions. The organization was obliged to notify tax authorities thereon within the statutory period. In course of a joint meeting with the client, we decided to develop substantiations for the deviation of transaction prices from the market prices level. Our work resulted in a regulation on transfer pricing in the client’s company developed by our experts. This document will help the taxpayer to significantly reduce risks of claims from tax authorities.

A large company has not been visited by a field tax inspection for the last 3 years. Besides, the finance director received unofficial information about the company’s inclusion into the plan of field tax inspections. The management decided to hire consultants for conducting an analogous tax inspection. In course of such inspection performed before the tax authorities’ coming our lawyers managed to identify and prevent the following:<br/>
1. The risk connected with the recognition of a tax benefit unfounded. Tax lawyers checked the company’s counterparties and identified organizations with signs of unfairness. Having issued the supporting documents substantiating due diligence in selecting counterparties and confirming the existence of business purpose for committing financial and economic transactions with questionable contractors, the client managed to avoid additional taxes.<br/>
2. The risks connected with identification of economically unjustified costs. Possessing extensive experience of interaction with tax authorities the employees of ACG Sozidaniye i Razvitiye know the types of agreements that tax authorities treat with special attention and consider to be involved in tax evasion schemes in case the specified financial and business transactions are not peculiar for the taxpayer, for example, outsourcing, leasing or operation using promissory notes. Our consultants checked the accuracy of registration of these operations and provided recommendations to minimize tax risks. The work of the consultants of ACG Sozidaniye i Razvitiye resulted in development of practical recommendations for prevention and minimization of tax risks. As a consequence the client received a certificate on absence of tax violations at the end of the field tax inspection. The client managed to avoid additional taxes, fines and penalties.