BETA версия

“The provision of tax information does not guarantee that the audit is prevented. But, if you ignore the request, the check will be carried out one hundred percent ”, – Igor Kryzhanovsky and Alexander Bannikov Back

Scroll down

And again the TEFFI Law Firm at Legal High School. This time, Igor Kryzhanovsky, Managing Partner of TEFFI Law Firm, and Alexander Bannikov, Senior Lawyer at TEFFI Law Firm, discussed the topic of the limits of providing information to tax authorities.

Igor Kryzhanovsky started with a list of reasons that give the tax authority the right to request information. The following grounds are attributed to: the identification of facts indicating the violation; determining the level of ordinary prices; inaccuracy of data in tax returns; a complaint about the taxpayer; in the case of counterintelligence and other cases.

The Managing Partner pointed out the requirements for the request established by the Tax Code of Ukraine. It is therefore an exhaustive list of requested information and a description of it (also a list of supporting documents); a reference to a rule of law under which a DPS body is entitled to receive information; grounds for request; the request must be on the DFS form and signed by the head (deputy head).

The lecturer emphasized that the time of providing information on request is 15 working days. In the event of a finding of evidence that violates or determines the level of ordinary prices inaccuracy of data in tax returns; payer complaint. In case of a counter-check – 10 days.

The TEFFI Law Firm senior lawyer emphasized the need to respond to a tax request. If you provide timely information, it is likely that the tax will not bother you. But only if the information is provided in full and on time.

However, the situation today is such that the completeness of the tax information is determined by its own standards and criteria, so it does not yet guarantee the prevention of the audit. But if you ignore the request for information, the tax audit will be one hundred percent.

Oleksandr Bannikov illustrated an example from the case law where taxpayers challenged a tax inspection order on the basis of incomplete submission of information by the taxpayer.

An appropriate tendency was noted: by allowing officials of the supervisory authority to carry out an audit, the payer loses the right to appeal against an order for its conduct.

The tax police have the right to demand documents (temporary access to things and documents) from the enterprise or other subject is possible only on the basis of the decision of the investigating judge, court. In other cases, evidence obtained in violation of the law will be declared inadmissible by the court.

In concluding of his report, Mr. Alexander outlined the procedure for obtaining information from a tax authority about non-resident income that is taxable in Ukraine, and outlined the regulatory framework for obtaining such information. He also spoke about the positive experience of tax information sharing in the US through the FATCA (Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act), which came into force in 2014 and was joined by Ukraine in 2017.