Several interesting court cases that were highlighted from the total mass.
During the period when it is necessary to concentrate on judicial work, in KARIMOV LAW FIRM 20-30 cases are considered to be normally processed by one partner
Several interesting court cases that were highlighted from the total mass.
During the period when it is necessary to concentrate on judicial work, in KARIMOV LAW FIRM 20-30 cases are considered to be normally processed by one partner
In case A42-8187 / 02-С4, there were examined the results of one of the first on-site inspections after the establishment of Kolskaya MMC.
In case of a negative result, the company actually ceased its activity.
Thanks to teamwork, firstly it was possible to prevent the indisputable fulfillment of the IFTS requirements and then to invalidate the very decision on additional charges.
Case A42-4203/01-5-384/02 is of a great interest because of its scope. Claims for more than 1 billion rubles, additional charges on income tax, VAT and fines, funds.
The case consisted of 113 toms of evidence, there were examined 13 episodes only on the income tax: production, non-operating income/expenses, transactions disputing, issues of implied actions, etc.
Each court session lasted for several days. They were court pleadings against a team of inspectors. It was necessary to plan performance strategy, to bring chaos to team work of opponents and to force court to doubt position of opponents more. The case has been examining in three jurisdictions for 5 years and ended with the taxpayer victory.
These cases are of interest to construction companies and customers — real estate developers in the context of input prices costs allocation and subsequently the classification of a number of expenses from capital category to administrative.
Case A42-9368/02-C4 summarized extensive practice in offsettable taxes cases. It addressed the issue of where to fill an application for tax offsetting, but what makes it really interesting is the fact that it put an end to the debt dispute about whether the tax authority can refuse taxpayer to offset the tax if the taxpayer has an arrear in the same budget.
This dispute seemingly procedural became of a great interest because the overpayment was formed on the declaration of the taxpayer who used a tax credit, IFTS didn’t agree on its application and added the tax. As a result, the taxpayer’s card included both overpayment and additional charge for the same episode, which caused numerous legal disputes (for each subsequent declaration) and stay of proceedings. This practice of suspension, as well as the issue of the legality of disputed overpayment offset were managed to be reversed in favor of the taxpayer.
In case A42-3049/01-25 concerning the tax benefit application to the property tax, there was considered the question relevant up to the present time: whether the taxpayer is entitled to apply the benefits if the property is in the use of another person. The result: even in disputed issues the taxpayer is entitled to apply tax benefit in accordance with fiscal role of the tax benefit (in this case, the environmental objective of the property).
The most interesting case is A42-1567 / 01-16-164 / 02, in which competed the norms of laws, bylaws, and even departmental instructions. Such cases motivate both lawyers and judges, being a “pure science”. In this case, it was possible to defend the position of a FTA participant, breaking the practice of customs value adjustment by the sixth method.
A number of cases, including A42-1417/02-25, A42-4327/00-17, where the position of the FTA participant was defended who did not agree with disproportionate fines for violating the terms of currency profit repatriation.
Case A42-4877/01 – 21 is of a great interest because of the fact that the costs were recovered from customs due to the execution of the illegal decision, including the bailiff fee-a revolutionary decision on the position reflected in the departmental acts of customs only in year 2018.
A number of disputes that became a trend in 2018. Pilot trials were proceeded on them in 2016-2017, including ours: A40-45622 / 17-62-428, A40-42875 / 2017, A40-42871 / 2017, 02-5168 / 201, 02-21759 / 2016, 02 -2480/2017.
There was a lot about KESKO concern written in press, here are some examples:
Each acquisition is a project in itself that presents our partners not only as diverse lawyers who close due diligence, negotiations, binding and conceptual documents, but also managers responsible for deadlines, resources, risks, reporting.
As a rule, the M & A transaction is preceded by a corporate restructuring of the acquired company. The largest restructurings were made in two transactions:
