Beeline faces new battle against FTS
Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2025 11:09 am
On September 3, the Federal Tax Service (FTS) attempted to appeal the decision of the Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal, which ruled in favor of PJSC VimpelCom (Beeline brand) in a dispute over the procedure for scheduling a tax audit.
A week before, a lawyer who had studied the case materials noted that the case was notable in that the taxpayer had reached the Constitutional Court (Resolution No. 41-P of 14.07.23), whose bahrain whatsapp resource position was used to justify the decision of the Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal: "But the Federal Tax Service is now declaring that the taxpayer is abusing its rights by appealing the very fact of the appointment of an audit, instead of arguing the merits of the additional tax assessments."
Read also
In the cassation appeal to the Arbitration Court of the Moscow District, the Federal Tax Service indicated that PJSC VimpelCom was abusing its rights. Lawyers believe that the tax authority is unlikely to have grounds for reviewing the case, since all the facts in the appeal have been established and they are not in favor of the legality of the tax authority's actions.
The Federal Tax Service filed a constitutional complaint to overturn the decision of the appellate court: "We believe that the court of first instance made the right decision, and we incorrectly interpreted the extradition of the Constitutional Court to the appellate court, in connection with which the conclusions themselves did not correspond to those in the case materials. During the new consideration of the case, the Constitutional Court's position appeared, and we say that the Constitutional Court indicated that it is permissible to calculate a two-year period from the date of filing the amended notification, and if the said notification contains new information about the transactions, then it is significant for opening an inspection. We have such information. The Federal Tax Service does not open an inspection without reason, but conducts an evaluative analysis of all the circumstances that are significant for itself, which we listed."
The defense of Beeline attached the ruling of the Constitutional Court to the case and expressed its attitude to the cassation appeal: "We believe that the ruling of the appeal is legal and justified. The Court of Appeal correctly indicated that the ruling of the Constitutional Court, adopted on our appeal, has retroactive effect for our case. As well as the conclusions reached by the Constitutional Court on how the period for appointing an audit should be calculated. In its decision, the tax authority should have justified why it was appointing an audit outside the two-year period."
A week before, a lawyer who had studied the case materials noted that the case was notable in that the taxpayer had reached the Constitutional Court (Resolution No. 41-P of 14.07.23), whose bahrain whatsapp resource position was used to justify the decision of the Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal: "But the Federal Tax Service is now declaring that the taxpayer is abusing its rights by appealing the very fact of the appointment of an audit, instead of arguing the merits of the additional tax assessments."
Read also
In the cassation appeal to the Arbitration Court of the Moscow District, the Federal Tax Service indicated that PJSC VimpelCom was abusing its rights. Lawyers believe that the tax authority is unlikely to have grounds for reviewing the case, since all the facts in the appeal have been established and they are not in favor of the legality of the tax authority's actions.
The Federal Tax Service filed a constitutional complaint to overturn the decision of the appellate court: "We believe that the court of first instance made the right decision, and we incorrectly interpreted the extradition of the Constitutional Court to the appellate court, in connection with which the conclusions themselves did not correspond to those in the case materials. During the new consideration of the case, the Constitutional Court's position appeared, and we say that the Constitutional Court indicated that it is permissible to calculate a two-year period from the date of filing the amended notification, and if the said notification contains new information about the transactions, then it is significant for opening an inspection. We have such information. The Federal Tax Service does not open an inspection without reason, but conducts an evaluative analysis of all the circumstances that are significant for itself, which we listed."
The defense of Beeline attached the ruling of the Constitutional Court to the case and expressed its attitude to the cassation appeal: "We believe that the ruling of the appeal is legal and justified. The Court of Appeal correctly indicated that the ruling of the Constitutional Court, adopted on our appeal, has retroactive effect for our case. As well as the conclusions reached by the Constitutional Court on how the period for appointing an audit should be calculated. In its decision, the tax authority should have justified why it was appointing an audit outside the two-year period."