Friday, June 13, 2014

Amendments to Transfer Pricing Rules

On 30 May 2014 the Act of UkraineOn Amendments to Tax Code of Ukraine Aimed at Improving Transfer Pricing Rules (Homytynnik's Act) came into force.

Please see below a brief account of the main changes introduced by this Act:

- Deadline for the 2013 transfer pricing return has been shifted from 1 May 2014 to 1 October 2014. The taxpayers who had not filed the return by 1 May, will be able to do so by 1 October 2014. In addition, the taxpayers who had filed the return by 1 May with some mistakes will have an additional time for the correction of such mistakes without the imposition of any penalties;

- Fine for the failure to submit a transfer pricing return has been equaled to 100 minimum salaries, not 5% of the total amount of the undisclosed controlled transactions as it was before;

- Fine for the failure to submit transfer pricing documentation has been decreased from 100 to 10 minimum salaries;

- Period of the application of a nominal fine of UAH 1.00 in case of the determination of additional transfer pricing-related tax liabilities by the tax authority has been prolonged till 31 December 2014;

- Exemption from penalties in case of the determination of additional transfer pricing-related tax liabilities by means of a self-correction made by a taxpayer up to 31 December 2014 has been introduced.


VAT-Bonds to be Issued

On 27 May 2014 the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine of 21 May 2014 No. 139 (the “Resolution”) came into force. The Resolution provides for the issue of government bonds (so-called VAT-bonds) for the purposes of VAT refunding.

The terms of the issue of the VAT-bonds are the following:

- Refunding through the VAT-bonds is voluntary. А taxable person willing to obtain VAT-bonds should submit a respective application to his local tax authority;

- Amount of the VAT to be refunded through the VAT-bonds is currently unknown. In the nearest future the Ministry of Revenue and Duties of Ukraine is supposed to carry out the inventory of the VAT indebtedness. Based on the results of such an inventory the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine will approve the threshold limit of the issue;

- Refunding through the VAT-bonds will cover only those amounts of VAT which had been declared for refunding by 1 January 2014;

- Premised on the plain reading of the Resolution, the only amounts of the VAT confirmed by tax audits can be refunded through the VAT-bonds. It is unclear whether it will be possible to refund in such a way the VAT amounts confirmed by the court judgments awarded in the cases concerned with challenging the results of the tax audits;

- Taking into account the time set forth by the Resolution for drafting the inventory registers of the VAT indebtedness as well as the conduct of other formalities required for the issue of the VAT-bonds, the issue may be expected not earlier than in the middle of August 2014;

- VAT-bonds are going to be issued in non-documentary form (uncertified securities). The par value of the VAT-bonds is going to be UAH 1,000. The interest rate equals to that of the National Bank of Ukraine at the time of the the Resolution’s entry into force (9,5% per annum). The interest repayments are going to take place every six months;

- Circulation term of the VAT-bonds is 5 years. The Resolution stipulates the gradual repayment of the bonds. The state is going to repay 10% of the par value every six months. Thus, in 5 years 100% of the par value is going to be repaid.

Wednesday, June 4, 2014

Preferential Tax Regimes for Agricultural Enterprises


Below you can find a brief description of three major preferential tax regimes established with a view of promoting the development of agriculture in Ukraine.

І. Fixed agricultural tax (FAT). The switch to this tax, as a rule, entails a tax saving due to the exemptions from: (і) corporate income tax; (іі) land tax, (ііі) duty for special use of water and (iv) duty for conducting certain types of entrepreneurial activity (in terms of trade activities).

FAT is levied on agricultural manufacturers, namely on enterprises engaged in:

Manufacture of agricultural products (crop production and animal husbandry);

Fish farming and catch of fish in inland waters;

Processing of agricultural products.

It is important to note that only legal entities can qualify for FAT. The door to this tax is closed for sole proprietors.

In order to qualify for FAT, an enterprise must have at least 75% share of agricultural production in its total operations in the preceding tax year. The enterprise should undergo a special registration with the tax authorities resulting in the issuance of an FAT certificate. Moreover, the enterprise should confirm its FAT status annually by submitting certain documents to the tax authorities. 
 
The taxable item is the area of agricultural land owned or used by the taxpayer, including leased land plots. The normative monetary value of one hectare of agricultural land makes up the base of assessment.

The tax rates are differentiated and depend on the category of a land plot constituting a taxable item. For example, the tax rate for tillage is 0.15% of the normative monetary value, while for land plots of water register it is 0.45%.

The tax period is a calendar year. The tax return is to be filed by February, 20 of the current year. The tax is paid by instalments on a quarterly basis (in the first and second quarters 10% of the tax is remitted, in the third quarter – 50% and finally in the fourth quarter – 30%).

ІІ. Special regime of VAT taxation for manufacturers. This regime provides for an exemption of agricultural manufacturers from remitting due VAT (surplus of output VAT over input VAT) to the tax authorities. The said VAT is accumulated in special accounts of manufacturers and can be used for the payment of VAT charged on the purchased goods/services and for other production-related purposes.

The regime covers agriculture, forestry and fishing. The Tax Code of Ukraine sets forth a detailed list of activities within each of the three abovementioned groups falling under the scope of this regime.

The two important preconditions for the application of the regime are as follows:

- Production of agricultural goods/provision of agricultural services directly by a taxable person (the regime does not extend to processing enterprises and intermediaries);

- Specific share of agricultural products/services in the total operations of a taxable person (this must be at least 75 % of all the goods/services supplied by him over the preceding year).

For the application of this regime, just as for FAT, a special registration with the tax authorities is required. The taxable person is ought to receive a certificate attesting this specific registration. 
 
VAT returns are submitted under general rules. The only peculiarity here is that the taxable person needs to present additionally to the tax authorities the copies of payment orders certifying the deposition of VAT amounts to the special account.

Taxable persons purchasing goods or services from those enjoying the special regime at hand, are entitled to the input VAT on general grounds.

The users of the special regime preserve the right to a VAT refund, but only to the extent of export transactions. The surplus of input VAT over output VAT caused by the performance of non-export transactions is not subject to a cash refund. However, the taxable person is eligible to carry forward such a surplus in his tax calculations. 
 
III. Special regime of VAT taxation for processing enterprises. Unlike the regime available to manufacturers, this regime is of a temporary nature (to be applied by January 1, 2015). The regime covers milk and meat processing businesses.

This regime is practically tantamount to that for manufacturers, except for the following:

- VAT due to the remittance to the tax authorities is not fully transferred to the special account of a taxable person. The one part of this amount is credited to the said account, while the other goes to the state as an earmarked tax revenues to be spent for backing animal husbandry projects (the ratio for 2014 is 50% to 50%);

- The sphere of the utilization of the VAT amounts retained in special accounts is much narrower. Whereas the regime accorded to manufacturers allows using such funds practically for all production-related purposes, the processing enterprises can utilize these funds as payments for milk and meat purchased from the manufacturers only.

* - Photo from http://durdom.in.ua

Monday, April 28, 2014

Tackling Inconsistences in Preceding Laws and not Only

On April 8 and 10, 2014, the Verkhovna Rada adopted two Acts introducing amendments to the Tax Code of Ukraine:

- Act No. 1191-VII on the abolition of utilization tax for cars, and

- Act No. 1200-VII on the elimination of certain inconsistences in tax rules.

The Acts entered into force on April 18 and 19, 2014, respectively. The information on the main changes brought by these Acts is briefly presented below:


VAT

- The resolution of the problem surrounding the importation of medicinal products and medical devices. From now on, the clear provision is made for the application of the 7% rate to these transactions, just as for the domestic supplies*;

- An obligation on the bodies of the State Treasury Service to publish monthly the list of taxable persons given a tax refund (with an indication of the amount of the refund);

- The restriction of the scope of the exemption in respect of the importation of natural gas to the importations made by National Joint-Stock Company "Naftogaz of Ukraine" (restriction will take effect on September 1, 2014).

PIT**

- Postponing the taxation of interest accrued to current and saving bank accounts to July 1, 2014;

- Postponing the taxation of dividends at a progressive tax rate of 15%, 20% and 25% to January 1, 2015. Dividends will be taxed at a flat rate of 5% by the end of 2014.


MISCELLANEOUS

- Specific provisions on the application of a currency exchange rate in determining customs-related tax liabilities (the official currency rate set at 0 a.m. of the day on which a customs declaration is filed must be taken into account; if the customs declaration is not filed, it must be the day of the determination of tax liabilities);

- Transferring the effective date of the increased excise tax rates on alcohol and alcoholic beverages from September 1 to July 1, 2014;

- The abolition of utilization tax on cars;

- The revival of the exemption from excise taxation for trucks imported in Ukraine and subsequently reequipped to excisable motor cars.



*- The list of such medicinal products and medical devices was approved by the resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of 23 April 2014 No 118.

** - Personal income tax

Photos from http://tyachiv.com.ua and http://www.vtormetlom.ru

Friday, April 18, 2014

Settlement of Tax Disputes: Finally Starts Working

Co-authored by Andrii Kuleba 
 (Junior Associate of 
Lavrynovych & Partners Law Firm)


Ideally, the resolution of the tax disputes by way of a settlement betweenwarringparties, the tax authority and a taxpayer, could be considered as an effective and prompt method of having such disputes decided. However, it was impossible to implement this method for quite a long period of time.

History of the issue

Resorting to the history of the issue in question, first of all it is worth noting the Law of Ukraine No. 2181-III of 21 December 2000 “On Procedure for Repayment of Tax Obligations to State Revenues and State Specialized Funds” (lost effect following the enactment of the Tax Code of Ukraine). This Law set out the procedure for a settlement of disputes between the tax authorities and taxpayers on the basis of a tax compromise. Simultaneously, there were effective provisions of the Economic Procedural Code of Ukraine (at the time this Code governed the resolution of tax disputes) with respect to the possibility of entering into settlement agreements between parties. However, neither tax compromises were reached, nor settlement agreements in tax disputes were approved by the courts. Most probably, the reason for that lay in the absence of the political will to carry out such “suspicious manipulations”.

Somewhat widespread a settlement of tax disputes became just recently (in 2012-2014). The pressure with respect to the pumping up the state revenues increased so much that the taxmen began to accept a short-term effect achieved by the settlement. Though the state revenues obtains less receipts as a result of the settlement, there is no need to wait years for the final resolution of the dispute. Some kind of “the revolution of consciousness” happened in the minds of “the respectable sirs” of our tax authority.

So how does a settlement work in tax disputes and what lessons can be learnt from the current court practice?

Word of the law

The respective issues are governed by the Administrative Proceeding Code of Ukraine (hereinafterthe AP Code), which directly provides for the possibility to settle the case between the parties to the litigation. According to the AP Code mutual concessions should be at the heart of a settlement. A settlement may only deal with the rights and obligations of the parties to litigation and may not go beyond the subject of the claim.

The procedural consequence of a settlement is the ruling on the closure of the proceedings. Such a ruling should also contain the terms and conditions of the settlement. The AP Code clearly states that it is possible to reach a settlement at any stage of the administrative proceedings, namely: (і) within the preliminary procedure, (іі) during the court hearings in the court of first instance, (ііі) within the first appeal proceedings, (іv) within the second appeal (cassation) proceedings and (v) at the stage of the enforcement of court judgments.

The legislation also embraces the list of requirements to the terms and conditions of a settlement. First, a settlement should not contradict the law. Second, a settlement should not make up a breach of anyone’s rights, freedoms or interests.

That said, the legislative requirements to a settlement are quite standard. If the court finds the terms and conditions of a settlement being incompatible with at least one of the aforementioned requirements, the court will not accept such a settlement (section 51 (4) of the AP Code).

Of particular interest is the fact that the control over the performance of a settlement agreement is carried out by the administrative court which was in charge of its approval. The AP Code unambiguously provides for that in the case of the non-performance of the settlement agreement by one party, the court renews the proceedings upon the application of the other party.

Actual realities

First that can be noted is that sometimes courts use incorrect name of a settlement in their rulings (Ukrainian “мирова угода” (“myrova ugoda”) instead of Ukrainian “примирення сторін” (“prymyrennia storin”)). The rulings of the Odesa Administrative Court of Appeal dated 18 December 2013 in the case No. 814/1270/13-а (challenging a notice of assessment) and of the Zakarpatskyi District Administrative Court dated 14 January 2014 in the case No. 2a-0770/527/12 (challenging a notice of assessment) are good examples of this approach.

Somehow different approach is contained in the ruling of the same Zakarpatskyi District Administrative Court dated 27 September 2013 in the case No. 807/3463/13-а (tax debt collection). In this case parties concluded a settlement agreement, called it мирова угода” (“myrova ugoda”) and filed it with the court for the consideration. The court pointed out that a мирова угода” (“myrova ugoda”) is not stipulated by the AP Code. Nevertheless, the court accepted its terms and conditions and closed the litigation.

Sometimes, despite the requirements of the AP Code, the judges demonstrate laziness” in setting forth the terms and conditions of a settlement agreement in their rulings. An example of such an “inactivity” is the ruling of the District Administrative Court of the City of Kyiv dated 27 April 2012 in the case No. 2а-1999/12/2670 (tax debt collection).

As to the nature of tax disputes in which a settlement is usually attained, there may be two main categories outlined. The first one is tax debt collection claims brought by the tax authorities against taxpayers. The second one is claims of taxpayers against the tax authorities related to the cancellation of notices of assessment.

Does the court always humane?

It should be noted that in the majority of cases the court accepts the terms and conditions of the settlement and closes the proceedings. However, the opposite situations are also possible. Of great interest in this aspect is the ruling of the Donetsk Administrative Court of Appeal dated 1 October 2013 in the case No. 2а/0570/8782/2011 (challenging a notice of assessment). In this case that, by the way, relates to the Ukrainian subsidiary of the world biggest producer of construction materials with the German place of registration – Knauf, the parties submitted to the court the rather “sophisticated” settlement agreement. We can just assume that “pricy” lawyers from a top-tier law firm billed a great deal of hours for drafting such an agreement.

It seems that Knauf was deeply concerned with the risks related to settling the tax dispute. First of all, they worried about a risk of brining criminal charges. The lawyers of the company were afraid that the conclusion of the settlement agreement according to which the company agreed with the additional tax assessment could be considered by the tax police as the confession of guilt for the tax evasion.

Accordingly, the provisions of the settlement agreement were drafted so as to minimize that risk to the greatest possible extent. In particular, it was prescribed by the settlement agreement that Knauf discharges additional tax payments not because it agrees with them, but exclusively based on its pragmatic considerations taking into account numerous further expenditures needed for the continuation of the proceedings. In addition, the settlement agreement contained the prohibition on the criminal prosecution of the executives of the company in connection with its possible interpretation as the recognition of the lawfulness of the additional tax bill.

The Donetsk Administrative Court of Appeal rejected to accept such a trickysettlement agreement maintaining that its terms and conditions did not comply with the statutory requirements.

In lieu of conclusion

It appears that a settlement begins to enter confidently the practice of the resolution of tax disputes. To date, there is some judicial practice on this issue. Hopefully, the scope of the application of this efficient way of the dispute resolution will only expand.



* - Photo from http://www.mobilimize.com