Successful protection of pharma company's interests in tax dispute in court of appeal
Attorneys of Legal Alliance law firm defended in the Court of Appeal the ruling, which revoked the tax notice-decisions issued to the client for a total amount of over UAH 6 million on business transactions for marketing services.
Thus, during the appeal proceedings, the association's attorneys proved that the tax arguments are based on assumptions, while in the case file there is sufficient evidence to confirm the reality of operations of the client's providers.
A basic requirement for obtaining a favorable judgement for the client in this case type is the need to clearly explain the specifics of the pharmaceutical market operation, the impact factors and ongoing processes.
Since all of the given actually shapes the goal of the companies ordering marketing services. This goal is often achieved and is of material terms, namely, increased sales and market share.
The understanding of such specifics by the association's attorneys and the ability to explain at court sessions and in written applications submitted to the court, made it possible to successfully protect the client's interests from improper charges of the tax authorities.
Our team proved that the tax authorities have committed a large number of violations of the procedural law both in the preparation of the appeal and in the provision of new evidence already at the appeal stage.
The court, in particular stated that the tax authority, contrary to the provisions of the procedural law, did not indicate the reasons for not submitting the new evidence to the primary court, nor did it prove that it was impossible to obtain it earlier than on appeal.
In addition, the attorneys emphasized that the new evidence does not relate to the services received by the Client and therefore did not relate to the subject of evidence in the case.
This approach to the elaboration of its legal position on the case allowed to convince the court of appeal that the grounds of the tax authority's appeal were frivolous.
Partner Vitalii Savchuk, Senior Associate Yaroslav Furiaka and Junior Associate Roman Pecheniuk worked on the case.
Vitalii Savchuk comments: "There are serious concerns in the market this year: whether in the light of the national budget deficit, the courts will not return the judicial practice in favor of the tax authorities, regardless of merits of case. I also had doubts when we observed the audacity of the opponent. The tax authorities in this case not only made requests after the first instance ruling, but also submitted such requests not to our client's vendors, but to companies with similar names. Particularly, they received information that services were not provided from companies that had no relationship with the payer and, by default, could not confirm the provision of services. And the suspense is over. Grateful to the panel for carefully considering the case files and asking us and tax authorities critical questions."
