September 2018
After considering the objections filed to the field tax audit report, the tax authority reduced by more than half the amount of tax payable to the budget. In May 2018, one of the law firm’s clients received a field tax audit report, according to which the additional amount of tax payable to the budget for 2014-2015 was: corporate income tax RUB 47.9 mn, VAT RUB 40 mn. The position of the tax inspectorate as set out in the report was based on the fact that the client had allegedly evaded taxes by exchanging fictitious documents with its related parties and their related parties established only for a short period of time in order to overstate costs and become entitled to VAT deductions. According to the tax inspectorate, the client's contracting parties paid minimum taxes and did not record in their reports the amounts paid to them for their goods and services. In addition, the inspectorate asserted that the collected evidence indicated deliberate actions by the client, aimed at generating an unreasonable tax benefit. After accepting the client’s commission, the law firm’s position was as follows: in accordance with para. 10 of Resolution 53 by the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation on the assessment by courts of arbitration of the reasonableness of the taxpayer’s tax benefit, a tax benefit may be deemed unreasonable if the tax authority can demonstrate that the taxpayer acted in violation of the principles of due diligence and due care and was aware of any violations by the contracting party. At the same time, the fact that the contracting party violated its tax obligations (including failure to record assets in its accounting and tax reports) does not in itself prove that the taxpayer generated an unreasonable tax benefit. Based on these arguments, the provisions of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, taking into account the position of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation set forth in its Ruling 329-O of December 16, 2003, objections to the field tax audit report were prepared. After considering the objections, the inspectorate partially accepted the arguments presented by the law firm, reducing by more than half the additional amount of tax in its decision imposing tax liability on the taxpayer.
September 2018
One of the law firm’s clients defended by the attorneys D.O. Belov and A.A. Bakradze released on parole pursuant to Art. 79 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation One of the law firm’s clients defended by the attorneys D.O. Belov and A.A. Bakradze released on parole pursuant to Art. 79 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Earlier, the Judicial Chamber for Criminal Cases at the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation partially upheld a cassation appeal against the verdict and subsequent judicial acts in a case of VAT refund abuse prosecuted as fraud on a particularly large scale (para. 4 Art. 159 of the Criminal Code) and reduced the sentence from 5 to 3 years in prison.
September 2018
Indictment on charges of embezzlement on a large scale (para. 4 Art. 159 of the Criminal Code) and concealment of funds rejected by the Deputy Public Prosecutor of Moscow supervising legal compliance at special restricted access sites Deputy Public Prosecutor of Moscow supervising legal compliance at special restricted access sites returned an indictment on charges of embezzlement on a large scale (para. 4 Art. 159 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) and concealment of funds earmarked for payment of taxes, fees, and insurance contributions (Art. 199.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) to the head of the investigative unit at the Central Investigation Department of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation in Moscow for eliminating the identified deficiencies and drafting a new version of the indictment. Further investigation, as requested by the attorneys D.O. Belov and A.A. Novokhatsky after reviewing the criminal case files pursuant to Art. 217 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, allowed the defense to have the case files supplemented with additional evidence.
June 2018
The Judicial Chamber for Criminal Cases at the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation partially upheld a cassation appeal against the verdict and subsequent judicial acts in a case of VAT refund abuse prosecuted as fraud on a particularly large scale In its appellate ruling, the Judicial Chamber for Criminal Cases at Volgograd Region Court modified the sentence handed down by the trial court by upgrading the punishment from 3 to 5 years in prison.   The client’s family contacted ZPartners in the spring of 2017 in the cassation appeal phase. The attorney A.A. Bakradze consistently appealed against the judicial acts and, as a result, the punishment was reduced to the original 3 years in prison. Presently, petition by the client for early release on parole is pending final decision.
June 2018
The criminal prosecution of the client with the termination of the criminal case initiated on the fact of evasion from fulfilling the obligation to repatriate money in foreign currency or the currency of the Russian Federation was terminated (clause "a" part 2 article 193 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). Lawyer Bureau Belov D.O. in cooperation with his colleagues, succeeded in stopping the criminal prosecution of his client - a large regional entrepreneur, a manufacturer suspected of evading the obligation to repatriate money in the amount of more than three million US dollars.
June 2018
On appeal by a ZPartners attorney, Moscow Region Court overturned a decision by the trial court establishing the child’s place of residence and ordering recovery of child support payments In its decision, the trial court granted custody of the minor child to the father and upheld the father's claim for the recovery from the mother of the child support payments. The mother of the child commissioned a ZPartners attorney to represent her in the appellate court and to prepare an appeal against the decision by the trial court. In the appellate ruling, Moscow City Court overturned the decision by the trial court. The mother was granted custody of the minor child, the claim for the recovery from the mother of the child support was dismissed.
1 2 3 >