For a long period of time disputes over so-called “void agreements” have been the most notorious disputes with tax authorities. The notion does not precisely define this category of disputes, but it has been always applied to. This refers to the refusal of tax authorities to declare the tax credit and\/or expenses on transactions with contractors, which directors\/participants are involved in criminal proceedings under Art. 205 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine “Fictitious business activity”.<\/p>\n
In this newsletter, we will analyze some elements of possible approaches to the court consideration of such disputes, which practical application is not widespread at present. However, we expect that its application may greatly improve the taxpayer\u2019s position and facilitate a fair court consideration of such disputes.<\/p>\n
(i)<\/em><\/p>\n These issues provide the ground for further analysis.<\/p>\n We recall that the use of a concept of “sham” business is not limited to the tax disputes.<\/p>\n The tax legislation does not actually contain direct references on possible consequences of contractor\u2019s “sham” nature. Therefore, they should be traced in other branches of law.<\/p>\n At the same time, the “notorious” Art. 205 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine is limited to the establishment or purchase of the legal entity and is not directly related to the evaluation of the subsequent activity of such an enterprise.<\/p>\n The only law that deals with alleged fictitiousness of enterprise is the Commercial Code of Ukraine, namely Art. 55-1.<\/p>\n Art. 55-1 of the Commercial Code of Ukraine establishes that:<\/p>\n (ii)<\/em><\/p>\n First and foremost, we will analyze the features of alleged fictitiousness that are considered by the courts as satisfactory evidence for termination of such enterprise, i.e. to impose consequences of alleged fictitiousness which are directly determined by the mentioned Law.<\/p>\n Based on the data in the Unified State Register of Court Decisions, one can see that judicial practice on this matter has been already developed.<\/p>\n According to judicial practice of the Supreme Administrative Court of Ukraine, the only proper and admissible evidence on alleged fictitiousness which can lead to termination of enterprise has been a verdict in the criminal proceedings taken into effect.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n For instance, such a position was outlined in the Court Decision of the Supreme Administrative Court of Ukraine of August 06, 2015 in court case No. \u041a\/9991\/31899\/12<\/a>:<\/p>\n “It follows from the case materials that concerning the ground of claims on termination of the legal entity and holding charter documents invalid, the plaintiff referred to the person who conducted a state registration of this enterprise and who took its activity with no purpose to conduct business activity.<\/strong><\/p>\n However, contrary to the requirements of Art. 71 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine, the Defendant did not submit proper and admissible evidence to the Court, in particular, a verdict in the criminal proceedings regarding bringing individuals to criminal responsibility for the establishment of the fictitious enterprise<\/strong> or conducting any other illegal activity by the Company”.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n It should be noted that there are few court decisions delivered by the Supreme Administrative Court of Ukraine upon results of consideration of this issue, since according to the data in the Unified State Register of Court Decisions court cases regarding termination of enterprises due to its “sham” nature were considered by appeal courts, and the Supreme Administrative Court of Ukraine refused to bring the proceedings (for example, Court Decisions of June 23, 2015 in court case No. 826\/18258\/14<\/a>, of April 07, 2015 in court case No. 804\/4782\/14<\/a>, of March 20, 2017 in court case No. 818\/3065\/15<\/a>, of June 08, 2016 in court case No. 809\/1566\/14<\/a><\/p>\n The appeal courts maintain such an approach, namely that a verdict in the criminal proceedings is satisfactory evidence on fictitiousness of the enterprise.<\/p>\n For example, this position is supported by the Kyiv Appeal Administrative Court in the Resolution of February 05, 2018 in court case No. 823\/1652\/17<\/a>:<\/p>\n “However, the proper evidence of the fictitious business activity is a verdict in the criminal proceedings. Instead, the tax authority did not provide the court with such a verdict<\/strong>.<\/p>\n In these circumstances, the panel of judges came to the conclusion that evidence of the existence of any of the circumstances listed in Art. 38 para. 2 of the Law of Ukraine “On State Registration of Legal Entities and Self-Employed Individuals”, which can be used for delivering a court decision on termination of legal entity, were not provided to the court, as well proper and admissible evidence on alleged fictitiousness. Therefore, there are no grounds to hold the charter of the “Sterop”, Limited liability company invalid from the moment of the company\u2019s registration and to terminate the Company according to Art. 55-1 of the Commercial Code of Ukraine<\/strong>. The claims are considered to be unreasonable and are not subject to satisfaction”.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n At the same time, it should be noted that there are also few decisions of the appeal courts which contained a slightly more fiscal-oriented position. This position indicates that an indictment file in the criminal proceedings under Art. 205 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, which was transferred to the court, may be a satisfactory evidence. For instance, the following is stated in the Court Decision of December 13, 2016, in court case No. 825\/1427\/16<\/a>:<\/p>\n According to the data in the Unified State Register of Court Decisions the Supreme Court has delivered only one decision on imposing termination procedure due to alleged fictitiousness under Art. 55-1 of the Commercial Code of Ukraine.<\/p>\n For instance, the Supreme Court in the Resolution of January 30, 2018, in court case No. 2\u0430-2924\/11\/2670<\/a> upheld the lower courts\u2019 decisions delivered on termination of the enterprise due to alleged fictitiousness evidenced by a verdict under Art. 205 of the Criminal code of Ukraine.<\/p>\n “To substantiate the mentioned claims the Inspection referred to the fact that upon result of the measures taken to eliminate the existing discrepancies in the taxpayer\u2019s reporting on tax credit and tax liabilities, the court rule on the fictitiousness of the Company\u2019s activity, that was evidenced by the copy of verdict<\/strong> delivered by the Podilskyi Local Court in Kyiv on July 13, 2011 in criminal proceedings No. 1-565\/11 regarding INDIVIDUAL_1\u2019s (individual who re-registered the Company on September 28, 2009) accusation of a crime under Art. 205 para. 1,2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine<\/strong>. In particular, INDIVIDUAL_1 was found guilty in committing intentional actions that were expressed in terms of fictitious business activity, i.e. purchasing business entities (legal entities) for the purpose of illegal activity suppression. Besides, the Inspection referred to the fact that the Company did not submit tax returns and financial reporting to the state tax authorities during the year.<\/p>\n On March 26, 2012 the District Administrative Court of Kyiv partially satisfied the claim. The court terminated the Company\u2019s legal entity<\/strong>. At the same time, the court refused to satisfy the other claim.<\/p>\n \u2026 The Cassation Administrative Court as part of the Supreme Court checked the arguments stated in the cassation claim and concluded that the cassation claim was not subject to the satisfaction on the following grounds”.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n We assume that tax authorities agree that only a verdict in the criminal proceedings can be considered as proper evidence of alleged fictitiousness, considering the mentioned court positions, as well as the lack of tax authorities\u2019 efforts to initiating a reconsideration of the positions by the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n A well-established judicial practice has been observed according to which nothing else (such as interrogation files, analytical notes etc.) but a verdict in the criminal proceedings can be considered as an admissible evidence on fictitiousness of alleged fictitiousness of enterprise\u2019s activity.<\/p>\n (iii)<\/em><\/p>\n The mentioned approach should also be applied in tax disputes over relations with allegedly fictitious enterprises, considering the necessity to form integrity of the judicial practice.<\/p>\n Particularly, such understanding stems from the rule of law principle that is fundamental to all types of legal proceedings and which is defined by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine (in court decision of November 02, 2004 No. 15-\u0440\u043f\/2004) as “the rule of law in society; the rule of law requires its implementation in the law-making and law-enforcement procedures [\u2026]”<\/span> and provides, in particular, legal certainty which according to the Constitutional Court of Ukraine is required for “enable participants of certain legal relationships to predict the consequences of their actions and be confident in their legitimate expectations”.<\/span><\/p>\n At the same time, the Constitutional Court of Ukraine referred to the Report “Rule of Law”<\/a>, approved by the European Commission “For Democracy through Law” announced at 86th plenary session (Venice, March 25-26, 2011) (CDL-AD(2011) which defined a legal certainty as the first key to ensure confidence in the judicial system and the rule of law.<\/p>\n In other words, if the individual knows that the judicial practice related to the direct application of law, which directly defines “alleged fictitiousness” of the enterprise and possible legal consequences of such \u201calleged fictitiousness\u201d, considers nothing less than a verdict as an admissible evidence, why other proving methods and approaches happen to be in other disputes related to the “sham” nature of the enterprise should be applied?<\/p>\n Any other evidence than a verdict in the criminal proceedings taken effect cannot be deemed as proper and admissible evidences due to the principle of integrity of the judicial practice which is the component of the rule of law.<\/p>\n (iv)<\/em><\/p>\n At the same time, the application of approach based on the inadmissibility of other evidence than a verdict in the criminal proceedings is confirmed by the fact that other materials usually used by the tax authorities should be examined by court within procedure under which these materials were obtained. It is required to comply with procedures under the Code of Criminal Proceedings of Ukraine on direct examination of the mentioned case materials by the court, considering that tax authorities use criminal case materials (explanations, interrogation files and expertise materials etc.).<\/p>\n For instance, the Code of Criminal Proceedings of Ukraine provides the duty of the court to conduct a direct examination of testimony, things and documents. The duty is not only established as one of the general principles of the criminal proceedings, but also may result in consequences clearly defined by law upon non-compliance with it.<\/p>\n In particular, Art. 23 para. 2 of the Code of Criminal Proceedings of Ukraine provides the following:<\/p>\n In other words, the court is obliged to examine the information contained in testimony, things and documents. This information cannot be considered as evidence under the Code of Criminal Proceedings of Ukraine otherwise.<\/p>\n Therefore, there is every reason to argue that the materials of criminal case, which were not directly examined by the court within the criminal proceedings, may not be considered as evidence within other cases as well.<\/p>\n At the same time, it is worth noting that certain materials used by the tax authorities are considered to be as inadmissible evidence even when examined by the court within criminal proceedings. For instance, it is referred to interrogation files of witness who was subsequently recognized as a suspect or indicted in criminal proceedings. Inadmissibility of such interrogation files as evidence was directly set forth in Art. 87 para. 3 subpara. 1 of the Code of Criminal Proceedings of Ukraine.<\/p>\n Therefore, reference to the testimony from the interrogation files of witnesses who was subsequently recognized as a suspect or indicted in criminal proceedings cannot be taken into consideration, since they are expected to be inadmissible evidence and were not obtained for the purpose stipulated by law.<\/p>\n To conclude, the courts are expected to maintain the same legal position as was formed in disputes regarding termination of allegedly fictitious enterprises, considering the integrity and unity of the judicial approach in disputes over so-called “void agreements”. Therefore, the expected judicial position in disputes over so-called “void agreements” should rely on evaluating the materials of criminal proceedings as inadmissible evidence with regard to the absence of a verdict.<\/p>\n (v)<\/em><\/p>\n The courts cannot take into account the mere information regarding alleged fictitiousness either in disputes over so-called “void agreements” or in other disputes with tax authorities.<\/p>\n For instance, the Supreme Court stated the following in Resolution of October 16, 2018 in court case No. 821\/559\/17<\/a> regarding termination of agreement on recognition of electronic documents concluded between a taxpayer and tax authority:<\/p>\n (vi)<\/em><\/p>\n We have already discussed the issue on tax authority\u2019s duty<\/em> to file a lawsuit on termination of allegedly fictitious enterprises. Moreover, tax authorities are not exempt from the duty and, therefore, they have to fulfil it under the law to the extent that they possess the information and satisfactory evidence on alleged fictitiousness of enterprise. Only the lawsuit should be the cornerstone of the evaluation of the evidence on alleged fictitiousness of enterprise by the tax authorities or court.<\/p>\n In other words, if the tax authorities have not filed a lawsuit on termination of enterprise, it can be argued that the reliable information on alleged fictitiousness of enterprise is absent.<\/p>\n At the same, only court can rule on termination of the enterprise and, therefore, its decision can prove the alleged fictitiousness of enterprise or disprove the one. This should be taken into account where tax authorities have already filed the lawsuit.<\/p>\n Thus, the following approach should be established in this regard:<\/p>\n The core responsibility of tax authorities is to file a lawsuit on termination of allegedly fictitious enterprise in case of detecting such enterprise.<\/p>\n And an alleged fictitiousness of enterprise can be proven only within criminal proceedings.<\/p>\n Consequently, the tax authorities should not doubt in the legality of the activity of the enterprise\u2019s contractors, until the relevant court verdict and the court decision were delivered.<\/p>\n In case if the relevant dispute arose and came into the trial, the proceeding should be suspended having regard to actual impossibility to consider dispute on so-called \u201cvoid agreements\u201d before delivering the decision in case on termination of the enterprise which will rule on the fictitiousness of such enterprise. At the same time, according to formal approach to the application of Art. 236 para. 1 subpara. 3 of the Code of Administrative Procedure such option is efficient only in case of filing a lawsuit on termination of enterprise by tax authorities, since these provisions refer exactly to the \u201ccase under consideration\u201d.<\/p>\n According to Art. 74 para. 2 of the Code of Administrative Procedure:<\/p>\n In other words, if tax authorities argue that the enterprise is allegedly fictitious, then the alleged fictitiousness of the enterprise should be held by the court decision on termination of such enterprise to be the evidence over the dispute on so-called \u201cvoid agreements\u201d.<\/p>\n (vii)<\/em><\/p>\n On the other side, the court decision on termination of the enterprise delivered after the decision of tax authority on so-called \u201cvoid agreements\u201d cannot be considered as the evidence under Art. 77 para. 2 subpara. 2 of the Code of Administrative Procedure:<\/p>\n Therefore, tax authorities at first should file a lawsuit and obtain the decision on termination of the enterprise which rule on the fictitiousness of the enterprise. Only then can tax authorities start to reassess taxes over so-called \u201cvoid agreements\u201d.<\/p>\n (v\u0456\u0456\u0456)<\/em><\/p>\n It seemed interesting to us to outline the statistics on lawsuits filed by tax authorities to terminate legal entities, given that similar functions (=duties) of the tax authorities are established in Art. 19 para. 19-1.1.45 and Art. 20 para. 20.1.37 of the Tax Code of Ukraine.<\/p>\n We chose 2017 to find all the verdicts delivered under Art. 205 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and by which plea agreements were approved. There are 149 such verdicts according to Unified State Register of Court Decisions.<\/p>\n At the same time, only 4 out of these 149 verdicts indicate tax authorities\u2019 steps to terminate the enterprises. However, we can trace neither decisions on admissibility, nor on merits regarding the lawsuits of tax authorities, within the analysis of the other 145 verdicts.<\/p>\n A table with the mentioned information is available in Appendix No.1<\/a> hereof.<\/p>\n According to the State Fiscal Service, statistics is rather different. The Main Department of the STS in the Kharkiv region calculates 42 lawsuits filed to terminate enterprises. At the same time, the tax authority investigates 643 cases on \u201cvoid agreements\u201d. In other words, the number of the aforementioned lawsuits is quite small at all.<\/p>\n To sum up, tax authorities generally did not file lawsuits on termination of enterprise activity even if there was a verdict delivered in criminal proceedings<\/strong><\/em>. Therefore, in most cases (at least according to the Unified State Register of Court Decisions for 2017) tax authorities do not have proper and admissible evidence on concluding \u201cvoid agreements\u201d, since there is no full evidence on alleged fictitiousness activity of enterprises. As it was mentioned, even a verdict delivered under Art. 205 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine does not concern the activity of the enterprise, but is related to specific action of a specific individual to establish or to acquire an enterprise. In other words, the verdict should precede another necessary step taken by tax authorities, namely filing a lawsuit on alleged fictitiousness of the enterprise.<\/p>\n (\u0456\u0445)<\/em><\/p>\n We note that not all documents can be regarded as evidence on allegedly fictitious activity of an enterprise and, therefore, on concluding \u201cvoid agreements\u201d. We wish to introduce a typical example from our experience.<\/p>\n We recall Toreniia, LLC (State Code 38091691) which had been already mentioned in 666 court decisions in mid-March 2018 according to the Unified State Register of Court Decisions.<\/p>\n We assume that tax authorities had known about alleged fictitiousness of Toreniia, LLC before October 2013, considering the judgment of the Odessa District Administrative Court of October 15, 2013<\/a>:<\/p>\n \u201cRozdilnyansky Unified State Tax Inspectorate of the Main Department of the Ministry of Revenues in the Odessa region is obliged to provide the Odessa District Administrative Court with \u2026<\/p>\n – the information as to whether any criminal proceedings have been brought against Toreniia, LLC (State Code 38091691) on the grounds of conducting fictitious business; if so, whether any verdicts have been delivered in such proceedings; if so, duly certified copies of such verdicts should be submitted to the Court; \u2026\u201d.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n The tax authorities had been waiting for more than a year (from the delivery of the first court decision which indicates the Company) to file a lawsuit on termination of Toreniia, LLC on November 2014. We can see it from the Decision of November 25,2014 (court case No. 826\/18258\/14)<\/a>.<\/p>\n The tax authority provides the court with a \u201cstandard package\u201d of \u201cevidence\u201d on allegedly fictitious activity of Toreniia, LLC, namely the interrogation file of the director of Toreniia, LLC and the court judgment in criminal proceedings that establishes an expired statute of limitation for bringing the director to criminal responsibility.<\/p>\n However, both of the first-instance and appellate court concluded that such documents are not an evidence on the allegedly fictitious activity of Toreniia, LLC. Therefore, the tax authority\u2019s claim was dismissed. For instance, On March 04,2015 the District Administrative Court of Kyiv delivered the Judgement (court case No. 826\/18258\/14)<\/a> upheld by the Kyiv Appellate Administrative Court on June 02,2015<\/a>. The first-instance court stands for the following position:<\/p>\n \u201cThe plaintiff refers to INDIVIDUAL_1 as a shareholder of Toreniia, LLC at the time of incorporation to substantiate his claim to terminate the legal entity. However, it is clear that INDIVIDUAL_1 did not intend to establish the enterprise, to conduct financial and economic activity or to exercise powers in breach of the current Ukrainian legislation.<\/p>\n At the same time, the plaintiff has not provided any evidence on bringing<\/strong> INDIVIDUAL_1 or other individuals committed to the establishment of Toreniia, LLC to criminal responsibility<\/strong> under Art. 205 para. 1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, namely the relevant verdict that has been taken effect.<\/p>\n Therefore, the plaintiff has not provided the court with satisfactory and proper evidence on any grounds to satisfy the claim<\/strong>, namely to terminate the Defendant\u201d.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Both of the first-instance court and appellate court decisions were not reviewed by cassation court, since the tax authority was refused bringing the proceedings by Decision of June 23, 2015 due to the lack of grounds to appeal.<\/p>\n As we see from the perspective of one particular case, the tax authority failed to prove the allegedly fictitious activity of the enterprise under the procedure established by law.<\/p>\n As a result, an allegedly fictitious activity of Toreniia, LLC cannot be brought as an evidence in disputes over \u201cvoid agreements\u201d. This is the position that was held by Justice of the Supreme Court Mr. Samsin in Dissenting Opinion of June 14, 2016 (court case No. 826\/14268\/14)<\/a>, as follows:<\/p>\n \u201cIn addition, it should be noted that on March 4, 2015, the District Administrative Court of Kyiv refused to satisfy the claim by the State Tax Inspectorate at the Podilskyi District of the Main Department of SFS in Kyiv<\/strong> (hereinafter referred to as the \u201cSTI at the Podilskyi District in Kyiv\u201d) to Toreniia, LLC (court case No. 826\/18258\/14; the Main Department of Justice in Kyiv as the third party) to hold the record on incorporation of Toreniia, LLC invalid (State Code 38091691) due to violation of the incorporation procedure that cannot be eliminated after all; to cancel the state registration of charter documents of Toreniia, LLC (State Code 38091691) from the registration date; to hold the charter documents of Toreniia, LLC (State Code 38091691) invalid from the registration date; to terminate Toreniia, LLC (State Code 38091691)<\/strong>.<\/p>\n Therefore, it is obvious that the courts (court case No. 826\/18258\/14)<\/strong> studied the Judgement of the Podilskyi Local Court of Kyiv of August 26, 2014 (court case No. 758\/9746\/14-\u043a) and ruled that the mentioned court decision cannot be used as evidence on the allegedly fictitious activity of Toreniia, LLC\u201d<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n The full text of the Dissenting opinion of Justice Mr. Samsin in court case No. 826\/14268\/14<\/a> is available in Appendix \u2116 2<\/a> hereof.<\/p>\n (\u0445)<\/em><\/p>\n As it follows from the above, any documents (even the court judgment in criminal proceedings that establishes an expired statute of limitation for bringing to criminal responsibility, as in the above example) cannot be considered as a proper, admissible, satisfactory evidence in tax disputes over \u201cso-called void agreements\u201d due to the lack of alleged fictitiousness of the contractor, unless court supported the tax authority\u2019s argument on alleged fictitiousness of an enterprise and ruled on the remedy to be imposed on the enterprise within the specific procedure for termination of enterprises which are considered as allegedly fictitious.<\/p>\n (xi)<\/em><\/p>\n As a result, perhaps it is necessary to stand for the following position, considering the need to ensure an integrity of judicial practice and requirements on the admissibility of evidence established by law:<\/p>\n the only one<\/em><\/p>\n proper<\/p>\n evidence<\/p>\n on allegedly fictitious activity of the contactor which could give reason to reconsider the tax consequences of economic transactions conducted with the contactor by itself<\/p>\n could only be a court decision delivered on the basis of tax authority\u2019s petition based on alleged fictitiousness of the contactor.<\/p>\n In other cases, tax authorities\u2019 statements on fictitious activities of enterprises should be regarded as early assumptions that are not supported by evidence obtained in the manner prescribed by law.<\/p>\n We hope that taxpayers would greatly improve their chances of success in disputes over \u201cvoid agreements\u201d by taking such additional argument. We also hope that the Supreme Court would establish the similar approach to proceed cases of \u201cvoid agreements\u201d.<\/p>\n At the same time, we would advise to take an active position and additionally apply to tax authorities to induce them to duly perform their statutory functions regarding termination of allegedly fictitious enterprises, in addition to the taking the argument that law does not provide for any list of evidence on fictitious activity.<\/p>\n The above commentary presents the general statement for information purposes only and as such may not be practically used in specific cases without professional advice.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" \u041f\u0440\u043e\u0442\u044f\u0433\u043e\u043c \u0442\u0440\u0438\u0432\u0430\u043b\u043e\u0433\u043e \u043f\u0435\u0440\u0456\u043e\u0434\u0443 \u0447\u0430\u0441\u0443 \u0434\u043e \u043d\u0430\u0439\u043f\u043e\u0448\u0438\u0440\u0435\u043d\u0456\u0448\u0438\u0445 \u0442\u0438\u043f\u0456\u0432 \u0441\u043f\u043e\u0440\u0456\u0432 \u0437 \u043f\u043e\u0434\u0430\u0442\u043a\u043e\u0432\u043e\u044e \u0432 \u0441\u0443\u0434\u0430\u0445 \u0431\u0435\u0437\u0437\u043c\u0456\u043d\u043d\u043e \u043d\u0430\u043b\u0435\u0436\u0430\u0442\u044c \u0441\u043f\u043e\u0440\u0438 \u0437 \u0442\u0430\u043a \u0437\u0432\u0430\u043d\u0438\u0445 \u00ab\u043d\u0456\u043a\u0447\u0435\u043c\u043d\u0438\u0445 \u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u043e\u0447\u0438\u043d\u0456\u0432\u00bb. \u041d\u0430\u0437\u0432\u0430 \u043d\u0435 \u0437\u043e\u0432\u0441\u0456\u043c \u0442\u043e\u0447\u043d\u043e \u0432\u0438\u0437\u043d\u0430\u0447\u0430\u0454 \u0446\u044e \u043a\u0430\u0442\u0435\u0433\u043e\u0440\u0456\u044e \u0441\u043f\u043e\u0440\u0456\u0432, \u043e\u0434\u043d\u0430\u043a \u0456\u0441\u0442\u043e\u0440\u0438\u0447\u043d\u043e \u043d\u0430\u0439\u0447\u0430\u0441\u0442\u0456\u0448\u0435 \u0437\u0430\u0441\u0442\u043e\u0441\u043e\u0432\u0443\u0454\u0442\u044c\u0441\u044f \u0441\u0430\u043c\u0435 \u0432\u043e\u043d\u0430. \u041c\u043e\u0432\u0430 \u0439\u0434\u0435 \u043f\u0440\u043e \u0432\u0456\u0434\u043c\u043e\u0432\u0443 \u043f\u043e\u0434\u0430\u0442\u043a\u043e\u0432\u0438\u0445 \u043e\u0440\u0433\u0430\u043d\u0456\u0432 \u0443 \u0432\u0438\u0437\u043d\u0430\u043d\u043d\u0456 \u043f\u043e\u0434\u0430\u0442\u043a\u043e\u0432\u043e\u0433\u043e \u043a\u0440\u0435\u0434\u0438\u0442\u0443 \u0442\u0430\/\u0447\u0438 \u0432\u0438\u0442\u0440\u0430\u0442 \u043f\u043e \u043e\u043f\u0435\u0440\u0430\u0446\u0456\u044f\u0445 \u0437 \u043a\u043e\u043d\u0442\u0440\u0430\u0433\u0435\u043d\u0442\u0430\u043c\u0438, \u0449\u043e\u0434\u043e \u043a\u0435\u0440\u0456\u0432\u043d\u0438\u043a\u0456\u0432 \u0442\u0430\/\u0430\u0431\u043e \u0443\u0447\u0430\u0441\u043d\u0438\u043a\u0456\u0432 \u044f\u043a\u0438\u0445 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1055,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[11],"tags":[177,176,84,93],"class_list":["post-11608","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-exclusive","tag-nikchemni-pravochini","tag-fiktivne-pidpriyemnitstvo","tag-kryminalni-provadzhennya","tag-oskarzhennya-rishen-podatkovyh-organiv"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/kmp.ua\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11608"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/kmp.ua\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/kmp.ua\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kmp.ua\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1055"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kmp.ua\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11608"}],"version-history":[{"count":19,"href":"https:\/\/kmp.ua\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11608\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":21937,"href":"https:\/\/kmp.ua\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11608\/revisions\/21937"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/kmp.ua\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11608"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kmp.ua\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11608"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kmp.ua\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11608"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\nThe necessity to provide the integrity of the judicial practice seems to be rather axiomatic. At the same time, this refers not only to the unity of practice within a clearly defined category of disputes, but to consistency with the judicial practice over related issues, including those that can be considered within other legal procedures.<\/p>\n
\n1. Alleged fictitiousness, that gives grounds for applying to the court with a lawsuit on termination of legal entity or termination of self-employed individual\u2019s activity, including holding registration documents invalid,<\/span> are the following:- registration (re-registration) is based on invalid (lost) and forged documents;
\n– absence of the state registration, if the registration should be conducted under the law;
\n– registration (re-registration) in state registration authorities is committed by individuals with subsequent transfer to the possession (registration) or operation of the men of straw (non-existent), deceased, missing persons or such persons, who did not intend to conduct financial and economic business activities or exercise powers;
\n– registration (re-registration) and operating financial and economic business activities are committed without the knowledge and consent of its founders and legally appointed executives”.<\/div>\n
\nThe Kyiv Appeal Administrative Court as of upheld the first-instance decision by its Decision of January 10, 2013.<\/p>\n