Litigation relating to the cadastral appraisal of Moscow-region land
2009 - present
Our company litigated against actions of the Property Administration of the Russian Federation of Moscow related to an appraisal provided by them to the effect that certain land belonged to the company with a right of permanent and perpetual use. Cadastral value was estimated at 8.7 billion roubles, exceeding the previous cadastral value by more than 12 times.
The Courts of First Instance and Appellate Instance refused to satisfy the appellant’s requirements. According to the Chamber of the Supreme Arbitration Court (hereinafter SAC) of the Russian Federation, it was agreed not to hand over the case to Presidium of SAC, and to leave the possibility of decision review according to emerging circumstances. In this case judges of SAC were using the position of SAC Presidium that was worked out earlier according to case law precedents.
The company appealed to the Arbitration Court of the First Instance, asking for a review based on newly opened circumstances. Initially the Court of First Instance refused to review the decision, however it was successfully litigated in the Court of Appellate Instance and the case was handed back to the Court of First Instance. The conclusions made by the court of Appellate Instance were confirmed by Court of Cassational Instance (State Register Administration of the Russian Federation of Moscow). The Court of First Instance cancelled the original decision and reviewed the case.
During review of the case, the appellant’s requirements were partially satisfied and the actions of the Administration of Russian State Register were declared illegal. Economic indicators are excluded from the state cadastre.
Litigating of the Russian Tax Authority’s decision on tax-exemption for a piece of land
2009 - present
An in-office audit was implemented by the Tax Authority, and Land Tax was then assessed on the company. According to inspection opinion, the reason for the tax assessment was an unlawful tax-exemption of the land, established in paragraph 2, page 1, chapter 3.1 of the Law NO74 of November 24, 2004 “The Land Tax in Moscow”.
This decision was litigated in the Arbitration Court of Moscow and currently the case is suspended. Interim measures for the case were taken, such as suspending of the Tax Authority’s decision, which was unsuccessfully appealed by the Tax Authority to the highest levels. Parallel to this, at the same court, several proceedings were started regarding wrongly-paid Land Tax in previous periods.
Litigating of the Tax Authority’s decision according to results of on-site audit
The on-site audit was implemented by the Tax Authority; after this extra VAT and Profit Tax were demanded of the company. The reasons for adding extra taxes were: interdependence of contractors who paid for goods by means of loans, absence of some documents needed for accounting for fixed assets, earnings by the company of unjustified tax benefits.
The decision of the first Tax Authority was appealed to the highest Tax Authority – the Federal Tax Agency’s Department of Moscow. After considering the results of the appellate litigation, the decision of the first Tax Authority was fully cancelled. There was no necessity to appeal to the Arbitration Court.
Appeal against the Tax Authority’s decision according to results of office audit
An in-office audit was implemented in a construction company that specialized in the construction of medical centres; after this audit, additional VAT was demanded of the company. The reason for the extra VAT charge was the non-implementation of some services during VAT inspection periods. Decisions were litigated in and out of court.
During the proceedings of the first decision in the court, the tax-payer proved that the final purpose for construction was the rendering of services, in particular, leasing. At the same time, non-implemention of services that are supposed to have VAT in inspection periods cannot exert any influence on the right of the tax-payer for VAT deduction.
After declaring the first Tax Authority’s decision invalid, all other decisions were cancelled by the highest Tax Authority.
Declaration of title to the building
After racketeering of several real estate objects that belonged to a company, several objects were taken over by a foreign company located in an offshore zone. The first company was still using these real estate objects and had no wish to dispense with them. The company appealed to the Arbitration Court asking for a declaration of title to real estate objects. During the process, the opposite side actively stood against the facts by referring to bona fide possession and expiration of the statute of limitation.
The company proved that claim was negatory, i.e. it was not related to dispossession, and such type of claims do not have an expiration. Moreover, the company affirmed to the Court that the foreign company had no attributes for bona fide acquisition. The Glossa Legal Centre was representing the first company’s interests in this process.
As a result of litigating the case in the Court of First Instance, a declaration of title to the buildings under dispute was granted to the company; a counterclaim about eliminating obstacles to using the property was granted to the foreign company. The Appellate and Cassation Instances Courts agreed with the decision of the Court of First Instance and left the decision unchanged. The Chamber of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation refused to hand over the case to the Presidium of the SAC.
The case was significantly complicated due to the presence of the foreign element that tried to procrastinate the process not only by appealing against judicial acts without sufficient legal ground, but also by trying to avoid letters from the court.
Order for enforcement
A 50 million rouble penalty for lease was claimed from a company by the Arbitration Court of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation. The decision was not implemented by will, and the claimant appealed to the Arbitration Court, asking for an order of enforcement. Glossa Legal Centre was representing the (debtor) company interests in the process.
During the case proceedings in the Arbitration Court, the company referred to a lease contract that was earlier declared invalid by the court. As a result, the order for enforcement was cancelled.
Debt enforcement and penalties in delivery contracts for medical equipment
A company delivered medical equipment for a private perinatal centre. However, the equipment was not fully paid on time. The company appealed to the Arbitration Court to require the payment of remaining sums as well as interest charges (contract penalties). The shipment was divided into ten different contracts, and due to this the company was obliged to provide ten different appellations, each of which initiated proceedings in court. Glossa Legal Centre represented the interests of the company in all processes.
The Respondent had no claims to the required sums, and did not deny that goods were shipped by him (on time) as it was agreed in the contract. However, he was not in agreement with the penalties, as there was no certainty about the point of time at which penalty charges should come into effect: according to the contract, this point was supposed to be determined by the invoice dates. The respondent insisted that invoices were not provided to him.
During the first case review, the company proved that invoices were handed over to the Respondent, and the point of time for penalty charges to come into effect was also clarified. These facts followed from obligations paid by the Respondent and mails sent between the parties. All other processes were agreed by the parties with no objections.
The case was not handed over to higher instances; judicial acts were implemented by the Respondent without argument.
Appealing against Tax Authority’s decision
An in-office audit was implemented in a large business company, and after this additional VAT and penalties (31 million roubles in total) were demanded of the company. In the opinion of the Tax Inspectorate, the reason for this was the existence of illegal VAT offsets by many of the internal company’s deliverers. The following arguments for this case were provided by the Inspectorate: there was no information in contracts about the locations where goods were supposed to be shipped, careless actions of the tax-payer, invalid tax identification number in fiscal invoices, no signature clarification in initial documents, etc.
According to the results of this case proceeding in the Arbitration Court, the Tax Authority’s decision was declared fully invalid. Appellate Instances approved the decision of the First Instance Court and affirmed the decision.