Без рубрики

Потрібна допомога адвоката? Залишай заявку Road accidents have become a commonplace reality on Ukrainian roads and almost always mean not only damaged vehicles but also financial losses, health problems, stress, and legal disputes. That is why compensation for damage in road accidents is one of the most important topics in modern legal practice. Ukrainian legislation provides a comprehensive mechanism for compensation of losses that combines the norms of the Civil Code and the Law of Ukraine “On Compulsory Insurance of Civil Liability of Owners of Land Vehicles” (MTPL). In practice, the victim can receive payments from the insurance company, and if insurance coverage is insufficient, recover the difference directly from the culprit of the accident. What is Considered Damage in a Road Accident It is always worth starting the analysis with an answer to the basic question: what exactly can be compensated? The law treats damage broadly — both property and non-property. Property damage includes: costs of repair or restoration of the vehicle and other damaged property (phones, laptops, clothing, cargo in the car, etc.); costs of treatment, rehabilitation, purchase of medicines, medical devices; lost income due to temporary disability or disability status; in case of the victim’s death — funeral expenses, as well as support for persons who were dependent on them. Moral damage includes physical pain, mental suffering, prolonged change in the usual way of life, fear of driving, loss of activity, and other negative intangible consequences. It is subject to compensation separately from property losses but requires particularly thorough justification and evidence. The Role of MTPL: What Insurance Covers and What It Doesn’t In most cases, the first source of compensation is the insurance company of the culprit of the accident, where they have an MTPL policy that protects victims — third parties. Since 2025, payment limits have increased: up to UAH 500,000 for damage to life and health and UAH 250,000 for property damage per person, with higher total amounts per insured event. At the same time, MTPL covers only the types of damage established by law within the limits, taking into account vehicle depreciation and deductibles. Moral damage is not covered by insurance and can only be recovered directly from the culprit of the accident in court. How to Act for the Victim: Basic Algorithm From a formal point of view, the compensation mechanism looks quite logical, but in practice, the stage of collecting evidence and communicating with the insurance company or the culprit often determines the outcome. After an accident, the victim should: Call the police and, if possible, medics, document the fact of the accident and all circumstances. Obtain materials from the police (accident diagram, protocols, resolutions), which will later become the basis for proving guilt and the amount of damage. Notify the culprit’s insurance company within the timeframe specified by law and contract (usually 3 business days), fill out an insurance claim application. Arrange an independent examination of vehicle or property damage, and also confirm medical expenses with documents from medical institutions. In case of refusal by the insurer, understatement of the payment amount, or absence of an MTPL policy from the culprit — prepare a claim and lawsuit. Important practical point: even if the insurance company has paid a certain amount, but it is clearly insufficient for repairs or treatment, the victim has the right to demand the difference from the culprit of the accident. This is especially relevant in cases of serious health injuries, total vehicle loss, or when losses significantly exceed policy limits. When MTIBU Gets Involved If the culprit of the accident does not have a valid MTPL policy, the insurer went bankrupt, or the culprit disappeared, regulatory payments are partially assumed by the Motor (Transport) Insurance Bureau of Ukraine within established limits. However, these payments usually do not cover all real expenses, so the victim still has the right to demand the remainder directly from the culprit of the accident through the court. Ways to Protect Rights: Administrative, Civil, Criminal Dimensions Road accidents can be classified as administrative or criminal offenses (in particular, in cases of serious bodily injuries or deaths), which affects not only the culprit’s liability but also the victim’s protection tools. Within the framework of criminal proceedings, the victim can file a civil claim for compensation of property and moral damage, and if proper evidence is available, the court will recover significant amounts from the accused. Regardless of the criminal case, the victim has the right to file a separate civil lawsuit against the culprit and/or the insurance company, which requires professional calculation of losses and proof of the causal relationship between the accident and the damage, including moral damage. Courts are increasingly siding with victims when a complete package of evidence is submitted (examinations, medical certificates, proof of income, testimony), while a formal approach, lack of evidence, or missing deadlines lead to partial denial of the claim. Common Mistakes of Victims In practice, it is the victim’s behavior in the first days after an accident that largely determines whether they will receive real compensation. Among the most typical mistakes: verbal “agreement” with the culprit without calling the police and processing documents; lack of damage documentation (photos, videos, examination), which then complicates proving the amount of damage; ignoring deadlines for notifying the insurer about the occurrence of an insured event; signing insurance company documents without understanding their consequences (for example, waiving further claims); underestimating the importance of legal support at the negotiation and litigation stage. If you have questions or problems related to compensation for damage as a result of a road accident, the specialists of JSC “Law Firm “WINNER”” will provide detailed advice, help assess your prospects, and accompany the compensation process at all stages. Author: Maksym Lykhovyd, lawyer at JSC “Law Firm “WINNER”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9Rdi6CWE1s

Потрібна допомога адвоката? Залишай заявку When the tax authorities receive information about foreign income from abroad, the standard scenario looks like this: an information request, a superficial audit, an inspection report and tax notices running into hundreds of thousands or even millions of hryvnias. In many cases, the STS builds its logic not on real evidence but on assumptions and “aggregated” data. Cases like this become a testing ground for WINNER’s tax litigation team. In this case, the tax authority decided that our client had allegedly received income from the UK company Fenix International Ltd for content on OnlyFans and was obliged to declare that income in Ukraine. What followed was classic: an unscheduled desk audit, an inspection report with “conclusions” and four tax notices. Our task was not just to “complain” about the STS but to systematically dismantle the entire construction of its position. Key moves by the WINNER team Demonstrating that the tax authority had no primary evidenceOur first step was not emotional argument, but cold technique: analysing the inspection report to identify its evidentiary sources. WINNER’s lawyers showed the court that the STS position rested solely on one letter received via international information exchange and on internal databases, without any real primary documents (bank records, contracts, payment documents). We emphasised that: the report does not refer to documents recording any actual business transactions; neither the movement of funds, nor real accounts, nor documents describing the nature of the payments were examined; the formal requirements for drafting an inspection report were violated — there is no real evidence, only a retelling of the information from the letter. In effect, we showed the court that the STS had nothing more than a “printout of correspondence”, not an evidentiary base capable of supporting tax assessments. Re‑framing the STS letter as mere information, not evidenceThe second move was to strip the STS letter of its “aura of proof”. The tax authority tried to present it as sufficient grounds to conclude that the client had undeclared income. WINNER’s team drew a clear line: a letter between tax authorities is an informational message, not a primary document; it does not record a business transaction and is not a taxpayer’s accounting or tax document; its purpose is to trigger follow‑up work, not to replace the entire audit. As a result, the court stopped treating the letter as “iron‑clad evidence” and began to demand real corroboration from the tax authority. Showing that the tax authority failed to “work the information through”We then turned the very logic of international information exchange against the STS. The letter explicitly stated that the information was being sent for follow‑up and, if violations were confirmed, for further action. This means the STS had to build its own evidentiary base rather than simply copy the figures from the foreign message. WINNER pointed out to the court that: the tax authority took no real steps to establish the fact of income receipt; it did not obtain or analyse documents from banks, payment services or counterparties; instead of “working the information through”, the authority mechanically copied data from the letter and converted it into hryvnias. This reinforced the key message: the tax authority failed in its duty to prove both the fact and the amount of the income. Unpacking procedural violations in the audit and the reportAnother important block was procedure. When there is little substance in the STS position, it is crucial to show that even the form is flawed. We carefully analysed: the grounds for the unscheduled audit; the statutory requirements for a desk (non‑field) audit; the rules for drafting an inspection report with mandatory references to primary documents. As a result, the court received a coherent picture: a specific list of violated norms clearly linked to how each one affected the taxpayer’s rights. Bringing the focus back to the core question: was there any taxable income at all?WINNER’s final strategic move was to focus on the essence: without a proven fact and amount of income, there is no obligation to file a declaration and no basis for tax notices. We did not allow the STS to shift the discussion: instead of asking “was there income?”, the authority tried to discuss “why was no declaration filed?”; we brought the debate back to the basic principle: first you prove the income, only then can you demand a declaration and tax payment. Re‑framing the dispute this way allowed the court to see the weakness of the tax authority’s entire construction. Result: a complete victory on appeal and reversal of the first‑instance judgment After reviewing our appeal, the Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal: quashed the first‑instance court decision; adopted a new judgment fully upholding the claim; declared the STS tax notices unlawful and cancelled them; ordered the state budget to reimburse the court fee at the expense of the tax authority. Why this matters for other taxpayers with foreign income For everyone receiving money from abroad — freelancers, content creators, IT specialists and entrepreneurs — this case shows that: international information exchange is not a guilty verdict; a letter from a foreign tax authority is not a substitute for evidence; an inspection report without primary documents is a weak point that can be challenged. The key takeaway is that in disputes over foreign income, the winner is not the party that “explains everything”, but the one with the stronger procedural and evidentiary position. How WINNER approaches such cases In tax cases involving foreign income, WINNER follows a clear algorithm: auditing all materials — requests, inspection reports, tax notices, correspondence and any available banking or payment records; identifying weak points in the STS position, from lack of evidence to procedural breaches; building a strategy: what to show the court first, where to break the authority’s logic, and which legal norms to emphasise; supporting the client at every stage, from responding to the first STS request to appeal and, if needed, cassation. A team of 20 lawyers and attorneys specialising in tax and administrative disputes

Потрібна допомога адвоката? Залишай заявку The automotive business in Ukraine has long been under the close scrutiny of the State Tax Service, as it combines high‑value goods, substantial cash flows, complex sales models and regular transactions with individuals. For the tax authority, a car dealership is not just a retail outlet but a business where issues of cash registers (RRO/PRRO), VAT, inventory accounting, trade‑in deals, purchases of cars from individuals and control of actual stock levels all intersect. For this reason, tax inspections of car dealerships have become not isolated events but a systemic element of control. The tax service focuses not only on individual reporting errors but also on the taxpayer’s overall risk profile: reality of the registered address, transparency of accounting, quality of documentation, links with counterparties, alignment of the business structure with actual operations and completeness of transaction reporting. Why car dealerships are in the STS spotlightFor the STS, the automotive sector is one of the most sensitive segments because it combines several risk factors. These include high‑priced goods, the large value of each transaction, accompanying payments and advances, extra equipment and service packages, as well as complex multi‑party sales schemes. The tax service pays special attention to models where everything looks formally correct on paper but the real substance of activity suggests otherwise. If a business actively sells cars but does not show a commensurate tax burden, has discrepancies between accounting records and actual stock or uses a structure that looks like artificial business splitting, the risk of an inspection rises significantly. What violations the STS looks for firstA telling signal for the market is official STS information that inspections of car and spare‑parts sellers, as well as repair and maintenance businesses, have revealed violations totalling 122.2 million UAH. Among the detected breaches, the tax authorities highlight settlements without RRO/PRRO, incorrect programming of cash registers, failure to report all taxable objects and failure to provide documents in full. For a dealership, this means that the risk zone is not limited to the sale of the car itself. The tax service scrutinises advances, partial payments, extra charges for configuration, accessories, insurance or service products, and the correct reflection of these operations in cash discipline and tax reporting. Another risky area is the sale of used cars, including via trade‑in, commission schemes or purchases from individuals. In such transactions, mistakes arise not only in bookkeeping but already at the contractual level: how the car is accepted, how its value is determined, how the subsequent resale is structured, how set‑off is recorded and whether the tax base is formed correctly. Stock‑taking as a critical episodeFor dealerships, stock‑taking of vehicles during an inspection is one of the key risks: if cars exist on paper but are physically missing, the tax service treats this as possible “grey” sales with understated income and VAT. The actual transfer of a car to a client without timely primary documentation turns discrepancies between book and physical stock from a “technical error” into grounds for additional assessments, fines and doubts about the entire accounting system. Court practice recognises stock‑taking as a proper tool for establishing the actual presence or shortage of goods, so businesses must not only refrain from fearing this procedure but also handle its conduct and results correctly from a legal standpoint. What businesses should focus on nowPreparation for a tax inspection starts long before inspectors arrive and begins with an internal audit of the dealership’s business model. In its guidance, the STS directly stresses correct registration data, a real legal address, reliable counterparties, quality reporting, proper documentation, automated accounting and the justification of expenses and VAT credits. For a dealership this means simultaneously checking several core areas: whether RRO/PRRO work correctly for all payment methods; whether documentation matches the actual sales model for new and used cars; whether there is a risk of unlawful use of the simplified tax regime or sole proprietors for operations that are essentially one business’s activity; whether the company can at any time confirm the actual location of each vehicle and its status in the accounting system; whether staff are prepared for inspections, document requests, physical stock‑takes and proper recording of tax officers’ actions. This last point is often underestimated. Even reasonably good accounting does not protect the business if employees do not know how to act during an inspection, who is responsible for documents, who coordinates stock‑taking, how explanations are recorded and what exactly is handed over to the tax authority. Why legal support is a practical solutionA tax inspection of a car dealership is almost always a complex matter in which bookkeeping, contractual arrangements, cash discipline, HR decisions and the physical movement of vehicles are assessed together. Therefore, success depends not only on accounting but also on timely legal support. Legal support during inspections allows a dealership to identify weak spots in advance, prepare documents, verify the correctness of sales models, assess stock‑taking risks, manage communications with the STS and, if necessary, challenge inspection results. This is especially important for dealerships working with used cars, using trade‑in schemes, buying vehicles from individuals or operating through several related entities. Practice shows that the best results are achieved not by businesses that start defending themselves after an inspection report appears, but by those that have built an evidence base, stock‑control system, sound contractual models and clear inspection protocols in advance. That is the value of professional legal assistance: not only responding to tax claims but preventing them at the stage of designing internal processes. Our experts are always ready to advise you on any issues, drawing on extensive practical experience in supporting such inspections.Contact us at +38 096 574 81 02 or submit a request on our website.Author: Ihor Yasko, Managing Partner at WINNER Law Firm, PhD in Law. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvayosIccBo

Потрібна допомога адвоката? Залишай заявку In May 2026, law‑enforcement authorities served a notice of suspicion on the former director of a municipal enterprise of the Kharkiv City Council in a case concerning false asset declaration. According to the investigation, in his 2023 annual declaration the official failed to disclose assets worth over 4.2 million UAH. These assets included not only real estate — a garden house and land plots — but also high‑value cars, in particular a Porsche Cayenne and a Mercedes‑Benz CL63 AMG. Investigators established that the declarant in fact used these assets, although they were formally registered to third parties, including relatives. This approach — registering property in the names of close persons — is often mistakenly perceived as a way to avoid declaring it. In reality, the law expressly requires disclosure not only of ownership, but also of assets which a person uses or effectively controls. Essence of the violation Liability in such cases arises not for owning the property as such, but for submitting knowingly false information in the asset declaration. In this case, investigators believe that: the information in the declaration differs from the true data by more than 4.29 million UAH; part of the assets was deliberately concealed; the declarant actually used property registered to other persons. These actions are classified under Article 366‑2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and may entail serious legal consequences — from fines to criminal liability. Typical mistakes made by declarants In practice, such cases usually stem from systemic mistakes: ignoring the duty to declare property that is in use rather than ownership; formally registering assets in the names of relatives or trusted persons; incorrect valuation of assets; lack of prior legal review before filing the declaration. Situations where the declarant effectively controls the property, even without formal title, are particularly risky. Why legal review matters Such proceedings are attracting increasing attention from law‑enforcement bodies. Even seemingly minor inaccuracies may trigger criminal prosecution. A professional legal audit of declarations helps to: identify risks before documents are submitted; correctly classify assets and usage rights; minimise the likelihood of claims from the NACP and law‑enforcement agencies; build a sound legal position in the event of checks or investigations. Takeaways for officials This case once again confirms that asset declaration is not a mere formality but an area of heightened legal responsibility. Any attempt to “circumvent the system” through nominal owners or partial disclosure of information may have serious consequences. At the same time, it is important to remember that under Article 62 of the Constitution of Ukraine, a person is presumed innocent until their guilt is proven by a guilty verdict of a court. If you have questions or issues related to declaring assets, assessing risks or preparing a legal strategy in false‑declaration cases, you should seek professional legal advice.Author: Ihor Yasko, Managing Partner at WINNER Law Firm, PhD in Law. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvayosIccBo

Потрібна допомога адвоката? Залишай заявку “The OLX tax” is nearing the finish line: MPs have agreed an updated version of the bill on taxation of digital platforms, which does not introduce a new tax but changes the model for administering individuals’ income from online marketplaces. In essence, Ukraine is moving toward European practice, under which marketplaces, ride‑hailing, delivery and rental services become tax agents: they automatically submit data on users’ income to the Tax Service and, in some cases, withhold tax at the time of payment. What the “OLX tax” really isIn its logic, this bill is a response to a global trend: more and more people earn income in the “digital economy” by selling goods, renting out property or providing services via platforms. Traditional tools for controlling individuals’ income work poorly here: transactions are fragmented, counterparties are private persons, and paperwork is minimal. Draft law No. 15111‑d proposes to change the control point: instead of trying to track each seller separately, the state turns to the “node” of the system — the platform itself. That is why the informal label “OLX tax” has taken hold in public debate, although in fact it covers a wide range of services: OLX, Prom, Rozetka, Airbnb, Bolt, Uber, Glovo and other intermediaries between sellers and buyers or service providers and recipients. For users, this means that transactions previously invisible to the tax authorities will gradually become part of a transparent cash flow, and the platform will be obliged either to transmit data on income or to withhold tax from payouts. What rules are proposed for sellers and service providersIn the revised bill, a high tax‑free threshold is proposed for household, occasional sales via platforms: up to 2,000 euros of annual income per individual is not taxed at all, which allows people to sell used items, occasionally rent out housing or take on one‑off jobs without excessive bureaucracy. If the activity becomes regular and income exceeds this threshold, a simplified regime kicks in: 5% personal income tax plus 5% military levy on the amount above the limit, provided that annual income does not exceed about 7–7.2 million UAH; at higher turnovers, the standard rates of 18% PIT and 5% military levy apply, effectively equating large online business to traditional models. What role the platforms themselves will playDigital platforms must collect and transmit data on users’ income to the tax authorities, effectively becoming the Tax Service’s “long arm”: they identify the seller, record payments and either report them or withhold tax when transferring funds. For Ukrainian services, this implies major IT and compliance restructuring, while for international players it means integrating Ukrainian requirements into global procedures, which on the one hand raises the entry barrier for new platforms, but on the other levels the playing field between those who comply with the rules and those who operate in the “grey zone”. What will change for ordinary usersDespite loud headlines about the “OLX tax”, little will change in the short term for most occasional sellers. The high tax‑free threshold means that people who from time to time sell an old phone or furniture will remain outside the tax net even if the platform submits information on such transactions to the Tax Service. The bill is primarily aimed at those who effectively run a business through online platforms but do not register as entrepreneurs and do not pay tax on regular sales or services. In the medium term, however, the “shadow” segment of online trade is likely to shrink significantly. Once platforms start collecting and automatically transmitting data, the space for completely ignoring tax obligations will narrow, and “playing hide‑and‑seek” with the Tax Service will become increasingly unprofitable. For users with stable online income, the logical step will be to legalise it by registering as an individual entrepreneur or by moving to the new simplified regime for platform‑based income, depending on their business model. Why the bill is so controversialThe “OLX tax” is disputed because of fears of tighter state control over private finances and automatic data exchange between platforms and the tax authorities. There are concerns that additional requirements for services will either push some foreign platforms out of the market or make their services more expensive for users. There is also a risk of “overheating” the reform if other fiscal initiatives, such as changes to VAT or reliefs for cross‑border parcels, are attached to it before the second reading. At the same time, supporters of the bill see it as a step toward tax fairness: online income should be taxed on a par with offline salaries and classic entrepreneurial income. The reduced rate for legalised platform income and the high tax‑free threshold protect one‑off household sales and offer a compromise: lower tax burden in exchange for transparency and rejection of shadow schemes. If you have any questions or issues related to taxation of online income, choosing the optimal model for working via digital platforms or assessing risks for your existing sales and service schemes, seek professional advice — timely analysis will help you adapt to the new rules with minimal losses for your business. Author: Ihor Yasko, Managing Partner of “WINNER” Law Firm, PhD in Law. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvayosIccBo

Потрібна допомога адвоката? Залишай заявку The “RRO/PRRO Analytics in Ukraine: key indicators” dashboard is another step toward a truly digital State Tax Service, which is becoming a provider of open data for businesses and society. Launched in May 2026, the tool visualises a vast array of fiscal receipts and shows how the cash and cashless segments of retail trade operate, giving entrepreneurs a “mirror” of their activity, analysts an objective view of the market, and the STS a basis for a risk‑oriented approach without excessive pressure on compliant businesses. What exactly the new dashboard showsThe dashboard’s main value lies in concentrating key indicators related to the use of RRO and PRRO in a single public tool. It collects and aggregates fiscal‑receipt data and allows users to track the use of cash registers (how many RRO/PRRO are registered and actually active), the volume of transactions, including those involving excisable goods, the structure of payments (cash/non‑cash) and the overall “economic pulse” of the country. The data are presented in anonymised form — the dashboard does not show specific taxpayers, only aggregated figures by country and region. This is crucial both for protecting tax secrecy and for maintaining business trust: the tool is designed for analytics, not for “naming and shaming” individual companies. Such a format balances openness with legal confidentiality requirements. Structure: four data sectionsThe dashboard consists of four blocks: “Analytics”, “Dynamics”, “Table” and “Map”. “Analytics” provides a summary view of how many businesses and cash registers work with RRO/PRRO, the transaction volumes and the share of excisable goods. “Dynamics” shows how key indicators change over time, particularly the ratio of cash to cashless payments and the sales of excisable goods, which helps assess trends and the impact of legislative changes. “Table” breaks indicators down by region, while “Map” visually displays where transactions via cash registers are concentrated and where economic activity is lower. Data sources and coverage periodThe dashboard is based on fiscal‑receipt data from RRO and PRRO and currently contains aggregated indicators from 2025 through the first quarter of 2026, with further updates planned on a monthly basis. Because the data are anonymised, the tool combines deep analytics with transparency and safety for taxpayers: fiscal receipts become not only a control instrument, but also a resource for understanding the market without the risk of disclosing personalised information. Who needs it and whyThe dashboard has several distinct target audiences. For businesses, it is primarily a way to see the intensity of transactions in different regions, assess competition and purchasing power, and compare their own turnover with average market figures. Combined with other open data (statistics, demographics, mobility), the tool can underpin decisions on locations, outlet formats and strategies for shifting toward cashless payments. Media and experts gain an objective dataset for analysing economic activity, which is especially valuable during wartime, when traditional statistics can lag in timeliness or completeness. For society at large, the dashboard offers a clearer view of payment structures, the role of fiscalisation and the scale of the shadow economy, at least through indirect indicators. Finally, for the tax service itself, the tool strengthens the analytical component: instead of blanket audits, it allows a risk‑based approach focused on segments and regions with atypical indicator behaviour. Another digital tool or a real breakthrough?The dashboard launch is not a one‑off PR move but part of the STS’s broader strategy to build a digital ecosystem: upgraded IT solutions for analysing RRO/PRRO data are now partly exposed as open data, enhancing transparency and targeting the shadow segment rather than honest taxpayers. The STS has already announced further development — more comparative analytics, deeper breakdowns by regions, activities and payment forms, and clearer visual indicators — so the dashboard could become a primary entry point for analysing SMEs and move the STS closer to a fully data‑driven authority that relies on evidence rather than assumptions. If you have any questions or issues related to using RRO/PRRO, analysing tax risks or adapting your business processes to the STS’s new digital tools, seek professional advice — together we can turn tax‑law requirements into a competitive advantage for your business.Author: Ihor Yasko, Managing Partner at WINNER Law Firm, PhD in Law. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvayosIccBo

Потрібна допомога адвоката? Залишай заявку Real estate agents dealing with rentals have long been more than simple intermediaries: they now have specific obligations on tax reporting and financial monitoring, and the updated clarifications of the STS and the Ministry of Finance confirm that they must report certain lease agreements — though not in all cases and only under a special procedure. When a realtor must report a lease agreementThe basic rule is set out in subpara. 170.1.6 of the Tax Code of Ukraine. It states that:business entities (sole proprietors or legal entities) engaged in intermediary activities related to the provision of real estate rental services (realtors)are obliged to submit to the tax authority at their place of registration information on civil‑law lease agreements concluded through their intermediation,if one of the parties to the agreement is an individual landlord. So the key conditions under which the obligation arises are: You act strictly as an intermediary, not as the owner of the property. If a sole proprietor rents out their own apartment without an intermediary, subpara. 170.1.6 does not apply. It is a lease agreement for real estate (residential or non‑residential), not a one‑off service or consultation. The landlord is an individual (not a sole proprietor and not a legal entity). If at least one of these conditions is not met (for example, the landlord is a company and the realtor works only with the tenant‑buyer without direct intermediation for the owner), formally there is no obligation to submit information under this rule. What information must be submitted and in what formA separate form is provided for reporting lease agreements: “Information of business entities engaged in intermediary activities related to the provision of real estate rental services”. It was approved by Order No. 497 of the Ministry of Finance dated 13.05.2017. Key points:The information is submitted to the tax authority at the realtor’s place of registration (sole proprietor or company).It is filed within the deadlines for the tax payroll report (Form 4DF), that is, together with the quarterly reporting.The form includes the main data: parties to the agreement, leased property, date of conclusion, term, rent amount, etc. Note that the STS emphasises in its clarifications that the obligation applies regardless of how many agreements were concluded in a given period — even one must be reported. Liability for failure to submit informationArticle 119¹ of the Tax Code sets out specific fines for violating the procedure or deadlines for submitting such information:680 UAH for each first violation;1,360 UAH for each repeated violation within a year. “Each violation” means each agreement that should have been reported but was not, or was reported late or incorrectly. For agencies that conclude hundreds of leases per year, this can translate into substantial amounts. In addition to fines, failure to submit information may trigger increased attention to the realtor’s own activity: inspections, information requests, and scrutiny of commission income. How this relates to financial monitoringAlongside tax requirements, realtors also fall under financial monitoring rules as specially designated primary reporting entities for real‑estate transactions. Key elements:Realtors must identify their clients and conduct proper KYC checks, especially if the monthly rent exceeds 400,000 UAH or if the deal raises suspicions.In such cases they report suspicious transactions to the State Financial Monitoring Service via a special portal, separately from reporting to the STS.The Ministry of Finance stresses that realtors are not required to report all deals above 400,000 UAH, only suspicious ones or those that meet financial‑monitoring criteria. Therefore, tax reporting (Form No. 497 to the STS) and financial‑monitoring reports (to the FIU) should not be mixed up. Practical takeaways for realtors Clearly fix your role in every deal: if you mediate between an individual landlord and a tenant, the duty to notify the STS arises automatically. Maintain an internal register of lease agreements with the core data needed for the form so you do not miss any transaction. Use the official form and file it together with your tax payroll report within the statutory deadlines. Review past agreements and, if necessary, consult a lawyer on whether to file late forms and explanations to minimise fines. For high‑value or atypical leases (from 400,000 UAH per month), comply with financial‑monitoring rules and your internal procedures for detecting suspicious transactions. For real‑estate agencies this means that the classic function of simply “bringing landlord and tenant together” has long been supplemented by regulatory duties — tax and compliance. Ignoring them may cost more than setting up a basic system of record‑keeping and reporting. If you have any questions or issues related to fulfilling realtor obligations to the STS, completing the form approved by Ministry of Finance Order No. 497, assessing fine risks or complying with financial‑monitoring requirements, you should consult lawyers specialising in tax law and real‑estate transactions.Author: Ihor Yasko, Managing Partner at WINNER Law Firm, PhD in Law. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvayosIccBo

Потрібна допомога адвоката? Залишай заявку The Verkhovna Rada is once again discussing the taxation of electric vehicles — this time not import duties or VAT, but a regular monthly payment for EV owners. The idea has already sparked lively debate among drivers and businesses, as it could significantly change the economics of owning a “green” car and affect the entire e‑mobility market. Essence of the initiative: what the new tax might look likeAccording to media reports, Parliament is considering a model of a monthly tax for electric‑vehicle owners, with the amount depending on the value of the car. MPs are talking about a differentiated rate: the more expensive the EV, the higher the potential payment. Public comments mention indicative figures such as: an electric car worth about 30,000 USD — up to 4,000 UAH per month; cheaper cars should be taxed at a lower rate, but no detailed calculations have been published yet. The possible format is either a fixed monthly payment or an annual amount paid in one instalment, which in practice still translates into a certain monthly rate. For now, this is only a political initiative: the draft law is still being prepared, and the final parameters may change after discussions in committees and with the government. Why a tax on EVs is being discussed at allThe main argument of the proposal’s authors is to “level” the tax burden between owners of EVs and cars with internal combustion engines. MPs point out that: EV owners do not pay fuel excise and other charges embedded in the price of petrol and diesel; yet they use the same road infrastructure as other drivers while contributing less to the budget. The initiative is also linked to the sharp increase in the number of EVs in Ukraine: the fleet has grown from around 20,000 to nearly 300,000 vehicles. Against the backdrop of wartime and post‑war expenditures, the state is looking for additional sources to finance roads and infrastructure, and the new payment is presented as a targeted tool for these needs. At the same time, the broader context must be considered: tax incentives for the import and supply of EVs (exemption from VAT and import duty) remain in place until the end of 2025; from 1 January 2026, VAT on EV‑related transactions will return, making the import of such cars at least 20% more expensive on its own. In other words, a potential monthly tax may come on top of already planned tightening of the tax regime for electric transport. Possible implications for the market and owners Higher cost of owning an EVFor a mid‑range car, a tax of up to 4,000 UAH per month means up to 48,000 UAH in extra annual expenses. Combined with the return of VAT, this could: make EVs less attractive for new buyers; push some current owners to sell their vehicles or switch to cheaper models. Slower “green” transition in transportEVs are seen as a key tool for decarbonisation and reducing dependence on imported fuel. Excessive tax pressure may contradict the goals of the “green” policies Ukraine has committed to, including within the EU integration framework. This is why many experts stress the need for a balance between budget needs and the incentive role of the tax system. Uneven impact on different owner segmentsThe initiative talks about differentiation based on the vehicle’s value, but it remains unclear how market value will be determined — by contract price, reference values, or valuation reports. There is a risk that: the “paper” value and the actual market value will differ; owners of older or damaged imported EVs may end up paying as much as owners of far more expensive cars if the methodology is vague. Administrative risks and corruption factorsAny new tax requires: clear rules for registering taxpayers and vehicles; a transparent mechanism for monitoring payments; well‑defined liability for non‑payment. If the model is poorly designed, potential issues include: overlap with existing charges; disputes with tax authorities over the tax base; corruption risks when challenging assessments. Why this is more than just an “auto issue” for businessThe potential tax affects not only individuals but also companies actively switching to electric fleets: couriers, logistics providers, taxi services, and corporate fleets. For them, a monthly charge for each vehicle: will directly increase operating costs; may force a review of pricing and service margins; will become an important factor when planning fleet renewal. Businesses also need clarity on: whether this tax will be deductible for corporate profit tax purposes; whether any preferential regimes will be available (for example, for critical infrastructure, medical or energy‑sector fleets). There are no answers yet — they will depend on the final wording of the draft law. What EV owners should do now Monitor the publication of the draft law.So far, the public only knows the general approach and “headline numbers” from MPs’ interviews. Real legal consequences can be assessed only once the draft and the committee opinions are published. Recalculate the economics of owning your car.If you planned to buy an EV in late 2025 or early 2026, you should reassess: the expected purchase price including the return of VAT; the potential monthly tax based on the announced ranges; and how all this compares with the total cost of owning a conventional car, including fuel and maintenance. For businesses — model scenarios for the fleet.Companies should build several scenarios (no tax, low‑rate tax, high‑rate tax), estimate the impact on budgets, tariffs, and investment plans, and prepare for possible changes in leasing or financing terms. Take part in professional discussions.Before the law is adopted, business associations, industry groups, and EV owners can still influence the initiative’s parameters through consultations, position papers, and participation in working groups. At this stage, it is still possible to push for softer rates, transition periods, or exemptions for specific vehicle categories. In summary, a monthly tax on EVs is not just a technical tweak to the Tax Code but a potentially major shift in the rules of the game for the

Потрібна допомога адвоката? Залишай заявку In recent years, tax control in Ukraine has been associated primarily with businesses: scheduled on‑site audits, desk audits of sole proprietors, and analysis of optimisation schemes. Individuals, especially non‑entrepreneurs, often felt “outside the tax authorities’ focus”. The situation is gradually changing: the state is moving to a model where attention is paid not only to companies but also to ordinary citizens, their income in Ukraine and abroad, their assets, and high‑value transactions. The updated audit plan is one of the clear signals of this trend. Why the focus is shifting to individualsThere are several obvious reasons why individuals are increasingly coming into the spotlight of the tax authorities. First, there is the fight against “nominee” sole proprietors and cash‑based schemes. Part of the business community has traditionally used individuals — both registered entrepreneurs and “ordinary people” — to withdraw funds, pay salaries “in envelopes”, and formally hold assets or loan agreements. For the tax authorities, it is a logical step to look not only at the company itself but also at the circle of related individuals: founders, directors, key employees, and connected family members. Second, digitalisation and data exchange enable the tax service to analyse much larger datasets on citizens: banking transactions, customs declarations, real estate and vehicle registers, information on foreign income, and movements of funds on payment cards. What was technically difficult to track in the past is now turning into analytical dashboards and automated risk profiles. Third, there is growing attention to citizens’ foreign income — salaries earned abroad, work for IT companies, freelancing, investments through international platforms, and crypto transactions. This is driven both by wartime budget needs and by Ukraine’s move towards global standards for the automatic exchange of tax information. All of this logically results in an updated audit plan in which individuals are no longer treated as a “secondary” category. Which individuals fall into the risk zoneThe tax authorities always work on the basis of risk prioritisation: auditing everyone is expensive and inefficient, so they form groups of taxpayers with a higher likelihood of violations. For individuals, the typical risk markers include: Significant assets with relatively modest official income.If a person owns several pieces of real estate, expensive cars, and equity stakes in companies, but their declared income does not explain this, it is a classic trigger for in‑depth analysis. Substantial inflows to bank accounts from unclear sources.Regular or large one‑off transfers from other individuals, foreign inflows, and active work with crypto exchanges without reflecting the income in tax returns can all attract the attention of the authorities. Links to businesses that already have tax risks.Founders, directors, beneficiaries, or de facto managers of companies that are under audit, facing additional assessments, or subject to criminal proceedings often become a focus as individual taxpayers as well. Large transactions with real estate and other valuable assets.Purchases and sales of property, gifts, inheritance, and systematic resale transactions may be treated as entrepreneurial activity or require detailed verification of the source of funds. Systematic non‑declaration of foreign income.Many citizens work remotely for foreign companies and receive remuneration into foreign bank accounts, cards, or e‑wallets. Formally, such income is taxable in Ukraine (as part of the person’s worldwide income), and this area is becoming one of the main priorities of control. What tools do the authorities useUpdating the audit plan is only the tip of the iceberg. Behind it are tools that allow the authorities to “select” individuals of interest: Analysis of banking operations. Banks are obliged to report suspicious transactions and conduct financial monitoring; this data can be used by the tax authorities as a basis for further analysis. Register data. Real estate, vehicles, corporate rights, land, encumbrances, and mortgages — open and semi‑open registers make it possible to see the real volume of a taxpayer’s assets. Information from other states and international platforms. An automatic exchange of tax information (CRS) is being gradually introduced, and some jurisdictions are already sending data on the accounts of Ukrainian tax residents. Cross‑checks against business data. If a company records substantial payments to individuals (fees, civil‑law contracts, rent, consulting services), the tax service may check whether those individuals have declared the corresponding income. As a result, even a person who has never been a sole proprietor but actively conducts financial transactions can end up on the list of taxpayers selected for audit. What questions will individuals most often faceThe updated audit plan means that the authorities will more frequently ask individuals specific questions, such as: Where did the money come from? The key issue is documenting the source of funds for major purchases, investments, or savings. Without contracts, statements, and tax returns, it is difficult to provide a lawful explanation. Has all income been declared? This is especially relevant for foreign income, freelancing, cryptocurrency gains, rental income, and informal side jobs. Does the declared income match the person’s lifestyle? The tax service increasingly looks at consistency between income, expenditure, and assets; a substantial discrepancy is always a risk. Is there any hidden business activity? Systematic online sales, property or car flipping, and continuous provision of services may be treated as business activity with corresponding tax consequences. For many taxpayers, the main challenge is not so much “bad” transactions as the lack of documentary proof that everything was done properly. What individuals should do now Perform a self‑audit of income and assets.Compare your major assets (real estate, cars, large deposits, investments) with your official income over recent years. Ask yourself honestly whether you could document the origin of these funds. Collect documents for key transactions.Gather contracts of sale, gift and loan agreements, bank statements, and evidence of salaries and other lawful income. In many cases the documents exist but are scattered across different sources — it is better to systematise them. Reconsider your approach to foreign income.If you work abroad, freelance for foreign clients, or hold accounts with foreign banks or exchanges, calculate whether you are obliged to file a tax return and pay tax

Потрібна допомога адвоката? Залишай заявку In tax disputes, businesses often rely on formal documents — tax invoices, acceptance certificates, contracts, payment orders — and assume that their existence automatically confirms that transactions are real and that the taxpayer is entitled to input VAT and expense recognition. In practice, the Supreme Court consistently states that a tax invoice and other supplier documents are not unconditional proof that transactions are real if the overall circumstances point to the opposite. Position of the Supreme Court: it is not the documents but the actual transaction that creates legal consequencesThe Court emphasizes that the mere existence of tax, delivery and other accounting documents of the supplier does not by itself prove that a transaction is real if other circumstances indicate that the data are unreliable; legal consequences in the form of input VAT and deductible expenses arise only from transactions that have actually been carried out and are supported by primary documents reflecting their real economic substance, whereas purely formal paperwork does not legalize something that in fact never happened. Why one tax invoice is not enoughA typical situation: the taxpayer has a contract, a tax invoice, a delivery note and a payment order. On paper the set looks complete, yet the Supreme Court has repeatedly sided with the tax authority where: all contracts are “carbon copies”, with identical terms and no individual features, which points to a purely formal document flow; data from the Unified Register and analytical databases show no real supply chain (counterparties “sell to themselves”, there is no logistics, real manufacturers or stock on warehouses); the counterparty lacks staff and physical assets that would make it possible to perform the declared scope of work or supply (no personnel, transport or production facilities, etc.); apart from formal invoices and contracts, the taxpayer provides no additional evidence that the transaction was actually performed (detailed acceptance certificates, CMR/waybills, warehouse records, internal memos, correspondence, photo or video evidence). The Court stresses that contracts, tax and delivery invoices do not in themselves prove the real movement of assets and only record the parties’ intention. Therefore, the court expects a broader set of evidence demonstrating the genuine business substance of transactions (origin, movement and transfer of goods and the performance of works or services). What exactly the court examines: “red flags” for input VATCase law has developed several indicators that cast doubt on the reality of transactions despite the presence of tax invoices: Impossibility for the counterparty to make the supply. For example, it has no employees, fixed assets, leased warehouses or production premises, or vehicles. The Court makes it clear that in such circumstances formal primary documents do not prove that the transaction is real. A broken or artificial supply chain. Counterparties look like mere “transit” entities in the register, file no reports, pay no taxes but generate large volumes of tax invoices, often issued “to themselves”. Absence of supporting documents typical for that type of transaction. For a sale of goods one would expect waybills, warehouse and transport documents; for services — detailed certificates, technical assignments, reports and photo or video evidence. Lack of economic sense or connection with the taxpayer’s business. If a transaction has no clear business purpose, the court will scrutinize the “paper” package even when tax invoices exist. Courts also take into account information from the tax authorities’ analytical databases but stress that such information is not in itself conclusive evidence of sham transactions. It only creates a background that must be corroborated with other objective data. Burden of proof: what the taxpayer must doThe Supreme Court consistently proceeds from the premise that it is the taxpayer who must prove the reality of the business transactions that generate input VAT and deductible expenses. If the tax authority puts forward specific arguments that transactions are fictitious — such as insufficient resources of the counterparty, a broken supply chain or absence of goods in warehouses — the burden of disproving these claims shifts to the taxpayer. In a recent case, the Court expressly stated that the right to input VAT arises only where transactions are real (actual and genuine), carried out within the taxpayer’s business activities and supported by properly executed primary documents. This means that: absence of primary documents or providing them “retroactively” at the dispute stage significantly weakens the taxpayer’s position; merely filling in documents without reflecting the actual movement of goods, works or services does not protect against additional assessments; the court evaluates evidence as a whole rather than in isolation, so a single invoice or certificate without a supporting “background” does not work. What evidence of real transactions the court expects to seeCourt practice shows that the more comprehensive the set of evidence the taxpayer submits, the higher the chances of defending input VAT. The Supreme Court and professional reviews recommend, in particular: Contracts and addenda with detailed terms (volumes, deadlines, specifications, acceptance procedures, responsible persons). Properly executed primary documents: acceptance certificates, work completion certificates, delivery notes, invoices, payment orders, trial balances, warehouse cards and similar records. Logistics documents: waybills, transport contracts, transportation requests and route sheets where the transaction involves physical movement of goods. The Court recognizes that waybills are not formally primary documents for acquisition, but their existence is appropriate evidence that goods were moved. Evidence that works or services were actually performed: technical assignments, reports, internal memos, photo and video records of completed works, correspondence with counterparties, minutes of meetings. Data on counterparties: extracts from registers, information about staff, fixed assets and production capacity — anything that confirms their ability to perform their obligations in reality. The general conclusion from case law is that proving the reality of a transaction means establishing the actual movement of assets in the course of performing the contract, not just producing one or two tax invoices and a formal contract. Practical takeaways for business Do not limit yourself to a “minimum package”. A contract, a tax invoice and an acceptance certificate are the baseline, but for risky transactions (large