For businesses whose activities are connected with excisable goods — alcohol, tobacco products, or fuel — a tax audit almost always means an increased level of fiscal risk.
There are no “minor” violations here: an accounting inaccuracy, a malfunction of an RRO, issues with a license, storage, or transportation of goods — and the result is additional tax assessments and fines amounting to millions of hryvnias 💸
In a new article for the corporate blog, Ganna Gnizdovska, Managing Partner of Juris Ferrum Law Firm, and Yana Kovalova, lawyer at Juris Ferrum Law Firm, analyze the key trends in judicial practice in disputes concerning violations of excise tax legislation.
In the article, we examine:
- why on-site (factual) audits in the excise sphere are an exceptional measure and when tax authorities have no right to initiate them;
- which procedural violations during excise audits lead to the annulment of audit reports and tax assessment notices;
- how courts assess issues related to the circulation, storage, and sale of excisable goods, and what exactly the tax authority must prove;
- why allowing inspectors access does not mean that a business agrees with the audit and does not deprive it of the right to defense;
- who bears the burden of proving violations of excise tax legislation in court;
- how the moratorium on penalties during martial law operates and where tax authorities most often make mistakes;
- why the case law of the European Court of Human Rights and the principle of good governance have become particularly effective arguments in excise tax disputes.
This is not a text about “general approaches.” It is a synthesis of practical court experience, where audit procedures, evidence, and the limits of tax authorities’ powers often play a decisive role.
📖 Read the full version of the article on the Juris Ferrum Law Firm blog.