The investigation has a good old tradition:<\/p>\n
If your tax history doesn't work out, you can always call an expert.
\nThe expert will do the math, write a nice conclusion... and it's almost \"tax evasion\".
\nBut then the Supreme Court appears (17.03.2026, case No. 758\/9\/18) and breaks this scenario a little \ud83d\udc47<\/p>\n
\ud83d\udccc The plot of the case in brief:<\/p>\n
The tax authorities issued a tax violation notification letter.
\nThe taxpayer went to the administrative court.
\nThe courts said:
\n\ud83d\udc49 TIW - cancel.
\nAnd, it would seem, the final.<\/p>\n
But no.<\/p>\n
Criminal proceedings under Art. 212 of the CCU continue to live their lives \ud83e\udd37\u200d\u2642\ufe0f
\nBecause there is an \"ironclad argument\" from the prosecution:
\n\ud83d\udcc4 economic expertise that \"confirms\" tax evasion.<\/p>\n
\ud83d\ude02 And this is where the fun begins:<\/p>\n
The prosecutor said:
\n- So what if the TACs are canceled? We have an expert!
\n- And the witnesses!
\n- And the papers!
\n- In fact, let's interrogate someone else!<\/p>\n
The Supreme Court responds:<\/p>\n
- Of course, this is all very exciting... but no \ud83d\ude04<\/p>\n
\u2696\ufe0f The court's position is as simple and painful as possible for the prosecution:
\n\ud83d\udc49 If the TND is canceled and this decision has entered into force
\nIf there is no agreed tax liability<\/p>\n
then:<\/p>\n
\u2757\ufe0f there is no tax debt as a legal fact
\n\u2757\ufe0f no shortfall in budget revenues
\n\u2757\ufe0f no corpus delicti under Art. 212 of the CCU
\n\ud83d\udca5 And now the main punchline:<\/p>\n
The court explicitly states:<\/p>\n
\ud83e\udde0 an expert is not a tax office
\n\ud83d\udcca an expert is not a body that reconciles tax liabilities
\n\u2696\ufe0f and even a very smart expert<\/p>\n
\ud83d\udc49 cannot replace the PPR<\/p>\n
\ud83e\udd0c That is, we translate from legal to human:<\/p>\n
If the court has already said:
\n\"You don't owe the state anything\"
\nis the version:
\n\"But the expert believes they are guilty\"
\n- looks something like this:
\n\"The court canceled the fine, but the neighbor calculated that you still have to pay\" \ud83d\ude05<\/p>\n
\ud83d\udcc9 What else is important:<\/p>\n
The Supreme Court actually \"kills\" the argument:
\n\ud83d\udc49 \"Let's also examine the evidence, call witnesses, look at the expertise\"
\nBecause if there is no basic element - an agreed PPR,
\nthen all these actions are like repairing a car without an engine \ud83d\ude97<\/p>\n
\ud83c\udfaf The end of the case:<\/p>\n
The court said:<\/p>\n
\ud83d\udc49 there is no other option but to justify it<\/p>\n
Because:<\/p>\n
\ud83d\udccc administrative courts have already decided everything
\n\ud83d\udccc no tax liabilities - none
\n\ud83d\udccc crime is \"in the air\"
\n\ud83d\ude0e What it means for practice:
\n1. It will become a little more difficult for the investigation to \"draw\" the 212th through examinations
\n2. The defense gets a very strong argument
\n3. Another proof for business: a tax dispute must be won to the end<\/p>\n
\ud83e\udd14 And now to be honest:<\/p>\n
Will this stop the \"expert creatives\"?<\/p>\n
- The Supreme Court said \"stop\"
\n- but whether they will hear is an open question<\/p>\n
Because, as practice shows:<\/p>\n
sometimes our experts are more confident than the courts \ud83d\ude05<\/p>\n
\ud83d\udd25 Conclusion:<\/p>\n
Without an agreed PPR:
\n\ud83d\udc49 no debt
\n\ud83d\udc49 no losses
\n\ud83d\udc49 no 212 of the CCU
\nAnd expertise... is not a magic wand<\/p>\n
#212CriminalCode # SupremeCourt #axes #criminal #courtPractice #lawyerSirko<\/p>\n\n\n