RUS
 Up
YUST  /  Press-center  /  Media

In its Resolution of 06.08.2004, the Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeals upheld the decision of the Arbitration Court of the City of Moscow of 31.05.2004concerning the refusal of the Inspection of the Ministry of the Russian Federation of Taxes and Collect

07.12.2004

The Inspection of the Ministry of the Russian Federation of Taxes and Collections № 29 on Closed Joint-Stock Companies applied to the Arbitration Court of the City of Moscow with a request for the declaration of a transaction as invalid – an agreement of 05.08.2002 on the supply of medical equipment, executed between LLC “Aval-2000” (supplier) and LLC Enterprise “BAROST” (buyer).

As grounds for the claim, the taxation body maintained that the materials of the case indicate that the disputed transaction was executed for purposes contrary to the bases of the legal order (art. 169 of the Civil Code of the RF), specifically – to evade payment of the taxes due under existing taxation legislation.

In their response to the claim, the attorneys and lawyers of the law firm “YUST”, acting under instructions from the Enterprise “BAROST”, indicated that insofar as the equipment in question was factually delivered to the end users of that equipment, i.e. the transaction was carried out in reality, the parties to the agreement not only had legally sound intentions upon concluding the agreement, but also realized those intentions in practice, having discharged their obligations in accordance with the agreement. The Arbitration Court of the City of Moscow dismissed the claim filed by the taxation body in its Resolution of 31.05.2004. Moreover, the Court indicated that the materials of the case contradict the taxation body’s assertions that the transaction was carried out for purposes that clearly run counter to the bases of the legal order and morality; the agreement was discharged by the parties in its entirety; the acknowledgement of the invalidity of the state registration of the respondent does not nullify its prior transactions; premeditated execution of a transaction for purposes running counter to the bases of the legal order cannot be presumed, but must be proved.

Therefore, in its Resolution of 06.08.2004, the Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeals left the decision of the court of the first instance in force.


Back to list