The punishment for red tape and the optional pre -trial order: the new cases of the Armed Forces were immediately appointed 18 cases for consideration in the board of economic disputes. Here are the most interesting of them: –

Punishment for red tape and optional pre -trial order: new cases

At once, 18 cases were appointed for consideration in the board of economic disputes. Here are the most interesting of them:

– Shortly before his own bankruptcy, the entrepreneur received a large loan, and to secure his obligations transferred his only liquid property as a bail. Already in the framework of the bankruptcy case, the pledge agreement was tried to challenge the manager and the creditor. They insisted that this agreement was a transaction with a preference aimed at withdrawing the only liquid property from the bankruptcy estate of the debtor. Can a pledge agreement be challenged as a transaction with a preference, the economy of the board in the case No. A40-210795/2016 will understand.

– MIFNS charged the taxpayer almost 13 million rubles. VAT. This happened due to the fact that the company's counterparty under the supply contracts did not provide the necessary documents-purchases and sales books-to the tax service. And although the court found that the relations between the parties were real, he still decided that the additional tax is the correct behavior of the MIFNS in a controversial situation. The taxpayer did not agree. In the complaint to the Supreme Court, the company’s lawyers referred to the provisions of paragraph 10 of the Resolution of the Plenum of you dated October 12, 2006 No. 53 “On assessment by arbitration courts, the validity of the taxpayer receipt of tax benefits”, according to which the tax benefit can be recognized as unreasonable only if the tax authority proved, that the taxpayer was known about violations of a third party. What was not established in this case. The company also reminded in its complaint that it could not control the actions of its counterparties, and therefore should not bear tax liability for them. Is this so, will find out the Armed Forces in the case No. A42-7695/2017.

-In another interesting “tax” case, the Supreme Court will find out whether it is necessary to take into account the costs of acquiring the sold property when paying tax on “simplification” (case No. A70-829/2019). Three instances agreed that the entrepreneur should not take into account the costs of buying real estate when calculating the tax on the simplified tax system, because he did not use this property in entrepreneurial activity. The entrepreneur himself insists on the opposite. In his opinion, the receipt of income from the sale of real estate is directly due to expenses related to their acquisition. Another interpretation of the norms of the Tax Code will lead to an unreasonable restriction of the rights of the taxpayer applying the simplified tax system, the applicant is sure.

– Another tax dispute is case No. A56-60671/2019. The entrepreneur in court asked to return the money to him, which was debited from the account by the decision of the tax authorities. But he was refused because he missed the pre-trial procedure for resolving the dispute. The businessman complained to the Supreme Court. The entrepreneur insists that the provisions of the Tax Code do not contain special requirements for a mandatory pre-trial procedure for settling disputes on the return of deducted taxes, penalties and fines. Like it or not, the economic board will figure it out.

– As compensation for the demolition of the company's building, she was mentioned in the investment contract and promised her an area in the new building. But the contract was never fulfilled, so a dispute arose in court about how the area in the unfinished building should be divided. The company also tried to get involved in this dispute in order to get the space due to it, but the courts decided that it had made these demands prematurely. The company, however, believes that the investment contract can be considered an agreement in favor of a third party, and its terms simultaneously give the applicant the right to demand the provision of the relevant areas for ownership and oblige the parties to the investment contract to allocate the disputed area. Like it or not, the economic board will figure it out on May 12 (case No. A40-71817/2016).

One No. APL20-2D). The Supreme Court, as usual for this category of cases, does not say who is the “defendant” of the disciplinary case, but notes that an appeal against the decision of the same disciplinary board of December 26, 2019 has been scheduled for consideration. On that day, only one case was considered – the ex-judge of the Partizan City Court of Primorsky Territory Elena Reshetnikova, who appealed against the decision of the Primorsky Territory CCC on the early termination of her judicial powers. The reason for the disciplinary punishment was an unscrupulous attitude to work: red tape, poor organization of the apparatus and errors in submitting the criminal case to the archive. Reshetnikova herself explained these violations by “circumstances that impede her work,” but so far she has not been able to prove her case in any instance.

The Collegium for Civil Cases planned to consider seven cases:

– The Kemerovo Prosecutor for Supervision of Compliance with Laws in Correctional Institutions went to court and demanded that the administration of the regional correctional colony No. 5 eliminate violations of the criminal procedure law and equip rest rooms and living rooms for prisoners in the colony. The court granted the request. The defendant's arguments that the necessary rest rooms had already been equipped in the colony as of the date of the case consideration were ignored by the appellate instance. Now the Supreme Court will sort out the dispute (No. 81-KG20-1).

– The director of the Municipal Unitary Enterprise Teploset, Viktor Babenko, was able to spend more than 2.6 million rubles in five years. He entered into contracts for the lease of equipment for mini-boiler rooms on behalf of the enterprise with companies owned by his wife and an acquaintance.According to the court's verdict, MUP was recognized as the victim of the actions of the director, because of which the company received the right to file a civil claim for the amount of damage. But the suit was filed by the prosecutor of Zheleznovodsk in the interests of the municipality. His claim was denied, because the MUP, and not the city, was recognized as the victim. And the prosecutor at the meeting could not prove to the court that Babenko, by his actions, caused damage precisely to the municipality. Now he will try to prove it to the judges of the Civil Cases Collegium (No. 19-KGPR20-7).