Практика - Paritet
Challenging the arrears in the amount of 230,145,360 rubles according to the act of field tax audit.
Based on the results of a filed tax audit, the customer was found to have failed to pay tax arrears and...

Result

Our customer avoided liability and payment in the amount of 230,145,360 rubles.

MainTax

CASES FROM PRACTICE

Protected the former head and participant of the debtor from subsidiary liability in the amount of 1,805,677,441.33 rubles

Case

In relation to our client, the former chief engineer of one of the group of companies that took part in the construction of infrastructure in the Krasnodar Territory and subsequently went bankrupt in 2014, in one of the bankruptcy cases, the bankruptcy trustees filed an application for bringing to subsidiary liability for 1,805,677,441.33 rubles, the second for 169,217,346.61 rubles. By the time of our entry into the case, the application had been considered in the court of first instance for almost a year, and provisional measures had been imposed on all property and bank accounts of the client. Our client was previously represented by another general practice lawyer who was unable to cope with representing him.

The situation was complicated by the fact that in our case the client was both the head of the debtor and its participant in the authorized capital with a share of 25%, that is, the controlling person of the debtor, while, the debtor's insolvency, in the opinion of the managers, fell on our client, while affiliates from the group of companies, where our client also appeared, had a significant influence. The Federal Tax Service (including on debts to extra-budgetary funds) and one of the top 10 Russian banks acted on the side of the managers with multimillion-dollar demands.

Conducted work

Employees of the law firm “Paritet”, after a painstaking study of several hundred thousand sheets of documentation of the group of companies and about twenty related arbitration cases, more than two hundred judicial acts, as well as the legal positions of the parties presented, found the necessary arguments in defense of our client, which received a correct judicial assessment. Our lawyers were able to prove that no evidence was presented that the sale of the debtor's fixed assets led to bankruptcy, while the recognition of transactions to seize the debtor's property as invalid does not in itself constitute grounds for bringing to subsidiary liability. In addition, it was proved that part of the debt was of an ordinary economic nature and could not cause bankruptcy, and the largest part of the debt to creditors arose after our client left the management and participants of the debtor. Also, our lawyers have documented that our client took all the actions in his power to settle the debt to off-budget insurance funds that caused the debtor's insolvency, including through the courts, and also filed an application for bankruptcy of the debtor with a slight delay, which was withdrawn already by other persons. In addition, the actual beneficiary of the debtor, who made decisions on his own, was disclosed, and our client could not exert any influence on these decisions. Our lawyers have proved the presence of positive balance sheets, indicating that the debtor had a profit at the time our client left the top management, as well as the presence of prejudicial court decisions, including in criminal cases, that overlapped judicial acts and judicial practice presented by opponents.


Result

The courts decided to refuse to bring our client to subsidiary liability in the case. The decision has already stood in the appellate and cassation courts, which also made it possible to immediately withdraw interim measures from the property and bank accounts of our client.
kolchenko_3
The case was conducted by:

Kolchenko Timur

Senior lawyer,

specialist in international law

Helped to conclude a profitable deal for design and survey work

Case

A company specializing in the construction of road and transport infrastructure asked us for help in reviewing and subcontracting a German engineering and design company for the construction of new bridges across the Moscow River.

Conducted work

Having studied the available documentation, the employees of the law firm “Paritet” found that the contract lacked a number of arbitration clauses and regulation in case of unforeseen circumstances, which subordinated the legal relations of the parties to German law and determined the jurisdiction of disputes also in Germany. In addition, the contract did not clearly define the subject of the contract in relation to the architectural integrity of bridges and other infrastructure facilities, residential and non-residential buildings to be simultaneously erected, and the obligations of the parties were scattered across different sections of the contract. At the same time, the German counterparty was checked using available open sources on the Internet, which was reflected in the indication of the full scope of the details of the German company. Our lawyers have made significant amendments to the voluminous text of the contract in Russian and English in all main sections, clarifying and redistributing the scope of duties and responsibilities of the parties, including with regard to the procedure for payment, acceptance of work performed, interaction between the parties, and intellectual property. The contract was resubordinated to Russian law, and jurisdiction was assigned to the Moscow Arbitration Court.


Arbitration

Result

Our customer was able to conclude a construction subcontract with the owner to carry out design and survey work on much more understandable and favorable terms compared to the original terms.
kolchenko_3
The case was conducted by:

Kolchenko Timur

Senior lawyer,

specialist in international law

Defended in court the tenant of the land plot against the requirements of the prosecutor's office

Case

The prosecutor's office of one of the districts of the Moscow region filed a lawsuit against the tenant of the land plot to stop the misuse of the land plot and to carry out the reclamation of the land plot, the state examination of the land reclamation project. The suit was motivated, according to the prosecutor's office, by the placement of production and consumption waste in the form of soil dumps on the agricultural land plot, which indicates damage to the land plot.

The situation was aggravated by the presence of a decision that had entered into force in the case of an administrative offense initiated and carried out by the prosecutor's office against the tenant on the same basis and subject matter of the requirements. The potential threat of this dispute was the subsequent monetary assessment of the alleged damage caused by the prosecutor's office to the land plot in accordance with the methods approved by the Ministry of Natural Resources of the Russian Federation, the amount of which could be at least several million rubles.

Conducted work

Employees of the law firm "Paritet" collected documentary evidence and, on their basis, compiled a legal structure that made it possible to refute the arguments of the prosecutor's office and the content of the case file on an administrative offense. In court hearings, our experts proved that the removal of soil from Moscow to the Moscow Region was coordinated with the state bodies of the city of Moscow and the Moscow Region, as well as with the territorial departments of the federal services of the Moscow Region. In addition, it was proved that equipment is used on the land plot that allows the processing of soil into components that are safe for nature, which can be reused by introducing them into the soil, and earthworks are carried out on the basis of a permit issued in the prescribed manner and are accompanied by chemical and biological studies, confirming the environmental friendliness of the activities. Thus, the position of the prosecutor's office contradicted the arguments of other competent authorities and was not based on a full and objective investigation of the case of an administrative offense. Moreover, it was possible to document that such work is necessary to create a site for growing trees for sale. In addition, our lawyers took advantage of the mistake of the prosecutor's office, which did not conduct an environmental assessment in the framework of the case on an administrative offense, and asked the court to appoint it. The ecological expertise appointed by the court confirmed the arguments of our lawyers.


Result

The court decided to dismiss the claim, which allowed the tenant of the agricultural land plot to carry out his activities calmly, without pressure from law enforcement agencies. The decision of the court entered into force.
kolchenko_3
The case was conducted by:

Kolchenko Timur

Senior lawyer,

specialist in international law

Collection of debt from a backbone organization in the amount of 502,986,135.60 rubles.

Case

In 2019, a Legal Services Agreement was concluded between the law firm “Paritet” and the Customer, under which the Customer, in December 2019, applied for legal assistance on the issue of debt collection from LLC “MIP-STROY No. 1” under executed work contracts.

Conducted work

A team of lawyers "Paritet" carried out a large scope of work to assess the terms of the concluded Contracts, verification of executive and other documentation. A legal opinion was prepared, with which the lawyers of the Law Firm “Paritet”, after going through the pre-trial procedure, went to court. In the process of considering this dispute, the law firm “Paritet” provided evidence to the court confirming the Plaintiff's arguments about the actual fulfillment of its obligations under the work contracts, the existence of a debt of LLC “MIP-STROY No. 1” to the Customer was proved, and the Respondent's position was refuted. As a result, the scope performed by the Customer was recognized by the Respondent, after which, in the period from November to December 2020, the Moscow Arbitration Court and the Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal approved the relevant settlement agreements of the Parties for a total of 502,986,135.60 rubles, the proceedings were terminated. In addition, the lawyers of the Law Firm “Paritet” reached an agreement on the refusal of LLC “MIP-STROY No. 1” from counterclaims to the Customer in the total amount of 31,298,346.80 rubles.


Arbitration

Result

In favor of our Customer, a debt in the amount of 502,986,135.60 rubles was collected.
goryachkin_2
The case was conducted by:

Goryachkin Roman

Senior Associate,

Arbitration Practice Specialist

Challenging the arrears in the amount of 230,145,360 rubles according to the act of field tax audit.

Case

Based on the results of a filed tax audit, the customer was found to have failed to pay tax arrears and penalties in the total amount of 200,866,524 rubles. The client turned to us for help in contesting these claims and declaring them unfounded.

Conducted work

Considering this decision unlawful, the Law Firm “Paritet” filed a complaint with a higher tax authority with a request to cancel the decision on additional tax control measures. However, the higher tax authority dismissed the complaint. The Inspectorate made additions to the act of tax audit and set the amount to be paid already in the amount of 230,145,360 rubles. Lawyers of the firm "Paritet" sent their objections regarding the illegality of these requirements. The tax authority recognized the objections as justified and decided to refuse to hold the Customer liable.


MainTax

Result

Our customer avoided liability and payment in the amount of 230,145,360 rubles.
popov_foto
The case was conducted by:

Popov Alexander

Senior Partner,

Head of Tax Practice

Challenging the arrears in the amount of 8,609,989 rubles according to the act of desk audit

Case

According to the act of a desk tax audit, the customer was found to have failed to pay tax arrears and penalties in the total amount of 8,609,989 rubles. The client contacted us for assistance in contesting these claims.

Conducted work

The Law firm "Paritet" prepared and sent to the tax authority objections to the above act. The lawyers did not agree with the conclusions of the state inspector on the formal document flow of the customer for financial and economic operations in the absence of real work, in order to minimize the tax payable to the budget of the Russian Federation and sent their objections. The tax authority considered these objections and recognized them as justified.


Result

Our customer avoided paying a large tax arrears in the amount of 8,609,989 rubles.
Гурчева Мария Александровна
The case was conducted by:

Gurcheva Maria

Senior lawyer,

specialist in patent law and tax practice

Challenging the amount of debt under a land lease agreement, reducing debt from 7 to 2 million rubles.

Case

In August 2019, a customer approached us for legal assistance regarding the consideration in the Moscow Arbitration Court of the claim of the City Property Department of Moscow for the recovery of debt and penalties from the customer under a land lease agreement for 2018 in the amount of 7,788,662 rubles.

Conducted work

In the process of considering this dispute, LLC “Law Firm “Paritet” provided all the evidence refuting the Plaintiff's arguments set out in the statement of claim, in connection with which, in January 2020, the DGI of Moscow was declared a reduction in the amount of claims by the Moscow Arbitration Court a decision was made to satisfy the claims with the collection of debt and penalties from the customer for late payment in the total amount of 2,634,411 rubles.


AdministrativeLand

Result

Thanks to the work of LLC “Law Firm “Paritet”, the amount of debt was reduced from 7,788,662 rubles up to 2,634,411 rubles
goryachkin_2
The case was conducted by:

Goryachkin Roman

Senior Associate,

Arbitration Practice Specialist

Appeal against the Decree of the Office of Federal Service of State Registration, Land Register and Mapping for Moscow in the case of an administrative offense, avoiding a fine in the amount of 643,049.44 rubles.

Case

In November 2019, the Customer contacted us regarding the appeal against the Decree of the Office of Federal Service of State Registration, Land Register and Mapping for Moscow in the case of an administrative offense under Part 1 of Article 8.8 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, by which the Customer was brought to administrative liability in the form of a fine in the amount of 643,049.44 rubles.

Conducted work

In pursuance of its obligations under the Agreement, LLC “Law Firm “Paritet” prepared a corresponding complaint, and subsequently sent to a higher authority - the Moscow Arbitration Court. In the process of considering this dispute, LLC “Law Firm “Paritet” also selected the necessary judicial practice, confirming the arguments set forth in the complaint.


Administrative

Result

The customer avoided bringing to administrative responsibility and payment of 643,049.44 rubles.
goryachkin_2
The case was conducted by:

Goryachkin Roman

Senior Associate,

Arbitration Practice Specialist

Reducing rent and tax liabilities from 492,134,701 rubles to 166,458,000 rubles

Case

The customer applied on the issue of reducing its tax liabilities, as well as reducing the rent calculated on the basis of the cadastral value of the land plot established as of January 01, 2016 in the amount of 492,134,701 (four hundred and ninety-two million, one hundred and thirty-four thousand, seven hundred and one) rubles 17 kopecks.

Conducted work

According to the results of the assessment, it turned out that the cadastral value of the land plot significantly exceeds its market value, which was the basis in December 2018 to apply for a review of the results of determining the cadastral value of the property to the Office of Federal Service of State Registration, Land Register and Mapping for Moscow. In December 2019, a response was received from the Office of Federal Service of State Registration, Land Register and Mapping for Moscow about a change in the cadastral value of the Customer's land plot.


Administrative

Result

Our customer reduced the rent from 492,134,701 to 166,458,000 rubles.
Гурчева Мария Александровна
The case was conducted by:

Gurcheva Maria

Senior lawyer,

specialist in patent law and tax practice

Challenging the cost of a land plot in the amount of 259,494,136 rubles 48 kopecks

Case

In May 2019, the Customer applied to us for legal support in the Moscow City Court on an administrative claim to establish the cadastral value of a land plot in the amount of its market value of 140,378,121 rubles.

Conducted work

An administrative complaint has been prepared. In the process of considering the case, the Moscow City Court satisfied the specified claims and established the cadastral value of the land plot, according to the final value of the judicial appraisal. Subsequently, the Moscow Government and the Moscow City Department filed an appeal against the decision of the court of first instance. The appeal was not satisfied, the decision of the Moscow City Court was determined to be left unchanged.


Result

Customer payments have been reduced from 259,494,136 rubles 48 kopecks to 170,198,026 rubles.
Гурчева Мария Александровна
The case was conducted by:

Gurcheva Maria

Senior lawyer,

specialist in patent law and tax practice

Support of your business.
Within the law.
Beyond competition.

Нажимая кнопку "Отправить", Вы автоматически соглашаетесь с политикой конфиденциальности и даете свое согласие на обработку персональных данных.

LEAVE YOUR CONTACT DETAILS​