Submission by taxpayers of applications for postponement (installment plan) of execution of judicial acts.
A study of the cases submitted for generalization has shown that individual large subsurface users, based on the results of court proceedings, raise the issue of postponing (installment) the execution of judicial acts. However, in fact, they raise the issue of postponement (installment payment) of disputed notifications of audit results. Thus, JSC "K" submitted such an application, asking to postpone the execution of judicial acts entailing the fulfillment of its tax obligation under the disputed notification for 12 months. This was motivated by the fact that a one-time payment of the accrual amounts on notification would dramatically affect the financial stability and production activities of the Company. The Astana City Court lawfully refused to satisfy the Company's application. At the same time, he reasonably proceeded from the fact that the case was considered in the order of special claim proceedings, during which the legality of the decision of the state body was verified. The judicial acts that took place in the case did not recover any amount. By virtue of subparagraph 1) of paragraph 1 of Article 14 of the Tax Code, a taxpayer is obliged to timely and fully fulfill a tax obligation in accordance with the Tax Code. According to the rule established by paragraph 6 of Article 638 of the Tax Code, an extension of the deadline for fulfilling a tax obligation is possible if the taxpayer agrees with the notification. This period cannot be extended after appealing the results of the audit. Similar norms are contained in subparagraph 1) of paragraph 3 of Article 13 and paragraph 8 of Article 159 of the current Tax Code.
Submission by taxpayers of applications for postponement (installment plan) of execution of judicial acts.
Paragraph 3-1 of Article 609 of the 2008 Tax Code stipulated that the methods of ensuring the fulfillment of a tax obligation not fulfilled on time are not applied in the case of a rehabilitation procedure from the date of entry into force of a court ruling approving a rehabilitation plan, provided that the amount of the tax obligation is included in the register of creditors' claims in accordance with the procedure established by the legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan on rehabilitation and bankruptcy (paragraph 4 of Article 116 of the current Tax Code).
The court of appeal proceeded from the priority of these norms, disagreeing with the conclusions of the Astana City Court, which recognized as justified the arguments of LLP "S" on the unlawful accrual of penalties for the period from the date of entry into force of the judicial act on the application of the rehabilitation procedure to it until the completion of the tax audit (from December 23 to December 29, 2015). When considering these issues, courts should take into account the specifics established by the Tax Code and proceed from the priority of its norms.
Attention!
Law and Law Law Law draws your attention to the fact that this document is basic and does not always meet the requirements of a particular situation. Our lawyers are ready to assist you in legal advice, drawing up any legal document suitable for your situation.
For more information, please contact a Lawyer / Attorney by phone: +7 (708) 971-78-58; +7 (700) 978 5755, +7 (700) 978 5085.
Attorney at Law Almaty Lawyer Legal Services Legal Advice Civil Criminal Administrative Cases Disputes Protection Arbitration Law Firm Kazakhstan Law Office Court Cases
