Tax position of non-taxable representative offices of foreign companies in Ukraine
International Tax Review is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Tax position of non-taxable representative offices of foreign companies in Ukraine

ukraine-flag.jpg

Representative offices of foreign companies in Ukraine have historically been a favourite target of the Ukrainian tax authorities.

Based on the fiscal interpretation of Ukraine’s tax code, the tax authorities attempt to tax financing from the head company in the hands of the representative office even if the latter should not constitute a permanent establishment (PE) by virtue of applicable treaty protection.

Existing court practice in Ukraine shows a tendency of courts contesting the tax authorities’ position by, among other things, referring to principles of international taxation as envisaged in Ukraine's double tax treaties.

Ruling No. K/9991/35822/11, issued by the Supreme Administrative Court of Ukraine on March 14 2013, illustrates the trend.

The tax authorities claimed that funds received by a representative office of a Dutch company from the head company, for maintenance of its activity in Ukraine, was taxable income in the hands of the representative office.

Exploiting the general principle that profits derived by a non-resident carrying on its activities in Ukraine via a PE shall be taxed based on general rules, the tax authorities assessed the representative office with additional corporate profits tax liabilities.

The Supreme Administrative Court of Ukraine, as well as two lower courts, rejected the tax authorities' claims by referring to the rule on international treaties predominance over domestic legislation, as well as to the preparatory/auxiliary functions exemption provided by the Ukraine-Netherlands double tax treaty.

The courts investigated and compared the registered activities of the Dutch head company with the representative office's activities in the territory of Ukraine, both registered and actual.

While the head offices' activities were in production and sales, those of the representative office were on the marketing, advisory and regulatory side. By such analysis the courts proved the auxiliary/preparatory nature of the representative office's activities and consequently rejected the claims on tax re-assessment.

Despite this positive trend, the tax authorities are likely to continue to adhere to a purely fiscal and budget-driven approach while ignoring treaty-based international taxation principles.

Representative offices of foreign companies in Ukraine are therefore advised to be prepared to defend their non-taxable status in court. Proper documentary proof of scope of activities is essential for building the case.

By principal Tax Disputes correspondents for Ukraine:

Svitlana Musienko, DLA Piper Ukraine, partner, Svitlana.musienko@dlapiper.com, + 38 044 4909564; and

Illya Sverdlov, DLA Piper Ukraine, legal director, Illya.sverdlov@dlapiper.com, +38 044 490 9575.

more across site & bottom lb ros

More from across our site

The Senate report into PwC’s scandal is titled ‘The cover up worsens the crime’
Law firms that are conscious of their role in society are more likely to win work, according to a survey of over 23,000 in-house professionals
The firm’s tax business generated a quarter of HLB’s overall revenues in 2023
While successful pillar two implementation will require collaboration across all units, a combination of internal and external tax advice is at the centre of the effort
Binance has also been accused of manipulating foreign exchange rates via currency speculation and rate-fixing
Six individuals should have raised questions over information they received but did not breach professional standards, according to the firm
The partnership of KPMG UK has installed Holt for a second term as CEO and senior partner; in other news, a Baker McKenzie partner has sued the IRS
HSBC has settled a claim originally worth £240m relating to a failed film tax relief scheme without admitting liability or wrongdoing
Their prediction comes after the IRS announced it would send compliance letters to large foreign companies emphasising their US tax obligations
The ex-client is also suing the entire EY Australia partnership
Gift this article