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

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Garden, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

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 & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

A 120-plus-day delay to refunds would cost taxpayers almost $3bn in additional interest, the Cato Institute warned; plus indirect tax updates from February
The Office for Budget Responsibility’s pessimistic pillar two forecast accompanied the UK chancellor’s muted Spring Statement, dubbed ‘as dull as possible’ by one adviser
Digital tax reform is dissolving the old ‘temporal buffer’, forcing systems, institutions, and professionals to adapt as real-time reporting reshapes governance, capability, and compliance
Our first instalment features analysis of Deloitte’s landmark EMEA merger, Donald Trump’s Supreme Court tariff showdown and Venezuela’s tax evolution
While some believe it could have a positive effect on the wider advisory landscape, others argue that HMRC’s ‘red tape’ exercise won’t deter bad actors
The political optics of the US’s carve-out deal are poor, but as the Fair Tax Foundation’s Paul Monaghan writes, it preserves pillar two’s guiding ethos
The big four firm reportedly sent ‘threatening’ correspondence to Unity Advisory over its hiring of ex-PwC partners; plus tax recruitment news from the week
Tom Goldstein, who was represented by US law firm Munger, Tolles & Olson, denied wilfully cheating on his taxes and blamed errors on his staff
Multinationals face rising TP scrutiny as global rules diverge. As Daniel Moalusi argues, strong, consistent documentation is now essential to minimise audit risk and protect tax positions
The profession is fundamentally restructuring itself around what tax and accounting work should be, a Thomson Reuters leader told ITR
Gift this article