Russia: Supreme Court issues decision on allocation of costs to income

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

Russia: Supreme Court issues decision on allocation of costs to income

Sponsored by

sponsored-firms-kpmg.png
ib-russia.jpg

Dmitry Garaev and Anastasia Avdonina of KPMG discuss the Supreme Court’s decision A47-9881/2017 of August 26 2019, which is of specific interest for companies receiving both operating profit and dividend income.

The Supreme Court's decision, A47-9881/2017 of August 26 2019, is of specific interest for companies receiving both operating profit and dividend income.

In the case in question, the tax authorities undertook an on-site tax audit of the company's activities for 2013, 2014 and 2015. As a result of the audit, the authorities challenged the company's deduction of certain costs on the basis that:

  • It had failed to allocate costs between taxable and non-taxable activities (specifically, the receipt of dividends, which are taxed at the 0% income tax withholding (WHT) rate); and thus

  • It had inappropriately deducted costs related to non-taxable dividend income.

The company appealed in vain against the authorities' decision to a higher tax office, so it then took the authorities to court. However, the first three instances of court supported the authorities. Finally, the company brought the case to the Supreme Court which, eventually, supported the company's position and sent the case for re-examination to the Court of First Instance.

The Supreme Court's judges supported the company for the following reasons. First, the company was not obliged to allocate its costs to different types of activities, as stated by Article 272 (the procedure for the recognition of expenses where the accrual-basis method is used) of the tax code. The court took the view that the receipt of dividends was not an activity, whereas the requirement to allocate costs applied only if different activities were carried out. Secondly, the company was not required to determine its tax base separately for operating and holding activities. Article 274.2 (tax base) provides that, for profit assessable at a rate other than 20% (as specified in Article 284.1 (tax rates)), the tax base should be calculated separately. The court concluded that this requirement did not apply either, because it applied to the calculation of profits whereas dividends are not profit per se but income.

We eagerly await the final decision of the Court of First Instance.

KPMG

T: +7 495 937-44-77

E: dgaraev@kpmg.ru and aavdonina@kpmg.ru

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

There is a shocking discrepancy between professional services firms’ parental leave packages. Those that fail to get with the times risk losing out in the war for talent
Winston Taylor is expected to launch in May 2026 with more than 1,400 lawyers across the US, UK, Europe, Latin America and the Middle East
They are alleging that leaked tax information ‘unfairly tarnished’ their business operations; in other news, Davis Polk and Eversheds Sutherland made key tax hires
Overall revenues for the combined UK and Swiss firm inched up 2% to £3.6 billion despite a ‘challenging market’
In the first of a two-part series, experts from Khaitan & Co dissect a highly anticipated Indian Supreme Court ruling that marks a decisive shift in India’s international tax jurisprudence
The OECD profile signals Brazil is no longer a jurisdiction where TP can be treated as a mechanical compliance exercise, one expert suggests, though another highlights 'significant concerns'
Libya’s often-overlooked stamp duty can halt payments and freeze contracts, making this quiet tax a decisive hurdle for foreign investors to clear, writes Salaheddin El Busefi
Eugena Cerny shares hard-earned lessons from tax automation projects and explains how to navigate internal roadblocks and miscommunications
The Clifford Chance and Hyatt cases collectively confirm a fundamental principle of international tax law: permanent establishment is a concept based on physical and territorial presence
Australian government minister Andrew Leigh reflects on the fallout of the scandal three years on and looks ahead to regulatory changes
Gift this article