Does an asset deal prevent the transfer of historical tax risks in Russia?
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

Does an asset deal prevent the transfer of historical tax risks in Russia?


It is usually understood that an asset deal should safeguard the buyer from the historical tax risks of the target company. To what extent this is true we would seek to illustrate based on the arbitration court case No. A36-2394/2016. The court ruled that the tax authorities were entitled to claim outstanding tax liabilities from the audited company's affiliate to which, in the authorities view, the audited company's business was transferred.

There are three main ways in which an acquisition can be structured in Russia:

  • Through an asset deal;

  • Through a share deal; or

  • Through the acquisition of a property complex.

The tax authorities carried out a field tax audit of a company called PC Vtormet. As a result of the audit, the tax authorities assessed the company with additional taxes, related fines and late-payment interest. The company sought to litigate the tax authorities' claims in court but lost the litigation case. As can be seen from the court's decision after the claims were raised, the bankruptcy of the audited company commenced and ultimately no claims were paid to the authorities. The tax authorities pursued the company to which the audited company's business had been transferred.

In the authorities' view, the audited company deliberately transferred its business to an affiliate so that it would be unable to settle the claims. Thus, in particular: personnel employed by the audited company had been moved to another company with the same name which was established by an employee of the audited company; the audited company terminated contacts with its main suppliers and customers and the affiliate subsequently entered into similar contacts with the same counterparties; and so on. It is not entirely clear from the case whether assets were sold to the affiliate, but it might be fair to assume that this was the case.

The facts that the authorities presented to prove an affiliation and subsequently to claim outstanding taxes from the affiliate included the following:

  • The affiliate had the same name as the audited company;

  • The companies were registered at the same address;

  • The companies had the same telephone numbers and e-mail addresses;

  • The companies were engaged in the same business activity; and

  • The affiliate and the audit company used the same trademarks.

The court supported the opinion of the authorities that the transfer of business had been done in order to avoid payment of tax liabilities by the audited company and that the companies involved should be treated as affiliates.

This case demonstrates that even the acquisition of shares or participation interest in a newly created company does not automatically provide a guarantee that the company has no historical tax liabilities which can be transferred to the company from related parties. Thus, we recommend implementing the right due diligence procedures even in relation to a newly incorporated company, especially if it received a functioning business from a related party.






Dmitry Garaev ( and Anastasia Avdonina (

KPMG in Russia

Tel: +7 495 937 44 77


more across site & bottom lb ros

More from across our site

The full list of finalists has been revealed and the winners will be presented on June 20 at the Metropolitan Club in New York
The ‘big four’ firm has threatened to legally pursue those behind the letter, which has been circulating on social media
The guidelines have been established in the wake of multiple tax scandals and controversies that have rocked the accounting profession
KPMG Netherlands’ former head of assurance also received a permanent bar and $150,000 fine; in other news, asset management firm BlackRock lost a $13.5bn UK tax appeal
The new, fully integrated office will also offer M&A, dispute resolution, IP and corporate tax services
The new guidance concerns a recent 1% excise tax on the repurchases of corporate stock for both US and certain foreign companies
Interpath has hired a managing partner from rival accounting firm BDO to lead the new operation
Survey results of over 28,000 in-house lawyers reveal that American in-house counsel place a higher value on the reputation of external advisers than their peers elsewhere
In an exclusive interview with ITR, Andrew Leigh also endorsed new legislation designed to prevent multinationals using complex corporate structures to reduce taxes
Nick Crama and Parwesh Bissumbhar, senior director and manager respectively at Alvarez & Marsal, outline practical advice for real estate managers to comply with DAC6 regulations
Gift this article