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

The Australian Taxation Office believes the Swedish furniture company has used TP to evade paying tax it owes
Supermarket chain Morrisons is facing a £17 million ($23 million) tax bill; in other news, Donald Trump has cut proposed tariffs
The controversial deal will allow US-parented groups to be carved out from key aspects of pillar two
Awards
ITR invites tax firms, in-house teams, and tax professionals to make submissions for the 2027 World Tax rankings and the 2026 ITR Tax Awards globally
Pillar two was ‘weakened’ when it altered from a multinational convention agreement to simply national domestic law, Federico Bertocchi also argued
Imposing the tax on virtual assets is a measure that appears to have no legal, economic or statistical basis, one expert told ITR
The EU has seemingly capitulated to the US’s ‘side-by-side’ demands. This may be a win for the US, but the uncertainty has only just begun for pillar two
The £7.4m buyout marks MHA’s latest acquisition since listing on the London Stock Exchange earlier this year
ITR’s most prolific stories of the year charted public pillar two spats, the continued fallout from the PwC Australia tax leaks scandal, and a headline tax fraud trial
The climbdowns pave the way for a side-by-side deal to be concluded this week, as per the US Treasury secretary’s expectation; in other news, Taft added a 10-partner tax team
Gift this article