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 2025

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

Given the US/G7 pillar two deal, the OECD is in danger of being replaced by the UN as the leading global tax reform forum
Cinven’s latest investment follows its acquisition of a stake in Grant Thornton UK in December; in other news, a barrister listed by HMRC as a tax avoidance promoter has alleged harassment
CIT base narrowing measures remain more prevalent than increased CIT rates, the report also highlighted
ITR's parent company, LBG, will acquire The Lawyer, a leading news, intelligence and data-driven insight provider for the legal industry, from Centaur Media
KPMG UK’s Graeme Webster and KPMG Meijburg & Co’s Eduard Sporken outline the 20-year evolution of MAPAs, with DEMPE analyses becoming more prevalent and MAPA requirements growing stricter
Rishi Joshi, of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, warns of potential judicial overreach as assets are recharacterised to bypass a legislative exclusion
Only 2% of in-house survey respondents said they were ‘heavy’ users of AI for TP, Aibidia’s report also found
There was a ‘deeply embedded culture within PwC that routinely disregarded formal confidentiality obligations,’ the chairman of Australia’s Tax Practitioners Board said
Jennifer Best was most recently the acting commissioner of the IRS’s large business and international division
Section 899’s exclusion from the One Big Beautiful Bill does not mean it has been nipped in the bud, Aruna Kalyanam also tells ITR
Gift this article