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 flagship 2025 tax legislation has sprawling implications for multinationals, including changes to GILTI and foreign-derived intangible income. Barry Herzog of HSF Kramer assesses the impact
Hani Ashkar, after more than 12 years leading PwC in the region, is set to be replaced by Laura Hinton
With the three-year anniversary of the PwC tax scandal approaching, it’s time to take stock of how tax agent regulation looks today
Rolling out the global minimum tax has increased complexity, according to Baker McKenzie; in other news, Donald Trump has announced a 25% tariff on countries doing business with Iran
Among those joining EY is PwC’s former international tax and transfer pricing head
The UK firm made the appointments as it seeks to recruit 160 new partners over the next two years
The network’s tax service line grew more than those for audit and assurance, advisory and legal services over the same period
The deal is a ‘real win’ for US-based multinationals and its announcement is a welcome relief, experts have told ITR
Tom Goldstein, who is now a blogger, is being represented by US law firm Munger, Tolles & Olson
In looking at the impact of taxation, money won't always be all there is to it
Gift this article