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

Despite the decline in profitability, the firm’s tax advisory business delivered a 3.4% revenue growth
Firms are making use of inventories and ample profit margins to avoid or absorb the initial impact of higher tariffs, an OECD report said
While UN proposals to shift airline taxation from a residence-based system to a source-state one are not set in stone, ex-British Airways CEO Willie Walsh warns they would increase costs and complexity
Von Wobeser y Sierra’s head of tax shares best practices for resolving tax controversy and touts his firm’s founding partner as an exemplar of legal practice
ITR concludes its analysis of World Tax’s rankings for 2026 by highlighting the firms that stood out most on a global scale
Experts from law firm Kennedys outline the key tax disputes trends set to define 2026, ranging from increased enforcement to continued tariff drama and AI usage
They also warned against an ‘unnecessary duplication of efforts’ in UN tax convention negotiations; in other news, White & Case has hired Freshfields’ former French tax head
Awards
Submit your nominations to this year's WIBL EMEA Awards by 16 February 2026
Defending loss situations in TP is not about denying the existence of losses but about showing, through proactive measures, that the losses reflect genuine commercial realities
Further empowerment of HMRC enforcement has been praised, but the pre-Budget OBR leak was described as ‘shambolic’
Gift this article