Judicial practice in arbitration cases. Arbitration practice in tax disputes: instructions for applying the decision of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, superior to any documents of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation

Interrogate everyone, everyone, everyone

If you think that interrogations concern only persons who are directly related to the disputed transaction, you are deeply mistaken. Let’s take, for example, the so-called “transport cash.” Surely, you will reason as follows: “They will interrogate drivers, logisticians, the director, the chief accountant. Well, and mechanics. Just in case". No, the list is not limited to this: medical workers who conduct medical examinations of drivers will also be interrogated. This is what the inspectors did in the Decree of the AS of the West Siberian District dated April 24, 2018. Plus, of course, the inspectors made inquiries to the traffic police.

Tax specialists also have in their arsenal such techniques as: finding contradictions in documents, assessing logical feasibility, not believing in fires and... being capricious. Read about them in Vladimir Turov.

Businessman lost arbitration

The judges pointed out that the businessman did not check the integrity and solvency of potential counterparties. Those he contacted did not have the resources, work experience or good business reputation. He did not prove the existence of a business purpose for engaging these firms as contractors. Despite the fact that, according to the papers, large construction and installation works were completed, including the construction of walls, finishing of premises, etc., his contractors did not have the resources to carry out these works.

What finally finished off this businessman? The accounting and tax records of all his wonderful contractors, with whom he contacted, and thanks to whom he reduced VAT and income tax, were kept and submitted by an employee working in his company. The IP addresses matched, tax officials immediately discovered this.

For other illustrative trials, read here.

In tax disputes, every second court decision involves cases involving suspicious persons who do not have the right and opportunity to conduct business.

And it often turns out that these companies that are “horrible on the face” are actually “kind on the inside.” Those. real. For example, a case in which .

It is unremarkable: the unjustified application of VAT deductions due to allegedly unscrupulous contractors. An ordinary city. An ordinary businessman. A common situation with the classic “gray” scheme. Of course, among the counterparties of an ordinary businessman, the tax office found “bad” offices.

The climax, like most similar episodes, lay precisely in the suppliers. So, drum roll:

• Well, the contractors could not deliver the goods because there was no technical personnel, fixed assets, movable and immovable property;
• Well, there are no “movements” on the settlement accounts of counterparties that are characteristic of “live” activities;
• Well, they are not located at state registration places;
• Well, the taxpayer did not submit invoices and waybills;
• Well, the manager denies participation in the activities of one of the controversial suppliers;
• Well, the taxpayer failed to exercise due diligence.

And the denouement of this story is this: the inspection did not prove the fact of the absence of reality. And for every “gray” sign there was a counterargument.

Can feelings justify taxes? Faded feelings between husband and wife... When the family is on the verge of collapse, and the spouses, showing common sense and decency, decided to divide the business. No shouting, accusations or litigation. Simply: “Take, my dear, your 30% share and live comfortably. For a small bribe."

But the matter never came to a divorce... The couple realized that they could not live without each other and made peace. The social unit has been preserved, and the inspectorate is glad that the divorce did not take place. If they didn’t get divorced, it means they received an unjustified tax benefit.

Obtaining an unjustified tax benefit, in this case, was reflected in

The court agreed with the inspectorate that it was precisely because of the receipt of VAT deductions and the quick transition to the “classic” two days before the end of the controversial tax period that the company completed the deal with the purchase and sale of the share. Having justified this, allegedly, by the fading of feelings...

— Vladimir Turov

Why the judges made this conclusion, read the article: "".

You can prepare breakfast in 5 minutes. In 5 minutes you can run 1.5 km. You can do a lot in 5 minutes. Do you think it’s possible to uncover a tax scheme in 5 minutes? Make an estimate, quickly evaluate the evidence and state the fact of the “scheme”... And in just 300 seconds!

Article: - about workers of the “gray front”. Or rather, about the consequences of hard work to obtain tax benefits. So, what does “cash out” schemes reveal, besides the standard criteria of an unscrupulous counterparty? True stories based on court events.

Story one: “About an engineer.”

The company was looking for a contractor to carry out design work. Found it. I checked the services of the Federal Tax Service, made sure I had SRO membership, and received a certificate from the territorial body of the Federal State Statistics Service. We started cooperation. The contractor performed all the work.

The inspection came and found out that the counterparty was not who he said he was. He is not a designer at all: the usual disguise of a “gray” company as a real business:

• The documents of the SRO for the period of membership of the counterparty included persons who were employees of other organizations;
• There are no employees on the contractor's staff who would master the “art” of design. And from the current account statements it follows that the counterparty did not involve third parties to perform the work;
• “A la designer” has the same IP address with the shell company through which the money was cashed;
• The head of the contractor said that he was “paper”: for money he registered a company and signed the documents.

A clear response from the manager about the relationship with the contractor, clear testimony from employees, an audit report, documentary evidence (contracts, work acceptance certificates, invoices), a package of due diligence papers... They didn’t save me. Only the court of first instance believed in reality, the appeal and cassation agreed that it was a linden tree (Resolution of the Volga District Court No. F06-31766/2018 dated April 20, 2018 in case No. A55-15385/2017).

Stories: “About the fisherman” and “About the inspection” - read in.

The article examines arbitration practice regarding claims of tax authorities against companies that tried to optimize VAT.

Situation: We need VAT.

Your company works on the “classics”. Of course, when choosing contractors, you give preference to those who work with VAT. Naturally, taking into account other attractive factors: price, reputation, terms of cooperation, etc.

Now imagine that you have finally tied the knot with a simplifier. It had a twist: super discounts, super-fast delivery and a couple of other tempting options. Something that is not in alternative offers from companies on OSN. We worked and worked... And a brilliant idea came to your mind: “What if you offer your counterparty to switch to the “classic”? Give an ultimatum... It's not going anywhere. After all, I give him 80% of orders."

According to the above scenario, events developed in Resolution of the Volga-Vyatka District Court dated February 12, 2018 in case No. A29-3173/2017. Only the counterparties did not agree to burden themselves with the main taxation system, so an intermediary appeared... It’s easy to guess how this adjusted friendship turned out:

• Yes, the intermediary had signs of a nominal structure;
• Yes, the taxpayer was the only customer of the services;
• Yes, I did not exercise due diligence, because... knew the intermediary a long time ago. And this is not an excuse.

The inspection does not deny the reality of service provision. Only now the intermediary turned out to be the third wheel. And the most interesting thing is that the director directly pointed out the tax benefit:

The director of LLC..."during interrogation explained that in November-December 2013 he recommended that his counterparties switch to a general taxation system, due to the fact that they applied special taxation regimes and were not VAT payers, which created a tax burden for the company according to VAT, so it was unprofitable to involve them in the provision of services."

The word - not a sparrow - flew out - and it was caught by employees of the fiscal service. Therefore, after words favorable to the tax authorities about benefits and other evidence, other business goals that the taxpayer insisted on faded into the background. The company tried to justify the services of an intermediary

There are many controversial and ambiguous aspects in tax legislation. Their presence creates rich soil for litigation. Meanwhile, knowledge of the position of judges on controversial issues will help to avoid many mistakes in calculating “special regime” taxes, as well as protect against unfounded claims from the tax authorities.
In this article we will consider court decisions regarding disputes regarding the application of the simplified tax system and UTII, as well as the calculation of the tax base and tax. The court decisions presented here are special cases of arbitration practice. This means that under the same circumstances of the case, another court may make a different decision.

Disputes over the use of special regime

Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the North-Western District dated September 3, 2015
in case No. A26-7732/2014

A company using the simplified tax system with the object “income” submitted to the tax office a declaration according to the simplified tax system, which reflected the annual amount of income not exceeding
60 million rubles.

The inspectorate conducted an on-site tax audit of the organization. Based on its results, the tax authorities established that the company’s annual income exceeded the income limit at the end of the year (60 million rubles), which allows the use of the simplified tax system in the next tax period.
In connection with this, inspectors assessed additional taxes to the company that were paid under the general taxation system (income tax, VAT, property tax, penalties and fines).

The Federal Tax Service Inspectorate considered that for the second quarter of the audited year the company did not take into account the income transferred to it under the interest-free loan agreement. According to tax authorities, this agreement was concluded by the parties with the aim of obtaining an unjustified tax benefit for the company.

The courts of the first, appeal and cassation instances agreed with the conclusions of the tax inspectorate. The arbitrators found that the disputed amount was received by the organization precisely as payment for services rendered. Since initially in the payment orders the purpose of payment was stated: “For car services and mechanical services.” The provision of these services is confirmed by contracts and certificates of completed work (services).

Then the company changed the purpose of the payment to “Partial payment of an interest-free loan,” which indicates concealment of the true purpose of the funds received in order to maintain the right to use the simplified tax system.

Thus, the registration in the form of a loan of funds received for services rendered was aimed at formal compliance by the company with restrictions on the use of the simplified tax system
(Clause 4 of Article 346.13 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation), as well as for receiving unjustified tax benefits in the form of unpaid VAT, income tax and property tax, the judges concluded.

Resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the North-Western District of August 29, 2013
in case No. A42-7126/2012

The organization lost the right to use the simplified tax system due to exceeding the revenue limit
by the end of 2008, which was notified to the tax office. In 2009, the company used and reported on a common system. In the same year, Resolution No. 12010/08 of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of Russia was adopted on May 12, 2009, which stated that when calculating the annual revenue permissible for the application of the simplified tax system, it is necessary to take into account all deflator coefficients.
Compared to the newly calculated limit, the company’s income allowed it to remain on the simplified tax system. Therefore, she submitted updated zero declarations under the general system and in September 2009 submitted a message to the Federal Tax Service about returning to the “simplified” system.

While conducting an on-site audit for 2010, tax officials discovered that the company had not submitted an application to switch to the simplified tax system since 2010. As a result, for the specified year, additional taxes were accrued to her according to the general system.

The courts of three instances pointed out that the inspectors were wrong. After all, subject to the established restrictions, the transition to the simplified tax system is made by the taxpayer voluntarily, and filing an application for transition to the simplified tax system was of a notification nature.

In the courts, tax officials stated that in accordance with the Federal Law of June 25, 2012
No. 94-FZ, organizations and entrepreneurs who have not notified of the transition to the simplified tax system within the established time frame are not entitled to apply it.

However, the arbitrators indicated that this rule has been in effect since January 1, 2013 and, in accordance with paragraph 2 of Article 5 of the Tax Code, does not have retroactive effect.

Among the sanctions imposed on the company were fines for failure to submit declarations under the general system. The courts overturned them (as well as all other points of the tax authorities' decision), indicating that since the company did not classify itself as a taxpayer under the general system, the failure to submit these declarations was lawful.

Resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Central District of January 16, 2014 No. A68-276/2013

Simultaneously with registration, the company submitted an application to the tax office
on the application of the simplified tax system. However, the activities she began to engage in fell under UTII. Therefore, the organization reported as a payer of UTII, and submitted zero declarations under the simplified tax system.

Starting next year, the company decided to switch to a common system, as it changed its type of activity. But she did not submit a notification about the transition from the simplified tax system to the general taxation regime within the established time frame.

The tax inspectorate drew attention to this fact only as part of a desk audit, when an organization operating on the OSN declared in its VAT return the amount to be reimbursed from the budget. The controllers, having discovered the absence of notification of the termination of the application of the simplified tax system, referred to subparagraph 1 of paragraph 5 of Article 173 of the Tax Code: companies that do not pay VAT, issuing invoices with the amount of tax allocated in them, are obliged to pay it to the budget.

The company appealed to the court with a demand to recognize its use of the general system as lawful and to take into account VAT deductions.

The courts of three instances supported the organization. Since the transition from the simplified tax system to the general taxation system after a year is carried out voluntarily, filing an application
the termination of the application of the simplified procedure is of a notification nature. Failure to comply with the notice deadline does not entail any tax consequences.

Thus, the courts decided that the general tax regime was applied by the company lawfully and the tax authorities had no grounds for additional VAT assessment.

Determination of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation of July 1, 2016 No. 303-KG16-7106

An individual entrepreneur applied UTII for the type of activity “providing motor transport services for the transportation of goods.” Due to the insufficient amount of transport available to him, the entrepreneur involved other transport companies and individual entrepreneurs with their own transport in cargo transportation.

The tax inspectorate conducted an on-site audit of the entrepreneur’s activities and came to the conclusion that he was in fact an intermediary between customers of motor transport services and providers of such transportation. The tax authorities considered that the actions of the individual entrepreneur were not the provision of motor transport services, but the organization of such services aimed at hiding part of their income from taxation.

Therefore, income from activities related to organizing transportation, minus related expenses, is subject to taxation in accordance with the general taxation system. The entrepreneur was additionally assessed personal income tax, VAT, as well as penalties for non-payment of these taxes and fines.

Disagreeing with the inspection findings, the entrepreneur went to court.

According to the merchant, he did not provide services for organizing cargo transportation, since these relations arose from contracts for the carriage of goods with the participation of subcontractors. In addition, the tax legislation does not provide a basis for terminating the application of UTII in relation to a taxpayer providing motor transport services for the transportation of passengers and goods with the involvement of subcontractors and their vehicles.

Nevertheless, courts of all instances, including the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, recognized the position of the tax authorities as legitimate. The judges emphasized that the provision of motor transport services for the transportation of passengers and goods by a third party, that is, through vehicles that do not belong to the taxpayer on any right, is not provided for by the provisions of Chapter 26.3 of the Tax Code. Therefore, it is subject to taxation according to the general regime. In this connection, the entrepreneur is a payer of personal income tax and VAT.

Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Ural District dated July 13, 2016
No. F09-7487/16 in case No. A71-8811/2015

An individual entrepreneur applied UTII when carrying out freight transportation, and also provided special equipment services (loading and unloading), applying the general taxation regime.
He owned 10 vehicles, as well as hydraulic derricks (lifts) and a truck crane. The entrepreneur kept separate records of business transactions under UTII and under the general system. When drawing up acts for loading and unloading operations, in the name of the work he indicated the type of specialized vehicle used, for example, “automatic hydraulic lift services,” “autocrane services.” And in acts for the transportation of goods he used the general wording: “transport services”.

The tax inspectorate conducted an on-site inspection of the entrepreneur. Based on the results of the audit, the Federal Tax Service decided that under the provision of transport services using special equipment (“imputed” activity), the entrepreneur disguised the provision of services for loading and unloading work, taxed under the general system. This means that he unlawfully applied UTII and received an unjustified tax benefit. As a result, the inspectorate recalculated taxes in relation to the general taxation regime, charging additional VAT, penalties and fines to the businessman.

Believing that the inspector’s decision was made in violation of the requirements of tax legislation, the entrepreneur went to court. The courts of the first, appellate and cassation instances supported the position of the businessman, establishing that the subject of contracts with a number of counterparties was the provision of both loading and transport services. The agreements provided for two different application forms - separately for the transportation of goods and separately for the use of special equipment. The fact of the provision of transport services is confirmed by documents, including contracts, waybills, invoices, acts that indicate the provision of transport services. The courts also took into account that loading and unloading took place in different places.

Making a decision in favor of the entrepreneur, the cassation court indicated that for the application of UTII in relation to goods transportation services, the purpose for which a particular vehicle was originally intended, as well as the type of equipment that is placed on it, has no legal significance. The possibility of carrying out loading and unloading operations by a specialized vehicle does not exclude the possibility of using the same vehicle to transport goods from the place of loading (point of departure) to the place of unloading (point of destination).

Thus, the judges did not see in the entrepreneur’s disputed contracts any grounds for recognizing his unlawful use of UTII and overturned the decision of the Federal Tax Service.

Disputes regarding the calculation of the tax base and tax

Resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the North Caucasus District dated June 4, 2013
in case No. A61-1274/2012

The organization applying the simplified tax system (seller) entered into an agreement for the supply of spare parts with the buyer, and a 100% advance was transferred to his bank account. No spare parts were shipped under the specified contract. At the end of the year, the parties entered into an agreement on novation of obligations under the supply agreement into a loan obligation.

During the on-site audit, the tax inspectorate included the amount of the prepayment received in the income of the selling organization and assessed additional “simplified” tax.

The court did not agree with the position of the tax authorities.

The arbitrators indicated that the amounts of money received were not income of the company, but were received as borrowed funds due to the novation of the supply agreement concluded with the buyer of spare parts. And since cash receipts under a loan agreement are not subject to “simplified” tax (clause 1, clause 1.1, article 346.15, clause 10, clause 1, article 251 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation), the court recognized the illegality of additional tax charges for the organization.

Resolution of the Volga District Arbitration Court dated June 23, 2016
F06-9445/2016 in case No. A06-9110/2015

An individual entrepreneur using UTII submitted a tax return on UTII for the fourth quarter of 2014 to the Federal Tax Service. A desk audit of the declaration was launched
February 9 and completed May 12, 2015.

Based on the results of the desk audit, the inspectorate assessed additional UTII, penalties and a fine. The basis for additional tax assessment, as well as penalties and fines, were the inspector’s findings that when calculating UTII, the entrepreneur did not take into account vehicles under repair. He mistakenly believed that when determining the tax base, one should proceed from the number of vehicles actually used in business activities, and not from the total number of vehicles owned by the taxpayer under ownership or other right. As a result, the value of the physical indicator “number of seats” was underestimated.

The entrepreneur challenged the inspector's decision in court, citing a violation of the deadlines for conducting a desk audit provided for in paragraph 2 of Article 88 of the Tax Code. According to the provisions of this norm, a desk audit is carried out within three months from the date the taxpayer submits a tax return.

The courts of three instances refused to satisfy the entrepreneur's demands. The arbitrators explained that, according to paragraph 14 of Article 101 of the Tax Code, the basis for canceling the decision of the inspectorate are violations that led or could lead to the head of the tax authority making an unlawful decision. The courts noted that the period established by paragraph 2 of Article 88 of the Tax Code is not preemptive, and its expiration does not prevent the identification of facts of non-payment of tax.

According to the courts, in this case, the minimum period of delay in starting the inspection is not a basis for canceling decisions made based on the results of the inspection.

Judicial practice in arbitration cases may seem monotonous, since in most cases it concerns bankruptcy procedures and tax disputes. In this publication, we departed from the canons and examined less common, but resonant cases - related to intellectual property, competition, administrative offenses, as well as land and housing issues. Our selection dates back to the 3rd quarter of 2017.

Intellectual property disputes

Citation of works as they are understood in Art. 1259 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, perhaps if certain rules are taken into account (subparagraph 1, paragraph 1, article 1274 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation):

1. The purpose of use is scientific, informational, educational, etc. message.
2. A link to the author's name and publication source is required.
3. The volume of borrowing must correspond to the purpose of citing.

Thus, the society posted reviews on architecture and urban planning on its website using photographs from various blogs. One of the owners of a personal page (entrepreneur), considering that such actions of the company violated his copyright, appealed to the arbitration court.

At first instance he was refused. Subsequent courts overturned the decision and satisfied the entrepreneur’s demands, citing the fact that sub. 1 clause 1 art. 1274 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation applies only to the literary form of works. However, the judicial panel for economic disputes of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, by ruling No. 305-ES16-18302, recognized the correctness of the first court.

The fact is that, within the meaning of sub. 1 clause 1 art. 1274, the rule on the possibility of freely quoting works applies to all their types listed in Art. 1259 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, including in the photograph. However, the above conditions must be met. When posting photographs of the entrepreneur, the society indicated the authorship and address of the blog; the volume corresponded to the objectives of information articles: 22 photographs were used in 14 reviews.

Land issues

If the cadastral value of land is established by a court decision, then it is taken into account on the date specified in this act, and not from the moment the data is entered into the cadastre.

Thus, a lease relationship regarding a land plot arose between the department and the society. Payment was calculated based on the cadastral value. Next, the lessor applied to the arbitration court with an application to collect from the company the rent arrears and penalties for late payment.

The courts of the first 3 instances were unanimous in satisfying these requirements. However, the judicial panel of the RF Armed Forces (ruling No. 305-ES16-16859) canceled these acts regarding the payment of the penalty and sent the case for a new trial.

Previously, the tenant significantly reduced the cadastral value of the site. In the final document, the court ordered to use the amount established from January 1, 2014. However, at the time the department initiated the process, new information had not yet been entered into the state real estate cadastre.

Within the meaning of Art. 24.18 of the Law “On Valuation...” dated July 29, 1998 No. 135-FZ and paragraph 28 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation “On Some Issues...” dated June 30, 2015 No. 28 it turns out that if the cadastral value is changed by a court decision, then it is applied from January 1 of the year in which the appeal to the court took place. It does not matter that new data is not in the cadastre.

Violation of competition laws

If a government body, bypassing public auctions, provides a person with a land plot for real estate without taking into account the real need, then such a decision violates the competition law.

Don't know your rights?

Thus, the department (landlord) leased a plot of land to the company for the construction of an administrative and shopping center. Upon completion of the construction of the building, the tenant purchased the land located under the property. The society then divided the site into two separate ones and began designing new construction.

The antimonopoly authority recognized these actions as a violation of Part 1 of Art. 15 and art. 16 of the Law “On Protection of Competition” dated July 6, 2006 No. 135-FZ. After all, in essence, the controversial manipulation turned out to be the provision of a new site without public procedures.

The department and the company jointly applied to the arbitration court to challenge the decision of the supervisory authority. The courts of the first, appeal and cassation instances satisfied the applicants' demands. The Judicial Collegium of the RF Armed Forces, by ruling No. 305-KG16-16409, canceled the above decisions.

From the meaning of paragraph 3 of Art. 33, paragraph 2, art. 35, paragraph 1, art. 36 of the Land Code of the Russian Federation it follows that when providing a land plot for a real estate property, it is necessary to justify the feasibility of the allocated area. In the described case, neither the department nor the society could prove the objective need for such a large site for the operation of the erected building.

Application of rules on administrative offenses

If a company managing apartment buildings violates housing legislation, it will be subject to administrative penalties provided for in Part 2 of Art. 14.1.3 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, and not Art. 7.22 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.

Thus, the local authority conducted an unscheduled inspection of compliance with housing legislation by the management organization in an apartment building where there are municipal apartments. Based on the violations identified, the employees drew up a protocol, which was transferred to the State Housing Inspectorate for consideration of the case. Based on the received material, the state body brought the management company to administrative liability under Art. 7.22 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.

Disagreeing with this decision, the organization appealed to the arbitration court to have it overturned. In the first instance, the demands were satisfied, but the appellate and cassation courts sided with the local administration and housing inspection. Only ruling No. 307-AD16-13243 of the judicial panel of the RF Armed Forces restored justice in this case.

The appellate and cassation courts made a number of errors in the application of substantive law, namely:

1. Provisions of Part 7 of Art. 28.3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation do not provide for the right of municipal authorities to attract violators under Art. 7.22 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.
2. Since the management company, within the framework of its activities, is a licensed entity, Part 2 of Art. 14.1.3 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation (for violation of licensing requirements).
3. Licensing control is not within the jurisdiction of local authorities; cases under this article are considered by the court, not the housing inspectorate.

Controversial cases in the field of property relations

If a person acquires all the premises in an apartment building, then he becomes the sole owner of the land plot under this house from the moment of state registration of the right to the last premises. The subsequent destruction of the building does not terminate the ownership of the land.

So, the company bought all the premises in an 8-apartment residential building and demolished the building. Next, it applied to Rosreestr to register ownership of the land plot under the facility. The registration authority refused on the grounds that it was necessary to first register the right to an apartment building as a single object. Since this condition was not met, then by virtue of paragraph 1 of Art. 235 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, when property is destroyed, the right to it ceases.

The company appealed to the arbitration court to challenge Rosreestr’s response, but all courts rejected the stated demands. The Judicial Collegium of the RF Armed Forces overturned these decisions and, by ruling No. 305-KG16-10570, sent the case for a new trial to the first court, making appropriate comments.

In particular, by virtue of Art. 36 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation and parts 2 and 5 of Art. 16 of the Law “On the Entry into Force...” of December 29, 2004 No. 189-FZ, the buyer of an apartment automatically acquires a share in the right of shared ownership of common property (including a land plot) from the moment of registration of ownership of the premises. The provisions of paragraph 8 of the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation “On some issues...” dated July 23, 2009 No. 64 explain that if all premises belong to one owner, then all shares of the common property are his property, i.e. the requirements of Rosreestr are illegal.

As you can see, judicial practice in arbitration cases covers disputes not only in the field of finance, taxes and entrepreneurship, but also in many other areas. This applies both to property, housing and land issues, and (in connection with the development of Internet technologies) to the use of intellectual property.

An individual entrepreneur contacted a lawyer, from whom, by the decision of the Moscow Arbitration Court dated December 18, 2015 in case No. A40-26280/14, 4,925,984 rubles were recovered from the claim of Dushan Torg LLC.

At the same time, the individual entrepreneur did not personally sign the invoices for receiving the goods for which the debt was collected. Moreover, under the supply agreement, he transferred more than 17,853,000 rubles to Dushan Torg LLC. Dushan Torg LLC supplied goods to the entrepreneur in the amount of only 11,236,304 rubles.

As a result of the court's consideration of the appeal, a judicial handwriting and technical-forensic examination was appointed and carried out in order to examine the decoding of the signature (handwritten reproduction of the surname of the person for whom the signature was made on receipt of the goods) in the disputed invoices, as well as the seal impressions in these invoices.

It was established that the signatures on behalf of the individual entrepreneur in the disputed invoices were made by another person. In addition, the seal impressions in the disputed invoices were not applied with the seal of the individual entrepreneur, samples of which were submitted for research.

By the resolution of the Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal dated July 13, 2015, in case No. A40-26280/14, a new decision was made, which rejected the claim against the individual entrepreneur and recovered 6,748,500 rubles from Dushan Torg LLC in favor of the individual entrepreneur.

Resolution of the Federal Arbitration Court of the Moscow District dated February 11, 2014 in case No. A41-18212/13

In this case, the lawyer represented the interests and filed a cassation appeal on behalf of a third party.

Limited Liability Company "Cementtrade" appealed to the Arbitration Court of the Krasnodar Territory with a statement to the Novorossiysk Customs to recognize as illegal the actions of the Novorossiysk Customs to adjust the customs value of goods under DT No. 10317090/260313/0004931, to oblige the Novorossiysk Customs to eliminate the violations of the applicant's rights by accepting the declared LLC “Cementtrade” of the customs value of goods declared under DT No. 10317090/260313/0004931.

The lawyer represented the interests of the applicant.

Case on the claim of the Closed Joint Stock Company "TRISS-Stroy Peredelkino" against the Moscow Government for the recovery as damages of documented additional costs for the design and construction of main utilities incurred by the plaintiff as a co-investor in the implementation of the investment contract dated December 16, 2003 No. DZhP.OZ .ZAO.00576 for the construction of a residential complex at the address: Moscow, 6th st. New Gardens, no. 2 and no. 2, bldg. 1, in the amount of 67,353,870 rubles.

The limited liability company "Coffee Company "Around the World" filed a claim with the Arbitration Court of the Moscow Region against the limited liability company "Camilla" for the recovery of damages in the amount of 1,627,000 rubles. By decision of the Arbitration Court of the Moscow Region No. A41-22154/13 dated July 12, 2013, the claim was completely rejected.

Case on the claim of the Non-profit partnership "Self-regulatory organization of the ASSOCIATION OF RUSSIAN MASTERS OF APPRAISAL", Non-profit partnership Self-regulatory Organization of appraisers "Siberia", Non-profit partnership "Interregional Union of Appraisers", Non-profit partnership Self-regulatory organization of appraisers "Expert Council", Non-profit partnership "Business Union of Appraisers" to the Closed Joint Stock Company "ROSEKO" and the National Council for Valuation Activities on invalidating (void) contracts No. 37-05/10 of 06/01/2010, No. 42-05/10 of 06/10/2010, No. 37-05/10 dated 06/01/2010, No. 42-05/10 dated 06/10/2010 and application of the consequences of invalidity of the transaction.

The lawyer represented the interests of the defendant.

The claim was filed for the recovery of 27,900,000 rubles. 00 kop. - losses incurred, in the opinion of the plaintiff, as a result of refusal to fulfill the contract on the initiative of the plaintiff, due to the fact that the defendant performed the work so slowly that its completion on time became impossible and the plaintiff did not return the money paid by the plaintiff to the defendant in advance, for based on Article 715 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.

The lawyer represented the interests of the defendant.

The claim for collection of debt under the supply contract as well as penalties for late fulfillment of obligations under the contracts was satisfied.

The lawyer represented the interests of the plaintiff.

Resolution of the Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal No. 09AP-15086/2012-GK dated June 20, 2012 on the decision of the Moscow Arbitration Court dated April 11, 2012 in case No. A40-116906/09-156-810.

Case on the claim of the Closed Joint Stock Company "KROTEKS" against the Regional Public Fund for Promoting the Development of Relations with Foreign Countries for the recovery of: 1) an advance in the amount of 200,000 US dollars; 2) interest for the use of other people's funds in the amount of 1,554,388.70 rubles; 3) legal expenses in the amount of 900,958 rubles. According to the counterclaim of the Regional Public Fund for Promoting the Development of Relations with Foreign Countries against the Closed Joint Stock Company "KROTEKS" for the recovery of damages in the amount of 529,435.29 rubles.

Resolution of the Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal dated November 23, 2011 No. 09AP-28715/2011-GK on the decision of the Moscow Arbitration Court dated September 8, 2011 in case No. A40-76101/10-53-598.

Decision of the Moscow Arbitration Court in case No. A40-76101/10-53-598 dated September 1, 2011. Dispute regarding the implementation and payment of research work.

The lawyer accepted an assignment to conduct the case of ROSECO CJSC in the Arbitration Court of Moscow on the claim of the Non-Profit Partnership "Innovations in the Electric Power Industry" (NP "INVEL") for the recovery of 2,148,898.00 rubles, according to the counterclaim of ROSECO CJSC for the recovery RUB 3,386,128.00

The lawyer accepted an assignment to conduct a case in the Moscow Arbitration Court on the issue of not causing obstacles to the use of premises located at the address: Moscow, Maly Trekhsvyatitelsky lane, 3. The principal carried out religious activities in the building for a long period of time house of worship, however, since the spring of 2007, he has been prevented from using the premises of the said building.

The General Director of the limited liability company "Nadezhda-S" contacted a lawyer for legal advice.
The Moscow Property Department filed a claim with the Moscow Arbitration Court against Nadezhda-S LLC for eviction from non-residential premises at the address: Moscow, st. Ostozhenka, 13/12, with a total area of ​​194.7 sq. m.