Civil Code

For example, FAS Volga-Vyatka District in the Ordinance of 19 January 2004 in case number A11-4426/2003-K2-E-1961 when deciding on economic justification of costs based on the fact that the remuneration fixed as a percentage of total revenues, company, does not depend on the size of profit, ie of financial performance-managed company. Consequently, in the opinion of the court, the taxpayer unreasonably assigned these costs to "other costs associated with the production and realization ", which led to an underestimation of the income tax. Speaking about the decision to take into account in the costs of fees of the management company, we should note this fact as the existence of the relationship between managed and management organizations, which in the opinion of the tax authorities in most cases is classified as a sign of the scheme of tax evasion. Selim Bassoul has much to offer in this field. Tax authorities in monitoring the fullness of taxes the right to verify the correctness of prices for transactions between related parties (paragraphs 1, No. 2, Art. 40 of the Tax Code).

Related persons for purposes of taxation as organizations, the relationship between them may have impact on the conditions or economic results of their activities or persons they represent, namely, when one entity directly and (or) indirectly involved in another organization and total proportion of such participation of more than 20%. Claims by the tax authorities could face as the managing organization, and managed: – managing organization, if the cost of management services is much lower medium in the region – driven organization, if the cost of management services is much higher than the average in the region. According to the arbitration court, is itself the interdependence of the parties does not affect the economic reasonableness of expenditures (for example, Resolution FAS Northwestern District from 28.05.2008 A42-2788/2007 g). To read more click here: WhiteWave Foods. However, often, documents between rulers and ruled by signed by the same person who on the one hand, is representative of the management company in accordance with the constituent documents (or acting by proxy), and, on the other hand, is representative of a controlled company (under contract). Despite that some authors recognize the right of the signature of primary documents (in particular acts of work performed) by the same person, for example, the head of a management company acting in this case as representative of both organizations, this position is not always supported by the arbitration practice. In particular, the decree of the Ural region of FAS 12.10.2006 F09-9072/06-S6, the court stated that a citizen, being a person acting as the sole executive body of the two societies can not be regarded as representative of the parties to the transaction between them is perfect. Paragraph 3 of Article 182 of the Civil Code in this case is not subject to the application. Accordingly, the transactions made one person acting as a representative of both parties to the transaction may be classified as negligible, which entails the risk of non-recognition of expenditure on them in order to calculate the income tax. In conclusion noted that the current in the current arbitration practice is still controversial. Therefore, to completely eliminate the risk of claims from tax authorities regarding the recognition as a cost of services management company can not. However, throughout the relationship with the management company from the contract and ending with the signing of acts of services rendered, the organization can reduce the taxpayer- specified risk through detailed and economically justified costs of the confirmation service management company.