The Court has formulated the concept of business deal: “the deal (financial operation) must not have signs of artificiality, lack business and economic goal”. The clarifications also contain examples of entrepreneurs’ actions that have no economic ground, because their deals have a sole goal – to minimize taxes.
It is an interesting information for business entities and a new course of action for the courts. The Supreme Court stated: “it is necessary to take into account that the taxpayer has the right to check their contractor’s reputation using the available information resources (cl. 1.13 art. 21 of the Tax Code)”. The foreign legislation calls this “due diligence principle”: a taxpayer must perform a reasonable check of their contractor (compliance with the legislation, authorities of the representatives, tax-paying discipline, etc.). On one hand, the legislation does not oblige to check the reputation of the contractor. On the other hand, the taxpayer is free to choose any business partner, so law-enforcement practice of many countries concludes that the state should not be liable for a negligent choice.
Considering the absence of law-enforcement practice in our country and the fact that a lot of concepts connected with prevention of tax evasion have been formed in court practice, i.e. as a legal instrument consisting of legal acts provisions and common law created by court, we can look at the examples given by the Supreme Court from the point of view of principles used by foreign courts in their long-formed practice:
“economic entity principle”: in order to receive the tax preference, the deal must substantially change the economic state of the taxpayer and it must not be aimed at minimization of taxes. The principle is used to expose fictitious deals, that are only aimed at receiving tax preferences. The deal does not actually have to be profitable; it just should be aimed at gaining profit. The deal will be considered economically ungrounded, if it has no perspective of gaining profit (example from the Supreme Court clarifications – a small single export operation taxed at 10% VAT rate aimed at receiving the VAT return in full amount (much larger than the sum of the deal);
“fictitious deal principle”: the deal consisting of multiple stages can be considered by the court as a single deal, if its stages are considered unessential for the result. In this case economic activity aimed at gaining profit is not actually performed (example from the Supreme Court clarifications – making fictitious accounting documents on sale of goods on internal market with 10% VAT rate at the prices lower than the prime cost, which makes VAT deduction sum higher than the sum of VAT actually paid and full deduction of VAT when there was no actual sale; reflecting a minimal income from sale of goods in the tax declarations and applying for full return of 10% VAT when the goods were not actually purchased; stating an individual entrepreneur in the accounting documents for the purposes of ungrounded VAT return and cashing out the received money, etc.);
“business goal principle”: the court can ignore the deal if, when examining the taxpayer’s motives, the court decides that the taxpayer only wanted to minimize the taxes. Special attention is payed to the deals where some activity was aimed at tax minimization, and some activity was actually aimed at gaining profit. If the court decides that the company’s activity is aimed at creating an image of business goal, the deal will be assessed separately: the part aimed at tax minimization will not be considered (example from the Supreme Court clarifications – transferring VAT deduction in the process of reorganization, including the “chain” of multiple reorganizations);
“arm’s length principle”: the principle is aimed at countering transfer pricing, when as a result of documented sale and purchase within a chain affiliated companies the tax obligations are transferred to the companies having tax preferences or not fulfilling their tax obligations. Arm’s length principle states that usual tax regimes can only be applied to non-affiliated companies acting as independent economic entities in their own interest, and not in the interest of their holding company. This principle creates substantial tax risks for the companies that operate via chains of trading and purchasing subsidiaries. Even if the affiliation is not proved, courts and tax authorities will analyze why the taxpayer did not purchase goods directly from the supplier or why the company that used to work with the supplier for a long time started to purchase goods from intermediary at a higher price;
“step-by-step deal principle”: the deal is considered in its integrity and not as a consequence of actions, so the court can unite formally separate “steps” in order to establish the tax consequences of the entire deal;
“essence over form principle”: the result achieved directly does not differ from the result achieved indirectly.

