{"id":3232,"date":"2026-06-25T08:37:39","date_gmt":"2026-06-25T05:37:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/svaroglaw.com\/advokat-z-podatkovyh-sporiv\/oskarzhennya-podatkovyh-povidomlen\/"},"modified":"2026-09-14T14:58:39","modified_gmt":"2026-09-14T11:58:39","slug":"oskarzhennya-podatkovyh-povidomlen","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/svaroglaw.com\/en\/advokat-z-podatkovyh-sporiv\/oskarzhennya-podatkovyh-povidomlen\/","title":{"rendered":"Appeals against tax assessment notices"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/svg>

On 16 July 2025 the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, in case No. 500\/2276\/24, settled the argument over the deadline for challenging tax notices-decisions in court. Part of the case law (notably the Supreme Court\u2019s position in case No. 640\/20468\/18) had previously treated 1,095 days as the benchmark. The Grand Chamber departed from it: 1,095 days is the limitation period within which the tax authority may assess tax Art. 102 of the Tax Code<\/span>, not the period for a taxpayer to go to court. Taxpayers who still rely on that figure have their claims left without consideration, never reaching the merits.<\/p><\/div><\/div>\n

The rule that applies now: six months from the date you received the notice-decision if you did not file an administrative complaint with the tax service (Art. 122(2) of the Code of Administrative Procedure), or one month after the administrative appeal ends if you did (Art. 56.19 of the Tax Code).<\/p>\n

The court examines the procedure: whether the audit order was lawful, whether the findings in the report are supported by specific documents, and whether the tax authority stayed within its powers. Challenges to tax notices-decisions are built on those three things, and that is where the tax authority most often goes wrong.<\/p>\n

<\/svg>+38 095 554-54-24<\/span><\/a>legal consultation<\/span><\/div>\n

What we check in every notice-decision<\/h2>\n

Most assessments are annulled because of the tax authority\u2019s own errors, not because of sophisticated economic argument. So an audit of a notice-decision starts with the formalities.<\/p>\n

<\/svg><\/span>

Grounds for the audit<\/h3>

Whether the audit order was lawful, whether the grounds in Art. 78 of the Tax Code were met, whether the taxpayer was properly notified. An audit ordered in breach of procedure means all its results fall away.<\/p><\/div><\/article>

<\/svg><\/span>

Limitation periods<\/h3>

Whether the tax authority went beyond 1,095 days Art. 102 of the Tax Code<\/span>. That is the period within which it may audit and assess at all. Assessments on transactions older than 1,095 days are unlawful by default.<\/p><\/div><\/article>

<\/svg><\/span>

Whether the report is reasoned<\/h3>

The findings must rest on specific evidence and references to primary documents, not on generalities such as \u201cindications of the transactions being unreal were established\u201d.<\/p><\/div><\/article>

<\/svg><\/span>

Whether the transactions were real<\/h3>

The most common basis for assessments. What works here is delivery notes, evidence of warehouse space and staff, business correspondence and proof that the goods were subsequently sold. A counterparty\u2019s \u201cquestionable reputation\u201d is not by itself proof that a transaction was a sham, and the case law consistently supports that position.<\/p><\/div><\/article>

<\/svg><\/span>

The arithmetic<\/h3>

The court checks the calculation of penalties, fines and the assessed amount separately. An error in the penalty period or in the rate of fine applied appears in about one in five reports we see.<\/p><\/div><\/article>

<\/svg><\/span>

Service of the notice-decision<\/h3>

The date of service is the starting point for every deadline. A breach of the service rules (the wrong method, the wrong recipient) shifts the deadline or resets it.<\/p><\/div><\/article><\/div>\n

Deadlines for challenging a notice-decision in court<\/h2>\n