Cases

The tax authority assessed CIT and VAT of 49 million tenge based on criminal proceedings against the counterparty. The specialised inter-district administrative court (СМАС) declared the audit unlawful and reversed all assessments.

The tax authority erroneously adjusted the VAT taxpayer account seven times, generating fictitious debt.

After absorbing another legal entity, the tax authority wrote off the transferred positive VAT balance two years later and assessed 37 million tenge plus interest. The court declared the actions unlawful.

The customs authority deemed the notice not executed even though the client had submitted a written response with the full set of documents within the prescribed period. The court reversed the decision.

The tax authority (ДГД) initiated an unscheduled audit requiring adjustment of the returns and additional payment of VAT, CIT and interest totalling over 48 million tenge. After our objections were submitted, the audit was cancelled.

The tax authority assessed IIT of 4.1 million tenge on the sale of apartments previously held in joint marital ownership. After the wife's death, the heir sold the apartments — the tax authority considered the holding period to be less than a year.

The tax authority conducted an audit during the period when the notice execution deadline was suspended by court proceedings. The Supreme Court declared the audit unlawful and reversed assessments of 34 million tenge.

Following an unscheduled audit the client was assessed CIT and VAT of 296 million tenge. The court reversed the notice due to breach of audit deadlines and unjustified exclusion of deductions.

At the prosecutor's request the tax authority conducted a comprehensive audit and assessed over 1 billion tenge. The court reversed all the results: the Committee had not issued the mandatory order appointing the audit.

The State Revenue Committee appointed an unscheduled transfer pricing audit on the request of a lower body — without specifying any concrete facts of breaches. The court reversed both the order and the audit instruction.

Following an unscheduled comprehensive audit the client was assessed CIT and interest of 1.1 billion tenge. The court reversed the notice: the КГД order was issued on the request of a lower body without specific facts of breaches, and the audit extension was formalised as a letter rather than a decision.

The tax authority conducted an audit for a tax period not specified in the instruction and exceeded the grounds of the audit by including a counterparty not mentioned in the order. The appeal court reversed all assessments.