Foreign economic activity: attention to the date of crediting foreign currency proceeds
The court of cassation upheld the position of the supervisory authority regarding the legality of the tax notification-decision, which imposed penalties (financial sanctions) on the plaintiff in the form of a fine for violation of the terms of payments in the field of foreign economic activity and for failure to fulfill obligations and violation of currency legislation in the amount of UAH 1246803.28.
The Supreme Court found that the date of crediting foreign currency earnings is the date of crediting them to the distribution account. The subsequent movement of funds from the foreign currency account to the current account of a legal entity, including through the use of a distribution account, indicates the use of funds already in Ukraine and cannot be considered the initial receipt of funds as a result of the execution of foreign economic contracts.
At the same time, despite the fact that under the conditions of mandatory sale of foreign currency in accordance with the law, the client is not able to use funds from the distribution account, these funds belong to the client, and transactions on receipt of foreign currency to the distribution account in accordance with the requirements of P(C)BU 21 are subject to accounting on subaccount 316 "Special accounts in foreign currency", provided for by the Instruction on the application of the Plan of accounts for accounting of assets, capital, liabilities and business transactions of enterprises and organizations, approved by the Ministry of Finance of Ukraine.
Based on the foregoing, the panel of judges upholds the conclusions of the court of appeal that the date of fulfillment of the requirements of Article 1 of the Law of Ukraine dated 23.09.1994 No. 185/94-ВР "On the Procedure for Making Payments in Foreign Currency" is the date of crediting funds to the plaintiff's distribution accounts in an authorized bank, and, therefore, the defendant has proved the legitimacy of such a decision and proved the amount of the penalty for violation of the terms of payments in the field of foreign economic activity.
Therefore, the Administrative Court of Cassation of the Supreme Court of 29.05.2024 in case No. 2040/8051/18 dismissed the plaintiff's cassation appeal; the decision of the Second Administrative Court of Appeal of 30.11.2023 was upheld.
Buhgalter 911 notes that the content of the author's materials may not coincide with the policy and opinion of the editorial team. The authors of the published materials include not only representatives of the editorial team.
The information presented in a particular publication reflects the position of the author. The editorial team does not interfere with the author's materials, does not edit the texts, and is therefore not responsible for their content.