Examples of courts overturning decisions by the Federal Tax Service to block the settlement account of legal entities.

In practice, there are two broad grounds for suspending operations on an account. The first is non-payment of taxes, failure to submit declarations and documents and ignoring requests from the Federal Tax Service. The second is the recovery of amounts after the audit and additional charges. Formally, the fiscal authority does everything according to the law, but sometimes its decisions are not very well-founded.

Without bringing the case to court, a legal entity or individual entrepreneur has the opportunity to remove the seizure from the account by fulfilling the requirements of the tax authorities. In particular, the repayment of arrears, submission of declarations, the establishment of electronic document flow. However, partial payment will not unblock the ENS, as it will still have a negative balance. Also, nothing will change when the three-year term expires – the account will be frozen even for 30 years. The revocation of the bank’s license will not help either.

To unblock the current account, you can appeal against the decision of inspectors in the FTS or immediately go to arbitration court. In this case, the femida will refuse to consider the petitions of the plaintiff for temporary lifting of arrest or suspension of the decision on tax audit. Because in both cases they have become the basis for an interim measure. Entrepreneurs have the right not only to achieve unblocking, but also to claim compensation from the Federal Tax Service. It is expressed in the accrual of interest at the Central Bank refinancing rate on the amount that was under arrest.

Let us present the grounds on which the courts have sided with the FTS, recognizing their decisions to block the account as lawful. For example, in one case the fiscal authorities suspected a company of withdrawing assets. Its financial indicators were significantly worse than last year’s, and before the field inspection the general director had sold expensive property. As a result, the current account was justifiably seized. Another example is the taking of interim measures against a legal entity whose founders had previously liquidated other firms that had not paid taxes in full. Blocking is also recognized as lawful if there are no signs of withdrawal of property or re-registration of business, but during the tax audit period the profit decreased and the funds in the account are not sufficient to repay the debt. The suspension of operations is considered justified if the value of the company’s liquid assets is less than the amount of arrears and accrued penalties. It is important to take into account that the calculation of the value of property should be carried out by professional appraisers on the basis of market quotations. Depreciation leads to revaluation. In addition, accounts receivable are not recognized as liquid assets. Finally, many companies save on insurance premiums and personal income tax. In one of them the inspectors checked account statements and saw transfers to individuals, but income tax and contributions were not withheld and paid. When questioning the employees, it turned out that some of them worked under PEA contracts, and some of them even rented a workplace. As a result, additional charges amounted to 600 thousand rubles and the account was blocked.

Let us present examples of illegal seizure of accounts by the Federal Tax Service, after which the courts overturned these decisions. So, after the arising of arrears, the inspectors also arrested the property of a legal entity. Moreover, its value was significantly higher than the amount of the debt. As a result, the account was unblocked. The next example is that the tax service suspected a company of withdrawing money through loans to third parties. However, they were always paid back with interest. The freezing of the account was recognized as unjustified. Similarly, the same conclusions were reached by the court in proceedings where a firm had failed to submit a VAT declaration, but its revenue amounted to less than 1.5 million roubles for the last three months.

Source: https://antifinrazvedka.club/primery-kogda-sudy-otmenyayut-resheniya-fns-o-blokirovke-raschetnogo-scheta-yurlicz/