On September 14 of this year, an online working meeting of representatives of the Association of Taxpayers of Ukraine with the Chairman of the VRU Committee on Finance, Tax and Customs Policy Danylo Hetmantsev took place. Representatives of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Ukraine, in particular Vice President Mykhailo Nepran, and representatives of the State Tax Service of Ukraine also took part in the meeting.
Danylo Hetmantsev was the first to invite the general director of the APPU VGO, Lyudmila Gerasimenko, to the speech, who noted: “Our practice of working with tax authorities in the regions and in the city of Kyiv, in particular, within the framework of the work of tax communication platforms, shows that 2020-2021 and 2022-2023 the years will definitely go down in history as the years of business “survival”, because even the most powerful enterprises adjusted their business plans and became a real test for medium and small businesses. I am sure that it is high time to change the rules of the game and enter the path of dialogue between regulatory bodies and business, it is urgent that everyone together must reduce the “degree of tension”, and the taxpayer should not be viewed as a “criminal” under the slightest suspicion.
The next important point on which the general director focused her attention was the renewal of competitions for positions in state authorities. Lyudmila Gerasymenko, addressing the Chairman of the Tax Committee, focused his attention on the need to raise as soon as possible the issue of amendments to the Law of Ukraine of May 12, 2022 No. 2259 – IX “On Amendments to Certain Laws of Ukraine Regarding the Functioning of the Civil Service and Local Self-Government in the Period of Effectiveness martial law” regarding the removal of the simplified procedure for entering public service positions. Lyudmila Gerasimenko emphasized that this, in turn, will provide an opportunity to appoint experienced, professional managers to positions through transparent and open competitions.
Commenting on the issue, the Chairman of the Tax Committee, Danylo Hetmantsev, noted: “The status of “acting” is a completely conscious model, which makes it possible to dismiss a manager from his position in one hour, in the event that he commits illegal actions, and in the event that a person conscientiously fulfills his duties the burdens are placed on her, she can be transferred to a permanent position, but unfortunately, such cases are rare today. As long as the leadership of the DPS of Ukraine approves such a model, I support it.”
Lyudmila Gerasymenko also drew attention to the issue that the VGO APPU has been insisting on for so long – this is the issue of introducing personal responsibility, in particular, Heads or Deputies of Commissions, depending on which of them made an illegal decision regarding the tax payer to assign him to the “risky” category, blocking PN/RC or non-acceptance of Data Tables.
To which the Chairman of the Tax Committee replied: “Today, the fact of abuse by not only the head of the control body and the Chairman of the Commission, but also the entire vertical of local authorities, in case of receipt of corroborating facts of abuse, is sufficiently harshly reacted to. And if we spread this approach to the system in all authorities, we would forget about corruption for a while.”
The third issue was the introduction of changes to the SMCOR software in order to inform the supplier/buyer about the riskiness of its counterparty immediately upon the fact of the attempt to register the first PN by the supplier of goods/services. The general director of the APPU VGO Ludmila Gerasimenko, in particular, noted: “On the one hand, there is an argument from the tax authorities: the consent of the seller’s counterparty is necessary for information about its riskiness to become known to the buyer, but the question arises? do they receive such consent, when the EDRPOU codes of risky counterparties are already indicated in the decision on the assignment of riskiness, according to the interaction with which it was also classified as risky, as an example, this information appears in the fourth or fifth decision.”
Regarding informing the payer about the riskiness of his counterparty, Danylo Hetmantsev noted: “This issue was discussed quite widely at the Committee and a decision was made to provide the opportunity for the payer to disclose such information about himself to his counterparty. And for today, this is the most optimal solution among those “on the table”.
Finally, Lyudmila Gerasimenko raised the issue of the prospect of adoption of Draft Law No. 10016 on the cancellation of the moratorium on inspections from October 1, 2023 and addressed the Chairman of the Committee of the VRU with the question of the support of the People’s Deputies for this “killer” Draft Law, the initiator of which is the Committee headed by Danylo himself Hetmantsev. Also, the General Director of the APPU VGO drew the attention of those present that at our joint meeting on June 19 this year, she spoke and presented the Association’s vision regarding Draft Law No. 3219, which canceled the moratorium on scheduled/unscheduled documentary inspections from August 1, provided there are conditions for their safe conduct and admission “So what happens? What was the point of accepting No. 3219 then, if No. 10016 had already appeared after it?
Danylo Hetmantsev drew attention to the fact that draft law No. 10016 will most likely be adopted from November 1 this year, since at the moment this document has not yet been submitted to the Committee for consideration, but many positions have been agreed with the IMF, which is the most powerful financial institution in the world and does not count the adoption of draft law No. 8401 as the implementation of a structural beacon. And non-fulfillment of IMF conditions means not receiving financial assistance from international partners.”
He also emphasized that only risky payers should be checked, and not as it was always done before.
During the meeting, Danylo Hetmantsev gave the floor to Ivan Iskerskyi, the head of the Council of TV VGO APPU in Ternopil Oblast, who in his speech voiced the problem that arose today in front of a significant number of agrarians and which concerns the issue of charging a penalty on operations in the field of foreign exchange during the export of agricultural products, in the case untimely receipt of currency revenue.
The head of the Tax Committee asked to provide him with specific information and promised to deal with the situation.
For his part, the first vice-president of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Ukraine, Mykhailo Nepran, added in relation to this issue that in order to avoid such situations, when the buyer settles with the seller late, “it is necessary to lay down Ukrainian arbitration in the contract, not Polish or Stockholm”.
Andriy Frolkov, the head of the TV Council of the Ukrainian Academy of Agricultural Sciences of the Sumy region, was invited to speak next. He voiced the problems that came in the appeal from the Association UKREKKA (Association “Ukrainian Electronics, Computers, Cash Registers”) regarding the conducted computer and technical examination of the software tools of PRRO “Cash” and PRRO “DPS”, which was conducted by LLC ” Center of Forensic Examinations “Alternativa” commissioned by the UKREKKA Association. The reason for carrying out such an examination was the fact that the UKREKKA Association believes that separate PRROs operate in Ukraine, which do not ensure the correctness and reliability of tax information that is generated during the sale of goods/services by business entities.
Danylo Hetmantsev commented as follows: “The PRRO technology in question will not be discontinued, as there are all the necessary documents and conclusions about its work, in this situation there are no systemic facts and their technologies about the incorrect operation of these PRROs. Here you can see the competition between the two technologies, because out of 10 connections today, 9 are PRRO, not PRO.”
During the meeting, other pressing business issues were discussed. The meeting took place in the format of a constructive dialogue.