The court has overturned the additional tax assessment of 3.7 million hryvnias imposed on Akhmetov’s company

This is set out in the judgment of the Odesa District Administrative Court in Case No. 420/1839/26, the full text of which was drawn up on 25 June 2026.

The court upheld in full the claim brought by Portinvest Logistic Ltd against the Main Directorate of the State Tax Service in the Odesa region.

The court ruled that the contested tax assessment notice No. 62335/15-32-23-02-19 of 18 November 2025 was unlawful and set it aside. The case concerned an increase in the financial liability for non-resident income tax by 2,996,920 UAH and penalties amounting to 749,230 UAH. The total amount was 3,746,150 UAH.

The court also ordered the Main Directorate of the State Tax Service in the Odesa region to pay the company 26,624 UAH in court fees.

What sort of company is this?

Portinvest Logistic LLC is registered in Chornomorsk, Odesa Region. According to OpenDataBot, the company’s founder is the Cypriot firm PORTINVEST LIMITED, and Rinat Akhmetov is listed as the ultimate beneficial owner.

The company’s main activity is ‘other ancillary transport activities’. Additional activities listed include maritime freight transport, cargo handling, ancillary water transport services and wholesale trade in fuel.

What was the tax authority’s complaint?

The tax authorities carried out an unscheduled documentary audit of the company and concluded that in 2017, when paying dividends to PORTINVEST LIMITED, the company had unlawfully applied a preferential tax rate under the Convention between Ukraine and Cyprus for the avoidance of double taxation.

According to the State Tax Service, the Cypriot company was allegedly carrying out activities in Ukraine through a permanent establishment; therefore, ‘Portinvest Logistics’ should have withheld tax on non-resident income at a rate of 15 per cent, rather than 5 per cent.

The company contested these findings and insisted that, at the time the dividends were paid, it held a valid certificate of tax residency for PORTINVEST LIMITED in Cyprus. The case file states that the dividends paid to the Cypriot company amounted to 28,470,736.01 UAH, and tax at a rate of 5% was withheld in the sum of 1,498,459.83 UAH.

Why the court ruled in favour of the company

The court noted that the tax authorities had failed to prove the existence of a permanent establishment of PORTINVEST LIMITED in Ukraine.

The judgment states that the case file contains no evidence that the Cypriot company carried out any economic or commercial activities on the territory of Ukraine in 2017. The court specifically emphasised that the payment of dividends constitutes the exercise of a shareholder’s right to receive income from corporate rights, rather than economic activity by a non-resident in Ukraine.

The court also concluded that the participation of a non-resident’s representatives in general meetings or the signing of corporate documents does not constitute a permanent establishment. The court regarded such actions as the exercise of a company shareholder’s corporate rights.

What the court said about the tax authority’s evidence

The judgment states that the tax authority confined itself to general statements regarding the alleged adoption of key management and commercial decisions on behalf of PORTINVEST LIMITED, but failed to provide proper and sufficient evidence to support such conclusions.

The court explicitly stated that the tax authority’s conclusions were based on assumptions and evaluative judgements and could not serve as grounds for imposing an additional tax liability.

Separately, the case file also mentions a procedural dispute regarding the grounds for the audit. The company argued that the tax authority had applied a provision of the Tax Code, which came into force in 2020, to transactions dating from 2017. The tax authority, for its part, insisted that it was entitled to carry out the audit after receiving information from the competent authorities in Cyprus and Switzerland.

The decision may be appealed. The text of the court ruling states that an appeal may be lodged with the Fifth Administrative Court of Appeal within 30 days of the full text of the ruling being drawn up.

Follow us on Telegram.