{"id":865149,"date":"2026-02-09T14:45:25","date_gmt":"2026-02-09T12:45:25","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2026-02-09T14:45:25","modified_gmt":"2026-02-09T12:45:25","slug":"ader-haber-vygrala-sud-dlya-mhp-na-766-mln-grn-verhovnyj-sud-zahystyv-inozemnyh-investoriv","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.eba.com.ua\/en\/ader-haber-vygrala-sud-dlya-mhp-na-766-mln-grn-verhovnyj-sud-zahystyv-inozemnyh-investoriv\/","title":{"rendered":"ADER HABER Wins UAH 766 Million Tax Dispute for MHP: Supreme Court Protects Foreign Investors"},"content":{"rendered":"

The law firm ADER HABER has successfully won a tax dispute between Vinnytsia Poultry Farm LLC (a company within the MHP agricultural holding) and the State Tax Service of Ukraine. The Supreme Court fully cancelled additional tax assessments in the amount of UAH 766.4 million and ordered the state to reimburse the litigation costs. The case concerned pre\u2011war dividend payments that became the subject of a tax dispute in 2018\u20132020.<\/span><\/p>\n

\ud83d\udd39 <\/strong>Case background<\/strong><\/p>\n

The tax authority attempted to apply the general 15% withholding tax rate instead of the reduced 5% rate provided for by the Double Tax Treaty between Ukraine and Cyprus in respect of dividends paid to the company\u2019s Cypriot shareholder.<\/p>\n

The basis for the additional tax assessments was the participation of Ukrainian managers in shareholders\u2019 meetings and the signing of documents under a power of attorney from the non\u2011resident, which, in the tax authority\u2019s view, indicated the existence of a \u201cpermanent establishment\u201d of the foreign investor in Ukraine.<\/p>\n

\ud83d\udd39 <\/strong>ADER HABER\u2019s legal position<\/strong><\/p>\n

The ADER HABER team developed and successfully implemented a defence strategy based on two key arguments.<\/p>\n

1) Separation of corporate governance and operational activities<\/strong>
\nThe lawyers demonstrated that the representatives\u2019 actions were of a purely technical nature, aimed at exercising the shareholder\u2019s rights, and did not constitute profit\u2011generating business activity. The signing of minutes of general meetings and contracts does not create a \u201cpermanent establishment\u201d within the meaning of tax legislation.<\/p>\n

2) Asset attribution test<\/strong>
\nADER HABER asserted and defended a fundamentally new legal position: even if a permanent establishment were hypothetically deemed to exist, the right to benefit from the reduced dividend withholding tax rate is preserved where the shares are owned by the non\u2011resident parent company, rather than by the assets of the permanent establishment in Ukraine. Therefore, the application of the 15% rate in this case was not in compliance with applicable legal requirements.<\/p>\n

\ud83d\udd39 <\/strong>Precedential significance<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Supreme Court\u2019s judgment sets a new standard for the application of international tax treaties and creates a precedent for the protection of foreign capital:<\/p>\n