RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
05/12/2025
Friday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
5 December 
1936 The Stalinist Constitution of the USSR was adopted.
1936 the Stalinist constitution of the USSR was adopted.
1484 Pope Innocent VII initiated the "witch hunt".
1456 An earthquake that destroyed Naples occurred - 35 thousand people died.
1456 occurred an earthquake that destroyed Naples - 35 thousand people died.
5 December
1936 The Stalinist Constitution of the USSR was adopted.
1936 the Stalinist constitution of the USSR was adopted.
1484 Pope Innocent VII initiated the "witch hunt".
1456 An earthquake that destroyed Naples occurred - 35 thousand people died.
1456 occurred an earthquake that destroyed Naples - 35 thousand people died.
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT HELD A HEARING ON VTB'S COMPLAINT ABOUT THE INCLUSION OF VAT IN THE CONTRACT PRICE.
The key issue for thousands of long-term contracts has become the focus of attention of the Constitutional Court (CC RF). The issue is whether the customer is obliged to pay the supplier an additional amount of value-added tax if the legislation has changed after signing the agreement, but during its validity period.
The reason for the review was the complaint of VTB Bank. The Bank disputes the legality of the increase in the cost of the contract by the software supplier Sitronics IT. The conflict arose due to a deal concluded in 2019 for the use of Microsoft software. At that time, such an operation was exempt from VAT, and the contract fixed a fixed price that could not be changed. However, starting in 2021, the privilege was canceled, and the supplier, guided by the new norms of the Tax Code, billed the bank with an additional amount of VAT. VTB refused to pay, which led to legal proceedings.
Judicial practice in similar disputes demonstrates fundamental differences. In this case, the arbitration authorities made opposite decisions: either in favor of the bank, or in favor of the IT company. As a result, the Supreme Court sided with the supplier, ordering VTB to pay over 148 million rubles. This decision was appealed to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation.
At the Constitutional Court meeting, VTB's representative, lawyer Vadim Zaripov, insisted that VAT is part of the price, and not a separate amount that can be automatically added to the already agreed obligations. He drew attention to the legal nature of the tax and pointed out that the seller, as a taxpayer, is responsible for its transfer to the budget, and this should not lead to a unilateral change in the terms of the contract.
Lyubov Starzhenetskaya, a representative of Sitronics IT, took the opposite position. She stressed that VAT is an indirect tax, and its burden ultimately falls on the buyer. If the seller cannot transfer the amount of tax to the counterparty, this leads to direct losses, making the execution of the contract economically impractical.
Representatives of state bodies in their reviews mostly supported the constitutionality of the contested norms. They pointed out that the parties could initially provide in the contract a mechanism for adjusting the price in case of changes in legislation. The absence of such provisions does not cancel the public legal obligation to pay taxes.
Recognizing the inconsistency of current practice, Senator Andrei Klishas blamed the legislator for not establishing clear rules of conduct for the parties in such situations. He warned of the significant economic consequences that the court's decision could entail, especially in light of a possible future increase in the VAT rate.
The outcome of this case is of tremendous importance for the entire business cycle. The position of the Constitutional Court will determine to what extent participants in long-term transactions can be protected from the risks associated with changes in tax legislation, and who should bear the financial burden in such circumstances. It is expected that the decision of the Constitutional Court will be made in the coming weeks.
Photo: dis-group.ru
The reason for the review was the complaint of VTB Bank. The Bank disputes the legality of the increase in the cost of the contract by the software supplier Sitronics IT. The conflict arose due to a deal concluded in 2019 for the use of Microsoft software. At that time, such an operation was exempt from VAT, and the contract fixed a fixed price that could not be changed. However, starting in 2021, the privilege was canceled, and the supplier, guided by the new norms of the Tax Code, billed the bank with an additional amount of VAT. VTB refused to pay, which led to legal proceedings.
Judicial practice in similar disputes demonstrates fundamental differences. In this case, the arbitration authorities made opposite decisions: either in favor of the bank, or in favor of the IT company. As a result, the Supreme Court sided with the supplier, ordering VTB to pay over 148 million rubles. This decision was appealed to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation.
At the Constitutional Court meeting, VTB's representative, lawyer Vadim Zaripov, insisted that VAT is part of the price, and not a separate amount that can be automatically added to the already agreed obligations. He drew attention to the legal nature of the tax and pointed out that the seller, as a taxpayer, is responsible for its transfer to the budget, and this should not lead to a unilateral change in the terms of the contract.
Lyubov Starzhenetskaya, a representative of Sitronics IT, took the opposite position. She stressed that VAT is an indirect tax, and its burden ultimately falls on the buyer. If the seller cannot transfer the amount of tax to the counterparty, this leads to direct losses, making the execution of the contract economically impractical.
Representatives of state bodies in their reviews mostly supported the constitutionality of the contested norms. They pointed out that the parties could initially provide in the contract a mechanism for adjusting the price in case of changes in legislation. The absence of such provisions does not cancel the public legal obligation to pay taxes.
Recognizing the inconsistency of current practice, Senator Andrei Klishas blamed the legislator for not establishing clear rules of conduct for the parties in such situations. He warned of the significant economic consequences that the court's decision could entail, especially in light of a possible future increase in the VAT rate.
The outcome of this case is of tremendous importance for the entire business cycle. The position of the Constitutional Court will determine to what extent participants in long-term transactions can be protected from the risks associated with changes in tax legislation, and who should bear the financial burden in such circumstances. It is expected that the decision of the Constitutional Court will be made in the coming weeks.
Photo: dis-group.ru
09.10.2025
