Unified social tax late payment: legal effects

The Client applied to Interlegal upon unified social tax erroneous remittance to the account of State Tax Inspection (STI) in the corresponding region, while in fact costs had to be remitted to the account of another STI.
Subsequently, the above costs have been remitted to the account of required tax inspection.

Due to unified social tax late payment, tax inspection decided to impose penal sanctions and to charge penalty for late payment (untimely remittance) of unified social tax.

Having studied materials, having analyzed applicable legislation, Interlegal lawyers formed a legal position, whereunder costs were remitted to the budget in full and within the term prescribed by law; therefore STI position was unlawful.
Interlegal lawyers formed the following legal grounds for defense of the Client, supported by the court.

Principles of securing unified social tax collection and registration, terms and procedure for its accrual and payment, powers of the body engaged in tax collection are set forth in the Law of Ukraine “On collection and registration of the unified social tax to compulsory state social insurance” (hereinafter referred to as the Law No. 2464-VI).

Pursuant to Clause 2 Part 1 Article 1 of the Law No. 2464-VI, unified social tax shall mean a consolidated insurance fee payable to the system of compulsory state social insurance, on mandatory and regular basis.

Pursuant to Clause 1 Part 2 Article 6 of the Law No. 2464-VI, unified social tax payer undertakes, in particular, to accrue, to calculate and to pay unified social tax in due time and to the full extent.

Pursuant to Paragraph 1 Part 8 Article 9 of the Law No. 2464-VI, unified social tax payers undertake to pay unified social tax accrued for a calendar month, not later than the 20th day of the next month.

Pursuant to Paragraph 1 Part 10 Article 9 of the Law No. 2464-VI, unified social tax payment date shall be the following: in case of unified social tax transfer from the payer’s account to the corresponding accounts of the authority of revenue and duties, it shall be the date of payment amount withdrawal by the bank or by central executive body, regardless the time of its enrollment to the state authority’s account.

Meantime, in case of unified social tax late payment, sanctions shall apply to the payer.

As stated above, the Client paid unified social tax within the prescribed term; however such cost was remitted erroneously to another subaccount.

Both Interlegal and the court believe that an error in cost remittance to the budget within the period prescribed by law should be qualified as an action, albeit erroneous.
Therefore, actions without the elements of taxpayer’s omission shall not serve as grounds for charging fines.

Such type of sanctions shall apply on the grounds of guilty, unlawful non-fulfillment or improper fulfillment of taxpayer’s obligations.

Since the Client has actually committed actions aimed to fulfill its tax obligation, erroneous indication of the account whereto such tax amount should be remitted shall not serve as sufficient grounds for statement on late payment.
The court agreed that erroneous cost remittance to the tax authority’s account under the Client’s previous registration did not affect fulfillment of the payer’s obligation to pay unified social tax, while the process of charging fine and penalty from the Client was unlawful; therefore the Client’s claim was satisfied.

This case shows that filing a prompt request to Interlegal for advice will result in proper and quick defense of violated rights by government bodies.