June 1 Main results of the day

The First Court of Appeal of General Jurisdiction upheld the decision of the Moscow City Court, which invalidated the provisions of the Moscow Government Decree on the inclusion of the Principal’s building in the list of objects for which the tax base is determined as cadastral value. Moreover, the building was excluded from the disputed list on the basis of a court decision for 2017-2021. Satisfying the administrative claim, the courts of first instance and appellate instances agreed with the position of the lawyers of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure” that the premises in the building, including those leased, are not used to accommodate offices, trade or public catering facilities, and the calculations of the Moscow Government on the 20 percent excess of such use as a criterion for including a building in the disputed list were found to be inconsistent with the calculation methodology approved by the Moscow Government itself. At the same time, during the court session in the Court of Appeal, it was “felt” that the court was inclined to satisfy the appeal of the Moscow Government through:

1) an agreement with one of the tenants of the Principal, in which the purpose of the lease was determined for the office (however, the lawyers of the Bureau managed to prove the actual production activity of the tenant through an extract from the Unified State Register of Legal Entities and the tenant’s license from the Federal Space Agency);

2) technical documentation independently requested by the court and an expertise from another case with the participation of the Principal on contesting the cadastral value (however, the lawyers of the Bureau also managed to prove the absence of the legal significance of such documents by explaining the specifics and differences between the general norms of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation and the tax legislation of Moscow). It is noteworthy that the prosecutors, whose participation is mandatory in this category of administrative disputes, also agreed with the arguments of the Bureau’s lawyers in the courts of first and appeal instances and recognized the claims to be satisfied in full. As a result, the Principal’s tax savings amounted to more than 7 million rubles. The interests of the Principal were represented by Nikita Filippov, Head of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”, and Rashid Gitinov, Head of the practice of resolving disputes with government agencies.

The Arbitration Court of the Moscow District upheld the judicial acts on the approval of the Procedure for the sale of the mortgaged property of the debtor-bankrupt in the wording of the mortgaged creditor-Principal. The legal position worked out by the lawyers of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure” made it possible in three court instances to prove the groundlessness of the arguments of the debtor and his wife regarding the price of the property. In addition, the debtor’s spouse initiated a dispute in the court of general jurisdiction on the division of jointly acquired property, believing that this would allow the auction to be suspended. The Bureau of Lawyers “De jure” convincingly argued that the opponents unreasonably declare an inflated initial sale price and initiate the division of property solely in order to delay the implementation of the pledge, which the courts agreed with. The interests of the Principal were represented by Viktor Pokormyak, lawyer of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”, and Ksenia Stikhina, senior lawyer of the Tyumen branch of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”.